Lords Grand Committee
Thursday 9th July 2026
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
(began 2 months, 2 weeks ago)
Watch LiveSkip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
12:15
12:15
12:15
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
My lord, I am delighted to have the chance to bring the government's and House's attention to the themes in this recent report. The new Boycott crisis. If we value art as a crucial mirror on society, the corruption of art reflects social trends right back at us, and we should look back closely. So many thanks to those noble lords who are doing that today. The report was launched here in Westminster at the end of April, alongside the Art Beyond Boycott Toolkit. It was a packed room and lots of cross-party attendance.
The authors are co-founders of freedom in the Arts. Rosie Kay, an award winning choreographer, and Denise Pham, a senior arts professional who teamed up with Reading University's Professor Jo Phoenix. All three have experienced the vicious consequence of cancel culture. They combine their personal insights with oodles of professional knowledge to provide a multi-layered investigation into how boycotts operate against different art forms, and not just looking at individual artists, but at gatekeepers such as venues, agents, managers and producers. Using survey data and qualitative interviews, the report shows how even the threat of cultural boycotts are leading to anticipatory cancellation.
Institutional anxiety, silent boycotts, and self-censorship. The report is so on the money, it got extensive media coverage even in the same crowded week of the local elections. And significantly, it was picked up by specialist publications such as Arts Professional, the museums journal chortle, Mixmag. No doubt because it cuts through due to its insights into the genuinely heartbreaking stories of individual artists brought to financial and reputational personal ruin by boycotts. And you can't get more personal than being cancelled because of your identity.
As the report documents, that's the fate of so many Jewish artists today. Perhaps this is nothing new. As we head into August and Edinburgh Festival season, I recall years of participating in that wonderful, artistically rich atmosphere when the Academy of Ideas put on arts debates and live reviewing at fringe and the book and international festivals. It was a joy. But it started to turn sour when, 20 years ago, the Scottish Palestine Solidarity Campaign demanded boycotts of any art form involving Israelis, whether it was an ugly disruption of a performance of the Jerusalem Quartet in 2008, with activists yelling Israeli armed musicians, or, a decade later, getting an Israeli hip hop opera evicted from its venue.
These were shocking but marginal, isolated incidents. What's shocking today?Such occurrences are so regular they're barely noticed. The Campaign Against Antisemitism notes, quote, discrimination against Jewish people is so normalised in the arts. It's now simply, simply part of doing business as a Jewish creative in modern Britain. But the report notes something else, something that's changed. If boycotts were historically public, involving external bodies, bullying arts organisations, today they've evolved into internal systemic, dynamic, dynamic, dynamic, dynamic within arts organisations.
Sometimes it's a leadership team more driven by ideological agendas and artistic excellence, but more often it's insidious, with weak management capitulating to staff complaints, demanding that their well-being is protected from allegedly dangerous performers. Last year, comics Phillips, Simon's Show, duo Rama and Rachel Krieger's ultimate Jewish mother had their acts pulled at the last minute by fringe venue. And the reason staff at the venue complained of feeling unsafe. Apparently a fictional comedic Jewish mother was a threat to employee safety. The report is full of similar evidence of employees activating internal HR procedures to reframe political demands.
And there's an additional institutional vehicle used similarly, especially in publicly funded arts organization. And that is values, frameworks and equality, diversity and inclusion policies. I know that the government can be a little defensive about the virtues of EDI, but I do hope the minister will examine the documentation of how EDI is being weaponised to demand boycotting certain artists. I note that in February, DCMs Minister Ian Murray MP, while stating the government's commitment to free speech, caveated it. He quoted the Secretary of State's ambition not to stoke the culture wars and stress the need to protect people from hate speech.
But does the noble lady, the minister, acknowledge that in many institutions the culture wars are stoked by EDI enthusiasts and that hate speech is often a euphemism for speech?Someone disagrees with. Arts organisations often state their value statements are anti-hate to justify cancelling Zionist and gender critical artists. For example. In her moving and passionate speech at the report launch, acclaimed singer songwriter Roisin Murphy, herself a victim of a high profile, vicious boycott after speaking her mind on puberty, blockers, made an important, relevant point.
She said that public funding meant to support excellence, regardless of politics, has become, quote, ideological point scheme. She said this isn't patronage, it's patronage with strings attached so tight they strangle the critical thinking it takes to invent anything. So what can politicians and government do to help arts escape this censorious stranglehold?While the Arts Council declined an invitation to attend the parliamentary launch of the report, it was notable that a couple of days later, after two Jewish men were murdered in Golders Green, the prime Minister, Keir Starmer, used the opportunity to put pressure on the Arts Council.
He said where public funding is being used to promote our platform, anti-Semitism, the Arts Council must act using its power to suspend, withdraw or claw back funding. That is a positive sentiment, but I worry about cancelling the councillors as a tactic and it does miss perhaps more subtle silent boycotts rather than the overt anti-Jewish abuse. And also, it doesn't note a wider range of artists with dissenting views are now targeted. An example Scottish performance poet Gen Z Lindsay or Jenny Lindsay, author of the aptly titled book hounded, explains that after a tweet criticising a trans activist threatening violence against lesbians, she had seven months of private, quiet, bewildering cancellation, losing work without knowing why.
Unanswered emails, complaints to her publishers messages saying we're frightened to book you. She notes it was clear people had got a memo. Jenny Lindsay's a Terf, but with no paper trails, no proof, just commissions swerved in case they caused grief. It can be especially isolating, and the real loss is, quote, art work that was never made and never seen. I therefore hope the minister will meet the authors of this to discuss how the government can help the sector adopt the report's proposals to improve institutional capacity to resist this politicisation of programming and employment decisions that is discriminatory in terms of who gets to create, perform, exhibit, publish.
Artistic judgments must be centre stage. Leadership from ministers could include public support for boycotted artists, encouraging publicly funded arts organisations. Indeed, the Arts Council to adopt the freedom in the Arts Free Speech Charter and to conclude artistic creation needs freedom to challenge, explore, surprise, push boundaries. Otherwise, art created in programmes will be risk averse, narrower, safer. Samy carefully calculated and curated not to offend. What a dreary tragedy. To quote Roisin Murphy again, without that freedom, we won't get better art.
We simply put artists into a chokehold and suffocate the life out of our culture. The arts must breathe freely again. How can the minister help them breathe freely again?
The authors are co-founders of freedom in the Arts. Rosie Kay, an award winning choreographer, and Denise Pham, a senior arts professional who teamed up with Reading University's Professor Jo Phoenix. All three have experienced the vicious consequence of cancel culture. They combine their personal insights with oodles of professional knowledge to provide a multi-layered investigation into how boycotts operate against different art forms, and not just looking at individual artists, but at gatekeepers such as venues, agents, managers and producers. Using survey data and qualitative interviews, the report shows how even the threat of cultural boycotts are leading to anticipatory cancellation.
Institutional anxiety, silent boycotts, and self-censorship. The report is so on the money, it got extensive media coverage even in the same crowded week of the local elections. And significantly, it was picked up by specialist publications such as Arts Professional, the museums journal chortle, Mixmag. No doubt because it cuts through due to its insights into the genuinely heartbreaking stories of individual artists brought to financial and reputational personal ruin by boycotts. And you can't get more personal than being cancelled because of your identity.
As the report documents, that's the fate of so many Jewish artists today. Perhaps this is nothing new. As we head into August and Edinburgh Festival season, I recall years of participating in that wonderful, artistically rich atmosphere when the Academy of Ideas put on arts debates and live reviewing at fringe and the book and international festivals. It was a joy. But it started to turn sour when, 20 years ago, the Scottish Palestine Solidarity Campaign demanded boycotts of any art form involving Israelis, whether it was an ugly disruption of a performance of the Jerusalem Quartet in 2008, with activists yelling Israeli armed musicians, or, a decade later, getting an Israeli hip hop opera evicted from its venue.
These were shocking but marginal, isolated incidents. What's shocking today?Such occurrences are so regular they're barely noticed. The Campaign Against Antisemitism notes, quote, discrimination against Jewish people is so normalised in the arts. It's now simply, simply part of doing business as a Jewish creative in modern Britain. But the report notes something else, something that's changed. If boycotts were historically public, involving external bodies, bullying arts organisations, today they've evolved into internal systemic, dynamic, dynamic, dynamic, dynamic within arts organisations.
Sometimes it's a leadership team more driven by ideological agendas and artistic excellence, but more often it's insidious, with weak management capitulating to staff complaints, demanding that their well-being is protected from allegedly dangerous performers. Last year, comics Phillips, Simon's Show, duo Rama and Rachel Krieger's ultimate Jewish mother had their acts pulled at the last minute by fringe venue. And the reason staff at the venue complained of feeling unsafe. Apparently a fictional comedic Jewish mother was a threat to employee safety. The report is full of similar evidence of employees activating internal HR procedures to reframe political demands.
And there's an additional institutional vehicle used similarly, especially in publicly funded arts organization. And that is values, frameworks and equality, diversity and inclusion policies. I know that the government can be a little defensive about the virtues of EDI, but I do hope the minister will examine the documentation of how EDI is being weaponised to demand boycotting certain artists. I note that in February, DCMs Minister Ian Murray MP, while stating the government's commitment to free speech, caveated it. He quoted the Secretary of State's ambition not to stoke the culture wars and stress the need to protect people from hate speech.
But does the noble lady, the minister, acknowledge that in many institutions the culture wars are stoked by EDI enthusiasts and that hate speech is often a euphemism for speech?Someone disagrees with. Arts organisations often state their value statements are anti-hate to justify cancelling Zionist and gender critical artists. For example. In her moving and passionate speech at the report launch, acclaimed singer songwriter Roisin Murphy, herself a victim of a high profile, vicious boycott after speaking her mind on puberty, blockers, made an important, relevant point.
She said that public funding meant to support excellence, regardless of politics, has become, quote, ideological point scheme. She said this isn't patronage, it's patronage with strings attached so tight they strangle the critical thinking it takes to invent anything. So what can politicians and government do to help arts escape this censorious stranglehold?While the Arts Council declined an invitation to attend the parliamentary launch of the report, it was notable that a couple of days later, after two Jewish men were murdered in Golders Green, the prime Minister, Keir Starmer, used the opportunity to put pressure on the Arts Council.
He said where public funding is being used to promote our platform, anti-Semitism, the Arts Council must act using its power to suspend, withdraw or claw back funding. That is a positive sentiment, but I worry about cancelling the councillors as a tactic and it does miss perhaps more subtle silent boycotts rather than the overt anti-Jewish abuse. And also, it doesn't note a wider range of artists with dissenting views are now targeted. An example Scottish performance poet Gen Z Lindsay or Jenny Lindsay, author of the aptly titled book hounded, explains that after a tweet criticising a trans activist threatening violence against lesbians, she had seven months of private, quiet, bewildering cancellation, losing work without knowing why.
Unanswered emails, complaints to her publishers messages saying we're frightened to book you. She notes it was clear people had got a memo. Jenny Lindsay's a Terf, but with no paper trails, no proof, just commissions swerved in case they caused grief. It can be especially isolating, and the real loss is, quote, art work that was never made and never seen. I therefore hope the minister will meet the authors of this to discuss how the government can help the sector adopt the report's proposals to improve institutional capacity to resist this politicisation of programming and employment decisions that is discriminatory in terms of who gets to create, perform, exhibit, publish.
Artistic judgments must be centre stage. Leadership from ministers could include public support for boycotted artists, encouraging publicly funded arts organisations. Indeed, the Arts Council to adopt the freedom in the Arts Free Speech Charter and to conclude artistic creation needs freedom to challenge, explore, surprise, push boundaries. Otherwise, art created in programmes will be risk averse, narrower, safer. Samy carefully calculated and curated not to offend. What a dreary tragedy. To quote Roisin Murphy again, without that freedom, we won't get better art.
We simply put artists into a chokehold and suffocate the life out of our culture. The arts must breathe freely again. How can the minister help them breathe freely again?
12:23
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
Noble Baroness. Lady Fox of Buckley. For bringing forward this important debate. The freedom in the Arts report raises important questions about artistic freedom and the role of our cultural institutions in. In an increasingly polarised society. Why members may reach different conclusions about some of the findings. I believe it presents us with an opportunity to reflect on the kind of cultural institutions we want for our country. Art has always been always challenged society.
It can inspire, provoke, comfort and sometimes unsettle us. Shakespeare explored powers, prejudice, justice and human condition. I'm sure each of us can think of a contemporary work of art that has challenged our assumptions, or encouraged us to see the world through different eyes. Great art does more than entertain. It invites us to question, reflect, and better understand one another. That is why the arts matter not only to our economy, but our national identity, but to our strength of our democracy itself.
Drawing on my experience of leading one of London's most diverse boroughs, one of the greatest lessons I have learned is that good leadership is not about eliminating difference. It's about creating the conditions for respectful dialogue, where people of different backgrounds, faiths, cultures, and perspectives can come together, encounter new ideas, and learn from one another. That is why our theatres, galleries, museums and festivals are so important. There are. Among the few. There are among few places where people who may never, ever agree on every issue, but they can still sit in the same audiences, visit the same exhibitions, share the same cultural experiences, and in doing so, they encountered different perspectives and often leave with a deeper understanding of one another.
Equally, the right to peaceful protest and criticism is fundamental to a healthy democracy. The challenge before us is not choosing one freedom over another, but ensuring that artistic freedom and the right to peaceful protest can both flourish and coexist. The report raises important questions about the pressures for some cultural organisations face when making difficult decisions. Whether those pressures are widespread or more limited. It is right that we consider how institutions can be supported to respond with confidence, fairness and integrity. The true test of a cultural institution is not whether it avoids controversy, but whether it has the confidence to navigate controversy fairly openly and with integrity.
I therefore ask my noble friend the minister, what assessment have the government made on whether publicly funded cultural institutions have the confidence and the support they need to uphold artistic freedom while fostering respectful dialogue and community cohesion?Are there examples of good practice that the government believes should be shared more widely amongst other cultural sectors?Artistic freedom and the right to peaceful protest are not competing principles. We must ensure that our cultural institutions have the strength of leadership and the confidence to strike the right balance between protecting artistic freedom, respecting the right of peaceful protest and fostering peaceful dialogue and community cohesion.
It can inspire, provoke, comfort and sometimes unsettle us. Shakespeare explored powers, prejudice, justice and human condition. I'm sure each of us can think of a contemporary work of art that has challenged our assumptions, or encouraged us to see the world through different eyes. Great art does more than entertain. It invites us to question, reflect, and better understand one another. That is why the arts matter not only to our economy, but our national identity, but to our strength of our democracy itself.
Drawing on my experience of leading one of London's most diverse boroughs, one of the greatest lessons I have learned is that good leadership is not about eliminating difference. It's about creating the conditions for respectful dialogue, where people of different backgrounds, faiths, cultures, and perspectives can come together, encounter new ideas, and learn from one another. That is why our theatres, galleries, museums and festivals are so important. There are. Among the few. There are among few places where people who may never, ever agree on every issue, but they can still sit in the same audiences, visit the same exhibitions, share the same cultural experiences, and in doing so, they encountered different perspectives and often leave with a deeper understanding of one another.
Equally, the right to peaceful protest and criticism is fundamental to a healthy democracy. The challenge before us is not choosing one freedom over another, but ensuring that artistic freedom and the right to peaceful protest can both flourish and coexist. The report raises important questions about the pressures for some cultural organisations face when making difficult decisions. Whether those pressures are widespread or more limited. It is right that we consider how institutions can be supported to respond with confidence, fairness and integrity. The true test of a cultural institution is not whether it avoids controversy, but whether it has the confidence to navigate controversy fairly openly and with integrity.
I therefore ask my noble friend the minister, what assessment have the government made on whether publicly funded cultural institutions have the confidence and the support they need to uphold artistic freedom while fostering respectful dialogue and community cohesion?Are there examples of good practice that the government believes should be shared more widely amongst other cultural sectors?Artistic freedom and the right to peaceful protest are not competing principles. We must ensure that our cultural institutions have the strength of leadership and the confidence to strike the right balance between protecting artistic freedom, respecting the right of peaceful protest and fostering peaceful dialogue and community cohesion.
12:26
Speaker 5
-
Speaker 5
During this debate. The new point of crisis raises issues that go well beyond disagreements over politics or foreign affairs. It asks whether we are still willing to defend one of the defining characteristics of a free society the freedom to create, to perform, to exhibit and to debate without fear of ideological intimidation. Art has always challenged orthodoxies. It provokes, unsettles and encourages us to see the world differently. That's precisely why artistic freedom matters. If artists, writers, musicians and performers feel compelled to self-censor because of organised campaigns, threats or pressure to conform to a political orthodoxy, then our cultural life is diminished.
The report documents a growing trend of cancellations, boycotts and institutional pressure, directed not at the quality of artistic work, but at the ethnicity, religion, perceived political views or associations of those producing it. Hearing the stories from the founders of freedom in the Arts, Denise Varney and Rosie Kay and others at the launch in April were powerful and shocking, especially to those who weren't really aware of how quickly cancellation happens and how brutal it is throughout history. Boycotts based on identity have rarely advanced understanding. During the Cold War, we rightly welcomed Soviet dissidents, musicians and writers rather than excluding them.
We recognise that culture builds, builds bridges where politics erects barriers, universities, museums, theatres and galleries should be places where difficult ideas are encountered, not places where only approved opinions are permitted. Increasingly, however, cultural institutions find themselves under pressure from highly organised activist campaigns that seek not to debate but to silence. Decisions are sometimes made because managers fear reputational damage or disruption, rather than because they reflect the institution's commitment to artistic excellence. This has consequences beyond the arts. Once organisations begin deciding who may speak or perform according to political tests, we erode the principle of viewpoint diversity that underpins liberal democracy itself.
The report's emphasis on stronger institutional leadership is to be welcomed. Trustees and governing bodies should have the confidence to uphold freedom of expression, even when doing so attracts criticism. Publicly funded cultural organisations have a particular responsibility to serve the whole public, not simply the loudest campaigners. The government also has a role. The protections for freedom of expression in our law are important, but they must be accompanied by clear expectations that publicly funded institutions will defend artistic freedom consistently and transparently. Funding agreements should reinforce rather than undermine this principle.
This debate is not about shielding anyone from criticism. Artists should expect robust debate and peaceful protest, but criticism is very different from organised efforts to prevent performances, exhibitions or collaborations from taking place at all. The answer to speech we dislike is more speech, not enforced silence. Our cultural institutions have long been admired because they have welcomed excellence from every nation, every background and every viewpoint. We should not allow them to become places where ideological conformity replaces intellectual curiosity. My Lords, freedom in the arts is not a luxury.
It's one of the foundations of a confident, democratic and open society. If we fail to defend it now, we will all be the poorer, not only culturally, but civically. I commend Baroness Fox for raising the report. I commend the founders and supporters of freedom in the arts, and I hope the government will give serious consideration to its recommendations, reaffirming that in Britain, artistic freedom remains a principle worth defending. Yes.
The report documents a growing trend of cancellations, boycotts and institutional pressure, directed not at the quality of artistic work, but at the ethnicity, religion, perceived political views or associations of those producing it. Hearing the stories from the founders of freedom in the Arts, Denise Varney and Rosie Kay and others at the launch in April were powerful and shocking, especially to those who weren't really aware of how quickly cancellation happens and how brutal it is throughout history. Boycotts based on identity have rarely advanced understanding. During the Cold War, we rightly welcomed Soviet dissidents, musicians and writers rather than excluding them.
We recognise that culture builds, builds bridges where politics erects barriers, universities, museums, theatres and galleries should be places where difficult ideas are encountered, not places where only approved opinions are permitted. Increasingly, however, cultural institutions find themselves under pressure from highly organised activist campaigns that seek not to debate but to silence. Decisions are sometimes made because managers fear reputational damage or disruption, rather than because they reflect the institution's commitment to artistic excellence. This has consequences beyond the arts. Once organisations begin deciding who may speak or perform according to political tests, we erode the principle of viewpoint diversity that underpins liberal democracy itself.
The report's emphasis on stronger institutional leadership is to be welcomed. Trustees and governing bodies should have the confidence to uphold freedom of expression, even when doing so attracts criticism. Publicly funded cultural organisations have a particular responsibility to serve the whole public, not simply the loudest campaigners. The government also has a role. The protections for freedom of expression in our law are important, but they must be accompanied by clear expectations that publicly funded institutions will defend artistic freedom consistently and transparently. Funding agreements should reinforce rather than undermine this principle.
This debate is not about shielding anyone from criticism. Artists should expect robust debate and peaceful protest, but criticism is very different from organised efforts to prevent performances, exhibitions or collaborations from taking place at all. The answer to speech we dislike is more speech, not enforced silence. Our cultural institutions have long been admired because they have welcomed excellence from every nation, every background and every viewpoint. We should not allow them to become places where ideological conformity replaces intellectual curiosity. My Lords, freedom in the arts is not a luxury.
It's one of the foundations of a confident, democratic and open society. If we fail to defend it now, we will all be the poorer, not only culturally, but civically. I commend Baroness Fox for raising the report. I commend the founders and supporters of freedom in the arts, and I hope the government will give serious consideration to its recommendations, reaffirming that in Britain, artistic freedom remains a principle worth defending. Yes.
12:30
12:30
Speaker 7
-
Speaker 7
Looking at this subject, it's one of those when you suddenly think, yes, there shouldn't be any form of cancellation on grounds of birth, primarily anti-Semitism. Here. I have always felt it is rather absurd that the Abrahamic religions find themselves attacking each other. On which day you pray, when they're actually all referring to the similar texts. Half the time. But if we go in to this in further detail, the actual recommendations in the report, and it does admit that it isn't the most scientific of structures, but still the questions have been raised are.
About taking on the law and training for the organisations. It says it. On page six. So what is the government going to do to make sure the training schemes. I know the Baroness Fox isn't a isn't a fan of them. We have clashed on this in the past. Through and have a look at what we're doing to make sure. Knowledge of what the legal duties are is going forward, because that seems to be what's here.
The fact that you are breaking the law. Not allow somebody to actually do something that's legal and isn't threatening somebody else. This would seem to be the real question here. And my Lords, let's remember. That, you know, just because one organisation under pressure now, another one will be tomorrow. Other groups have been cancelled. Other people have been pressured. Other people have gone on. It has changed. We look at our own society.
Well, Protestant and Catholic, somebody who has half their, you know, background comes from the west coast of Scotland, a real issue. What is the government doing about making sure that the people in charge know what their duty is?It's something which is very important here. And if we can't stop. Uh, unpleasant attitudes going out in society, at least we can do let them know what the legal frameworks and duties are. My Lords, that surely is the least the government should be doing at this point.
About taking on the law and training for the organisations. It says it. On page six. So what is the government going to do to make sure the training schemes. I know the Baroness Fox isn't a isn't a fan of them. We have clashed on this in the past. Through and have a look at what we're doing to make sure. Knowledge of what the legal duties are is going forward, because that seems to be what's here.
The fact that you are breaking the law. Not allow somebody to actually do something that's legal and isn't threatening somebody else. This would seem to be the real question here. And my Lords, let's remember. That, you know, just because one organisation under pressure now, another one will be tomorrow. Other groups have been cancelled. Other people have been pressured. Other people have gone on. It has changed. We look at our own society.
Well, Protestant and Catholic, somebody who has half their, you know, background comes from the west coast of Scotland, a real issue. What is the government doing about making sure that the people in charge know what their duty is?It's something which is very important here. And if we can't stop. Uh, unpleasant attitudes going out in society, at least we can do let them know what the legal frameworks and duties are. My Lords, that surely is the least the government should be doing at this point.
12:33
Speaker 6
-
Speaker 6
I pay tribute to Baroness Fox for introducing the debate, which is, of course, timely, and I thank freedom of the arts for this report. But particularly I thank the artists, the performers, the writers who found the courage to describe what has been happening to them. Speaking out is never easy when doing so may cost your next role. This report does not allege formal censorship. It describes something quieter, in some ways more sinister and more troubling. It calls it the silent boycott opportunities that just simply disappear.
Invitations quietly withdrawn projects that never quite materialise, emails left unanswered, careers that stall not for the want of talent, but because an artist's Jewish identity or assumptions made about it. This has become something institutions would rather manage than defend, and the report is candid about the cause. Institutions are increasingly driven by fear. Fear of a social media pile on, fear of an activist pressure, fear of internal disputes, fear of controversy. That has not even happened yet. Decisions are being taken preemptively before a single complaint is even made.
My Lords, this is not caution. Once an institution starts programming to avoid a row rather than to reward excellence, artistic freedom does not stay intact for long. Now let me be clear what this debate is not. It is not about shielding anyone from criticism. It's not about closing down legitimate political debate, including robust arguments on the Middle East. Freedom of expression must include the freedom to criticize the government of Israel. But criticism of a government can never justify the exclusion of an individual because he or she is Jewish.
That distinction is fundamental, and this report finds again and again that's being lost. Jewish identity itself is increasingly treated as a as politically contentious. Regardless of what the work in question actually says. And none of this, my Lords, happens in isolation. The Community Security Trust recorded 3700 antisemitic incidents just last year, one of the highest totals it has ever logged. The arts do not sit apart from that reality. They are part of it. And because they help shape how the country talks to itself, they carry greater responsibility to get this right and not a lesser one, my Lords.
Boycotts have a long and unhappy history, and they rarely open a conversation. More often they close one down, narrowing perspectives and impoverishing the very culture they claim to defend. What has always made British culture strong is confidence. The confidence that ideas can be debated, that disagreement can be aired, and that audiences can be trusted to make up their own minds. That confidence should not now be allowed to give way to fear. So I ask the minister three things will the government make clear to the Arts Council of England that informal exclusion of Jewish artists is anti-Semitism, not just discrimination?And what support will the government give publicly funded institutions to withstand pressure campaigns?And will the government tie funding to proof that programming decisions are made on merit, not on fear?My Lords, are.
Art should be open to all. They should reward talent and defend freedom and. They should never become places where an artist has to conceal who she, he or she is to work. And I conclude with a tribute and a plea. A tribute to a British icon, my friend Maureen. Maureen Lipman. A couple of weeks ago I saw her perform brilliantly, Allegra in Winter and it is opening tonight at the Harold Pinter Theatre. But my Lords, for activists to stand outside the theatre that she's playing with leaflet stating Maureen Lipman supports genocide, and my plea to the minister is this are you is the minister aware?Is it right that Maureen, a proud Jew, has been forced to hire security guards because she is being targeted by anti-Israel activists?
Invitations quietly withdrawn projects that never quite materialise, emails left unanswered, careers that stall not for the want of talent, but because an artist's Jewish identity or assumptions made about it. This has become something institutions would rather manage than defend, and the report is candid about the cause. Institutions are increasingly driven by fear. Fear of a social media pile on, fear of an activist pressure, fear of internal disputes, fear of controversy. That has not even happened yet. Decisions are being taken preemptively before a single complaint is even made.
My Lords, this is not caution. Once an institution starts programming to avoid a row rather than to reward excellence, artistic freedom does not stay intact for long. Now let me be clear what this debate is not. It is not about shielding anyone from criticism. It's not about closing down legitimate political debate, including robust arguments on the Middle East. Freedom of expression must include the freedom to criticize the government of Israel. But criticism of a government can never justify the exclusion of an individual because he or she is Jewish.
That distinction is fundamental, and this report finds again and again that's being lost. Jewish identity itself is increasingly treated as a as politically contentious. Regardless of what the work in question actually says. And none of this, my Lords, happens in isolation. The Community Security Trust recorded 3700 antisemitic incidents just last year, one of the highest totals it has ever logged. The arts do not sit apart from that reality. They are part of it. And because they help shape how the country talks to itself, they carry greater responsibility to get this right and not a lesser one, my Lords.
Boycotts have a long and unhappy history, and they rarely open a conversation. More often they close one down, narrowing perspectives and impoverishing the very culture they claim to defend. What has always made British culture strong is confidence. The confidence that ideas can be debated, that disagreement can be aired, and that audiences can be trusted to make up their own minds. That confidence should not now be allowed to give way to fear. So I ask the minister three things will the government make clear to the Arts Council of England that informal exclusion of Jewish artists is anti-Semitism, not just discrimination?And what support will the government give publicly funded institutions to withstand pressure campaigns?And will the government tie funding to proof that programming decisions are made on merit, not on fear?My Lords, are.
Art should be open to all. They should reward talent and defend freedom and. They should never become places where an artist has to conceal who she, he or she is to work. And I conclude with a tribute and a plea. A tribute to a British icon, my friend Maureen. Maureen Lipman. A couple of weeks ago I saw her perform brilliantly, Allegra in Winter and it is opening tonight at the Harold Pinter Theatre. But my Lords, for activists to stand outside the theatre that she's playing with leaflet stating Maureen Lipman supports genocide, and my plea to the minister is this are you is the minister aware?Is it right that Maureen, a proud Jew, has been forced to hire security guards because she is being targeted by anti-Israel activists?
12:38
Speaker 8
-
Speaker 8
I, too, thank the noble Baroness Fox of Berkeley for introducing this important debate. Freedom of expression has always been the lifeblood of great art. Art flourishes through freedom, not conformity. History reminds us what happens when freedom is lost and the Soviet Union. Writers and artists who challenged the official ideology were censored, blacklisted in, imprisoned or sent to the Gulag. Family experienced that world. My aunt was a dissident writer and a close friend of both Alexander Solzhenitsyn and Anna Akhmatova.
She chose satire as her way to defy the regime rather than open political confrontation. Even so, she spent days under interrogation in the Lubyanka. She watched friends and fellow writers disappear into the gulag, including her friend Solzhenitsyn. Like Akhmatova, she knew that in such a climate, silence could become a means of survival. Britain is not the Soviet Union, and I'm not suggesting otherwise. But history teaches us that freedom is rarely lost overnight. It is a eroded.
Gradually as people begin to censor themselves because they fear the consequences of speaking openly. New boycott crisis suggests this climate of fear is now affecting our cultural sector. As James Marriott wrote, in the time, something has gone badly wrong. A world once built on talent, merit and creative risk. Has, he argues, been replaced by a culture of fear. Informal sanctions and institutional cowardice. The report identifies two groups as particularly affected the Jewish artists and those with the gender critical beliefs.
Since October the 7th, some Jewish artists have, we've heard before, have found themselves judged not by the quality of their work, but by their identity. Likewise, gender critical artists such as Rosie, Rosie Kay and Roisin Murphy have described their professional backlash they faced for expressive, lawful views. The problem arises when cultural institutions become so fearful of organised campaigns that they no longer defend artistic freedom. Instead, they quietly exclude those views, which are considered controversial not because they are unlawful, but because they are not fashionable.
The greatest casualty is self-censorship. We never see the play that was never written. The exhibition that was never staged, or the young artist who decided it was simply safer to remain silent. So may I ask the minister whether he. She accepts that artistic freedom includes the right to hold lawful gender critical beliefs, even when those beliefs are not popular and considered controversial today. And if public bodies are under a statutory duty to uphold freedom of speech. How will the government ensure that this duty is honoured in practice, rather than quietly abandoned in the face of organised campaigns?
She chose satire as her way to defy the regime rather than open political confrontation. Even so, she spent days under interrogation in the Lubyanka. She watched friends and fellow writers disappear into the gulag, including her friend Solzhenitsyn. Like Akhmatova, she knew that in such a climate, silence could become a means of survival. Britain is not the Soviet Union, and I'm not suggesting otherwise. But history teaches us that freedom is rarely lost overnight. It is a eroded.
Gradually as people begin to censor themselves because they fear the consequences of speaking openly. New boycott crisis suggests this climate of fear is now affecting our cultural sector. As James Marriott wrote, in the time, something has gone badly wrong. A world once built on talent, merit and creative risk. Has, he argues, been replaced by a culture of fear. Informal sanctions and institutional cowardice. The report identifies two groups as particularly affected the Jewish artists and those with the gender critical beliefs.
Since October the 7th, some Jewish artists have, we've heard before, have found themselves judged not by the quality of their work, but by their identity. Likewise, gender critical artists such as Rosie, Rosie Kay and Roisin Murphy have described their professional backlash they faced for expressive, lawful views. The problem arises when cultural institutions become so fearful of organised campaigns that they no longer defend artistic freedom. Instead, they quietly exclude those views, which are considered controversial not because they are unlawful, but because they are not fashionable.
The greatest casualty is self-censorship. We never see the play that was never written. The exhibition that was never staged, or the young artist who decided it was simply safer to remain silent. So may I ask the minister whether he. She accepts that artistic freedom includes the right to hold lawful gender critical beliefs, even when those beliefs are not popular and considered controversial today. And if public bodies are under a statutory duty to uphold freedom of speech. How will the government ensure that this duty is honoured in practice, rather than quietly abandoned in the face of organised campaigns?
12:41
Speaker 9
-
Speaker 9
My Lords, George Orwell wrote in his great essay The Prevention of Literature, and I quote the imagination, like certain wild animals will not breed in captivity. End quote. And I think this is a little commented on reason why the current repression of free speech and freedom in the arts is such a problem. It affects not only those whose opinions are repressed, it actually affects everybody. Now that repression is obviously outrageous in its own terms, the shocking levels of anti-Semitism that have been documented, the bias against gender critical views, even simple views on the right of politics.
And I congratulate Rosie Kaye and Denise Fahmy for drawing attention to it in this excellent report. And thank Baroness Fox for getting today's debate. Now, as we know, as the report documents the repression of free speech has had and the spread of anti-Semitism has had seriously bad effects on those directly affected. We know that it constrains what they can produce. Maybe it forces them out entirely from the sector. And there are some telling quotes to this effect in the report.
Quote one one artist saying, I realise just how much of myself I had edited out just to survive. Second quote you make terrible art when you are cowering, end quote. Well, this is clear. It's sort of obvious, but my point is, the effect is not only on those who are affected in this way, it's on everybody else. It's those who somehow get through it. And I think a politicised art sector produces a lot of bad art, and we've had quite a lot of it recently on the London stage through from 20 years ago.
My name is Rachel Corrie. Through the adaptation of Ivo van. Ivo van Hove's adaptation of Who Killed My Father, the stream of plays about migration and refugees from one perspective, and so on and so forth. But even when art is not politicized, this sort of sector produces an art that prioritizes box ticking and conformism. It produces. It produces art that's dull, worthless, even often contemptuous of its audience. And it's a very good sign, by the way, that the Wigmore Hall and its director, John Gilhooly, have opted out of the the Arts Council system.
And I can't help noting that even Baroness Hodge, in her recent report on the Arts Council, says that I quote people felt that Arts Council England was pursuing access to culture and instrumentalist way had lowered the priority given to the pursuit of artistic excellence. Art and excellence were sidelined, she said, and this is the problem. I contend that any artist who is happy to submit to the ruling orthodoxy, to the prevailing opinions, who finds excuses for squeezing people out, who don't agree with him or her, people who regard policing ideology as more important than their own creative work will, in the end, destroy themselves as artists.
And I think we can see that at work as we look around Britain's artistic scene today and compare it to, say, the efflorescence in the arts of postwar Britain in both visual and written form. I think we can be confident that, with a few exceptions, clearly the last couple of decades are not going to be seen as a golden age in British arts, and I contend that public conformism, internal bigotry, the driving out of of contrary opinions, these are a big part of the reasons why. And to finish by quoting Orwell, this time in Right and Leviathan, he says, I quote to yield subjectively, even to a group ideology is to destroy yourself as a writer, end quote.
I think that's true for any artist. It needs to be stopped, and I'd like to know what the government is going to do about it.
And I congratulate Rosie Kaye and Denise Fahmy for drawing attention to it in this excellent report. And thank Baroness Fox for getting today's debate. Now, as we know, as the report documents the repression of free speech has had and the spread of anti-Semitism has had seriously bad effects on those directly affected. We know that it constrains what they can produce. Maybe it forces them out entirely from the sector. And there are some telling quotes to this effect in the report.
Quote one one artist saying, I realise just how much of myself I had edited out just to survive. Second quote you make terrible art when you are cowering, end quote. Well, this is clear. It's sort of obvious, but my point is, the effect is not only on those who are affected in this way, it's on everybody else. It's those who somehow get through it. And I think a politicised art sector produces a lot of bad art, and we've had quite a lot of it recently on the London stage through from 20 years ago.
My name is Rachel Corrie. Through the adaptation of Ivo van. Ivo van Hove's adaptation of Who Killed My Father, the stream of plays about migration and refugees from one perspective, and so on and so forth. But even when art is not politicized, this sort of sector produces an art that prioritizes box ticking and conformism. It produces. It produces art that's dull, worthless, even often contemptuous of its audience. And it's a very good sign, by the way, that the Wigmore Hall and its director, John Gilhooly, have opted out of the the Arts Council system.
And I can't help noting that even Baroness Hodge, in her recent report on the Arts Council, says that I quote people felt that Arts Council England was pursuing access to culture and instrumentalist way had lowered the priority given to the pursuit of artistic excellence. Art and excellence were sidelined, she said, and this is the problem. I contend that any artist who is happy to submit to the ruling orthodoxy, to the prevailing opinions, who finds excuses for squeezing people out, who don't agree with him or her, people who regard policing ideology as more important than their own creative work will, in the end, destroy themselves as artists.
And I think we can see that at work as we look around Britain's artistic scene today and compare it to, say, the efflorescence in the arts of postwar Britain in both visual and written form. I think we can be confident that, with a few exceptions, clearly the last couple of decades are not going to be seen as a golden age in British arts, and I contend that public conformism, internal bigotry, the driving out of of contrary opinions, these are a big part of the reasons why. And to finish by quoting Orwell, this time in Right and Leviathan, he says, I quote to yield subjectively, even to a group ideology is to destroy yourself as a writer, end quote.
I think that's true for any artist. It needs to be stopped, and I'd like to know what the government is going to do about it.
12:45
12:45
Speaker 11
-
Speaker 11
I thank Baroness Fox of Berkeley for securing this debate, and I must start by declaring my interest as a trustee of the Victoria and Albert Museum, the free. Arts report, I think, gives us valuable insight into the worrying state of the arts and cultural sector. As the report states, there is an interconnected web of practices that collectively functions to police the boundaries of acceptable thought, association, expression and programming within the arts. Mechanisms that allocate artistic funding. Unsurprisingly, funnel most support to currently prominent causes.
Climate activism, support for Palestine, and opposition to Israel, transgender activism, anti-racism and generally raise the status of people and organisations associated with those causes. But there are damaging consequences to this narrowing, which everyone should be concerned about. Whatever their level of interest in and support for those causes. I take a historical perspective like Baroness Meyer in Western Europe, it was really only in the 15th century that it even became socially acceptable and normal to portray non-religious subjects in art, and over several centuries, the Catholic Church nonetheless monitored art ferociously to enforce approved narratives and discourage the spread of Protestant ideas.
Using the social penalties that could impose to make artists lives difficult. I read the story of Veronese's Last Supper. We don't want to return to inquisitions, whether by governments, religious authorities or self-appointed commissars, and we should not want to return to an age where artistic expression is permitted only in the service of a narrow range of permitted interests and beliefs. But we have somehow moved a long way in that direction. Artistic freedom did eventually prevail, and that freedom has brought many waves of creative exploration, which has, of course, sometimes been uncomfortable for some, but without exploration, there can be no innovation.
And it's striking to look at how much artistic preoccupations have changed over time. In the 1850s, realism, truth to nature, a rejection of myths and legends. In the 1950s adaptation to the new post-war world, we have no idea today what the artistic preoccupations of the 2050s may prove to be, but we can be absolutely certain that it is simply intellectual hubris to think that we've achieved a perpetual pinnacle of moral moral superiority to which all current practitioners in the arts and all their successors should be bound.
And then there are the human impacts. And I'll touch on just four, but three, just to mention things that are well covered in the report. First, around the works that don't fit the current template that aren't being put on too often, being shut down. Secondly, people who are being shut down for their beliefs, even where it has no particular connection with their work. Many of the the gender critical artists are suffering from that. And thirdly, the people who are suffering simply because of who they happen to be.
And the examples that have been given of Israeli and Jewish artists and groups who are unable to perform. This is simply intolerable. And the fourth group I want to draw attention to are the young of this country. The status quo is affecting so strongly how they are shaped, both in education and in the community. They quickly learn what are the high status beliefs and opinions and what not to say or acknowledge. If they're allowed to see nothing that contradicts those beliefs and opinions, or that explores a fresh direction.
Their lives are stunted and distorted. My Lords, too many people have ducked the difficult issues here. It's time for a great deal more openness and discussion about rebuilding true artistic freedom. This report gives a very good platform for that here.
Climate activism, support for Palestine, and opposition to Israel, transgender activism, anti-racism and generally raise the status of people and organisations associated with those causes. But there are damaging consequences to this narrowing, which everyone should be concerned about. Whatever their level of interest in and support for those causes. I take a historical perspective like Baroness Meyer in Western Europe, it was really only in the 15th century that it even became socially acceptable and normal to portray non-religious subjects in art, and over several centuries, the Catholic Church nonetheless monitored art ferociously to enforce approved narratives and discourage the spread of Protestant ideas.
Using the social penalties that could impose to make artists lives difficult. I read the story of Veronese's Last Supper. We don't want to return to inquisitions, whether by governments, religious authorities or self-appointed commissars, and we should not want to return to an age where artistic expression is permitted only in the service of a narrow range of permitted interests and beliefs. But we have somehow moved a long way in that direction. Artistic freedom did eventually prevail, and that freedom has brought many waves of creative exploration, which has, of course, sometimes been uncomfortable for some, but without exploration, there can be no innovation.
And it's striking to look at how much artistic preoccupations have changed over time. In the 1850s, realism, truth to nature, a rejection of myths and legends. In the 1950s adaptation to the new post-war world, we have no idea today what the artistic preoccupations of the 2050s may prove to be, but we can be absolutely certain that it is simply intellectual hubris to think that we've achieved a perpetual pinnacle of moral moral superiority to which all current practitioners in the arts and all their successors should be bound.
And then there are the human impacts. And I'll touch on just four, but three, just to mention things that are well covered in the report. First, around the works that don't fit the current template that aren't being put on too often, being shut down. Secondly, people who are being shut down for their beliefs, even where it has no particular connection with their work. Many of the the gender critical artists are suffering from that. And thirdly, the people who are suffering simply because of who they happen to be.
And the examples that have been given of Israeli and Jewish artists and groups who are unable to perform. This is simply intolerable. And the fourth group I want to draw attention to are the young of this country. The status quo is affecting so strongly how they are shaped, both in education and in the community. They quickly learn what are the high status beliefs and opinions and what not to say or acknowledge. If they're allowed to see nothing that contradicts those beliefs and opinions, or that explores a fresh direction.
Their lives are stunted and distorted. My Lords, too many people have ducked the difficult issues here. It's time for a great deal more openness and discussion about rebuilding true artistic freedom. This report gives a very good platform for that here.
12:49
Speaker 10
-
Speaker 10
I thank Baroness Fox of Berkeley for securing this debate and to freedom in the Arts for their report, which certainly is very rich and detailed. I'm sorry, time means I can't do justice to all of the noble lords who've spoken before me, but I would certainly want to associate myself with all of those who've spoken out about our need to have constant vigilance and zero tolerance of anti-Semitism. However, I want to focus on one particular aspect of cancel culture that is identified in the report, and that is the targeting of sponsors that there has been of those who fund the arts and who are essential for us to have what I believe should be our starting point, and that is that a healthy arts sector is fundamental to a healthy democracy.
Protest, dissent, satire have long been the sources of the best art, and the priorities should always be to enable the most artistic expression possible, without fear or favour. Now, that is not to say that art exists in a space free from values. There will always be boundaries, but we should want to make the artistic square as large and as inclusive as possible. And that means we need diverse funding, including sponsorship, when it comes to the choices that are made. As other noble lords have said, there should be a clear distinction between things that are illegal and things that simply some people don't like.
And I look at the recent example that we had of the Sporting Events Bill in in your lordships House, and there were assorted amendments that were proposed there that would have banned sponsorship from fossil fuel companies from unhealthy food companies. Um, and we see within these boycott campaigns, it's not just the companies themselves that are being targeted, but even financial institutions that might have very minor investments in some of these companies, companies that are, of course, entirely legal in the activities that they are carrying out. We can take the example of the defence sector, which is one that regularly comes up as being targeted.
My Lords, I regard BAE systems to be a very successful British company that employs people in this country in high skilled, well-paid jobs. If they want to give something back by supporting artistic or cultural endeavours, then why on earth shouldn't they be able to do so?I also want to question the role that we've seen some artists take here, and I think we do need to call out those high profile artists who've put their names to campaigns, to deny funding to the very institutions that those artists, artists benefited from when they were starting out in their careers, when they were in the small theatres and so on.
That gave them their rise to now to be the high profile campaigners that they are now. My Lords, we need a mixed economy of cultural funding that encompasses philanthropy and corporate sponsorship. That means we need a climate in which responsible sponsors feel able to support culture without expecting to become the next target of a campaign. Otherwise, we create a structural disincentive to private investment, precisely at the time when the sector needs it the most. There is a role for government here and for all of us.
Institutions need to know that they have the support of politicians in order to resist the pressure of a small minority. We also need to see leadership in the arts sector. Policy cannot be made by social media, by tactics rather than strategy. There needs to be solidarity within the arts sector because whilst the beam of the lighthouse might not be for you at this particular moment, you can guarantee that it will come round. Um to. You next. We're all in this together and together.
Common sense can prevail so that we can have the arts and culture we need as a country.
Protest, dissent, satire have long been the sources of the best art, and the priorities should always be to enable the most artistic expression possible, without fear or favour. Now, that is not to say that art exists in a space free from values. There will always be boundaries, but we should want to make the artistic square as large and as inclusive as possible. And that means we need diverse funding, including sponsorship, when it comes to the choices that are made. As other noble lords have said, there should be a clear distinction between things that are illegal and things that simply some people don't like.
And I look at the recent example that we had of the Sporting Events Bill in in your lordships House, and there were assorted amendments that were proposed there that would have banned sponsorship from fossil fuel companies from unhealthy food companies. Um, and we see within these boycott campaigns, it's not just the companies themselves that are being targeted, but even financial institutions that might have very minor investments in some of these companies, companies that are, of course, entirely legal in the activities that they are carrying out. We can take the example of the defence sector, which is one that regularly comes up as being targeted.
My Lords, I regard BAE systems to be a very successful British company that employs people in this country in high skilled, well-paid jobs. If they want to give something back by supporting artistic or cultural endeavours, then why on earth shouldn't they be able to do so?I also want to question the role that we've seen some artists take here, and I think we do need to call out those high profile artists who've put their names to campaigns, to deny funding to the very institutions that those artists, artists benefited from when they were starting out in their careers, when they were in the small theatres and so on.
That gave them their rise to now to be the high profile campaigners that they are now. My Lords, we need a mixed economy of cultural funding that encompasses philanthropy and corporate sponsorship. That means we need a climate in which responsible sponsors feel able to support culture without expecting to become the next target of a campaign. Otherwise, we create a structural disincentive to private investment, precisely at the time when the sector needs it the most. There is a role for government here and for all of us.
Institutions need to know that they have the support of politicians in order to resist the pressure of a small minority. We also need to see leadership in the arts sector. Policy cannot be made by social media, by tactics rather than strategy. There needs to be solidarity within the arts sector because whilst the beam of the lighthouse might not be for you at this particular moment, you can guarantee that it will come round. Um to. You next. We're all in this together and together.
Common sense can prevail so that we can have the arts and culture we need as a country.
12:53
12:53
12:54
Speaker 12
-
Speaker 12
To the noble lady, Baroness Buckley for bringing forward this debate and would also like to pay tribute to freedom in the art for having produced this excellent and timely report. And I wanted to declare my interest as the director of the Free Speech Union and, um, to try and put a human face on what it is we're talking about. There are plenty of examples in the new boycott crisis. I thought I might give some examples from our own case files. We fought, um, on behalf of 150 artists, writers and performers in the last six years of our existence.
Um, all of whom have been targeted for cancellation or indeed cancelled, um, because of expressing views which other people disapprove of. Um, and where possible, we've tried to help them. Um, it's worth noting, I think that over a third of the more than 150 people we've come to the aid of have been targeted for cancellation because they have expressed their gender critical views. That I think is the coalface in the arts. That is what people find themselves cancelled for or targeted for cancellation.
More often than expressing any other points of view. And Rosie Kay is a case in point. Someone who I'm proud to say the Free Speech Union was able to help when she was targeted for cancellation in 2021, and it's fantastic to see her recover so magnificently. Um, I'll give you some other examples. Um, a case last year. Martin speak. This was a case referred to the Free Speech Union by freedom in the Arts, with whom we have a close working relationship.
Um, Martin Speak is an internationally regarded saxophonist who's been for more than two decades or was a jazz tutor at Trinity la Conservatoire in Greenwich. And in February 2024, he replied to the Conservatoires request for feedback on its diversity plan, in which he argued, I think, reasonably, that black musicians are not underrepresented in British jazz, that Black Lives Matter was a dangerous organisation, and quoting Martin Luther King that people should be judged, including musicians, on the basis of their character, the content of their character, not the color of their skin.
For this, students boycotted his classes. A petition was got up demanding his removal. The London Jazz Orchestra asked him to step down. His album was put on hold. UK concerts were cancelled. The stress eventually forced him to resign from the job he'd held for two decades in November 2024. But happily, the Free Speech union was able to fund an employment tribunal claim for constructive dismissal and Trinity Laban settled in February of 2026 in a way which was very satisfactory.
Another example, Gillian Philip in 2020. She's a children's novelist who was part of a team producing the best selling Warrior Cats series of books under the pen name Erin Hunter. She was dropped by her fiction packager packager in 2020 after adding a message of support for J.K Rowling to her Twitter profile. Not only did she lose her job, she was unable to get another job as a writer and had to retrain as a heavy goods vehicle driver. Um, I could come up with more and more examples, but I'll just close with with one most recent case to come in at the Free Speech Union, um, an Irish playwright based in New York called Phelim McAleer.
Um, he tried to organize a staging, a staged reading of a play about the events of October 7th, 2023, in southern Israel. He tried to organize this stage reading at um, the Lyric Theatre, Belfast, which is subsidised by the Arts Council, Northern Ireland. Um and this, this, this play, it's a verbatim play based on interviews with over 100 survivors of the Hamas attack on October 7th. It had a six week Off-Broadway run and was acclaimed by the New York Post as spellbinding. But the lyric could not find a single evening on which to stage a reading of this play.
Not a single evening, in spite of the fact that he was going to pay for it privately. Um, even though the theater had found numerous opportunities to platform Palestinian perspectives, including a poet who described Israel as a settler colonialist project, a genocidal state, and a pariah state. No one is suggesting, uh, yeah, up to two more minutes. Two more seconds. I was just going to say no one's suggesting that that this Palestinian poet should have been no platformed. But I think all voices in these debates should be heard.
And the arts needs to play a proper role in facilitating these discussions.
Um, all of whom have been targeted for cancellation or indeed cancelled, um, because of expressing views which other people disapprove of. Um, and where possible, we've tried to help them. Um, it's worth noting, I think that over a third of the more than 150 people we've come to the aid of have been targeted for cancellation because they have expressed their gender critical views. That I think is the coalface in the arts. That is what people find themselves cancelled for or targeted for cancellation.
More often than expressing any other points of view. And Rosie Kay is a case in point. Someone who I'm proud to say the Free Speech Union was able to help when she was targeted for cancellation in 2021, and it's fantastic to see her recover so magnificently. Um, I'll give you some other examples. Um, a case last year. Martin speak. This was a case referred to the Free Speech Union by freedom in the Arts, with whom we have a close working relationship.
Um, Martin Speak is an internationally regarded saxophonist who's been for more than two decades or was a jazz tutor at Trinity la Conservatoire in Greenwich. And in February 2024, he replied to the Conservatoires request for feedback on its diversity plan, in which he argued, I think, reasonably, that black musicians are not underrepresented in British jazz, that Black Lives Matter was a dangerous organisation, and quoting Martin Luther King that people should be judged, including musicians, on the basis of their character, the content of their character, not the color of their skin.
For this, students boycotted his classes. A petition was got up demanding his removal. The London Jazz Orchestra asked him to step down. His album was put on hold. UK concerts were cancelled. The stress eventually forced him to resign from the job he'd held for two decades in November 2024. But happily, the Free Speech union was able to fund an employment tribunal claim for constructive dismissal and Trinity Laban settled in February of 2026 in a way which was very satisfactory.
Another example, Gillian Philip in 2020. She's a children's novelist who was part of a team producing the best selling Warrior Cats series of books under the pen name Erin Hunter. She was dropped by her fiction packager packager in 2020 after adding a message of support for J.K Rowling to her Twitter profile. Not only did she lose her job, she was unable to get another job as a writer and had to retrain as a heavy goods vehicle driver. Um, I could come up with more and more examples, but I'll just close with with one most recent case to come in at the Free Speech Union, um, an Irish playwright based in New York called Phelim McAleer.
Um, he tried to organize a staging, a staged reading of a play about the events of October 7th, 2023, in southern Israel. He tried to organize this stage reading at um, the Lyric Theatre, Belfast, which is subsidised by the Arts Council, Northern Ireland. Um and this, this, this play, it's a verbatim play based on interviews with over 100 survivors of the Hamas attack on October 7th. It had a six week Off-Broadway run and was acclaimed by the New York Post as spellbinding. But the lyric could not find a single evening on which to stage a reading of this play.
Not a single evening, in spite of the fact that he was going to pay for it privately. Um, even though the theater had found numerous opportunities to platform Palestinian perspectives, including a poet who described Israel as a settler colonialist project, a genocidal state, and a pariah state. No one is suggesting, uh, yeah, up to two more minutes. Two more seconds. I was just going to say no one's suggesting that that this Palestinian poet should have been no platformed. But I think all voices in these debates should be heard.
And the arts needs to play a proper role in facilitating these discussions.
12:58
Speaker 13
-
Speaker 13
I congratulate the Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, for securing this debate, and thank her. And freedom in the arts for the work that they've done highlighting these problems above all, as others have done. I thank those artists, individual artists who've come forward to share their own experiences. The experience of being marginalised, sidelined, silenced can be a lonely and frightening one, and I hope they feel a bit less lonely and frightened after today's debate. It has been a good debate. Articulate, well-informed.
Uh. We wouldn't all agree on everything, but, uh, very strongly. We've all agreed about the importance of hearing diverse perspectives and differing opinions. We do so enjoying parliamentary privilege, which allows us to speak very freely. Uh, here, um, are lots of arts and cultural organisations don't have the protections of Parliament or the legislative protections that higher education institutions do to preserve free speech. And so it's right that we are vigilant in, in how they are applying their duties.
The noble Lord, Lord Addington, is right about making sure that people are well informed about their legal responsibilities, their founding, uh, charters. Uh, and trustees and others take those duties, very seriously. Uh, arts organisations have a duty to challenge, provoke, and inform us not to hector, censor or boycott the noble Baroness, Lady Dacres of Lewisham is right at their best. The arts enable us to see things through others eyes. That's why we enjoy them so much. That's what enriches us when we encounter them.
And that's particularly important when approaching contested or highly charged issues. For instance, going to a museum or a gallery would give us a different perspective, separated from time and geography on the questions of how other societies have viewed gender roles, and would remind us that conflict in the Holy, Holy Land is not a feature of this century alone. My noble friend Lady Spielman is right to worry about the generation coming through the education system and coming to work in the arts. Illiberal and censorious approach.
I think we are past the sort of what felt like the high water mark of sensitivity readers and authors and others being objected to writing about things of which they didn't have lived experience. But we must remain vigilant on on all of this, because if the closing of, of, of those minds and the closing of those discussions is a loss for us all, it's particularly a loss for the generation that are coming through, who need to be well equipped with critical, inquisitive minds in an age of mis and disinformation online.
They need to see things that challenge and make them feel uncomfortable. The noble Lord, Lord Doyle, is right to highlight the pressure on sponsors. Um, mentioned in this committee before. Regrettably, we've seen parliamentarians in both houses among those boycotting things like the Hay Festival. Uh, we all regret the disappearance of sponsors like Baillie Gifford. It means fewer, smaller, narrower literary festivals and fewer thoughts for us all. Noble lords are right to highlight the silent and sometimes insidious nature of these these boycotts which threaten our.
Uh. We wouldn't all agree on everything, but, uh, very strongly. We've all agreed about the importance of hearing diverse perspectives and differing opinions. We do so enjoying parliamentary privilege, which allows us to speak very freely. Uh, here, um, are lots of arts and cultural organisations don't have the protections of Parliament or the legislative protections that higher education institutions do to preserve free speech. And so it's right that we are vigilant in, in how they are applying their duties.
The noble Lord, Lord Addington, is right about making sure that people are well informed about their legal responsibilities, their founding, uh, charters. Uh, and trustees and others take those duties, very seriously. Uh, arts organisations have a duty to challenge, provoke, and inform us not to hector, censor or boycott the noble Baroness, Lady Dacres of Lewisham is right at their best. The arts enable us to see things through others eyes. That's why we enjoy them so much. That's what enriches us when we encounter them.
And that's particularly important when approaching contested or highly charged issues. For instance, going to a museum or a gallery would give us a different perspective, separated from time and geography on the questions of how other societies have viewed gender roles, and would remind us that conflict in the Holy, Holy Land is not a feature of this century alone. My noble friend Lady Spielman is right to worry about the generation coming through the education system and coming to work in the arts. Illiberal and censorious approach.
I think we are past the sort of what felt like the high water mark of sensitivity readers and authors and others being objected to writing about things of which they didn't have lived experience. But we must remain vigilant on on all of this, because if the closing of, of, of those minds and the closing of those discussions is a loss for us all, it's particularly a loss for the generation that are coming through, who need to be well equipped with critical, inquisitive minds in an age of mis and disinformation online.
They need to see things that challenge and make them feel uncomfortable. The noble Lord, Lord Doyle, is right to highlight the pressure on sponsors. Um, mentioned in this committee before. Regrettably, we've seen parliamentarians in both houses among those boycotting things like the Hay Festival. Uh, we all regret the disappearance of sponsors like Baillie Gifford. It means fewer, smaller, narrower literary festivals and fewer thoughts for us all. Noble lords are right to highlight the silent and sometimes insidious nature of these these boycotts which threaten our.
13:01
Speaker 5
-
Speaker 5
Silent and sometimes insidious nature of these. These boycotts, which threaten the enlightenment values that underpin us. Friends, Lady Mayor and Lady Spielman are right to highlight the importance of dissident and unorthodox voices that add to our understanding. Above all, people are right to point to the growing evidence of anti-Semitism that we see in the arts as through our whole society. My noble friend Lord Pollock is right. It is completely wrong to treat all Jewish people as the same, or to make them all accountable for the actions of any particular government of Israel.
Um, the powerful exhibition, the Nova exhibition in Shoreditch, just like the extremely powerful Museum of Yad Vashem and the Holocaust Galleries at the Imperial War Museum, are a way that the arts can help us to understand the terrible atrocities that this attitude can lead to. So, my Lords, as my friend Lady Jenkin of Kennington said, freedom in the art is not a luxury. It is essential to our free society. I'm glad we've been able to highlight these problems today.
Um, the powerful exhibition, the Nova exhibition in Shoreditch, just like the extremely powerful Museum of Yad Vashem and the Holocaust Galleries at the Imperial War Museum, are a way that the arts can help us to understand the terrible atrocities that this attitude can lead to. So, my Lords, as my friend Lady Jenkin of Kennington said, freedom in the art is not a luxury. It is essential to our free society. I'm glad we've been able to highlight these problems today.
13:02
Speaker 14
-
Speaker 14
My Lords, I thank the noble lady, Baroness Buckley for initiating this important debate and all noble Lords for their valuable contributions today. It's an important debate. And as noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay made clear, even where individuals do not agree with each other, it's. It's important that we do have this discussion. The debate reflected many of the issues raised by the new boycott crisis published by freedom in the Arts earlier this year. Um, during the debate, I particularly welcome the historic.
Um. Perspectives. I can't even read my own writing. Apologies, noble lords from the noble lady, Baroness Spielman and the noble lady, Baroness Meyer. I wanted to start by addressing the critical points raised by a number of noble lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Addington, the noble Lord, Lord Pollock, the noble Lord, Lord Frost, the noble Lord, Lord Doyle, the noble lady Baroness Spillman, and the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson. Around the scourge of antisemitism in the arts, highlighted in the report.
In stark detail, which reflect wider and regrettably growing anti-Semitism more broadly in society. I wanted to make explicitly clear that this government finds anti-Semitism, wherever it may raise its ugly head. Both abhorrent and completely unacceptable. We will do whatever it takes to work with the Jewish community to tackle it in wider society. anti-Semitism has no place in our society, and as the Prime Minister made clear in May at a summit he held on the issue, it is our shared responsibility to tackle rising anti-Semitism.
Since that summit, we've been working with the Arts Council on plans for an independent audit into how concerns are handled and where the systems need to be strengthened. This will focus on allegations of anti-Semitism, but we anticipate that its findings will strengthen the Arts Council's handling of all concerns, and more information on this will be shared in due course. The noble Lord, Lord Polak, um uh, cited examples of informal exclusion, exclusion of Jewish arts and artists. And we will make clear to Ace that the work they're doing now to tackle this issue in the audit and the engagement they're doing with the sector should and must cover anti-Semitism as defined in law.
And the informal exclusion. The noble Lord rightly highlighted this work by the government is in Camden in tandem with sector specific roundtables that we're launching in partnership with the Board of Deputies over the next few months. These sessions will bring together Jewish representatives, DCMs officials and arm's length bodies, including Arts Council England, to share best practice and secure meaningful, practical commitments for the next six months. Nobody should feel unsafe, whether performing on the stage or going about in their daily life. And I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Pollock, that is entirely unacceptable and a damning indictment of where we are as a country that an actress like Maureen Lipman, undoubtedly one of our national treasures, has to have private security.
It's it's completely unacceptable. The noble Lord, Lord Pollock, also raised wider issues around the security of our Jewish community and pointed out that the arts do not sit separate to the rest of society, as noble Lords may be aware, the Home Office has committed record funding of £32.4 million this year to protect Jewish communities through the Jewish Community. Protective Security Grant, managed by the Community Security Trust. The noble Lord, Lord Frost, raised points about potential politicisation and referenced my Noble friend Baroness Hodges review of Arts Council England.
This government remains committed to the arm's length principle that artistic expression, including decisions around funding and programming, should be free from political interference. But this is not the same as being free from protection. I'm sure noble lords welcomed, as I did the government's response to my noble friend Baroness Hodges. Independent review. The response reaffirmed the arm's length principle and the importance of public investment in culture, supporting a wide range of voices. Arts Council England supports a broad range of artistic practice and viewpoints, including activity, investment, investing in organisations that defend creative freedom.
Index on censorship is one such organisation whose work highlights and challenges censorship and the oppression of artists and creatives. A number of noble lords, including the Noble Lady, Baroness Meyer, the noble Lord, Lord Frost, noble Lord, Lord Young of Acton, Um and others raised points around artists with gender critical views. The government is clear that whilst it is right that protections from discrimination exist for Lgbt+ people, such as those held in the Equality Act, this does not prohibit and should not exclude people from expressing their views, opinions or beliefs, including gender critical views.
Each individual's right to freedom of expression must be balanced against the rights of other people, or the rights of the wider community to achieve a fair outcome for everyone, including those who are trans or those who hold gender critical views. As the noble Lord, Lord Doyle made clear, there is a clear difference between what we don't like and what is illegal. And my noble friend Baroness Dacre has highlighted the importance of challenge within arts. Um, as did other noble Lords. Freedom of expression carries with it certain responsibilities and um cultural organisations must always comply with the law, including legislation relating to equality, discrimination and public order.
When speaking up becomes hate speech, a clear and unacceptable line is crossed. However, within these legal boundaries, organisations and artists should feel confident in presenting their work. Noble lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson and the noble Lord. Lord Doyle spoke about protests and boycotts. And while the government is wholly supportive of freedom of expression, we are equally supportive of peaceful protests. However, there is growing concern across the cultural sector about the impact of organised um activist campaigns.
This can include calls for exhibitions to be cancelled, performances to be withdrawn, artists to be disinvited or sponsorships terminated. I note the noble lady, Baroness Jenkins point about self-censorship also being an issue, and the noble lady, Baroness Maier and the noble Lord, Lord Frost, made similar points. Uh, that noble lady, Baroness Fox. Um, uh, noble Lord, Lord Pollock and the noble Lord. Lord young spoke about the issue of silent cancellations and boycott these boycotts, as well as silent cancellations noted in the reports are damaging in the government's view to art and artists.
And we've been unequivocal in pushing back against these boycotts. Last year, the Secretary of State said boycotting sponsors and killing off. Killing these events off is the equivalent of gagging society. She said then that we will stand against it with everything we've got. As the noble lady Baroness Jenkins said, the answer to speech we don't like is more speech, not silence. Uh. This government, um, this government is clear. The boycotting of festival performances and organisations hearts.
They are harms the art, not the sponsor. As the noble Lord, Lord Doyle made clear, we've got a great tradition of philanthropy in this country, and the government wants to strengthen this. This is why we published a strategy on philanthropy earlier in this year. As the noble Lord said, we need a mixed economy that includes private sector funding. Uh, the noble Lord, Lord Addington, asked about guidance around the legal position and my noble friend Baroness Dacres of Lewisham, about some examples of guidance.
Best practice. We recognise the increasing enduring pressure that arts and cultural leaders face on this issue. In response, the Arts Council England has supported the recent publication of new guidance on the matter and I'll circulate this guidance to noble lords who've taken part in today's debate. There's positive signs that the sector is grasping the nettle, rising to the challenge. Arts organisations in Manchester are tackling this head on, with Factory International spearheading the Brave Spaces principles. Work such as this acts as North Star in guiding organisations through the complexity of programming and sponsorship decision making in the face of activism.
My Lords, um, I will conclude shortly, but I just wanted to make, um, respond to the noble lady Baroness Fox's point about whether I'd be willing to meet freedom in the arts. I'd be very happy to meet the organisation, but this may need to be after the conclusion of a number of legal matters which the organisation is currently supporting. But, um, my private office will um, will arrange a meeting in due course. Um, my Lords, as I've outlined, the government recognises many of the challenges identified in the report.
The new boycott crisis, by encouraging a plurality of voices, this government is helping to ensure that this government, the country, remains one of the world's leading centres of artistic and cultural excellence. As my noble friend Baroness Dacre said at its best, art allows us to see people through other's eyes. I'm clear in this government is clear that lawful artistic expression deserves protection, that cultural organisations should be free to make their own decisions, and that our cultural life is strengthened, not weakened, by the free exchange of differing opinions and ideas.
Um. Perspectives. I can't even read my own writing. Apologies, noble lords from the noble lady, Baroness Spielman and the noble lady, Baroness Meyer. I wanted to start by addressing the critical points raised by a number of noble lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Addington, the noble Lord, Lord Pollock, the noble Lord, Lord Frost, the noble Lord, Lord Doyle, the noble lady Baroness Spillman, and the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson. Around the scourge of antisemitism in the arts, highlighted in the report.
In stark detail, which reflect wider and regrettably growing anti-Semitism more broadly in society. I wanted to make explicitly clear that this government finds anti-Semitism, wherever it may raise its ugly head. Both abhorrent and completely unacceptable. We will do whatever it takes to work with the Jewish community to tackle it in wider society. anti-Semitism has no place in our society, and as the Prime Minister made clear in May at a summit he held on the issue, it is our shared responsibility to tackle rising anti-Semitism.
Since that summit, we've been working with the Arts Council on plans for an independent audit into how concerns are handled and where the systems need to be strengthened. This will focus on allegations of anti-Semitism, but we anticipate that its findings will strengthen the Arts Council's handling of all concerns, and more information on this will be shared in due course. The noble Lord, Lord Polak, um uh, cited examples of informal exclusion, exclusion of Jewish arts and artists. And we will make clear to Ace that the work they're doing now to tackle this issue in the audit and the engagement they're doing with the sector should and must cover anti-Semitism as defined in law.
And the informal exclusion. The noble Lord rightly highlighted this work by the government is in Camden in tandem with sector specific roundtables that we're launching in partnership with the Board of Deputies over the next few months. These sessions will bring together Jewish representatives, DCMs officials and arm's length bodies, including Arts Council England, to share best practice and secure meaningful, practical commitments for the next six months. Nobody should feel unsafe, whether performing on the stage or going about in their daily life. And I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Pollock, that is entirely unacceptable and a damning indictment of where we are as a country that an actress like Maureen Lipman, undoubtedly one of our national treasures, has to have private security.
It's it's completely unacceptable. The noble Lord, Lord Pollock, also raised wider issues around the security of our Jewish community and pointed out that the arts do not sit separate to the rest of society, as noble Lords may be aware, the Home Office has committed record funding of £32.4 million this year to protect Jewish communities through the Jewish Community. Protective Security Grant, managed by the Community Security Trust. The noble Lord, Lord Frost, raised points about potential politicisation and referenced my Noble friend Baroness Hodges review of Arts Council England.
This government remains committed to the arm's length principle that artistic expression, including decisions around funding and programming, should be free from political interference. But this is not the same as being free from protection. I'm sure noble lords welcomed, as I did the government's response to my noble friend Baroness Hodges. Independent review. The response reaffirmed the arm's length principle and the importance of public investment in culture, supporting a wide range of voices. Arts Council England supports a broad range of artistic practice and viewpoints, including activity, investment, investing in organisations that defend creative freedom.
Index on censorship is one such organisation whose work highlights and challenges censorship and the oppression of artists and creatives. A number of noble lords, including the Noble Lady, Baroness Meyer, the noble Lord, Lord Frost, noble Lord, Lord Young of Acton, Um and others raised points around artists with gender critical views. The government is clear that whilst it is right that protections from discrimination exist for Lgbt+ people, such as those held in the Equality Act, this does not prohibit and should not exclude people from expressing their views, opinions or beliefs, including gender critical views.
Each individual's right to freedom of expression must be balanced against the rights of other people, or the rights of the wider community to achieve a fair outcome for everyone, including those who are trans or those who hold gender critical views. As the noble Lord, Lord Doyle made clear, there is a clear difference between what we don't like and what is illegal. And my noble friend Baroness Dacre has highlighted the importance of challenge within arts. Um, as did other noble Lords. Freedom of expression carries with it certain responsibilities and um cultural organisations must always comply with the law, including legislation relating to equality, discrimination and public order.
When speaking up becomes hate speech, a clear and unacceptable line is crossed. However, within these legal boundaries, organisations and artists should feel confident in presenting their work. Noble lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson and the noble Lord. Lord Doyle spoke about protests and boycotts. And while the government is wholly supportive of freedom of expression, we are equally supportive of peaceful protests. However, there is growing concern across the cultural sector about the impact of organised um activist campaigns.
This can include calls for exhibitions to be cancelled, performances to be withdrawn, artists to be disinvited or sponsorships terminated. I note the noble lady, Baroness Jenkins point about self-censorship also being an issue, and the noble lady, Baroness Maier and the noble Lord, Lord Frost, made similar points. Uh, that noble lady, Baroness Fox. Um, uh, noble Lord, Lord Pollock and the noble Lord. Lord young spoke about the issue of silent cancellations and boycott these boycotts, as well as silent cancellations noted in the reports are damaging in the government's view to art and artists.
And we've been unequivocal in pushing back against these boycotts. Last year, the Secretary of State said boycotting sponsors and killing off. Killing these events off is the equivalent of gagging society. She said then that we will stand against it with everything we've got. As the noble lady Baroness Jenkins said, the answer to speech we don't like is more speech, not silence. Uh. This government, um, this government is clear. The boycotting of festival performances and organisations hearts.
They are harms the art, not the sponsor. As the noble Lord, Lord Doyle made clear, we've got a great tradition of philanthropy in this country, and the government wants to strengthen this. This is why we published a strategy on philanthropy earlier in this year. As the noble Lord said, we need a mixed economy that includes private sector funding. Uh, the noble Lord, Lord Addington, asked about guidance around the legal position and my noble friend Baroness Dacres of Lewisham, about some examples of guidance.
Best practice. We recognise the increasing enduring pressure that arts and cultural leaders face on this issue. In response, the Arts Council England has supported the recent publication of new guidance on the matter and I'll circulate this guidance to noble lords who've taken part in today's debate. There's positive signs that the sector is grasping the nettle, rising to the challenge. Arts organisations in Manchester are tackling this head on, with Factory International spearheading the Brave Spaces principles. Work such as this acts as North Star in guiding organisations through the complexity of programming and sponsorship decision making in the face of activism.
My Lords, um, I will conclude shortly, but I just wanted to make, um, respond to the noble lady Baroness Fox's point about whether I'd be willing to meet freedom in the arts. I'd be very happy to meet the organisation, but this may need to be after the conclusion of a number of legal matters which the organisation is currently supporting. But, um, my private office will um, will arrange a meeting in due course. Um, my Lords, as I've outlined, the government recognises many of the challenges identified in the report.
The new boycott crisis, by encouraging a plurality of voices, this government is helping to ensure that this government, the country, remains one of the world's leading centres of artistic and cultural excellence. As my noble friend Baroness Dacre said at its best, art allows us to see people through other's eyes. I'm clear in this government is clear that lawful artistic expression deserves protection, that cultural organisations should be free to make their own decisions, and that our cultural life is strengthened, not weakened, by the free exchange of differing opinions and ideas.
13:15
13:15
13:15
Speaker 16
-
Speaker 16
To have secured this debate today, we are likely to be approaching a turning point in this war, and the situation requires us to consider how we can underpin Ukraine's future and facilitate its European trajectory. It was my role for the opposition and the other place to take forward the legislation for the expansion of the European Union. At the time, there was here in London a particularly impressive Polish ambassador who spoke with great precedence. Several times. He said to me that if we did not embrace the country immediately to Poland's east, then someone with very large claws would attempt to smother it.
How tragically right history has proved him to be since February 2022, we have seen those claws at work where the horrors of a full scale war that has now raged against Ukraine, having recently returned from a visit to Kyiv and, most significantly, significantly, the Chernihiv region, which borders Belarus and Russia. I start by noting the resilience remaining so strong. Ukraine is now emerging as one of the most militarily experienced, innovative and resilient nations in the world today. My Lords, I do not wish for this debate to be a continuing commentary about the military situation on the battlefield.
For what struck me most powerfully was that when I met my counterparts, they did not wish to dwell on the war. Showcase their resilience, but most importantly, their plans for locally enabled, investment based recovery. They wanted to speak not only of how Ukraine recovers and prospers, but of how Ukraine can emerge, as I believe it will, as a significant global force for good in the years to come. It is in this spirit that I now turn to decentralisation as the. Former chairman of the British Ukrainian Society, I have long promoted the need for decentralisation regarding it as fundamental to democratic empowerment, the elimination of corruption and to accelerating Ukraine's accession to the European Union and embracing the wider European family before the full.
Scale invasion, Ukraine had already made progress in this regard, and we should not underestimate how the progress made between 2014 and 2022 in the creation and empowerment of regional and local municipalities was a defining factor in Ukraine's ability to withstand this ghastly war over such a significant period of time. We should now turn to supporting Ukraine's desire to continue on their pathway to much greater decentralisation. This could become one of the great practical legacies of the 100 year partnership. Under pillar nine of that declaration.
Our two countries are committed to supporting deeper and more nationwide links between local and regional governments, and I'd like to use this opportunity to pay particular tribute to Kent, to Kent with Ukraine, an NGO with which I am proud to be associated under the voluntary leadership of Jordan Mead. That organisation has in just two years helped secure significantly active partnerships stemming from a region to region partnerships and twinning with every other tier in the country. This voluntary work is to be commended. I am sure that we will all agree that the 100 year partnership must be enabled by government, but built up from the grassroots.
Now I offer the Minister for practical suggestions on how we may take this forward and be achieved. First, the government could establish a live public register of UK, Ukraine local and regional partnerships. At present, the landscapes. The landscape is far too fragmented and council leaders are slow in wanting to pursue relations without clearer government endorsement, a register could help identify gaps matching donors to need, giving SMEs confidence to invest in local projects and importantly, allow Parliament to scrutinise progress under pillar nine. Secondly, the government could support the creation of a platform that links municipal twinning to practical reconstruction pipelines, a structured platform could enable communities to undertake real and practical projects.
This would help Ukraine, but it could also create opportunities for British SMEs to secure investments and contracts for reconstruction, which in turn would create much needed opportunities for local growth here at home. And thirdly, the government should consider creating a municipal aid corridor, making it easier and safer for councils and public bodies to donate surplus equipment to verified Ukrainian municipal recipients. And finally, the government might consider as well establishing a dedicated local government fund that would enable local authorities in the UK to bid for modest one off grants to empower businesses, schools, cultural organisations and community groups to take part in furthering the key objectives of pillar nine.
My Lords, the Ukrainians themselves want these relationships to be reciprocal. There is much we can learn from Ukraine's local leaders, particularly around civil contingencies, emergency planning and resilience against the backdrop of local government reorganisation, Ukraine's experience could be studied carefully here to reform and strengthen our own structures. I turn briefly to the important matter of veterans reintegration. Whilst in Kyiv, I was pleased to meet the Deputy Minister of Veterans Affairs and just yesterday I was pleased to host both the Minister and Deputy Minister here in our Parliament to brief parliamentarians on the growing challenges around Ukraine's veteran population.
I mention this as veterans policy could become an excellent test case for the. The centralised Ukraine. It could demonstrate the model of national standards and local delivery. The Ukrainian state should set clear national entitlements, standards and safeguards for rehabilitation, mental health, transport and mobility, employment, housing adaptation, family support and disability rights. But delivery must be made locally through the oblasts. I raise this, my Lords, in the hope that the government will build in decentralisation to future funding programmes to Ukraine.
In the classrooms that I visited in the far northeast of Ukraine, there are murals of this Parliament on the walls. These murals are used as a reference point for freedom and democracy. And this, my Lords, should humble and inspire us all in UK. Train. Constant gratitude was expressed for Britain's support, but the clear desire at all levels is for Britain to be an influential long term partner. As the Minister knows, one of the great strengths of our Parliament is that Ukraine continues to be supported by all parties, and that unity is noted and deeply appreciated.
One of the great strengths of our parliament is that Ukraine continues to be supported by all parties, and that indeed is so important. The challenges before us is to turn the 100 year partnership from declaration into enduring delivery. This will be better achieved if we enable a grassroots approach to this endeavour and support Ukraine's decentralisation as a key component in their recovery.
How tragically right history has proved him to be since February 2022, we have seen those claws at work where the horrors of a full scale war that has now raged against Ukraine, having recently returned from a visit to Kyiv and, most significantly, significantly, the Chernihiv region, which borders Belarus and Russia. I start by noting the resilience remaining so strong. Ukraine is now emerging as one of the most militarily experienced, innovative and resilient nations in the world today. My Lords, I do not wish for this debate to be a continuing commentary about the military situation on the battlefield.
For what struck me most powerfully was that when I met my counterparts, they did not wish to dwell on the war. Showcase their resilience, but most importantly, their plans for locally enabled, investment based recovery. They wanted to speak not only of how Ukraine recovers and prospers, but of how Ukraine can emerge, as I believe it will, as a significant global force for good in the years to come. It is in this spirit that I now turn to decentralisation as the. Former chairman of the British Ukrainian Society, I have long promoted the need for decentralisation regarding it as fundamental to democratic empowerment, the elimination of corruption and to accelerating Ukraine's accession to the European Union and embracing the wider European family before the full.
Scale invasion, Ukraine had already made progress in this regard, and we should not underestimate how the progress made between 2014 and 2022 in the creation and empowerment of regional and local municipalities was a defining factor in Ukraine's ability to withstand this ghastly war over such a significant period of time. We should now turn to supporting Ukraine's desire to continue on their pathway to much greater decentralisation. This could become one of the great practical legacies of the 100 year partnership. Under pillar nine of that declaration.
Our two countries are committed to supporting deeper and more nationwide links between local and regional governments, and I'd like to use this opportunity to pay particular tribute to Kent, to Kent with Ukraine, an NGO with which I am proud to be associated under the voluntary leadership of Jordan Mead. That organisation has in just two years helped secure significantly active partnerships stemming from a region to region partnerships and twinning with every other tier in the country. This voluntary work is to be commended. I am sure that we will all agree that the 100 year partnership must be enabled by government, but built up from the grassroots.
Now I offer the Minister for practical suggestions on how we may take this forward and be achieved. First, the government could establish a live public register of UK, Ukraine local and regional partnerships. At present, the landscapes. The landscape is far too fragmented and council leaders are slow in wanting to pursue relations without clearer government endorsement, a register could help identify gaps matching donors to need, giving SMEs confidence to invest in local projects and importantly, allow Parliament to scrutinise progress under pillar nine. Secondly, the government could support the creation of a platform that links municipal twinning to practical reconstruction pipelines, a structured platform could enable communities to undertake real and practical projects.
This would help Ukraine, but it could also create opportunities for British SMEs to secure investments and contracts for reconstruction, which in turn would create much needed opportunities for local growth here at home. And thirdly, the government should consider creating a municipal aid corridor, making it easier and safer for councils and public bodies to donate surplus equipment to verified Ukrainian municipal recipients. And finally, the government might consider as well establishing a dedicated local government fund that would enable local authorities in the UK to bid for modest one off grants to empower businesses, schools, cultural organisations and community groups to take part in furthering the key objectives of pillar nine.
My Lords, the Ukrainians themselves want these relationships to be reciprocal. There is much we can learn from Ukraine's local leaders, particularly around civil contingencies, emergency planning and resilience against the backdrop of local government reorganisation, Ukraine's experience could be studied carefully here to reform and strengthen our own structures. I turn briefly to the important matter of veterans reintegration. Whilst in Kyiv, I was pleased to meet the Deputy Minister of Veterans Affairs and just yesterday I was pleased to host both the Minister and Deputy Minister here in our Parliament to brief parliamentarians on the growing challenges around Ukraine's veteran population.
I mention this as veterans policy could become an excellent test case for the. The centralised Ukraine. It could demonstrate the model of national standards and local delivery. The Ukrainian state should set clear national entitlements, standards and safeguards for rehabilitation, mental health, transport and mobility, employment, housing adaptation, family support and disability rights. But delivery must be made locally through the oblasts. I raise this, my Lords, in the hope that the government will build in decentralisation to future funding programmes to Ukraine.
In the classrooms that I visited in the far northeast of Ukraine, there are murals of this Parliament on the walls. These murals are used as a reference point for freedom and democracy. And this, my Lords, should humble and inspire us all in UK. Train. Constant gratitude was expressed for Britain's support, but the clear desire at all levels is for Britain to be an influential long term partner. As the Minister knows, one of the great strengths of our Parliament is that Ukraine continues to be supported by all parties, and that unity is noted and deeply appreciated.
One of the great strengths of our parliament is that Ukraine continues to be supported by all parties, and that indeed is so important. The challenges before us is to turn the 100 year partnership from declaration into enduring delivery. This will be better achieved if we enable a grassroots approach to this endeavour and support Ukraine's decentralisation as a key component in their recovery.
13:23
Speaker 17
-
Speaker 17
I want to congratulate Lord Risby on. During this important debate, and I'm only sorry there are so few of us in the room for it, because I do think it's an important one, and I also want to pay tribute to his long standing commitment to Ukraine, and this gives considerable weight and importance to everything that is said today. I spent many years in local government, including serving as a leader of a council and as a deputy mayor of London, so I thought I'd come at this debate from a slightly different perspective.
I've always believed in the importance of localism and the opportunities that come through decentralised decision making. While it is, of course, up to the government to establish national priorities, it is usually local government that ultimately determines how successfully those priorities are delivered on the ground. This, my Lords, is why the pathway to the decentralisation that Ukraine commenced back in 2014 must now be delivered upon fully. Despite the fact that Ukraine is literally fighting for its very existence, democratic local government continues to function across the overwhelming majority of the country.
And indeed, where that's not possible, military administrations running in parallel in the cities. Um, do provide the additional attention that's needed. Through this system, local leaders across Ukraine who were deserving of our admiration have proven how decentralized decision making has enabled local leaders to respond quickly and more humanely than any national government could ever do in. Many respects, from the continuation of education to the reconstruction of community assets and the maintenance of social services provision, local government has come to be one of Ukraine's greatest strengths.
As we now rightfully turn our attention towards Ukraine's recovery and reconstruction, I believe that this is an area where the United Kingdom can make a distinctive contribution to our own experiences. That area is, I would suggest, public procurement. Whilst I note that this might not sound as exciting as funding the latest AI empowered systems or advanced warfare. Anyone who has been involved in a local authority knows that. Ultimately, sound procurement is the bedrock of efficient local government. British local authorities have accumulated decades and decades of experience in commissioning services, running competitive tenders, ensuring proper financial oversight.
We have learnt over these decades. Sometimes, unfortunately, the hard way, the formula of balancing speed and innovation with accountability and sound governance. Ukraine now faces the largest reconstruction programme seen anywhere in Europe, possibly even the world since since the Second World War. And this, my Lords, will not only require significant international investment, but procurement systems capable of delivering thousands of projects simultaneously while ensuring. And this is so important, international credibility. I believe there is considerable scope for structured partnership between the procurement professionals and our local authorities and their Ukrainian counterparts.
From strategic commissioning to supplier assurance, social value fraud prevention and counter-corruption measures, local authorities have often learnt the hard way and but have developed the expertise that is essential. The essential building blocks for attracting and securing long term international investment, and that investment, being able to see that their money is being deployed correctly. There is, my Lords, a security element in this too. We need to deploy our expertise in public sector procurement to ensure that rogue states and individuals are not able to secure any foothold in the critical national infrastructure and local utility projects that Ukraine is currently seeking international support to deliver.
I would be grateful if the noble lady. The Minister could therefore outline to the committee what steps government is taking to export British local government procurement expertise to support Ukrainian municipalities as they prepare to manage billions of pounds in reconstruction funds. And has the government considered the possibility of a coordinating a UK Ukraine Local Government Procurement partnership?Building on the work of the city, Ukraine hub and the commitments contained within the UK Ukraine 100 year partnership, I hope we are soon going to see the City of London play a leading role in strengthening Ukraine's financial ecosystem.
In the discussions I have had with Ukrainians, the message is always that they seek to have mutually beneficial relations. And my Lords, there is also much that Britain can learn from Ukraine. I have been struck by the extraordinary speed with which Ukraine has restored national critical infrastructure. Rail networks, bridges, utilities and they're doing this under missile and drone attack. It slightly puts us to shame on projects such as High Speed two and the Lower Thames crossing. While our circumstances are thankfully very different, I believe there are lessons and as.
We seek to accelerate housing delivery, modernise infrastructure, improve our public services, we should not be afraid to study how Ukraine has reduced bureaucracy, slashed waste and embraced innovation. Sometimes those operating under the greatest pressure develop the most effective solutions. And I put it that local government would be foolish not to use our exceptional friendship with Ukraine to be radical in our approach to reforming our own systems, both here and and there. My Lords, as the government embarks upon a very significant programme of local government reorganisation, probably the biggest in decades, I hope the government will place far greater emphasis on civil contingencies and local resilience.
Whilst much attention is rightly given to national defence, history reminds us that resilience begins in our communities. Since the start of the full scale invasion in 2022, Ukraine has demonstrated how when resilience and emergency planning are valued and managed effectively at a very local level, that communities are able to withstand the most challenging of circumstances. It would be good to know what lessons the government are going to draw upon. Ukraine's exceptional resilience models. As part of our own reviews. Lord Risby, quite rightly commented on twinning.
It is encouraging to see how many local council leaders across the country have not only shown solidarity through establishing twinning relations, but the practical differences that these hyper local arrangements are having for both Ukrainian municipalities and indeed our own communities. And many of these relationships now in place, I am told that there is a desire to move these relationships well beyond the sort of traditional civic twinning to genuinely provide partnership that shares expertise, supports SMEs in both the UK and Ukraine, and utilises the provision of the FTA that we have in place.
Earlier this week I was very pleased to meet both the Minister and Deputy Minister of Veterans Affairs here in Parliament, and it was so encouraging to hear the efforts that they are putting in to not only ensuring that there is a world leading rehabilitation programme in place, but that the work underway is to ensure the full economic reintegration of these veterans. And, as we all know, that is going to be critical for the future stability of Ukraine. I want to conclude, my Lords, by saying Britain has much to contribute through our own experience of local government procurement, financial governance, local leadership.
But but equally, we should approach this with some humility, recognising that Ukraine's resilience and remarkable pace of delivery has lessons for us. If we get this right and make the 100 year partnership more community based, I have no doubt that both countries will emerge stronger.
I've always believed in the importance of localism and the opportunities that come through decentralised decision making. While it is, of course, up to the government to establish national priorities, it is usually local government that ultimately determines how successfully those priorities are delivered on the ground. This, my Lords, is why the pathway to the decentralisation that Ukraine commenced back in 2014 must now be delivered upon fully. Despite the fact that Ukraine is literally fighting for its very existence, democratic local government continues to function across the overwhelming majority of the country.
And indeed, where that's not possible, military administrations running in parallel in the cities. Um, do provide the additional attention that's needed. Through this system, local leaders across Ukraine who were deserving of our admiration have proven how decentralized decision making has enabled local leaders to respond quickly and more humanely than any national government could ever do in. Many respects, from the continuation of education to the reconstruction of community assets and the maintenance of social services provision, local government has come to be one of Ukraine's greatest strengths.
As we now rightfully turn our attention towards Ukraine's recovery and reconstruction, I believe that this is an area where the United Kingdom can make a distinctive contribution to our own experiences. That area is, I would suggest, public procurement. Whilst I note that this might not sound as exciting as funding the latest AI empowered systems or advanced warfare. Anyone who has been involved in a local authority knows that. Ultimately, sound procurement is the bedrock of efficient local government. British local authorities have accumulated decades and decades of experience in commissioning services, running competitive tenders, ensuring proper financial oversight.
We have learnt over these decades. Sometimes, unfortunately, the hard way, the formula of balancing speed and innovation with accountability and sound governance. Ukraine now faces the largest reconstruction programme seen anywhere in Europe, possibly even the world since since the Second World War. And this, my Lords, will not only require significant international investment, but procurement systems capable of delivering thousands of projects simultaneously while ensuring. And this is so important, international credibility. I believe there is considerable scope for structured partnership between the procurement professionals and our local authorities and their Ukrainian counterparts.
From strategic commissioning to supplier assurance, social value fraud prevention and counter-corruption measures, local authorities have often learnt the hard way and but have developed the expertise that is essential. The essential building blocks for attracting and securing long term international investment, and that investment, being able to see that their money is being deployed correctly. There is, my Lords, a security element in this too. We need to deploy our expertise in public sector procurement to ensure that rogue states and individuals are not able to secure any foothold in the critical national infrastructure and local utility projects that Ukraine is currently seeking international support to deliver.
I would be grateful if the noble lady. The Minister could therefore outline to the committee what steps government is taking to export British local government procurement expertise to support Ukrainian municipalities as they prepare to manage billions of pounds in reconstruction funds. And has the government considered the possibility of a coordinating a UK Ukraine Local Government Procurement partnership?Building on the work of the city, Ukraine hub and the commitments contained within the UK Ukraine 100 year partnership, I hope we are soon going to see the City of London play a leading role in strengthening Ukraine's financial ecosystem.
In the discussions I have had with Ukrainians, the message is always that they seek to have mutually beneficial relations. And my Lords, there is also much that Britain can learn from Ukraine. I have been struck by the extraordinary speed with which Ukraine has restored national critical infrastructure. Rail networks, bridges, utilities and they're doing this under missile and drone attack. It slightly puts us to shame on projects such as High Speed two and the Lower Thames crossing. While our circumstances are thankfully very different, I believe there are lessons and as.
We seek to accelerate housing delivery, modernise infrastructure, improve our public services, we should not be afraid to study how Ukraine has reduced bureaucracy, slashed waste and embraced innovation. Sometimes those operating under the greatest pressure develop the most effective solutions. And I put it that local government would be foolish not to use our exceptional friendship with Ukraine to be radical in our approach to reforming our own systems, both here and and there. My Lords, as the government embarks upon a very significant programme of local government reorganisation, probably the biggest in decades, I hope the government will place far greater emphasis on civil contingencies and local resilience.
Whilst much attention is rightly given to national defence, history reminds us that resilience begins in our communities. Since the start of the full scale invasion in 2022, Ukraine has demonstrated how when resilience and emergency planning are valued and managed effectively at a very local level, that communities are able to withstand the most challenging of circumstances. It would be good to know what lessons the government are going to draw upon. Ukraine's exceptional resilience models. As part of our own reviews. Lord Risby, quite rightly commented on twinning.
It is encouraging to see how many local council leaders across the country have not only shown solidarity through establishing twinning relations, but the practical differences that these hyper local arrangements are having for both Ukrainian municipalities and indeed our own communities. And many of these relationships now in place, I am told that there is a desire to move these relationships well beyond the sort of traditional civic twinning to genuinely provide partnership that shares expertise, supports SMEs in both the UK and Ukraine, and utilises the provision of the FTA that we have in place.
Earlier this week I was very pleased to meet both the Minister and Deputy Minister of Veterans Affairs here in Parliament, and it was so encouraging to hear the efforts that they are putting in to not only ensuring that there is a world leading rehabilitation programme in place, but that the work underway is to ensure the full economic reintegration of these veterans. And, as we all know, that is going to be critical for the future stability of Ukraine. I want to conclude, my Lords, by saying Britain has much to contribute through our own experience of local government procurement, financial governance, local leadership.
But but equally, we should approach this with some humility, recognising that Ukraine's resilience and remarkable pace of delivery has lessons for us. If we get this right and make the 100 year partnership more community based, I have no doubt that both countries will emerge stronger.
13:32
Speaker 18
-
Speaker 18
My Lord, I would like to thank. Firstly, my noble friend Lord Risby for securing this valuable debate. My noble friend Lord Callaghan noted in our debate on the Ukrainian Claims Commission convention last week that while the war continues, it is right that we look to the future of Ukraine. I will not repeat our overall position on support for Ukraine. But my noble friend Lord Callaghan set this out very clearly last week. The official opposition will always support the government in backing Ukraine in the face of Putins illegal war in Ukraine, across this House and across political divides, we must all work hard to maintain the consensus in support of the Ukrainian people.
Since 2014, the decentralisation process, as mentioned by my noble friend Lord Risby in Ukraine, has progressed significantly, strengthening local self-governance and improving the Ukrainian state's ability to deliver public services. That process has established local governments across Ukraine that retain more than half of the tax collected in that area. That means more money stays in the communities where it is collected, and it should be spent to the benefit of local residents. Can the noble Baroness, the minister, say whether His Majesty's Government is monitoring the impact of the reorganisation of government in Ukraine and its impact on the quality of public services available to Ukrainian people?My Lords, support for Ukraine should not just stop at funding and military training.
Our strong tradition of democracy and effective local governance means that there may be relevant skills we can share with Ukraine. So can the noble Baroness minister, say what conversations have taken place to ensure we are making local government expertise here in the UK available to Ukraine?My Lords, while a significant progress has been made, third parties report that there remain significant challenges around skills shortages within the civil service. What consideration, my Lords, have ministers given to that?And are there steps to His Majesty's Government can take in concert with our international partners to support Ukraine with those skill gaps that they are experiencing within government?My Lords, the UK, Ukraine 100 year partnership has raised by my noble friend is without question ambitious.
However, ambition alone does not deliver results. Given that it is the intention of government that this partnership endures for a century, would the government agree that Parliament should have greater opportunity to scrutinise delivery under each of the partnership's pillars and in the spirit, will His Majesty's Government commit to an annual report on the progress and expenditure occurred?My Lords, we have spoken much today about our local. Councils and the incredible work that they are doing to stand by the people of Ukraine. Reconstruction, however, will require local economic recovery and.
It would therefore be helpful to understand what role the His Majesty's Government sees for British Chambers of Commerce, SMEs and local enterprise partnerships in supporting the effort of rebuilding local economies across this region. Well, his. Majesty's government consider launching a UK Ukraine 100 website and digital archive of successes under the UK, Ukraine declaration that would serve to showcase and inspire councils, schools, civil society groups and others to get involved. My Lords, the demonstration that saw the fall of Yanukovych's government in were fuelled by a collapse of trust in Ukrainian government.
Those Ukrainians who had such high hopes of a brighter future for Ukraine has suffered much since then. We all share that hope for a brighter future, and we will work with government as they support this work, and I look forward to hearing to the responses from the noble Baroness Minister.
Since 2014, the decentralisation process, as mentioned by my noble friend Lord Risby in Ukraine, has progressed significantly, strengthening local self-governance and improving the Ukrainian state's ability to deliver public services. That process has established local governments across Ukraine that retain more than half of the tax collected in that area. That means more money stays in the communities where it is collected, and it should be spent to the benefit of local residents. Can the noble Baroness, the minister, say whether His Majesty's Government is monitoring the impact of the reorganisation of government in Ukraine and its impact on the quality of public services available to Ukrainian people?My Lords, support for Ukraine should not just stop at funding and military training.
Our strong tradition of democracy and effective local governance means that there may be relevant skills we can share with Ukraine. So can the noble Baroness minister, say what conversations have taken place to ensure we are making local government expertise here in the UK available to Ukraine?My Lords, while a significant progress has been made, third parties report that there remain significant challenges around skills shortages within the civil service. What consideration, my Lords, have ministers given to that?And are there steps to His Majesty's Government can take in concert with our international partners to support Ukraine with those skill gaps that they are experiencing within government?My Lords, the UK, Ukraine 100 year partnership has raised by my noble friend is without question ambitious.
However, ambition alone does not deliver results. Given that it is the intention of government that this partnership endures for a century, would the government agree that Parliament should have greater opportunity to scrutinise delivery under each of the partnership's pillars and in the spirit, will His Majesty's Government commit to an annual report on the progress and expenditure occurred?My Lords, we have spoken much today about our local. Councils and the incredible work that they are doing to stand by the people of Ukraine. Reconstruction, however, will require local economic recovery and.
It would therefore be helpful to understand what role the His Majesty's Government sees for British Chambers of Commerce, SMEs and local enterprise partnerships in supporting the effort of rebuilding local economies across this region. Well, his. Majesty's government consider launching a UK Ukraine 100 website and digital archive of successes under the UK, Ukraine declaration that would serve to showcase and inspire councils, schools, civil society groups and others to get involved. My Lords, the demonstration that saw the fall of Yanukovych's government in were fuelled by a collapse of trust in Ukrainian government.
Those Ukrainians who had such high hopes of a brighter future for Ukraine has suffered much since then. We all share that hope for a brighter future, and we will work with government as they support this work, and I look forward to hearing to the responses from the noble Baroness Minister.
13:37
Speaker 15
-
Speaker 15
My Lords, just to begin, I would just like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Risby, for securing this debate. And I know it hasn't been, um, the biggest draw of the day as far as the Parliament is concerned, but I thought the quality of contributions more than made up for that. And he's made some really thoughtful suggestions, um, based on his extensive experience of working in Ukraine. And I can promise him that we will continue to look at ways that we can work with our Ukrainian friends as part of our commitment set out in the 100 year partnership, and that we will explore the various suggestions that the noble Lord has made.
And I also just want to thank, um, noble Lord. Lord is great because we can actually name each other properly and not just go all those present. Um, so, um, uh, I thank Lord Lister as well for, for his, um, important contribution. Um, the illegal invasion of Ukraine by Russia continues to cause immense pain and suffering. And I absolutely accept Lord Rigby's encouragement to not always only focus on the conflict. Um, but I would just say that, um, last week Russia launched around 500 drones and 70 missiles, primarily at Kyiv, killing at least 30 civilians and injuring nearly 90.
And the scale of damage for more than four years of war is, of course, enormous. The latest world Bank assessment is that around $588 billion will be required for recovery and reconstruction over the next decade. Early recovery and development support are therefore critical if we are to prevent Ukraine falling into decline, poverty and instability. This is an agenda to which we are fully committed and as Earl of down said, it is entirely cross-party. Through the UK's historic and wide ranging 100 year partnership with Ukraine, with deepening relations across the social, cultural, education and trade sectors to ensure a more prosperous and secure long term future for both of our countries.
And that is the entire premise of having a 100 year partnership is so that it is, um, all encompassing. Already, 54000 British and Ukrainian pupils are set to benefit from the school twinning programme under the 100 year partnership. And I thought Lord Risby suggestions of a register of partnerships, a platform to link communities and municipal aid corridor, and a local government fund for grants to support partnerships were all really excellent, implementable suggestions and we will of course consider them thoroughly. Some of. Not all of them probably need the government to do them either.
There are some things that, in the true nature of, uh, the spirit of entrepreneurship that you find in local government, often in this country and in Ukraine, some of these things can happen. In any case. And democratic institutions, including Ukraine's parliament and civil society, will play a key role in Ukraine's recovery cooperation between the Ukrainian government, parliament and civil society, and with international partners will help to ensure Ukraine's democratic resilience and Ukraine's decentralisation reforms have strengthened the ability of local authorities to deliver public services, respond to crises and lead recovery efforts.
Even in the most challenging wartime conditions. Strong local government will remain essential to rebuilding communities, strengthening resilience and supporting Ukraine's future Euro-Atlantic integration. My Lords, the UK recognises that recovery and reform must go hand in hand. Continued progress on governance, anti-corruption, judicial reform and decentralisation will help Ukraine attract investment, strengthen institutions and support its Euro-Atlantic aspirations. Two weeks ago, the Foreign Secretary attended the Ukraine Recovery Conference in Gdansk alongside the Deputy Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. At the conference, the Foreign Secretary announced our package of bilateral assistance for 2627, worth almost £290 million to bolster Ukraine's Ukraine's recovery and energy security.
We also announced a further $1 billion of fiscal support through the world Bank, demonstrating our long term commitment to Ukraine's reconstruction, the Deputy Prime Minister announced that £12 million of this package is for a new governance programme, including £2.4 million for anti-corruption initiatives. The UK has consistently supported a recovery that is inclusive, accountable and, above all, led by Ukraine, with civil society playing a central role in shaping, supporting and scrutinising that recovery. But we recognise that recovery cannot be delivered from Kyiv alone. Action at the local and regional level is a core theme of this year's Ukraine Recovery Conference, recognising that local communities are best placed to identify priorities and lead reconstruction.
As Lord Risby said, Ukrainian civil society organisations were among the first to step forward after Russia's full scale invasion. They continue to support those most affected by the war, including the communities that are hardest to reach. And this is where municipal partnerships can make a real difference. Lord Lister made an argument that I completely agree with him. Like him, I've served in local government and learnt a huge amount that I use every single day in my current role from that experience.
But is these partnerships that help local authorities deliver better services, learn from each other's experience and build the foundations for long term recovery. The UK is backing this approach in practice as Earl court down and Lord Lister asked about how we are doing this. We are using our humanitarian Assistance and Resilience Programme to strengthen the role of civil society and community groups in delivering support on the ground through the UK led Multi-donor Partnership Fund for Resilient Ukraine. We directly strengthen local authorities in Ukraine's frontline regions to ensure local governments remain visible, responsible and most importantly, I think, trusted by their local residents and through our social protection programme spirit, we're helping Ukraine move from emergency response into long term recovery, supporting reform, strengthening social services and helping Ukrainian.
I'm just going to say municipalities work together to meet local needs. Working with Unicef and the NGO Iser and editor Ananya, we are supporting around 100 municipalities and 120 local providers, and this support is leaving a lasting legacy, helping municipalities build the skills, partnerships and systems that they need to to sustain recovery long after individual grants end. Erlcort asked for regular reporting and also he suggested, um, a platform to showcase, um, work that's happening, I think. Excellent ideas. Let's see what we can take forward.
Um, but my Lords, the UK stands, as we say every time we talk about Ukraine, we stand with Ukraine in its journey towards a just and lasting peace and in its efforts to rebuild, ensuring Ukraine emerges from this war as a stronger, more resilient and more prosperous country is just as important as supporting its defence. Today, Ukraine's recovery will be built not only through international investments but through strong institutions, empowered local communities and the determination of the Ukrainian people. The UK remains committed to that effort and to Ukraine for as long as it takes.
And I also just want to thank, um, noble Lord. Lord is great because we can actually name each other properly and not just go all those present. Um, so, um, uh, I thank Lord Lister as well for, for his, um, important contribution. Um, the illegal invasion of Ukraine by Russia continues to cause immense pain and suffering. And I absolutely accept Lord Rigby's encouragement to not always only focus on the conflict. Um, but I would just say that, um, last week Russia launched around 500 drones and 70 missiles, primarily at Kyiv, killing at least 30 civilians and injuring nearly 90.
And the scale of damage for more than four years of war is, of course, enormous. The latest world Bank assessment is that around $588 billion will be required for recovery and reconstruction over the next decade. Early recovery and development support are therefore critical if we are to prevent Ukraine falling into decline, poverty and instability. This is an agenda to which we are fully committed and as Earl of down said, it is entirely cross-party. Through the UK's historic and wide ranging 100 year partnership with Ukraine, with deepening relations across the social, cultural, education and trade sectors to ensure a more prosperous and secure long term future for both of our countries.
And that is the entire premise of having a 100 year partnership is so that it is, um, all encompassing. Already, 54000 British and Ukrainian pupils are set to benefit from the school twinning programme under the 100 year partnership. And I thought Lord Risby suggestions of a register of partnerships, a platform to link communities and municipal aid corridor, and a local government fund for grants to support partnerships were all really excellent, implementable suggestions and we will of course consider them thoroughly. Some of. Not all of them probably need the government to do them either.
There are some things that, in the true nature of, uh, the spirit of entrepreneurship that you find in local government, often in this country and in Ukraine, some of these things can happen. In any case. And democratic institutions, including Ukraine's parliament and civil society, will play a key role in Ukraine's recovery cooperation between the Ukrainian government, parliament and civil society, and with international partners will help to ensure Ukraine's democratic resilience and Ukraine's decentralisation reforms have strengthened the ability of local authorities to deliver public services, respond to crises and lead recovery efforts.
Even in the most challenging wartime conditions. Strong local government will remain essential to rebuilding communities, strengthening resilience and supporting Ukraine's future Euro-Atlantic integration. My Lords, the UK recognises that recovery and reform must go hand in hand. Continued progress on governance, anti-corruption, judicial reform and decentralisation will help Ukraine attract investment, strengthen institutions and support its Euro-Atlantic aspirations. Two weeks ago, the Foreign Secretary attended the Ukraine Recovery Conference in Gdansk alongside the Deputy Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. At the conference, the Foreign Secretary announced our package of bilateral assistance for 2627, worth almost £290 million to bolster Ukraine's Ukraine's recovery and energy security.
We also announced a further $1 billion of fiscal support through the world Bank, demonstrating our long term commitment to Ukraine's reconstruction, the Deputy Prime Minister announced that £12 million of this package is for a new governance programme, including £2.4 million for anti-corruption initiatives. The UK has consistently supported a recovery that is inclusive, accountable and, above all, led by Ukraine, with civil society playing a central role in shaping, supporting and scrutinising that recovery. But we recognise that recovery cannot be delivered from Kyiv alone. Action at the local and regional level is a core theme of this year's Ukraine Recovery Conference, recognising that local communities are best placed to identify priorities and lead reconstruction.
As Lord Risby said, Ukrainian civil society organisations were among the first to step forward after Russia's full scale invasion. They continue to support those most affected by the war, including the communities that are hardest to reach. And this is where municipal partnerships can make a real difference. Lord Lister made an argument that I completely agree with him. Like him, I've served in local government and learnt a huge amount that I use every single day in my current role from that experience.
But is these partnerships that help local authorities deliver better services, learn from each other's experience and build the foundations for long term recovery. The UK is backing this approach in practice as Earl court down and Lord Lister asked about how we are doing this. We are using our humanitarian Assistance and Resilience Programme to strengthen the role of civil society and community groups in delivering support on the ground through the UK led Multi-donor Partnership Fund for Resilient Ukraine. We directly strengthen local authorities in Ukraine's frontline regions to ensure local governments remain visible, responsible and most importantly, I think, trusted by their local residents and through our social protection programme spirit, we're helping Ukraine move from emergency response into long term recovery, supporting reform, strengthening social services and helping Ukrainian.
I'm just going to say municipalities work together to meet local needs. Working with Unicef and the NGO Iser and editor Ananya, we are supporting around 100 municipalities and 120 local providers, and this support is leaving a lasting legacy, helping municipalities build the skills, partnerships and systems that they need to to sustain recovery long after individual grants end. Erlcort asked for regular reporting and also he suggested, um, a platform to showcase, um, work that's happening, I think. Excellent ideas. Let's see what we can take forward.
Um, but my Lords, the UK stands, as we say every time we talk about Ukraine, we stand with Ukraine in its journey towards a just and lasting peace and in its efforts to rebuild, ensuring Ukraine emerges from this war as a stronger, more resilient and more prosperous country is just as important as supporting its defence. Today, Ukraine's recovery will be built not only through international investments but through strong institutions, empowered local communities and the determination of the Ukrainian people. The UK remains committed to that effort and to Ukraine for as long as it takes.
13:45