House of Lords
Introduction: Lord Pitkeathley of Camden Town
Introduction: Baroness Bousted
Recruitment of Teachers
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Barran
To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to improve recruitment of teachers.
The Minister of State, Department for Education (Baroness Smith of Malvern) (Lab)
My Lords, teachers are the most important factor in a child’s education. We are committed to recruiting an additional 6,500 new expert teachers across our schools, both mainstream and specialist, and our colleges over the course of this Parliament. We have made good progress, implementing the 5.5% pay award and announcing £233 million for trainee bursaries. The best recruitment strategy is a strong retention strategy. We have increased early career retention payments and are reducing teacher workload and improving well-being.
Baroness Barran (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness for her reply, but could she be a bit clearer about the Government’s target of 6,500 new teachers? As she rightly pointed out, retention is extremely important. In the last year for which I think there is published data, there were just over 44,000 teachers recruited while just over 43,500 left the profession, leaving 469,000 in the profession—an increase of 27,000 since 2010. Can we be clear about the timing of the Government’s target of 6,500? Is that 6,500 more teachers net by September 2028 compared to September 2024? Will she also confirm whether those teachers will be going into shortage subjects in secondary or across primary, secondary and colleges?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for her question. The first thing we can be clear about is that this target was neither made nor met by the previous Government. Secondly, we are committed to recruiting an additional 6,500 new expert teachers across our schools, both mainstream and specialist, and our colleges over the course of this Parliament. Thirdly, she is absolutely right that retention is key. This is why the targeted retention incentive, worth up to £6,000 after tax per year for early career teachers, is being provided in key STEM and technical subjects, in disadvantaged schools and all FE colleges.
Baroness Blower (Lab)
My Lords, I am sure that my noble friend will agree that the curriculum and assessment review will be a very important factor in recruitment and retention of teachers. Can she update the House on that? Does she agree that there is an earnest hope that the results of the curriculum and assessment review will lead to much greater teacher agency, which will in itself improve retention and probably recruitment?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I strongly agree with my noble friend. The curriculum and assessment review is important to ensure that teachers have a curriculum that promotes high standards in reading, writing and maths and is strong and knowledge-rich. It also provides the opportunity for innovation, expertise and, as she said, the agency of teachers to provide the absolutely best, broadest and richest experience for our children. That is a clear objective of the curriculum and assessment review.
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, the Minister has inherited a situation where we have the highest number of teachers leaving the profession and the fewest people wanting to go into teaching. As she rightly pointed out, we have a shortage of teachers of specialist subjects. Is it not time that we no longer look at sticking-plaster solutions but at the whole picture? If we are to make teaching a profession that people want to go into, we have to deal with workload problems, the salary and some of the problems that teachers face in terms of their role increasingly becoming one of social workers. If we do that, more and more people will want to become teachers.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I completely agree with the noble Lord about the challenges, not just that individual teachers have in the classroom, but that we have in attracting people to and keeping them in the profession. He has identified a range of areas that we need to make progress on as a Government and on which we are already taking action. I have mentioned some of the proposals around retention. The noble Lord is right about teacher workload and well-being. Our improved workload and well-being for school staff service, developed alongside school leaders, contains a whole range of resources to enable schools to review and reduce workload and improve staff well-being. On the other pressures that happen outside school but which children bring into school, we will have the opportunity during the forthcoming Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill to consider the other initiatives that the Government are taking to support the most vulnerable children, strengthen our children’s social care services and, through a whole range of other provisions, make sure that children are able to arrive at school appropriately supported and ready to learn.
Baroness Coussins (CB)
My Lords, two-thirds of modern language teachers are EU nationals. The shortage of qualified MFL teachers is second only to maths. Schools and teacher organisations have told the APPG on Modern Languages, which I co-chair, that the cost of a visa can be prohibitive and the process difficult to navigate. Would the Minister agree to look again at an overhaul of the visa system or a visa waiver, which would provide urgent relief in unblocking the supply chain of language teachers?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
It is certainly the case that there has been a disappointing failure to address the shortage of modern foreign language teachers. That is why, for example, one of the things that the Government will do is extend bursary and scholarship eligibility to all non-UK-national trainees in languages. That means scholarships and bursaries worth a considerable amount of money. I note the noble Baroness’s point about visa costs. I think what is more important is that it is clear to domestic or international potential modern foreign language teachers that this is a country in which their efforts will be reasonably well rewarded and that they will be provided with all the other support necessary to carry out that important role of language teaching.
Captain of the King’s Bodyguard of the Yeomen of the Guard and Deputy Chief Whip (Baroness Wheeler) (Lab)
My Lords, we will hear from the Tory Benches and then Labour.
Baroness Fleet (Con)
My Lords, I do not think that the Minister has fully answered my noble friend’s question. Is it 6,500 more teachers by the end of this Parliament?
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
My Lords, the House of Lords Select Committee on the future of seaside towns back in 2019 identified a real problem with the retention of teachers in coastal and remote communities. Could the Minister outline the Government’s approach to this issue now?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
My noble friend is right that there are clearly areas of the country where there are particular challenges, both for children and for the teachers teaching them. Therefore, this impacts on retention. That is why, for example, in terms of the targeted retention incentive, we are focusing it on teachers within the first five years of their career, which is the point at which many teachers decide if they will stay on or not. We are focusing on STEM subjects and on those teachers who come and are willing to stay in those areas and schools that are most disadvantaged. I am sure that some of the schools that my noble friend referenced would come within this category. Therefore, there would be support to retain teachers.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, as the Minister will know, there is a shortage of teachers in the vital subjects of art and design and music. What plans are there to increase the level of the ITT bursary in those subjects, because they certainly lag behind others?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I certainly recognise the problem that the noble Earl identifies. I have to admit to not being completely clear about the bursary to which he refers; perhaps I could write to him further about that. All the provisions in terms of honouring the pay award, ensuring reasonable workload, flexible working and the retention payments that I have spoken about are the ways in which we can get people into the classroom and the ways in which we can keep them there.
Moldova: Russian Interference
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Suttie
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of reports of Russian interference in Moldovan politics.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Baroness Chapman of Darlington) (Lab)
My Lords, Moldova is on the front line of Russian hybrid aggression. Moscow is seeking to degrade Moldovan democracy through disinformation, illicit financing and political subversion. The FCDO has established a cross-government task force to monitor these threats and help Moldova tackle them. This financial year, we are providing £35 million of humanitarian development and defence support to Moldova. We remain steadfast in our support for Moldova’s sovereign choice to pursue freedom, independence and closer ties to Europe.
Baroness Suttie (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Last Friday, I spoke to a Moldovan friend in Chiinău who runs a project to strengthen the rule of law in Moldova. The funding for that project has now been suspended by the US State Department. Given the decision of the Trump Administration, does the Minister agree that it is more vital than ever to work with our European partners to strengthen institutions, judicial reform and parliamentary democracy in Moldova, as they are key weapons in resisting the disinformation and hybrid threats coming from Russia?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
The noble Baroness is absolutely right. It is impossible to look at what is happening in Moldova and not consider at the same time what has happened in Ukraine, Georgia and elsewhere. Russia tried everything it could to distort the outcome of the polls that were held earlier this year. Parliamentary elections are approaching, and Russia will have learned from what worked and what did not during that earlier process. We need to step up and use every tool that we can to protect Moldova and make sure that the people of Moldova get the Government that they choose.
Captain of the King’s Bodyguard of the Yeomen of the Guard and Deputy Chief Whip (Baroness Wheeler) (Lab)
We will hear from the noble Lord, Lord Anderson.
Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)
My Lords, Russia is more easily able to interfere because it occupies part of Moldova: Transnistria. If, as we hope, negotiations with Ukraine start this year, does my noble friend the Minister agree that it makes sense, in the same or in a parallel process, to deal with the frozen conflicts in the region—not only Transnistria but South Ossetia and Abkhazia in Georgia—with the aim of promoting peace in the Black Sea region?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I thank my noble friend, and I commend him on his decades of work providing peace, security and humanitarian causes in many places around the world. He is completely right that the frozen conflict in Transnistria should be seen alongside other conflicts in the region. His words are wise, and the Government will heed them.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, further to my noble friend’s Question, with regard to the parliamentary elections that are due before July, the head of the Moldovan intelligence service warned the Moldovan Parliament in December that the very same tactics that were used in the presidential and pro-EU referendum would be used by Russia. One of those tactics is vote-buying. Can the Minister say more about the practical assistance that the UK is giving, with our European partners, to ensure that money is not laundered through any of the institutions, in either the UK or Europe, and that there is no illicit finance, which has been used for the very tactics that the Minister referred to?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
It is completely true that every trick in the book was used during the previous elections, and we expect this to happen again. This included vote-buying, voter suppression and bomb threats at polling stations in this country, where Moldovans sought to cast their vote. We are doing everything we can, including, as he says, looking at illicit economies. Our expertise in cybersecurity will be significant in the coming months.
The Earl of Courtown (Con)
My Lords, we have also seen reports this week concerning allegations of Russian interference in German politics. Can the Minister confirm whether the Prime Minister discussed the issue of Russian interference in international politics with our European partners during the meetings with EU leaders this week?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
My right honourable friend the Prime Minister discusses these issues regularly with European partners, as does the Foreign Secretary and Minister Doughty, who is responsible for Europe. This is of great concern to us. Russia’s appetite for this kind of activity seems limitless. It does not respect national borders; it will be active in its disruptive activities anywhere that it thinks it can be.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)
My Lords, Russia’s response to the election of a pro-western Government in Moldova was characteristically callous. It cut off the supply of gas to Transnistria, leaving 350,000 people with no power in a freezing climate. In November, we entered into agreements with Moldova on migration, defence and security. Beyond that, can my noble friend the Minister outline what we are doing to support the EU as it begins to implement its recent agreement of a two-year strategy for energy independence for the Moldovan Government?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
It is true that the energy supply to Transnistria was interrupted and that this has had a devastating impact, not just on the population in Transnistria but throughout Moldova. We are working very closely with EU partners on this. We applaud the EU’s announcement this week of a €310 million support package. We are working principally on our cybersecurity capability to be able to support and protect democracy in Moldova as it approaches elections but, as my noble friend would expect, we will continue to work hand in glove with EU partners.
Lord McInnes of Kilwinning (Con)
My Lords, I refer to my register of interests. The Minister referred to the Caucasus. What reassurance can she give to the Government of Armenia that the current instability with Azerbaijan will not be allowed to be used as an opportunity for Russia to once again get greater influence in Armenia?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
We firmly believe that it is up to the people of a particular country to decide what direction that country takes. We know why Russia is doing what it is doing: it does not like the idea of Georgia and Moldova facing away from it and leaving its sphere of influence. Sadly, that is being very effective; estimates are that around 10% of the poll in Moldova was influenced by Russian activity. This is having a very real impact, and the geopolitics of it are wide-ranging. Its impact, particularly on the conflict in Ukraine, is something that we should all be incredibly mindful of.
Lord Dubs (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome what the Minister has said about support for Moldova. Given that Russia has been pursuing a very aggressive policy to try to undermine Moldovan democracy for many years, could we have an assurance that that support will continue? What about a high-level visit by the British Government to Moldova to show real solidarity with what it is up to?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
That support will continue, and my noble friend will be very pleased to learn that the Foreign Secretary was there just a few months ago. My honourable friend, Minister Stephen Doughty, was there in October as well. This support will continue. We are, as we have said many times, steadfast in our support for Ukraine. It would be no good being steadfast in support for Ukraine while not being very active and doing everything we can to support Moldova, because these issues are not independent of one another.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, the Intelligence and Security Committee published a report some years ago on Russian interference in British politics. It was heavily redacted, even though it stated there had been extensive Russian interference. Would it not be appropriate to publish some of those redacted parts to inform the British public of how the Russian threat affects us, and that it is still continuing?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
The noble Lord raises a very interesting question, the answer to which I do not have for him today, but I will take it away because he makes a very strong case.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, when I worked with the Westminster Foundation for Democracy in Moldova some six years ago, I detected and had a strong sense that there was a high level of fear among the Moldovans because of Russian influence and aggression. Will my noble friend the Minister continue to provide assurances to your Lordships’ House that the UK Government will provide all support, along with EU partners, in building democracy there in a practical and political way?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
Yes we will, and we do need to be practical because this is urgent. The next elections are happening in a matter of months’ time. The results last time were impacted by Russian activity, estimated to be about 10% to 15% of the ballot. This is intolerable for any democracy, and the UK must stand firm and stand up for what is right, including our democratic values.
Syria
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hodgson of Abinger
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assistance they are providing to Syria to support a peaceful transition to inclusive and representative government.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Collins of Highbury) (Lab)
My Lords, at this critical but fragile moment for Syria, the United Kingdom is supporting a Syrian-owned political transition process, leading to an inclusive, non-sectarian and representative Government. We are engaging intensively with the interim Syrian authorities and international partners, to whom we are underlining the importance of including key groups, including women and ethnic and religious minorities. We are consulting the interim authorities about what additional support they need to deliver a peaceful transition, including through our Syria envoy, who was in Damascus again last week.
Baroness Hodgson of Abinger (Con)
I thank the Minister for his response, and I am glad he agrees that it is important that Syria has a pluralistic and inclusive Government. There are indeed many strong women’s groups in Syria, but around the world we are seeing women’s rights rolling back. How will the UK help to ensure that women in Syria will have sufficient representation in the Government after the transition, and that they will be able to contribute on an equal footing to the men there?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
The noble Baroness is absolutely right. Support to women and girls continues to be at the heart of UK’s policy and programmes in Syria. UK support is through INGOs, Syrian civil society—she mentioned the women’s groups—and the United Nations. Women’s empowerment and political participation are vital. We regularly engage with civil society, including on the position of the women’s groups that the noble Baroness mentioned. The United Kingdom’s special envoy for Syria met the head of the women’s affairs department in Damascus last week, and they discussed the ways to empower and support women in Syria and build their capacity to take on an active and influential role in society.
Baroness Goudie (Lab)
My Lords, it is not enough to talk to just one woman; we have to have a coalition of the women’s groups, like we had to do in Northern Ireland, as there will be no way that the women can be at the peace table with just one woman. It has to be a coalition of women. Also, I would like an undertaking that no aid will be stopped, because of pressure from the United States, for maternal and women’s health, women’s education, and children’s health. Can the Minister please give me an indication that this will be so?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My noble friend is absolutely right. I repeat that support for women and girls continues, and will continue, to be at the heart of our policy and programmes in Syria. But I emphasise that we have long supported Syrian civil society and will continue to do so. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson, says, that means that we move towards a more pluralistic solution. My noble friend is absolutely right: we need to engage the broad range of women’s organisations.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, first, the self-declared President of Syria is also head of a proscribed terrorist organisation that restricts the rights of minorities and women. Has the Government’s assessment of proscription changed with regard to that organisation? Secondly, given the news from the United States yesterday that the Trump Administration are now preparing to withdraw from Syria 2,000 troops who are part of the anti-terrorism work with the UK, what are our contingency arrangements to reduce terrorism in that part of Syria if the US troops are withdrawn?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
The fact that HTS is a proscribed terrorist group does not prevent the United Kingdom engaging with the interim authorities in our efforts to help secure a political settlement. Of course, as the noble Lord knows, the Government do not routinely comment on whether a group is being considered for proscription or de-proscription. We are absolutely focusing on how we can consistently advocate for an inclusive political transition, underlying the importance of protecting the rights of religious and ethnic minorities. The US decision to pause foreign aid and funding for three months pending review is, of course, a matter for the US. The first duty of any Government is to keep the UK safe, working with allies to ensure stability in Syria and to ensure that Daesh’s territorial defeat continues and that it can never resurge. That is our absolute priority.
The Earl of Courtown (Con)
My Lords, it is great to see all the work being carried out and continued with civil society in Syria, but how are His Majesty’s Government working with regional partners to counter the influence of hostile state actors, such as Iran and Russia, in Syria?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
The noble Earl is absolutely right. We are concerned about increased tensions, particularly in northern Syria, and the impact those may have on civilians and stability in the region. So we are in regular contact with Turkey and the Syrian Democratic Forces. Our priority is constantly to focus on de-escalation.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
Would it not be easier to monitor and, one would hope, influence developments in Syria if we were to reopen the embassy now?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
What we need to do is constantly evaluate the situation. As I have mentioned twice already, we have a special envoy there—she was in Damascus last week—and we will continue to evaluate the situation so that we can ensure that, when that transition into a more permanent solution or more permanent Government happens, we will consider what the noble Lord asks for.
The Lord Bishop of Chichester
My Lords, Syria is home to some of the oldest and most significant Christian churches in the world, although Christians now number only 2.5% of Syria’s population. Although small in number, they see themselves as an integral part of the people of Syria and its identity. In view of this, will the Minister ensure that policy and statements about Syria robustly identify its Christian communities and history as an important part of its identity and life and in need of special protection, rather than simply being assimilated as Syrians defined as citizens of the state?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
The right reverend Prelate raises an important point. Of course, the FCDO has consistently advocated for an inclusive political transition and underlined the importance of protecting the rights of religious and ethnic minorities, both publicly and as part of our engagement with international partners and the interim Syrian authorities. We are of course concerned by reports of attacks on minorities and attempts to stoke sectarian tension, and we are monitoring the situation closely, but I reassure the noble Lord that we are absolutely focused on this. Certainly, that has been picked up by the Foreign Secretary and me.
Baroness Blower (Lab)
I thank my noble friend the Minister for his Answer to my Written Question last month on this very topic. I am glad to see the commitment of the British Government to this. Will he reinforce the notion, with which I am sure he agrees, that the high-quality education of girls is absolutely central to making sure that Syria functions well into the future and that we have educated women who can play an effective part in Syrian politics?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My noble friend is absolutely right, and I am grateful for her comment on my response to her Written Question. We continue to support those in need across Syria, where safe to do so, through NGOs and UN organisations. We are providing food, healthcare, protection and other life-saving assistance. We are absolutely focused, as my noble friend said, on supporting the education programmes that she referred to, in addition to agricultural livelihoods.
Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-Afl)
My Lords, it is not just a good and nice thing to involve women in political processes: it has been shown that deals made that include women are more sustainable by the very fact that they are inclusive. What plans does the Minister have to equip women in Syria and give them the proper tools to be involved in any peace deals, since they cannot come in without that training?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
The noble Baroness is absolutely right. As I said to the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson, we are supporting, through INGOs, Syrian civil society organisations and the UN, programmes that provide for women’s empowerment and political participation. We are absolutely focused on giving those tools. The debate on this issue focuses on the vital point that women need to be included for a sustainable peace in Syria.
Valdo Calocane: NHS England Report
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Balfe
To ask His Majesty’s Government whether they plan to publish a full version of NHS England’s report regarding Valdo Calocane.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Baroness Merron) (Lab)
My Lords, I offer my sincere condolences and, I am sure, those of all in your Lordships’ House, to the bereaved families of Barnaby Webber, Grace O’Malley-Kumar and Ian Coates. Our thoughts are also with the three survivors who sustained serious injuries in the horrendous attacks that took place in Nottingham. Yesterday, NHS England published in full the report of the independent investigation into the care and treatment provided to Valdo Calocane.
Lord Balfe (Con)
I thank the Minister for her reply and associate myself with her condolences to the families and the other injured persons. This is a thorough report of 300 pages. Short of naming any names, I do not think there is anything more to be said. However, I have three points. First, the report indicates the difference in the balance between patient rights and community safety, and I would like the department to take that point firmly on board. Secondly, it appears that some of the treatment decisions were taken by individuals but could probably have been better taken by multidisciplinary teams to test the individual judgment against a wider group of experts. Thirdly, the report mentions equality, diversity and inclusion factors and the extent to which they cut across medical decisions. Will the Minister come back to this House, perhaps in six months’ time, having asked her services to look at these three points and any others because there are far too many lessons-to-be-learned reports from which lessons never seem to be learned?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I assure the noble Lord that officials are working with NHS England and partners to set out the next steps regarding how future mental health homicide reports should be published and to ensure that we act as transparently as possible in line with our legal obligations and with engagement for families. That is very important for the future. The three points the noble Lord raises are very relevant and are being dealt with thoroughly in Committee as we take the Mental Health Bill through this House. I am confident that your Lordships’ House is on top of this matter, as are the department and all concerned. There has already been progress on the CQC report published previously, and all the recommendations in this report have been accepted in full.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, these Benches share in the condolences to all those affected by this tragedy. This is a watershed moment, but I am not sure whether the culture of the NHS has changed, given that yesterday a senior official said,
“the system got it wrong”.
No. Individuals in the system got it wrong. What extra mechanisms will the Government put in place to ensure that every individual is held accountable for this and future tragedies in each ICB area?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I understand the seriousness of the points the noble Lord makes. As he is aware, the report to which we are referring is concerned with the care and treatment provided by health services to Valdo Calocane rather than questions of culpability. More broadly, I remind your Lordships’ House that the Prime Minister has committed to establishing a judge-led inquiry into these attacks. We absolutely understand the importance of an inquiry. Having met the families myself, it is crucial to provide families with answers and ensure that this cannot happen in the future.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, the Calocane report is a devastating mix of horror at state failures. It echoes everything from the grooming gangs to Southport, and you just think, “How could this have happened?”. The Minister said that we are dealing with this in Committee on the Mental Health Bill. I query that because the report has only just come out, and it seems to me that the Mental Health Bill will need to change to reflect the lessons learned, as the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, said. Otherwise, we are ignoring it. Will the Minister reflect on how that is happening?
Secondly, did she notice the worrying detail that staff were nervous about forcing treatment because debates here in Westminster on racism in the mental health system meant that they stayed back—they were silent—because this patient was black? Can the Minister assure us that those kinds of politicised issues should now be swept away from all service provision and that we will tell staff that the ethnicity of the patient does not matter and that they have to act according to procedures?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for the opportunity to clarify that my reference to the Mental Health Bill discussions was in relation to the three points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, rather than the detail of the report. As I said, the recommendations have been accepted in full, and there is a programme of work to take them forward and for full reporting back. In respect of the further comments the noble Baroness made, it is of course the care of the patient that matters and protection for both the patient—whoever they are—and the public.
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, it is a tragedy that, on average, 120 people are killed every year in Britain by people suffering mental illness. As the noble Lord, Lord Hanson of Flint, flagged last night on a different but relevant topic, the risk of tragedy can never be zero, so mitigation of risk is key. I hope the Minister will commit, perhaps in the Mental Health Bill, that full and complete reports on crimes committed by those who have been treated under the Mental Health Act 1983 should always be published because that is the best way to decrease the likelihood of them happening again. I should flag that in 2006 the High Court refused a request to have a patient’s medical history deleted from a published report.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I am grateful for the reflections of the noble Earl. I said earlier and am happy to emphasise again that the department is working with NHS England and partners to set out the next steps regarding how we will do exactly what he is speaking of, which is how future independent mental health homicide reports should be published, because it is so important to be transparent. Transparency is key, not just for bereaved families but to ensure that it drives improvements to services to help prevent tragedies. I certainly share the intention of the points raised by the noble Earl.
Baroness Browning (Con)
The Minister will know from the Mental Health Bill discussions that there is quite a strong feeling about the abolition of community treatment orders, which were introduced into the 1983 Act by the 2007 amendments. I had reservations about them when I sat on that Bill in another place. I continue to have reservations about them, and this case is indicative of the difficulties and dangers of trying to administer strong medications to people in the community.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness and for all her contributions to the Mental Health Bill. Perhaps I could use this opportunity to say, in answer to her question but also to a previous question, that improving patient rights is not in conflict with public safety. That is something that I know we are very mindful of about the Bill. As the noble Baroness is well aware, and as we have debated many times in this Chamber, there is a case, when to protect people from themselves and to protect the public, action must be taken, and that should not be shied away from.
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, as the terms of reference of the inquiry are developed, could the Minister outline whether they will cover the key questions that have been raised about the criminal justice system? Do we need to look, for instance, at renaming the offence “manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility”, with the cry that he has got away with murder? Will it look at the sensitive issue of, when somebody is not culpable for getting as ill as he did, which is what the court found in the unduly lenient sentence judgment, whether we need to explain to the public why we do not send people to prison but only to hospital in those circumstances?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
As the noble Baroness is aware and as I have already confirmed, the report is totally focused on the care and treatment of Valdo Calocane. The questions about sentencing are of course a matter for the courts, but I am sure that my colleagues in the Ministry of Justice will be interested in the noble Baroness’s comments.
AstraZeneca
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, does the Minister realise that AstraZeneca’s move to reverse its decision to establish a £450 million manufacturing facility in Speke has come as a tremendous setback to my home area, to Merseyside and to the UK? I am very glad that the Minister is answering this Question, because he is widely respected for the work he did as Chief Scientific Adviser to the Government for five years, and also for the research he has done and the work he did in the life sciences sector.
Does the Minister realise that attracting inward investment is one of the most competitive areas across the globe? Is it true that the Treasury, in a last-minute bid to cut the amount of the grant by what is described as an infinitesimal amount, sabotaged the deal? Will he please explain to his colleagues at the Treasury that we need to re-establish an attractive business environment in the UK, rather than the increased tax burden and the Employment Rights Bill which is going to destroy jobs? He alone can probably explain what went wrong. Does he realise that Dr Clive Dix, the former chair of the Covid-19 Vaccine Taskforce, has said:
“The Government had an open goal”,
and have scored “an own goal”? What went wrong?
The Minister of State, Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (Lord Vallance of Balham) (Lab)
Clearly, I understand this area rather well. It is disappointing that the AstraZeneca deal fell through. The deal was first raised in 2020 and was then offered in 2024. Subsequent to that, AstraZeneca changed its mind on how much work it wanted to put into the UK, including reducing the R&D component, which meant that there was a reduction in the offer that came from the Government. I understand that there are a number of reasons why this particular deal fell through, but I also reassure noble Lords that there is a very active programme of attracting investment, including discussions with AstraZeneca which are ongoing on other matters.
Lord Kakkar (CB)
My Lords, I draw noble Lords’ attention to my registered interests as chairman of the Office for Strategic Coordination of Health Research. Is the Minister content that His Majesty’s Government are doing enough to support global investment in UK life sciences, not only through fiscal measures but through their own investment in securing the infrastructure and capacity for clinical research in our country and the base for fundamental and translational research in our universities through funding for the National Institute for Health and Care Research and the Medical Research Council? Is the Minister able to reassure us that these matters will be considered very carefully in any future comprehensive spending review?
Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for his question. Yes, I am very aware of the need for funding in this area and for attracting external inward investment. The noble Lord may well know that a number of companies have been attracted to the UK recently, such as Eli Lilly, with a big deal of £279 million. Last week, Moderna opened its new facility in Harwell within two years. There is a lot going on in terms of inward investment, and the noble Lord is quite right to point out the importance of both NIHR and MRC funding as part of that process.
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, when the former Chancellor announced that AstraZeneca was set to inject £450 million into the establishment of a new manufacturing plant in Liverpool, the metro mayor hailed the investment as a vote of confidence in the work of the Liverpool combined authority, providing the new investment and jobs for local people that the plant would bring. Just days after the Chancellor laid out billion-pound plans mainly for the south-east, the so-called “golden triangle”, AstraZeneca, as we know, pulled out of Liverpool. Can the Minister tell us whether the metro mayor was involved in the discussions over AstraZeneca, and if not, why not? Secondly, how do the Government plan to develop the city’s life sciences and pharmaceutical sector?
Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)
I reassure the noble Lord that the metro mayor was aware of the discussions with AstraZeneca. It is important to remember that AstraZeneca will continue to produce vaccines in Speke. It is not that AstraZeneca has pulled out of there; it is that the new investment has not come there. I have recently been speaking to metro mayors about how we can make sure that the R&D funding is supportive of what metro mayors are trying to achieve.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, the Minister is a little bit complacent because, as he knows, the investment was for future-generation flu vaccines and not for existing vaccines. As the Lords Science and Technology Committee said recently, this raises “troubling concerns” about the UK’s lack of
“capacity to manufacture vaccines for future biological threats”.
What are the Government doing to ensure a portfolio of vaccine technology can be manufactured in the UK and that we are not just relying on mRNA?
Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord—that is the first time I have been called complacent about vaccines. There is a lot going on: the Moderna investment in a new facility at Harwell; the BioNTech investment; the recent announcement of £60 million by GSK with Oxford; and there is a review of all the vaccine facilities across the country. It is absolutely essential to get this right, as the noble Lord has said, for future pandemic preparedness, as it is a key area. AstraZeneca remains, of course, with its major R&D base in this country, and I will be speaking to it again shortly.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, I would call my noble friend the Minister a very dedicated public servant and not a bit complacent. Does he agree that a number of pharmaceutical companies, not least AstraZeneca, have benefited a great deal over the years from UK investment, including in universities and including through the purchasing power of the NHS, which is not inconsiderable? What do the Government plan to do to introduce an element of contingency into those relationships? Have the Government considered perhaps even their own state manufacturing capacity?
Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for her question. The UK is fortunate to have two very large pharmaceutical companies in this land, and we have many biotechs starting up as a result, because many of the people in those biotechs were trained in the big companies. As my noble friend quite rightly points out, the relationship with the NHS is important. All of these things create an ecosystem for life sciences investment which we are very keen to continue. The history of state-run manufacturing facilities is not one that generally leads to advanced manufacturing and efficiency.
Lord Northbrook (Con)
My Lords, can the Minister give us more detail as to why AstraZeneca pulled out? He said there were a number of reasons, so I wonder if he could go into more detail.
Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)
Yes, I am happy to do so. The first was the restructuring of the deal because of the AstraZeneca decision to put less into R&D, which meant that there was a proportionate decrease in the state funding, which I think most people would think would be an appropriate position in a deal. Secondly, I think that it has expressed concerns about the voluntary scheme for branded medicines pricing and access programme. It was also concerned about NICE’s decision to refuse approval for its recent drug Enhertu. But I think noble Lords would agree that it is not appropriate for the Government to link decisions on individual drugs to investment in other parts of the system.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, would the Minister confirm that the chief executive of AstraZeneca has said that it was a purely commercial decision and that a potential grant of £80 million should not be significant to a company that has made a profit of nearly £9 billion and increased its profits by 38% in the last year? Surely it is the company’s responsibility, unlike what has been suggested by the unfortunate spokesperson for the Opposition?
Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)
I think it is undoubtedly a commercial decision. Having been head of R&D for a multinational pharmaceutical company, I know exactly how these decisions are made. It will have been a commercial decision as to where it needs to make the right investments for its vaccine manufacturing. I think the small change in the deal from the UK Government was probably a minor part in the overall decision-making.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
Given the fact that the project will not now go ahead and that we wish to be self-sufficient in the production of vaccines, what steps are the Government taking to ensure that we will be self-sufficient in producing vaccines going forward and not dependent on imports?
Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)
I refer the noble Baroness to the answer I gave earlier: the Moderna facility in Harwell is a massive new vaccine investment in this country; there is the BioNTech deal to bring that company here as well; and there are several other opportunities, including the life sciences innovation manufacturing fund of up to £520 million, which people are applying for at the moment. There is a lot more going on in vaccines now than there has been, but I am absolutely not complacent about this. It is an area we need to get right and an area where we need to make sure that the vaccine facilities are being used to produce vaccines on a daily basis—there is no good at all in having plants lying idle, waiting for something to happen.
Chagos Islands
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, the leader in the Times this morning says that this agreement is
“the worst negotiated by a British government in living memory”.
It goes on to say that the Prime Minister and the Attorney-General
“have taken leave of their senses”.
Current Labour Cabinet Ministers describe the deal in off-the-record quotes to the BBC as
“‘terrible’, ‘mad’ and ‘impossible to understand’”.
At a time when Labour Ministers seem to spend half their time at this Dispatch Box bemoaning the supposed black hole in the public finances, how does it make any sense whatever to spend up to £18 billion leasing back an island that we already own?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Baroness Chapman of Darlington) (Lab)
I was an Opposition Front-Bench Spokesman for 12 years, so I know how this goes. I do not think I ever resorted to reading out a Times leader from the Dispatch Box as my primary source. Perhaps the kindest thing I could do is to invite the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, to come to the FCDO, to put the kettle on and to brief him properly so that he knows what is going on. I could point him in the direction of a communiqué issued by the Mauritian Government, which stated:
“Mauritius has never said that the financial package in the agreement between Mauritius and the UK on the Chagos Archipelago had doubled as alleged”.
I also point out that the cost of this is not for nothing; it is to buy a security arrangement that has served this country very well, alongside our allies, the United States, for very many years. It is a base and an arrangement that we are committed to. In order to secure the future of that base, we need to come to a legally sound agreement with Mauritius.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, the dogged perseverance of the previous Conservative Government to cede sovereignty over 11 rounds of negotiations—insisting on 11 rounds of negotiations before the general election—is in some ways admirable. What was not admirable was that the Chagossians were excluded from all parts of those 11 rounds of discussions on the ceding of sovereignty. Could the Minister confirm to me, first, that the funding package that the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, referred to was agreed by the previous Conservative Administration and inherited by the current Government, and—
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
This is a question to the Minister, not to the Opposition Front Bench.
Secondly, can the Minister confirm that, to avoid the Chagossians becoming a political football again, if any agreement is reached as a result of the pause, either with the United States or the Mauritian Government, it will be for Parliament to vote on it, to ensure that the Chagossians can have representation in the debates here in Parliament?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
The negotiations were conducted state to state. Regrettable though it may be, it is a fact that the Chagossians were not party to that, and the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, is right to remind us of it. The Chagossians have been terribly treated since their forced removal all those years ago. My own view is that it is better and fairer to the Chagossians to be clear that, as long as that base is there on Diego Garcia, there will be no ability for them to resettle that island. That is the fact of the situation that we are in, and to give any hope of anything otherwise would be irresponsible and a mistake. But, as the noble Lord says, there will be a process, and the involvement of both Houses of Parliament will be needed as we put the treaty before them and make the appropriate legislative changes that are needed for this deal. As the noble Lord says—and I look forward to it—the voices of Chagossians will be heard through their representatives in this House and in the other place.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
My Lords, I am sure there are great complexities behind this issue which maybe we have not been fully briefed on. One curiosity is that the Chagos people do not feel great fondness for Mauritius at all. It is 1,000 miles away, and it is a puzzle as to why we have somehow got tangled up with Mauritius, with its present inclinations in the direction of China. Should we not be much more acutely aware than we are of the intense Chinese interest in every move in this area, where they see great advantages for themselves? Indeed, they see it as a major part of the general hoovering-up of small islands around the world, including many in the Commonwealth, as part of their grand strategy to dominate the maritime area. Should we not be a bit stronger on that?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
It is precisely because we need to ensure the legal certainty of the Chagos archipelago and the ability of the base to operate and function fully. That is so important to security, as I am sure the noble Lord agrees, and is not something that our adversaries would wish to see established. This deal strengthens our presence and arrangements in Chagos.
I am aware that the Chaggosians in this country do not, in large part, agree with this deal and, as the noble Lord says, they do not feel an identity or affinity with Mauritius. These things happened during decolonisation, and that is why we find ourselves in our present legal situation. However, it is also true that there are Chaggosians living in Mauritius who take a different view. There is not one view of this deal from the global Chaggosian community.
Baroness Brown of Silvertown (Lab)
My Lords, have our NATO allies commented on this deal?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
We are working very closely with our allies in the United States. Jonathan Powell, our National Security Adviser, is in Washington at the moment working through the deal with the Americans. It is right and understandable for any new Administration to want to know every precise detail of this, because it has a profound impact on security and the stability of the base on Diego Garcia.
Lord Bellingham (Con)
My Lords, why were this Government so keen to reach an agreement when, because we did not contest it, the UN court case was only advisory? Why is there this rush on the part of the Minister and her ministerial colleagues?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
We have been through this in the House several dozen times, but I am happy to take the question again. I invite the noble Lord to consider a situation where we had allowed for the legal processes to continue. The advice that we received was that it was likely that the advisory decision would be followed by a decision to which we would have to adhere. Our view—this is a judgment—is that we would be in a stronger position to negotiate ahead of a binding judgment rather than afterwards. Noble Lords can disagree with that, but it is the reason for our timing. It is also the reason for the 11 rounds of negotiation under the previous Government. It is also true that there are Members opposite and Members in opposition in the other place who know that very well.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, I am always grateful to my noble friend the Minister for the very careful tone with which she discusses these very sensitive subjects in a non-partisan way, despite obscene provocation to the contrary. I wonder whether she agrees that it is all very well to talk about ICJ rulings being advisory and to laugh them off, but we would not have been in the ICJ without the overwhelming support of the UN General Assembly. If we want the global South, and countries in Africa in particular, to think differently about China and to respect us going forward, we need to respect institutions such as the UN General Assembly.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
My noble friend makes a very clear point. For the record, I am happy to come here and take questions and challenge on this issue—it is important and right that the Government are held to account on it. She made a point about the geopolitics of this, with which I agree. One also needs to think about the practical, day-to-day functioning of a base in the middle of the Indian Ocean and our reliance upon third countries to enable it to function as well as we need it to. There would have been an impact on that, should we have waited for a binding judgment.
Baroness Freeman of Steventon (CB)
My Lords, the Chagos archipelago contains some vital marine habitats, and in the past I have recognised the difficulties of marine protection in the area. Can the Minister give us any indication of the level of marine protection that has been agreed in this treaty?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
That is an important point. There will be marine protection considerations in the agreement, because the waters around the Chagos Islands are precious and need to be protected. It is difficult when there is also a base there, but the protections that we would need to secure to enable the base to function securely and without interference could also serve the marine environment well.
Southport Attack
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for bringing this Statement to your Lordships’ House. I reiterate the shadow Home Secretary’s message in the House of Commons. He said that we must keep in our thoughts and prayers the innocent victims of this despicable act: Bebe King, just six years old; Elsie Dot Stancombe, who was seven; and Alice da Silva Aguiar, who was only nine. Their lives were cruelly and senselessly cut short while attending a Taylor Swift dance class. I know all Members of this House will once again wish to extend their deepest condolences to their families and honour the memory of these young children, whose futures were stolen from them.
This tragedy underscores the necessity of a robust and transparent investigation to ensure that lessons are learned and that no stone is left unturned in holding accountable those responsible for any failures that may have contributed to this heinous act. I welcome the inquiry announced by the Home Secretary a couple of weeks ago and note the Security Minister’s confirmation in the other place that it will begin on a non-statutory footing but transition to a statutory footing. Does the Minister have any information about the timeline for this transition? Can he assure the House that this inquiry will be given the necessary resources and authority to investigate thoroughly? Furthermore, does he agree that it is vital for this House to be kept regularly informed about the inquiry’s progress and findings, transparency being essential to restore public confidence?
I am also pleased to hear that the Prevent thresholds are being reviewed. The lessons learned review highlighted several critical areas for further investigation, particularly the apparent mismatch between the focus of Prevent referrals and the actual threat landscape. Does the Minister share the concern that this imbalance indicates a misalignment in how resources are being allocated within Prevent? What steps are the Government taking to ensure that the review addresses this and that Prevent is laser-focused on tackling the most pressing and dangerous threats? Will the review also examine the training and guidance given to Prevent officers to ensure that they are well equipped to assess and respond to credible threats? Furthermore, could the Minister clarify whether there will be any changes to how information is shared between local authorities and counterterrorism units to improve early identification and intervention in cases of radicalisation?
I am sure the Minister agrees that we must do everything in our power to prevent future tragedies, and I look forward to his assurances that the Government are committed to acting swiftly, decisively and transparently.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
My Lords, I have a sad sense of déjà vu, as this is a very real echo of the earlier Question from the noble Lord, Lord Balfe. I respect the insightful comments from noble Lords on that similar issue.
The whole country was unified last summer over the horror of events in Southport. It was indeed a brutal and senseless act of violence. We owe it to the memories of Alice, Bebe and Elsie to do everything we can as a society to ensure that such acts of brutality are not allowed to be repeated. Sadly, they appear to be repeating. We want communities to feel safe and individuals to go about their daily business, like Taylor Swift dance classes in the summer holidays, without fearing that there are dangerous people out there intent on hurting them.
It is deeply troubling that the Prevent learning review makes it clear that warning signs were missed in the lead up to that attack in Southport. These Benches have long raised concerns about the failures of Prevent. Indeed, as, the elected mayor of Watford when Prevent was first introduced, I remember the trouble that we had with our Muslim community in trying to get it to accept what Prevent was trying to do. It has had a very troubled journey through its many incarnations. For that reason, we welcome the decision to publish the learning review.
We also welcome the creation of the new Prevent commissioner. We are very pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, will serve as interim commissioner. He is highly skilled and experienced in the complex issues that he will need to navigate that tricky road. I would welcome some details from the Minister on what powers the commissioner will have to enforce any recommendations and to ensure that they will be enacted. Recommendations must lead to actions and actions to swift, successful resolution with full transparency and accountability. Often, we do not have a very good track record in that regard.
Looking more widely, we have to ensure that our national security strategy is fit for purpose, given the wide range of threats we now face as a country. We clearly need to tackle extremist ideology, but not to forget those who are motivated not by any particular ideology, but rather by an obsession with violence or a hatred of society. Will the Minister say what the Government can do? What are they going to do to prevent people slipping through the net?
A point that often is not made is that we also have a duty of care to those individuals whom we ask to decide, for the safety of society, whether an individual is a threat to life. What is being done to support those people in that role? What training are they given to ensure that they can make the best possible decision on behalf of us all?
Finally, after the tragic murders in Southport last summer and the disorder on the streets afterwards, we saw communities coming together in far greater numbers to clean up the streets and affirm belief in something bigger than themselves. Protecting communities must be at the centre of everything that the Home Office does. What is being done to reassure the public that they remain safe from threats? What is being done to ensure that incidents such as this are not exploited by groups or individuals who would wish harm upon our communities?
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Davies, and to the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, for their contributions. Like them, I want to start with the victims of this crime. They should be for ever in our thoughts when we deal with how we respond to these issues. Bebe, Elsie and Alice need to be remembered at all times. I remind the House that the perpetrator, whom I shall not name today, is now serving 52 years, a sentence passed by Mr Justice Goose in the Crown Court. That perpetrator will have a significant sentence as the result of the crimes he committed.
I am grateful for the welcome for the inquiry from the noble Lord, Lord Davies, and the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill. The noble Lord asked me particularly about the timeline for the public inquiry. As the Home Office has already said, the inquiry will be non-statutory. We reserve the right to change it to a statutory inquiry if circumstances require. I hope that the noble Lord will know, because I have said this before, that the choice of chair, the terms of reference and the timeline for the inquiry are important matters that I will report back to this House on in due course.
Our first priority is to consult the families and the coroner who is undertaking a statutory duty in relation to this incident. We will therefore, at some point, be able to answer the noble Lord’s questions in a way that I cannot at the moment, but I commit to bringing this back to the House in due course.
The Home Secretary swiftly commissioned a review shortly after the murders which has brought forward 14 recommendations. The noble Lord, Lord Davies, mentioned two particular issues: data sharing and training. Recommendation 1 addresses data sharing and putting in place some measures to help with that. Recommendation 3 is about improving training. Having discussed the implementation of the 14 recommendations with officials, I can give a commitment that this House will have a report back by—I hope—this summer on the finalisation of those recommendations and the resulting practical action. The Government accept all 14 recommendations to be implemented in due course.
The noble Baroness and the noble Lord mentioned the appointment of the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, who I am pleased to see in his place. I know he has a busy schedule looking at the issues we are discussing at the moment. The noble Baroness asked about the powers of the recommendations that the noble Lord may make. He is the interim commissioner. We have asked him to look at what happened in this case, and also to do a quick sprint on Prevent more generally. He, and whoever is appointed as the permanent commissioner, will have powers to make recommendations. I am still of the view that recommendations are to Ministers who will decide on those recommendations and be held accountable for them. I suspect that, in due course, there will be agreement on the outcome of any recommendations made. That will help to review independently, and to decide politically the way forward.
The noble Baroness also mentioned widening Prevent’s essentially terrorism role to look at other issues where people may have mental health challenges, be obsessed with violence or general hatred or have a whole range of other issues driving them that are not related to Islamist or far-right terrorism as we know them. We are looking at this and how it can be adopted. This is another issue that the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, will look at in order to give what I hope will be a considered response to difficult and challenging issues.
Finally, the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, made a point about the community. What really impressed me about Southport after the attack was that the religious, civic and ordinary communities came together to reject the violence that had occurred in their town. They showed that the violence emanating from the violence in their town was also not acceptable or applicable and was rejected by the community. That was a valuable lesson. As political leaders, we need collectively to reject those who would exploit difficult issues for political ends. I am acutely aware that we have our political differences, but we should be standing together against terrorism, violence and the type of actions that led to the deaths of these three young girls.
I take some comfort from the response of the Southport community, while having to recognise that there are lessons to be learned because of mistakes that were made. As ever, those mistakes need to be rectified to ensure that we make positive change for the future. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, can assist the Government bringing his expertise to this area.
Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)
My Lords, this case, terrible as it is, shows the fine line that can exist at times between mental illness and terrorist offences, particularly where a single person is involved.
Prevent has struggled at times when police officers are trying to make decisions, based on intelligence or factual evidence, when mental illness is involved. I wonder whether the Minister might look at the unit in the Metropolitan Police called the Fixated Threat Assessment Centre. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, may consider it. It was created in 2006 and has about 20 people in it. It was designed to protect royalty against people who become fixated on them. It is led by psychologists and psychiatrists. It makes a medical assessment of the threat, rather than just a criminal assessment as a police officer might do. It has police officers and mental health nurses who are able to access data from the health service as well as from the police. That balanced approach can be quite helpful. Sometimes, the way forward might be treatment, sometimes it should be criminal investigation with the consequences that might follow. This process has been quite well established for about 20 years, but it has never extended beyond royalty-fixated threat assessment. I wonder whether we all might learn from it.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe; he brings immeasurable expertise in his contribution to this debate. I will say two things in response. First, the Prevent programme still has to focus primarily on people who are being radicalised through a range of means and pose threats on both Islamist and extreme right-wing fronts—that is the main focus. But, secondly, this case shows that there are potential areas where we need to look at other issues, including misogyny, concerns around violence and its worship generally, and people just wishing to inflict hate on society for a range of reasons that are not politically or culturally motivated. I take what the noble Lord said, as there may be lessons that we could learn from it. I would be very grateful to discuss—with both the Metropolitan Police and the noble Lord, if he wishes—how we can widen the debate on looking at potential areas. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, will look at how we can draw a wider circumference around the support mechanisms to help with cases that fall outside the broad areas of Prevent but which still lead to the types of actions that Prevent is designed to prevent.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister and others for understanding that not everything can be squeezed into the rubric of “terrorism”, with its ideological motive and so on. I will make a small point on a previous point my noble friend made in reference to the sentence of 52 years. It is quite important to remember, and for the public to understand, that this was, rightly, a life sentence with a minimum of 52 years before any consideration of release; one would not always get that information from reading the newspapers. I hope that my noble friend will forgive me for making that clear.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
My noble friend is absolutely right. The 52 years is a minimum; it is a life sentence. Indeed, in his sentencing remarks, Justice Goose indicated that he felt that it was highly unlikely that the individual convicted would be released. That is a matter for well downstream. The concerns that we have around Prevent are things that we can resolve to stop that type of activity taking place in the future. As my noble friend knows, the reason a whole-life tariff was not imposed was because of the age of the perpetrator at the time of the event. I suspect that, if he had been older, a whole-life tariff may well have been given by the judge. My noble friend was right to add further definition to my comment, which was not meant to undermine in any way the sentence given.
Lord Paddick (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I declare my interests as set out in the register. My thoughts are with all those affected by this tragedy in Southport. I am sure that the Minister will accept that there is a big difference between the decision-makers involved in Prevent—who are referred over 19 cases a day, and therefore 7,000 cases a year—and a reviewing officer who is looking at one particular case with the benefit of hindsight. I share the concerns that the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, has about the decision-makers in such cases. Indeed, I do not think that it came out clearly in the review’s executive summary on the government website that, in this case, all the procedures and policies were followed by those involved in the decision-making. Therefore,
“it is the subjective decisions that have come into focus”.
Can the Minister explain how the Government will address the issues around subjective decision-making in such cases? Also, what does he think the impact will be on the considerable number of cases that these officers have to deal with now? Prevent is apparently expanding its definition to include a fascination with mass violence, in addition to concentrating on the areas of, say, Islamist and right-wing terrorism, which the Minister said the Government want Prevent officers to concentrate on.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord and for the experience that he brings to this issue. He raised two points; I will first answer the latter one about the potential widening of the definition. We are dependent ultimately on further advice from the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, downstream. As I mentioned to the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, it will still mean that the focus is on Islamist and extreme right-wing terrorism, because those two issues are the most extreme areas that we need to resolve and deal with; they are where most cases come from. In the light of that, there may be—as in the first part of his question—additional pressures on case officers to look at how they work with different types of activity, which they may not be used to working with to date and on which they may need further training and support.
I hope that the noble Lord will have a chance to look at the 14 recommendations in the executive summary. The second states:
“Further training should be considered regarding the circumstances where visits to individuals during the initial assessment can be conducted”.
That further training aspect, alongside the other 13 recommendations that we have now accepted and will implement by this summer, will look at the range of issues that the noble Lord mentioned in the first part of his question.
School Accountability and Intervention
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, no one in this House will disagree with the Government’s aspirations for every child in this country to receive a great education and to leave school with the qualifications and confidence they need to go on to the next stage, whether that is education or work, and to realise their potential. No one would disagree that this needs to be done as quickly as possible.
Indeed, under the previous Government, one of the top priorities of the Secretary of State was to reduce the number of children studying in schools that, at that time, were judged to be “Inadequate”—or “2RI+”, as we called them in the jargon; everyone has their secret language—or those that had had multiple Ofsted judgments below “Good”. In the past two years in office, we reduced that figure by over 200,000 children to around 500,000. I am glad that the Government are continuing with that focus, but I suggest that the figure is not the 300,000 that the Government are talking about; it is around 500,000. Just the redefinition that the Government have brought means that 200,000 fewer children risk not getting the intervention that their school needs.
Where we part ways on the ambition is on how we get there. One of the first actions that this Government took was to stop intervention in schools that were judged to be “2RI+”. These are literally the schools where the Government are now saying that they need to see change and will potentially intervene. Some of these schools were “2RI+”, but many had had four, five or more judgments and had had never been “Good” in their history. That is two full cohorts of children going through a school that is judged not to be “Good”.
While the Statement talks about earlier intervention, fostering a self-improving system and putting in support from the RISE teams, in reality, last year’s decision to stop intervention into “2RI+” schools will slow things down, and it will be the children in those schools who pay the price. It will be interesting to see whether the new Government can maintain the pace of the previous Government in reducing the number of children in stuck schools: not by taking action in those schools, but by actually moving them to “Good”—or “Secure”, in the new Ofsted language.
When the Minister responds, could she confirm what the Government’s target is for the number of children in these schools over the next 12 months? What reduction does she expect from the Government’s activity? Can she also comment on Ofsted’s proposals for multiple monitoring visits if a school is in special measures? I think I have understood correctly that six visits are proposed in two years or, if a school requires significant improvement, five visits in 18 months. We were talking earlier in your Lordships’ House about teacher recruitment. How does she think teachers will feel about having so many follow-up visits?
Ofsted has said that it plans to look at nine different areas of school performance, including explicitly looking at attendance, which, of course, we warmly welcome, but nine areas and five possible grades for each mean 45 potential outcomes for schools. Even the most resilient teachers and leaders describe this as stressful. I fear it could end up being almost meaningless, and that is not what Ofsted, the Government or schools want or need. What consideration did the Government or Ofsted give to rethinking the inspection process and having a much more risk-led approach to inspection, rather than the universal blanket approach that we followed in the past?
The Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill risks making things worse, with the proposal to replace the duty on the Secretary of State to intervene in a school that is judged to be in special measures with just a power. We have already seen the Secretary of State reverse a decision to intervene in a school when threatened with a judicial review. The whole system risks being paralysed by JRs and, again, it will be the children who suffer.
The guidance the Government have put out so far makes it clear that the department will not intervene based on academic performance. The noble Baroness and all her colleagues in the department, and those on this side of the House, all care passionately about the disadvantage attainment gap. I urge the Minister to talk to her colleagues about this. She has heard me say—probably more than once—that there are schools in the same local authority, with the same profiles of deprivation, which have radically different levels of attainment for their pupils. Those attainment gaps are not one-offs: they are sustained over time. It would be really helpful if the Government could set out what they propose to do about this.
I really do not doubt the Government’s commitment to raising standards for every child, but I hope that they will use the consultation period to rethink this approach, which risks ending up with confusion, delay and poorer outcomes for the children in stuck schools. I am reminded of a sponsored academy that I visited in Sefton, one year to the day after it had become an academy and joined a strong multi-academy trust, in this case the Dixons Academies Trust. I asked the pupil who was showing me round what it would have been like if I had visited a year ago. She looked at me in horror and said, “You wouldn’t have been safe in the corridors, miss”. That is the reality for children if we delay intervention, and this Government need to think again.
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, not having been a Minister, I am not sure of these terms such as 2RI+, but perhaps I will learn.
In Oral Questions this morning, the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, raised the question of teachers—a very important topic. Not only do we need good teachers, but we also need good schools. It is important that we retain a robust inspection system. Inspections should remain a vital part of the accountability process for schools and councils, and we should extend inspections to multi-academy trusts. However, their purpose needs to be thought through carefully. Where a school is struggling, poor inspection results should lead to greater support. We very much welcome the new regional teams to turn around the so-called stuck schools in England, which have received back-to-back negative judgments from Ofsted.
We would abandon the idea that a school’s performance should be reduced to a single grade. Instead, inspections should identify how a school is performing across a wide range of issues, such as curriculum breadth, provision for SEND pupils, teacher workload and pupil well-being, so that parents can decide for themselves whether a school suits their child’s needs. We should lower the stakes of a school inspection so that deciding to intervene in a school or change its governance arrangements does not depend on a single grade. Instead, inspectors should work alongside schools, councils and academy trusts as critical friends, providing the evidence that a school needs to identify its strengths and weaknesses and how it needs to improve.
Does the Minister think that the proposals outlined by her Government can really change the culture around Ofsted inspections? The framework does not include SEND provision or SEND inclusivity as a stand-alone assessment area. As we try to fix the SEND crisis, should this not form a key part of any assessment of schools?
Safeguarding will be assessed separately from other elements of the Ofsted report. How will this be organised and who will carry it out? Can the Minister reassure the House that safeguarding will remain a key area being assessed?
We must remember that Ruth Perry took her own life after an Ofsted inspection. Given everything that has been said following that heartbreaking tragedy, it is important that, after the 12-week consultation, we get this right.
The Minister of State, Department for Education (Baroness Smith of Malvern) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, for her recognition that this Statement represents the objective that, I believe, is shared across this House: to ensure that every child in every school is getting the very best opportunities to learn; and that, where there is a need to improve the provision being provided in a school, that happens as effectively and as quickly as possible. That is because every day that a child spends in a school that is not performing as well as it needs to is a day lost to that child at a crucial part of their life.
It is with that objective in mind, of course, that the Government outlined on Monday the consultation on the approach that will be taken to accountability, intervention and improvement, alongside the consultation being carried out by Ofsted on the revised inspection framework. The development of the report card will provide considerably more information, granularity and insight for parents in determining that most difficult of choices—where they want their child to go to school—and for the schools themselves and others to determine areas of improvement and where they need to see more work. As the noble Baroness said, one of the most important priorities is to able to intervene and improve schools as quickly as possible and appropriately. I will come to that in a moment.
The noble Baroness started with a reasonable barrage of statistics. I will do my best to respond to the suggestions that she made but I may well need to follow up some of those points subsequently in a letter. The first thing she said was that the number of pupils in underperforming schools was 500,000, not 300,000. To be clear, the figure of 300,000 was for those schools that are stuck in a period of persistent underperformance. This Government are unwilling to allow that consistent underperformance to continue and we have been clear that we need to have a wider range of improvement tools than has been the case previously.
The noble Baroness characterised the RISE teams as being within the department, but these are teams based in regions, made up of people who have enormous background in and experience of school improvement, many of whom come from multi-academy trusts and who are in a position both to support the turnaround of schools that are not performing adequately and to ensure that those schools that are not seeing improvements over a period of time are challenged and supported to make that improvement. To be clear, for those stuck schools, if, after two years of this targeted intervention, they were not improving, once again, the option of structural intervention and change would be considered.
What the Government are also proposing in this consultation is that up until September 2026, where schools would previously have been in categories of concern, where they are in what we might have thought of as special measures—in other words, where there is not the capacity of the leadership within the school to improve it—there will be immediate structural intervention, but where the leadership could enable that to change, they will be subject to immediate academisation. After September 2026, when we have the RISE teams fully up and running, for those schools where the leadership has the potential to change, we would expect the RISE teams to be focusing on and targeting them to make sure that there is improvement.
Of course, the reason for taking this more sophisticated approach to improvement is precisely because, while there is clearly evidence that being academised can lead to improvement, there is also evidence that in many cases, that can take too long, given the urgency of improving education for our children. Some 40% of academisations take more than a year to convert; 20% take more than two years. We cannot wait for those structural changes to happen, important and impactful though they might be. We need to ensure that children’s chances are improved as quickly as possible.
On the specific questions about the Ofsted consultation, it is important to emphasise that it is a consultation that builds on the Big Listen, which makes important recommendations; for example, about how the inspection will now focus, as noble Lords have said, on nine areas. This is a consultation, but I support the move from a single headline grade, where the emphasis was literally on a headline, which was of course very low in information for parents making that decision but very high stakes for schools, and very much did not encompass the nuance of where a school might be doing well, where it might be more challenged or where it might have exemplary practice that needed to be shared more widely. There is consultation on these areas, but I think the fact that they will now include absence, attendance and inclusion—to respond to the noble Lord’s point about the significance of ensuring that there are improvements around SEND, I think that partly covers that point—is important.
On the safeguarding point, I will write to the noble Lord and the noble Baroness about the specific questions about the proposals for follow-up visits. The noble Lord rightly mentioned the tragic death of Ruth Perry, and the campaigning work of her sister, Professor Julia Waters, has been important for ensuring that Ofsted thought carefully about the approach that it was taking. One of the issues highlighted there was the impact of the safeguarding measure on the overall headline grade. One of the reasons for the different approach to safeguarding that Ofsted is proposing is to avoid that position, where a failure on safeguarding would have the impact that it had in that particular case, while also recognising that it is important that schools are assessed on the basis of the quality of their safeguarding.
On the point about whether or not the Government should have a duty or a power to academise, we will of course have the opportunity, when the Bill comes from the other place, to look in detail at the intention of Clauses 43 and 44, and I look forward to doing that. I just push back against the noble Baroness’s suggestion that in some way or other there has been a pause in this Government’s commitment to intervening where necessary and to ensuring that all our schools are improved. In the case that both she and her right honourable friend in the other place identified, it is not as clear-cut as she says that there was a revocation of the decision to academise. In fact, that was a quite considerable change of circumstance in that particular case.
Let me respond to the point that the noble Lord made about the pressure on teachers. My experience as a teacher, having been on the receiving end of an Ofsted inspection, notwithstanding that it was some time ago, is that, yes, it is stressful, but no teacher wants to teach in a school that is not doing the best for its pupils, and having an improvement, inspection and accountability regime that ensures that teachers are able to successfully support the children who need it will be good for teachers, good for parents, good for schools—and, most importantly, good for children.
Baroness Blackstone (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate the Government on giving so much attention to school standards and to some urgency on school improvement, but does my noble friend agree that by far the most important quality that is needed in any school is first-class teachers? Perhaps she could reassure the House that the consultation will not be just about Ofsted, although obviously there will be a lot of consideration of some of the issues about changing the Ofsted structure. What will be done to improve in-service training for teachers who are not achieving what they should be and who are neither inspiring, nor exciting, nor encouraging their children’s aspirations successfully? This needs to happen, especially for disadvantaged pupils. Can she tell the House a little about what is being done, apart from the RISE scheme, to improve both school leadership and the quality of classroom teaching?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
My noble friend makes a very important point about teachers. In fact, probably less than an hour and a half ago, we were engaged in a discussion across the Dispatch Box about the significance of teachers. She is absolutely right. What I would say about these two consultations running side-by-side with respect to teachers really goes back to my final point in my previous response. I think it is valuable for teachers to have not just that headline grade that was previously the case with Ofsted, but the more granular understanding of where there are strengths within the school, where there are areas for improvement, where, as I said, there is exemplary practice that needs to be shared more widely—and, incidentally, how they can get access to that good practice in other areas, to improve their practice and their school.
My noble friend also makes an important point about training. We are as a Government working on how to not just recruit additional teachers but keep them in the classroom and ensure that they are able to improve and gain in competence and skill. That is why, in looking at and reviewing the national professional qualifications, we will want to consider those forms of training and opportunities for continuing professional development that will really focus on the areas that teachers need and that will make the most difference to the pupils they are teaching.
Lord Hampton (CB)
My Lords, I apologise—twice: once for being late for this debate and once for being a bit keen. Ofsted is a real problem, and there is quite a simple solution. A friend of mine, who is a teacher, told me a story. They were told, “Ofsted is coming tomorrow. The school will be open all night”. That is not a fair reflection of the school or the teachers. If Ofsted goes in twice, the first time is a snap inspection. It sits down with the leadership and talks through where they are going wrong and where they are going right. Nine months or a year later, Ofsted goes back, and that is the inspection that gets published. That takes the pressure off everybody and gives a fair result. Will the Minister reflect those ideas back to the consultation? I think they will listen more to her than to me.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
Given the noble Lord’s background as a teacher, I am sure that Ofsted will listen to his response to the consultation, which I hope he will make. While I have some sympathy with the concerns of teachers about the arrival of Ofsted—having experienced it myself, as I have already said—I am not wholly convinced that students can afford to wait nine months between the preparatory conversation and the point at which some judgment is made. Frankly, if things are going wrong, it is important for students and parents that those are identified at the appropriate time, and, if things are going right, it is important that those are shared as widely as possible.
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, on the move from the duty to intervene to the power to intervene when a school is inadequate, the schools the Minister outlined that have taken a long time often have complicated land or financial issues, as I am sure she is aware. Trusts already go in before the legal status has changed, and for schools that go through the process relatively quickly, there are occasions when the fact that everybody knows there is a duty to academise speeds things up. The Minister will be aware that, by virtue of these contracts, the Department for Education is now a regulator; it regulates schools. Is there another example of a regulator, such as the Charity Commission or the FCA, that does not have a duty to intervene and merely relies on these powers?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
The noble Baroness will know from her experience that the ability to academise a school does not depend on a duty in every case, and nor did it do so under the last Government. The 2RI policy was a power for academisation to happen in those cases, not a duty. I am not sure I would characterise the department in quite the way she did; nevertheless, it comes back to this point: what is the most appropriate range of interventions that can be used to ensure that the improvement we see in the schools that need it is as speedy, well supported and appropriate as possible? For example, the distinction between schools that have the leadership capacity to improve themselves, and those that do not, is an important one. The RISE teams, with their targeted interventions for schools that need it, and their broader universal offer to direct schools looking to improve in the right areas, are an important addition to ensure that all our schools are improving quickly.
Lord Knight of Weymouth (Lab)
I remind noble Lords of my entry in the register of interests as the chair of the multi-academy trust E-ACT. My noble friend will know that some argue that the Secretary of State has oversteered back towards a model of school improvement based on fear. What reassurance can she give that Ofsted will go further to ensure that inspections are more consistent and more supportive, and when can we expect much-needed universal inspections of MATs, with a move to more risk-based inspections, as suggested by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
Importantly, as a result of the Big Listen, Ofsted is also publishing as part of the consultation considerably more information on how schools will be assessed. For example, publication of toolkits and the consultations gives schools much more of an opportunity to know the basis on which they are going to be inspected, and more of an idea about what counts as good and where improvement might be needed. My noble friend is right: that will be an important way of ensuring that balance between challenge and an appropriate way for schools to understand what needs to happen in order to improve. We are committed to introducing MATs inspections, and we will engage with the sector and bring forward legislation when time allows. This is an important area, like the Ofsted consultation and the department’s consultation, and we are genuinely open to ensuring that this works appropriately, gets the balance right and ensures that children’s education is being improved.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My Lords, the proposed five-tier report card for schools is receiving much airtime, but can the Minister tell us what is being done to measure the effectiveness of Ofsted inspectors? This follows on from the question from the noble Lord, Lord Knight. Should there not be an appraisal system with report cards, bearing in mind the many negative anecdotes from headteachers about inspections that we have heard about during this short debate, and bearing in mind the sensitivities, particularly with multiple inspections, that affect headteachers?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
The quality of the inspections that Ofsted carries out is important, as is the capacity and training of Ofsted inspectors to provide that. That, of course, is the responsibility of the chief inspector and the structures in Ofsted, but I am sure that everybody takes the noble Viscount’s point that there needs to be quality in those who are inspecting our schools, as well as the expected quality in those who are directly delivering education.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)
Further to the comments by the noble Baronesses, Lady Barran and Lady Berridge, about the need for forced academisation, does my noble friend agree that there is no evidence that the only help available to an underperforming school is for it to become an academy? Support is available in the maintained sector—an issue we will come to in more detail when the schools Bill is developed—but it is a fallacy to suggest that that is the only hope for underperforming schools.
It is appropriate that the two consultations published this week were published on the same day, and that the consultation periods ended on the same date. However, I am a bit concerned about the Ofsted proposals. I know that the report is based on the Big Listen, but as I understand it, some aspects of it are already being trialled in certain schools. Does it not bring into question just how accurate it is to describe the document as a consultation, if, as it seems, some people have made decisions already?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I can assure my noble friend that, in both cases, they are genuine consultations. The objective of ensuring that all our children are in good schools is shared not just across this House but by parents, teachers, inspectors, school leaders and many others involved in the education sector, and that is why I can assure my noble friend that this is a genuine consultation. Here, trialling can sometimes be part of the consultation, to determine whether things are running successfully. Personally, I think it is possible to trial and pilot, and to consult, to get the broadest input into ensuring that the right decisions are made after that.
Creative Industries: Creating Jobs and Productivity Growth
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Baroness Thornton
To move that this House takes note of the contribution of the creative industries to the Government’s growth mission and to creating jobs and productivity growth.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, it is a great privilege to open this debate. I very much look forward to the three maiden speeches by my noble friends Lady Griffin, Lord Lemos and Lord Brennan, and, of course, to the speech of my noble friend Lady Twycross. I thank the Library and the many organisations that have sent briefings to us all—many briefings, because, of course, the creative industries cover such a huge area of our national life and our economy.
Some of us will probably recall a teacher or a person who first opened our eyes to the pleasure of music, art, design, or some form of creative endeavour. In my case this was Miss Bickerstaff, who was the music teacher at Frizinghall Middle School in Bradford, which I attended between the ages of 11 and 13. She took us to St George’s Hall in Bradford to hear the Hallé orchestra. Before we went, she played some of the music to us and explained what we were about to hear. I still need only to hear the opening chords of “Night on the Bare Mountain” or “Fingal’s Cave” and I know exactly what it is I am listening to, for which I am very grateful.
Thankfully, the English teachers at the comprehensive I went on to attend bothered to take us to the local theatres. I admire teachers so much, because we must have been such an unruly bunch. We went to see not only the Shakespeare we were studying but, being Bradford, plays such as JB Priestley’s “An Inspector Calls”—I have to say, it took years for me to work out exactly what was going on in that.
While I am recalling my home city, I must, of course, rejoice that Bradford’s year as City of Culture is taking place now. The Bradford district was selected by the Government in May 2022. Bradford 2025 is taking place throughout the Bradford district, which covers 141 square miles across West Yorkshire, including Haworth, Ilkley and Saltaire, as well as Bradford itself. Bradford was also the first UNESCO City of Film, and the filming location for “Peaky Blinders”, “Happy Valley” and “The Crown”. We are one of the UK’s youngest cities; a quarter of our population is under 20 years old. Bradford 2025 is created for, with, and by the people of Bradford, and it has young people at its heart. Not surprisingly, the programme reflects youth, from education, skills and training projects to new artistic commissions centred on the lives, concerns and ambitions of young people today.
This year will see Bradford’s dynamic contemporary arts and culture, from dance and theatre to film, music and even food, because, of course, it is the curry capital of Britain. New cultural investment will have an impact long after the end of 2025. We have already seen significant investment in the region, and Bradford 2025 is set to serve as a catalyst for development, regeneration and change.
I encourage noble Lords to go to the Bradford 2025 website and to take part in some of the great activities on offer. For instance, each month a different artist will invite us to create a drawing inspired by a particular theme. I am afraid noble Lords have missed David Hockney inviting people to paint something beautiful and send it to him, but I am sure noble Lords’ artistic work would be much appreciated.
In many ways, Bradford is ahead of the curve in bringing to reality the contribution that our creative industries can bring to our localities and regions, to economic revival and to job creation. We are part of the recently announced funding for six mayoral strategic authorities—of which one is, of course, the mayoralty of our own mayor, Tracy Brabin, who has led trade delegations and cultural collaborations all over the world and is, of course, key to the success of Bradford 2025—which bodes very well for our region.
It was a pleasure, having been in the DCMS team twice in opposition—from 2013 to 2015, and most recently with the team led by the soon to be ennobled Thangam Debbonaire as shadow Secretary of State—to be a small part of Labour policy on the creative arts, and to witness the speeches and commitment of Thangam and the now Prime Minister, my right honourable friend Sir Keir Starmer MP, to the creative community at a wonderful event at the fantastic Guildhall School of Music and Drama last year. I regard this debate, partly, as looking to see what has happened in the last year and in the very early days of our Labour Government. I learned something new about our Prime Minister at that event. He spoke with passion about how coming to the Guildhall on a Saturday morning to learn to play the flute was an important awakening for him of the importance of music and of making music accessible to all children, even one like him. He caught the train into London on his own for lessons that his parents would have found difficult to afford. So, among his many talents as our Prime Minister, he is also a flautist.
So how could the creative industries not be integral to my Labour Government’s plan for economic growth? They bring £124 billion to our economy annually. We can see those commitments taking shape, even though we inherited a chaotic economy, and that the country needs to invest in the British success story that is the creative industries. We all know that there are very real challenges. Indeed, the industry has not held back in telling us the challenges it faces in the many briefings we have been sent, but many also acknowledge what a good start we have made.
We should start by treasuring the institutions and bodies this country has created over many decades, and in some cases hundreds of years, that are the envy of the world and provide a foundation on which to build and invest. The BBC contributed almost £5 billion to the UK economy last year, supporting over 50,000 jobs. It is the largest single investor in UK-made programming, and 50% of the BBC’s economic output is outside London. The National Trust is a great British success story, caring for almost a quarter of a million hectares of land, 780 miles of coastline, and more than 300 historic houses, gardens and archaeological landscapes. It has almost 5.5 million members, and, of course, the best scones you might wish for—although I am not sure the dining room here would agree with me about that.
The Arts Council invests money from the Government and the National Lottery to support creativity and culture. However, since 2017, arts funding from national bodies has been cut by 16% in real terms, so I very much welcome the review established by my right honourable friend Lisa Nandy MP, the Secretary of State, to be led by my noble friend Lady Hodge, a former Culture Minister, to explore how to improve access to the arts and culture in all areas of the country, to drive access to opportunity.
The Edinburgh Festival in Scotland is known all over the world, is innovative, brings forth amusement, and is a huge asset to the UK, and one we need to treasure. I will also mention the University of the Arts London’s College of Fashion, which is based in east London; the National Theatre and many of our leading theatres, drama schools and performing arts venues, from the Picturedrome in Holmfirth—I declare an interest because it is run by my brother-in-law—to the Salisbury Playhouse, the Exeter Northcott Theatre, the “end of the pier” in Cromer, of which I am very fond, the Royal Hall, Harrogate, the Playhouse Whitley Bay, and my local Hampstead Theatre; the Baltic; the Glasshouse; the British Museum; the Science Museum Group and its partner museums in Bradford, Manchester, York, Shildon and Wiltshire, which have over 5 million visitors a year between them; the Tate galleries in Liverpool and St Ives, Tate Modern, Tate Britain and Tate Digital; the National Gallery; and the hundreds of small galleries, such as Cartwright Hall in Bradford, which all enrich our communities everywhere.
I need to mention Manchester, because it is already recognised as one of Europe’s largest creative digital technology clusters and, of course, has Salford. It is home to a fast-growing £5 billion digital ecosystem, and the ENO is moving to Manchester, so it is heading towards being an international powerhouse for the arts.
Wales Arts International is the international agency of the Arts Council in Wales and is a gateway between the arts of Wales and the world.
The video games industry is the fastest-growing sector in the nation’s creative industries. It is driven by creativity and innovation and generates £6 billion in gross value added. I hope my noble friend has noted the smart report from UKIE—UK Interactive Entertainment—about the upskilling and qualifications we need to create digital technologies by combining STEAM disciplines—science, technology, engineering, arts, and maths—to provide the skill set critical for a 21st century economy.
I have to end my by-no-means-exhaustive list by mentioning dance, opera, ballet and music. The Royal Opera House—under one of our Members, the noble Lord, Lord Hall—took opera and ballet out of its wonderful building in Covent Garden and broadcast it on screens all over the country and is now partnering with 150 organisations and reaching thousands of schools through teacher training. We are blessed with the Royal Ballet, Birmingham Royal Ballet, Northern Ballet, English National Ballet, Ballet Rambert and, announced most recently, Sadler’s Wells East—many ballet and dance schools.
I know I will be in trouble for not mentioning something or other or a genre, but I think we can say with confidence that we are blessed. Our creative industries are integral to our regeneration, and the Government recognise this and have picked up the commitments made and are running with them. As Lisa Nandy said in her groundbreaking speech at the Creative Industries Growth Summit on 17 January at the Baltic and the Glasshouse:
“Arts and culture must be for everyone, everywhere. No matter your background or the place you live, we should all be able to experience the joys that dance, theatre, music, museums, even borrowing a book from a library brings”.
From film to fashion to music and advertising, our creative industries are truly world-class and play a critical role in helping us deliver on this Government’s mission to drive economic growth in all parts of the UK, but they face challenges and that is why we need a 10-year plan.
The first challenge is skills and education, which was mentioned in almost every brief we received about this issue. From digital games to the people in the BPI music industry, via the heritage industry and our need for specialist building skills to retrofit our special buildings for our net-zero future, there is a huge challenge, which I know that my noble friend will acknowledge—and her department is of course working very closely with the Department for Education.
Secondly, there is the huge issue of intellectual property and our music industry and the importance of the gold standard IP rights framework which is enshrined in UK law. We must maintain, protect and champion this, and I hope my noble friend can confirm this is a priority.
Thirdly, there is AI. I will quote our Secretary of State:
“we hear creators’ concerns and we recognise the worry that AI is an existential threat to livelihoods. There is no value without content. I want to assure you in the clearest possible terms: creatives are at the core of our AI strategy”.
We have to remove barriers to innovation and creativity. This is a pledge we have heard from across government, and I know my noble friend the Minister will be able to put some flesh on the bones of this pledge today. It must tackle things such as space to rehearse, funding to match needs, the time it takes to create and how the apprenticeship scheme fits in with the investment that is needed to make a business thrive and work in its early years.
I am delighted that my noble friend Lady Vadera has agreed to lead us through this new chapter as the next chair of our revamped Creative Industries Council. She and the titan that is Sir Peter Bazalgette have wasted no time in setting to work on the sector plan, which is our dedicated plan in the industrial strategy that will guide us forwards.
I look forward to having this debate again in a year or so’s time when we can see what our first steps have led to and how we are taking this drive for the creative industries forward. I beg to move.
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, I join the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, in looking forward to the trio of maiden speeches we have coming up in this debate. As recognised by the last Government and by this one, our creative industries are an absolute economic powerhouse, and I am sure we will hear many facts and figures and personal stories in this debate to pay tribute to that. The noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, managed to namecheck so many of the great institutions that we have in our creative industries that I shall try not to repeat that in the four minutes I have. Instead, I want to focus my remarks on the support the Government provide to the creative industries and how we can learn from the success of one aspect of that support.
In the UK, we benefit from a mixed model of funding for our arts sector: we have some state subsidy, particularly to ensure that everyone gets access across the country; we have tax reliefs, which stimulate new activity; and we have private philanthropy, which rewards and supports excellence and is something that could be extended with the right incentives in place. But, in the time available, I am going to focus on the second in that list—the success of the tax reliefs and credits that we have put in place to support growth in our creative industries.
By their very nature, our creative industries are innovative and inventive sectors and so respond well to tax reliefs which stimulate new creative work. This was recognised by the previous Government, which extended and built on the existing film tax credits to a wide range of sectors, including high-end TV, children’s TV, video games, theatrical productions, orchestral productions and exhibitions in museums and galleries. I am glad that this Government have committed to retaining them.
Each of those has a cost to the Exchequer in terms of forgone revenue—£12.5 billion cumulatively, which is not to be sniffed at. But research from industry and HMRC itself has shown that they have been successful at attracting investment to the UK that would have otherwise gone elsewhere. Crucially, the reliefs are globally competitive not just because of their headline rate but because of their perceived simplicity, consistency and speed of payment.
I think that point cannot be emphasised enough. Industry and government get the greatest benefit out of such schemes when they are simple and predictable. Too many forms of government support, whether it is through tax reliefs or credits or grant funding, are subject to too many different rules, criteria, application processes and timescales. We have endless—many of them put in place by the previous Government—pots and funds attempting to support sectors where we see high potential for growth, not just in the creative industries but beyond. Through a perfectly sensible desire to ensure value for money, we sometimes end up failing to see the wood for the trees and make it too difficult to access the support.
In the context of a difficult spending review coming up, I make a plea to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport to make the case to the Treasury and learn the lessons of what can be and has been effective in these sectors. I am not arguing for new tax reliefs for every different sector that is as effective at lobbying as the creative industries—which the volume of emails in my inbox, as mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, can attest to. But to those who either tend to see public subsidy to the arts as a nice to have rather than making good economic sense or who see tax cuts for business as revenue forgone that could have been spent on public services, I say that smart, well-designed, internationally competitive tax reliefs can make an important difference to industries for the UK that create a wider ecosystem of talent and growth.
I hope that the enthusiastic support we might hear for some of these measures in this debate today can be a lesson for the Government to take away and think of in the future.
Baroness Benjamin (LD)
My Lords, I declare an interest as per the register. I thank the noble Baroness for her excellent opening speech and for securing this debate, as it gives me the opportunity to draw attention to the children’s creative industry.
First, I congratulate “Horrible Histories”, which recently received a BAFTA special award for being one of the most successful children’s programmes, influencing millions of children over the years to love and to study history.
This debate also gives me the opportunity to recognise the contribution to growth made by children’s content creators in the UK over the decades. Many are attending the world children’s market Kidscreen in San Diego this month. More than 50 UK companies will be under the banner of UK@Kidscreen, organised by the Children’s Media Conference, which helps the children’s creative industries to survive and thrive.
However, we should not be fooled by this good news, because the survival of quality children’s content is not assured. The children’s creative industry is in turmoil. Writers, musicians, actors and technical staff are not working. All our past well-loved children’s content sectors are struggling; very few have commissions and the majority of the industry is on its knees. This is because children have migrated in huge numbers to platforms such as YouTube, Instagram and TikTok. Also, advertising revenue has fallen on the public service broadcasting channels and is being diverted to YouTube, which does not share the advertising revenue in the same way that the conventional broadcast system used to. This means that producers struggle to generate funding for projects that previously would have been supported by the PSBs.
YouTube does offer revenue, but it is nothing like the upfront guarantees of the old broadcasting system, so the children’s industry is in a race to the bottom. Low-cost content providers, who soon no doubt will be using AI to generate their content, now dominate on YouTube. Children are watching a mishmash of content built on influencers, cheap animation and, at its worst, deeply inappropriate and harmful material that affects their mental health and well-being. The Children’s Commissioner for England’s report on the recent riots revealed that violent, harmful messages, conveyed by some of the most popular social media channels, influenced the children’s behaviour.
Something needs to be done to bring us back to a situation in which our brilliant children’s creative industry can be financed to make great content. New relationships need to be built with the video-sharing platforms, encouraging them to acknowledge that they have a place in society and must make more prominent quality content that is positive, culturally relevant, age-appropriate for young people, impartial and fair. New platforms are the chief influencers of our children and they need to take responsibility for that.
The Government also have a crucial role to play before it is too late, so I ask the Minister: what consideration has been given to enhancing the children’s television tax relief from 24% to at least 34%? This would help attract investment in children’s production, particularly in the case of international platforms which no longer provide children’s content. What consideration have the Government given to encouraging platforms such as Netflix and Disney+ to donate part of their 30% European quota to children’s content—say, 10% of relevant UK content? Is this something that Ofcom could look into?
This is unlikely to solve the crisis on its own. If a level playing field for British media output is desired, some form of government intervention which goes beyond the existing PSB landscape is needed to bring into scope the platforms which children have migrated to. As I keep saying, childhood lasts a lifetime, so let us not ignore the alarm bells and the warnings, for the sake of our children’s future. I look forward to the Minister’s response and to all the maiden speeches today.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Cryer)
My Lords, I apologise for interrupting but, because there has been some ambiguity about the speaking order today and a few changes made to it, I want to make it clear, so there is no doubt, that the speaking limit for Back-Bench speeches is now five minutes.
Lord Berkeley of Knighton (CB)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord; what welcome news we have just heard. We have already heard three extremely potent speeches and I agree with everything that has been said. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, for this debate. I shall be picking up on David Hockney, and emphasise, without going into it any further, the importance of copyright and AI. To creative people such as me—I declare an interest as a composer—that is fundamental to carrying on our existence.
Like other speakers today, I want to celebrate what is good and wonderful in the UK. In so doing, I hope to emphasise what needs protecting and supporting. On which subject, I look forward to all the maiden speeches but particularly that of the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, who has done such fantastic work in the other place on behalf of music. I really look forward to hearing his maiden speech and working with him in future.
As I just said, we have in the UK an abundance of creative talent but it needs nurturing, especially at the grass-roots level. That is why I ask the Minister to look carefully at the plight of small venues up and down the country, where emerging talent can be fostered. Let us go to the other extreme: in a few days’ time at the Royal Opera House, we will hear a new opera, “Festen” by Mark-Anthony Turnage, one of our most acclaimed composers. It is this wonderful mix of the grass-roots level and the Royal Opera House, or no matter where it is, that we should celebrate and preserve.
In terms of preserving, the closure of university arts departments is a terrible worry. Most recently, it was the music department at Cardiff University. It followed in the wake of other universities, such as the University of East Anglia, which has such a splendid record in literature, with Ian McEwan, Angela Carter and Kazuo Ishiguro—a Nobel laureate, no less. He has now been joined by Abdulrazak Gurnah, a Tanzanian-British citizen.
Our dramatists and actors are second to none. I went to the Hampstead Theatre the other night to see Tom Stoppard’s “The Invention of Love”. Simon Russell Beale was magnificent as the ageing AE Housman. How lucky we are. In April, David Hockney, was has already been spoken about, will have the largest retrospective exhibition ever in Paris—some 400 pictures curated by Norman Rosenthal. So, there is much to celebrate but also, I fear, much to preserve. It is essential for artists to know the rules before they break them. This is something that Hockney always maintained: —that you need to be able to draw before you can paint. Funnily enough, His Majesty the King also believes very passionately in tradition and building on the lessons of the past. Whether you are an avant-garde artist or not, knowing those basics is essential.
That brings me on to why arts and music in schools are so crucial. This is the future generation who we hope will be able—once Brexit is amended—to tour Europe, who will be writing operas for the Royal Opera House, and who will have their music on the South Bank, but that is going to happen only if we put music back centre-stage in schools, hopefully on the curriculum but, if not, let us get peripatetic teachers to teach instruments. There are precious few instruments and even fewer teachers in state schools. I believe that music and the arts must not be the preserve of the rich. They must be open to everyone. That creates a more cohesive society. In my maiden speech 10 years or so ago, I mentioned a person in Wormwood Scrubs who was part of the Koestler Trust. I had managed to get a guitar to him, and he replied to me, “Thank you so much for this gift. If I had received this when I was 17 years old, I do not think I would be sitting here in Wormwood Scrubs serving a life sentence for murder”.
Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall (Lab)
I thank my noble friend Lady Thornton for introducing this important debate and, like everyone else, I look forward to the maiden speeches that are yet to come. I remind the House of my former interest, having had most of my professional career in the arts sector, and I should declare an interest that my daughter runs a company funded by the Arts Council. My noble friend Lady Thornton gave us many reasons to be cheerful. I was delighted to hear them, and I am glad to endorse them. We are rightly proud of what our creative industries have achieved. We have been blessed—a word she used several times—for many years, and still are, by the brilliance and originality of our people, the individual performers, writers, designers, producers, technicians, musicians and many others who have changed the face of the industries they work in.
This did not happen by accident. Most of them were nurtured, initially in school and subsequently through live arts organisations, large and small, sustained nowadays by armies of freelancers who make up the rich cultural ecosystem which this country has developed over decades and which, I am sorry to say, is now significantly depleted. We should not take our brilliance in the creative industries for granted. Others are already just as good or catching up fast, and we cannot rely on our historic success to keep us competitive. I ask noble Lords to notice the variety of Oscar nominations this year, just as one example, but let us also be delighted by the continuing brilliance of Aardman Animations. Who does not love Wallace and Gromit?
We are in the middle, as others have said, of the most significant technological revolution of our time: artificial intelligence. Maybe one day it will replace human creativity entirely, as we are now being warned it might. Meanwhile, the Government define creative industries as those,
“which have their origin in individual”—
I emphasise “individual”—
“creativity, skill and talent and which have a potential for wealth and job creation through the generation and exploitation of intellectual property”.
That is a very significant element in this debate, as we have already discovered and will continue to discover. I am not going to mention the Data Access Bill, but I am just saying.
We are talking about people and what they create, which is why I want to talk a bit about education, as the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, has done already. To grow innovators in all disciplines we need an education system that actively encourages curiosity, challenge and, above all, imagination. We know that over recent years focus on the EBacc has resulted in a serious decline in arts subjects in maintained schools. I say in maintained schools because that is not the case in independent schools, and that creates its own inequalities as we go forward. I refer the Minister to the most recent figures from the Sutton Trust. I very much hope that the upcoming curriculum review will start to put that right. I mean absolutely no disrespect to teachers and school leavers when I say that our education system has been too focused on knowledge rather than on inquiry. Teachers too often feel constrained to teach to the test, and we observe too much anxiety in young people about getting things right rather than thinking independently.
Do innovation and creativity not rely substantially on brave and unexpected imaginative leaps? Arts subjects, properly taught, demand intellectual discipline and critical skill, as others have already said, but they start and end with imagination. If we are to preserve the primacy of human thought and creative originality over artificial alternatives, we must first understand, value and support them from cradle to grave and do all we can to protect the livelihoods of our creators within a thriving cultural economy fed by a healthy, diverse pipeline of new talent. If we do not, we risk losing that pre-eminence which we are so keen to celebrate today.
Lord Harlech (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Hudnall, and her very good speech. I declare an interest as an alumnus of Central Saint Martins, and my mother has worked in the fashion industry for over 30 years.
I will speak today on the invaluable contribution of the UK’s creative industries, specifically the fashion sector, to the Government’s growth mission, the creation of good jobs and productivity growth. Fashion is more than an art form; it is a powerful economic engine, an incubator of global talent, and a force for innovation and sustainability if done in the right way. It is an industry that deserves the full backing of government policy to realise its vast potential.
The United Kingdom is renowned for its dynamic and avant-garde fashion scene. For decades, our designers, from Vivienne Westwood to Alexander McQueen, have challenged conventions, set global trends and positioned Britain as a beacon of creativity. Our Northamptonshire shoemakers are the envy of the world. The ability of this sector to continually reinvent itself through a fusion of traditional craftsmanship and cutting-edge innovation—for example, the Manchester-based Private White V.C. and Hiut Denim in Wales—underscores its importance in the broader creative economy.
Beyond its cultural significance, the economic impact of UK fashion is formidable. The sector directly contributes £28.9 billion in GVA and employs more than 800,000 people. When considering its broader economic impact, it supports over 1.4 million jobs and £67.5 billion in GVA. Remarkably, fashion’s direct contribution surpasses that of the aerospace, defence and space industries combined. If we are serious about growth and job creation, this is an industry that cannot be overlooked.
However, to maintain and expand this success, targeted government intervention is essential. I urge the Government to consider the following measures. First, we must reinstate the trade show access programme and enhance embassy support for UK fashion companies abroad. Past programmes have demonstrated the significant returns on investment such initiatives can bring. Trade shows and sectoral missions empower businesses—particularly SMEs—to access international markets, driving growth and strengthening our global competitiveness.
Sustainability must be at the heart of our strategy. A textile-specific extended producer responsibility scheme would generate an estimated £150 million annually to fund circular business models, rewarding durability and penalising unsustainable practices, sometimes known as fast fashion. This is a vital step towards the Government’s aim of achieving net zero and aligns with our broader environmental commitments.
We need to increase funding for R&D, particularly through Innovate UK, with an emphasis on direct business benefits rather than solely academic research. Full funding for SMEs participating in innovation projects would democratise access to technological advancements and drive productivity across the sector.
Post-Brexit procurement rules should be reformed to prioritise UK manufacturers, particularly in the technical textile industry. This will strengthen our advanced manufacturing capabilities and bolster industries beyond fashion, such as healthcare and defence.
Vocational education must be placed on an equal footing with academic routes. A model akin to Switzerland’s system would ensure that the skills and growth levy effectively supports apprenticeships and training, addressing industry skill gaps and equipping our workforce for the future.
Reintroducing VAT-free shopping would provide an immediate boost to the UK’s fashion and textile industries. This policy would enhance tourism-related spending, benefiting both luxury brands and local manufacturers supplying these businesses.
Capital expenditure funding, as I said, should be directed towards expanding technical textiles and advanced manufacturing. Building on the success of the regional growth fund, such investment would reinforce the UK’s position as a leader in high-value manufacturing.
To conclude, our creative industries—and fashion in particular—are key drivers of economic growth, job creation and global influence. With strategic government support, the UK fashion sector can flourish, ensuring that our reputation as a powerhouse of creativity, innovation and sustainability endures for generations to come. I look forward to the Minister’s response, and to the three maiden speeches.
Lord Brennan of Canton (Lab) (Maiden Speech)
My Lords, five minutes is two minutes more than you need for a song to make you laugh or cry, make you fall in love or change your life for ever, so it must be plenty of time for a maiden speech. I thank Black Rod and everyone who works in this House, including my noble colleagues from across the House, for their extraordinary kindness to me over the past 48 hours, since I was introduced to this place.
I come from an immensely privileged background. Both my parents left school at 14 but, in our working-class household, education was everything, love was everywhere and music was the soul of our family. It still is, as my wife, Amy, and daughter, Siobhan, will attest. I mentioned the staff of this House earlier. I want to single out the cleaners, who too often are taken for granted. My late mother, Beryl Evans, was a miner’s daughter who worked as a cleaner. When I was first elected to Cardiff City Council in 1991, I took her to the mayor-making ceremony in the splendid surroundings of Cardiff City Hall. Overly proud of my achievement, I showed her around the grand marble building and asked her what she thought. She looked all around the cavernous halls and said, “Imagine having to clean this”. It is a lesson I have never forgotten.
My late father, Michael Brennan, was taken from his classroom in west Cork at the age of 14 by his father to work on the family farm, to the dismay of his teachers. But he could quote Shakespeare, and imbued in me and my three siblings—Colleen, Nuala and Patrick—a philosophy greater than any I learned from books or university when he recited his own mantra:
“Help the weak against the strong,
love the old when you’re young,
own a fault when you’re wrong,
when you’re angry hold your tongue,
stand your round and give a song,
and don’t forget where you come from.”
That is why I say I come from a privileged background, albeit more shovelry than chivalry. Part of that background as a young man was encountering my two now-ennobled comrades who introduced me as supporters in this House: my noble friends Lord Kinnock and Lord Murphy of Torfaen—two extraordinary people I am honoured to call my friends.
I am immensely proud to enter this House as a Labour Peer under a Labour Government, and I am proud to support that Labour Government. I am proud that my Government have put the creative industries at the heart of their economic strategy; recognising that, as well as being essential for our human souls, creativity and the arts are key components of economic growth and of what makes this country great. For too long, that essential insight has been undervalued in our national discourse. But in praising my colleagues in government, including the Prime Minister, who has spoken passionately about how music changed his life, I want to gently nudge my colleagues on the mechanism that underpins the economic success of our creative industries, namely the law of copyright in the age of artificial intelligence.
I want to make a plea for human intelligence and EI—emotional intelligence—over AI, artificial intelligence. AI is a great servant, including to the creative industries, but it would be a terrible master if we allowed it to become that. In a previous incarnation, I introduced a Private Member’s Bill in the other place, the Copyright (Rights and Remuneration of Musicians, Etc.) Bill, to update the law of copyright to ensure that musicians, songwriters and composers receive their proper share of the vast sums of money collected because of their creative genius. I declare an interest as a proud member of the Musicians’ Union and the Ivors Academy of songwriters and composers, who has received small, occasional royalties for my songwriting for the legendary parliamentary rock band, MP4.
Incidentally, I have been encouraged—not that I need any encouragement—to form a new band in this place, and various names have been suggested. The best so far is an echo of my political hero, Aneurin Bevan. The suggestion for the Lords rock band name is “Lower than Ermine”, which I thought was rather good, but I am open to further suggestions, as well as in search of a noble drummer.
Returning to the theme of the debate, I note that this House recently considered AI and the creative industries, and I simply add this: artificial intelligence creates nothing—it simply generates probabilities. There is no soul in the machine. To return to Nye Bevan once more, AI is a desiccated calculating machine. It is an exciting technology that will save lives in the field of health, but we should never allow those who profit from it to steal from the furnace of human creativity by scraping content to produce a facsimile of human creativity without reward for the artists we cherish. Rather than undermining our creators, let us consider how to enhance their value and remuneration.
In recent years, there has been a vinyl revival in the music industry. Instead of allowing tech companies to perform the equivalent of transferring a farmer’s land to an oil company for drilling without permission or compensation, let us instead introduce new VINL—voice, image, name and likeness—rights for our creators, whether national treasures such as Paul McCartney or Elton John, or new artists such as Imogen and the Knife or Welsh Music Prize-winning Lemfreck.
The creative industries are the fastest-growing part of our economy. The cake has been growing in size; let us not give it away to those who seek to steal it, and let us ensure that those who create the recipe and bake the cake get more than mere crumbs from the table.
Baroness Nye (Lab)
My Lords, I warmly congratulate my noble friend on a powerful and very moving maiden speech. He will bring a wealth of experience to this House. My noble friend Lord Kinnock, one of his supporters, described him as being equally at home in the senior common room of an Oxbridge college as the saloon bar of a Welsh working men’s club. It was no surprise that his speech was about music: he is renowned as an expert on folk music, a musician extraordinaire and, possibly more importantly, the king of karaoke. We will also need to check our phones after this debate, as he became the first MP to win the social media MP of the year award, beating Nick Clegg and Jeremy Corbyn.
As he said, he is also a member of MP4, but he was possibly too modest to mention that it has raised over £1 million for charity. He is probably the only member of your Lordships’ House who has had a single that reached number two, sadly just missing that Christmas number one slot. The cover version of “You Can’t Always Get What You Want” was recorded under the banner of Friends of Jo Cox, who, as noble Lords know, was so tragically murdered. As my noble friend said, they are currently looking for a drummer and, if anybody from the House would like to apply, I am sure he would be grateful. They do not have to be fluent in Welsh; he has that covered.
Turning to the debate, I thank my noble friend Lady Thornton for securing it. There are many illustrations of how the creative industries have benefited local communities around the country, as my noble friend Lady Thornton so eloquently described in the case of Bradford 2025. Last week in Hull, people were still talking about the impact that the City of Culture status had on the city, as it had in Glasgow and Liverpool previously. In fact, it was so successful that the Hull City fans took to chanting to away teams, “You’re only here for the culture”—not something you hear often on the terraces. Events such as these, as well as the landmark example of the move by the BBC to Salford—the largest relocation of any public organisation this century—have had an enormous impact on employment and business growth in the area, as well as, in the case of the BBC, the multiplier effect across Greater Manchester and the north-west.
The new Labour Government have recognised the transformative power of the creative sector in driving economic growth, and they have rightly designated it one of the vital eight growth-driving industries at the heart of their industrial strategy. The upcoming creative industry sector plan, led by my noble friend Lady Vadera and Sir Peter Bazalgette, will be of huge importance. Their proposals for tackling the skills gap will be crucial in ensuring the continued success and competitiveness of the UK’s creative industries.
The ecosystem of creative industries, however, works only if the pipeline of talent is strong, and our role as a global leader in the future depends on a sustained supply of national talent. We need to identify, nurture and develop this talent from an early age, which means that every single child in whatever school in Britain should have access to a proper creative education. I make no apology for repeating points so eloquently made by my friend Lady McIntosh. That is why the review of the curriculum announced by the Education Secretary is so vital.
The current EBacc is “regressive”, “severely limits learning”, ignores the skills needed for today’s workforce and fails poorer children. Those are not my words but those of the architect of the national curriculum, the noble Lord, Lord Baker of Dorking. A broader curriculum, giving children and young people access to music, arts and drama, will reap enormous benefits, from improved language development to confidence building. The Chancellor’s announcement in the Budget about expanding the creative careers programme, providing 11 to 18 year-olds with the opportunity to learn more about the full range of jobs in the creative sector and directly engage with the workplace, is also necessary to broaden opportunity for all. As has been said, talent is everywhere but opportunity is not.
Over the past 14 years, there has been a serious decline in students taking arts-related GCSEs and A-levels; universities are cutting creative courses or merging departments; and, according to the Sutton Trust, a higher proportion of students in private schools than in state schools are taking creative subjects at university. With fewer students in state schools taking creative arts subjects, the number of specialist teachers has also declined. Specialist art teachers in primary schools are now a rarity and very little professional development is happening. I welcome the Government’s pledge to recruit 6,500 more teachers, but what steps are the Government taking to address the recruitment, retention and professional development of music, drama, art and design teachers, as recommended by the National Society for Education in Art and Design?
Sixty years ago this month, the very first Arts Minister, Jennie Lee, presented Parliament with the first policy for arts, entitled First Steps. It therefore seems fitting that now is the time for this Labour Government to enthusiastically take the next steps.
Lord Londesborough (CB)
My Lords, I too thank the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, for securing this timely and topical debate. Productivity has become an obsession of mine ever since I became an accidental entrepreneur in the creative industries more than 30 years ago. I will say more on that in a moment, but first I welcome on board no fewer than three new Members of this House. I salute the noble Lord, Lord Brennan of Canton, for his excellent and thoughtful maiden speech; I much look forward to his creation of a new rock band in this place.
We have already heard how crucial our creative sector is to our economy in terms of GDP, jobs, growth and exports. That said, there are three areas of policy tension that I should like to highlight. First, I declare my interests as set out in the register, including chairing, advising and investing in a number of start-ups in the creative sector—I have the scars to prove it. These ventures range from film and theatre to online intelligence and a dog-lovers’ match-making platform. That is creativity for you.
I will start with government policy. It is positive that the creative industries are—quite rightly—one of the Government’s eight priority sectors, as is the announcement of £60 million of funding at the recent creative industries growth summit. But that pales considerably when set against the £2.8 billion increase in employers’ national insurance contributions that will hit this sector on 5 April—in two months’ time. It is especially painful for our creative SMEs, which will shoulder the heaviest increases because this tax on jobs now kicks in at £5,000 rather than £9,000 of each employee’s salary.
I have tabled amendments in Grand Committee for exemptions to this national insurance increase for all small businesses employing between 10 and 50 staff, which is the fastest-growing subsector of our creative industries. Given how competitive this sector already is, these measures will do serious damage, particularly to lower-paid jobs and part-time roles.
The second area of tension I should like to highlight is the need to protect IP and copyright in the face of AI and Web 3.0, yet at the same time embrace the opportunities, particularly to boost productivity, that these technology tools offer. For content generators, AI looks set to be a game-changer. I am already seeing its impact among the small, agile players, not just big tech. I encourage the Government to take a measured approach to strike that very difficult balance between protection, regulation, and growth.
The third and final area of tension relates to the original title of this debate, “Creating good jobs in every part of the country”. It is a noble ideal, but fair geographic spread of creative jobs across the UK is very difficult to achieve. Official data shows us that London and the south-east alone account for almost 70% of this sector’s GVA and more than 60% of creative jobs. Capitals and major cities tend to take the lion’s share in all countries, not just the UK. There is a natural clustering process in the arts and creative world that is often at odds with regional policies of levelling up. I simply advise the Government to be realistic in this regard, especially if productive, sustainable economic growth is their number one mission.
Baroness Griffin of Princethorpe (Lab) (Maiden Speech)
My Lords, it is an honour to make my first contribution in today’s debate and I look forward to visiting Bradford, a city I love, with my fellow co-operator, the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton.
I led on the copyright legislation in the European Parliament, and Kevin and I worked together. With everything ranged against us—big money—we won that legislation. It was precisely about the proper remuneration of creatives and artists. This is not part of my speech, but I am thrilled that in this debate we are talking about the fact that we cannot maximise the economic contribution of the creative industries unless we nurture education, children, the arts and artists. I had the privilege of writing the creative industry strategy for the north-west of England, so I am passionate about the creative industries, but it needs to be about all of this.
I am sitting down due to my chronic arthritis, so noble Lords may have to catch me when I fall—and I am certain that they will.
First, I thank noble Lords from all sides of the House for their generosity. I also thank the clerks, doorkeepers, police and staff of the House, without whom I could not have found my way to any debate. I was trained as a young councillor in my 20s in Liverpool by a marvellous woman called Margaret Simey. She said to me, “Theresa, remember that the two most important people in any public building are the cleaner and the caretaker and you’ll never go wrong”. I am so grateful to my noble friends Lord Kennedy of Southwark—I am not a Londoner; I hope I said that right—and Lady Smith of Basildon for their wisdom and kindness.
The first economic impact study of the arts was commissioned in Merseyside in 1988 by the sadly late visionary Peter Booth. This led to evidence to place the cultural industries as a major driver for growth in the Objective 1 European funding programme for Merseyside in the 1990s, a first in Europe. It was European investment that transformed Liverpool when others disgracefully said that that wonderful city could go into managed decline. It culminated in Liverpool being European Capital of Culture in 2008, and I had the privilege of chairing economic and European affairs for Liverpool as a city councillor at that time.
As my colleagues, friends and noble Lords have said, to maximise the creative industries in the Government’s growth agenda—and I know our Ministers will take this—we need to invest in art and artists, designers, regional and youth theatre, writers and the commissioning of new work and cultural programmes in our schools that exclude nobody. It is the creators and the creatives who will drive the content of those industries in the future. We have to invest in people. I am delighted to see the noble Lady, Baroness Benjamin, here today. Her cultural, fun and creative approach to education so inspired me.
In the mass car factory closures of the 1970s, my father was made redundant. There was no plan, no just transition—literally thousands of people unemployed in an instant; they, their families and local communities facing destitution. My dad left school in Donegal at 14, as there were no more schools. A very bright, compassionate man, driven by work to support his family—unemployed. In my young teens, I remember him walking through industrial estate after industrial estate, looking for work.
I am passionate about the right to decent employment, the creative and green agendas, workers’ rights, gender, disability and cultural equality. As an MEP, we commissioned research which proved the link between cases of childhood asthma and the burning of dirty fossil fuels. I had the privilege of chairing and being the president of the European Forum for Renewable Energy Sources. I became Energy MEP of the Year in 2017 for our work in fighting energy poverty. No one should be disconnected through the inability to pay. No one should have to choose between eating, heating or cooling their home. I also had the privilege of moving the resolution to declare a climate emergency across the EU, supported by 28 member states and all EU political parties, apart from the far right. Hearing “27 member states”, not 28, still makes me cry.
In AI, we need ethical and social frameworks. In creating jobs and productivity growth, and in the creative and green sectors we need a just transition, working with our trade unions in advance to train and upskill existing workers and to equip our existing and future workers and our children to access the high-GDP, clean jobs of the future and to drive economic growth and social cohesion—a just transition that leaves no worker, family or community behind. I look forward to working with you all in the future.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)
My Lords, it is a privilege to be in a debate that has three maiden speeches. We have already had two brilliant ones, and I am sure the third will be the same. Both the earlier speakers have managed to do something which is quite hard to do in your Lordships’ House: to open up their background and explain their motivations and thinking, and to rely on their experience to show how fit they are to join us. I was very impressed by the speech we have just heard and the previous one from the noble Lord, Lord Brennan. I hope that we will have many more and that the noble Baroness, Lady Griffin, will share with us the experiences that she has had, which are obviously very relevant and appropriate for us in this House. I look forward to it.
I declare my interest as a former director of the British Film Institute and I also want to join others in thanking my noble friend for securing this debate. The noble Baroness, Lady Thornton—who we will have to call “Baroness Bradford” in future—has certainly set a very high standard for what we are talking about. I want to follow her in a lot of what she said, but I will focus particularly on issues that have arisen because of work I have been doing recently.
I have spent nearly seven years in this Parliament helping the last Government get the Online Safety Bill through and making sure that the CMA had the appropriate complementary powers through the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act. Unfortunately, I take the view that we now need to do a lot more.
The market power of monopoly and oligopoly new tech platforms, combined with a change in their approach from being passive mechanisms for promoting the better circulation of ideas and knowledge to becoming active political players, as seems to be happening in America, means that we have to think again. I argue today that, over the last 14 years, our cultural policies have lacked purpose and have been intellectually moribund. We urgently need them to be rethought if we are to see off the threats we see today from the tech giants, aided by GAI, and those who champion them, as they are clearly acting against our best interests, both individually and as a country.
They call themselves “the disruptors”. To defeat this new threat, we need to lead with an aggressive plan to grow and modernise our cultural industries. This means that the Government need to set out clear cultural objectives and invest in them, not just when there is a market failure but for an explicit, additional purpose: standing firm and signalling their support for British values. The following are just three initial suggestions, which I hope the Government will take on and develop.
Our broadcasting system is the envy of the world. Let us use it to promote and celebrate British values. Why not invest heavily in the BBC and public service broadcasting more generally? The forthcoming BBC charter review and licence settlement should wholeheartedly get behind the talent, skill and expertise of the BBC, which informs, educates and entertains us, to ensure that, at least in Britain, there is a system that provides truth, quality and reliable information about the world in which we live.
The BBC World Service already does a brilliant job flying the flag for truth and democracy. The recent cuts and changes of funding sources have affected that. We should reinvest in this precious resource and help it transition to the new technologies.
Our cultural institutions already mentioned—our archives, libraries, museums and galleries, both national and local—are storehouses of what human endeavour can achieve. Our copyright laws and respect for the rule of law are crucial to keeping us on the right path. We must preserve and enhance them, so that all the evidence of what we had and the risks we face if we turn our backs on it is there to see and study.
I have used the term “British values”, and I know it is highly contested. But these disruptors seek to undermine the things that we all hold dear: a democratic polity, respect for the rule of law, freedom of speech, human rights, kindness, positive intergroup relations, community life and universal education. So much that we hold dear is at stake.
The new technologies have improved many aspects of our lives in many ways, but there is a downside. We will need to work very hard to ensure that the controls now being exercised by a few individuals in charge of these new tech giants are not left unchallenged. We already have the tools to do it; we now need to recognise the role our cultural organisations could play and support them.
Lord Lemos (Lab) (Maiden Speech)
My Lords, I am privileged to be making my maiden speech today. It is only a few days since my introduction, but I could not resist the opportunity of this debate. I refer to my entry on the register of interests.
First, I thank the staff and officers of the House for their warm welcome, especially the doorkeepers—and particularly the doorkeeper who kindly turned down my collar. Kindness and courtesy are hallmarks of your Lordships’ House and I promise to uphold those traditions.
My father brought the family from India to south London in 1963. This was a year subsequently made famous by Philip Larkin, but I was only five years old in 1963. My father was an Anglophile and a great admirer of British democracy. He soon became a lifelong supporter of the Conservative Party. My mother, on the other hand, supported Labour, but always accepted a lift to the polling station on election day from the local Conservatives—her small but important contribution to the ongoing class war. Both my parents would be surprised and proud to see me here today—perhaps even astonished—but not as delighted and proud as I am.
Like my noble friend Lady Andrews, who kindly supported my introduction, I worked with Lord Young of Dartington at the Institute for Community Studies in Bethnal Green. Michael Young’s view was that everyone, most especially himself, had to think about, to write about and to do lots of things, all at the same time. I acquired the habit of professional multitasking from Michael.
My main professional vocation has been researching and writing about public policy. For many years, I also worked in financial services, where I first met my noble friend Lord Stevenson of Balmacara. He also supported me at my introduction. I am now proud to be chair of National Savings & Investments as well as of English Heritage. I will shortly stand down as lead non-executive director of His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service. Noble Lords do not need me to remind them that prisons and probation face intractable and enduring challenges. The arrival of my noble friend Lord Timpson as Minister has given us all great hope.
I have also been deputy chair of the British Council, supporting my noble friends Lady Kennedy of The Shaws and Lord Kinnock, before taking over briefly myself. The British Council is, of course, the principal agency for promoting our creative industries internationally. I am the unremunerated chair of the Hofesh Shechter Company which undertakes more international touring than any other UK-based contemporary dance company. In 2025, 200,000 people will watch our dancers all over the world, including a full house at the Old Vic tonight.
International touring is increasingly difficult for theatre, music and dance. Tax and visa regulations have become immeasurably more complicated, extremely time-consuming and expensive. Everyone in the performing arts hopes that improving relations with the European Union will greatly simplify and speed up these arrangements. My noble friend Lady Hodge is reviewing Arts Council England. I hope she recommends that it publishes a strategy not just to remove these obstacles to international touring but, more importantly, to fulfil the potential of the performing arts as cultural exports of British creative excellence. Britain’s international reputation will be greatly enhanced, as well as our soft power on which we so rely. As other noble Lords have mentioned, creativity is the wellspring of many of the UK’s best prospects for economic growth. I hope the Minister will agree that when it comes to celebrating British creative excellence internationally, all the world’s a stage.
Baroness Prashar (CB)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Lemos. I warmly congratulate him on his magnificent maiden speech. It was characteristically crisp, succinct and to the point. As is evident from his speech, the noble Lord is indeed multifaceted and a multitasker, though with a very sharp intellect. I describe him as a Renaissance man with panache. He has devoted his career to public and social policy and to the creative arts with great distinction. The noble Lord is also an author. He has written some very good books with some creative thinking about prisons. I recommend them to your Lordships. Some 30-plus years ago, he worked with me at the Arts Council and the Civil Service Commission, and we have been friends ever since, so noble Lords can imagine that I am delighted that he is now in your Lordships’ House where he will make a magnificent contribution. We will all benefit from his enormous experience, expertise, good judgment and, of course, his sense of fun. I welcome him.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, for introducing this debate. As we have heard, the creative industries generate jobs, innovation and growth, bring in inward investment, enhance our international standing and are a vehicle for our soft power. The strength of the creative sector is also felt regionally and locally, promoting opportunities for well-being, inclusion and the enjoyment of individuals and communities.
The Government have rightly identified the creative industries as one of the eight growth-driving sectors. Their positive announcements are very encouraging. However, as we have heard, regional disparities remain, and inequalities persist. We have heard about class inequalities. As we have also heard, the potential for growth is huge. To unleash this potential, we have to ensure imaginative, joined-up and focused action. The devil, as ever, is in the detail and in the execution of policies.
It is important not to lose focus on some of the smaller subsectors. As Creative UK and the Crafts Council have pointed out, certain subsectors, such as traditional arts and heritage sectors, may find it a challenge to demonstrate immediate, high, short-term growth but have long-term potential as incubators for the cultural and creative industries and as important enablers of growth. Equally important are initiatives to address skills shortages and access flexible finance. What is needed are flexible apprenticeships, vocational education, better funded creative arts education in schools and a more tailored approach to stimulate different subsectors ranging from music and theatre to games and the interactive entertainment industry. Equally important are digital education, humanities and research and development in universities because we must look after humanities in our universities.
This is a moment of huge opportunity to reimagine growth financing and find imaginative solutions to tackle regional disparities, particularly against the background of greater devolution. As has been suggested by the RSA and others, this requires joining up local clusters into creative corridors to enable collaboration and the transference and cross-pollination of ideas and skills. In other words, it is about creating an ecosystem for mutual benefit and systemic change. The Government’s announcements are right, but can the Minister say whether the issues that I have mentioned are high on the agenda? How are they being implemented? Are they ensuring that different policies do not cut across each other?
My final point is about something that others have alluded to: our gold-standard IP rights framework, which is the bedrock for creators and must be protected. While creative industries have embraced AI, generative AI, which uses models to create new content, is where issues are being experienced in relation to IP. Material is being used without permission or payment, which is plain wrong and unlawful and devalues human creativity. Arguments about this issue were forcefully advanced last week by the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, and the noble Lord, Lord Foster, so I will not rehearse them. I know that the Government have launched a consultation, but strong concerns remain. It would therefore be helpful to get an assurance that the Government will not make any changes that jeopardise the creative sector and put undue burdens on creators. As everyone has said, the creative industries are extremely important for individuals. As the saying goes: if you have two pennies, use one to feed yourself and the other to feed your soul.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, for this debate and congratulate all three maiden speakers. I declare an interest as a visual artist, but I am afraid that I have no drumming skills.
Any money put into the arts is to be welcomed, and individual arts projects, such as the centre for new writing in Newcastle, doubly so. However, £60 million in Treasury terms is not a great deal of money. The Government will not like me for saying this—or perhaps they will, I do not know—but at present they are largely doing the same thing as the previous Government by putting some money into the already commercialised creative industries, while the arts—in the shape of, for example, our theatres and civic museums, which were mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson—lie under the threat of closure and urgently require funding.
SOLT and UK Theatre say that the addition of five council-owned venues to the Theatres at Risk Register 2025 was “sadly unsurprising”. They have urged the Government to commit £300 million over 10 years to addressing this one specific concern, which is five times the amount of money recently announced. Yet the amount of money needed to put all this right and to fund new projects would still be a drop in the ocean in terms of Treasury funding. As ACE studies show, every pound put into the arts generates £5 of tax revenue, while every job created in the sector creates another 1.65 jobs. There is the evidence that the arts, as well as the more commercialised industries, generate growth.
Of course, this Government should not need to be told that to stint on public investment in this sector is a false economy. I hope the Government are just making a start, but they could, and should, do an awful lot more, and more quickly, particularly where we are in danger of losing the infrastructure entirely. This includes the artists and so many others employed in the creative industries as freelancers, many of whom have seen a downturn in their income in recent years. Will the Government consider the appointment of a freelance commissioner for the creative industries to look at their concerns?
What plans do the Government have to engage with parliamentarians over the concerns of the Welsh National Opera, which urgently needs more funding? For ailing grass-roots music venues, I have three requests for the Government: first, if the voluntary levy on arenas does not work, it should be made mandatory; secondly, they should restore the 75% business rate; and, thirdly, they should put the agent of change principle on a statutory footing. Will the Government do these things?
Will the concern for the arts around Brexit be raised in the 19 May UK-EU summit, if not before? The Minister will know by now about the concerns of the creative industries in relation to AI. In terms of digital, I also draw the Minister’s attention to the debate on the smart fund, led by the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, in the Data (Use and Access) Bill. The smart fund is a levy put on digital devices to compensate artists for copying their work, which would be a very useful additional fund. I would add to that debate that alignment with similar schemes in Europe could usefully be seen as a significant contribution by DCMS to a reset with the EU.
As was pointed out at the recent Carry on Touring event in the Lords, there has been a drop of 74% in artists touring the EU. At the very least, we need a visa-waiver agreement with the EU and the cabotage arrangements radically reformed. But, to be blunt, those who talk against free movement are, however unwittingly, talking against the creative industries, because this is not just about temporary mobility, itself beset with red tape, costs and delay; it is about those important long-term positions in Europe for artists, including classical musicians, which are so much a necessary part of their career structure, now offered only to those with EEA passports. Until we rejoin the single market, our British artists in every medium will always be at a significant disadvantage compared with their European counterparts.
An important part of the arts infrastructure abroad is the British Council—mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Lemos—the future of which is threatened. Will the Government ensure that assets will not be sold off, including buildings and its important collection of contemporary artworks, the loss of which would be tragic both for our culture and for soft power? The Government currently put far less money into the British Council than, for example, Germany does the Goethe-Institut. Will they review that? Will they cancel the £200 million still owed on the Covid loan? Not to do so would be yet another false economy.
Viscount Colville of Culross (CB)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a freelance television producer. I too add my thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, for securing this debate. I also add my words of praise to the noble Lords who have made their maiden speeches today. They were tremendous, and I look forward very much to working with them all again.
I want to dedicate my speech to the television and film industry, which has been for so long a major spur to growth in the creative industries. In this country, we have some of the most skilled and creative production workforces in world, yet despite these great achievements, the sector is in crisis. Nobody even knows how many people work in it; there are thought to be at least 73,000 creatives and technicians, more than half of whom are freelance. However, a survey of its members by the union BECTU last year revealed that 68% were not working at that time. The situation was worse for the diverse workforce. The great cry last year, as the industry faced a huge commissioning downturn, especially in middle-budget programming, was “Survive ‘til ‘25”.
It is now ‘25 and the outlook for hundreds of smaller production companies and thousands of TV creatives grows even worse. A new survey by CREATe, at the University of Glasgow, reveals that directors are, on average, working for just half the year, down by six weeks from the previous year. Directors UK, which commissioned the report, says that 30% are doing unpaid development and script work just to get considered for a new contract. I have personal knowledge of talented and experienced colleagues working as delivery drivers and tutors to make ends meet between contracts. Another report shows that 64% are looking to leave due to worries about their mental health. Across the country, especially in the nations and regions, where so much of the middle-budget commissioning used to be placed, production companies have no commissions and are closing down.
Of course, lack of finance is at the root of this problem. Noble Lords know of the downturn in advertising in the commercial television sector and the reduction by a third of the BBC’s funding under the last Government. It is the responsibility of this Government to ensure that the sector is financially sound. I was very pleased to hear support for the BBC voiced by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara. The BBC is the creative engine of the industry. I wonder about the present Government’s attitude towards it, having been so positive in opposition. I was astonished to hear the Secretary of State propose losing the BBC’s editorial independence with the taxpayer-funded model, only to retract the suggestion a week later. The Government are now consulting on funding options in the run-up to charter renewal. There have already been many reports and consultations on this issue; it should not take too long to come to some sort of conclusion. My preferred option is a household levy.
However, it is the structure of the industry that is causing so many other problems. Freelancing in TV is not like in any other industries: the variety and nature of contracts need special understanding. The terror of being labelled an unemployable troublemaker lurks in the back of every freelancer’s mind as they fail to report not being paid on time or being bullied at work. Although ScreenSkills does some valuable work, there is little training and no structured career development for most freelancers. If this valuable sector is to survive, I, like my noble friend Lord Clancarty, call on the Minister to think hard about setting up a freelance commissioner to fight the creatives’ corner. The good work done by the Small Business Commissioner shows what can be done for small companies, but she cannot fight on behalf of individuals.
Finally, I add my voice to many others in demanding that the Government safeguard the revenues of our creatives by ensuring that tech companies are made to adhere to our world-class copyright regime. The Government’s opt-out proposal will lead to the death of our second most successful industry, and I hope that the Minister will understand and support the widespread concern that there is about this. As we speak, creatives are being driven out of the television industry by lack of work and lack of prospects. I ask the Minister not to delay on implementing my suggestions before we see the destruction of one of the important parts of our creative industry.
Baroness Donaghy (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Thornton for this debate, and it is great to see her on top form. My inspiration has always been the theatre. To be taken as a schoolchild to Stratford by our English teacher to see, for example, Paul Scofield’s “King Lear” or Vanessa Redgrave and Peter O’Toole in “The Taming of the Shrew”, established a lifetime interest. It was positively thrilling to listen to the three wonderful maiden speeches, from the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, the noble Baroness, Lady Griffin, and the noble Lord, Lord Lemos—it is a privilege to have been here today for that.
I also congratulate the Government on recognising in their industrial strategy that the creative industries are one of the eight growth-driving sectors. We are world-leading in so many subsectors of the creative industries, but not really thanks to any government support up to now, and I echo the words of the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, about supporting freelancers. I welcome the establishment of the Creative Industries Taskforce, and it will focus on areas such as crowding in investment, access to opportunity, people and skills, and supporting innovation. As a member of the Royal Shakespeare Company, I am aware of the great impact on the RSC of the noble Baroness, Lady Vadera, as its chair.
I will concentrate on our heritage sector, on higher education funding and on barriers to talent such as poor employment conditions.
We neglect our heritage sector at our peril. Creative UK has pointed out that our heritage sector may find it a challenge to immediately demonstrate high short-term growth, but it has long-term potential. It is right when it states that the heritage sector is
“an incubator for the cultural and creative industries”.
We are debating here in a historic Chamber of a historic building that, as politicians, we cannot even agree to leave to preserve our precious heritage and to ensure restoration and renewal is carried out in the most cost-effective way. It is a history of lack of political will and shameful neglect. Will the Minister accept that our national heritage is an important part of any strategy in our creative sector?
The cost of funding higher education courses supporting the creative sector is often comparatively high, with state-of-the-art studios and facilities, highly skilled technicians and specialist equipment, materials and space, yet they are not recognised as strategically important by the Office for Students. Its measure of quality also disadvantages creative subjects, with its narrow focus on the job that graduates are working in just 15 months after finishing their studies. While outcomes are important, this fails to recognise the unique make-up of the creative sector, which has a high proportion of start-ups and micro-businesses, and where graduates frequently see non-linear career progression, often working freelance or on short-term projects. Will discussions take place with the Office for Students about this prioritisation?
The British Academy and the University of the Arts London—it is good to see the noble Lord, Lord Bichard, in his place, because of his background in those colleges—have mentioned the importance of research and development. Despite the economic value of the creative industries, we undervalue and undercount them in terms of research and development. It is harder to capture and less well supported by policy levers such as tax credits. Will there be a shift in this prejudice?
Although most jobs in this sector are insecure and short-term, the industry need not be identified with a low-paid, precarious existence. Unpaid internships and working for exposure are prevalent. Those from lower socioeconomic backgrounds or the disabled should not be locked out of a creative career. Will there be discussions with the trade unions in the sector to improve conditions?
Finally, I find it is an absolute privilege to take part in this debate this afternoon, and it is wonderful to know the richness of experience and commitment that we have in our House.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
My Lords, this has been an inspiring debate, and we are all lucky to participate. I must, of course, pay tribute to our three excellent maiden speakers today: my noble friends Lord Brennan of Canton, Lady Griffin of Princethorpe and Lord Lemos. We must also thank my noble friend Lady Thornton for securing us this debate. As she explained, the Government have made it clear that the creative industries are a cornerstone of their mission to create jobs and boost productivity.
Our film and TV sector is not just a source of entertainment but a powerhouse of economic and cultural significance, yet it is important that we do not take it for granted. Its continued success requires our urgent attention. I draw the House’s attention to the remarks of my noble friend Lady Donaghy and the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, who emphasised the importance of the workforce and our need to support it in achieving its success.
I must therefore ask my noble friend the Minister to read a recent survey conducted by the organisation the Film and TV Charity entitled the Looking Glass Report 2024. I hope that she will commit to study the report and take action on the picture it reveals. It is an authoritative assessment of the mental health of behind-the-scenes workers in the industry, who provide the foundation of much of our creative industries’ success. Unfortunately, the survey paints a deeply concerning picture. The mental health of those working in our screen industries—television and film—is in crisis. The figures are stark: 64% of professionals have considered leaving the industry due to poor mental health, and an alarming 32% have already begun taking steps to exit the industry. Those are not just statistics; they sound a wake-up call that we must not ignore.
But amid these challenges there are signs of hope. Over the past five years, targeted interventions have started to shift working practices and culture in the right direction. Organisations such as the Film and TV Charity are leading the way, striving to create a healthier and more sustainable industry. Its work is invaluable, but it cannot be its fight alone. We must ask ourselves what more can be done. The Government have a responsibility to ensure that those who fuel one of our most vital sectors—as has been made so clear in this debate—are supported, protected and valued. This is not just about fairness or moral duty; it is about safeguarding the future of our creative industries. A thriving creative sector is built on the well-being of its people. If we fail them, we risk losing not just individuals but the very heart of our film and television industry. It is time for real meaningful action.
Baroness Goudie (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate the three new Members of the House of Lords on their maiden speeches, which were exciting and interesting. I thank my noble friend Lady Thornton for securing the debate today and to see that she is so well, having been quite ill. It was quite worrying for all of us and it is a pleasure that she is back here today.
I will concentrate on the funding, growth, jobs and productivity that the creative industries bring to the country. The Government must continue to invest even more in the creative industries, including in education at the very beginning of schooling, from play schools right through, as that is where children learn to become interested and to use the skills they have inherited. I was lucky as a child to be brought up in a house that was full of music and Irish culture. My father also enjoyed taking us to the films he thought were educational. So I, like many people, was very lucky.
On the economic contribution, in 2023 the creative industries contributed £124 billion in gross value added to the UK economy, accounting for 5.2% of the total GVA. The largest subsector was IT, software and computer services, contributing £49.1 billion, or 2.07% of the total GVA. Other significant subsectors included advertising and marketing, and film, TV, radio and photography, which brought in £21.2 billion. These figures are large, I am sorry, but they are important to know, and to have in Hansard, for the Government to understand why they must continue to contribute and give support to these industries, so that we do not lose them. Between 2010 and 2023, the creative industries grew by 35%, adjusted for inflation, outpacing the overall UK economy’s growth of 22% during the same period.
On employment and earnings, we have heard from other noble Lords how important employment is and how worrying it is that people in certain industries are not being supported and that there is not funding for this. We must support and encourage the BBC and others to create and commission new works, besides the ones we continually see every week that are repeated round and round. We must have some new work produced, contracts let and so on. Also, these programmes are sold abroad, which brings a big income for the UK. I agree with my noble friend about people having to take other jobs when they are not being contracts to write.
The creative industries are predominantly composed of small and medium-sized enterprises, which are the backbone of the UK’s economy. In 2023, 95% of businesses in the sector had fewer than 10 employees. Despite their size, these businesses have made substantial contributions to the economy.
Productivity in the creative industries, measured at GVA per hour worked, was £46 in 2023, higher than the UK average of £40. This indicates that the sector is more productive than the economy as a whole. What this industry brings to the country has to be noted, because many people laugh and think it is somewhere over there; it is key to what this country has to do. We have to look again at the whole question of VAT and visas; that is for another debate, but it is important.
The UK exported £46 billion-worth of services from the creative industries in 2023, accounting for 12% of total service exports. The largest export markets were the USA and the EU. Foreign direct investment in the creative industries was £5.9 billion in 2023, representing 10% of the total investment to the UK. I got these figures from the Library or the Economist, if anybody wants to check them out.
Although London remains a central hub, other regions have seen significant growth in the creative industries. For instance, the north-west and the West Midlands experienced notable increases in both employment and contributions from the sector between 2010 and 2023.
There has also been high tourism to Scotland, as one of our colleagues mentioned, and to Northern Ireland, which is becoming quite a place for theatre and music. It is important that we make sure we give subsidies to there.
Lord Freyberg (CB)
My Lords, I too thank the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, for initiating this timely debate. I congratulate the noble Lords, Lord Brennan and Lord Lemos, and the noble Baroness, Lady Griffin, on their inspiring speeches. I declare my interest as an artist member of DACS, the Design and Artists Copyright Society; here I echo the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, and others on copyright and how we should protect our creatives.
I will focus on the impact of cross-border trade and regulation on our creative industries. Our creative sector is a pillar of economic growth and cultural influence, yet increasing trade barriers and excessive regulation are eroding our competitive edge. The UK art market exemplifies these challenges. London has been a leading hub for art transactions, supporting over 45,000 jobs directly and nearly 38,000 through ancillary services such as logistics, conservation and marketing. However, our market share has declined from 34% in 2008 to just 17% today, while art imports have plummeted from 24% to just 7% in the past decade.
While large institutions struggle, small craft businesses and independent artisans are particularly vulnerable. These enterprises, from ceramicists to jewellers, form the backbone of our local creative economies. A local potter shipping to European galleries now faces paperwork costs exceeding £100 per shipment, which is prohibitive for items selling for just a few hundred pounds.
The post-Brexit trading environment has significant obstacles. The combination of import VAT and customs checks has turned what was once a smooth process into a bureaucratic nightmare. Compared with major art markets such as New York and Hong Kong, our import procedures are more expensive and administratively cumbersome. This creates a significant disadvantage in attracting international business and investment.
A severe lack of specialist customs infrastructure for inspecting artworks and collecting import VAT has created significant barriers to art movement between the UK and the EU. Although comprehensive data is limited, the evidence from dealers, auction house and shipping companies reveals widespread disruption. Art handlers report major delays at inspection points that are ill-equipped for handling sensitive artworks, while the complex VAT system of collections has created costly administrative burdens for galleries and dealers.
A telling example is the relocation of a major art shipper from Wiltshire to Brussels, due to unsustainable delays at Dover and Folkestone. Where previously multiple weekly shipments entered UK warehouses for international distribution, they are now consolidated into a single weekly UK delivery from Brussels. These barriers have contributed to the closure of London art fairs, such as Masterpiece and London Art Week, and significantly impacted the ability of auction houses to source works of art for UK sales, with major houses such as Sotheby’s and Christie’s reporting substantial difficulties in importing art for London auctions. The ripple effect extends beyond the art auction houses; it impacts restorers, transporters, framers and other related businesses. The very ecosystem that sustains our creative industries is under threat.
Adding to this burden is overregulation. Although anti-money laundering laws serve an important purpose, they disproportionately impact smaller businesses. Many independent craftspeople now find themselves drowning in compliance paperwork. A small ceramics studio must complete the same complex documentation as a major gallery shipping million-pound artworks. Courier companies compound these challenges by adding their own layers of bureaucracy: charging additional handling fees, requiring duplicate paperwork and often holding shipments in customs clearance for longer than is necessary.
If we are serious about maintaining our status as a global cultural hub, we must act decisively. First, we must simplify import procedures. The reintroduction of zero rating for art imports would bring the UK in line with New York and Hong Kong. If this is not possible, extending temporary admission arrangements would significantly reduce burdens. Secondly, we must ensure proportionate regulations. Raising the AML compliance threshold from £10,000 to £30,000 would provide much-needed relief. Thirdly, we must create a simplified trade framework for small-scale creative businesses. A streamlined craft export scheme for shipments of under £5,000 would help thousands of independent artisans to maintain vital international connections. I hope that the Minister will look favourably on these things.
Viscount Chandos (Lab)
My Lords, we are all grateful to my noble friend Lady Thornton for securing this debate and for her powerful introduction to it. I also congratulate my three noble friends who have held their premieres today so impressively—not so much a maiden over as a hat-trick, to mix my sectoral analogies. I draw the House’s attention to my interests in the register, specifically in this context as vice-chair of LAMDA, a director of RSMB, chair of the Theseus Agency and an adviser to WFO Services. One of my sons is also a screenwriter.
Speaking near the end of this stimulating debate, I am reminded how strongly the desire to support and grow the creative industries is shared on all sides of the House. I welcome, for instance, the continuity embraced by the new Labour Government in areas such as independent film tax credit, as well as the decision not to reduce tax relief for museums, galleries and orchestras that the previous Government had envisaged. The deep talent pool in the UK is the key factor in attracting investment and production, but stability of the fiscal rules, as the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, said, is also vital and those should be at internationally competitive levels.
That talent pool is founded on the outstanding education and training provided in the UK, whether through conservatoires or apprenticeships, and I welcome the initiative of my right honourable friend the DCMS Secretary of State to change apprenticeship rules to more easily relate to the timescale of individual film or television productions.
I will use the remainder of my time to talk about the vital importance of the development of film and television studios, particularly outside London and the south-east. The boom in the past 15 years in high-end television drama resulting from the growth of global streaming services, alongside the continuing high levels of feature film production, exposed a shortage of capacity in studios. Even if there has been some additional capacity built and some moderation in levels of production recently, the long-term requirement for quality studio space and related services is likely to remain high.
I therefore welcome the decision of my right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister to call in the Marlow Film Studios project, turned down by Buckinghamshire Council. I am also watching with interest the progress of the planning application for the Camden Film Quarter—200 yards from my flat in Kentish Town. The concentration of film and television jobs in London and the south-east referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Londesborough, should drive us, however strong the effect of cluster theory may be, to do everything possible to create vibrant and viable clusters throughout the whole of the UK.
One such opportunity is the Digbeth Loc. Studios project in Birmingham, driven relentlessly over many years by Steve Knight, the creator and writer of “Peaky Blinders” and most recently of “Maria”, whose deeply touching portrayal of Maria Callas is a vivid demonstration of the interconnection between different art forms—highly recommended even for those who are not opera lovers. “MasterChef” has already built its new home on the Digbeth site, and the “Peaky Blinders” feature film was shot there, using the great Victorian warehouses. The BBC is moving its Midlands headquarters to an adjoining site, the Tea Factory, and the HS2 terminal in Curzon Street is a few minutes’ walk away. Not only would the full development of Digbeth Loc. provide significant employment in the creative industries in a region in which such jobs are disproportionately scarce, but it could be a critical factor in the broader redevelopment of the area, creating quality housing and other commercial space—a vivid illustration in a microcosm of the impact that the creative industries can have on wider aspects of our society and economy.
The Government have provided £25 million of funding to the North East Combined Authority to support the Crown Works studios project in Sunderland, which I applaud, and have indicated that in the current spending review the West Midlands will receive priority funding in relation to the creative industries. Will my noble friend the Minister ensure that support for the Digbeth Loc. Studios is central to determining the funding made available to the West Midlands Combined Authority?
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe (Lab)
I thank my noble friend Lady Thornton for her comprehensive introduction to this timely debate and I echo her paean of praise for her native city of Bradford and its programme as City of Culture. I too claim Bradford as my native city and I return as regularly as I can for a pilgrimage to Saltaire to its wonderful Hockney gallery there. With everyone else, I congratulate my three noble friends on their wonderful maiden speeches and look forward enormously to hearing more from them.
As others have mentioned, the creative industries contribute £124 billion to the UK economy and account for 2.4 million jobs across the UK. The statistics speak for themselves. Our creative industries are vital to our future prosperity and the Government’s growth mission. We are absolutely right to prioritise these industries in our industrial plan.
The Creative Industries Growth Summit last month set out £60 million of funding for projects and programmes across the UK, and that is a great start. To take just one example, the proposed new glassworks in Sunderland will create one of the few places in the UK with the specialist facilities for artists to create and produce glass. It will link Sunderland’s long glass-making heritage with its creative future, breathing new life into the city, and it has been widely welcomed by creative businesses in the area.
It is most certainly a step in the right direction, but we have a long walk ahead. Glass-making may seem rather niche in the grand scheme of things but, as we have heard, the creative industries in the UK cover a wide range, from the biggest in terms of GVA—IT, software and computer services—to the smallest subsector, which has the rather cosy-sounding title of crafts. This is a sector I am particularly interested in. It has some distinctive characteristics relevant to the wider picture. I hope the Minister will heed the concerns expressed so cogently by the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg. I declare that I am pleased to be a member of the APPG for Craft.
Crafts are a small subsector of our creative industries. They account for just 10,000 jobs in the UK and £0.4 billion in GVA. However, craft skills and businesses both service and power many other creative industries. Craft skills and services are applied in fields ranging from engineering, architecture and medicine to fashion and design. They may include textiles, furniture-making, metalworking and fabrication, ceramics, and printmaking to—as we have heard—support film, television, theatre and gaming, as well as delivering small-batch manufacturing.
Most craft businesses are micro-businesses with fewer than 10 employees. Many are sole traders or freelancers. They often operate in clusters that have grown out of traditional and heritage industries that are very localised. This is good for stimulating growth outside London, but their size also presents challenges for growth, not least in accessing training and skills development.
I raise the point about training because I know the Government are aware of a potential skills shortage within the creative economy. A report last year from Creative PEC—the Creative Industries Policy and Evidence Centre—highlighted the decline in student numbers in creative further education right across the UK. It also showed low take-up of creative industries apprenticeships. Those aligned to the creative industries accounted for just 8.7% of apprenticeships in England, with the vast majority of these being in information and communications technology, leaving those in subjects such as creative arts and design very low indeed. This is alarming. Apprenticeships are vital to ensure the future of our creative industries. Yet the inflexible apprenticeship levy and its assumption that all businesses need a steady pipeline of 12-month apprenticeships does not serve the small businesses within the creative industries.
The Government’s intention to bring in shorter apprenticeships and to reform the apprenticeship levy into a growth and skills levy is therefore really good news. The reformed levy should enable micro-businesses to offer more work-based learning for vocational and apprenticeship courses. More flexibility in the use of the levy will help creative employers identify where else the apprenticeship system can help them get the skills they need.
However, does this go far enough? What else can we do? Can the Minister tell us more about how Skills England will work with all those involved to keep in mind the distinctive nature of micro-businesses and help ensure a pipeline of skills in the creative industries?
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I thank the Whips for their flexibility that has allowed me to participate in this debate without having to sprint between the Moses Room and your Lordships’ Chamber. I declare my interest an as author. I am not sure whether trade non-fiction counts as creative sector, but it is certainly somewhere in the vicinity. My second book is on the way.
Like everyone, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, for securing what has been a very rich debate and for her enthusiastic and optimistic introduction. Like her and a number of other noble Lords, I look forward to Bradford’s year in the spotlight.
The noble Baroness’s question has a fairly narrow focus, on the importance of the creative industries to jobs and growth. I shall leave the debate about a post-growth age for another day, but I will take a moment to stress the importance of the creative sector and of the opportunity for every human being to exercise their creative impulse beyond the economy. This is crucial to human well-being and flourishing—to human life.
Let us think about walking past a cheerful mural painted by a local artist working with local schoolchildren; we need much more public art in our country to enrich our society. Let us think about people visiting a town centre in order to see a temporary installation made out of waste plastic, of which there is far too much; that makes a political point, but it also builds a community. Let us think about people simply being able to express their anger and frustration at the state of the world and the challenges they face in a creative form, which can be absolutely vital for people’s mental health.
Something perhaps slightly less obvious to many people is that, while the Government are very focused on progressing science, the creative sector and the scientific sector are intimately interlinked. It is in the creative sphere that many ideas and developments of scientific thought happen. If noble Lords are looking for an example of this, I have to mention a great book I was reading recently: Children of Time by Adrian Tchaikovsky. It takes the scientific understanding of the intelligence of octopuses and starts to imagine, in ways a scientist never could, what that might actually mean. It is absolutely fascinating.
I will make three brief points in the time available. In particular, I want to pick up on a briefing from the BPI on an issue I have raised in other contexts: artificial intelligence, and the way in which so-called generative AI has, without apparent legal standing or justification, been taking the work of many creative individuals and using it for someone else’s purposes. Generative AI is plagiarism, and we need to see much more action in that space from the Government.
I also want to focus briefly—here I am drawing on a briefing from the Music Venues Alliance—on the collapse of the provision of small-scale venues outside London, and even within London. This particularly applies to music venues, but also to theatres. In another life, I was a reviewer of fringe theatre in London, and some of those venues are no longer functional. I wonder how many of the young actors I saw in those events are still able to be in the creative sector, and how many have been forced out.
That brings me to my final point, and it is one of the reasons why I particularly wanted to take part in this debate. The noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, spoke about how many people, particularly those from disadvantaged communities, are locked out of a career in the creative sector. The noble Viscount, Lord Colville, spoke about how many people are being forced into ill-health by the pressure and the uncertainty. Britain is not world-leading in trialling alternative approaches. The Irish Government are offering 2,000 artists a basic income of €325 a week over three years. The city of San Francisco is experimenting with a basic income scheme for 130 artists for 18 months, and in the Netherlands a music industry organisation is conducting a smaller scale trial. If we are going to have a functioning, healthy creative sector with a wide range of people involved, I put to the Minister and the Government that, surely, they could at least look at trialling a basic income as a way of allowing the creative sector to begin to flourish again.
Baroness Wheatcroft (CB)
My Lords, what an uplifting debate this is. We all agree on the importance of the creative industries, and we have heard some wonderful personal experiences. It is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, and her emphasis on the mental well-being that the creative industries give us. Certainly, on Sunday afternoon, I felt a lot better after a visit to the Festival Hall and a Beethoven concerto.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, for securing this debate and introducing it so effectively. I add my voice to the praises already heaped on those three wonderful maiden speeches. It is fitting that we should be having this discussion today, since tomorrow is the 80th anniversary of the first royal charter to be given to the Arts Council. The driving force behind the creation of that body was not just a champion of the arts but a hard-headed economist: John Maynard Keynes. Keynes recognised, as many speakers today have done, that a thriving arts scene is not an indulgence but an imperative for a thriving economy.
The arts and our creative industries are inextricably linked. One might go so far as to argue that, increasingly, every industry must be creative to flourish. It takes creative thought as well as science to produce new products, and it certainly takes creative thought to market the results. There may not be a huge amount of innovation in a breakfast cereal that consists of 95% wheat, but when the country is told that not eating enough of it is responsible for Britain’s decline, it is a creative triumph. BBH, the agency responsible for that wonderful Weetabix ad, is actually British, but it is owned entirely by a French business now. That, of course, is one of the problems for our creative industry as well as for so many other sectors: in the end, they do not belong to this country.
We all agree that the creative industries will help to reverse the decline that we have seen in the UK—if cereal alone cannot do it, of course—so I will restrict my remarks to two specific areas. The first is the wonderful attractions this country has, which do so much to draw international visitors, and their money, to the UK. I declare an interest as a past chairman of the Association of Leading Visitor Attractions. Our museums, galleries, castles and historic houses are as much a part of the creative industries as the film production companies that use them as locations. They are creative industries as well—they are hugely creative in the exhibitions and the special events they stage—but, as the noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, pointed out, many of them are finding life tough. They are struggling with deficits accumulated during the pandemic, and local authorities cannot afford to fund them.
The chief executive of the Arts Council, Darren Henley, points out that it is a mistake to refer to such funding as subsidy; it is investment. But, even as investment in the community and the country, it is increasingly hard to find. So institutions need to be even more creative in finding means to survive and thrive. That may mean more sharing of their assets or more lending of objects, and it must mean more help from philanthropists. So will the Government look at doing more to encourage those who have a great deal of money—some of it quite recently acquired—to put more of it into these institutions? This sort of philanthropy is still not the badge of honour in the UK that it is in the US.
My second point relates to the need to grow creative businesses. Like so many other sectors, they stick at one stage and then get sold out or just stay at the same level. We need to get better at scaling up. We have talked about it for a very long time in the UK, and now we need to do it. One means of doing it—like others, I ask the Minister to take a bigger look at this—is improving the R&D structure for the creative industries. It needs to be much more imaginative, and there is certainly scope; the Royal Society has done some work on that that might help her.
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to make a short contribution in the gap. I congratulate my noble friend Lady Thornton, whose impressive and comprehensive maiden speech I had the pleasure of listening to from the vantage point of the Woolsack. I wish to say to today’s three maiden speakers how excellent they all were; they will all feel a lot better for having done it. Their speeches were all made remarkably soon after their introductions, and the House will be richer for their contributions in future.
Before Christmas, we had a debate with the same title as today’s, with the slight difference that in place of the words “creative industries” were the words “science and technology”. I therefore rise to make just one point: creativity and the industries to which it gives rise can be found everywhere—in maths as well as music. Incidentally, I cannot resist endorsing everything that was said about trying to improve the ability of our musicians, youth orchestras and so on to tour in Europe. Creativity is just as great in both, so I hope the House will not artificially think there is a separation between the debate we are having today on the creative industries and the one we had before Christmas on science and technology. As I say, the creativity is one and the same.
Mention has been made of artificial intelligence. AI is the product of human creativity, so it is all the more important that we do not let AI exploit human creativity. I hope that, when people think about the effect of the creative industries on the economy of the country, they will also see that the arts and sciences are two sides of the same coin. We must do everything we possibly can to support both.
Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury (LD)
My Lords, I join in thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, for initiating this debate. She and I have served on committees together, and I know and appreciate her genuine support for culture and creativity. I congratulate and welcome the three maiden speakers, who are champions of the creative industries, which is such a great bonus for the rest of us who support them.
This is the first debate in this House on this incredibly important sector since the general election. We on these Benches welcome the new Government’s emphasis on the creative industries, as laid out in the industrial strategy Green Paper and by the Secretary of State, Lisa Nandy, who said in her speech at the creative industries growth summit that the intention is
“to unleash the power of our creative industries”.
We welcome the continuation of the previous Government’s tax reliefs and their extension to indie films and VFX, as well as the setting up of the Creative Industries Taskforce, mentioned by the noble Viscount, Lord Chandos, and the Soft Power Council—including the mission to harness UK expertise from the creative industries and drive the UK’s soft-power strategy. Essential to this is ensuring proper support for the British Council and the BBC World Service, both of which are facing serious challenges and are in need of sustained and secure investment, as mentioned by the noble Lords, Lord Stevenson and Lord Lemos, and the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty. Will the Minister reassure the House of the Government’s absolute commitment to them?
The previous Government set up the CIC, which is important because it includes creative industry leaders, and is co-chaired by two of them along with the Secretary of State for Culture and the Secretary of State for Business and Trade. However, the Department for Education has never been part of the mix—something that we on these Benches have consistently asked for and we ask for again. A thriving creative sector that will foster growth begins at school with our young people—including the very young, as my noble friend Lady Benjamin consistently tells us—and continues throughout their education.
Thankfully, the Secretary of State for Education understands the importance of returning arts and culture to the centre of the curriculum:
“There is a real issue around creativity in our state schools and the lack of access that state school pupils have to music, sport, art and drama. … I want to make that a really important part of the curriculum in the future”.
The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, and the noble Baronesses, Lady McIntosh, Lady Nye and Lady Griffin, will be pleased to hear that, because it appears that the STEAM/STEM argument has finally been won. Please let that be the case.
We on these Benches believe that Ofsted inspections should reflect this and give top ratings only to schools that can demonstrate excellence in creative teaching, as well as other subjects. Does the Minister agree? Of course, the problem with the skills pipeline continues post-education, so we welcome the Skills England Bill and reform of the apprenticeship levy—something mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick—but this must work for the creative industries. Does the Minister agree that, in order to avoid the mistakes of the past, the creative industries must be involved in the design of the new skills levy?
Something not mentioned so far is that there is a problem with the lack of diversity within the creative workforce. Changes to the apprenticeship levy and the education system will hopefully address this, but more needs to be done. Another part of this problem is that the world of the creative industries is one of freelancers, as mentioned so forcefully by the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, and the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty. The UK’s tax and social security framework is not set up to support freelancers effectively. Can the Minister agree with me, the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, and the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, that what is needed is a freelance commissioner to champion their rights?
Another impediment to the creative and cultural sector’s contribution to growth is lack of funding, particularly at local level. Due to the necessary prioritisation of statutory responsibilities, cuts have fallen disproportionately on arts organisations. I am a trustee of the Lowry in Salford, a prime example of the importance of local culture and the contribution it can make to a community. Not so long ago, Salford Quays was a place of derelict, disused docks. Now, as mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Nye, it is a thriving, creative hub and a creator of wealth, Media City—growth exemplified. The Lowry is more than a building, more than theatres and more than a gallery; it is a catalyst for transformation, not just physically, but in helping and inspiring young people into the creative industries through learning and engagement work. It generates growth in every sense. What has been central to that regeneration is a city council that had the foresight, the commitment and, crucially, the ability to back it. Will the Minister please take note of the excellent LGA report, Cornerstones of Culture, which recommends a return to local decision-making when shaping cultural provision?
We on these Benches believe wholeheartedly in devolution, but there is a risk in the implementation of the Government’s plans that local cultural organisations could be forced further to the fringes of public spending. How can the Government ensure that this will not be the case?
It is no surprise here that I am going to mention Europe, the calamitous consequence of Brexit, as mentioned by the noble Lords, Lord Freyberg and Lord Berkeley, the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, and so many others, and the knock-on effect on the Government’s growth mission. The ability to access the continent through complicated paperwork, carnets, cabotages and visas is inflicting punishing costs and red tape and inhibiting the ability of creatives from across the sector to flourish. I echo what has been said here: I hope that change is coming. I am not going to mention the European youth mobility scheme, but noble Lords should please look at that again.
Like so many noble Lords, I cannot contribute to this debate without mentioning the existential threat to the creative world that is AI. As my honourable friend, Max Wilkinson, put it when he spoke in another place,
“the Government must not put at risk the value of human creativity”.—[Official Report, Commons, 27/1/25; col. 60.]
My honourable friend conducted an experiment. He asked an expert what would happen if creators lost their intellectual property rights to AI. The expert told him that there was a risk of a loss of income and motivation, a devaluation of creative work, ethical concerns, legal uncertainty and domination by AI operators. The expert my honourable friend consulted was none other than Google Gemini. Does the Minister agree, as asked by so many people in this debate, that we should empower our creative industries to make their own choices about AI usage? They should be an opt-in, rather than opt-out, something, by the way, that my honourable friend Max Wilkinson’s expert, Google Gemini, supports. For human creators, an opt-in model generally offers stronger protection.
All nine sectors that the DCMS designates as our creative industries need to be celebrated and nurtured, but I will end with a special mention for TV. British talent in this area is admired across the world, and central to this are our PSBs. The origin of the word “broadcast” is “to sow seed widely”, and that is what they have done. They have brought the streamers to this country—growth. As the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, mentioned at the beginning, the BBC single-handedly brings incredible economic benefits. Will the Minister listen to the words of her colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, in supporting the future of the BBC and assure the House of her Government’s unequivocal support for a universally available BBC?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, this has indeed been an uplifting and enjoyable debate. We are all very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, for bringing it before us, not least for the opportunity to hear three such excellent maiden speeches from our new colleagues. I had the pleasure of getting to know the noble Lord, Lord Brennan of Canton, when he was in another place and sat on the DCMS Select Committee there. In fact, I appeared in front of him and his colleagues when I was a minister. He asked me then about the Salisbury–Addison convention, if I remember, which I am sure will serve him well now he sees it from the other House of Parliament. As we heard, he is also one-quarter of the parliamentary band MP4. Another of his colleagues, my colleague Sir Greg Knight, stood down at the last election, so I was pleased to hear that he is already thinking about a lordly equivalent. I hope that he finds a drummer, but even if he does not, he will have heard plenty of people who are keen to bang the drum for the creative industries in our debate today.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
There is more coming, I am afraid.
I was also glad to hear from the noble Baroness, Lady Griffin of Princethorpe, who spoke powerfully about her experience in the European Parliament, which she will bring to scrutinising legislation here in your Lordships’ House, not least on the important issue of remuneration for artists and copyright. I understand that, because of a medical appointment, she is unable to be here to receive the praise that she deserves for her excellent maiden speech. She may have had to make it from a sedentary position, but it is very clear that she has already found her feet in your Lordships’ House, and we look forward to hearing more from her.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
Quite. I had the pleasure of knowing the noble Lord, Lord Lemos, when I was at DCMS through his work as chairman of English Heritage, which is a brilliant custodian of so much of our inheritance in this country and our scheduled monuments. One of my happiest memories as Minister was attending what was billed, rightly, as not just the restoration but the reawakening of Belsay Hall in Northumberland and celebrating the work that he and his colleagues had overseen there. It is a pleasure to have him here among us in your Lordships’ House. As his speech showed, he is a man of many interests and many areas of expertise. I particularly look forward to his ongoing contributions on heritage and the arts. I am glad that he will be able to keep a particularly close eye on the 14th-century Jewel Tower, part of the Palace of Westminster that survived the fire of 1834 and is now in the care of English Heritage, just across the road from Peers Entrance.
The noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, was a passionate champion for all these sectors in her roles in the Opposition in the previous Parliament. We heard that again today in her powerful and eloquent opening speech. I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Londesborough, who mentioned that the original, longer form of the title pointed rightly to the opportunity for growth in every part of the country. The noble Baroness spoke powerfully for God’s own country of Yorkshire, but I was pleased to hear her mention Whitley Bay.
Indeed, there were a few mentions of the north-east of England, which hosted the growth summit at which the Secretary of State spoke last month, at the Glasshouse International Centre for Music, which celebrates its 20th birthday this year. I was pleased that at that summit the Secretary of State announced the recipients of the fourth round of funding from the cultural development fund, which was something that began in the previous Parliament. I was delighted to see that the centre for writing in Newcastle will be one of the recipients, building on the proud literary heritage of my native city.
The noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, and others spoke about the importance of the City of Culture programme and the wonderful opportunity that Bradford has this year to showcase its arts, heritage and all the new things that one of the country’s youngest cities is doing. I agree with her that all should visit and enjoy what it has in store.
When I saw the Motion, I worried that the creative industries are often narrowly defined. Even within DCMS, there is sometimes a gulf between the creative industries and the arts. It was wonderful to hear not just the noble Baroness but others talking about the performing arts, libraries, our heritage and so much more. As the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, is always reminding us, they are so intimately interconnected that we need them all. That point came through from so many noble Lords’ speeches.
I was pleased, too, to hear my noble friend Lord Harlech speaking up for the fashion industry and the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, talking about advertising. They are areas that often do not get quite as much attention. From architecture to publishing to computer games, there are so many areas in these isles that we should be proud of and seek to champion.
There were many areas of agreement. The creative industries were one of five priority areas for the Chancellor in the previous Government and they are one of the priority areas for our new Chancellor. We had a creative industry sector vision, and there is now a creative industry sector plan. Where we see things in that with which we agree, we will support them wholeheartedly. Like the noble Viscount, Lord Chandos, I was delighted that the Government have recommitted themselves to the tax credits. As the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, has reminded us before, we owe much to not just Gordon Brown but Margaret Thatcher and previous Governments. It is wonderful to see them being extended, and my noble friend Lady Penn talked powerfully about the impact that they can have. We look forward to working with the Government and scrutinising their work on helping artists on touring and on broadening the curriculum and helping young people of all backgrounds to take up the life-changing opportunities of the arts.
I was pleased to see the noble Baroness, Lady Vadera, take up a role with the Creative Industries Council and the noble Baroness, Lady Hodge, reviewing Arts Council England. I look forward to welcoming Thangam Debbonaire when she is introduced as a noble Baroness. It is wonderful that we have so many rich voices, including the three we have heard today, adding to our debates in your Lordships’ House.
I was pleased about the establishment of the Soft Power Council but, like the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, I am worried about the reports that I have seen about the British Council and its finances. He asked some very good questions there. I wonder, if it is indeed thinking of selling off some of the artworks in its collection, whether one option might be to look at the acceptance in lieu scheme so that they could be donated to the state in lieu of tax but not lost from the public collection? I wonder whether the noble Baroness will take that idea back to the department to discuss it with her colleagues and those at the Foreign Office.
Where there are things with which we disagree, as the Opposition, we will point them out. I must pick up points that the noble Lord, Lord Londesborough, and others raised about decisions that were taken in the Budget, not least on national insurance contributions. They are making the lives of creative organisations and small businesses, which often operate on very small margins, all the harder. I hope that the Government will look at the impact that their decisions are having on these businesses, which are struggling and which do so much good work looking after things on our behalf.
Earlier this week, my colleagues in the shadow team and I had a meeting with the Historic Houses association. These are small businesses, often families, which run houses for the enjoyment of everybody, supporting some 32,000 jobs and 330 apprenticeships and generating more than £1.3 billion for the UK economy. They are often the biggest employers in their rural areas, and decisions that make employment more expensive have a knock-on effect not just on their business but on the opportunities of young people in these often isolated areas.
I will pick up on the comments that other noble Lords have made about the implications of the Budget for grass-roots music venues, which are so important to the pipeline of talent that we enjoy. Last year, grass-roots music venues staged some 162,000 live events. We want to see many more in more parts of the country.
I began this week at Tate Britain, with the art funder Nesta, at an event called Mini Wonders about early years intervention and the role that museums and galleries can play. As noble Lords have discussed, skills start right at the beginning.
The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, mentioned the closure of university arts departments. I was pleased to see that Glassworks: Sunderland has been awarded some money from the cultural development fund. There is a national glass centre there already, which has been working with the University of Sunderland. The Education Secretary sits for a constituency in that city. I know that the vice-chancellor of the university has been advising the Government. There is a building there and a facility which was built only 25 years ago with public investment. This is a lesson to us about investment and the pressing capital needs of our cultural estate. We must make sure that we are investing in what we already have, as well as stimulating new activity.
On technology and AI, the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, was right to highlight the importance of human endeavour. The noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, spoke of the threat to quality programming, especially for children. The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, pointed to some of the many downsides. I know he will remain vigilant.
I wonder whether the Minister has had discussions with her colleagues at the Foreign Office about funding to the World Service, to make sure that its trusted and impartial voices can continue to be heard at the time when they are needed.
Noble Lords raised many important points, particularly in relation to freelancers and the workforce, about making sure that the arts are an attractive and viable career for people of all backgrounds. They listed a number of areas where small changes could make a big difference. The noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, gave a number of examples relating to craftspeople. I have previously raised small changes, such as designating St Pancras as a CITES port, which would help. I wonder whether the Minister has seen the Scene Change report by the National Theatre, which sets out innovative ideas on exploring business model innovations in the arts.
It is clear from all the contributions, including those from our three new colleagues, that your Lordships’ House is brimming with ideas to help us continue to support these vital and thriving sectors of our economy. I am very grateful to noble Lords for their contributions.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Twycross) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Thornton for securing this excellent debate. I agree with many noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, who expressed it very well: it has been a truly inspiring debate. I thank all noble Lords for their valuable and varied contributions.
It has been a particular pleasure to hear the maiden speeches of my noble friends Lord Lemos, Lord Brennan of Canton and Lady Griffin of Princethorpe. It is clear that they will make a hugely valuable contribution to your Lordships’ House, not least with their experience and expertise in the creative industries.
I was sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, was not named to fill the drummer vacancy. However, like him, I was pleased that my noble friend Lady Thornton mentioned Bradford being the City of Culture. This was echoed by my noble friend Lady Warwick of Undercliffe. I have no doubt that many noble Lords will enjoy this year’s events, which will enable Bradford to tell the world its story and show off its local heritage. It may leave a long legacy, as my noble friend Lady Nye highlighted has been the case with Hull, and my noble friend Lady Griffin of Princethorpe raised in relation to Liverpool. My noble friend Lady Nye and the noble Baroness, Lady Bonham-Carter, also raised the example of Salford. These cities and the way culture and the creative industries have contributed to regeneration and pride in place are the answer to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Londesborough, about why we should continue to push for regional growth in the creative arts. My noble friend Lady Goudie also mentioned regional growth, as did my noble friend Lord Chandos, who noted that the power of redevelopment can have much wider economic benefits for cities that benefit from the creative industries.
This was an incredibly positive debate, and I am delighted that we have had the opportunity to debate the creative industries. As the noble Baroness, Lady Bonham-Carter, noted, this is the first debate on this topic that we have had since the election. I hope that we do not have to wait quite so long for the next one.
Our creative industries are powered by absolutely extraordinary people, from artists and technicians to games developers and production accountants. This Government recognise the huge economic potential of these industries, which support more than 2.4 million jobs and represent over 5% of the UK’s total gross value added. From advertising to glassmaking, it is clear that noble Lords are champions of the full range of creative industries. Our creative industries shape UK soft power—a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, not least in relation to fashion, which he highlighted. The BBC reaches 450 million people a week, our museums are some of the most visited in the world, and the UK is the number one global exporter of books and the second-biggest music exporter after the United States. I join my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Hudnall, and surely all noble Lords, in loving one of our exports: Wallace and Gromit.
The creative industries are already growing at a faster rate than the rest of our economy. As the Secretary of State said at the recent creative industry summit in Gateshead, if one thing underpins everything we want to achieve in government, it is growth. Our plan for change will kick-start growth through our industrial strategy. As noble Lords have noted, the Government have identified the creative industries as one of the eight priority growth-driving sectors.
As my noble friend Lady Thornton highlighted in her speech, the Secretary of State announced a new task force, co-chaired by Sir Peter Bazalgette and the noble Baroness, Lady Vadera, to develop a creative industry sector plan. As a first step, we have announced a £40 million investment across start-up video game studios, British music and film exports, and creative businesses outside of London, as well as over £16 million for the cultural development fund, supporting transformative projects in Newcastle, Sheffield, Somerset and Sunderland. We are working closely with six priority mayoral strategic areas, which will receive additional funding to support the creative industries.
My noble friend Lord Chandos asked about film studios. I agree with him on the importance of developing studio infrastructure across the UK. We welcome the development of emerging hubs, including Digbeth Loc in the West Midlands. Today, BFI statistics revealed a £5.6 billion spend on film and high-end TV in 2024, with “Back to Black” leading the UK independent film charts.
The noble Baroness, Lady Penn, and my noble friend Lord Chandos referenced tax credits. The noble Baroness recognised the importance of the right mix of support through public funding and competitive tax reliefs. This Government have enhanced tax reliefs for independent film and visual effects. The Treasury continues to keep tax policy under review.
The noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, discussed smaller subsectors, and I agree wholeheartedly that we must find the right mix of interventions that recognise the overall creative ecosystem and the specifics of subsectors. That is what we are doing as we develop our sector plans, so I hope I have given her some reassurance on that point.
On wider access to finance, the creative industries are a UK strength but they face barriers to unlocking growth. Too many creative businesses that want to scale up are unable to access the finance they need. This must change. To address that, we have announced that the British Business Bank will increase its support for the creative industries by investing in and supporting high-growth creative businesses, backing venture capital fund managers and supporting lenders.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, and the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, mentioned R&D. Our creative industries drive innovation, research and development, yet the overall share of UKRI funding for the creative industries does not correspond to the value they bring to the economy. To address this, the Government will strengthen investment in R&D for the creative industries.
Many noble Lords raised the importance of education, including the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson. As the noble Baroness, Lady Bonham-Carter, said, creativity involves children and young people. My noble friend Lady Thornton quoted the Secretary of State where she said that arts and culture must be for everyone everywhere. Too many young people currently do not have access to opportunities, and these are opportunities that I had and valued as a child, and I continue to value them as an adult. Children and young people from less affluent backgrounds struggle to get ahead.
We need the pipeline of talent highlighted by my noble friend Lady Nye. In many ways, this debate could also have been focused on the Government’s opportunity mission. The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, highlighted how access to arts should not just be for the rich. It cannot be right that young people are currently denied opportunities because they do not have the economic means. The Government are determined to break down barriers and ensure that every child has the opportunities they deserve to achieve their potential.
We recognise that pathways into creative careers can start in school, which is why we have provided £3 million of new funding for the creative careers programme. In July, as referenced by a number of noble Lords, the Government launched an expert-led, independent curriculum and assessment review. It will seek a broader curriculum so that children and young people do not miss out on subjects such as music, arts and drama.
My noble friend Lady Nye asked about teacher shortages and the decline in specialist teachers. High-quality teaching is the biggest in-school factor that makes a difference to a child’s education in creative subjects. The Government are offering a teacher-training incentives package for the 2025-26 recruitment cycle, including a £10,000 tax-free bursary for arts, design and music.
As my noble friend Lady Thornton and others made clear, skills are a priority. Creative education underpins the development of a highly skilled workforce, for which the UK’s creative industries are internationally renowned. As the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, said, we need to be flexible in order to support creative industries, including the smaller subjects. We recognise that some skills programmes, such as the current apprenticeship system, do not always work for the creative sector. A 12-month apprenticeship is no good at all for employers who need skills for commissions that are shorter than this—a point made eloquently by a number of noble Lords, including my noble friends Lord Chandos and Lady Warwick. As my noble friend Lady Warwick highlighted, the Government will transform the apprenticeships levy into a new growth and skills levy and will bring forward changes so that shorter apprenticeships are available from August 2025, recognising the particular needs of the creative industries.
Skills gaps and shortages are a major constraint on innovation and growth. In response to my noble friend Lady Warwick’s question, Skills England will form a national picture of where skills gaps exist and how they can be addressed.
In relation to the points on freelancers made by the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, the noble Baroness, Lady Bonham-Carter, and my noble friend Lady Donaghy, we recognise the contribution of creative freelancers and the challenges in the TV sector in particular. Our plan to make work pay will strengthen rights and protections to help freelancers, including the right to a written contract and action to tackle late payment.
Viscount Colville of Culross (CB)
Is the Minister prepared to support the concept of a commissioner for freelancers, as was suggested by my noble friend Lord Clancarty and myself?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I will feed that back to the department; I cannot commit to it here and now, but I did hear and note that point. I will feed in points made during the debate to relevant Ministers and teams in the department but I cannot commit to that on the hoof in this debate, as I am sure the noble Viscount understands. I am liable to run short of time so, at this point, I will commit to writing to noble Lords with responses to the many questions asked and the really interesting points made throughout this debate.
Moving on to the question from my noble friend Lord Stevenson, the forthcoming BBB charter review will shape the BBC’s crucial role in the creative economy. This includes skills development, investment in the nations and regions, and continuing the BBC’s vital role as an anchor institution around a creative companies cluster.
The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, and my noble friend Lady Donaghy raised points about higher education and universities. It is important to understand the role of further and higher education in driving innovation in the creative industries, and we will being forward a comprehensive strategy for post-16 education to help us do this.
The noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, raised the importance of issues facing children’s TV. The Government recognise the importance of UK-made, high-quality content for children. That is why we are moving ahead with the implementation of the Media Act, which enshrines educational content in the new public service remit. As she noted, consumption is moving to platforms such as YouTube, where content can be more variable. We are discussing with these platforms what may be possible to promote high-quality programmes.
A number of noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley of Knighton, my noble friends Lady McIntosh and Lord Brennan, the noble Lord, Lord Londesborough, my noble friends Lady Griffin and Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, the noble Baronesses, Lady Prashar and Lady Bonham-Carter, and others almost without exception mentioned issues around AI and IP protection. We hear creatives’ concerns over the impact of AI, in particular the use of copyrighted works in AI training. As my noble friend Lady Thornton said, the Secretary of State has been clear that creatives are the core of our AI strategy. In December, therefore, we published a 10-week consultation to engage AI and creative industry stakeholders on the impact of AI on the copyright regime to clarify the copyright framework for AI: ensuring creators have control over their work, transparency from AI developers and the ability to license their content and be paid for it.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle asked for action, and I sense the urgency that noble Lords feel on this point. We are absolutely clear, however, that we will not make any decisions to proceed without confidence that an approach is workable and effective for rights holders. I look forward to updating noble Lords in due course on these issues.
Turning to the Arts Council England review, raised by my noble friends Lady Thornton and Lord Lemos, the review of my noble friend Lady Hodge will be supported by an advisory panel of great minds from across the sector and beyond, who will bring a mix of establishment and fresh voices to help in this work. The review will ensure that everyone can access and enjoy the arts, no matter who they are or where they live. It will also make sure the Arts Council is working effectively with local communities and supporting creativity at all levels.
In response to the request from my noble friend Lord Lemos, the full terms of reference for the review will be published in due course. This will set out the scope for the review, which will report to the Government in the autumn of 2025, and we expect to publish the conclusions of the review along with the Government’s response in early 2026. I will, however, feed my noble friend’s view in.
The noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, raised the Welsh National Opera. We are pleased to see that it has received £750,000 from the Arts Council of Wales’s jobs protection and resilience fund. Minister Bryant has held a series of productive meetings with the Welsh Government, Arts Council England and the Welsh National Opera to understand how, within the parameters of the arm’s-length principles, we can best ensure a strong and secure future for the Welsh National Opera.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, mentioned the grassroots music sector and, like noble Lords, clearly including my noble friend Lord Brennan, I really love live music. It brings a huge amount of joy to my life, and my summer is structured around concerts and gigs of all sizes. Some of the most iconic things about Britain internationally relate to our brilliant musicians, composers and songwriters past and present, but music must be part of our national cultural future, too. Britain’s best-selling artists start their careers in our grassroots venues. Ed Sheeran played at over 360 grassroots venues before reaching arenas; 150 of them have now closed. This is why the Government are urging the live music industry to introduce a voluntary levy on tickets for stadium shows to support a sustainable grassroots music sector. We welcome the progress made by industry in establishing the LIVE Trust to manage funds for the voluntary levy.
A number of noble Lords, including my noble friend Lord Lemos, the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bonham-Carter, raised issues relating to our EU exit, and in particular to EU touring. The Government are working to improve the UK’s trade and investment relationship with the EU and to tackle unnecessary barriers to trade without seeing a return to freedom of movement. Improving arrangements for creative professionals, including musicians and crew, is a priority for this Government, on which we will continue to work closely with the creative sector.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
I asked the Minister when discussions will be held with the European Commission on this. Does she have any detail about when that might happen?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
May I write to the noble Earl on that point? I have reams of paper here, which I am not likely to get through in my limited time, but I will endeavour to write.
The noble Lord, Lord Londesborough, raised the point about philanthropy. I feel really strongly about this, and we are committed to supporting philanthropic growth across the country. The Secretary of State has publicly committed to a place-based strategy to create an environment that will encourage and support local communities and ensure that philanthropy reaches the areas that need it most.
The noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, raised issues around the art market, not least in the context of us leaving the EU, and import and export issues. We recognise the challenges faced by the art market and the importance of maintaining the UK’s status as a major international hub. The Government have conducted a review of the temporary admission procedure, engaging extensively with the arts sector, and HMT is undertaking a review of money laundering regulations with impacted industries.
The noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, and the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, asked about the British Council. The Government highly value the British Council as a UK soft power asset and are committed to working with it to ensure its financial sustainability. The FCDO is exploring all options with the British Council and HMT to ensure this, and I will feed in suggestions made during this part of the debate.
We have heard today what is needed to build thriving creative industries. As part of our plan for change in the industrial strategy, we are developing a creative industries sector plan to drive growth across the country. Culture and creative industries are a key part of the UK economy, not just nice things to have for personal engagement, although it is clear from the passion and enthusiasm across your Lordships’ House that creative industries add richness and enjoyment to our lives. We are clear that the foundation for the future success of the creative industries starts by breaking down barriers to opportunity, and we are ready to enact meaningful change.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions today. I also thank the three stars who made their maiden speeches. We had emotional intelligence and the promise of a new band, huge experience in public services—and yes, I assure my noble friend that we will catch her if we need to—and multitasking. I think my noble friend Lord Lemos needs to know that, in this House, multitasking means that you are expected to be active on at least three Bills at once.
I anticipated that we would have a wide-ranging and erudite debate today, given the enthusiasm for and breadth of experience in the creative industries in your Lordships’ House. My noble friend the Minister had her work cut out—that was a gallop. Those of us who have been there before know that those 20 minutes seem a long time but actually, given that there were something like 25 speakers all asking questions, getting through most of them is a huge job. However, we need to remember that, at the end of the day, we are talking about something really joyful, positive and worthwhile. My noble friend illustrated in her response, for which I thank her, that the Government are mindful of the need to support the creative industries in a whole range of ways, some of which will require legislation, rules to be changed or some activity to just make things happen.
I put in to have this as a Labour debate in the summer, but other debates took place instead. The decision was taken not to have it then, but I am glad it happened now, because at least we have had some progress and announcements and we know where the pinch points are that we need to focus on in the next year or so. The challenge is making real the promises and ambition of the Government, and making them real everywhere. We are all ambitious here and the Government have to focus and take action.
I will finish by saying that some of our institutions are hugely innovative. I have, in the past, spoken about the National Theatre as an example of a national institution that runs apprenticeships for electricians, carpenters and all the people you need to make a large theatre and institution work. That is to its credit and is the kind of thing we want to see happening more often.
Camden, where I live, runs a music trust whose aim is that every child leaves primary school, as my granddaughter has just done, playing an instrument and reading music—and it succeeds. An investment was made years ago to set up the Camden Music Trust, and those are the initiatives we need to capture at local level, where we know that the decisions taken by local councillors will have a huge impact on those children.
There is a lot to do, but I think we have made a good start and I thank all noble Lords who have participated.
Water Companies: Fines
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Grender
To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to ensure that fines paid by water companies are used to repair the damage done by sewage pollution.
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, I thank the vast number of Peers participating in this debate. Some, having discussed culture, felt a bit too squeamish to stay for this debate, which I understand.
In particular, I thank the Minister for responding, particularly given all the discussions already held in the context of the Water (Special Measures) Bill and the various attempts by others, including by Liberal Democrat colleagues, such as Tim Farron MP in the other place and my noble friends Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville and Lord Russell, as well as the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, to put a water restoration fund in the Bill. It is the principle of ring-fenced spending of fines to clear up the mess that we will explore in this debate, while acknowledging the real progress of the Bill, which contains so many things, including, for example, the addition of an environmental duty for Ofwat.
I appreciate the Minister responding to this debate, but perhaps wonder whether she could have put her feet up and instead insisted on leaving this debate to colleagues who answer for the Treasury. If the media reports are correct, it is the Treasury that has blocked the progress of the first wave of applications for the water restoration fund and that needs to explain why that is and what the implications are for other fines and clean-up funds.
Regardless of the discussions around the Bill, there remain some central questions I would like to explore today, prompted by two articles in the Guardian by Sandra Laville, Rowena Mason and Helena Horton. In both articles, the first on 19 January, the second on 22 January, it would appear that the Treasury intends to keep all fines, rather than use them to restore our rivers, lakes and coastlines. The articles go on to reveal that the small sum of £11 million is delayed. It is a small sum but a very important one to many organisations that want to help return our polluted rivers and seas to their natural state.
No doubt, the Minister is well aware that £11 million is less than 0.1% of the much talked about £22 billion black hole. I focus on that sum, which is small for a Government but large for charities and community groups, because of what it suggests will happen next with other fines and future funding. I appreciate I am labouring the point about it being only £11 million, which, of course, is much less even than the recent £168 million in fines to Thames Water, Yorkshire Water and Northumbrian Water for pollution breaches—and doubtless it is those very large sums that have caught the eye and perhaps imagination of the Treasury.
How will the Government meet the principle that the polluter pays if the fines to water companies are not used to repair the damage done by sewage pollution? Will the fines be used for the clean up? I particularly ask the Minister to answer why the first wave of funding for the Water Restoration Fund has been delayed for six months, leaving in limbo all the small charitable and community organisations which are willing and ready to help. What are the implications for future projects such as this? I thank the Wildlife Trusts, the Rivers Trust and the Lords Library for their briefings for this debate today.
The Liberal Democrats recognise the significant sewage pollution legacy that this Government have inherited from the previous Government. I am sorry to pull us back to creative industries once again, but if anyone has seen the recent superb Channel Four docudrama “Brian and Maggie” with key long-form interviews of Prime Minister Thatcher by journalist Brian Walden, they will recall that the water companies and their current state are clearly part of the Thatcherite legacy and—for the avoidance of doubt—not in a good way. At the time of their privatisation, the water companies were debt free but 35 years later they are mired in debt with borrowing that has grown to £68 billion with scandalous payouts of dividends to shareholders of an eye-watering £78 billion—easily more than three times the Government’s current black hole—with negligible levels of investment. I look forward to the speech from the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, who will, I think, talk a bit about the current legal proceedings being taken by our colleague Charlie Maynard MP against Thames Water.
These debts and payouts have all happened while these water companies have presided over the biggest scandal of all: the often illegal and regular dumping of sewage. There were, for example, 1.5 million uses of storm overflows for a total period of over 11 million hours from 2020 and 2023. Indeed, in 2023, sewage spills into England’s rivers and seas more than doubled, leaving our natural environment and unique features such as our chalk streams struggling to survive and an Environment Agency without the financial and regulatory strength to act.
The Labour Party promised in its 2024 general election manifesto to put failing water companies under special measures to clean up water but, to do that, they surely need to use the fines and see through the applications from local communities to help. The Water Restoration Fund was set up in 2022 and Defra at the time said:
“ringfenced funds will go to Defra and will be invested directly back into environmental and water quality improvement projects”.
I refer the Minister to the letter written to the Minister, Emma Hardy MP, on 31 January by the Rivers Trust which asked why she has criticised the scheme for achieving nothing, given that this Government had not allocated the grants at that point. The trust said:
“The fact is that not a single penny of the Fund has been allocated to projects; decisions on round one funding were expected in July, but despite consistent requests for more information, the Rural Payments Agency has not been in contact with applicants for months. This is not simply a legacy of the previous Government, as decisions have remained outstanding for 6 months of the new Labour Government’s tenure”.
In Tim Farron MP’s constituency of Westmorland and Lonsdale, local charities are ready to be put to work, including the South Cumbria Rivers Trust, the Save Windermere and Clean River Kent groups, and the Eden Rivers Trust. Luke Bryant, assistant director of the West Cumbria Rivers Trust, has applied for two projects worth about £260,000. He told the Guardian that the cost to his organisation to prepare the bids had been substantial and said:
“This is a small amount of money for the Treasury. It has not been raised from taxpayers. It has come from fines for environmental damage water companies have caused, if money is not spent at local level on environmental restoration it would go against what people were led to believe was going to happen”.
Another scheme quoted in the Guardian is Supporting Wounded Veterans, which was waiting for news of two bids, for £250,000 in total, from water company fines. Both projects were due to start last summer. One of the schemes—still waiting—involves supporting six veterans who are suffering from PTSD and intend to work on a restoration project on the River Dart in Devon. The veterans have already received the training, but the whole project is now on hold. In the words of the CEO:
“There is outrage that this money could now go to the Treasury. It is a total breach of trust by the government”.
What will happen with future fines and will the polluter, in the end, pay? If the Treasury keeps these fines, the inevitable answer is surely that the polluter has been let off the hook. Local communities will not be funded, while the taxpayer and water consumers will end up either paying off government debt or having increased water bills. I have not come empty-handed but will hand over to my noble friend Lord Russell, who will lay out a possible compromise for the Minister, on what is quite a vexed and difficult issue, through the commission. I ask the Minister to strongly consider the option that he will put in front of her.
While Minister Emma Hardy has made it clear that a final decision will be made on water company fines and penalties, and water improvement, in the spending review, it is already clear that the Minister here has a great understanding of the urgency of this matter. She recognises that our polluted rivers, lakes and seas simply cannot wait. As Wildlife and Countryside Link puts it
“the restoration of Treasury control over water company fines would mark an environmental regression”.
I hope that the Minister, in her response, will be able to reassure us that, on this, the polluter in the end will pay.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to contribute to today’s proceedings and an equal pleasure to follow the opening speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Grender. I am as interested as she is in the questions that she has posed to my noble friend the Minister, whom I am glad to see in her place. I am grateful also to the noble Baroness for affording your Lordships’ House a fresh opportunity to examine this question and to my noble friend Lord Sikka, who is unable to be in his place today, for providing me with some briefing materials on this subject. Characteristically, they anatomise forensically the behaviour of water companies and the regulator over the last few years in respect of the public, government and, it would appear, their own self-interest.
As I told your Lordships’ House yesterday in another context, earlier this week I was witness to an exchange on the UK’s priorities in respect of national security. One party to the conversation asked the other for an assessment of the UK’s highest priority challenges in the current geopolitical context. The latter, an expert on national security, responded by asserting strongly that we live in an age of impunity. To some extent, that phrase reflects a wide and growing public sense that many water companies are acting on just that basis too.
We heard some statistics from the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, but perhaps I may add to them. Since privatisation in 1989, customer bills have risen by 363%. Between £52 billion and £85 billion has been paid in dividends, while the same companies paying out to shareholders have accrued what I thought was about £70 billion in debt—I now know that it is exactly £68 billion. But this debt is not the consequence of investment into infrastructure; no new reservoirs have been built while this industry has been in private hands, for example, but that is only one of many condemnatory statistics.
That is the context in which your Lordships’ House is debating this subject today and in which fines of £168 million against Thames Water, Northumbrian Water and Yorkshire Water were proposed by Ofwat on 6 August last year. As my noble friend Lord Sikka mentioned in his Oral Question on 29 January, there are two key contextual factors in assessing the proportionality of that response. The first is that these three companies have over 400 criminal convictions between them, and the second relates to the fact that these fines were proposed rather than imposed. It is difficult to imagine another context in which three individuals or organisations with a record of such malfeasance would be permitted to negotiate the extent and timing of their punishment.
I understand that there is a process and legislation which Ofwat must follow, which my noble friend the Minister alluded to in her response to my noble friend Lord Sikka’s Question, but surely we must consider changing that process and the provisions that mean that Ofwat and a company in breach of its obligations can reach a regulatory settlement. A promise of future good behaviour and compliance is surely difficult to accept in lieu of a fine, given that all precedents suggest that these companies have acted, as their criminal conviction rate shows, with blithe impunity. I count myself an optimist, but as Disraeli once said:
“A precedent embalms a principle”.
All precedents suggest these companies are careless of their obligations, have a record of putting the interests of their shareholders above those of their customers and have neglected the environment and infrastructure for which they are responsible and on which we depend.
I will close my brief remarks with two specific questions for my noble friend the Minister, but before I do that, I will say that I am with those who believe that any fines, when actually levied and collected, should be channelled into a hypothecated fund, whether the Water Restoration Fund or something similar, in line with the “polluter pays” principle. I understand the pressure on public finances—I was the Chief Secretary for a period of time—and the temptation to divert this money towards the Treasury, but this money is badly needed to undo the damage done by the mismanagement and irresponsibility of the water companies.
I have a short question from my noble friend in relation to this. I know from public sources the record of proposed fines. How much money has actually been collected from fines since this process started? This is an issue of public equity. These companies are leveraging the strength of their own self-inflicted weakness. Companies, including Thames Water and South West Water, pollute our waterways, mismanage themselves to the point of financial collapse, demand permission from Ofwat to increase bills by 44% and simultaneously announce their decision to increase dividend payments to shareholders. That sounds to me more like corrupt self-indulgences by the medieval church than a modern industrial practice.
In closing, I ask my noble friend the Minister two further questions. First, during the passage of the Water (Special Measures) Bill, the Secretary of State said that the Government will
“ban bonuses if water company executives fail to meet high standards”.—[Official Report, Commons, 16/12/24; col. 79.]
Last week, Thames Water said it will circumvent that ban by increasing basic executive pay. What is the Government’s response to that, and how will they enforce any ban? If I understand the answer my noble friend the Minister gave to that Question when asked at col. 253, the responsibility for ensuring that bonuses are not paid or performance is poor lies with Ofwat. Is she able to point to any occasion when that power has been exercised against a poorly performing company? How do the Government intend to ensure that this sanction is not circumvented by simply increasing executive basic pay?
Secondly, do the Government have any plans to end the practice whereby, in lieu of a fine, a company can agree a package of investment which has the ancillary benefit of increasing the value of the company itself and results in increased dividend packages for shareholders?
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, on securing this debate, and I am delighted to follow the noble Lord, Lord Browne. I welcome the Minister as ever to her position. I am delighted that the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, has given such a warm welcome to the outgoing Conservative Government’s Plan for Water and the water restoration fund. I declare my interest as on the register: I am an honorary vice-president of the Association of Drainage Authorities; and I co-chair the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Water.
We were fortunate enough to hear this week from Sir Jon Cunliffe, who has been charged by the Government to produce a report for the water commission by the end of June this year, and I very much look forward to his conclusions. In the meeting of the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Water, he told us that the model that was introduced by the then Conservative Government for water privatisation factored in a level of debt, and I think that is something to which he will refer. He has not been asked to review the water privatisation model in that sense of nationalising the water sector, and I think we should recognise that in the debate today.
I repeat my request to the Minister: when does she imagine that Schedule 3 of the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 will be introduced, so that there will be an obligation for all major new developments to have sustainable drains? That will help the situation and reduce flooding.
Some of the project bids invited by the previous Government are still on the table. For example, farmers were invited to make environmental improvements to prevent flooding downstream by slowing the flow, as we saw in Pickering in North Yorkshire, by creating dams, including by planting and felling trees. Can she confirm that such projects will benefit?
As I had long called for them, noble Lords can imagine my welcome for the Plan for Water and the subsequent launch of the water restoration fund as precisely the types of measure that would benefit farmers and local communities under ELMS and other schemes such as the SFI. A number of groups applied for these schemes to bolster their capacity and capabilities to deliver such on-the-ground projects, and they were invited to put forward bids by June 2024.
They were applied for by farmers and landowners—I imagine in Yorkshire, Northumbria and other parts of the country—but they never heard any more. Can the Minister say what has happened to those projects? As the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, asked, what has happened to the water restoration fund? Farmers, landowners and the environmental organisations working with them were led to believe that these were just the types of projects that the water restoration fund was meant to help.
I have read only the one report in the Guardian to which the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, referred, but if these reports are to be believed, it would be entirely inappropriate for the Treasury to hijack these funds and allocate them to other—I am sure very worthwhile—causes. The fact is that, as the Minister will know, it takes time, resources and money to put a bid in for such schemes as the projects invited through the water restoration fund did. They were invited in good faith to put in these bids in April 2024. I understand that the bids closed in June 2024. They were very exciting bids; they ticked a number of boxes for wildlife and the environment, and they were also appropriate to be conducted by farmers and landowners.
I have long believed that, if the ELM and SFI schemes and the water restoration fund are to work successfully, they should benefit local communities and reward farmers for the work they are already doing. The noble Baroness will be aware of the work of drainage boards in low-lying areas such as Lincolnshire, North Yorkshire, possibly Cumbria and other parts of the country.
It sends out a very bad message from Parliament if one Government invite people to apply for these schemes and the next Government then do not allocate the money. I hope the Minister might be able to share the Government’s thinking in this regard and can confirm that these schemes are still viable and may still go ahead in short order this year.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, on this very topical Question. It is such a pleasure to see a Labour colleague, a Lib Dem colleague, a Conservative colleague and, I have no doubt, a Bishop colleague standing up and saying things that I completely agree with—it is so rare.
I am going to take a slightly different tack from my colleagues. It is very hard to convey the anger felt by not just hundreds of thousands but millions of people at the mess the water companies have made over the past 30 years. I say “mess”, because that is what the public have had had to deal with. This is about sewage-filled seawater, dirty beaches, polluted rivers, chalk stream ecosystems destroyed and sometimes even E. coli in our water supply. Of course, water companies have been amazingly efficient at siphoning off money for shareholders and employees. But this week, the public are fighting back.
I will focus on Thames Water, not least because last week I had a letter from it demanding £19 extra per month on my bill to pay for the work it should have been doing over the past decades and has not done. But my anger with it pre-dates that by quite a long way. Thames Water has £17 billion of debt and is at the centre of a public backlash against Britain’s privatised water industry, which created monopolies, so customers have no choice. It has increasingly polluted our environment with sewage amid justified accusations that profit has been prioritised over the environment.
Windrush Against Sewage Pollution is one of 34 clean river groups involved in a legal challenge in the High Court this week, in an attempt to push for temporary nationalisation of Thames Water. Obviously, I strongly support this. In court, the campaign groups will argue that Thames Water should be put into a government-handled special administration. The court hearing will decide whether to approve the £3 billion in emergency funding that Thames Water has been allowed so far. The judge will hear campaigners argue that the emergency loan will be far too costly for customers. I would add: why should we pay twice for goods and services that we have not had? Again, let us remember that Thames Water already has a debt of £17 billion.
The High Court judge will also hear from Britain’s biggest water supplier and groups of rival creditors on Monday before deciding whether to approve the rescue of this close-to-bankrupt company. Without the debt lifeline, Thames Water has said it could run out of cash by March. Last month, Thames Water was granted Government approval to seek the £3 billion cash loan, which the troubled company said was crucial to ensure that it had enough money to stave off temporary nationalisation.
Clean river campaigners led by Charlie Maynard, the Liberal Democrat MP for Witney, have made a written submission to the court. The case is closing today, with the decision in mid-March. Charlie Maynard, whose constituency has been at the centre of mounting anger over raw sewage pollution being pumped into the River Windrush, is backed by other MPs in the water company region, and 28 parish councils. Maynard said in the submission that he was opposed to the restructuring plan in the interests of the company’s 16 million customers and argued that servicing the emergency fund would not be financially sustainable in the mid or long term for the company, and that it did not make appropriate provision for the company to fulfil its legal obligations to provide water and sewerage services and not to pollute rivers. Ultimately customers will be forced to pay for the emergency loan, which comes with a 9.75% interest rate—absolutely staggering.
Thames Water said it was confident that its plan would succeed as it had the backing of creditors holding more than 90% of its secured debt, despite opposition from a group of much lower-ranked creditors. The judge must decide whether the dissenting creditors would be no worse off in the most likely alternative to the plan, which Thames Water has said is that the company is placed in special administration. Under government proposals, Thames Water would get access to additional funding, cash reserves and debt extensions, giving it breathing space to secure its survival in the long term. A lot of people would say that it did not deserve that, and that it actually deserves to go bankrupt.
Evidence provided to the court by Dieter Helm, professor of economic policy at Oxford University, said that Thames Water had failed on the capital maintenance of its assets and had
“profit maximised by gearing up its balance sheet at the outer limits of what was sustainable”.
He added:
“Thames used the balance sheet to mortgage the assets and pay out the proceeds in special dividends and other benefits to shareholders”.
Then, only today, another Thames Water fail: bottled water is being delivered to homes in parts of Surrey, after residents have been left without water. Supply problems in the area are said to have been caused by “multiple bursts” on the same pipe. People in that area may have low pressure or no water, Thames Water has said. In its latest update, it said:
“We remain on site, working to fix the pipe that has been damaged during the bursts”.
That is a considerate statement to its customers, who are quite used to it failing them completely. But it has promised that
“additional supplies of bottled water are available”.
There is absolutely no doubt that Thames Water did this damage, so presumably it has to pay to clean it up—in which case, the money that it pays in fines really has to go to the clean-up. It is not possible to repair all the damage to nature and people, because ecosystems have been destroyed. I really hope the Minister can explain to the Treasury just how annoyed millions of people are that this has not yet happened.
I very much support the whole idea of the restoration fund, and I hope that this Government go for it.
The Lord Bishop of Norwich
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, for securing this timely debate. It is a scourge on us all that sewage pollution is damaging so many of our watercourses and coastlines—damaging their ecosystems but also our enjoyment of them. I remember my first experience of such pollution when, as a young lad, I caught sticklebacks in my hands from the ditches around our Yorkshire village. One day, I went to my usual place of good stickleback hunting to find it putrid, with a storm drain leaking sewage and items—at the time, I did not understand what they were—floating in the ditch. The sticklebacks were gone for over a year.
The Rivers Trust reports that none of our rivers are now in good overall health. Its 2024 report, State of Our Rivers, notes that 54% of our nation’s rivers are impacted negatively by the water sector, mainly through sewage effluent. Surfers Against Sewage reports that there were 604,833 discharges of raw sewage into UK waterways in 2023, with the water in 75% of UK rivers posing a serious risk to human health. A BBC investigation 18 months or so ago found that three water companies illegally discharged sewage on dry days. Thames Water, Wessex Water and Southern Water collectively released sewage in dry spills for 3,500 hours in 2022. All three spilled on the hottest day on record.
Surely, with the right effort and the right pride in the boardroom and among shareholders and the workforce—and with the right investment in infrastructure—none of this needs to be the case. The American poet and writer Wendell Berry gave a twist to the golden rule, suggesting:
“Do unto those downstream as you would have those upstream do unto you”.
Boardrooms should perhaps have that as their inspirational quote on the wall.
So, as well as stopping the sewage pollution, the fines must be used to restore our rivers and damaged habitats. We need the polluter pays principle to be taken incredibly seriously, with the right level of fine, not only to prevent but to give enough funding directly through grants—to farmers, communities and conservation groups, as we have heard—to restore our rivers and damaged habitats and to enable our watercourses to begin to thrive again with the right interventions. It has been argued that it is cheaper to pay the fine after a discharge than to do the right thing in the first place. But the cycle of polluting, fining and restoration—and polluting again, fining again and restoring again—will not ultimately enhance our aquatic ecosystems, and it will do us, as people, no good at all.
As well as the fines, we need to embed culture change and good leadership. Allowing sewage pollution should be as damning an indictment on those responsible as not taking seriously their health and safety duties to their staff or the contamination of drinking water. There needs to be a culture of pride in our boardrooms to compete to have the least sewage released among their competitors. Investors need to take pride in supporting having the right infrastructure in place and the right investment in infrastructure, not in maximising financial returns at the expense of the environment.
St Francis of Assisi gave water a priority in his great canticle, “Song of Brother Sun”. He wrote:
“Thou flowing water, pure and clear,
Make music for thy Lord to hear,
Alleluia, Alleluia”.
When we finally take sewage pollution seriously, we might be able to add our own Alleluia. Until then, will the Minister agree with me that the choking of our river courses with sewage and swimmers and surfers dodging floaters need not only our lament but a culture change in the industry to give the highest protection to the intrinsic value of our nation’s seas, lakes, lochs, streams and rivers, those liquid threads of the water of life that wind their way through our landscapes and memories?
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the right reverend Prelate. I do not think some of his quotes would apply to the beaches and rivers of Cornwall. They are a mess. I do not think South West Water knows the difference between a storm water pipe and a sewage pipe because it does not seem to be able to act on it.
I have a quick question for the Minister. South West Water is planning to build a desalination plant in Par because there is not enough water around. Noble Lords might laugh because it rains a lot in Cornwall, but apparently this desalination plant will solve all the freshwater problems. Why is South West Water allowed to spend a lot of money on building a desal plant, which could have serious effects on the marine and air environment and, of course, consume a lot of electricity, when it cannot even spend the money on sorting out the beaches and the drains?
I am told that it is because Ofwat allows water companies to spend as much money as they can find on capital projects, but they are limited on what they can do on maintenance. That seems absolutely crazy, especially in a part of the world where it sometimes rains more than the sun shines. My noble friend might not be able to answer the question because I have only just told her about this, but it would be good to have a letter at some stage to hear whether there are any rules that could possibly dissuade South West Water from building a desalination plant in one of the wettest parts of the country.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, I declare my interests as set out in the register. It is a pleasure to speak in this debate, and I thank my noble friend Lady Grender for bringing it and all who have spoken today. At heart, this debate is about broken promises: broken promises to small and medium-sized charities working to help clean up our polluted rivers, small charities that stand ready to help, that made funding applications in good faith to help undertake the work of beginning to restore our polluted rivers and streams some eight months ago, that have not heard a word back and that have not been treated with the respect that they deserve.
This Government need the good will of the third sector to help meet the challenges coming over the horizon, particularly the 30 by 30 targets. The last election was driven by anger at the wanton pollution of our rivers and streams by water companies that seemed immune to caring and to being held accountable. The noble Lord, Lord Browne, made it clear that these criminal activities have upset everybody, across all sides.
Between 2020 and 2023, England’s water companies used storm overflows more than 1.5 million times for more than 11 million hours. The Labour party’s election manifesto said:
“Labour will put failing water companies under special measures … give regulators new powers to block the payment of bonuses to executives … and bring criminal charges”.
Labour promised automatic and severe fines for wrongdoing, to deliver for nature and, most importantly for this debate, to
“work in partnership with civil society, communities and businesses to restore and protect our natural world”.
Much in the Water (Special Measures) Bill is welcome, but we still have the water commission to come for the longer-term solutions that Labour plans. I thank the Minister for her open and constructive engagement on that Bill. During that debate, I moved an amendment on behalf of my noble friend Lady Bakewell that sought to require all funds from the fining of water companies for environmental offences to be ring-fenced for the water restitution fund and spent on freshwater recovery. I said that,
“the Bill could be used to bolster the water restitution fund—the pot set up by the previous Administration to channel environmental fines and penalties into projects that improve the water environment”.—[Official Report, 30/10/24; col. 1199.]
In retrospect, I should have done more to ensure that we moved that amendment on Report, but I am pleased that we pressured our MPs in the other place to raise it, and I thank Tim Farron and other MPs who spoke on those matters.
I have a huge amount of respect for the Minister. Indeed, I sympathise with the position that she finds herself in today. As my noble friend Lady Grender has already said, it really should be the Treasury that is answerable for this debate today, as it is really the Treasury’s failures that are causing these problems. The Chancellor appears to have forgotten that she is supposed to be the greenest one ever.
It is not difficult to imagine how we got here. The Conservatives brought forward the water restitution fund but failed to impose any fines to make it do anything. Labour then won the general election and brought about legislation that raised the number and the values of fines over time. No doubt, the Treasury had concerns. Worries were probably expressed that if the first tranche of the £11 million promised was paid, that would set a precedent, and that the next tranche of £168 million would need to be paid afterwards, with maybe even greater fines after that. No doubt at some point, paralysis set in, and the argument between the Minister’s department and the Treasury was just not capable of being resolved.
The money involved in the first round of the water restitution fund is only £11 million. The Government did not remove the fund when they came into power, and the applications were made in good faith. I believe this Government are under a contractual obligation to meet those payments. I hope that this debate can help to sharpen the elbows, so to speak, of the Minister in her negotiations with the Treasury, but what we need today is absolute clarity on the £11 million pending in grant payments. Are they going to be paid? If so, when, and if not, why not?
Further forward, of course I would argue that all future funds should be provided to the charities to help with restitution, but I understand that this may not be possible. If there are further issues going forward, I suggest to the Minister that the commission that this Government have set up is tasked with looking at future fines and how those fines should be used, and that, in the meantime, all fines that are levied are made available for the charities that need this money.
This Labour Government need good co-operation with civil society on nature; it is our ally and partner in getting this stuff done. I strongly encourage this Government to think seriously about those working relations and to make that argument to the Treasury because we need this to be done, whether it is action on fly tipping, the protection of our SSSIs or our watercourses.
Finally, can the Minister please say what is happening to protect our chalk streams? Chalk streams should be getting a share of this money. I understand that the chalk stream protection fund is not happening, so can the Minister please say a word about the Government’s plans for the protection of chalk streams and when we will hear something further?
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, for securing this important debate. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, because she highlighted the work of Windrush Against Sewage Pollution. I had no idea she would make this reference, but the River Windrush runs through the village I live in.
I believe that under our watch we committed to cracking down on pollution by water companies. We continue to work collaboratively and constructively with the Government to help guarantee that the country has effective measures in place both to tackle water pollution and ensure that water companies are properly held to account when they do not abide by the rules.
It will not surprise the Minister to hear that we believe government can always do better, whether that is His Majesty’s Official Opposition or the current Administration. We are proud of our record. We increased the number of storm overflows monitored across the network from 7% in 2010, to 100% today. The Thames Tideway Tunnel is now complete—a £4 billion project that happened because we stood up to opposition to guarantee the scheme by an Act of Parliament.
Aided by improved monitoring, we took firm action against persistent polluters, delivering the strictest targets ever for water companies to reduce pollution from storm overflows. The Environment Agency can now use new powers to impose unlimited penalties for a wider range of offences. On that note, how does the Minister plan to ensure that the Environment Agency will chase all perpetrators? I understand, from a freedom of information request, that there remain outstanding around 465 illegal sewage charges that the Environment Agency is aware of, none of which has led to fines or enforcement action beyond warnings. Will the Minister commit to act on these?
We agree with His Majesty’s Government that much more must be done to tackle water pollution, which is why we have engaged constructively on both their Water (Special Measures) Bill and the wider review and legislation to which they have committed. My understanding is that the wider review will be completed this year and that the Government will bring forward the resultant legislation in 2026. Can the Minister confirm that this is still Defra’s expected timetable?
At this point, I should say that we are disappointed that we have been unable to secure agreement with His Majesty’s Government on the amendment put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, to strengthen parliamentary oversight of the remuneration and governance rules which will be established under the Water (Special Measures) Bill. I know that my noble friends Lord Roborough and Lord Blencathra will continue to work constructively with the Minister on that.
As mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, my noble friend Lady McIntosh, the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, we established the water restoration fund in order to ensure that water company environmental fines and penalties are ring-fenced to directly improve our water system and prevent sewage overflows. Does the Minister agree that the water restoration fund, for spending on freshwater recovery, will help improve the quality of water in the UK? Can she please give a commitment today, as other noble Lords have requested, that all fines levied against water companies will go directly into the fund?
When this was debated in Committee on the Water (Special Measures) Bill, the Minister recognised that it was the previous Government that had established the fund in 2024 but she was unable to give your Lordships’ House more detail because the Government are still working on their spending review. Can the Minister please give the House an assurance that we will not be waiting much longer for these details?
The Environment Secretary from the other place has written to the chief executives and chairmen of every water company, setting out the performance improvements that he expects in 2025. Can the Minister say what percentage benchmark of improvement on sewage spills the Government will insist the water companies have to meet before they face fines and repercussions for non-compliance?
To finish, I thank the Minister for her tireless work to tackle this issue. We look forward to hearing her response on this most important subject.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Baroness Hayman of Ullock) (Lab)
My Lords, I am pleased to be able to respond to this Question on the fines paid by water companies. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, for raising this important matter and noble Lords for their interesting and valuable contributions and suggestions.
As we have heard in this debate, for too long water companies have discharged unacceptable levels of sewage into our rivers, lakes and seas, with 2023 seeing record levels of sewage discharges. We have been absolutely clear that we will not allow poor performance within the water companies to continue. This is why we are taking forward a substantial reform programme to deliver better results for the environment, customers and wider society.
I reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, and others who have raised this that Defra is committed to the “polluter pays” principle. We have taken a number of actions already. In his first week in office, the Secretary of State secured an agreement from water companies and Ofwat to ring-fence money for vital infrastructure upgrades, so that it cannot be diverted to shareholder payouts and bonus payments. We are also placing water companies under special measures through the Water (Special Measures) Bill. I thank the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for his particular support in this debate for that work.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich mentioned the need for culture change, with which we absolutely agree. That is why the Bill is designed to drive meaningful improvement in the performance and culture of the water industry, as a first important step to enabling wider, transformative change right across the sector. I will not go into the detail of the Bill, as we have debated it so recently, and all noble Lords who have taken part are aware of what it includes. Collectively, its measures will provide the most significant increase in enforcement powers for the regulators in a decade. They will give them the teeth that they need to take tougher action against water companies in the next investment period as well as ensuring that they are able to recover costs for a much greater range of enforcement activities. I am afraid that I do not have the detail of those costs and fines at my fingertips.
On top of that Bill, last October, the Secretary of State, in conjunction with the Welsh Government, launched the independent commission on the water sector regulatory system, chaired by Sir Jon Cunliffe. Noble Lords also referred to that today. It is designed to be wide ranging and look at ways to fundamentally transform how our water system works and to clean up our rivers, lakes and seas for good. It is expected to be the largest review of the water industry since privatisation. It will look into many of the concerns that noble Lords have raised today, including those from the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, and my noble friend Lord Browne.
Last month, leading voices from the environment, public health and investment were announced as the new advisory group to the commission. We will publish a call for evidence in the next few weeks to bring in views from all parties on how we can reform. As the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, said, Sir Jon has also been meeting with interested groups. As noble Lords have said, we will get a report from the commission by the end of June, which will have recommendations that we can look at how best to take forward. I intend them to form the next piece of legislation that attracts further long-term investment and cleans up our waters for good.
Agriculture, road run-off, physical modifications and chemicals also significantly impact water quality and availability. These huge challenges will require a much broader approach to water management that goes beyond addressing a single issue. The independent commission is going to examine the strategic regulatory frameworks that underpin the water system, including the water framework directive and river basin management plans.
Importantly, the commission will also look at catchment-based approaches. I do not believe that we can resolve this without looking at these approaches to address the full range of demands on the water system and at how we can resolve things in an integrated and holistic way.
The public are, of course, rightly concerned to know where the money that they pay for their water bills is actually going. In December 2024, Ofwat published its final determinations for price review 2024, which sets company expenditure and customer bills for 2025-2030. This will deliver substantial, lasting improvements for customers and the environment, and will bring an approximately £104 billion upgrade for the water sector. This investment will mean clean rivers, seas and lakes across England and Wales. It will also create more jobs and provide more investment. This increased investment will fund the improvement of river water quality by improving more than 1,700 wastewater treatment works. It will also improve or protect more than 15,000 kilometres of rivers across England and Wales. Water companies will also invest £12 billion—a record amount—into improving more than 3,000 storm overflows across England and Wales. This will reduce bills by 45% compared with 2021 levels.
Beyond these measures, since 1 January, water companies are required to publish data relating to discharges from all storm overflows within one hour of discharge. This means that all storm overflows—of which there are more than 14,000 in England—are now monitored, with discharge data being published in near real time. Importantly, this will provide the crucial information that regulators need when they are making their investigations. It will also create an unprecedented level of transparency to enable regulators and the public to see where and how often overflows are discharging, and better enable water companies to be held to account. Combined with the measures in the Water (Special Measures) Bill to require monitoring of all emergency overflows, this will meet the Government’s commitment to ensure the monitoring of every sewage outlet.
Much of the debate was around the future of the water restoration fund. I will ensure that the department is aware of the strength of noble Lords’ feelings on this issue. The noble Baroness, Lady Grender, mentioned a number of specific projects. At this point, I need to declare an interest: my husband is a trustee of West Cumbria Rivers Trust, so I am very aware of local concerns in this area. Again, it enables me to represent noble Lords’ concerns to the department.
I reassure noble Lords that Defra is currently evaluating how water company fines and penalties can be reinvested in improvements to the water environment. We will announce a final decision on this in due course. It is important that the Government do not let companies get away with any illegal activity. Where breaches are found, the Environment Agency must not hesitate to hold companies to account. The regulators, the Environment Agency and Ofwat, have launched the largest ever criminal and civil investigation into water company sewage discharges at more than 2,200 treatment works. The EA has a dedicated team of more than 30 staff working on this. Where companies fail to meet their statutory or licence obligations, Ofwat has the power to take action through an enforcement order or financial penalties of up to 10% of the company’s annual turnover. The cost burden for water company fines is borne by their shareholders, not by charging customers.
I must keep an eye on the time but, before I conclude, there are a few questions I must answer. I thank my noble friend Lord Berkeley for his question but, as he said, I do not have the answer in front of me. I will need to write to him with the detail of the specific issue that he asked about.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, asked about chalk streams. The Government are committed to restoring chalk streams. We are continuing to invest in priority local projects to restore them—for example, through the water environment improvement fund, the Government are funding more than 45 projects during this financial year to improve chalk streams. This is worth £2.5 million of government investment, and each has an injection of private investment.
We are also committed to ending the damaging abstraction of water from rivers and groundwater wherever possible. Through the Environment Agency’s restoring sustainable abstraction programme, which was launched in 2008, so far a total of 110 licences that would affect chalk streams have been revoked.
The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, asked about Schedule 3. This Government are strongly committed to requiring standardised sustainable drainage systems in any new developments. I apologise to her, but I am unable to say more at this stage, other than that a final decision on whether to progress implementation of Schedule 3 at this time will be made in the coming months. I am afraid that I cannot offer any more specific information on that at the moment.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, once again for securing this debate. The speakers were not hugely numerous, but the passion was there—it is very important to note that. It is very clear from the regular number of questions and debates that we have in this House—and, no doubt, in the other place as well—that the concerns about the water industry, and the pollution from it, must be government priorities. I assure noble Lords that the Government are absolutely and fully committed to fixing the broken water system that they inherited. I reaffirm the Government’s commitment to ensuring that the damage caused by sewage pollution is repaired.
Lifelong Learning
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Knight of Weymouth
To move that this House takes note of the social, economic and personal value of lifelong learning.
Lord Knight of Weymouth (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to introduce this timely debate. I am very much looking forward to the maiden speech of my noble friend Lady Curran.
I must remind the House of my education interests in the register, including chairing Century Tech and advising Pearson, both of which have products used for lifelong learning. I also co-chair the All-Party Group on the Future of Work.
This debate is timely. It is timely because the new Government are getting on with the establishment of Skills England, and reintegrating it with regional and national industrial strategies as part of the essential growth ambitions for the country. It is timely because the Government are remodelling the apprenticeship levy to a more flexible employer-responsive growth and skills levy, and implementing the lifelong learning entitlement. It is timely because of some profound shifts in society caused by ageing and technological change.
These last big shifts point to the need for a significant focus on lifelong learning by this Government after years of neglect. In thinking about this, I am informed by the work of Professors Lynda Gratton and Andrew Scott and their prize-winning 2016 book The 100-Year Life; by a lecture given three months ago by Professor Lily Kong, president of the Singapore Management University; and by Professor Christopher Pissarides’s review into the future of work and well-being, which published its report just last week.
The 100-Year Life discusses the implications of more of us living to 100. Across the western world, we are seeing falling birth rates and rising life expectancy. Although that is not equitably spread, the trend is clear. If you want a reasonable pension, a lifespan of 100 requires working into your 80s; although that may be a regular reality in your Lordships’ House, a 60-year working life has wider implications, particularly the inevitability of multiple careers. As AI and other technology rapidly disrupts work, it is also not credible that knowledge and skills obtained into your mid-20s will maintain labour market value for a further six decades. A life of multiple careers needs an education system designed for lifelong learning. We need to move on from the three-phase life of education, then work, then retirement. We need a system that allows all of us to learn in work, to re-enrol in education institutions, to have our learning certificated and recognised as we go, and to navigate successfully through many new directions.
This is most important for our university sector. One of the legacies inherited by this Government from the previous one is an HE sector in financial crisis. The previous Government prevented student fees from rising with inflation, and, as a result, domestic students have become a loss leader and universities have hiked foreign nationals’ fees in response. We need to reverse this trend and protect the massive soft power benefit of these education exports. I congratulate my noble friend the Minister on her leadership in allowing universities to raise fees.
However, the levels of debt that young people carry as they start out in work remains a problem for as long as we stick to the three-phase life. What if university was something we kept returning to throughout our working lives to enable us to pivot our careers? What if we then had a business model more like subscribing to membership of a university over many years, rather than a debt-financed, one-off degree front-loading a long working life? Part of necessary HE reform has to include new financial models based on lifelong learning that allow us to escape the burden of debt that is putting people off going to our great universities.
Beyond HE, our rigid educational system is matched by rigid funding and an education department that is motivated more by qualification outcomes than by people outcomes. The lifelong learning entitlement and the skills and growth levy are opportunities to change that. The Pissarides review argues for a revised and expanded lifelong learning entitlement to reflect the social right to learn, with wider and more flexible access to learning opportunities. Revision of the LLE is also called for by the Open University to make part-time learning easier; by the Learning and Work Institute; and by the QAA, which wants the funding threshold lowered from 30 credits and an opening up of eligibility to microcredentials and short courses.
The LLE has the potential to enable the interweaving of learning and earning throughout our lives. We also then need to add a strand of learning for leisure, so that we can enjoy a later stage of life, with some work alongside a healthy old age. Lifelong learning must not be solely about skills for growth; it must also be for family learning and for physical and mental health. It must include the arts and humanities, passion-based learning, sports and craft skills.
As lifelong learners, we need better metacognition to understand how we best learn, and thereby be better self-directed learners. This, in turn, goes to core intrapersonal skills of reflection and self-modulation. These are often best taught through the arts, sports and humanities. Resilience skills can be taught and should be nurtured from schools, through FE and HE, and into adult learning. As we all get old, the same skills will help us be healthier and care for ourselves longer, but we will also need to be better at caring for each other. We need these intangible assets of learning as much as the tangible assets of finance and qualifications.
Evermore capable machines are fast emerging, as robotics and generative AI imminently combine to create intelligent agile cyborgs. The competitive threat of these machines will be met only by being better humans. AI is great at what we assess in education, but it really struggles with basic human abilities such as physical perception and social interaction. These are the behaviours that we all have without thinking and that we recognise in others subconsciously. Studying the humanities teaches us about how humans behave and organise themselves. Studying the arts allows us to reflect on how we feel. Therefore, although the STEM subjects are vital in helping us understand what works and what we need, the arts and humanities are essential in understanding why we need and will use them. All this points to the need for more interdisciplinary depth in lifelong learning.
The UK and China are particularly stuck on a craving for narrow disciplinary and specialist knowledge. Our school curriculum is knowledge rich and organised by subject silos. This is further narrowed with A-levels as a reflection of how our universities organise themselves. But, as the Pissarides review says, skills diversity—that is, combining social and technical skills—
“is increasing across the board”
in work, including within “high-tech/digital roles”.
Most subject disciplines have existed for only the last 100 years or so and they do not reflect how we innovate or work. Nobel Prize-winning science tends to come from insights connecting across silos, not so much deep within them. Is it not time for our universities and further education colleges to have more flexible, modular courses, like the US system? Should a lifelong learning system not by design give parity to multidisciplinary learning alongside single disciplinary specialism?
This would be eased by more breadth in the 16 to 19 phase of secondary education and the adoption of digital portfolios to capture achievement as recorded by institutions, employers and awarding bodies. Digital credentials can be held by the individual and shared with whoever they give consent to. That consent allows digital access for prospective employers or admissions offices to drill into what a person can do and has done in a way that will give so much more insight than a paper certificate. Such a system can then live with a person as their ongoing record of lifelong learning and employment. AI tools would be able to match it to labour market opportunities and skills training that could, in turn, transform an individual’s potential to take experience from one career into the next.
Clearly, this all circles back to how the lifelong learning entitlement is rolled out, and the stakes are high. If lifelong learning does not become ingrained in more than the current 50% who take advantage of adult learning, and if it is not enabled by government and employers, we will see technology deskill people who do not have the capacity or confidence to reskill. Those not currently participating in lifelong learning are, of course, the least educated and those who need it the most. The result is enduring productivity issues, unaffordable numbers on long-term sickness benefit and widespread dissatisfaction: a belief that working hard, doing the right thing and trusting traditional democratic government is no longer worth while. That leads to toxic populism, and the vaccination against that poison is lifelong learning.
An education system that is lifelong by design will focus on more than just cognitive intelligence by nurturing more human qualities and interdisciplinary learning, and by integrating learners at whatever age with each other. What does that mean for each stage of our education system? For schools, it means a shift in accountability to value equally sport, the arts and applied learning, such as design and technology, alongside the abstract knowledge valued in the EBacc and Progress 8. Post-16, it requires a much bigger push on project-based qualifications, such as the EPQ, as part of the mix, incentivising voluntary work and more breadth than we currently get from three A-levels.
FE must be positioned as a more universal service for adults both young and old. Colleges should be at the heart of our communities and our local and regional economies. In many ways, we should see them as the platform from which to access a range of learning from the college itself, but also family learning, the University of the Third Age, the OU, other HE in hybrid form, the Workers’ Educational Association and so on. FE could also be the entry point for most businesses. We organise our skills system to meet the needs of large employers, yet less than a fifth of us work for these big businesses. FE should be where most businesses go to help them develop the talent pipelines that they need to compete and flourish.
Apprenticeships and T-levels have a key role to play in this future, but so do other qualifications. If I am right about digital portfolios, these could include certificated courses that are more agile than most regulated qualifications. If such courses are recognised by employers, that ought to be good enough for the rest of us.
Future skills are likely to be higher level. Future growth will predominantly come from technology that craves the excellent graduates from the likes of Oxford, Cambridge and Imperial—the golden triangle. However, as I have set out, the opportunities for new business models off the back of modularisation and a lifelong relationship with universities should be encouraged.
Adult skills are usually neglected in this context. The funding is meagre, and the stakes are now high. I am told that the DfE has warned combined authorities to expect cuts to adult education budgets next year. Deskilling will accelerate. Employers must be incentivised to invest in the ongoing learning of staff to develop them for new roles as old roles disappear. Individuals should feel empowered by the adult skills system to trust and not fear the new technology because it is creating as many opportunities for them as it has closed others down, and some of those opportunities will make it easier for them to pursue passions and build mental resilience through the arts and humanities.
This is a big part of the challenge for Skills England and the new growth and skills levy. The levy is the key: it is the opportunity for the new body to engage employers and show them that Skills England is an advance on IfATE. I urge my noble friend to resist any official push that the levy should fund only a narrow set of regulated qualifications. It must be highly responsive to the needs of employers of all sizes in a fast-moving labour market.
If the Treasury is listening—I emphasise “if”—it too will need to work hard on this agenda, especially for FE and adult skills. The price of underfunding will come back to bite through rising spending by the DWP and the economic uncertainty created by swathes of workers checking out and embracing populist politics.
This is critical for the future of our economy and to give individuals hope for their future. We are living at a time when uncertainty is the only certainty, and there has never been a more important time to promote and resource lifelong learning. As Kofi Annan said:
“Knowledge is power. Information is liberating. Education is the premise of progress, in every society, in every family”.
I beg to move.
Baroness Shephard of Northwold (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Knight, on securing this debate, his insightful remarks and reminding us that all sectors of education need to evolve as our society changes. Lifelong learning has social, economic and personal value. It is long established but it has many of the qualities that the noble Lord demands: it is diverse, flexible, collaborative and constantly evolving to meet the needs of its customers. But it is frequently overlooked—although not today.
I am glad to note that, within the Government’s ambitious plans for reform of apprenticeships and for further and technical education, there is also mention of lifelong learning, responsibility for which I think is going to lie with mayoralties. The Government have equally ambitious plans for the wholesale reform of local government at the same time. I am looking at the Minister, who is smiling—it is not a gloomy day—and I am hoping that she is going to be able to reassure noble Lords that lifelong learning will not fall through any cracks.
Lifelong learning providers include local government, as we all know, colleges, schools, universities, extramural boards and, indeed, the voluntary sector. Courses can be part-time and short- or long-term, and they increasingly lead to qualifications. Grants are available for learning essential skills. There is a free courses for jobs scheme for low earners and the unemployed. Lifelong learning can be delivered, as we all know, remotely as lectures, courses and classes, and held in schools and colleges after hours, in village halls and—sometimes, in my own experience—in pubs.
The Open University was founded in 1969, and it has been one of the most revolutionary developments in lifelong learning. It enabled people—from their homes, with help from televised lectures and in-person courses—to graduate. The WEA, founded in 1903, has a distinguished record of providing pathways to qualifications and purely academic courses. The University of the Third Age has, since 1982, made an extremely valuable contribution to lifelong learning. It is run by volunteers, and its membership is now at nearly half a million.
The benefits of lifelong learning are wide-ranging. It can play a huge role in the future world of education the noble Lord described. It can certainly improve employment prospects, and research has also shown that it can benefit social skills and confidence and even improve mental health. One of the things that appeals most to me about it is that it is widely available and usually accessible, even in rural areas.
Our lifelong learning sector is unique, creative and endlessly adaptable. It has been a precious source of social mobility and more for generations. I ask the Minister to reassure the House that its unique nature and provision will not be threatened by all the activity going on in the education sectors that could affect its freedom and its effectiveness. I believe that she will be able to reassure me on that point. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Knight, for his widening of all our horizons on the contribution that education makes to our lives and to our nation.
Baroness Wolf of Dulwich (CB)
My Lords, I too thank the noble Lord, Lord Knight, for securing this debate. I declare an interest as an employed academic at King’s College London. It is gratifying that so many of us want to speak even though we have only four minutes. But there is a slightly gloomy hinterland, which is that people like us have been talking about the importance of lifelong learning for a very long time, and meanwhile adult education spending and numbers are going down, part-time and adult HE numbers are down, and higher education provision in further education is down. So there is a lot to do.
Because I have only three minutes left, I will concentrate on the higher education, higher skills end of things, rather than the literacy, numeracy and ESL provision that makes up a very large part of current adult education.
I was a member of the Augar review, and our number one recommendation was the LLE—lifelong learning entitlement—about which the noble Lord, Lord Knight, spoke so eloquently. I still believe that this is a hugely important reform. It was a big relief, and enormously gratifying in the years before the last election, to have cross-party support and to have that support reiterated by the present Government. I have a slight worry that everybody is so busy thinking about how to reform it before we start, that five years from now we might still be talking about what the ideal structure would be. I urge the Government to get on with it, because until we try it, we will not find out what works and what does not.
Having said that, I will suggest a couple of things that could do with some attention and which are not to do with the design of the LLE, but more to do with the structure and supply of opportunities in the institutional landscape. If you look at a number of other countries that are not so different from us—Canada, Australia and the United States are obvious examples—there has been a significant increase in recent years in the number of people doing short but relatively high-level, what we would probably call level 4, courses in vocational areas. That has been possible because of the institutional structures as well as the funding mechanisms. Those countries basically all have systems not unlike ours in that it is a combination of state support and people paying fees, with more or less well-developed income-contingent back-up.
That teaches us that we have to look at the structures and incentives for our institutions to supply lifelong opportunities and not just at the demand that might be generated by making adult student funding more flexible. Whether or not we manage to transform our provision will be about demand and supply, but you cannot just wait for the demand to appear. You have to have incentives to provide the sorts of courses that people want.
There is a huge amount of talk about modules. My sense is that short courses and one-year courses are probably just as important, but we will not find out until we go out there. I would like to flag one recommendation of the Augar review that got nowhere, which was that institutions should be strongly encouraged, if not required, by the regulator to offer higher certificates and higher diplomas rather than treating anything other than a full degree as an exit award that is only really offered if you fail. For some reason that never got anywhere. I have never understood why the DfE did not like it, but somehow it did not and it never went anywhere. I would like to lob it back in.
What I would really like to ask the Minister—but I know she cannot tell me—is when will the regs be laid for the LLE to be activated? When will the roadshows start? Since I cannot get an answer to that, can she assure us that the DfE is considering structures as well as the structure of the lending?
The Lord Bishop of Norwich
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Knight, for bringing this debate and look forward in the spirit of lifelong learning to hearing other contributions this evening.
Lifelong learning is about social value, although we do not live to store up treasure just for ourselves. It is about economic value, although we do not live by bread alone. It is about personal value, although we do not live just for me but for the flourishing of others who are our neighbours. Faith communities play an important part in all these aspects of lifelong learning, through catechesis, engagement with social issues, basic skills training, youth work, volunteering and engagement with schools, FE colleges and universities. They are also crucially involved in spiritual value by fostering vocation and character.
Within faith communities, and certainly for Christians, there is a strong sense that each individual is uniquely and wonderfully made with a mix of gifts, abilities and motivations. Part of our searching in life is to find our vocation where we can find life in all its fullness. Our vocations can be multiple and overlaid with paid work, voluntary service to others and perhaps a role as a parent or carer, all of which need different skills. Different vocations emerge over time, sometimes requiring new skills and knowledge as people move into new careers and interests.
Vocation has an interplay with the second area that faith communities are so involved with, which is character. In his book The Road to Character David Brooks speaks about “résumé virtues” and “eulogy virtues”. Résumé virtues are those things that we put on our CV, such as our jobs and our qualifications, whereas eulogy virtues are those things about us that might, we hope, be said one day at our funeral. Brooks argues that we need to develop a healthy character.
As I turn the pages of the Gospels, I see how Jesus is continually shaping the character of his disciples, how they interacted and how they served others. St Paul, of course, spoke of a well-shaped character being seen in a person of love and joy, peace and forbearance, kindness and goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. I believe that we are continually shaped through a life of learning as if we are clay in the potter’s hand.
Does the Minister agree that vocation and character are two crucial areas for human flourishing and that faith communities have a vital part to play in fostering them as well as other aspects of lifelong learning?
Lord Blunkett (Lab)
I have a number of relevant registered interests. I am very pleased to follow the right reverend Prelate and to endorse what I thought was an excellent “Thought for the Day”, which I hope he will be able to get on Radio 4. I congratulate my noble friend Lord Knight on an excellent opening speech, and I endorse everything he said. I look forward very much to the maiden speech of my noble friend Lady Curran, who is surrounded by friends, so she should have no fear. Being in this place is a lifelong learning experience. I often come in literally to have a seminar, learning things I know nothing about, and go away at least somewhat enlightened. I believe that we should endorse that kind of experience from the beginning to the end of our lives.
I have had a few hiccups lately, so I may not make the 100 that my noble friend Lord Knight referred to, but I am going to do my best. During that time, as well as advocating for a massive shift in the skills agenda, as I have been doing inside and outside this House, I will return to my real love, which is lifelong learning. Just over 25 years ago, I had the privilege of publishing the paper: The Learning Age. The department was slightly bewildered as my noble friend Lady Shephard, as I like to call her, will remember because I succeeded her. No. 10 was not just bewildered; it was bemused about why I should be spending time and energy on lifelong learning. The truth is that our country has been built on it.
The trade union movement was the first to understand the liberation of learning and the way in which this transformed the lives of not just individuals but families and whole communities. After the miners’ strike 40 years ago, women were liberated in my home area of South Yorkshire by adult learning being made available. I hope my noble friend can reassure me that the two remaining adult residential colleges that have major outreach will be secured in an environment where devolution of funding to combined authorities leaves artificial boundaries that might undermine funding initiatives of that sort. My university, the University of Sheffield, was in part built on a levy by the trade unions in the area which put together what would now be worth millions of pounds to get that university off the ground in 1905. The history of people understanding what it was doing to them, their lives and their opportunity and community is something we should build on.
My noble friend Lord Knight and the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf, mentioned the lifelong learning entitlement. Please let us make it more flexible, more usable and, in the end, more successful, but let us also look at new ways of delivering lifelong learning. Artificial intelligence and technology are transforming the world of work, which is why lifelong learning will be critical for people to return to learn in all kinds of ways. However, artificial intelligence and technology can also deliver and help to spread the opportunity of lifelong learning, including to people who are confined to their home.
My final point, because of the time limit, is very simple. We need lifelong learning to keep us alert and alive and to stave off dementia. I have had a long-standing commitment in the area of dementia, so I know from every possible experience just what a difference it can make if people remain alert and alive at the end of their main working period and throughout their retirement. We have an obligation to ensure that this new Government do not make cuts in what has already been a devastated area of public funding. I appeal to my Government to not condemn austerity and then carry it through. Together, nationally and locally, through civil society, we can make this work.
Lord Bates (Con)
It is a privilege to follow the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, and I add my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Knight, on securing this debate and suggest to him that there is another reason why it is timely. The Chancellor spoke last week of the urgent need to remove barriers to economic growth. One of those barriers, I argue, is an outdated mindset around the contribution that older people can make to our economy.
The first state pension was introduced by the Asquith Government in 1908, and the retirement age was set at 70, when the average life expectancy of the population was around 50. Today, life expectancy is 30 years higher at 82 and yet the state retirement age is four years lower than it was a century ago. Moreover, that was at a time when most of the jobs required physical strength, which declines with age, whereas today most of the jobs are in the knowledge- and service-based sectors.
There are many examples in your Lordships’ House of the contribution that older people make. The average age of Members of your Lordships’ House is 71, and some of the sharpest and most insightful contributions come from Members well into their 80s and 90s. Lord Mackay of Clashfern is the wisest and kindest man I know. He retired aged 95 a few years ago; in my view, that was an early retirement and a loss to the House. The point is that we are surrounded by living examples who defy the prevailing societal norms and expectations of retirement.
Outside this House, there are many more examples. The Rolling Stones are still touring, and many in their 20s and 30s would find it a challenge to swagger like Jagger in his 80s. Sir David Attenborough made the spectacular “Planet Earth III” series for the BBC at the age of 97. So why do we have such an outdated and outmoded view of the economic potential of people and the valuable contribution they can make, as long as they feel able?
I declare an interest as a very mature student. I left school without any qualifications at 16 and earned my first degree at 37. I began a master’s degree in my 50s and I hope to finally complete my PhD later this year at the age of 64. It has been thoroughly joyful and rejuvenating experience—although my supervisors may not see it that way. We have irrefutable evidence that continuing to learn has huge health benefits, including improved mental health and physical fitness, reduced loneliness, delayed onset of dementia and an enhanced quality of life.
Before we hear the much-anticipated maiden speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Curran, I want to conclude with another living example, Dr Neville Brown. He is Britain’s oldest teacher and a pioneer of teaching schoolchildren with dyslexia. Last week, he celebrated his 90th birthday with students at the Maple Hayes Hall School for Dyslexics in Lichfield, which he founded 40 years ago. At his school, pupils who were once unable to write their name have gone on to attain good GCSEs, A-levels and university degrees. When interviewed by Lara Davies for BBC local radio, he said that he had absolutely no intention of slowing down or retiring because there are so many more schoolchildren who need his help. We can follow his example and, in doing so, unlock the potential for our golden generation to play their part in growing our economy, enriching our society and realising our full potential as a great nation.
Baroness Curran (Lab) (Maiden Speech)
I am very pleased to speak in this debate this afternoon, as I have embarked on my own programme of lifelong learning these past few weeks. Although this is my third parliamentary Chamber, I still feel the nerves and anxiety of the new girl. But any anxiety has been greatly assuaged by the kindness and graciousness with which I have been welcomed. That it has come from all sides of the House is greatly appreciated. My sincere thanks go to Black Rod, her amazing staff, the wise doorkeepers, the cleaners, the catering staff and the incredible staff in the Library. The support I have had from my noble friends Lady Smith and Lord Kennedy has been both encouraging and empowering—not words I usually associate with a Chief Whip.
I am sure my late parents could never have foreseen me standing here. They arrived in Townhead in Glasgow from Ireland with scarcely a penny in their pockets. They taught my three sisters and me the value of education, the dignity of honest labour, and a deep belief in equality for all. I owe so much to my family, especially to my sister Bridget, who is in the Gallery today, and who, since I could read, has thrust a book into my hand—books that I believe have changed the course of my life.
There is a part of me that is surprised that I am here: a working-class girl with no historic or familial connection to politics. That I have sustained this is because of the encouragement I received from my noble friends Lady Harman and Lady Liddell, who introduced me to your Lordships’ House. Both of them are icons of progress and change. I thank them for helping me in these past few weeks and the many years before.
My mother always said that Scotland had been good to her family. She understood only too well the benefit of government help—from family allowance paid to mothers, the provision of social housing and investment in state education—proving for me that the real measure of politics is less in the high rhetoric, or the flags flown, but in the lives changed.
I cherish my Irish roots, but my mother’s words gave me a deep love of Scotland. As I grew up, Scotland faced profound change. There was a clamour for a new kind of politics and a new parliament to address the injustice and inequality that had plagued our nation for too long. Those were exciting times, and I am very proud that on the Labour Benches we achieved that momentous 50:50 representation of women and men.
I served in the Scottish Parliament for 12 years, half of them in the Scottish Cabinet, and that Parliament made its mark early. My own work involved landmark legislation on homelessness and violence against women, and as Housing Minister we fundamentally altered investment in Glasgow’s dilapidated housing through a stock transfer. This would not have been possible without the actions of the then Chancellor, Gordon Brown, who lifted the stranglehold of the city’s housing debt. That was a clear demonstration of the value of the partnership we have built across the UK, reinforcing my deep belief in a strong, assertive Scottish Parliament, enhanced by the solidarity we must maintain across our nations and regions. Of course, these issues were to the fore during the heady days of the Scottish referendum. As shadow Secretary of State for Scotland during my five years in the other place, I argued then, and I will continue to argue, that the best interests of Scotland are served by leading in the UK, not leaving it.
More recently, I worked internationally to support political and parliamentary development. I recall women in Libya, Myanmar, Guatemala and other countries who, through years of conflict and oppression, have shown resilience, courage and commitment. In this work I found myself translated into different languages: Arabic, Portuguese, Russian and others. Occasionally, my English colleagues would ask for some translation too. I hope that in this House I will not need too much translation, because here voices from Glasgow should be heard. We should hear voices from other parts of the land too—from our inner cities and our rural communities, our islands and our coastal regions. We have to understand the ambitions, talents and aspirations across our land that are too often frustrated and unfulfilled.
It is why sustained programmes of lifelong learning are more important than ever. We must drive change now, as Labour Governments have in the past, to unleash the reservoir of ability and energy that I see every day. That is how we will navigate our way through a changing and turbulent world, fuel economic growth and offer a path to new skills, better jobs and increased prosperity for all.
Lord Monks (Lab)
My Lords, it is a real pleasure and privilege to follow my noble friend Lady Curran and the excellent maiden speech we have just been treated to. She is a graduate of a tough school. Clydeside politics is not for wimps and the faint-hearted, but it is a rich academy producing gifted political figures—my noble friend is certainly one of those. We all wish her son Chris very well; he is MP for Edinburgh East and Musselburgh. I am sure I speak for everyone in congratulating my noble friend on her powerful speech here today. We are looking forward to many other interventions by her in the work of this House.
I turn to the subject of today’s debate, lifelong learning, which is an area where the UK—let us be frank—continues to struggle compared to the best. Over my years at the TUC, I worked with industrial training boards, sector skills councils, the Manpower Services Commission and the Learning and Skills Council, among other prominent institutions that have been involved. None survived political change. Regular institutional upheaval has been a feature of our efforts at lifelong learning in this country, and in my view a very damaging one. It contrasts with some other leading countries and with the higher education world, which has enjoyed relative stability at the same time as there has been turmoil on the vocational front.
It is very depressing to see the decline in the number of students at colleges of further education and in the adult learning world—down by 70% over the decade that has just passed. It is a sign of a sector in trouble, and we are nowhere near achieving the parity of esteem objective that many of us have long sought. Even apprenticeships, the strongest brand in the vocational learning armoury, have been subject to many changes and alterations to the rules. It is complicated territory.
I hope the Bill being piloted through Parliament at the moment by my noble friend on the Front Bench will address these weaknesses and launch a new surge of interest in lifelong learning. I also hope that it will be the last of the regular institutional changes, which I believe have been a drag anchor on progress. Lifelong learning has not been a glamorous subject, and it needs to be. I saw a report produced for the World Economic Forum earlier this week. It forecasted that two-fifths of the existing jobs will be outdated by artificial intelligence in the next five years. That is 40%, and if it is anything like accurate, this shows graphically the scale of the challenges.
How are we to help the people affected to adjust and adapt to the new world? It will not necessarily be a brave new world for many of them. Then there are the cohorts of people who did not succeed at school and struggled to get decent work. Many of them are a long way from achieving some of the basic skills that are necessary for life. One of the pleasures I have had was handing out qualification certificates to successful students in the union learning programme that the TUC ran, supported by my noble friend Lord Blunkett when he was Secretary of State. At that stage, in our peak years, we managed to bring 250,000 students through the processes and through the different courses. I am sorry to say that tribal politics took over and that was abolished by Gavin Williamson when he was Secretary of State.
In my view, it is very important that we concentrate on this Bill—on making it succeed and tackle some of the problems that we have. The country deserves it and the people of this country, particularly the ones who missed out at school, really deserve it. It is vital that we get on with it.
Baroness Morgan of Cotes (Non-Afl)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord and particularly to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Curran, on her maiden speech. As the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, said, she will find that this Chamber is an opportunity for lifelong learning every time we come into it. It is absolutely true to say that, every time I am here, I hear something new and learn something from noble Lords. So we look forward to her contributions, and I thank her for her passionate and well-argued speech. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Knight, on bringing this debate. I am sure that all of us could have spoken for much longer, had we been allowed, so he has hit on a popular topic. I declare my interest as chair of the board of the national Careers & Enterprise Company and a former chair of the East Midlands Institute of Technology.
In its briefing for this debate, the Learning and Work Institute said that, in 2022-23, 1.7 million people did not just change jobs but switched sectors. That is not just government reshuffles; it is people outside government who switched sectors and therefore had to embrace lifelong learning in order to learn how to do a new job.
In the time available today, the point I want to make is the importance of encouraging that attitude of lifelong learning that so many noble Lords have already spoken about, at both school and college, and doing so via careers advice of all shapes and sizes. As we have already heard, it is important that people of all ages understand that leaving formal education does not mean that learning ends.
The Careers & Enterprise Company, which, as I said, I have the pleasure of chairing, has been backed by successive Governments, including this one, and we thank the Minister very much indeed for her engagement so far. It is driving awareness and interest in key sectors through co-ordinated employer engagement, particularly in the delivery of modern work experience. The Careers & Enterprise Company is piloting the Government’s commitment to two weeks’ work experience in pilots across the health, construction and digital sectors. As the noble Lord, Lord Knight, set out in his opening remarks, the advent, growth and acceleration of new technology mean that lifelong learning is becoming a reality for so many more of us.
The company wants to provide an efficient, evidence-driven basis for regionally driven, nationally led careers and skills systems. The point is that when our young people in schools and colleges visit modern workplaces and hear from employers, it is really important that they see lifelong learning in practice, as other noble Lords have said.
We also welcome the focus on local partnerships and the powers held by mayoral authorities to embed sustainable structures for lifelong learning. There is an opportunity here to learn from the company’s careers hubs, which are networked across all parts of the country. Their role is critical in furthering local skills ambitions with a place-based democratic structure through local and mayoral authorities. The company will work in partnership with every mayoral combined authority to make sure that mayoral priorities are represented, and to ensure a seamless transition from the careers system into the adult skills system.
To conclude, as we heard from my noble friend Lord Bates, lifelong learning, the subject of this debate, supports the Government’s growth agenda. My message to the Minister is that she has the support of us all when she next has to negotiate with the Treasury. We hope that it spends as much time on human capital as it does on infrastructure.
Lord Bichard (CB)
My Lords, I declare an interest as chancellor of the University of Gloucestershire. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Knight, on securing the debate, and the noble Baroness, Lady Curran, on her maiden speech. It is a short congratulations because I am already running out of time; I apologise for that.
In the mid-1990s, I was Permanent Secretary at what was then the Department for Education and Employment. In that role, I worked for several of the speakers in this evening’s debate—sorry, I should have said, “I was privileged to work for several of the speakers in this evening’s debate”. One of the department’s three objectives was lifelong learning—to create a learning society. I was passionate about it at the time, not just because those noble Lords were too but because it seemed to be a no-brainer, as they say now. It is the route to growth and increased productivity. It will deliver higher tax revenues—if the Treasury is listening—reduced welfare dependency, better public health outcomes and greater social mobility. It enables citizens to better fulfil their personal potential and improve their quality of life, and it helps older people like me to retain their independence. In a world that is being reshaped by AI and digital technology, lifelong learning has never been more important.
No other investment gives you that kind of return, so why is it proving so difficult to deliver a learning society? After all, as the noble Lord, Lord Monks, said, we have tried every conceivable delivery agency, from training and enterprise councils to the Learning and Skills Council and now Skills England—I wish it well. We have tried a whole range of different qualification frameworks and incentives, but participation in lifelong learning remains stubbornly low.
The noble Lord, Lord Knight, referred to participation of 50%, but I think, year on year, it is somewhere between 40 and 50% of adults who say they are currently learning or have done so in the last three years, and 30% of people say they have never learnt since full-time education. With a new Government now focused on growth, the question is: how are we going to change that? What do we need to do differently? What are the lessons of history?
First, the Government need genuinely to believe that economic growth depends not just on increased investment in projects, which we have heard a lot about recently, but as much, if not more, on investment in people and in skills. They need genuinely to believe that, if they are to make the investment that is necessary to deliver it. The system needs significant additional investment to right the wrongs of the recent past. There has been a substantial real-terms reduction in spending on adult skills since the early 2000s, despite what we have all been saying in places like the House of Lords, and many of the incentives to learn, relearn and retrain have been withdrawn. The additional funding in the recent Budget was very welcome, but it is nowhere near enough to restore the situation.
Some of the new investment, if we are able to achieve it, has to go towards tackling the problem of flexible part-time learning. The current tertiary system does not support flexible learning. The catastrophic fall in the number of part-time students in HE has been worrying, and the Sutton Trust report, entitled The Lost Part-Timers, says it all. The lifelong learning entitlement is not perfect, but it is an opportunity to improve, so students can better fit study around work and other responsibilities. Can the Minister commit to implementing the lifelong learning entitlement in 2027? I think my Ministers would have said that this is a fairly relaxed target, so are we able to commit to that? Can we commit to credit-based fee caps to facilitate increasing demand for accelerated learning? Can we also protect the value of the student premium in the spending review to support institutions that are finding the increased costs of part-time difficult to cope with?
Lord Elliott of Mickle Fell (Con)
My Lords, I would like to pick up on two points in this debate: first, the point made very well by the noble Lord, Lord Knight, on how AI is changing the requirements for lifelong learning; and, secondly, how businesses play a hugely important role in lifelong learning.
As others have noted, the skills demanded by the labour market are rapidly changing and the jobs available in the future will be different to the jobs offered in today’s economy. The biggest driver of this change is AI and automation. As the Department for Education noted in its report on this subject in 2023, the jobs at greatest risk are in London and the south-east, with some of the most at-risk professions being management consultants, business analysts, psychologists and legal professionals. Many have yet to fully wake up to the impact that AI will have on the labour market and social norms. The inspiring story of someone in a low-paid service sector role, studying at night school to train as an accountant or lawyer, will fade away. In the future, the story is more likely to be that of a white-collar worker losing their job and retraining to become a bricklayer, plasterer or forklift truck driver. This has huge implications both for the type of lifelong learning required and also for the careers we encourage children to take up at school.
I went to a bookshop at the weekend with my daughters, aged four and seven, to see what careers were recommended by the books on offer. Much to their disappointment, Santa’s helper and dinosaur farmer were not suggested options. One of the books directed the girls towards some of the most at-risk careers as defined by the DfE’s AI report. Another described jobs that were unbelievably niche: professional sleeper, cow massager and sloth nanny. We need to encourage children towards the jobs of the 2040s, not the 1940s, and we need lifelong learning to train people for the careers of the future rather than the careers of the past.
I want to finish on an optimistic note. Shortly before Christmas, I visited a company which owns dozens of restaurants around London and Birmingham. I sat in on a training session for trainee managers, all of whom had begun in entry-level positions. I asked one of the participants what their ambition was, and they said, “To own my own restaurant”. I know they will do it. I came away inspired by the group’s positivity, their drive, their work ethic and their camaraderie. It was the very best of lifelong learning: a fantastic employer, helping people climb up the career ladder to move from trainee, to employee, to team leader, to manager, to owner. The essence of a good society is to make that ladder of opportunity accessible to everyone, and we should thank businesses for the important role they play in lifelong learning. We should also think carefully about careers education in schools. Let us harness the enthusiasm of Santa’s helpers to become toy designers and encourage dinosaur farmers to become vertical farmers. After all, even with AI, there will always be jobs in toys and food.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Knight of Weymouth, for securing this debate. I am interested in his suggestion of a subscription model for universities for lifelong learning, not just because, as someone who spent about 8.3 years full-time equivalent in universities, I would do rather well out of that model; none the less, I am going to stick with the Green Party’s understanding that education is a public good that should be paid for from general taxation—far more progressive taxation than we have now—rather than being a weight on the individual.
I commend the noble Lord particularly for the phrasing of the question, which looks at the social and personal value of lifelong learning, as well as the economic value. To be an informed voter, to be a parent able to help their children navigate a fast-changing world in the age of shocks, to contribute to your community as a citizen, lifelong learning is not a “nice to have”, or an add-on but an essential basis for health and survival, both individually and collectively.
However, I am going to turn one word around and focus on the importance of unlearning what we might previously have been taught—of acknowledging that science and knowledge are not one fixed certainty, or a tower built on solid foundations, progressing forward with stately certainty. As a society, as individuals, we need to unlearn much.
I am 58 years old, and much of what I was taught at school and early university, from the supposition of DNA providing a blueprint for life to the “primitiveness” of hunter-gatherer life and the inevitability of the tragedy of the commons, was demonstrably wrong. Much of the thinking of the 20th century—which often in the global North claimed universality but in fact was highly particular to the ideology and interests of the few at that moment—has been disproved or simply surpassed by the huge volume of knowledge generation we have seen in recent decades and, just starting, by knowledge recovery from indigenous and other cultures.
To give three examples: students are still taught, and the media extols in expensively produced wildlife documentaries and casual news commentaries, that life on this planet is built on the foundation of competition. Yet everyone should know that the 20th-century giant of biology, Lynn Margulis, developed our understanding of symbiosis—the co-operation between species—and of the source of mitochondria and chloroplasts, the origin and foundation of all complex life forms, and everyone should understand how soils are a co-operative production of more-than-human life and non-living entities, not an inert chemical substrate, as I was taught at university. If the very foundation of life is co-operation, not competition, our view of the world and our society has to change.
Then there is the so-called central dogma of US biologist James Watson, the physicist, eugenicist and misogynist—after whom, astonishingly, the new research centre at St Pancras was named—which has been substantively debunked yet is still widely taught.
There is also the tragedy of the commons, which is all too often taught as fact rather than the fantasy of Garrett Hardin, a would-be applier of coercive population control. We were told that holding resources in private ownership was the only way to protect them. Yet it was in 1990 that Elinor Ostrom, later a Nobel Economics Prize winner, published Governing the Commons: the Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action.
The Minister frequently speaks to us about the Government’s curriculum review. I hope that it and indeed the curriculums and approaches of our colleges and universities, and the approaches to further education taken by everything from the University of the Third Age to sceptics in the pub, will all adopt knowledge for the 21st century, because that is what we need.
Lord Aberdare (CB)
My Lords, I am about to subject myself to a lifelong learning experience. These often end in disaster, so I apologise in advance if that is the case.
I have been hugely inspired by a lot of what we have heard, starting with the brilliant overview from the noble Lord, Lord Knight, of everything that lifelong learning is about, and including the wonderful maiden speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Curran. Compared to these, I felt my own planned remarks were so deeply pedestrian that I should try to do something different. I will therefore try to riff on one of the points that I was planning to make.
I hasten to add that I have mentioned before to your Lordships’ House that one aspect of lifelong learning that I have never experienced in a proper way is oracy. It did not exist when I was at school, so let us see how I get on.
One of the things that struck me most was the point that the people who pursue lifelong learning most are mainly those who need it least. I cannot resist mentioning my grandmother, in the context of the speech from the noble Lord, Lord Bates. She started upholstery classes when she was well into her 70s and used to produce all sorts of wonderfully upholstered chairs and things for us.
It is very clear that take-up of lifelong learning is skewed by class, race, age and place. It is skewed also by lack of suitable provision, lack of awareness, lack of confidence, disability, disadvantage, poverty or bad experiences of education.
Before I came here, I used to work in a small business that provided employability training. We mainly worked with young offenders and young people who were at risk of becoming NEET—not in employment, education or training. Working with the young offenders was fine, because they were all in prison so we could get at them, but as soon as they left prison it was impossible to get them back. They went with wonderful ideas about what they were going to do with all the things on which we had worked, but then they disappeared. Even Nacro, which we were working with, could not get them to come to all the wonderful follow-up sessions that we had arranged.
It was similar with many of the NEETs, who had huge problems with family issues, substance abuse and generally chaotic lifestyles. We would arrange appointments with employers, training sessions or whatever, but they would still be in bed. We got to the point of sending taxis out to their homes to bring them in—not quite forcibly, but helping them to get in to benefit from what we had to offer.
I am arguing that the one thing that has been a little missing from this debate is how we get to the people who we are not reaching. I gather that 27% or fewer adults in deprived areas are engaged in learning. We ought to have a strategy, maybe as part of the post-16 education and skills strategy. I hope that any strategy pays a lot of attention to that cohort of people who are missing out and difficult to get to.
I will just mention one other example. Griffith Jones of Llanddowror was a Welsh preacher who set up circulating schools throughout Wales. Some 200,000 people went through those schools because they wanted to be there. How do we recreate that sort of desire to learn among the people who are not learning? I apologise for inflicting my very inchoate thoughts on your Lordships.
Lord Young of Norwood Green (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Knight, on securing this debate. This is a key issue that touches all our lives.
I congratulate the House of Lords Library on an excellent brief. It reminded me of the significance of the Workers’ Educational Association, which was used by my union’s education college. At that time it was avidly supported by the Communist Party. The WEA was good at what it did and supplied good teaching.
As so many people have told us, if you are an active Member of the House of Lords, you are engaged in lifelong learning. It is dead easy. As somebody said, “You come in here and you learn something every day”. In fact, I usually reflect that when I am speaking about something, there will be at least half a dozen noble Lords who are twice as knowledgeable as I am about the subject. That is just a fact of life.
The Labour Government’s policy and what they are attempting to do is pretty good. They are going to devolve funding. I suggest that this should not just be for skills, but that apprenticeship funding ought to be included. I would welcome the Minister’s views on this. Reforming the apprenticeship levy is long overdue; it needs to be made more relevant and more flexible.
Tomorrow is the 213th anniversary of the birth of Charles Dickens, of whom I am a fan. He was a man who believed in lifelong learning. He was a supporter of the mechanics’ institutes, which encouraged working-class people to learn. Dickens gave wonderful performances of extracts from his novels, and of course he spoke from experience, as he tramped the streets of London learning about what life was really like on those streets—I am trying to keep an eye on the time.
I want to give a plug for something I do regularly in lifelong learning, which is “Learn with the Lords”. I go out and speak to young people. When I ask them why they think I am coming to talk to them, they usually tell me it is because I am going to educate them. I say, “No, no, you’re wrong; you’re going to educate me”, and that is what happens. It is very interesting talking to them about whether they think they should have votes at 16. You get a much more nuanced response to that than you would imagine.
I am not such a pessimist as some have been in this debate. First, I notice from my own children how people do not stay in the same job. They move and change, as my own son has done. In fact, at one point I had to give him a nudge. He had been at a company for eight years, obviously he was not enjoying it anymore, and now he is doing exceedingly well. We have to think differently.
The nature of apprenticeships is also changing, which is a good thing. You can be an apprenticeship lawyer, doctor, nurse or accountant, which is great. So we should not be too pessimistic. Of course, artificial intelligence will have an impact, but some skills will always be with us. I relish the fact that, after many years of trying, I still cannot hang a door. That is because I am not a very good carpenter and probably never will be. We will need carpenters—that is for sure.
The Government have to rise to the challenge. I am confident that they will do so. We in the Lords should be capable of giving them advice that they will listen to.
I want to congratulate my noble friend on her brilliant maiden speech. I did not have any trouble with the accent, but then, “I’m a cockney, aren’t I?”
Lord Hampton (CB)
My Lords, it is always a joy to listen to the noble Lord, Lord Knight of Weymouth, whom I thank very much for securing this debate on this important topic. As ever, I declare my interest as a state secondary school teacher; it is more like “Learn with a Lord” around our place. I also greatly enjoyed the maiden speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Curran, and welcome her to the next part of her lifelong learning journey, as everyone has been telling her.
We all know the value of lifelong learning. Professor David Snowdon’s nun study looked at the cognitive ability of nuns during their lives and analysed their brains after death. In one famous case, Sister Mary, who did sudoku every day, passed all the regular tests until her death at 102. Tests on her brain afterwards showed that she had full-blown Alzheimer’s. One explanation was something called “cognitive reserve”, the idea that lifelong learning can strengthen protective neurons, so that they, in effect, create patches around the damage to our brains that happens as we age; the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, touched on that. Think of the savings to the NHS if we can decrease the effects of brain deterioration.
I would say that I have been quite a good example of lifelong learning so far. After my degree, I took evening classes. I learned to ski and became a ski photographer. I learned Italian and married an Italian. I did courses to become a level 2 cricket coach. I retrained as a teacher on the School Direct scheme. I taught myself SolidWorks and—I emphasise this to the noble Baroness, Lady Barran—Excel. Working in the House of Lords has been a steep learning curve, particularly if you forget Lord Judge’s 75-word rule when asking questions. There was very little formal training there, certainly at college.
Derek Lewis, a friend of mine and chair of UHI North, West and Hebrides, says:
“Lifelong learning is now a necessity rather than an option because the pace of change in science and technology in particular makes the notion of a qualification for life nonsensical”.
Here we have a problem. I am confident that I know where I can get the training that I need. However, the Association of Colleges complains that the majority of adult learning takes place among those who are already educated to a certain level. Those with poor basic skills are least likely to seek support to address their basic skills needs, as the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, riffed. As the noble Lord, Lord Knight, said, we need everyone to be able to access the type of learning that they need. Perhaps the Government could look at learning mentors, who could guide people through their long-term learning journey in the way they do with teachers—or at least, perhaps, a lifelong learning number. Perhaps the Minister could comment on that.
What about the sheer enjoyment of learning, which can lift people out of loneliness and poor mental health? That is where charities such as the Men’s Sheds Association can help: in reducing the stubborn numbers of male suicide. If we can get people learning and keep people learning, whether formally or informally, the societal and financial benefits will be immeasurable. We should all strive to be a Sister Mary.
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Knight, for securing this debate; I felt that I was honoured to be listening to a first-class university lecture. Like the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, I have been inspired by many of the contributions today; it makes me quite worried about what I am going to say. I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Curran, on her inspiring maiden speech; I look forward to her future contributions.
We already know that education does not stop at 16, 18 or 21; it cannot be packaged into a few years and then set aside. We are all constantly doing it—every day is a school day, after all. Lifelong learning is just that: learning for life. I applaud any attempt to encourage this pursuit. Plenty of evidence suggests that lifelong learning positively impacts our communities. The Social Mobility Commission has emphasised that learning leads to better employment prospects. The Learning and Work Institute has demonstrated that lifelong learning has personal benefits, increasing individuals’ life satisfaction and, in many cases, improving mental health—an important consideration given the current mental health crisis.
As we have heard today, there are many personal, social and economic values that lifelong learning offers. Proposals to increase the access to funding for adult learning are an important step in the right direction, and it is clear that there is a push for increasing access to improving skills-based learning opportunities. After all, we are faced with a skills shortage across the country. The nation needs teachers, nurses, construction workers and many more. Lifelong learning may provide an opportunity to fill those gaps, to give those out of work, or those looking for a shift in a career, an opportunity to excel in a new environment.
As the Open University has informed me, older workers are the key to tackling skills gaps, especially in the public sector; yet currently, older members of society are the group least likely to participate in lifelong learning. More broadly, the number of those accessing lifelong learning is dwindling. Although there was a 0.7% increase in the number of learners in 2023-24 compared with 2022, this is still less than a third of the figures from the early 2010s, when over 3 million adults participated in adult education. If we are making funding available, and recognising the multiple benefits of lifelong learning, why do the numbers of those accessing adult learning remain so low?
Perhaps the answer is one that I raised before on this issue several years ago: the issue of physical access to learning environments. Many councils have explained that a key reason for declining numbers of adult learners is the lack of access that adults have to learning centres. They are too far away for people to attend. Adults might be inspired to retrain for a new skill, but if the classes are over an hour away, no amount of government funding is going to make learning more feasible or appealing to adults balancing everyday life.
Distance learning is a plausible solution to this issue and one that the Open University has modelled in its successful online degree programmes. There is also the changing landscape of how people want to learn. The trend towards online learning is undeniable. More and more people are looking for flexible, digital-first options that fit around their jobs, families and daily lives. We can look to Birbeck University here in London as a champion of this endeavour, with its promotion of short-term courses and evening classes—a key example of arranging lifelong learning around the needs of the learner.
The importance of the learner when advocating for lifelong learning is maybe something we have overlooked. I commend the noble Lord, Lord Knight, for referencing the personal value that lifelong learning may offer. The Government seem keen to align lifelong learning with the needs of the economy, which is commendable: we do, of course, want a workforce prepared for the challenges ahead. However, let us not lose sight of the individual learners themselves. Yes, lifelong learning should equip people with the skills that businesses and industries need, but it must also empower individuals, giving them the tools to grow, adapt, and fulfil their own hopes and dreams.
Truly effective lifelong learning serves not just the economy but the people who make up that economy. Learning, therefore, may encompass a broad range of skills, from woodwork to flower arranging or creative writing to drawing. Of course, in the past, universities have played an important part in supporting this through their extramural departments, many of which have now been replaced by skills-based short courses. We should actively encourage these endeavours and think more broadly about the benefits of fostering an environment that supports personal development alongside economic growth.
There is a lifelong learning issue which has irritated me for quite a while. I was recently elected a city councillor in Liverpool and, to my shock, everything for local residents is done online, to save money. Poor, elderly people, often in their late 80s, struggle to report issues or contact the council because they do not even know how to access the internet; yet the council, for very good reasons—it does not have the money—is not able to provide the training opportunities in the public libraries, which would actually serve and provide lifelong learning for those elderly people.
Finally, what about those who miss out on education —those who decide to enter the workforce at 16 and never receive their two years of free universal education? Could we look towards providing this later in life through grants covering the cost of further education, rather than loans for those who missed this opportunity for learning? Loans often stand as a barrier to learning, with prospective students worried about the burden of rising debt. Instead, let us think bigger and bolder. Let us not stop at funding, but also address access through digital innovation and support flexibility by embracing learning in all its forms, regardless of subject or interest. Investing in lifelong learning means investing in people, and that is something I am sure we are all keen to support.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, I too congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Knight, on his tour de force opening speech. It fitted into the renaissance man—or maybe we should say renaissance woman—pattern in its breadth and insight, and it was a pleasure to listen to. I also, of course, welcome the maiden speech from the noble Baroness, Lady Curran, who talked about the opportunity one has in politics to change lives. We heard some examples about how she has already done that, and I am sure she will do more. We look forward to working with her.
I echo the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, about the dignity of some of what we have heard, including from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich. With the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, having moved to a very successful career in riffing, I am going to take the pedestrian speaking slot which other noble Lords have left open. It is possibly because I am a bit damaged by having taken some legislation through this House that aimed to underpin lifelong learning. I hope the Minister will forgive me if I have some questions on where we are at and where we are going with that.
Of course, the principle of offering students, in the case of the lifelong learning entitlement, up to the age of 60 a tuition-free loan which gives them entitlement to four years of full-time education is widely welcomed, and we know that that is for a number of reasons. We all, I think, hope that it will allow those who might not embark on a three-year qualification to get staging-post qualifications to whatever level is right for them—in many cases, they might go all the way. It also offers those already in the workforce the chance to upskill, retrain and get high-quality qualifications. We heard from my noble friend Lady Morgan of Cotes and others about the number who change sectors or careers each year. Those two things, we all hope, will address the skills gaps that we have in our economy.
When we were in government we lived through one delay in the launch of the LLE. The noble Baroness has lived through another, but perhaps she can give the House some reassurance that applications will start from September 2026. Of course, some big tasks need to be done before the LLE can go live. The first is setting up all the systems within the Student Loans Company. I know, having worked closely with the Student Loans Company, how seriously it takes its responsibilities in this area, but it is a truly complex process. The second is to understand the Government’s vision for the LLE and how—as we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, and others—it will attract the types of learners who have not traditionally accessed lifelong learning and higher qualifications. It would be really interesting to hear where the Minister’s thinking is on this and, as the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf, said, what the incentives will be to drive those behaviours.
I remember trying—not altogether seriously, but just to test it out—to apply for one of the pilots that we ran when we were in government. It was almost impossible, despite Google’s best efforts, to find even the application form, so thinking about making it visible and accessible is important. I think we all fear that we will end up, in five or 10 years’ time, with the vast majority of people still doing three-year, full-time courses. You have to be quite brave to do a course that no one has done before, possibly at an institution where none of your friends, family or people you know have studied. That need for focus and tenacity to make this work will be so important, but the prize, as we have heard from across the House this afternoon, is obviously a huge one.
It would be helpful to hear the Minister’s thoughts on how the Government are going to track progress. We will stretch her talents, as a “Mastermind” winner—as she was unwise enough to disclose to those of your Lordships who were in the House last night—in a different way and invite her to paint a picture of what a successful higher and further education system would look like once the LLE is fully implemented.
I wonder whether the Minister could say a word about how the Government think that opportunities for skills development can be promoted regionally. I was very struck when I was campaigning in the election in the summer—in seats that were apparently marginal but perhaps turned out to be slightly less marginal than we had hoped—that there were streets I walked along where I felt that, if I lived on that street, I would not have much hope, including for my children. As the noble Lord, Lord Knight, rightly said, this is where populism breeds if we do not have hope for the future. It is extremely important that that regional perspective is prioritised. We made some steps towards that in government, particularly through the institutes of technology that we established, which brought together colleges, universities and employers with a regional focus. I hope the Minister can reassure me that the Government are going to continue supporting those and not waste the investment that was made in them.
The Minister will be aware that some institutions are concerned about how the current regulatory system—I told noble Lords my speech was going to be pedestrian—will fit with the LLE. This is important. As the Minister knows, the continuation metric that the Office for Students looks at perhaps lends itself less well to an approach where students are doing shorter courses, then leaving education for a while and restarting. I assume that she will be able to provide reassurance that that is being reviewed ahead of the rollout. Also, could she say a word on maintenance support?
I think the Minister will be aware of unhappiness in the sector about historic underspends in the adult education budget. My understanding is that the evidence is that the mayoral combined authorities have been more effective in disbursing all their money, although I think the noble Lord, Lord Knight, was hinting that all might not be well in that department. Maybe the Minister could comment on that.
In closing, I will pick up on a few remarks made by your Lordships. My noble friend Lady Morgan of Cotes talked about the work that the Careers & Enterprise Company does in building confidence, about our attitude to lifelong learning, and about making it the cultural norm that you learn through life wherever you were born and whatever advantages you did or did not have. All of us want to be Sister Mary—I am hoping that Wordle and Quordle, including Quordle Extreme, as well as sudoku, qualify me for avoiding dementia. I also want to pick up on the joy of lifelong learning that the noble Lord, Lord Bates, talked about. My husband, who is also in his 70s, started a part-time degree. When filling out his UCAS form, he struggled a bit to explain how he was going to use it, but he did focus on joy.
I look forward very much to hearing the Minister’s remarks.
The Minister of State, Department for Education (Baroness Smith of Malvern) (Lab)
My Lords, this being my fifth appearance at this Dispatch Box in the last two days, I was feeling marginally jaded before this debate, but I reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Shephard, that I am certainly not grumpy. I have been inspired by the quality of the debate, which started, of course, with the ambitious and wide-ranging vision set down by my noble friend Lord Knight of Weymouth. I thank him for bringing forward this debate with the opportunity for inspiration it has given us.
I also congratulate my noble friend Lady Curran on her excellent maiden speech. I was pleased to hear her talk about her international work on women’s development and participation, on which I was able to work with her in Lebanon. I thought we had become friends, so I was a bit concerned about her comments about Chief Whips, which, of course, I have been in the past, but I feel absolute confident that she will make an enormous contribution in this, her third Chamber. I know that her family will be enormously proud of her for everything she has achieved and, I am sure, will achieve in this Chamber.
As many noble Lords have said, lifelong learning is the continuous, self-motivated pursuit of knowledge, wisdom, insight and skills. It is the joy of asking questions, the thrill of gaining new perspectives, the unquenchable thirst for understanding, and the satisfaction of personal growth. It is not merely the pursuit of knowledge, important though that is.
Noble Lords also emphasised the breadth of the benefits from lifelong learning. I will start with the economic value. Economically, the value of lifelong learning cannot be overstated. Indeed, as a Government whose number one mission is economic growth, we are clear that growth will allow us to fix the foundations and rebuild Britain. It will fund our public services, bring investment to hospitals and schools, provide good jobs for more people, and, most importantly, raise living standards for everyone. But that will require us to invest in the human capital, as several noble Lords have argued, as well as the physical capital. It will also require us to respond to the change we see in our economy. Several noble Lords have commented on how industries are constantly changing and churning. Old jobs are dying and new ones are sprouting. New technologies are springing up, societal norms are progressing and maturing, and the volume of information available to us is proliferating at an unprecedented pace, so we must prepare for the future of our economy, not just for today.
Even today, over a third of job vacancies are due to skills shortages and 5.7% of the workforce has a skills gap. With an ageing population—I noted the willingness of Members of your Lordship’s House to focus on the older end of the age range, but they are absolutely right—in an ever-evolving economy that is undergoing an acceleration of automation and artificial intelligence, as the noble Lord, Lord Elliott, identified, the ability to learn and adapt is not just a valuable skill but a critical necessity for survival and success. To reiterate that point, 7% of UK jobs face a high probability of automation by 2030, rising to a staggering 18% by 2035, so economic change is necessitating an ever-increasing need for lifelong learning—and quite rightly, I have suggested.
The noble Lord, Lord Bichard, the first Permanent Secretary who I worked with as a Minister, and the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, both rightly argued that the direct relationship between economic growth and a well-educated and skilled workforce means that we need to keep persuading our colleagues in the Treasury about the contribution that human capital and skills make to productivity. Noble Lords can be assured that that is a case that we make and will continue to make in the run up to the next spending revue.
We learned as well that longer life expectancy means that many people may need or want to work longer, and those who continue to learn and reskill will stay ahead of the curve, capable of meeting the demands of tomorrow. At this point, I have to give the noble Lord, Lord Bates, every good wish with his PhD and also the husband of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran. It is creditable to see the way in which people are continuing to study as they get older.
To return to economic significance, that is why this Government are devising an innovative and fit-for-the-future industrial strategy. We will ensure that, alongside that strategy aimed at delivering and investing in the high-growth sectors that will enable our economy to grow, we will encourage our workforce to continually learn, develop and adapt. We will not just be investing in individuals and the specific occupations necessary for delivering that industrial strategy but also enabling our economy to grow in that ever-changing landscape to procure a prosperous future for our communities, economy and nation.
Several noble Lords also talked rightly about the social value of lifelong learning because it cultivates a vibrant community. Noble Lords will know—several cited studies that show it—that lifelong learning is associated with higher levels of interpersonal and social trust, social connections and community engagement. It leads to greater social cohesion and integration and an appreciation for different religions and nationalities. It fosters civic spirit, too, particularly regarding local involvement and volunteering and democratic participation, a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett. It has also been shown positively to improve individuals’ political understanding and engagement. There is also clear evidence of the links between improving levels of education and reductions in crime and anti-social behaviour. These benefits make lifelong learning a huge harvester of social value, bridging gaps and transforming the lives of the many who engage with it.
On the individual level, lifelong learning is a key ingredient for self-fulfilment and personal growth, as we have heard from many noble Lords this afternoon. It is the key route to ensuring that talent meets opportunity and that your success is not determined by your background. That is why this Government are determined to break down barriers to opportunity. It is not often that you get a riffing Lord and a reference to Mick Jagger in the same debate, but the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, is the Mick Jagger of our Chamber today. More significantly, he also focused on the need to ensure that lifelong learning benefits those who are most disadvantaged and furthest from learning. He was right to draw our attention to young people who are not in education, employment or training. Of course, this Government’s youth guarantee is an important way of ensuring that opportunities are available to reduce the number of young people who fall into that group.
Our opportunity mission is aimed at breaking the link between a child’s background and their future success so that whoever you are and wherever you are from hard work will mean that you can get on in life. Whether that is by the traditional academic route through a degree or by acquiring new skills or retraining, it opens doors to new opportunities and enables and empowers individuals to unlock their full potential.
Learning also leads to better outcomes, individually and socially. Indeed, according to the OECD, better educated individuals live healthier and longer lives, as identified by the noble Lord, Lord Hampton. Having a degree reduces chances of excessive drinking, smoking and obesity—although perhaps not during your time at university. Graduates have better physical and mental well-being, and lifelong learning fosters an individual sense of identity and resilience, helping to deepen a sense of one’s purpose in life. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich, who has apologised for having a booked train that he has to catch, made that case very strongly.
I also thank my noble friend Lord Blunkett, who has a proud record of focusing on lifelong learning and adult learning. I will come back to that in a moment. Along with the right reverend Prelate and other noble Lords, he focused on the diversity of provision for lifelong learning. It is, importantly, about state-funded provision but it is also about a whole range of other provision. There is the contribution of faith, as the right reverend Prelate outlined, and of our trade unions—the noble Lord, Lord Monks, was right to identify the contribution of the union learning fund. At a time when employer investment in training is falling, it is important for this Government to think about how we can bring together the contribution of unions alongside employers to ensure more investment and more ability for people in the workplace to have the skills development they need. There is also the Workers’ Educational Association. At the end of his teaching career, my father enjoyed his contribution to teaching in the WEA.
All these points make us focus on what the Government can do to ensure that there is commitment to and investment in the development of lifelong learning. We need to ensure that children and young people in our primary and secondary schools can engage in a wide-ranging and multidisciplinary curriculum, which is the objective of the curriculum and assessment review. The noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, identified the importance of careers, and I thank her for her work in and leadership of the Careers & Enterprise Company, which is making an important contribution, helping this Government to deliver on our commitment to two weeks of work experience, and to 1,000 additional careers advisers to develop the National Careers Service to provide people with the information necessary, throughout life, to be able to make those changes and have that opportunity to learn.
We will bring forward a post-16 strategy, which will more broadly describe the post-16 education and skills system that we want to see. We will consider how we deliver the skills that our country needs, now and in the future, and how we build a stronger skills system where everyone is supported to thrive in life and work, with the right support for reskilling to meet the challenging needs of the economy. This will include how we create a culture of lifelong learning by building clear and coherent pathways for learners of all ages, and increasing co-operation among skills partners within a framework of clearly defined roles and responsibilities. We will publish a vision paper for this strategy shortly and engage widely with all partners across the system to make this vision a reality and ensure that we develop a culture of skills and lifelong learning.
I recognise the points noble Lords made about our wide-ranging and remarkably diverse further education sector. As several noble Lords mentioned, we often see our FE colleges as the heart of our communities and as a magnet for businesses, opening up partnerships with employers to develop skills.
Our internationally renowned universities—the UK continues to place prominently in the top 10 and the top 100 academic institutions worldwide—are important. They deserve the commitment this Government have made to a sustainable funding model and reform. Everybody, not only students, benefits from a flourishing higher education sector. But we need to make sure that we broaden access to and participation in HE.
Several noble Lords rightly pushed the Government on the development of the lifelong learning entitlement. Our ever-evolving economy and its dynamic workforce need a higher education system that offers different types of provision to suit different individuals. That is why, as part of the Government’s work, we are introducing the lifelong learning entitlement, which will deliver much-needed transformational change to the current student finance system.
Quite rightly, the noble Baronesses, Lady Barran and Lady Wolf, and the noble Lord, Lord Bichard, wanted me to reiterate our commitment to delivering the LLE, as announced at the Autumn Budget 2024. I can assure noble Lords that we are working to launch the LLE in the 2026-27 academic year. The slight delay will allow us to improve its impact and effectiveness by ensuring that the policy and design fully align with the Government’s vision. It will enable us to refine our delivery and implementation plans, including, as the noble Baroness said, the work of the Student Loans Company in preparing for it.
Importantly, in terms of innovation, I strongly agree with the noble Lord, Lord Storey, and others, that this needs to be an opportunity to ensure that we are not simply paying for a longer period of time in the same provision, but that we are giving education providers the push and the time to prepare innovative ways for people to access higher education. That is the opportunity of the lifelong learning entitlement. It is one that I am determined that we should push higher education providers to fully recognise.
In relation to skills, we must utilise local skills improvement plans, apprenticeships, and the growth and skills levy, as mentioned by my noble friend Lord Young, to equip people with the skills needed to not only survive but thrive. I am looking forward to bringing forward more information about how the growth and skills levy will provide some of the flexibility to enable more employers to use it and more learners to develop the skills they need from it.
The noble Baroness, Lady Barran, made an important point about how we promote skills. I am sure noble Lords are looking forward to next week, which is National Apprenticeship Week, when we will be able to promote particularly the benefits of apprenticeships. As we discussed only yesterday, we are determined that Skills England will help us unify the skills landscape and ensure that the workforce is equipped with the skills required to raise economic growth.
We must foster adult learning through the adult skills fund—notwithstanding some of the difficult decisions that we are having to make about the funding of adult skills. We are absolutely determined that adult skills continue to bear fruit, not only in supporting adult learners to gain the literacy, numeracy, digital and vocational skills that they need for meaningful employment but to drive sustained economic growth and innovation and to deliver the health, well-being and pleasure that many noble Lords have talked about being a result of lifelong learning.
It is the case that we need more devolution so that the nations and regions can make effective decisions about education which best reflect their needs. This will ensure value for money in spending resources and enable localised benefits in the opportunities of adult learning.
I hope I can reassure my noble friend Lord Blunkett on residential colleges. We recognise the important contribution that these colleges make to our system. They will feature as part of our discussions with mayoral authorities.
I finish by thanking noble Lords for the enthusiasm that they have shown for lifelong learning throughout the whole range of areas that we have covered. I assure them of this Government’s absolute commitment to ensuring that lifelong learning remains and develops as an essential part of this country’s educational offer: to offer young people, adults and the older ones among us the opportunity to learn, upskill, retrain and develop throughout the whole of their lives.
Lord Knight of Weymouth (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to all the speakers in this excellent debate, who were expertly responded to by my noble friend the Minister. I am grateful for the kind words that some have said to me about my speech. I love the passion for lifelong learning that we heard all around the Chamber, and the sense of the widespread returns on investment—to use the words of the noble Lord, Lord Bichard.
The noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, focused on the key question of how we get to the hardest to reach. He has modelled taking the plunge and the risk of learning to do something new by getting on with it, and he pulled it off very well. Perhaps the answer to his question lies in taking the learning to where people are. My noble friends Lord Blunkett and Lord Monks reminded us that taking it into the workplace is one of the ways to achieve that. I am interested in what the DWP is trying to do with regard to how it can define job centres as a place where people can access skills and learning too.
I want to finish—and let those who have not already done so catch their trains—with my noble friend Lady Curran. She said that the measure of politics is lives changed. If the Government get this right, they can, in her words, release reservoirs of ability and energy into the economy and society.