Arts

Lord Wood of Anfield Excerpts

Thursday 1st February 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wood of Anfield (Lab)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as a member of the board of the Royal Court Theatre. When I was first appointed to your Lordships’ House, the first reaction of one of my oldest friends was: “Oh wow, that’s amazing. Does that mean you get to meet Melvyn Bragg?”. I cannot think of anyone else whose cultural appetite spans so widely, yet whose passion is always tethered to the values of incessant curiosity and intellectual rigour.

Another thing I associate with my noble friend Lord Bragg is the belief that art and culture should be available to everyone, whatever their background—a statement that sounds trite, perhaps, until you unpack what it says about a country and a culture when it stops being true. It is rare that someone steps out and says, “Art should only be for the privileged few”. But the problem is that that is precisely what happens in a country that lets the open, democratic contract at the heart of arts and culture slip away—a country, sadly, a bit like ours.

This is what happens when you see the arts not as a staple of what makes for a good life but as a luxury that can no longer be afforded—the “cherry on the cake” misnomer, as my noble friend Lord Bragg said. It leads to nearly £1 billion cut from local government spending on the arts in the last 15 years—a 30% real-terms cut in public funding for the arts since 2010. It is accompanied by a view that the arts are the plaything of the metropolitan elites. It tethers political grievance directly to our cultural institutions—to our media, whose integrity gets constantly questioned; and to our arts institutions, which are portrayed as enjoyed only by the champagne swillers. It leads to a Culture Minister who did not even know that Channel 4, one of her party’s boldest innovations, was not taxpayer funded.

In education, it continues with the prejudice that science is an investment but arts are a hobby—that arts and culture are a private good, not a public one. Arts courses at universities are repeatedly challenged for their economic value, their academic merit and even their political acceptability. Unsurprisingly, these courses then get whittled away. Cash-strapped and curriculum-overloaded schools become less able to offer supplementary arts and music options, or even core arts and music options, for their students. Over time, as many noble colleagues have said, the values of empathy, curiosity, sensitivity and openness become associated with elitism, privilege, weakness and even being a “snowflake”.

What is the consequence of this financial and cultural chipping away at the arts? It means that children’s access to arts is radically reduced, arts institution cuts that were temporary in bad times become the new normal, and thousands of freelance workers who depend on the arts, and who are not often mentioned, find their careers totally unsustainable.

It is no surprise, then, that in Britain today, people who grow up in professional families are four times more likely than those with working-class parents to be working in the creative industries. One of our leading actresses, Dame Helen Mirren, warns that acting is becoming the preserve of the rich. Thus, the prejudices of many of those who neglect and starve the arts are perversely vindicated.

The price we all pay for this is not just young people with less exposure to the arts, and who are less enriched by them; it is not just growing inequality in access to what should be a daily staple for everyone in our country. It is also that the quality of our democracy is undermined, because our arts are at the heart of freedom of expression, solidarity, debate and disagreement accompanied by civility.

Arts make us all better citizens, which is why we all need access, continued exposure and participation in the arts. More than anything else, this is why, whatever happens politically in the decade ahead, we must all, whatever our party and our preferences, call time on the neglect, austerity, politicisation and prejudice towards our arts that I fear has become part of daily life in the past decade.

Music and Performing Arts Students: Visas and Work Permits

Lord Wood of Anfield Excerpts

Thursday 11th March 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

We are talking to the sector about an export office, as the noble Baroness mentioned, but the real focus of the working group to which I referred is getting as much evidence as possible of the impact on the sector, some of which the noble Baroness referred to, providing clarity about the steps needed to tour more seamlessly and exploring with the sector the options to support our wonderful practitioners.

[Lord Wood of Anfield (Lab)]

My Lords, the Minister talked about the Government’s offer during the Brexit negotiations to incorporate the music industry into short-term business agreements, but this had precious little chance of success given the WTO most favoured nation rules. UK musicians now face not just inconvenience but an impossible and overwhelming array of obstacles. Have the Government ruled out what the vast majority of people in the music industry consider the only sustainable solution—a visa waiver agreement covering our world-leading musical and creative sector?

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

As I am sure the noble Lord is aware, the issue is more complex than simply visas; work permits also play an important part. As I mentioned, our original offer worked for our creative professionals and we will continue to try to streamline their ability to tour.

EU: British Musicians

Lord Wood of Anfield Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd June 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Barran]

The Government are looking across all these issues to come up with the fairest and most practical system which facilitates the growth of our creative industries and performing arts around the world, including within the EU.

[Lord Wood of Anfield (Lab)]

My Lords, on touring, there is actually a simple solution. The Government could consider amendments to the Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill to allow a touring passport for EU musicians—including a carnet, as referred to earlier. Can the Government commit to looking at this legislative option for giving UK musicians the continued livelihood that they need?

[Baroness Barran]

I think I have been clear already about where the Government’s focus is in these negotiations: on building our presence, in Europe and on the global stage, for our critical cultural sectors.

Covid-19: Museums, Galleries and Historic Buildings

Lord Wood of Anfield Excerpts

Thursday 21st May 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wood of Anfield (Lab)]

My Lords, this is what the German Government are doing to support museums and galleries. On 30 April, €10 million was provided for adaptation measures to enable reopening, with special time slots for vulnerable visitors, spatial redesign, extended opening hours, masks and increased cleaning. From 4 May, museums and galleries have been gradually reopening, and the German Government are now negotiating a cultural infrastructure fund of up to €500 million.

In the UK, recovery must follow this German commitment to significant emergency support, but because the UK’s national museums and galleries remain committed to free admission, their reserves will quickly be exhausted. The special exhibition-based business model adopted by so many of them is now not viable. If we want not just to protect some of our great national cultural institutions, but to protect them from returning to the necessity of routinely charging visitors, they will need hundreds of millions of pounds—not to avert a downturn but to avert a catastrophic cultural cull.

UK Telecommunications

Lord Wood of Anfield Excerpts

Tuesday 28th January 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Morgan of Cotes]

I thank my noble friend. I have already talked about the Huawei cyber security oversight board and its governance. In the discussions I have had with officials, no question has been raised about the adequacy of the governance. As a noble Lord set out earlier, the board needs to work through the conclusions with Huawei to make sure it is satisfying some of the points which have been raised. I will certainly take away the issue she has raised and check whether, in the course of carrying out these changes, there is anything further we should do on the governance structure.

[Lord Wood of Anfield (Lab)]

My Lords, is this approach of separating access to core and non-core parts of the network now a general policy with regard to companies from other countries, wherever they are from? If so, would we apply the same principle if it were, say, a company from North Korea, Iran, Russia or any other country which applied to participate in the future?

[Baroness Morgan of Cotes]

As I said earlier, if the noble Lord looks at the documents, he will see that the process sets out clearly how a high-risk vendor is defined, which was one of the points raised by his Front Bench. The requirements that a company does not meet—there is a list of them—determine how it will be considered a high-risk vendor. Once it is considered a high-risk vendor, and if a provider wanted to include it in the networks, that would trigger involvement by the NCSC in working out how its involvement could be mitigated. So, there are a number of steps that I would expect, based on today’s announcement and where we are with the providers and rollout of 5G. I have made it clear that we want to reach a stage where there is no need for any high-risk vendors in our system. However, we are some way off that, which is why the NSC has taken the decision it has taken today.