Arts and Cultural Sector: Employers’ National Insurance

Baroness Mackenzie of Sherwood Excerpts

Thursday 15th October 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Vaizey of Didcot]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact of increases to employer’s National Insurance on the arts and cultural sector.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Mackenzie of Sherwood) (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for the Question and pay tribute to his unbroken record as the longest-serving Arts Minister. I am sure I will never match it.

The 2024 Budget required difficult decisions to fix the public finances. Like other employers, cultural organisations were subject to a 1.2 percentage point increase in employers’ national insurance. To protect the smallest businesses and charities, many of which are cultural or creative organisations, the employment allowance more than doubled from £5,000 to £10,500. This means that 900,000 employers have no employer national insurance liability at all. In addition, earlier this year, we announced a historic £1.5 billion Arts Everywhere package, which is expected to reach 1,000 cultural organisations.

[Lord Vaizey of Didcot (Con)]

My Lords, I do not wish to make my exchange with the Minister too cosy, but I pay tribute to her and welcome her to her position. She has a distinguished record in the arts, not least from stewarding the Cultural Olympiad during the London Olympics.

Nevertheless, I was at a conference yesterday, which was timely, as somebody pointed out that their arts organisation had secured a £50,000 donation that was immediately wiped out by the increase in national insurance contributions. To take one sector—grass-roots music venues—the latest statistics show that one in five people have left that sector because of the impact of national insurance and business rates. This Government seem to give with one hand but take very seriously with the other.

[Baroness Mackenzie of Sherwood (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord. As we know, there have been many pressures on cultural and creative organisations. The noble Lord, from his role as a trustee of the Tate, is better placed than I am to comment on the detail of some of those organisations. The impact for many is that they have not yet recovered the audience levels, and therefore incomes, that they enjoyed before Covid. That is probably the biggest threat for many organisations. We are very aware of the many pressures and, as I said, the historic £1.5 billion Arts Everywhere package is a first step in helping to support those organisations.

[Baroness Keeley (Lab)]

Can my noble friend the Minister tell me her assessment of the damage to the arts and cultural sector if a future Government were to cut the DCMS budget by £1 billion, as was suggested by the Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch last week? Take just the music industry: it creates £8 billion a year for the economy and supports 22,000 jobs.

[Baroness Mackenzie of Sherwood (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for that question. Like many in the House, I was very shocked by that announcement and that threat against the arts, cultural and creative sectors, which I know many noble Lords in this House support with passion. They contribute to making the creative industries the fastest-growing of the top eight priority business sectors, with a total contribution to the economy of £144 billion last year. I am not going to list their many other benefits on this occasion. I suggest that the best remedy to ensure that the £1 billion cut to the DCMS never happens is to encourage all noble Lords to help Labour win the next election.

[Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury (LD)]

My Lords, I admire both the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, and the noble Baroness, Lady Mackenzie, but I add my concern that the party of the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, has decided to slash all this money for culture and arts. We welcome the Government’s commitment to extra funds for cultural infrastructure, but buildings need people to run them and artists to fill them to draw audiences. However, as we have heard, operating costs have increased significantly and they are struggling. Has the Minister considered something similar to the Irish basic income for artists? Indeed, the Scottish Government have announced plans to pilot an artist’s minimum wage.

[Baroness Mackenzie of Sherwood (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness for that excellent question. The Irish led the way in piloting the idea of an income for artists and there is now a pilot in Scotland. This is something I wish to follow with attention. It is obviously a proposal that is the source of active and enthusiastic lobbying from the arts sector, so I will be paying close attention to how it goes in Scotland.

[The Earl of Clancarty (CB)]

My Lords, looking further at costs, the Minister will be aware of the now serious crisis in domestic touring of performing arts companies as a result of greatly increased costs, with a catastrophic 64% decline in touring drama since 2019, according to the Arts Council. Will the department impress on the Treasury the importance of expanding tax relief, including theatre tax relief, to make those unavoidable costs of touring fully eligible? Domestic touring is so important for the health of the country.

[Baroness Mackenzie of Sherwood (Lab)]

As some noble Lords will know, I started my career in touring theatre and worked for many years at a theatre that received touring theatre, so I absolutely understand the issue and its seriousness. It is a subject of lobbying from the sector and of discussion with the Government, and I am unable to comment further on any issue that might or might not appear in the Budget.

[Lord Grayling (Con)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as a trustee of the National Portrait Gallery. The Minister will be well aware of the importance of philanthropic donations to major institutions. Will she then make representations to the Chancellor to stop government policies that end up with wealthy people who could otherwise support the arts choosing to leave the country?

[Baroness Mackenzie of Sherwood (Lab)]

I support and publicly pay tribute to all the philanthropists, both those in this country and those based internationally, who support our cultural institutions and arts. It is one of the most important areas of partnership for cultural institutions. A brilliant project that the government art collection announced is the ninth iteration of the Robson-Orr TenTen Awards—an impeccable partnership between philanthropists and the government art collection, co-created and co-inspired by both the philanthropists and the Government. I should pay tribute to the Conservative Government for introducing its ninth iteration, although we celebrate and applaud its achievements to date.

[The Lord Bishop of Manchester]

My Lords, Britain’s heritage in culture and arts is world-class, but that depends on young people coming forward and having the training, often at a very young age. What more can be done to support the specialist music and dance schools, including Chetham’s School in Manchester, which have been very badly hit by VAT on school fees? That often affects choristers in our cathedrals, and I declare an interest as Bishop of one of those cathedrals. How can we better support those schools so they can survive and thrive and play an important part in bringing forward the next generation of excellent musicians and dancers?

[Baroness Mackenzie of Sherwood (Lab)]

I thank the right reverend Prelate for the question. I also pay tribute to the brilliant work of Chetham’s, which is an outstanding school. It is unfortunately not possible to exempt a particular sector of private schools from VAT, but for all of us a priority is to ensure that the arts are back in the school curriculum to enable everyone to start along a talent pathway. Not everyone will get into a specialist school like Chetham’s, but everyone should have the opportunity in every postcode to develop their creative talent, and that is a big priority for the Government.

[Lord Brennan of Canton (Lab)]

My Lords, I want to make two suggestions that the Government might take up to improve matters. One is to extend the sort of tax relief given to film production to our recording studios. A number of us, including the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, and myself met with the Treasury Ministers earlier this year to discuss that. Will the Minister make representations to the Treasury in that regard? Secondly, something that would cost the Government nothing but that would work is to put the LIVE Trust levy on a statutory footing. Given that, on a voluntary basis, it is collecting less than half the money it could be collecting to support our grass-roots music venues, would she consider legislating in that regard when the Government bring forward their ticketing legislation?

[Baroness Mackenzie of Sherwood (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for that. The history in the last 20 years of using tax credits for the benefit of the creative industries is something both sides of the House have greatly pursued, and that has been a very effective way of supporting different sectors within the creative industries. I am aware of the discussions my noble friend refers to. I am unable to comment at the moment on that, but I am happy to explore it further outside this House.

Council of Europe Convention on the Manipulation of Sports Competitions

Baroness Mackenzie of Sherwood Excerpts

Tuesday 15th September 2026 Grand Committee

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Mackenzie of Sherwood) (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Johnson of Lainston, for securing this debate, and I thank all noble Lords who have taken part for their valuable contributions. I am grateful to the International Agreements Committee for its excellent work and its report, published on Friday 11 September, on our plans for ratification of this Council of Europe convention. The Government welcome the committee’s scrutiny of this important convention and the opportunity to set out why we consider ratification to be in the UK’s interests.

The Government consider the manipulation of sports competitions to be a serious threat to the integrity of sport and fair competition; we agree with every noble Lord who has made that point. It undermines the fundamental principle that sporting outcomes should be determined by ability and performance, and it reduces public confidence in sport as a whole. As the Gambling Commission noted in its evidence to the committee, reports of suspicious betting activity received by its sports betting intelligence unit increased by 28% in 2025 compared with 2024. Although the commission has underlined that increased reporting and monitoring may account for some of this rise, neither it nor the Government is complacent.

It is very clear that sports manipulation is an increasingly international issue, as so many noble Lords have remarked. No single country or organisation can tackle these risks alone. The Macolin convention provides a framework for Governments, law enforcement, gambling regulators, sports organisations and betting operators to co-operate, particularly through information sharing and national platforms. Given the increasing importance of international co-operation in tackling these risks, we consider it vital that we now proceed to ratification.

As we have heard, the UK is not starting from scratch. We have undertaken a detailed assessment of UK compliance across criminal law, gambling regulation and our operational arrangements. In doing so, we have worked with the Gambling Commission, the devolved Governments, legal advisers and other stakeholders. Our assessment is that the UK’s existing arrangements meet the convention’s requirements. We already have a well-established national platform, centred on the Gambling Commission’s sports betting intelligence unit and supported by the Sports Betting Integrity Forum. Indeed, the Gambling Commission worked with the Council of Europe between 2010 and 2014 to shape the development of the Macolin convention, with the Council of Europe using our national platform as the template.

Our existing legal framework also provides for relevant conduct to be addressed through a range of offences, including cheating at gambling, fraud, bribery and corruption. Ratification therefore does not require new primary or secondary legislation or the creation of a new UK body. The value of ratifying the Macolin convention is therefore about formalising and strengthening the UK’s existing international position. The UK already co-operates internationally on this area through networks including the Council of Europe’s Group of Copenhagen. However, as we have heard, ratification would give the UK a formal role in the convention’s follow-up committee, allowing us to contribute to policy recommendations, share expertise and help to shape the international response to sports manipulation.

As the Gambling Commission has underlined to the committee, ratification should help increase the speed of international intelligence sharing and support the development of a more co-ordinated approach on international enforcement. That is a key area for improvement, which the Gambling Commission highlighted in its evidence. Ratification will therefore build on the strong foundations that already exist and strengthen our ability to work with international partners to tackle this global threat.

The committee’s scrutiny has also tested whether our existing arrangements are sufficient across the UK—this is an important point for the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey—and whether there are areas where further work may be needed. We have engaged with the devolved Governments as part of the ratification process. In Northern Ireland, where gambling is subject to a separate framework, we have engaged directly with the Department for Communities and the Gambling Commission, including on how this relates to the Northern Ireland Executive. Our collective assessment is that existing arrangements are sufficient.

Specifically, Article 169 of the Betting, Gaming, Lotteries and Amusements (Northern Ireland) Order 1985 makes cheating at gambling or enabling or assisting another to cheat an offence. We have established that no substantive Northern Ireland-specific issue has been identified that would prevent ratification. We have also carefully considered the question of criminal enforcement. The Gambling Commission has referred 19 cases for enforcement action under Section 42 of the Gambling Act 2005 over the last three years, with several investigations ongoing, including formal prosecutions as part of Operation Scott. There has been one successful prosecution under Section 42, concluded in 2015. I know this is a point that several noble Lords raised.

It is important, however, that Section 42 is understood in the context of the wider criminal framework. Relevant cases may also involve offences such as fraud, bribery or corruption, and enforcement necessarily involves the Gambling Commission working alongside law enforcement and prosecution partners. We have also considered the convention’s provisions on criminal jurisdiction. As we noted to the committee, following detailed consideration of the legal position, we intend to make a reservation in respect of Article 19(1)(d) on jurisdiction. This reservation is specifically allowed through Article 37 of the convention.

We are confident that relevant authorities throughout the United Kingdom will continue to pursue potential breaches of the criminal law in the context of sports competitions with vigour and seriousness. The reservation simply reflects the reality that in a limited number of cases, the relevant criminal offence may not have extraterritorial application, or there is an insufficiently close link between the criminal activity and the UK. As such, this reservation is consistent with the approach taken by nine other signatory countries. I am not sure that I have addressed that question adequately, but I will be happy to take up any points that I have not sufficiently addressed after this debate.

Finally, we recognise that the threats posed by competition manipulation will continue to evolve. Online and in-play betting, as well as new betting products, are changing the environment in which sports competition manipulation takes place.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Mackenzie of Sherwood (Lab)]

My Lords, I will continue.

The convention is deliberately technology neutral and this, I hope, addresses a point that several noble Lords have very correctly raised. It allows countries to respond to emerging threats without requiring wholesale changes to the treaty itself. The UK will continue to engage constructively through the convention’s governance arrangements to ensure that international co-operation and best practice keep pace with these developments.

The committee has supported the convention’s pragmatic approach and welcomed the Government’s intention to ratify. It also recognised that ratification is expected to create opportunities and benefits for the UK and its international partners, while the costs and burdens are expected to be limited.

The committee also rightly recognised, as have many of the contributors to this debate today, that ratification is not in itself a complete solution to the manipulation of sports competitions. The Government agree with this. We know that tackling this threat requires continued work domestically and internationally, including action against unregulated betting markets and continued co-operation between Governments, regulators, law enforcement and sports bodies. I thank noble Lords for the emphasis they have placed on the responsibility of sports bodies.

The committee also made a number of observations about the Government’s Explanatory Memorandum and future treaty scrutiny processes. We will consider these carefully and respond to the committee formally.

I would like just quickly, if I have a little time, to respond to some of the other points that have been raised. I apologise if we are unable to respond adequately to the points raised on the CRaG process, and I will return to that and to other points so wisely raised by the noble Lord, Lord Johnson, and my noble friend Lord Stevenson and other noble Lords.

The noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, raised the important issue of modern slavery and sport trafficking, giving the example of 15,000 young players from west Africa. I feel that this is an extraordinarily important area. It is not absolutely relevant to the convention of the Council of Europe, but it is an area I would like to raise with colleagues in the Home Office. I would be happy to pursue that, as it is a point of urgency and priority.

I am also, I am afraid, going to suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame, that I report back on the possible tensions between the FCDO and the DCMS and see if we can get some clarity on those points.

I would like to quote, if I may, from the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, that trust is the entire currency of sport and that this has to remain the gold standard to which we all aspire. I think his point about the importance of sporting governing bodies taking a lead in this area is vital. It is very important for all of us that we are all partners; we have listed all the partners who have to be involved, but the leadership must come from the sports’ governing bodies.

Indeed, noble Lords, in particular the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, have correctly drawn attention to the importance of international governing bodies and the nations that are seeking or managing to win international events. They are in a very powerful position to be a force for good. Those awarding the glory and honour of an international major sporting event have a lot of power to raise standards by making this a vital part of the process for selection.

I apologise if there are other points that I should have raised but have not. I end by offering the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, good news: ratification will happen straight away after this process, which is a nice clear answer to his question.

The Government consider that the UK already has strong domestic arrangements for tackling sports manipulation. Ratification will formalise those arrangements internationally, strengthen our participation in the convention’s governance and help us to co-operate more effectively with international partners. It will also allow the UK to continue contributing its expertise to the international effort to protect the integrity of sport and respond to a threat that is increasingly global in nature. The Government welcome the committee’s scrutiny and its support for ratifying the Macolin convention. We look forward to continuing to work with our international partners and stakeholders across sport, gambling and law enforcement to protect the integrity of sport.

Creative Education Access Bill [HL]

Baroness Mackenzie of Sherwood Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 11th September 2026 Lords Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Mackenzie of Sherwood) (Lab) (Maiden Speech)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone, for bringing forward this Bill, which raises vital issues on widening access to creative education, and I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. We have heard a really stimulating and rich discussion this morning, for which I am so grateful.

I am honoured that my first speech in your Lordships’ House should be on such an important topic, which has been a lifelong passion for me. I start by thanking my supporting noble friends Lady Nye and Lady Hunter of Auchenreoch—apologies in advance to my noble friend. I must also thank Garter King of Arms, Black Rod and his team, our excellent doorkeepers, catering staff, the Whips’ Office of the Government, my noble friends on the Front Bench and noble Lords across your Lordships’ House for their generous and kind welcome.

I understand it is customary to introduce myself briefly. My parents, Kenneth Mackenzie and Myrna Blumberg, were South African journalists, writers and activists fighting for the abolition of apartheid. After the massacre at Sharpeville, when a state of emergency was announced, my mother, along with many other activists, was imprisoned without charge or trial. As a journalist, she was luckier than many others, and her newspaper helped secure her release. As a result, we fled to London, where I was brought up. In London, as a child, I spent what felt like every Sunday with my parents protesting in Trafalgar Square outside the South African embassy: I realise that this embedded in me the values of equality and the tenacity needed to make change happen.

My London childhood also gave me access to the outstanding free music education of the Inner London Education Authority, so that I could learn several musical instruments, play and sing in the ILEA choir and orchestra, as well as developing practical creative skills across the arts. As a result, my first job was in a professional touring theatre company, working with young people in youth clubs, community centres, sometimes parks, offering practical theatre and music workshops to young people, intensive residencies, and performances. Our principle was that young people decided what skills they wanted to learn, the subjects they wanted to tackle, and our job was to serve them and provide the training and support they needed. We were led by the young people, the specific priorities they had in their local communities, and their ambitions.

This place-based, community-led approach guided me throughout my career, running theatres, cultural organisations and festivals in Bradford, Nottingham, Glasgow, Chichester, Manchester, London, Amsterdam, Paris and, most recently, Adelaide, South Australia. Please do not panic, your Lordships—I will mention only two places in my career which were particularly crucial for my creative education. Nottingham Playhouse was the first large theatre I led, supported by outstanding leadership from the City of Nottingham and Nottinghamshire Education Authority, who encouraged us to become a teaching theatre, like a teaching hospital, where we not only had a dedicated theatre company working in every school, offering creative skills workshops and performances, but where we also set up two full-time, two-year courses for age 16-plus and 18-plus young people to develop their theatre skills and creative talents.

The communities of Nottingham and Nottinghamshire pushed us to work with them on an ambitious programme of world-class international theatre and dance, encouraging international stars from around the world, established and emerging UK artists and, above all, local talent. I lived in Sherwood at the time, and I celebrate my time in Nottingham through the name I have taken in your Lordships’ House.

My recent work in South Australia gave me the chance to work extensively with brilliant Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander artists and communities, including the Nharrangha artistic leader Jacob Boehme, his creative team and, above all, his elders, on a large-scale creation. This was based on the stories in their 65,000-year continuous cultural history and on the country in which they lived and worked. It opened at the Adelaide International Festival, and it is still touring internationally. My understanding of how place shapes culture and creative education, how innovation springs from deep roots in your community and the land on which you live, has been transformed by these artists and these elders, who, exceptionally and generously, made me an honorary elder. I feel confident I am the only person in this noble House who can say that.

The Bill of the noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone, includes a vision of creative partnerships to support young people to develop their creative skills, with the support of their local arts and cultural organisations—from libraries to museums, from music venues to youth centres.

Our Prime Minister is challenging us to achieve growth in every postcode. Our ambition is to activate in every postcode the creative partners to support young people, to find their talent, to develop their skills and to contribute to the growth of our creative industries.

The UK’s creative industries, as many of my noble colleagues have mentioned already, are in the top eight priorities of the UK industrial strategy. We have heard many figures for what they contribute; mine is £145.8 billion in GVA to the UK economy in 2024. However, as we have heard, opportunities are currently unequally distributed across postcodes and across socioeconomic groups. In 2024, 55% of the creative workforce was from an advantaged background, compared to 45% for the economy as a whole. Post-16, economically disadvantaged students are less likely to choose creative paths, as we have heard, and the underrepresentation of students from lower socioeconomic and culturally diverse backgrounds continues at higher education level.

Starting with the power of place, the strength of communities in each postcode, the advantages of growing up in the place you know with the support to experiment, innovate and risk—which, as we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, is one of the key elements in the process of creation—is, for me, a vision that can allow our next generation of creative workers and creative start-ups to flourish in every postcode.

The Government are committed to effective place-based delivery of creative opportunities for all young people, building growth in every postcode, supported by partners at regional and national level. Some important starting points at national level, many of which have been referred to today, include revitalising arts education through our new curriculum; scrapping the EBacc performance measures; removing unnecessary constraints on subject choice for young people; launching a new national centre for arts and music education; publishing the new enrichment framework for schools and colleges; and investing £132.5 million of dormant asset funding through the Every Child Can programme to increase young people’s access to enrichment opportunities.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone, for allowing me to play a small part in the presentation of her Bill. While I must express reservations about the Bill on behalf of the Government, I hope I have outlined that we share the values and the intention behind it, and that we are working to ensure that the Government deliver better creative education for all our young people. I join the noble Baroness in her commitment to empowering our young people to lead the future of creative growth in every postcode.

I hope that I have covered in my speech many of the points noble Lords have raised. I have just a few other points to refer to, and if I leave anyone out then I hope noble Lords will excuse me. I will be very happy later on to pick up anything I omit.

The noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, raised an important point about neurodivergent students and the need for research. That is something I would like to reflect on and take up with colleagues in government.

I wish to make a quick point about the wonderful contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Cashman. When he kindly referred to Nottingham Playhouse and his time working with me and with Phelim McDermott, he omitted to say that he was performing Mephistopheles in “Doctor Faustus”. Of course he cannot say, but I can, that he was absolutely outstanding. To pick up on the serious point the noble Lord made about failure, I refer him to the famous line of Samuel Beckett: “Fail again, fail better”.

I make the point to the noble Baroness, Lady Bousted, that I will commit to reading the Teaching Commission’s report, Curriculum and Assessment for All? I was very interested in those points and would like to follow them up—once I know what I am talking about. I say to the noble Lords, Lord Taylor of Warwick and Lord Doyle, that the national centre for arts and education will be launched later this year, and we will all know more at that point.

I would also like to refer to the point that the noble Baroness, Lady Bonham-Carter, made in paying tribute to my noble friend Lady Hodge for the excellent and outstanding work she has done on the Hodge report for the Arts Council. As many of your Lordships know, we have accepted and welcomed the Hodge report and its recommendations. We, alongside colleagues in the Department for Education, where I will be having a meeting next week, and with the Arts Council, are now working through the many excellent ideas that she has proposed.

I finish by picking up a couple of general points, in particular a point the noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone, raised, but which several other noble colleagues also referred to: AI and how it poses both dangers and opportunities. It is, of course, a topic whose dangers and opportunities this House is debating under many headings; but I stress that, for all of us who believe in the power of art and our artists and creators, as in many areas, many of them are doing exceptional work themselves. They are using and adapting AI, finding ways to make it a force for good. Without being over-optimistic about the 90% chance that we are not eliminated by AI, I suggest that we put our faith—as we should always—in the creativity of our creative industries and artistic sectors, and hope that they will help us to continue to have life-changing moments in a positive sense, as so many of your Lordships have referred to in relation to this topic.