(11 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Wheatcroft
To move that this House takes note of the importance of culture and the arts to the economy.
Baroness Wheatcroft
My Lords, it gives me huge pleasure to be here to introduce this debate on the importance of the arts and culture. I am absolutely committed to that cause and I am delighted to see so many of you here at this stage on a Thursday afternoon to discuss this important subject. I am also delighted to see that my noble friend Lord Gardiner of Kimble will be responding and I hope he will not mind if I remind the House of his response to a Question for Short Debate earlier this year. He said:
“The role of art and culture in the wider economy cannot be overstated”.—[Official Report, 29/1/13; col. 1531.]
They are wise words. I completely agree.
At this stage, I should declare my interests in this subject. I am a deputy chairman of the British Museum and a member of the board of the Association of Leading Visitor Attractions, and for quite a while I was a trustee of the Albert Hall. I take this subject very seriously and in this country we have the most amazing and bountiful supply of arts and culture. At every level and for every taste, this country has something to offer.
Last summer, alongside an extraordinary sporting triumph, our country put on a glittering display of drama, music and exhibitions that would have done any nation proud. We had theatre productions in every language you could possibly think of and a few more besides and what is more, they attracted great audiences.
We do culture well. That is why I am really quite surprised that earlier this week the brilliant architect, the noble Lord, Lord Rogers, was quoted as saying that in the UK:
“We haven’t quite got culture as a concept”.
I beg to differ and I am absolutely convinced that this afternoon that you will all show him that we have indeed got culture. We appreciate his architecture, but we appreciate a lot more besides.
I look forward to some fascinating contributions from such a mix of people with backgrounds in various industry and arts organisations. I am sure that they will all come from different angles, because culture is a broad umbrella. The critic Raymond Williams suggested that it was a “structure of feeling”. I would not dare to go into definitions such as that, and it is probably better not to try. All I know is that you can listen to a Beethoven symphony, which you can hear played to perfection in this country, go to a Mozart opera, which will be done as well as anywhere else in the world, go to an extraordinary exhibition, whether of art at Tate Modern, antiquity at the British Museum, or in a modern gallery—each to their own. Your particular brand of culture may even be Coldplay or Blur, or jazz, but you will find it all in this country, and done to perfection. We are incredibly lucky to have that, and we have to nurture it.
We have a very successful film industry, one of the best in the world, which produces serious and art house films. We have broadcasters—I see my noble friend Lord Grade here, who knows far more than I about that sector—and we can export their productions and earn huge amounts of money for this country. My noble friend who is responsible for Downton Abbey cannot be with us this afternoon, but we all know what he has done for drama on TV.
Today, however, we are not here to extol the mere beauty and enjoyment of the arts, but to celebrate what the arts and culture do for our economy. Therefore, I will begin by wholeheartedly endorsing the view of Ed Vaizey, the Minister for the Creative Industries. In March, he said,
“our creative and cultural sector is such a vital element in delivering economic growth, by encouraging economic investment through tourism and business”.
More wise words from our Ministers, and at such an important time, too. Our arts and culture benefit the economy in so many ways. They create jobs, provide training and are innovative, and the innovations they make often transfer into industry and export for the service sector. Of course, the arts also provide an enormous stimulus for tourism. I will give a few statistics. The numbers in tourism are huge. Inbound tourism is the UK’s third-largest earner of foreign exchange, according to DCMS. Tourism contributes £115 billion to UK GDP. It employs 2.6 million people, of whom 27% are under 25. We cannot overestimate the importance of those young people having jobs. When half the youth in Spain are now out of work, how important it is that we keep our young people working.
Why do tourists come to Britain? Anyone who has been outdoors today knows that it is not because of the weather. They come because we can offer a unique experience. We have heritage which nobody can better, and, as I have said, we have arts on a phenomenal scale. According to the Arts Council, culture and the arts support a creative sector that by 2020 will have grown by 31%. The UK has the largest cultural economy in the world as a proportion of its GDP, and that brings in the tourists. The National Brand Index survey, which covers 20 countries, found that 57% of respondents said that history and culture would be a motivating factor in their decision about where they would go. Half of them said that they would be sure to go to a live music concert if they came to Britain, and 38% said they would go to an opera, a ballet or the theatre. Museums and galleries were a huge draw: 48% of international holiday visits within England include visits to the museum, and 25% go to an art gallery. They come to Britain because of the arts and culture we can offer them.
Museums and galleries are the most popular visitor attractions. There are 50 million visits a year to our national museums alone. According to the Association for Leading Visitor Attractions, more than half the UK’s adult population—many of whom are tourists, of course—visited a museum or a gallery during the past year. That is a very cheering statistic. Remarkably, the cultural Mecca that is Exhibition Road receives more visitors in a year than Venice. The wonderful museums that we have there—the Natural History Museum, the Science Museum, the V&A—bring in tourists in numbers that beat Venice.
At Oral Questions yesterday, we heard of the delights of the nation’s regional museums. There was a spirited defence of the museums that the Science Museum is suggesting might be in danger if it sees its grant cut. Our museums and galleries have learnt to be innovative. Look at what the V&A is exhibiting today—David Bowie’s costumes. It is a brilliant exhibition and is bringing in a completely different audience. Look at Tate Britain and its new hang, looking at paintings chronologically; making more sense to a new generation of visitors. We have learned to approach culture in new, innovative ways.
Noble Lords will have noticed the timing of this debate. It is of course important that we are having it 260 years after the start of the British Museum. It is even more important that we are having it just days before the announcement of the next spending round. I am no spendthrift. I do not want to depress you on a Thursday afternoon, when it is miserable outside and we are having such an uplifting talk, by mentioning the deficit—but it hangs there over all of us. It is hanging now over the arts and cultural sector.
I do not envy my noble friend and his colleagues in government in having to try to deal with that. I support their efforts wholeheartedly. There is, however, time for special pleading. Before those spending cuts are finalised, I want to make a plea for our greatest institutions—our greatest drawers of tourism. If there is little cash to be shared around, sometimes the more deserving cases have to be favoured. In the interests of tourism, we have to be brave and favour the centres of excellence.
Of course, many will take exception to this. They can all argue their case, but from the statistics that I have given it is unarguably the case that it is the major attractions in London that first of all draw in the tourists from overseas. They can then encourage those visitors to go elsewhere once they are here, but London is where they come first. Those institutions in London do more than their fair share for the regions and the economy of those regions.
As I mentioned, I am a trustee of the British Museum. The British Museum is an extraordinary asset for any country to have. I would argue that it is unique in the world. It has 6 million visitors a year, with another 13 million visitors through its website. Its role is not just to exhibit, although its primary role is of course the conservation of that extraordinary collection. It is there also to work on soft power. The museum is doing amazing work all over the world. In Basra, it is helping to create a national museum from the remains of one of Saddam’s many palaces. In India, it is working with local curators to teach them, to learn from them and to build bridges. In Abu Dhabi it is working with the locals who are building their own museums. Wherever you go in the world, the British Museum and our other arts institutions are building relationships that are hugely important in the role of the UK in the developing world and the world at large.
Arts and culture are for all. They are for all internationally and for all in our country. Last year, organised school parties took 240,700 children into the British Museum, and many more into other museums and art galleries throughout the country. Unorganised—probably in every sense of the word—parties took many more children into these museums. Family parties constitute a big part of the audience. It is not just a select, elite group who go to these institutions. When the museum staged its Hajj exhibition, 48% of the visitors were Muslims, largely from this country. As I say, our arts and cultural institutions are for all—and, of course, they are for all because they are free.
I am sure that, like me, your Lordships are committed to our great museums being open to members of the public, wherever they come from, free of charge. There will, however, be a struggle for some of these institutions to remain free if they see their grant-in-aid cut, cut and cut again. Already, in real terms, many of them have seen their grant reduced by 25% in the past few years as spending cuts have hit. Some of them would claim that they are close to the breadline.
To wind up, I can probably best cite a recent article in the Spectator which quoted one man’s view on the charging issue. He said:
“Suppose a Chilean tourist arrives at the British Museum to inspect some of his cultural treasures. He gets in for free and he’s got plenty of cash in his pocket so we can fleece him later at the café”.
The British Museum would never fleece anybody; our cultural institutions do not behave in that way. However, of course, they take the opportunity when they can to make money on their own account. In closing, I should tell you that the gentleman who made that observation was the Culture Minister himself, Ed Vaizey.
Lord Puttnam
My Lords, I am sure I speak for all noble Lords in thanking the noble Baroness for the way in which she has introduced this afternoon’s debate. Her enormous economic credibility as well as the perfect timing make being part of it very welcome.
One of the early and important achievements of the previous Labour Government—in fact, of the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Finsbury, who I am happy to see in his place—was to put the creative industries firmly on the map and to put in place effective policies which helped those industries to grow. That is one reason, for example, why the film industry is now able to contribute £4.6 billion to the GDP of this country—something like five times the comparable figure 20 years ago.
As I have argued previously in this House, the creative industries are sustainable and offer added value in a way that is simply not true of, for example, the financial services. The noble Lord, Lord Smith, was also able to put in place free admission for museums and galleries, and I was delighted to hear the noble Lord, Lord Gardiner, remind the House only yesterday that this remains his Government’s policy.
We should also give credit to the party opposite, notably the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, and Sir John Major, for ensuring that a portion of the proceeds of the National Lottery was made available to the arts. Later this year, we will be celebrating the 20th anniversary of the National Lottery and perhaps it is time that we took a fresh look at how the proceeds of the lottery are distributed so as to ensure that the arts, as one of the good causes, really is getting the greatest possible share.
Few would argue that the opening ceremony of last year’s London Olympics was anything other than a wonderful showcase for the energy and creativity of this country. That is why it grieves me to predict that history is likely to condemn us for what I believe to be our failure to build a significant legacy off the back of that extraordinary opportunity. Why does having the drive and determination to capitalise on the economic contribution offered by this nation’s creativity matter so much? It matters because other countries are investing considerable sums of money in their own cultural activity and they realise the impact it has on their reputations and their economic growth. Unless we are determined dramatically to raise our own game, we are likely to be condemning ourselves to the status of one of the global also rans.
Am I exaggerating? How about this for an example of seriousness of intent: about a dozen years ago, the South Korean Government, including their educational system, became concerned that while their industrial base was growing well, the creativity, within which so much intellectual property and value added reside, was not developing at anything like the same rate. They decided to invest around $1 billion over a number of years in developing and enhancing what was termed their creative capacity. This programme has been an unqualified success, to the point at which South Korea is now the powerhouse of the entire Asian entertainment products industry; everything from music, to movies, interactive games and television soap operas.
Far from becoming complacent, this year their Ministry of Culture, Tourism and Sport has been given a budget of $3.5 billion, of which $295 million is specifically earmarked for the promotion on the international stage of what they call Hallyu, or the Korean wave of entertainment products. That is almost $300 million simply for its international promotion. That is a very grown-up and serious competitor for the UK to think about taking on.
Here at home, as your Lordships heard from the noble Baroness, grant-in-aid is obviously in short supply. That is why lottery investment has become all the more important in nurturing and developing arts and culture, and driving the kind of innovation that we will need if we are to prove a match for the ambitions of South Korea, Singapore and other Asian nations.
However, we have another fantastic asset which we can draw upon to maximise our contribution to the arts. I refer, of course, to the BBC, which has been one of the cornerstones of support for every kind of art form—music, dance, drama—over many decades. The BBC’s current charter expires at the end of 2016 and, as with the lottery, I argue that this represents a perfect opportunity to review the way in which the corporation supports the nation’s cultural output, and to explore ways in which that contribution can be made even stronger and more effective, notably by helping to invest in new talent and new skills, both of which we are already desperately in need of. As I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Grade, and others will affirm, unless industry and government find ways of working together to invest in our skill and talent base, we will all too quickly become unfit for purpose in a digital world that is changing with quite ferocious speed.
I also think that we will need to find new ways to help support the arts. As many of your Lordships will be aware, there is enormous growth in the gambling industry, particularly online gambling, perhaps even, to some extent, displacing money spent on our National Lottery. I would like to think that the proceeds of a point of consumption tax on online gambling could, for example, be used to supplement the nation’s investment in arts, sport and culture. Many of the companies that operate in the online gaming space are based offshore, therefore making very little contribution to the overall, long-term prosperity of the country. By finding an effective way to use the proceeds of an enhanced tax on gambling to support arts and sport, we would be harnessing what may well prove to be a worrying rise in gambling activity, and allow it to become something which is of economic, social and cultural value to the nation as a whole.
Obviously, any such proposal would require total cross-party support. However, a gambling Bill has just received its First Reading in another place, and I think we would be making a massive mistake if we were to allow that Bill to gain Royal Assent without at least considering its implications and the possibilities that I have just suggested.
I cannot close without reminding the House that the value of the arts and culture can never simply be reduced to economics. Forty years ago, conversations, and even policies regarding the arts and culture, were focused almost entirely on their social and educational value. By drawing attention to what we now call the creative industries, we managed to make the case that they were also making a significant economic contribution to the nation. The case has been made even more strongly by the noble Baroness.
However, I am concerned that this Government are in danger of allowing the pendulum to swing too far in the direction of measurement by balance sheet. This was exemplified for me by a recent speech by the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport in which arts and culture appeared to be viewed almost exclusively through an economic prism. Important as their monetary contribution is, the value of arts and culture can never be reduced to pounds, shillings and pence. They represent something infinitely more valuable than that. They are one of the cornerstones of any society that wishes to consider itself truly civilised—the one important means by which we are able to improve the quality of life for every single member of society—and in debating their economic value, it is very important that we never allow ourselves to forget that.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville
My Lords, the second debate this afternoon is a happy foil to the one that preceded it, and we owe that agreeable conjuncture to my noble friend Lady Wheatcroft, who was admirably equipped by experience and avocation to launch it successfully. The noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, has forgotten more about these subjects than I shall ever know. It is a privilege to follow him, and a privilege, too, for your Lordships’ House that he is participating in this debate. The only footnote I will add to his speech is that the Greek Government have just been economically obliged to take the Greek broadcasting society off air, which is an index of the scale of that country’s present difficulties.
Arts Council England—I declare an interest because its chief executive was once my admirable Principal Private Secretary—is one of the heroes of this narrative. It deserves great credit for its conduct these past three years: first, for the worthwhile and coherent challenge it set its clients in 2010 to justify its claims on necessarily reduced resources; secondly, for the innovative initiatives that it mounted to assist individuals who, and institutions which, have been confronted by new and testing dilemmas; and, thirdly, for the logic and good sense with which it negotiated the potential impasse in which it is asked to justify itself to public and paymasters alike, without losing its self-respect or the respect of others in the process.
I will make one particular point that I regard as important and that other noble Lords may not make. First, I will illustrate the paean I uttered about the Arts Council with some examples of the initiatives that I outlined. I am drawing on developments since the most recent arts debate in which I participated, in 2010. I am thinking, for example, of the creation of The Space in May 2012, and of the Creative Industry Finance scheme to aid struggling exponents and creative entrepreneurs with development loans of £5,000 to £25,000, repayable over a maximum of three years. I am thinking especially of the Creative employment programme and the £15 million invested in providing 6,500 apprenticeships and internships for 16 to 24 year-olds. I say “especially” because for a quarter of a century I was a trustee of the Wordsworth Trust in Grasmere. Its current chairman, the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Finsbury, will speak later in the debate. The trust used its physical estate and the benefits regime of the Thatcher years—my remark about benefits is a technical one, not a commendation—to allow a series of able graduates in the same kind of age group to prepare for careers in museums while acquiring practical skills in the ordinary, day-to-day functioning of the trust’s activities.
I am thinking of the Arts Council’s partnership with its colleagues in the Creative & Cultural Skills group. I am thinking of the Momentum Music Fund for 50 to 75 bands and artists, with £5,000 to £15,000 loans over two years, similarly managed by a partner music organisation. On a longer and perhaps more traditional timescale, I am thinking of the linkage of creative businesses to cultural organisations close by, so that hubs and clusters may be created. I am delighted by the continuing use of public money to explore the potential of new ideas as a form of creative R&D, and to sustain the seemingly unthinkable.
On the question of self-respect, I like the chief executive’s measured clarion call about the unique ability of arts and culture to fire our imaginations and inspire and entertain us through the contribution that culture makes to our quality of life. Of course, these forces go back much earlier, but it is worth reflecting that it is only just over a quarter of a millennium since Mirabeau coined the concept of—and thus the word—civilisation. What is deeply impressive, in the same breath, is the ability of those involved to afford us a utilitarian justification of the straightforward financial return earned on this programme that can be rendered to the economy without shame or embarrassment. The most recent CEBR report is rich in specific and illuminating detail, and is an anvil for further R&D.
The one question I want to ask the Minister is how the sector is getting on with the opportunity it spelt out for philanthropy back in 2010. There are outstanding instances, like the Royal Opera House, but there are other institutions already surprised by the less satisfactory marks they scored in the Arts Council examination three years ago, and which may not have yet properly remedied their rejection by fundraising themselves, whose success is its own reward in moral as well as financial terms. In another heritage field, the efforts of small parishes to raise the finance to restore their listed churches are a useful signpost towards this goal, which can astonish and invigorate the individual stakeholders who take part in it. Is there an area here, where the Arts Council can enlarge its positive and practical quiver, by helping to teach people how to raise money?
Finally, there is one particular point I wanted to single out. I have not myself lost sight of the phrase, “We’re all in this together”, although I appreciate that some other people have. There are still disciplines in which we can look the world fully in the eye, and the extension of their number lends support to the efforts of those in other similar disciplines. When I was in the private sector, I once had a client who always put his international offices on the continent in cities where there was a good opera house, not just for his own pleasure, but also for that of his employees. Put at its simplest, beyond the ordinary tourism statistics, those foreigners who might have the need to do business with us on other counts, are more likely to do so if our arts, like our fighting forces, are world class. In this regard, I was struck by the disproportionate participation in the recent global lists of world-class cultural institutions in the Times of ones that are very much British.
In the mean time, however, I will close with the dying words of that artist who excelled in portraiture and landscape, and sometimes in both, as in his picture of Mr and Mrs Andrews. Here are the dying words of Gainsborough:
“We are all going to heaven, and van Dyck is of the company”.
Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury
My Lords, I add my thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, for initiating this debate. I also declare an interest as a trustee of the Lowry.
Last week, I chaired an IPT breakfast meeting where the topic was the role of the arts in the 21st century. It was attended by people from across the sector and the political divides, but consensus soon broke out that there is an urgent need to marshal all the arguments that prove the sector’s worth and that too many people have too fragmented a view of what investment in this area provides. As someone from the Arts Council put it,
“we need to have a clear sense of the true value of the arts and cultural industries, and ensure that this value is properly woven into government policy”.
Against the backdrop of the present spending review this could not be more important.
As a country, we have always been blessed with a wealth of creative talents, which have shaped and illuminated our history and national identity. This creativity has also spawned industries that are a significant contributor to our economy. The creative industries come from ideas, innovation and imagination, inspired and fed by the rich tapestry of British culture and the arts. Our creative industries are crucial in contributing to today’s global economy, where capital and labour are mobile and goods and services can be produced almost anywhere. This was evident on a recent trip I made to Guadalajara as the Prime Minister’s trade envoy to Mexico. It has been designated a digital creative city, focusing on attracting companies that produce video games, movies, multimedia and mobile applications, which are all areas in which we excel.
At home, the economic contribution of the arts and cultural sector has grown since 2008, unlike the UK economy as a whole. Our film industry is an example, as the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, mentioned. The UK is the world’s greatest market for music consumers. We produce more than a quarter of the world’s computer games, while nearly half the world’s top 100 computer games companies are based in the UK.
Support for culture and the arts also feeds through into the economy at regional level, so it is of great concern that in certain parts of the country disproportionate cuts are being inflicted by local government. It is also short-sighted; recent LGA and Arts Council research shows that putting money into culture is an investment rather than a simple subsidy, in that it revitalises local economies and regenerates neighbourhoods. The idea behind the Lowry in Salford was to build a major arts complex as a trigger for the regeneration of the area, and it has been a resounding success in encouraging social cohesion and as a catalyst for the regeneration of the local economy. The BBC’s decision to relocate some of its key departments there, and the subsequent development of MediaCity, are clear evidence of this.
If culture and the arts are to benefit our economy, they need to be funded. John Maynard Keynes, who, let us face it, understood a thing or two about economics, was the first chairman of the Arts Council. He said that,
“the support and encouragement of the civilising arts of life”,
were part of a Government’s duty. The Minister knows that the DCMS is small, receives very little and provides a significant return on what government invests, and I hope that he can confirm reports that the Secretary of State is defending the department’s budget “tooth and nail”.
That said, the business models of arts organisations are and should be a mix, not simply because of pressures on the public purse but because the mixed economy works. I pick up here on what the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, said about philanthropy. The Government have established a match-funding scheme with £80 million from public funds to encourage philanthropy, but I think that there has been a problem with success in this area, because the sector does not really have fundraising skills. I suggest a slightly different solution to his, which is that part of that £80 million should be used to teach small and medium-sized organisations how to raise funds.
On the plus side, thanks to new technologies, there are many new opportunities for raising funds, such as crowd funding, which involves encouraging large numbers of people to give small amounts of money over the internet to causes that they support. We did this as an arts crowd funder and, in its first year, it funded over 40 projects through over 1,600 donations. My favourite model has been developed by RADA. Apparently the skills required as an actor in playing a role, performing in front of strangers and something called status adjustment are also needed by businesspeople, who are flocking to sign on to a day of being taught these things at the cost of £625—so the Treasury should take note that luvvies have business acumen.
As well as finance, the creative economy needs people who are skilled in art and other creative subjects. That is another area in which the culture and arts sector is important to the economy. The creative industries suffer from a skills shortage and can play a crucial role in addressing the problem of youth unemployment. That is why I welcome the fact that a national plan for cultural education is finally to be launched this month. I welcome the many initiatives that are helping young people, such as First Story, a charity run by Katie Waldegrave and William Fiennes, who organise and finance creative after-school workshops for students in state schools. Then there is the Young Arts Entrepreneur programme at Curve Theatre in Leicester, which receives Arts Council funding.
When money is tight and the whole of government needs to make savings, we need to make the case for the arts more than ever. Culture and the arts are the bedrock of the creative sector, worth more than £36 billion a year and employing 1.5 million people, as well as making our country an exciting and dynamic place to live and work. The sector is forecast to grow 31% by 2020, but for this to happen it needs the right support.
In conclusion, like the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, I want to say that the importance of culture and the arts is not just about their contribution to the economy. Sarah Crompton, a judge for the Art Fund Museum of the Year Award, wrote recently that her trip around the nation,
“has been a revelation … my head has spun with impressive visitor figures, education plans and collection strategies. Before I started on this adventure, I had thought—in vague, general terms—that museums and galleries were A Good Thing … What I had not really reckoned with was the kind of pride they engender”.
The Earl of Clancarty
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, for the opportunity to participate in this debate. If the Government wish to concentrate at least part of their efforts on maximising the arts’ economic benefits, policy making needs to stem from an understanding of—I say this to Maria Miller—the special nature of the arts. This is not to say that the arts are better than any other area, it is to say that they have a particular character.
Cultural value is different, distinct, from the normal values of business, even if the arts themselves may be economically heterogeneous, often expressed as a spectrum, with the non-commercial at one end through to the highly commercial at the other. This heterogeneity is not a statement of an ideal, it is a statement of fact. The arts that we may think of as commercial are often not wholly commercial at all, most obviously in current West End hits like the RSC’s “Matilda”. Most theatre and most commercial film in Britain uses actors and directors who have worked in subsidised theatre around the country. As has been said many times, if subsidised theatre did not exist, we would have not only an impoverished theatre scene but a lesser pool of talent. Barbara Broccoli joked last year that “Skyfall” was the national theatre of Bond.
However, the subsidised arts are much more than a seedbed for the commercial sector. The argument from those who would wish to have all the arts funded through private money and philanthropy is that the arts can stand on their own two feet; that they can become resilient. But the crucial assumption made here is that it will be the same arts doing this. This is the part that is not true. What is apparent to arts centres since the cuts is that spaces or services are lost or become taken over by more commercial productions. It is the disappearance of the innovative at grass-roots level that will have a long-term and significant effect on our arts economy. It is not the same arts regrouping.
Reducing public investment means that we will lose that cultural value. To treat the arts mainly as a commodity or a branch of manufacturing—which I fear that this Government may intend to do—is not to get the best out of the arts in terms of their intrinsic or economic value.
The uncertainty about the future departmental representation of the arts does not help. Can the Minister throw some light on this? Rumours would not be flying around if we had a strong department with strong leadership, which I add is no fault of anyone’s but the Government. If some or all of the arts got swallowed up by BIS, it would be a disaster for the arts in Britain. It is because of that special character of the arts that they need their own strong voice in government.
In terms of the Government’s attitude towards innovation or R&D, as it is increasingly called, the trend is often towards projects which can be bolted on to existing established structures. Where they are appropriate, this works really well—among many, one can cite NT Live, with hundreds of venues across the world, as a successful project. But project money is no substitute for the day-to-day running of the majority of arts organisations. The furore that occurred with Creative Scotland last year, when 49 arts organisations had their funding entirely removed and replaced with lottery money for what were perceived as prescribed projects, and the concerted rebellion by artists which forced out Creative Scotland’s then chief executive should act as a strong warning that it is the right kind of funding—core funding—which arts organisations most desperately need.
The Government have asked the arts to justify themselves in economic terms. As Will Hutton pointed out in the Observer newspaper recently, the Treasury will be awash with reports produced over the decades in response to this repeated demand and they all say the same thing, which is that, because of the sizeable multiplier effect, the more that the Government subsidise the arts, the greater still will be the economic returns to the country.
The other important point to make here is that this works as a macro effect. The danger of treating every original artistic endeavour as a discrete business, which the Arts Council is already having to do much more than it used to, is that the arts will become micromanaged in a way that will stultify their operation and stultify innovation. There should be no more reports justifying the arts economically. The case is proved many times over. It is an unnecessary waste of money.
So the leading question has to be: why are the Government not increasing subsidies to the arts instead of continuing to cut? I will say that again: why are the Government not increasing subsidies to the arts? In my view, there is no good reason why they are not. The Government say that in these times every department needs to take its own share of the pain. That is a false morality which cloaks what is in effect a divide-and-rule strategy. The reality is that no part of society works economically in isolation from any other. The actor-director Sam West points out that the arts pay for hospital beds.
The second objection that the Minister might raise is that there is no money available to invest. That is nonsense, considering how minute in departmental terms the arts budget actually is. If the public properly understood that greater public investment in the arts would help to create significant economic growth which would improve their standard of living, they would vote for it like a shot.
Germany, for one, is doing that. For the eighth year in a row, it has increased its central funding of the arts—last November, by 8%—and it is starting from a base investment which is already much higher than ours. Germany’s Culture Minister, Bernd Neumann, says that public funding is not a grant but,
“an essential investment in the future of our society”;
in other words, an awareness of both the intrinsic value of the arts and their huge economic benefits, which, bearing in mind that Germany has a population about a third larger than ours, amounted in 2011 to €63 billion compared with our current £28 billion—about twice as much. The main lesson to learn from Germany here is that, if we are at all comparable to it in terms of potential for growth in the arts, Britain has not reached any kind of ceiling.
We have been asked in this debate to talk about economic potential, but that is not what is currently most at stake. For many artists, it is their survival, and the future on 26 June looks grim. Whatever is lost will be a loss to the cultural value which drives the arts, including its commercial wing. Nor should we forget that on top of that are the cuts to local government and the more than chilling prediction given by the LGA last year that by 2020, 90% of our local cultural services will be lost if cuts continue in the same vein. This at a time when many local councils are becoming more switched on to the importance of their arts and cultural industries, according to the recent report published by the LGA.
Many—Danny Boyle is certainly one—believe that the arts and the creative industries, backed up by an effective art and design education, are vital for the future of this country. We sorely need a Government who will rise to this challenge.
Lord Grade of Yarmouth
My Lords, first, I join in the congratulations to my noble friend Lady Wheatcroft on introducing this debate. I hope that the House will take my various interests across the film industry, museums and theatre and my previous interest in the National Lottery as read.
Some years ago during a previous recession—I forget which one it was, but you get to my age and they seem to come round so often—I was with a senior Treasury official. The papers were full of the cuts to the arts and I said to him, “When you look at this desperately bad publicity for the Government that you’re serving and the fact that such a small amount of money”—the money allocated to the arts—“can produce so huge an outcry, what’s the problem?”. He said, “You have to understand, Michael, that we love the outcry because it tells the markets that we’re serious about cuts. Of course the amount of money is pretty small but the markets take seriously that we’re serious about austerity”. Having said that, I look for reassurance from the Minister that that is no longer the case at HM Treasury.
I was very pleased to hear my noble friend Lady Wheatcroft use the word “celebration” in her introductory remarks. The arts in this country are in an extraordinarily healthy state. However, the situation is also somewhat topsy-turvy. The private and public sectors seem to have got confused in my mind. At the Grange, that crumbling ruin of a house in Hampshire, I saw a private sector production of Poulenc’s masterpiece of an opera, “The Carmelites”, which was a quite stunning performance. You would expect to see that in the subsided theatre. If you want the hottest tickets in London for the commercial theatre, you can see “One Man, Two Guvnors”, “War Horse” or “The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-Time”, all of which emanated from the National Theatre. They are the three hottest, biggest money-making shows on the London West End stage. So there is cause for celebration.
The arts sector is a peculiar one, because it is where culture clashes, overlaps and competes with commerce, as well as embracing it. Defining that line is always terribly difficult. As always, it is about getting the balance right. It was a little bit depressing, I agree, to hear the Minister talk about value for money and the balance sheet of the arts. The arts are more important than that. Through public intervention in the arts we get greater risk taking. I do not think “War Horse” or “The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-Time” would ever have been produced in the commercial theatre. The gestation time was enormous, and the investment and the risk so great, although the reward was fantastic.
To my eternal shame and regret I sat on Alan Milburn’s social mobility committee for many months talking about what we could do to encourage social mobility without having understood or having the wit to push the arts. The arts is the one area where so many of the greatest stars—whether fine artists, conductors, performers, writers, directors, you name it—came from such humble origins and found a way to success through the arts, not necessarily through education. The arts have been proven to be a fantastic driver of social mobility.
Many studies have shown that the arts have a civilising effect. Young, troubled kids who get into music or somehow find a teacher who can show them that they have talent in the arts are able to express themselves and gain a feeling of self-respect and self-esteem through the arts. You cannot measure that on a balance sheet, but we know that it is part of what the arts deliver.
I do not believe that the arts can be immune from the economic downturn and the economic difficulties that we face. As we hear in this House pretty well every day, there are so many worthwhile competing claims on the limited amount of money available. I hope that this debate will serve to underline this for the Government, but all we can do is ensure that when things do get better the Government understand the priority and the benefits of the arts. These apply not only to the economy but also to what the arts say about this country. Obviously the economic contribution is terribly important.
The noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, who is also a friend, made two points which I take very seriously. First, I think it is time for a review of lottery distribution. We have not had one for some time, as it was interrupted by the Olympic contribution. The lottery is one of the great success stories of this country, but at all times we must ensure that if there is a review the lottery is not a substitution for government funding. That is the fundamental that John Major set out when he established the lottery. That could be very important.
Secondly, I agree with the noble Lord that we must pay attention to the looming skills shortage, particularly in the film business. The film business is so important: there are nearly 44,000 jobs in the British film sector at the moment. Those jobs will become fewer and fewer if we cannot replenish skills. There are great opportunities and more social mobility, because there are jobs at every level in the film industry. It is open to everybody, with great opportunities. We must emphasise skills and continue to worry about them.
Overall, I feel great about the arts. I think we are going through a temporary dip. Obviously, regarding funding, the arts always want more money and always should have more money, but there is not more money at the moment. I hope the Minister will reassure us that this Government understand the importance of the arts and the many contributions they make to this country, not only in fiscal terms.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws
My Lords, I, too, express my warm congratulations to the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, on securing this debate. Like other speakers, I have had a variety of roles that reflect my own passion for the arts. I have chaired the British Council, I have chaired the London International Festival of Theatre, I have chaired Arts & Business, I was on the board of the Hampstead Theatre, and I am currently a trustee of the Man Booker Prize and the Hay Festival.
I had the great pleasure of getting to know the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, as co-trustee of the British Museum and I now count her as a friend. She will agree with me that to be a trustee of the British Museum is one of the greatest privileges that anyone can have. It is an extraordinary institution that is recognised internationally as one of the great wonders of the world. It is why travellers from around the globe make it a first port of call. It belongs not just to us but to the world, housing products of the world’s cultures. Yet Britain has the honour to be the steward of those collections.
To wander in its halls is to go on a great journey through the history of humanity. Its collections tell us what it means to be human and confirm that the peoples of the world are indeed one. A day in the museum leaves you with one overriding sense: what distinguishes the human from animal life is our creativity—our invention of things, our thinking of things, and then our making of things. There are at the museum displays of that incredible creativity from the earliest of times, back to the ice age, as a recent exhibition showed. That making of things—human creativity and invention—is a national asset that is beyond price. Here we are a nation that is small in size—a quarter the size of France—but which dominates the world in the creative industries. Caroline Norbury, CEO of Creative England, said that our inventors think the unthinkable—from Logie Baird to Tim Berners-Lee. We have some of the world’s most successful brands—from James Bond to Harry Potter. We have the largest commercial theatre operation in the world with ticket revenues of £535 million and 40 million visitors a year. It all depends on artists, makers and performers.
Why are we so good at this? It is because we have had an environment that has allowed for experimentation and, at times, for failure. We have in the past invested in the science and technological research that supports and respects artistic talent. There is a delicate ecosystem—an interplay between science and the arts and the cross hatching of the private and public subsidy—that has allowed talent to flourish in this country. When people are asked to think about the arts—theatre, film, paintings—they too often think of them as an add-on that are affordable only in times of affluence. The folly in such limited thinking does not need rehearsing in this House. What is forgotten is the knock-on effect on other sectors that work with the arts to create innovative products and services. All the design elements in our lives feed off art. Architecture looks to sculpture for form; graphic design looks at visual art and photography for new style; advertising looks to film. Steve Jobs was fond of saying that he did not employ geeks but hired poets, musicians and artists who were interested in technology. From that came Apple. However, even the economic value, which is estimated at £50 billion to the economy a year, is forgotten in our efforts to deal with the current debt. Yet a great deal of growth is to be found in unleashing the fund of creativity in this country.
I used to chair an organisation called Arts & Business, which created bridges between the arts and the world of finance. It was not just about sponsorship. It started its life in that way but it became about bringing the skills of the business world to creative endeavours. It was invariably to the advantage of both because there was reciprocity. People in the City loved being brought together with creatives and it changed how they functioned in their own milieux. Creative businesses are small and fragmented, undercapitalised and in need of constant reinvention. They face substantial problems accessing finance and have real problems getting banks or venture capitalists on board. It is a problem that we should recognise. They would often be the first to admit that they lack business skills and need good advice, but once they get the motor running, they can become huge financial success stories. However, we are in danger of doing what we have done in the past: losing out because we fail to capitalise fully on exploiting and distributing our inventions and intellectual property.
The arts have been described as the research and development laboratories of some of our most exportable products and brands. Yet while we are publicly proud of our investment in research for science and innovation, we are petrified at seeming too indulgent with creative people and the arts. We are sidelining art in the curriculum and squeezing the life out of our art and drama schools, while those without private incomes are finding it almost impossible to survive. We have just heard from the noble Lord, Lord Grade, about those from different backgrounds who have the opportunity to find release in the arts, but I am afraid that this does not happen as frequently as we would want.
Somehow art is seen as risky but banking is not. We worry about the risk of investment in the arts, yet have no problem about investing in high-risk derivatives or space travel. I should like to refer to video games. They make £2 billion for the UK in global sales. In some of our new universities there is a great deal of creativity in making those games. The sector is now bigger than the film or music industries. The United Kingdom also leads in visual effects—all that amazing, fancy stuff in action movies. It is the fastest-growing component of the UK film industry, but I am told we are starting to lose our cutting edge because of skills shortages in the UK. Why is that the case? The answer is that we are not supporting appropriate technical training in our schools and universities.
Like the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, I started by speaking of the British Museum. It was through spending time among the ancient sculptures of the frozen north that Henry Moore took inspiration for his contemporary work. The old feeds the new. There are real anxieties that any significant downturn in public spending for the museum and other arts institutions will have a very damaging impact, which will not just be on the wonderful exhibitions, but on all the incredible scholarship that takes place beyond public view. I echo the plea of the noble Baroness that there should be no short-sighted cuts.
I make a general plea, too, for the places which nurture the ideas and the creativity: our schools, art schools and universities. Subsidising the arts should be up there as a high priority along with health. I also make a plea to Government to encourage banks and investors to support the initiatives. When Roosevelt responded to the Great Depression, he was persuaded to sustain the arts even in the worst of times. New projects were created, public art works for railway stations and post offices were commissioned and creative endeavours were encouraged. The payoff was immeasurable then. It would be now.
Lord Maclennan of Rogart
My Lords, this has been a powerful debate, delivered by those who are highly expert and experienced in the field. I very much hope that what has been said will be taken to heart—as well as into the heads—of those in the Treasury who are no doubt considering future public expenditure problems. Although my vocation has been politics, my passion has always been for the arts. Even year when I played Hamlet and Cinderella at school and had to consider where my future lay, I did not have the guts to pursue what really made me tick. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, for her most insightful opening to this debate.
Before I develop my thoughts, I want to draw attention to one or two people who have, through their life’s work and what they are doing now, contributed to a transformation of the possibilities of the arts. Although the field is under pressure at the moment, I agree with those who have said that we are unrivalled in our contributions and in the creative industries. We have been and we have the basis to continue that, but a big change has come about in my lifetime.
I would like particularly to pay tribute to Denis Vaughan, the former conductor-assistant to Thomas Beecham. He was one of those who powerfully advocated that the lottery should be set up and he is still making the case that the money should go more to the arts. I was glad to hear several contributions, including those from the noble Lords, Lord Puttnam and Lord Grade, making that point, which certainly needs to be considered at this time. Another current contributor to the debate is the present lord mayor of the City of London, Alderman Roger Gifford, who decided to make arts and culture one of the central themes of his mayoralty. He has been talking not about the threat to the City from the European Union but about building on what we have. He has committed to establishing the City music foundation, a new charity to support musicians in the early stages of their careers through mentoring and opportunities to perform. It has been claimed on his behalf that the benefits derived from the City’s arts and culture clusters generate a net contribution of £225 million in gross value added and support 6,700 full-time equivalent jobs in the City.
Speaking for myself, in the past I represented a community which could scarcely be more different. It is the least populated part of the United Kingdom: the constituency of Caithness and Sutherland. I am currently presiding over a charity called North Highland connections, which enjoys the patronage of His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales. We set it up with a very clear view of bringing to that remote part of the country the opportunities for individuals to experience and enjoy the arts themselves, to promote tourism and to encourage young artists from all around the country to have the opportunity to display and develop their talents. All these things have come on rather well, although we decided to do it at a difficult time—namely, 2008. We have subsequently demonstrated that it is difficult even for the philanthropic trusts, which are under pressure at this time. Local and central government have been clamping down on the arts but the benefit of such a development is, to my mind, patently clear. I believe that this kind of effort should be given every encouragement to grow all around our country.
Another area of the arts with which I have been involved was as chairman of the European Cultural Foundation, when there was a national branch of that Dutch-based organisation. That also, it seems to me, provided for the modern world a huge benefit in bringing to the attention of all our citizenry, and right across Europe, the cultural identities of people who are sometimes developing very differently. However, it enhances the whole and I hope very much that the Government will recognise that that is an important part of being European.
Finally, I pay tribute to PRS for Music which, since 2000, has given more than £16 million to over 14,000 new music initiatives by awarding grants and leading partnership programmes that support music-sector directives. It has been invited by Arts Council England to deliver the new Momentum Music Fund which will inject more than £0.5 million into the music industry over the next two years by a seed-funding investment for emerging acts to help develop the careers of talented artists and bands. I am also impressed by the work of UK Music which is launching Skills Academy. It has drawn my attention to a matter of detail and, as an acknowledgement of the work that has been done by such organisations, I would like to draw attention to what a number of bodies have said is vital at this time and that is copyright. Government plans to modernise copyright could have a detrimental impact on creators, potentially jeopardising the income of British songwriters and composers. There needs to be an exception to copyright for private copying, but there should be a requirement for fair compensation. As it stands, in most EU member states, private copying is legal and any loss of income is reimbursed by systems of compensation. We must bear that in mind and I hope that it will be brought into consideration in the various other forums which are considering these matters.
There is a vital report which was commissioned by the Arts Council and published in May which we should all read. I had hoped, had we had longer, to be able to read some of its conclusions into our debate. This report by the Centre for Economics and Business Research has shown that the generalities that we have expressed in this debate about the contribution to industry and the economy are absolutely justified and I hope it will be studied and read with care by the Treasury.
Baroness Northover
My Lords, I remind noble Lords that we are in a time-limited debate and we obviously want to make sure that we have time enough for the Minister at the end and also for the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, to respond.
Lord Berkeley of Knighton
My Lords, I, too, am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, for airing this important subject. I will keep my speech short. I was pleased to read in recent speeches by government Ministers a declared belief in the value of the arts and their importance to the economy. However, by their deeds shall they be judged for, like all good artists, we must be not simply self-congratulatory but also self-critical. Of course, we must applaud and highlight the returns in terms of tourism, reputation and jobs that the arts create but, please, let us not overlook the social dividend, as so eloquently stated by the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam. I will not repeat my recent pleas in my maiden speech about those rewards—human, educational and vocational—which are of course available in Hansard, but will stick to the economic remit of this debate.
Only today the Guardian carries warnings that many small-scale and regional arts companies face losing their grants altogether. This is going to be nothing short of catastrophic for the future of culture in this country. The cultural scene that has been built up since the end of the Second World War is now, as the noble Baroness mentioned, the envy of the world and that feeds, ultimately, into the success of the big flagships—the Royal Opera House, the National Theatre, Aldeburgh which is currently under way, the Sage and Tate Modern, for example. Understandably, they reap the lion’s share of money available to the arts. Probably among your Lordships I have had a pretty unique view of the dilemma that arises since I am a composer who was for a while on the Arts Council music panel where I would regularly wonder how we could justify such a large slice of the cake going to so few august centres of excellence. Then I was on the board of the Royal Opera House where I saw that, in order to be among the best in the world, we needed every penny of available funding. Now I see this dilemma from a wider perspective, and I do not mean simply these distinguished and comfortable Benches, although there are many noble Lords who, I have discovered with great pleasure, feel passionately about the arts, as we have heard today. I look forward to hearing my friend the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Finsbury, who fought so valiantly for free admission to museums, something that I profoundly cherish.
Your Lordships may have noted the point made so recently by my friend and colleague, the actor Sam West—indeed, one noble Lord already has—who said that in terms of the theatre it was dangerous simply to look at the return of large-scale productions in glamorous venues, for it was in small-scale regional theatres that many of our Oscar winners, who are vaunted as being at the forefront of artistic success, cut their teeth and learnt their trade. It is there that innovation and adventure can be tried. The value of small-scale investment may not be immediately obvious but in fact it is vital. “War Horse” was mentioned, but for every war horse there are 12 ponies that fail to make the final fence.
I shall extend this lesson into my own field, musical composition. As a result of devolution, a considerable commissioning cake was cut into tiny slices. This was then compounded, from the point of view of small-scale festivals, performing groups and composers, by the Arts Council’s decision to hand commissioning funds to favoured clients—the big guns, the centres of excellence—and let them decide who to commission. That is not without merit if one wants to keep at arm’s length from artistic policy, but there is a rub and even a contradiction. It in fact creates a policy, an unlevel playing field, so that smaller festivals like Cheltenham and instrumental groups like the Nash can no longer find the funds to carry on the vital work that they have been achieving at the coal face of music-making. There is a disconnect that means that commissioning is confined to a circle of well established names and, for the sake of full disclosure, I have sometimes been among their number. However, some really wonderful and acclaimed composers are actually on the breadline at the moment, names that are very famous in the musical world, and performing groups who would like to commission them find it impossible to access funds because they are not favoured Arts Council clients. This process really must be looked at and I urge the Minister to relay my concerns to the DCMS and the Arts Council—always assuming that it is still in existence in the coming months. Indeed, I suspect that information on its current health would be of interest to the House.
On that subject, I note that a large portion of lottery money was diverted from other areas to finance the excellent Olympic Games, in which I am sure we all delighted, but I gather from Ed Vaizey’s recent speech that this money is to be returned to the arts. If that is the case, surely these small-scale ventures could be protected.
In the arts we are, corporately speaking, a success story, but I beg the Government not to pull the plug on the boiler room where so many ideas, so much training and so much outreach and educational work is started, and where otherwise starved communities are nourished. It is this art for all that makes us a civilized society, and it is so very precious. We are approaching the centenary of the First World War where, writing in the trenches where he was about to be killed, Wilfred Owen asked:
“Was it for this the clay grew tall?”.
When I hear or see a beautiful work of human creativity, I think, “It was for this the clay grew tall”.
Baroness Seccombe
My Lords, I, too, congratulate my noble friend Lady Wheatcroft on initiating this debate and I hope that she and other noble Lords will forgive me for concentrating on a small segment of culture and arts—tourism and the contribution it makes to the economy.
I am more than fortunate to live in Stratford-upon-Avon. It is a town of historic interest and a much-valued part of our heritage. I often marvel at the range of languages one hears daily on the streets and the support for the annual celebration of William Shakespeare’s birthday is remarkable. People come from all over the world carrying flowers with banners displaying their home country. The lengthy and special procession proceeds through the town with the town band playing and the flags of all the countries flying. It is a glimpse of just one day in the year when we can celebrate all that our legendary poet has bequeathed us.
In this country we are indeed fortunate to have so many important sites that attract thousands to our shores but unless these properties are cared for and promoted to their full potential the country misses golden opportunities to increase both the cultural and financial benefit. I pay tribute to Governments over the years who having realised the opportunities have given generous support in sponsorship. The National Trust has also played a major role by restoring and caring for the fabric of properties of differing types, from the grand houses to the comparatively humble dwellings of the past.
In Stratford we are blessed among our treasures with fine theatres, and the redevelopment of the Royal Shakespeare Theatre has been an inspiration. The town thrives on the success of visitors. Some 6,300 people are employed locally in the tourist industry with an additional 1,700 indirect jobs. That generates £335 million annually for the local economy. No wonder that tourism is the fastest growing industry in the land.
It is essential that tourism, as with any other industry, is nurtured and enhanced to ensure that visitors do not only come once but return. This is even more important in financially challenging times when industries have to stand on their own feet and not look to Government for continuous financial support. I was therefore delighted to read that local businesses supported by the adjoining local authorities have launched a campaign called Shakespeare’s England. The aim is to maximise business opportunities in the area. It is particularly apt to launch this now as next year we will be celebrating the 450th anniversary of Shakespeare’s birth.
We are so fortunate to have many historic venues including Warwick Castle and other grand houses set in the wonder of the beautiful countryside with its wealth of leafy lanes. I do not wish to sound like a travel advertisement but it seems to me that genuine enthusiasm and attention to making the most of our heritage is fundamentally important for the wealth of the country.
Successful tourism can be achieved only by offering events for every taste—some may not appeal to me but I am glad they exist as I hope they will appeal to others and no doubt if they do not they will soon disappear from the calendar. I hope that we will concentrate on offering visitors worthwhile and memorable projects that can be a source of great pleasure to many people.
I have referred only to one county but I am confident that there is frantic activity countrywide. Unquestionably, people around the world are hungry to learn about the past. They want to know what made people tick and how they lived, and they want further information about our history and the effect that events of former times have on our lives today. We all share that interest and so I believe each of us has a duty to understand the worst and preserve the best of the past. We see so much beauty around us but we should never take it all for granted. I feel very privileged to be able to share these gifts with visitors as I know it makes such good sense and enriches the lives of everyone.
The Earl of Glasgow
My Lords, as my noble friend Lady Wheatcroft has implied, perhaps the Government do not always fully appreciate the important part that British culture and the arts play in our economy. According to Creative and Cultural Skills, the UK has the largest cultural economy in the world as a proportion of its GDP. Businesses engaged in Britain’s heritage and arts employ several million people and attract 14 million overseas visitors a year, and the creative industries account for 10.6% of UK exports.
In the competition for the world’s leading visitor destination, London’s museums and art galleries are challenged only by Paris for the greater number of visitors each can attract. The London theatre is now doing too well, as the noble Lord, Lord Grade, mentioned. Due largely to the huge number of foreign visitors to London it is almost impossible to get tickets for plays such as “The Audience”, “Othello” at the National, “The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-Time”, “Once”, or the admittedly American, “The Book of Mormon”. You have to book ahead if you want seats for the longer-running “Matilda”, “One Man, Two Guvnors”, or “War Horse”, while it seems that “Les Miserables”, “The Phantom of the Opera”, “The 39 Steps” and “The Woman in Black” will run forever. We do not talk about “The Mousetrap” any more. The downside to this success story is that there are not enough theatres available to accommodate some of the excellent productions from our provincial cities that are looking for a venue in the West End. However, with so many successes, I have never understood why ticket prices need to keep going up.
London is unique, and will continue to attract millions of foreign tourists for years to come. The Government need more seriously to consider the countryside, small towns and rural businesses. Britain’s heritage—specifically its historic buildings, stately homes, castles, gardens and designed landscapes—is the single most quoted reason for foreign visitors to come to Britain. According to VisitBritain, in 2011, 9 million foreigners visited one or more of Britain’s historic houses contributing £6,500 million to the economy.
I declare an interest, in that I own a grade A-listed castle and country park in Scotland which attracts 60,000 visitors a year. I am also a member of the Historic Houses Association, whose members still own and live in their historic piles. For many years, the Historic Houses Association has tried to impress on successive Governments the importance of historic houses and castles to the British economy, how many foreign tourists we attract, and how much our presence benefits local hotels, shops and pubs. According to its figures, total expenditure generated by inbound tourist visits to privately owned historic houses is £1.6 billion per annum. Britain has more privately owned houses open to the public than the National Trust, English Heritage and their equivalents in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland put together. Our most famous houses—Chatsworth, Longleat, Blenheim, Arundel, Castle Howard and Woburn Abbey, to name but a few—are still privately owned, in the hands of their original families, who struggle to maintain them with little or no financial help from Government bodies.
Contrary to popular belief, the majority of those living in grand historic houses—I speak from personal experience—are not particularly rich. The main reason for this is because they live in grand historic houses. They are very expensive to maintain, and to live in them is both a privilege and a burden. It is a mystery to some people why we struggle to hold on to buildings we have probably inherited and in most cases have learnt to love while continuing to lose money every year. Perhaps it is because we feel we owe it to our ancestors—I do not know.
I think I am right to say that no stately home open to the public actually makes a trading profit. The ones that survive do so because the owner has some other source of income or can resort to selling a Titian or Van Dyck every other year to fill the gap. The income derived from opening to the public only helps defray the costs of keeping the house wind and watertight. On top of that, we must pay VAT on our structural improvements or repairs, while our rich neighbours can build themselves a brand new comfortable warm house next door completely tax-free.
Now we hear that the Government intend to cap sideways loss relief, which was one of the few forms of tax relief which the beleaguered owners of historic houses could avail themselves of. In this time of austerity, many owners of historic houses are holding on to their houses by only a thread. Some are already having to face reality and are forced to close by their banks. For instance, very recently Torosay Castle in Mull has been sold to a foreign buyer. The castle is no longer open to the public and this has put many of the small local businesses in jeopardy. Every time that something like this happens, Britain is a poorer place. The contents that belonged to that house are sold and spread across the world and the value of our country as a tourist destination is diminished. I ask the Government to take the concerns of historic house owners seriously and recognise the important contribution that they collectively make to the nation’s economy.
Lord Smith of Finsbury
My Lords, I join in the warm congratulations to the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, on securing and introducing this debate so well and on stimulating so many excellent speeches. I remind noble Lords the range of arts organisations with which I am involved, as set out in the register of interests.
Robert Kennedy once wrote:
“The Gross National Product does not allow for the health of our children, the quality of their education or the joy of their play. It does not include the beauty of our poetry or the strength of our marriages, the intelligence of our public debate or the integrity of our public officials. It measures neither our wit nor our courage, neither our wisdom nor our learning, neither our compassion nor our devotion to our country. It measures everything, in short, except that which makes life worthwhile”.
He was making a powerful point; the arts are part of the life-enhancing, wonder-making, intelligence-affirming, glorious life of the mind and soul for all of us. In many ways it should be enough simply to say that to justify the importance and significance of the arts. It is important constantly to reiterate this simple truth. The arts bring us joy and sorrow; they tell our stories; they help our understanding; they trouble us; they question us; they make our spirits soar. That, simply, is why they are important. But of course that is not the whole story—or indeed the only story.
When I became Secretary of State for Culture, I sensed that the arts were important together with all the allied creative activities that they generated. They were important because they mattered economically as well as aesthetically. That is why I established the creative industries task force served on brilliantly by the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam. It is why we published the mapping documents in 1999 and 2001 that set out the shape and value and significance of the creative industries. These are things that are now being copied all over the world in terms of the important stimulus for, and sustaining of, the creative sector of economies. It is hugely important for our economy, especially in these times of economic difficulty. This is a sector of the economy that is still growing, still significant, and will become even more significant as the years go on.
This leads me to four specific thoughts. First, the links between the traditional arts sector and the more creative commercial economic sector are fundamental. One of the reasons we are really good at the creative industries around the world is because we have a strong arts base, strong arts organisations and brilliant artistic activity in this country. These lead to the economic success of the creative sector; indeed, without the one you cannot have the other. It is people learning their stagecraft, and learning about stage design and lighting in regional theatres, that leads to success in film and television around the world. It is people learning their music craft in orchestras, in singing and playing, that leads to music that takes the world by storm, meaning that four out of the top five selling discs in the United States last year were from British artists. Strong, traditional arts activity is vital for the economic benefit that comes from the whole creative sector.
Secondly, DCMS matters. There are worrying rumours bubbling around about the possibility that the Government might be considering disbanding the department. This absolutely must not happen. We need a strong voice for the arts and culture in this country. It cannot come from a small offshoot of a much larger department. Indeed, I would argue for putting the whole of the creative sector—the arts, the creative economy, the whole of communications—under the DCMS umbrella and making it a real champion for this vital part of our national life and economy.
Thirdly, copyright matters. I was pleased to hear the noble Lord, Lord Maclennan, take up this point. The economic value of creative activity comes from the value of the intellectual property that is created as part of it. We need to ensure that the creator can be guaranteed a return for their creativity. There have been some worrying signs that the Government seek to water down the importance and security of copyright in recent years—most notoriously, the deeply flawed Hargreaves report. This must not happen. The Government must reaffirm their commitment to strong copyright protection and, along the way, perhaps they might get on with implementing the Digital Economy Act.
Fourthly, the arts, cultural activity and the creative economy are things which, as many noble Lords have mentioned, we are outstandingly good at as a country. We should be very proud of what we have achieved and are achieving in this sector. The first 10 years of this century have been something of a golden decade for cultural and artistic activity in this country. I like to think that I may have played a small part in helping to stimulate that. Please do not put all of that at risk. We currently have warnings from the Arts Council about the possible impact of the spending review and the danger to arts organisations up and down the country. This would be disastrous. Some are already operating on the margins of viability. There is no easy cut that can be made in this sector. For the sake of our economy, our international reputation, our tourism potential and above all for the wonderful experiences that the arts bring for all of us, please do not cut deeply and savagely and destroy this precious thing that we have.
The Government are rightly talking about infrastructure investment being protected and even promoted when the spending review arrives. Investment in the arts is investment in the infrastructure of the mind and the heart. It is crucial seed corn for the future of our economy. That is what I urge the Government to do, and what I urge the Minister to go and talk with his Treasury colleagues about.
Viscount Eccles
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Finsbury. Way back in 1998, when County Durham was in trouble with the Bowes Museum, the then Secretary of State commissioned a report. It was a very good report, and after he received it he said that he would think about the Bowes Museum every day in his bath. I hope that he still has a bath every day.
If noble Lords will forgive me, I will take the contribution to the economy for granted. I am much more concerned about the effect on society, the educational potential and social mobility, which I find much more difficult and more interesting subjects. Briefly, I will talk about the relationship between the state—central and local government—and arts and cultural institutions. I hope that noble Lords will find that as I go along, I will at least show that I have been in the front line of that quite often.
It does not seem to me that the arts can flourish without a high degree of independence. If they are not independent, then they have problems. I do not see how they achieve inclusion without that degree of independence. That, of course, takes one straightaway to money because it is a question of resources, and that has engaged your Lordships quite a lot during this debate. However, if one agrees that a degree of independence is a necessary condition for the arts to flourish, then one has to look and see about the state.
The state is basically uncomfortable with the arts, and so are local authorities. This makes the job of the public servants in the Arts Council, as my noble friend Lord Brooke said, and in other of the institutions such as the Heritage Lottery Fund, quite tricky. As noble Lords will have seen, there are spats between the Arts Council and government. This is not a political speech; it does not matter who the government were or are. There are spats between the Lottery Fund and government, and changes in position. I think this is because, while the state is comfortable with and understands expenditure, it does not understand income. It gets its own income by a form of legalised confiscation.
Furthermore, the state and local authorities are not happy with risks. They are not comfortable with experimentation and they worry about the electorate’s responses to things which neither they nor their civil servants really know about or understand. We have to remember that 35% of the electorate do not vote, and a lot of other members of the electorate are not too switched on by the arts. So why is the independence valuable?
I will refer briefly to Kew Gardens. I was fortunate enough after the Heritage Act 1983 to be the first chairman of Kew when it came under trustees. There was no “Friends of Kew” at that time; the Ministry would not have thought of it. We now have more than 70,000; it is a lot later, but that has happened. We have had enormously successful exhibitions of, for example, Chihuly’s glass and Henry Moore’s sculptures.
Many other things have happened at Kew; I think it relates much more to what the public like to go and see than it used to. Many of these things would not have happened if it had remained under Defra. Take, for example, the £110 million for the millennium seed bank raised by Kew. Does anybody really think that that would have happened if Kew had still been run directly by the department? There is a serious issue about independence and, with it, a serious issue about why an independent body deserves so much public money. That is a question that we all have to answer.
I will finish, briefly, with the Bowes Museum. In 1998, County Durham had a problem with the Bowes and proposed to shut it for 18 weeks over the winter. The argument was, “We haven’t got a lot of money, we’re subject to constraints”—goodness me, they are subject to more constraints now even than they were then—“we have villages down the coast where there used to be pits, and those villages have community centres and libraries but not much income, so what are we to do? Are we to give the money to the Bowes and Barnard Castle, next to Raby Castle, or are we to give it in grant form to the pit villages?”. One can understand their dilemma; it was perfectly genuine. They were not disregarding the contribution of the Bowes or Barnard Castle to County Durham; they had a problem. Therefore, we negotiated to take the Bowes back to being an independent trust. Since then, we have raised money to mend the roof and we have reorganised the collections. We now have contemporary art exhibitions, and we have had selling exhibitions of crafts. The café is also a great deal better than it used to be. All these things have been done and can continue to be done.
Of course, the basis for them all is an ability to raise money. That is how I will finish. When you go to raise money, people are very good at telling you, “I would have given you money yesterday, and possibly I will give you money tomorrow, but unfortunately I haven’t got any money today”. You have to look at them, give them a villainous smile and say, “I will not leave until I have the cheque”. We need to get a great deal better at raising our own money in order to support our independence, carry out the work of inclusion and solve many of our financial problems ourselves.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford
My Lords, I join others in thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, for initiating this very important debate. I will speak about one relatively narrow aspect of arts and culture; namely, the conservation and preservation of our cultural heritage. I do so because some time ago I chaired a sub-committee of the Science and Technology Committee, which looked at the role of science in the preservation and conservation of our cultural heritage. Since then I have retained a considerable interest in the subject and continue to play a part. The noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, talked about the delicate ecosystem between science and the arts, and, indeed, there is.
Like other noble Lords, I will not go into detail about the role of cultural heritage in the economy, because others have mentioned it. The noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, in particular identified the importance of this sector for attracting tourism and £115 billion annually; tourism is the fifth largest industry in the country. Somewhere in the region of 70% of people who come to this country do so because they want to visit our cultural heritage: our historic towns and villages, castles, stately homes, museums, art galleries, theatres, and music and other festivals.
I will concentrate on the issue of preservation and conservation. Why do we want to do it? One answer is that we would not reap the economic benefit from our cultural heritage if it were not there. Further to that, it is of course an essential part of our culture. What do we mean by cultural heritage? Essentially, it is those parts of what we value in our arts and artefacts, and in our ideas, that we want to pass on to other generations. Conservation is vital—and not just of material things such as paper and textiles. I remember the director of the Natural History Museum, Michael Dixon, telling me, “We have a great problem because insects eat insects, so we have to keep the insects away from our collection of insects”.
Even stone degrades over time, as we know so well from what is happening here to our own Palace of Westminster. That is a great problem. Increasingly, many of the things that we create are transient. We are corresponding, not by letter—which can be kept these days—but by e-mail. We record notable events on YouTube or on Facebook. We gather information from websites. The preservation of our digital presence is an increasing part of conservation, and a great problem posed to the British Library, which, for example, has to keep a record of all the websites that are created.
I have an interesting example of the transience of all material things. The noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, mentioned the David Bowie exhibition at the Victoria and Albert Museum. Some time ago, the textile conservation centre at Winchester was charged with repairing a pair of Freddie Mercury’s pants, the bright red ones he wore at a gig in 1979, which sadly were made out of faux leather and had begun to wear away. Later, it was also charged with conserving his famous yellow jacket and white trousers. On one level it was doing this because it was preserving his memory for potentially millions of Queen fans, but on another level, it was undertaking important work into the longevity and vulnerability of degradation in modern materials. As one of the conservators put it,
“everyone has this idea that modern fabrics are indestructible ... But in fact there are some that are very unstable—and polyurethane happens to be one of them”.
Conservation and preservation help to preserve more than just memories and artefacts. They also provide us with a great insight into attitudes and behaviour. We learn so much about Tudor England from Shakespeare plays or, for that matter, about Egypt 3,000 years ago from such artefacts as the Book of the Dead, which was displayed so admirably at the British Museum a couple of years ago. These are not only the things we enjoy looking at and value; they are the stuff of our history and help to explain our present. We did not inherit the past but hold it in trust for our children and our children's children. It is therefore important that we value these things not just because they contribute to the economy, but because our children, and their children and their children’s children should also be able to enjoy them.
I end therefore with a plea that, while recognising the value of these assets, we do not neglect the need to put resources—that means money—aside for their maintenance and conservation. It is too easy in these days of austerity to forget that, as I said earlier, even stone degrades. Unless we are prepared to put money and effort into conservation and into developing new methods of conservation, we shall not be in a position to hand them on to our children. Yesterday, my noble friend Lord Lee raised the question of the possible closure of the Science Museum Group museums in the north of England. The Minister himself noted that last year 19.1 million people visited these regional museums and that they are often at the heart of their region’s creative industries, preserving artefacts and skills which characterise their local history. It would be a tragedy if these museums have to shut. But if we want the Science Museum to continue to maintain and preserve its collections, it has to be given enough money to keep them all in good repair. I hope that the cultural and economic importance of such museums will be considered carefully in the forthcoming spending review.
Viscount Colville of Culross
I, too, would like to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, on securing this moment for us to celebrate culture and the arts in this country. I declare an interest as a director of the BBC in the history and science departments.
I want to concentrate on a very specific area of culture, film and television, which have already been mentioned by the noble Lords, Lord Puttnam and Lord Grade. As they both said, they are world-beating sectors of the economy, and they run a rare trade surplus. “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows—Part 2”, “The Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides” and “The King’s Speech” have been the most successful British films worldwide. I am sure that many noble Lords have enjoyed watching them as much as I have.
The industry has been very dynamic in attracting foreign and domestic investment. Last year, Warner Bros opened the £100 million Leavesden studios with great studio space and workshop facilities, while Pinewood Studios has submitted a £200 million plan to double its filming facilities, which it says could create up to 3,000 new jobs in the industry. We are also seeing a flurry or cluster of television and film industries in the English regions, and also in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, in an industry that has been traditionally based in London and the south-east. This must be seen by everybody as a great British success story.
However, I am concerned that the British Film Institute, the body which gives funds to the regional film development bodies and is responsible for encouraging exports of the film industry, is being severely constrained by a series of savage cuts made over the past few years. Most of its funding comes from a grant in aid direct from government, although the lottery also contributes valuable funds. In 2010, it was announced that the institute would have a 15% cut over four years; now it has been told that it has another cut of 2% and another one of 1% next year. Nick Mason Pearson, head of public affairs at the BFI, said that,
“any further cuts will have a seriously damaging effect on our ability to support our partners that help us deliver across the UK. That threatens the position of film as a whole and thus the economy”.
Creative England, which is responsible for investment in the development of the creative sectors in the regions, is facing a cut of over 40% of film investment outside London. As most private investment goes to London, we are once again seeing a move away from the regions back to London, which seems ironic at a time when so much political attention is going towards trying to create regional economic development in this country. I echo the words of the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, that I would like the Minister to see whether he can push for a greater allocation of lottery funds to support film across the UK.
The Government may feel that the cuts in the BFI are fine, because they have done a very good job in extending the film tax relief benefit across the industry to cover film production money spent in this country. That has been rolled out this April to cover the high end of television animation and video game production. Despite this extraordinary support, parts of the industry are suffering. The noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, mentioned the visual effects industry, which is based in Soho, in London, and after Hollywood is seen as world beating. It houses four of the largest visual effects companies, and is trusted globally for the ability to deliver complex sequences with cutting edge technology for new films. However, a number of these houses are relocating to Canada, which has extremely generous post-production incentives in place specifically aimed at attracting their business. One reason for this seems to be that there is an arbitrary 80% limit on the film tax relief, which particularly affects those visual effects houses, because they have become very much at the end of the spend on film production. It has been imposed by the EU Commission, but it is open for discussion in the new EU cinema communications consultation document. I know that the Government have tried to increase the limit but have been blocked by the EU competition commissioner; I ask them to redouble their efforts to ensure that all the film spend in this country is protected. It seems not to be in the interests of either Britain or the EU that our visual effects houses are relocating to North America, with the consequent loss to our economy and our global reputation.
The success of the film industry has been reflected in our other great media success story, television, with an increase in export in 2011 of 9%. The greatest market is North America, but exports to the rest of the world went up by 34%, and all the surveys show that British creativity is the most important factor driving the UK’s export success. It is a great story and we must go flat out to build on it.
I believe that the Government could still do more to promote television exports. I fear that at the highest level trade missions, the creative industries are not represented nearly strongly enough. On the Prime Minister’s recent trip to India, of the leaders of 40 British companies who accompanied him only one, Premier League, was from the creative industries. Will the Minister ensure that the Government promote one of the greatest economic success stories at the highest level to ensure that the export potential of our companies can be maximised in the future?
I am very proud to have spent my career in the creative industries. They are great centres of international, cultural and economic excellence. We must do everything we can to ensure that we continue to be the world beaters, entertaining and enthralling billions across the globe.
Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall
My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in the gap. I will take a few seconds to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, on collecting around her such an eminent bunch of speakers who have created a remarkable debate this afternoon. I agree with virtually everything that has been said. However, I would particularly like to associate myself with the speeches of the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, and the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Finsbury, both of whom have said most of what I wanted to say—much more eloquently than I ever could, and certainly not in the time I have.
I have spent my whole professional life in and around arts organisations. I have served in senior executive capacities in many and am currently serving in non-executive capacities for several, including the Roundhouse in north London, the National Opera Studio and the Royal Shakespeare Company. Being able to engage with those companies as they grow and develop, even in these very difficult times, is a source of enormous pride for me. Pride is something which has been mentioned several times and we should remember that the arts and culture are legitimately a source of pride, both for us as individuals where we are lucky enough to be associated with them, and for the nation as a whole. We must not let that pride go.
I looked very closely at the Arts Council’s work when it last restructured its portfolio following the comprehensive spending review three years ago. It did an extraordinarily good job. It has not always done an extraordinarily good job, but it did on that occasion and I was very glad that the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, gave it due credit. But I and the Arts Council warned that if it was forced to deal with another round of cuts similar to those which it was then absorbing, the consequences would be very serious. And lo, today we see in the article by Charlotte Higgins in the Guardian evidence that the Arts Council itself is briefing of the serious damage that it anticipates will be inevitable as a result of the comprehensive spending review, which we are due to hear about. Even allowing for the fondness of journalists for bad news stories, this really is a very grim scenario that we are facing.
I want to say what this feels like to people in the arts organisations that are likely to be affected. It feels like Groundhog Day only much worse. The noble Lord, Lord Grade, mentioned that he has been around long enough to have seen previous depressions, and so have I. I was in arts organisations in the 1980s when they struggled with very hard times. The one thing that is really different now is that the arts and culture, since John Major created the Department of National Heritage, which turned into the DCMS, have had a seat at the Cabinet table. It would be catastrophic if it were now to lose that influence. Will the Minister please stress to his colleagues in the DCMS and the Treasury how very important it is that that seat at the Cabinet table is preserved and that, whatever difficulties the sector faces in the future, it has an advocate at the most senior level in government?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
My Lords, I, too, am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, for securing this debate and to everybody who has contributed. There is enormous art expertise in this House, yet it seems that it is all too rare that we get an opportunity such as this for an in-depth discussion. We have proved our worth with that expertise today.
At the outset, I endorse the central proposition that we are debating. The fact is that the arts and culture contribute enormously to the economy, and that is backed up by statistics from the department and by numerous external assessments that have been made over the years.
A number of noble Lords have cited statistics this afternoon and I do not want to bore the House but I will add a couple of my own. The department itself calculated that the creative industries account for 6.2% of the goods and services in the economy and £16.6 billion in exports. A more recent study has estimated that the sector accounts for 1.5 million jobs and contributes £70,000 a minute to the UK economy. A number of noble Lords have made reference to the Arts Council report. The most recent report on the economic impact makes a very powerful case, showing how investment reaps return, with every per cent of government arts spending yielding four times as much towards GDP.
In addition, as we have heard, the arts are a major reason why overseas visitors come to Britain, with our heritage sites being a major draw and nearly half of them planning to attend a music, theatre or opera event. The noble Lord, Lord Brooke, also made an important point, reminding us that it is also a reason why businesses globally choose to locate here, as they appreciate the artistic culture that we have.
In a recent debate here on the role of arts projects in regional regeneration, we heard about their enormous economic impact on cities—for example, Liverpool, the European Capital of Culture, which generated £800 million for the regional economy; the Birmingham Creative City initiative, which aims to create 100,000 new jobs by 2020; and the Sage Gateshead, contributing £146 million to the north-east economy. The noble Baroness, Lady Bonham-Carter, reminded us today of the roles of The Lowry and the BBC MediaCity in helping to regenerate Salford.
For everyone involved in the arts, those economic benefits have been recognised and celebrated over many years. Indeed, when my noble friend Lord Smith coined the phrase “the creative economy” in the early years of the previous Government, it was precisely to emphasise that, far from being a drain on the nation’s resources, investment in the arts created growth, jobs and economic returns, as well as providing a broader social dividend.
So what are we to make of the recent speeches of Ed Vaizey and Maria Miller acknowledging the value of the arts to the economy? First, it might be said that they have come to the table rather late in the day, when a considerable amount of damage to the arts has already been done. This was, as I understand it, Maria Miller’s first speech on the arts in seven months as Culture Secretary. Set against the backdrop of the cuts to arts bodies made by her predecessor, there hardly seems to be a sense that the interests of arts and culture are being driven from the front.
A number of noble Lords rightly raised concerns about the impact of further cuts. That point was made very powerfully by my noble friend Lady McIntosh. It will be interesting to hear how the negotiations with the Treasury for a further 10% or 15% cut are progressing. Perhaps the Minister could update us on this.
Secondly, it would be interesting to know how successful Maria Miller has been in persuading her colleague, Eric Pickles, the Local Government Minister, that the arts are the bedrock of our future local cultural success. It is at a local level that young people are first exposed to the opportunities that involvement in the arts can bring. It provides training, experience and inspiration, and, yes, provides a platform for the next generation of Oscar winners. A number of noble Lords raised concerns about cultural devastation already occurring locally. We heard from the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, that the Local Government Association has calculated that by 2020, up to 90% of local culture budgets will have disappeared. That has to be a cause of concern for us.
Thirdly, if the UK is to have a thriving cultural economy, surely it has to start in schools. However, by any measure, Michael Gove’s tenure in education has been a disaster for the teaching of creative arts in schools. Thankfully, we have now seen the demise of the ill conceived EBacc proposals, which had no place at all for arts subjects, but the new proposals for the curriculum are similarly weak. Instead of making space for creativity in subjects such as art, design, music and drama, there is an emphasis on learning facts by rote, and a transmission of knowledge from adults who possess knowledge to children who do not. There is hardly any space for creative knowledge. Under this model, curiosity, interest and experimentation are squeezed out, despite evidence that those are exactly the skills that the next generation need to be successful. What representations have been made to the Department for Education and Skills about the ongoing need for a broad arts education to provide the seed corn for our next generation of artists?
I said at the outset that I agreed with the central premise of the debate. Of course, the arts have a significant role to play in the future of our economy. However, you cannot start from that position. The economic benefit should only ever be one driver of a successful arts policy. If the funding of the arts is to become predicated on a guarantee of commercial success, you inevitably end up with an inferior product. This would be epitomised by a West End full of musical revivals, for example. As several noble Lords have pointed out, who would have invested in a puppet show of First World War horses if the box office had to be guaranteed? I agree with my noble friend Lord Puttnam and others who are alarmed at Maria Miller’s singular focus on economic outcomes. New works, new blood, new thinking, irreverence and risk-taking must be allowed to flourish if we are to maintain our place as a global centre for arts excellence. With risk-taking there has to be the chance of failure or, as the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, put it, of there being ponies that do not quite make the final fence. That is all part of the experimentation that must be at the heart of the creative arts.
There is something more fundamental and unquantifiable about the contribution of the arts in the UK. As a number of noble Lords have struggled to express, the arts are at the heart of our well-being and our quality of life. They make us laugh, or cry. They unite us in a strong sense of shared emotion at a concert, play or gallery. Books or poetry can provide individual solace, inspiration or relaxation. I could go on, but the point is that the creative arts are a central part of our lives and identity and, yes, our civilisation. As my noble friend Lord Smith wisely put it, they are about everything that makes life worth while. We should not have to put a commercial price on that.
Finally, we need to recognise that creativity is not only the preserve of arts and culture. It also lies at the heart of our wider business success. This is why the CBI has been so concerned about the sidelining of arts subjects in schools. It recognises that future global business success will be built upon creative design, originality, communication skills and an ability to think laterally. My noble friend Lady Kennedy reminded us of Steve Jobs’ words about hiring artists and designers, rather than simply programmers, to create his products. That example is replicated time and time again across the business sector. This is why there is concern that the arts have been left to languish in a diminished DCMS. Their place at the heart of our economic revival should be recognised centre stage, with business and Treasury support. It is not surprising that commentators are beginning to speculate whether DCMS has a future at all, given its seeming inability to fight its corner successfully on these issues. Perhaps the Minister could shed some light on whether there is any truth in these rumours.
We have had a good debate today, with some very eloquent contributions. Quite rightly, we have identified the need for balance when measuring the contribution of the arts. Yes, they make a vast and growing contribution to the economy, but we should equally celebrate the contribution of the arts to our individual and collective well-being. With that in mind, I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response to the debate.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, I, too, congratulate my noble friend Lady Wheatcroft on securing this debate. On the fundamentals, I believe that we are all united. Be it dance, opera, theatre, museums, paintings, design, gardens, historic buildings, sculpture, photography, heritage, film, literature or television production, culture and the arts bring our country alive, stimulate creativity, inspire us, develop a strong sense of community, challenge and entertain us. They are essential to the fabric of our society. Alongside all these important features lies their enormous contribution to the economy.
The UK’s culture reaches out far beyond these shores. It attracts millions of tourists to our country every year, forging international relations and building trade links and greater collaboration with the rest of the world. Culture is GREAT is one of the pillars of the Government’s successful GREAT campaign aimed at promoting the UK internationally. The Government’s priority is growth. Heritage, the arts, the creative industries and tourism are essential to that success. My noble friend Lady Bonham-Carter spoke powerfully about that. The noble Lord, Lord Smith of Finsbury, reminded us, with all his experience and commitment how important the creative industries are. The UK’s cultural sector—both private and publicly funded—has a significant role to play in local and regional economic regeneration. In 2011, the Yorkshire Sculpture Park directly contributed to the employment of 108 full-time jobs and was worth at least £4.68 million to the local economy. We heard from my noble friend Lady Seccombe about Shakespeare and the beneficial impact of Stratford and beyond. Margate, St Ives, Gateshead, to name but a few, all have cultural projects making a huge difference.
This Government, in recognising the value of the arts and culture, increased the share of funding from the National Lottery to the arts so that the Arts Council England is now projected to receive £262 million of lottery funding in 2015 compared with £151 million in 2010-11. Many noble Lords, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, and my noble friends Lord Grade of Yarmouth and Lord Maclennan of Rogart mentioned this. Arts and culture in the UK are supported by mixed sources of funding. Nearly £3 billion of public and lottery funding will go to the arts over the lifetime of this Parliament. In the current climate, I believe that that represents a positive settlement for the sector. Public funding of the arts remains a cornerstone and from this many benefits flow. It encourages innovation and that experimentalism drives creativity. Some go on to achieve huge commercial success. My noble friend Lord Grade of Yarmouth confirmed that. “War Horse”, which was mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, inspired by a puppetry show at the Battersea Arts Centre, then produced by the National Theatre, went on to achieve numerous awards and was an Oscar-nominated film.
The latest report published by Arts Council England earlier this week clearly upholds this belief that public subsidy provides the space for innovation, talent development and risk. It shows that there is a significant amount of movement between publicly funded theatre and purely commercial theatre. Public investment today can lead to the blockbusters of tomorrow and the value this brings to our economy. London theatres grossed more than £0.5 billion in sales, selling 14 million tickets last year. Furthermore, 10.6 million people living outside London visit a theatre at least once a year. The UK’s creative industries contribute more than £36 billion or 2.9% to the UK economy; they export £8.9 billion and employ more than 1.5 million people, which is around 5% of the UK workforce.
The UK film industry goes from strength to strength with its Harry Potter films, and films such as “Skyfall”, “The King’s Speech” and “Les Miserables”. British Film Institute research shows that the industry contributes £4.6 billion to the economy, as the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, highlighted There is a great history of public service broadcasting in this country, which means that the BBC, ITV, Channel 4 and Channel 5 can now invest more than £3 billion a year in TV programming across their channels. That supports the creative industries through direct investment and provides a degree of stability in the market. They commission innovative and culturally diverse programming, and bring the arts and our creative industries to a much wider audience. Furthermore, recently published research commissioned by Arts Council England shows that the UK arts and culture sector had a turnover of £12.4 billion and contributed £5.9 billion to the UK economy in 2011. Research suggests that for every £1 generated by the sector, an additional £1.43 is generated in the wider UK economy through suppliers to the sector and additional spending by those who work in the sector.
Perhaps I may give the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, some reassurance. The Government recognise that public funding for the arts offers stability and unlocks further funding. Public funding in partnership with other funding streams is the most advantageous for the long-term sustainability of the arts in this country. This includes earned income from commercial activity, private giving and philanthropy, and access to the lottery. This mixed model of funding avoids reliance on any one form of income, allows for risk and builds resilience. I was interested in what my noble friend Lord Eccles said about independence and funding, and his experience of Kew and the Bowes Museum.
In 2014-15, Arts Council England will invest £345 million into the arts. As its chairman, Sir Peter Bazalgette, has said, this funding acts as venture capital, giving confidence to others to invest in the creativity and innovations of our cultural organisations. The creative employment programme, with funding from Arts Council England until March 2015, will provide up to 6,500 apprenticeship placements, helping young unemployed people enter the cultural workforce. The programme aims to approve the first 700 apprenticeships and 500 paid internships by 31 October this year. This is something that my noble friends Lord Grade of Yarmouth and Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville were particularly interested in.
The UK is home to a wide and varied cultural offer that distinguishes us from the rest of the world, be it historic ships like the “Mary Rose” and “HMS Victory” in Portsmouth, David Bowie’s clothes to world-renowned music festivals that take place up and down the country every summer. I was mindful of the speech by my noble friend Lady Sharp of Guildford on science heritage, particularly, as it is so current, about the development which has secured the future of the “Mary Rose”. The noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, mentioned science and the arts and the importance of them riding together.
Four in 10 leisure visitors to the UK cite heritage and culture as the primary motivation for their visit. In 2011, more than 10 million inbound visitors to the UK engaged with some form of arts and culture. Research commissioned by Arts Council England estimates that £856 million per annum of visitor spend can be directly attributed to arts and culture. It is therefore no surprise that with more than 5.5 million visitors last year, the British Museum is the UK’s top visitor attraction and is ranked in the top five museums in the world. I acknowledge the great work which my noble friend Lady Wheatcroft and the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, have rightly highlighted. This work is, of course, replicated among the many museums across the land.
The Heritage Lottery Fund estimates that heritage tourism's direct annual impact on the economy is £4.3 billion. Including those that supply the sector and additional spending by those who work in the sector, heritage tourism contributes £11.9 billion annually to the economy. All this demonstrates the very clear benefits the cultural sector brings to our economy through tourism and the UK’s cultural status. This global status was amplified following the Olympic and Paralympic Games of last year. Britain’s overall nation brand improved, with Britain moving up one place to be ranked fourth out of 50 major countries around the world.
Last year’s Cultural Olympiad that accompanied the Games was a vast celebration of the UK as a centre for cultural innovation, creativity and a true showcase of Britain to the world. With more than 43 million visitors, participants, audience members and volunteers, the Cultural Olympiad engaged communities across the UK and inspired people to get involved in culture, including many who attended or participated in events for the first time. There was indeed something for everyone.
The Government are working to build on those great successes and it is essential that we create a lasting legacy from them. To harness all this success, we must look at ways of increasing financial resilience, by building skills in areas such as fundraising and ensuring our cultural sector continues to realise its artistic and economic value. The Government have demonstrated their commitment to the creative industries by working to introduce tax reliefs to support film, TV, animation and videogames, as the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, mentioned. In this year’s Budget, the Government also announced a package of measures to support growth and jobs in these industries through investing in the development of skills and technology. Cultural and the creative industries, including museums, libraries, publishing, designer fashion, technology and architecture, have been represented on many of the Prime Minister’s trade missions around the world. That has promoted Britain to global partners. I hope this reassures the noble Viscount, but I will look into the point that he made.
My noble friend Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville asked about philanthropy. The Government have introduced initiatives to boost philanthropy, including a reduced rate of inheritance tax for legacy giving and the recently launched cultural gifts scheme. This saw its first major gift, one of the best collections of Beatles lyrics and manuscripts, being made to the British Library only last month. We have simplified gift aid, while the Catalyst scheme has also been developed, under which £110 million has already been earmarked for arts and heritage organisations, which will unlock at least as much again from private donors. I hope it will also improve the fund-raising skills which my noble friend Lord Brooke mentioned. We should also applaud the profound generosity of those donors who have contributed almost £700 million to the cultural sector each year.
Another area in which the Government support world-class culture is through the Government Indemnity Scheme. This provides an alternative to the considerable cost of commercial insurance for museums, galleries, archives and libraries. The wonderful “Houghton Revisited” exhibition of paintings that are on loan to Houghton Hall from the Hermitage in St Petersburg is a recent example, and what an uplift that is to the economy of rural Norfolk as well. So from Sir Robert Walpole’s magnificent collection of old masters to digital innovation, there is a place for all kinds of creativity and endeavour.
This year, Derry/Londonderry is the UK’s City of Culture; the next City of Culture for 2017 is due to be selected later this year. Enlightened cities recognise the value which culture has as a driver for tourism in showcasing the best their city can offer. I am particularly mindful of the successes in Liverpool. I was glad to hear my noble friend Lord Maclennan raising the lord mayor of London’s initiative, which should surely be applauded. Beyond the City of Culture, councils across the country are in partnership with cultural groups to deliver music education hubs—a key component of the national plan for music education, which is seeing an investment of more than £200 million in music education. I listened carefully to what the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley of Knighton, said and I would like to consider very much what he said about some particular examples.
In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, the Government have been working closely with arts sector representatives and the Arts Council as part of the review of the national curriculum. We are due to publish the cultural education plan shortly; I know that my noble friend Lady Bonham-Carter referred to that.
While this Government do not seek to dictate to local authorities how they spend their money, DCMS Ministers are in discussion with the Local Government Association about how local authorities are approaching the pressures of existing budgets. I assure the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, that Ministers and officials engage regularly with other government departments on cross-departmental policy.
Noble Lords have mentioned the forthcoming spending round and I want to reassure them, particularly the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, that I know from my discussions with Ministers that they are being absolutely robust about setting out the vital role that the cultural sector plays and about the manner in which it can contribute to the return to growth. Conversations are still ongoing.
We have had an exceptional debate. There is so much more to say. I have listened very carefully to what has been said and I thank my noble friend Lady Wheatcroft and all noble Lords for giving us this great opportunity to explore the considerable importance of culture and the arts.
Baroness Northover
There is not time, I am afraid. The Minister must finish and we have to conclude within a minute and a half.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
I apologise to noble Lords. The resounding view from us all is that the cultural sector and all who work within it contribute to the UK economy as well as enriching national life. The arts and culture are part of the route to national recovery. We must grasp every opportunity to allow culture and the arts to flourish and the UK economy to prosper.
Baroness Wheatcroft
My Lords, we are into extra time already so I will be very quick. I thank my noble friend for his reply, best described as very sympathetic and non-committal. I also thank everybody who has taken part this afternoon. The extraordinary variety of expertise that has been exhibited demonstrates what a very special place this is. I thank noble Lords from my heart.