National Arts Bank

Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe Excerpts

Thursday 4th June 2026 Grand Committee

[Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord John for securing this debate. It is a welcome opportunity to highlight the difficulties faced by our theatres, galleries and arts venues, and there has been unified support for it across the Grand Committee.

I found it fascinating to hear of his experience at Southwark Council and of how, under his leadership, the council took steps to address some of these difficulties. The examples he shared of a local authority being able to bridge the gap between fundraising targets and money raised, future-proofing those organisations and benefiting their local communities, are instructive and inspiring. I welcome the foresight of his specific proposal, and support him in urging the Government to think about how financial agreements such as the ones he outlined could be applied more widely. In the current bleak economic climate, we must do all we can to consider new funding models for our cultural and arts organisations, so my noble friend’s suggestion is worthy of serious consideration by all those who want to see a flourishing arts sector.

I have spoken to Joshua McTaggart, CEO of Theatres Trust, which is the DCMS public body tasked with ensuring that all theatres across the country, no matter their size or location, are equipped to serve communities and artists long into the future. Theatres Trust agrees that access to loan finance from public and private sources is a key opportunity to support theatres to secure their future operations.

To add to my noble friend’s example of the Old Vic, I will mention—closer to my own home turf—the former Bradford Odeon, which now operates as Bradford Live. It received a £12 million loan from Bradford Council, which ensured that the £50 million renovation could begin. Having seen it in its previous state, I was delighted to hear that.

Another cultural centre in the north, Morecambe Winter Gardens, secured a £107,000 loan from Lancaster City Council, which enabled the venue to unlock over £2.5 million of grant funding. Last year, the Kenton Theatre in Henley-on-Thames took a £100,000 loan from the town council that enabled it to navigate operational challenges and report a budget surplus this year.

There are also significant examples of successful cultural spaces benefiting from loans via Nesta, as has been mentioned. The arts venue EartH, in Hackney, secured a £2.1 million loan in 2017 and is now a prominent cultural space in London. Birmingham Rep secured a £500,000 bridge loan, which allowed it to unlock further local enterprise partnership funding, and £400,000 for the Mercury Theatre in Colchester enabled the theatre to manage working capital while it carried out major renovation works. It can be done; let us see it more widely done.

As Theatres Trust sees it, the challenge is twofold: there need to be more sources of these loan finances, but also the arts and culture sector needs access to sound financial advice on how to maximise these opportunities and not see a loan as a negative decision or fundamentally bad business.

In these economically challenging times, the question of who pays for the arts—and, just as importantly, how—is more urgent than ever. Indeed, the question resonates through the recent independent review of Arts Council England led by my noble friend Lady Hodge. In her review she reminds us that, between 2009-10 and 2022-23, public spending on culture by ACE and local authorities fell in real terms by 18% and 48% respectively, with some local authorities completely cutting their spending on culture. She notes the “stark capital crisis” facing the cultural sector, with more than three-quarters of arts centres unable to complete planned building work and 60% not having undertaken any significant refurbishment in over a decade.

We know this. It is why the £270 million arts everywhere fund announced last year included the creative foundations fund, aimed at urgent capital works to keep venues up and running. It was a welcome boost for struggling arts venues, museums, libraries and the heritage sector, with Kate Varah, executive director of the National Theatre, saying that this much-needed capital investment

“will begin the task of enabling arts venues in towns and cities across our country to upgrade their facilities, providing more jobs and training … and offering more opportunities for young people and communities”,

as my noble friend Lady Gill so powerfully set out.

We know that investing in the arts is an investment in our communities, our creativity and our future. The arts are a huge driver of economic growth and employment—the creative industries are worth £124 billion to our economy—and help skills development in young people, training the future labour market to be creative and to challenge old ways of thinking.

But while the Hodge review notes the

“existential threat to the health and vibrancy of the arts and culture sectors”

caused by a decade of cuts in public funding, it also acknowledges that fiscal constraints limit the Government’s ability to increase grant-in-aid funding for culture and the arts. No matter that the

“modest resource needed to secure the long-term sustainability of the sector would have a disproportionately positive impact on the cultural sector, economic growth and the life of the nation”.

Instead, in the current climate we must put our efforts into finding other, innovative ways to invest in our arts, as my noble friend Lord John is initiating here.

To that end, like others I commend the Hodge review’s recommendations—all accepted by the Government, I am delighted to see—not least that we support a strong Arts Council England, free from political interference. I hope the Minister can assure us that the Government will explore the various funding ideas put forward in the review as a matter of urgency, including committing to longer funding rounds, cultural tax reliefs and incentivising philanthropy. At the same time, can the Minister provide any further detail of the £425 million creative foundations fund supporting some 300 capital projects in arts venues across the country?

Finally, like others I was interested to learn from our Library briefing of the French initiative between public authorities and the main banks to offer individually tailored financial solutions to creative and cultural industries in the form of a bank guarantee and loans. It has helped more than 2,000 cultural companies and has been going since 1983, so it is high time we caught up.

Craft Industry: Support

Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe Excerpts

Thursday 12th June 2025 Grand Committee

[Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe (Lab)]

My Lords, I am delighted to follow the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg. I do not have his credentials as a maker, but I am vice-chair of the APPG for Craft, and I support all the points he made so admirably and succinctly, particularly his emphasis on the economic impact of the craft sector.

People have been making glass since the Bronze Age. The technique of glassblowing was developed by Syrian craftspeople in the first century BC. Across the Roman Empire, vessels and objects were produced in their thousands for drinking, shipping food, storing oils, mirrors, windows and much more. In other words, these handmade vessels were not only beautiful, but immensely useful. The remarkable Charles Ede gallery recently displayed 60 Roman glass pieces, some of them filled with lovely naturalistic floral displays showing that, although now eminently collectable, they are still useful. They are functional works of art transcending time.

That ancient tradition survives today but, like so many other handmade crafts, it is under threat. In his excellent, comprehensive speech, the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, highlighted many of these threats: the higher costs of materials and energy; cuts to creative education in schools and universities, reducing pathways into the sector; limited apprenticeships compared to other skilled trades; and an ageing workforce where older crafts women and men retire without successors. These are among the key reasons for the decline, and I share all the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg.

There are some inspiring rescue stories. The Financial Times has a great track record of showcasing the sheer range and quality of UK crafts. It highlighted recently how two young artisans are reinvigorating the art of rush-seated chair making, which has been practised in Britain since Anglo-Saxon times. They were able to do this through the commitment and backing of one person—entrepreneur and estate owner, Hugo Burge. Just eight years ago, that ancient craft was under existential threat with the retirement of the last full-time artisan in the country. Fascinated by the craft and well-advised by the Heritage Crafts Association, Burge funded two apprenticeships. The Hugo Burge Foundation continues to fund apprenticeships to secure the future of this endangered craft.

This is far too precarious a way forward for the future of our amazing craft industries. There are a number of barriers faced by skilled makers in relation to apprenticeships, such as the impact on makers’ time, and therefore income, of helping to transfer skills. A more imaginative, flexible and focused approach is needed to ensure that craft skills can continue to flourish, and I hope my noble friend will in her reply offer some hope that this is indeed how she sees the way forward.

The very effective secretary of the APPG for crafts has, as the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, said, done sterling work in showcasing many of these crafts and, in particular, demonstrating the economic contribution that they make, yet they remain largely invisible in policy terms. I would not necessarily have expected a specific reference to craft in yesterday’s spending review announcement, but I hope that the Minister will be able today to give us some real confidence that it will figure strongly in subsequent departmental allocations, as well as in the soon-to-be-announced creative industry strategy.

I know my noble friend is passionate about this agenda. She made that clear in her recent meeting with the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, and me, and I hope she will reiterate today her determination to raise the profile of the craft sector and ensure that it fulfils its potential. I hope she will undertake to ensure that the new Skills England body specifically recognises crafts as an integral and invaluable part of the creative economy, our national fabric and our shared heritage.

BBC and Public Service Broadcasting

Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe Excerpts

Thursday 5th March 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe (Lab)]

My Lords, I make my remarks as a great fan of the BBC, although, as an avid Radio 4 listener rather than TV watcher, I realise I am not a typical viewer. This does not stop me feeling strongly about the benefits of the BBC.

As others have highlighted, Britain is a world leader in creativity. Our creative industries are worth over £100 billion a year and employ more than 2 million people. I believe that the BBC’s Chairman Sir David Clementi is right to describe it—the biggest single investor in the UK’s creative industries—as

“an engine of ideas, risk-taking and ambition that powers the whole of our creative industries.”

I am sure that the 14 million people who watched “Blue Planet II” in 2017, the 11.7 million who watched the England women’s football team play against the USA in the World Cup last year, or indeed the 11.6 million who watched the broadcast of “Gavin & Stacey” on Christmas Day, will agree with me that the BBC is continuing to inform, educate and entertain to a high level. These BBC broadcasts are so-called “event television”, providing moments that bring the nation together.

From documentaries to dramas, talk shows and news, the BBC raises the game for competing commercial broadcasters, while its commissioning and support for independent producers, writers and directors encourage innovation and experimentation in its programme making. Its research and development deliver significant value to the creative community and the UK economy. As others have said, every £1 spent by the BBC on R&D during the last charter delivered a return of at least £5 to £9 to the UK.

But, as Ofcom and our own committee report highlighted, our viewing and listening habits are changing. While the total time we spend watching TV programmes and films has remained broadly stable, we are increasingly watching them via on-demand and online services. Indeed, some 42% of adults now consider online video services to be their main way of watching TV and film, while 38% of users of subscription video on-demand services such as Netflix and Amazon Prime say they can imagine not watching broadcast TV at all in five years’ time. For children aged 12 to 15, brand awareness of Netflix and YouTube is now higher than that of the BBC. That does not bode well for growing future BBC audiences.

Given the fast-moving competitive environment and its responsibilities to serve all audiences, the BBC needs to be properly funded. I support the view of other noble Lords that the licence fee still represents good value for money. I believe that it is currently the best mechanism we have to ensure the provision of universal and freely available content—the principle underpinning the value of public service broadcasting. Can the Minister tell us whether any further thought will be given to the recommendation that there should be an independent and transparent process for setting the licence fee, along the lines of a BBC funding commission?

The funding question is vital, because I want to see the BBC do more to attract a wider audience—not just to counter the criticism that the levy payment is unfair, but because it is in clear danger of losing its future audiences right across the regions and the generations.

More internal co-operation within the BBC across TV and radio, particularly on news programmes, would help viewers and listeners feel that they are getting value for money. It is surely inefficient to have multiple teams of journalists from similar programmes working on the same stories or flying en masse to cover the same events. Having said that, cutting 450 journalists’ jobs seems questionable given some of the eye-watering salaries paid to top presenters and executives.

The new director-general will have a lot in his or her in-tray. I wish them the best of luck. The BBC cannot afford to stand still or arrogantly ignore criticism, but any reform of its funding model must recognise that the BBC serves a unique purpose. I believe that reform should be pragmatic, not political, and focused on how to safeguard and upgrade a hugely valuable British asset in our fast-moving digital world.

Volunteering

Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe Excerpts

Wednesday 21st February 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe (Lab)]

My Lords, in thanking my noble friend, I recognise her huge commitment to overseas volunteering. It is a commitment I share, and I strongly support her comments today.

In my few words I want to reinforce two points that I made earlier this year in the debate on the contribution that charities make to civil society. First, however, I want to recognise volunteering work in our universities, since we are halfway through national student volunteer week. I declare an interest as a council member of Nottingham Trent University. At NTU, students and staff are actively encouraged to volunteer in both local and global communities. The communities benefit and the students benefit and acquire broader employment skills. Volunteering promotes social mobility. As NCVO reminds us, young people who volunteer are better prepared for the world of work. At NTU, students from low socioeconomic backgrounds are particularly encouraged to volunteer, since the university’s own research shows that students who volunteer considerably outperform non-participants. For NTU staff, the university gives time off for volunteering work—for example, as charity trustees or school governors—which makes a significant contribution to their development and direction, while also helping to develop higher-level skills.

Statutory time off is my wider point. The Charities Select Committee’s recent call for consultation on statutory time off for charity trustees seemed to fall on deaf ears. Putting trusteeships on the same footing as other public duties, such as school governorships or magistracy, would broaden the range of people volunteering and would increase diversity and take-up. It would help smaller charities. Can the Minister tell us whether the civil society strategy’s listening exercise will reconsider this issue? Will the strategy consider how the Government can support employer-backed volunteering? Employers have a role to play in encouraging people to incorporate volunteering into their lives, and further government support would make a huge difference. Let us reduce barriers to volunteering to ensure that more people can contribute to their communities.