(1 month ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Fox of Buckley
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the Freedom in the Arts report The New Boycott Crisis, published in February 2026, and of the impact on artistic freedom of contemporary cultural boycotts.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I am delighted to have the chance to bring to the attention of the Government and the Committee the themes in this recent report, The New Boycott Crisis. If we value art as a crucial mirror on society, the corruption of art reflects social trends right back at us and we should look back closely, so I say many thanks go to those noble Lords who are doing that today.
The report was launched here in Westminster at the end of April, alongside the Art Beyond Boycott Toolkit. It was a packed room with lots of cross-party attendance. The authors are co-founders of Freedom in the Arts, Rosie Kay, an award-winning choreographer, and Denise Fahmy, a senior arts professional, who teamed up with Reading University’s Professor Jo Phoenix. All three have experienced the vicious consequence of cancel culture. They combine their personal insights with oodles of professional knowledge to provide a multilayered investigation into how boycotts operate against different art forms, looking not just at individual artists but at gatekeepers such as venues, agents, managers and producers.
Using survey data and qualitative interviews, the report shows how even the threat of cultural boycotts is leading to anticipatory cancellation, institutional anxiety, silent boycotts and self-censorship. The report is so on the money that it got extensive media coverage even in the same crowded week as the local elections. Significantly, it was picked up by specialist publications such as Arts Professional, Museums Journal, Chortle and Mixmag, no doubt because it cut through due to its insights into the genuinely heartbreaking stories of individual artists brought to financial and reputational personal ruin by boycotts—you cannot get more personal than being cancelled because of your identity. As the report documents, that is the fate of so many Jewish artists today.
Perhaps this is nothing new. As we head into August and Edinburgh Festival season, I recall years of participating in that wonderful, artistically rich atmosphere, when the Academy of Ideas put on arts debates and live reviewing at the Fringe and at the book and international festivals. It was a joy, but it started to turn sour when, 20 years ago, the Scottish Palestine Solidarity Campaign demanded boycotts of any art form involving Israelis. Whether it was an ugly disruption of a performance of the Jerusalem Quartet in 2008, with activists yelling, “Israeli-armed musicians”, or a decade later, getting an Israeli hip-hop opera evicted from its venue. These were shocking but marginal, isolated incidents. What is shocking today is that such occurrences are so regular they are barely noticed. The campaign against antisemitism notes:
“Discrimination against Jewish people has become normalised in the arts: it’s now simply part of doing business as a Jewish creative in modern Britain”.
The report notes something else that has changed. If boycotts were historically public, involving external bodies bullying arts organisations, today they have evolved into an internal, systemic dynamic within arts organisations. Sometimes, it is a leadership team more driven by ideological agendas than artistic excellence, but more often it is insidious, with weak management capitulating to staff complaints demanding that their well-being is protected from allegedly dangerous performers. Last year, comics Philip Simon’s show “Jew-O-Rama” and Rachel Creeger’s “Ultimate Jewish Mother” had their acts pulled at the last minute by a fringe venue. The reason? Staff at the venue complained of “feeling unsafe”. Apparently, a fictional comedic Jewish mother was a threat to employee safety.
The report is full of similar evidence of employees activating internal HR procedures to reframe political demands. There is an additional institutional vehicle used similarly, especially in publicly funded arts organisations, and that is values frameworks and equality, diversity and inclusion policies. I know that the Government can be a little defensive about the virtues of EDI, but I hope the Minister will examine the documentation of how EDI is being weaponised to demand the boycotting of certain artists. I note that in February, DCMS Minister Ian Murray MP, while stating the Government’s commitment to free speech, caveated it. He quoted the Secretary of State’s ambition not to stoke the culture wars, and stressed the need to protect people from hate speech. But does the Minister acknowledge that, in many institutions, the culture wars are stoked by EDI enthusiasts and that hate speech is often a euphemism for speech someone disagrees with? Arts organisations often state that their value statements are anti-hate to justify cancelling Zionist and gender-critical artists, for example.
In her moving and passionate speech at the report’s launch, acclaimed singer-songwriter Róisín Murphy, herself a victim of a high-profile vicious boycott after speaking her mind on puberty blockers, made an important, relevant point. She said:
“Public funding, meant to support excellence regardless of politics, has become an ideological points system …This isn’t patronage. It’s patronage with strings attached so tight they strangle the critical thinking it takes to invent anything”.
What can politicians and government do to help the arts escape this censorious stranglehold? While the Arts Council declined an invitation to attend the parliamentary launch of the report, it was notable that a couple of days later, after two Jewish men were murdered in Golders Green, the Prime Minister, Keir Starmer, used the opportunity to put pressure on the Arts Council. He said:
“Where public funding is being used to promote or platform antisemitism, the Arts Council must act, using its powers to suspend, withdraw and claw back funding”.
That is a positive sentiment, but I worry about cancelling the cancellers as a tactic. It perhaps also misses more subtle, silent boycotts, rather than the overt anti-Jewish abuse. Also, it does not note that a wider range of artists with dissenting views are now targeted.
For example, Scottish performance poet Jenny Lindsay, author of the aptly titled book Hounded, explains that after a tweet criticising a trans activist threatening violence against lesbians, she had seven months of private, quiet, bewildering cancellation, losing work without knowing why, unanswered emails, complaints to her publishers, messages saying we are frightened to book you. She notes, “It was clear people had got a memo: Jenny Lindsay’s a TERF”. But with no paper trails, no proof, just commissions swerved in case they cause grief, it can be especially isolating. The real loss is, “artwork that was never made and never seen”.
I therefore hope that the Minister will meet the authors of this report to discuss how the Government can help the sector adopt the report’s proposals to improve institutional capacity to resist this politicisation of programming and employment decisions that is discriminatory in terms of who gets to create, perform, exhibit and publish. Artistic judgments must be centre stage. Leadership from Ministers could include public support for boycotted artists, encouraging publicly funded arts organisations—indeed, the Arts Council—to adopt the Freedom in the Arts free speech charter.
To conclude, artistic creation needs freedom to challenge, explore, surprise and push boundaries. Otherwise, art created and programmed will be risk-averse, narrower, safer, samey, carefully calculated and curated not to offend. What a dreary tragedy. To quote Róisín Murphy again:
“Without that freedom, we don’t get better art, we simply put artists into a chokehold and suffocate the life out of our culture”.
The arts must breathe freely again. How can the Minister help them breathe freely again?.
Baroness Dacres of Lewisham (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, for bringing forward this important debate. The Freedom in the Arts report raises important questions about artistic freedom and the role of our cultural institutions in an increasingly polarised society. While Members may reach different conclusions about some of the findings, I believe it presents us with an opportunity to reflect on the kind of cultural institutions we want for our country.
Art has always challenged society. It can inspire, provoke, comfort and sometimes unsettle us. Shakespeare explored powers, prejudice, justice and the human condition. I am sure each of us can think of a contemporary work of art that has challenged our assumptions or encouraged us to see the world through different eyes. Great art does more than entertain, it invites us to question, reflect and better understand one another. That is why the arts matter not only to our economy but to our national identity and to the strength of our democracy itself?
Drawing on my experience of leading one of London’s most diverse boroughs, I think that one of the greatest lessons that I have learned is that good leadership is not about eliminating difference; it is about creating the conditions for respectful dialogue, where people of different backgrounds, faiths, cultures and perspectives can come together, encounter new ideas and learn from one another. That is why our theatres, galleries, museums and festivals are so important. They are among the few places where people who may never agree on every issue can still sit in the same audience, visit the same exhibition or share the same cultural experience. In doing so, they encounter different perspectives and often leave with a deeper understanding of one another. Equally, the right to peaceful protest and criticism is fundamental to a healthy democracy. The challenge before us is not choosing one freedom over another, but ensuring that artistic freedom and the right to peaceful protest can both flourish and coexist.
The report raises important questions about the pressures that some cultural organisations face when making difficult decisions. Whether those pressures are widespread or more limited, it is right that we consider how institutions can be supported to respond with confidence, fairness and integrity. The true test of a cultural institution is not whether it avoids controversy but whether it has the confidence to navigate controversy fairly, openly and with integrity. I therefore ask my noble friend the Minister: what assessment have the Government made of whether publicly funded cultural institutions have the confidence and support that they need to uphold artistic freedom while fostering respectful dialogue and community cohesion? Are there examples of good practice that the Government believe should be shared more widely across the cultural sector?
Artistic freedom and the right to peaceful protest are not competing principles. We must ensure that our cultural institutions have the strength of leadership and the confidence to strike the right balance between protecting artistic freedom, respecting the right to peaceful protest and fostering dialogue and community cohesion.
Baroness Jenkin of Kennington (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, for securing this debate. The New Boycott Crisis raises issues that go well beyond disagreements over politics or foreign affairs. It asks whether we are still willing to defend one of the defining characteristics of a free society—the freedom to create, perform, exhibit and debate without fear of ideological intimidation. Art has always challenged orthodoxies. It provokes, unsettles and encourages us to see the world differently. That is precisely why artistic freedom matters. If artists, writers, musicians and performers feel compelled to self-censor because of organised campaigns, threats or pressure to conform to a political orthodoxy, our cultural life is diminished.
The report documents a growing trend of cancellations, boycotts and institutional pressure directed not at the quality of artistic work but at the ethnicity, religion, perceived political views or associations of those producing it. Hearing the stories from the founders of Freedom in the Arts, Denise Fahmy, Rosie Kay and others, at the launch in April, was powerful and shocking, especially to those who were not really aware of how quickly cancellation happens and how brutal it is.
Throughout history, boycotts based on identity have rarely advanced understanding. During the Cold War, we rightly welcomed Soviet dissidents, musicians and writers, rather than excluding them; we recognised that culture builds bridges where politics erects barriers. Universities, museums, theatres and galleries should be places where difficult ideas are encountered, not places where only approved opinions are permitted.
Increasingly, however, cultural institutions find themselves under pressure from highly organised activist campaigns that seek not to debate but to silence. Decisions are sometimes made because managers fear reputational damage or disruption rather than because they reflect the institution’s commitment to artistic excellence. This has consequences beyond the arts. Once organisations begin deciding who may speak or perform according to political tests, we erode the principle of viewpoint diversity that underpins liberal democracy itself.
The report’s emphasis on stronger institutional leadership is to be welcomed. Trustees and governing bodies should have the confidence to uphold freedom of expression even when doing so attracts criticism. Publicly funded cultural organisations have a particular responsibility to serve the whole public, not simply the loudest campaigners. The Government also have a role. The protections for freedom of expression in our law are important, but they must be accompanied by clear expectations that publicly funded institutions will defend artistic freedom consistently and transparently. Funding agreements should reinforce rather than undermine this principle.
This debate is not about shielding anyone from criticism. Artists should expect robust debate and peaceful protest. However, criticism is very different from organised efforts to prevent performances, exhibitions or collaborations from taking place at all. The answer to speech that we dislike is more speech, not enforced silence. Our cultural institutions have long been admired because they have welcomed excellence from every nation, every background and every viewpoint. We should not allow them to become places where ideological conformity replaces intellectual curiosity.
Freedom in the arts is not a luxury; it is one of the foundations of a confident, democratic and open society. If we fail to defend it now, we will be all the poorer not only culturally but civically. I commend the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, for raising the report and I commend the founders and supporters of Freedom in the Arts. I hope that the Government will give serious consideration to its recommendations, reaffirming that, in Britain, artistic freedom remains a principle worth defending.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, this subject is one of those where you suddenly think, “Yes, there shouldn’t be any form of cancellation”—here, primarily on grounds of antisemitism. I have always felt it to be rather absurd that the Abrahamic religions attack each other over which day they pray on, given that half the time they are all referring to similar texts, but let us go into this issue in further detail.
I turn to the recommendations in the report. It admits that it is not the most scientific of structures but, still, questions around taking on the law and training for organisations have been asked. It says that on page 6. What are the Government going to do to make sure that there are training schemes? I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, is not a fan of them; we have clashed on this in the past. We need to go through this and have a look at what we are doing to make sure that there is knowledge of the legal duties going forward, because that seems to be the issue here. The question of whether you are breaking the law if you do not allow somebody to do something that is legal and is not threatening somebody else seems to be the real question here.
Let us remember that, although one organisation may be under pressure now, another one will be tomorrow. Other groups have been cancelled and other people have been pressured. Things have changed. Look at our own society: we have Protestants and Catholics—I speak as somebody whose background is half from the west coast of Scotland. These are real issues. What are the Government doing about making sure that the people in charge know what their duty is? That is very important here. If we cannot stop unpleasant attitudes going out in society, at least we can let people know what the legal frameworks and duties are. Surely that is the least the Government should be doing at this point.
Lord Polak (Con)
My Lords, I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, for introducing the debate, which is of course timely. I thank Freedom of the Arts for this report, but I thank in particular the artists, the performers and the writers who found the courage to describe what has been happening to them. Speaking out is never easy when doing so may cost you your next role.
This report does not allege formal censorship. It describes something quieter and in some ways more sinister and more troubling. It calls it “the silent boycott”. Opportunities simply disappear. Invitations are quietly withdrawn. Projects never quite materialise. Emails are left unanswered. Careers stall not for a want of talent but because of an artist’s Jewish identity or assumptions made about it.
This has become something that institutions would rather manage than defend. The report is candid about the cause. Institutions are increasingly driven by fear: fear of a social media pile-on, fear of activist pressure, fear of internal disputes or fear of a controversy that has not even happened yet. Decisions are being taken pre-emptively before a single complaint is even made. This is not caution. Once an institution starts programming to avoid a row rather than to reward excellence, artistic freedom does not stay intact for long.
Let me be clear about what this debate is not. It is not about shielding anyone from criticism or closing down legitimate political debate, including robust arguments on the Middle East. Freedom of expression must include the freedom to criticise the Government of Israel, but criticism of a Government can never justify the exclusion of an individual because he or she is Jewish. That distinction is fundamental and this report finds, again and again, that it is being lost. Jewish identity itself is increasingly treated as politically contentious, regardless of what the work in question actually says, and none of this happens in isolation. The Community Security Trust recorded 3,700 antisemitic incidents just last year, one of the highest totals it has ever logged. The arts do not sit apart from that reality. They are part of it and, because they help shape how the country talks to itself, they carry a greater responsibility to get this right, not a lesser one.
Cultural boycotts have a long and unhappy history and they rarely open a conversation. More often, they close one down, narrowing perspectives and impoverishing the very culture they claim to defend. What has always made British culture strong is confidence: the confidence that ideas can be debated, that disagreement can be aired and that audiences can be trusted to make up their own minds. That confidence should not now be allowed to give way to fear.
I ask the Minister three things. Will the Government make clear to the Arts Council of England that informal exclusion of Jewish artists is antisemitism, not just discrimination? What support will the Government give publicly funded institutions to withstand pressure campaigns? Will the Government tie funding to proof that programming decisions are made on merit, not on fear? Our arts should be open to all. They should reward talent and defend freedom, and they should never become places where an artist has to conceal who he or she is to work.
I conclude with a tribute and a plea—a tribute to a British icon, my friend Maureen Lipman. A couple of weeks ago, I saw her perform brilliantly as “Allegra” in Windsor; it is opening tonight at the Harold Pinter Theatre, but activists have stood outside the theatre that she is playing with leaflets stating “Maureen Lipman supports genocide”. My plea to the Minister is this: is she aware of this, and is it right that Maureen, a proud Jew, has been forced to hire security guards because she is being targeted by anti-Israel activists?
Baroness Meyer (Con)
My Lords, I too thank the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, for introducing this important debate. Freedom of expression has always been the lifeblood of great art. Art flourishes through freedom, not conformity. History reminds us what happens when freedom is lost.
In the Soviet Union, writers and artists who challenged the official ideology were censored, blacklisted, imprisoned or sent to the Gulag. My own family experienced that world. My aunt was a dissident writer and a close friend of both Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn and Anna Akhmatova. She chose satire as her way to defy the regime, rather than open political confrontation. Even so, she spent days under interrogation in the Lubyanka. She watched friends and fellow writers disappear into the Gulag, including her friend Solzhenitsyn. Like Akhmatova, she knew that in such a climate silence could become a means of survival.
Britain is not the Soviet Union, and I am not suggesting otherwise, but history teaches us that freedom is rarely lost overnight. It is eroded gradually as people begin to censor themselves, because they fear the consequences of speaking openly. The New Boycott Crisis suggests that this climate of fear is now affecting our cultural sector. As James Marriott wrote in the Times, something has gone badly wrong. A world once built on talent, merit and creative risk has, he argues, been replaced by a culture of fear, informal sanctions and institutional cowardice.
The report identifies two groups as particularly affected: Jewish artists and those with gender-critical beliefs. Since 7 October, some Jewish artists, as we have heard, have found themselves judged not by the quality of their work but by their identity. Likewise, gender-critical artists, such as Rosie Kay and Róisín Murphy, have described the professional backlash they faced for expressing lawful views. The problem arises when cultural institutions become so fearful of organised campaigns that they no longer defend artistic freedom. Instead, they quietly exclude those views considered controversial, not because they are unlawful but because they are not fashionable. The greatest casualty is self-censorship. We never see the play that was never written, the exhibition that was never staged or the young artist who decided it was simply safer to remain silent.
Does the Minister accept that artistic freedom includes the right to hold lawful gender-critical beliefs, even when those beliefs are not popular and considered controversial today? If public bodies are under a statutory duty to uphold freedom of speech, how will the Government ensure that this duty is honoured in practice rather than being quietly abandoned in the face of organised campaigns?
Lord Frost (Non-Afl)
My Lord, in his great essay The Prevention of Literature, George Orwell wrote:
“imagination, like certain wild animals, will not breed in captivity”.
I think this is a little commented-on reason why the current repression of free speech and freedom in the arts is such a problem. It affects not only those whose opinions are repressed but everybody. That repression is obviously outrageous in its own terms, with the shocking levels of antisemitism that have been documented and the bias against gender-critical views and even simple views on the right of politics. I congratulate Rosie Kay and Denise Fahmy for drawing attention to it in this excellent report, and I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, for getting today’s debate.
As we know and as the report documents, the repression of free speech and the spread of antisemitism have had seriously bad effects on those directly affected. We know that. It constrains what they can produce, and it may force them entirely out of the sector. There are some telling quotes to this effect in the report, such as one artist saying:
“I realised how much of myself I had edited out just to survive”,
or:
“You make terrible art when you are cowering”.
This is clear—it is sort of obvious—but my point is that the effect is on not only those affected in this way, but on everybody else. It is on those who somehow get through it.
A politicised art sector produces a lot of bad art, and we have had quite a lot of it recently. On the London stage, from 20 years ago with “My name is Rachel Corrie”, through Ivo van Hove’s adaptation of “Who Killed My Father”, there has been a stream of plays about migration and refugees from one perspective and so on and so forth. Even when art is not politicised, this sort of sector produces an art that prioritises box-ticking and conformism. It produces art that is dull, worthless and often even contemptuous of its audience. It is a very good sign that Wigmore Hall and its director, John Gilhooly, have opted out of the Arts Council system. I cannot help noting that even the noble Baroness, Lady Hodge, in her recent report on the Arts Council, said:
“People felt that ACE was pursuing access to culture in an instrumentalist way and had lowered the priority given to the pursuit of artistic excellence. Art and excellence were sidelined”.
This is the problem. I contend that any artist who is happy to submit to the ruling orthodoxy and prevailing opinions, who finds excuses for squeezing out people who do not agree with him or her or who regards policing ideology as more important than their own creative work will in the end destroy themselves as artists. We can see that at work. As we look around Britain’s artistic scene today and compare it to, say, the efflorescence in the arts of post-war Britain in both visual and written form, we can be confident that, with a few exceptions, the past couple of decades will not be seen as a golden age in British arts. I contend that public conformism, internal bigotry and the driving out of contrary opinions are a big part of the reason why.
I finish by quoting Orwell, this time in Writers and Leviathan. He said:
“To yield subjectively … even to a group ideology, is to destroy yourself as a writer”.
That is true for any artist. It needs to be stopped, and I would like to know what the Government are going to do about it.
Baroness Spielman (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, for securing this debate. I must start by declaring my interest as a trustee of the Victoria and Albert Museum.
The Freedom in the Arts report gives us valuable insight into the worrying state of the arts and cultural sector. As it states, there is
“an interconnected web of … practices … that collectively polices the boundaries of acceptable thought, association, expression and programming within the arts”.
Unsurprisingly, mechanisms that allocate artistic funding funnel most support to currently prominent causes—climate activism, support for Palestine and opposition to Israel, transgender activism and anti-racism—and generally raise the status of people and organisations associated with those causes. But there are damaging consequences to this narrowing, which everyone should be concerned about, whatever their level of interest in and support for those causes.
Like my noble friend Lady Meyer, I take a historical perspective. In western Europe, it was really only in the 15th century that it became socially acceptable and normal to portray non-religious subjects in art. Over several centuries, the Catholic Church none the less monitored art ferociously to enforce approved narratives and discourage the spread of Protestant ideas, using the social penalties it could impose to make artists’ lives difficult—read the story of Veronese’s “Last Supper”. We do not want to return to inquisitions, whether by Governments, religious authorities or self-appointed commissars, and we should not want to return to an age where artistic expression is permitted only in the service of a narrow range of permitted interests and beliefs. But we have somehow moved a long way in that direction.
Artistic freedom eventually prevailed, and that freedom has brought many waves of creative exploration. Of course, that has sometimes been uncomfortable for some, but without exploration there can be no innovation. It is striking to look at how much artistic preoccupations have changed over time: the 1850s saw realism, truth to nature and a rejection of myths and legends; the 1950s saw adaptation to the new post-war world. We have no idea today what the artistic preoccupations of the 2050s may prove to be, but we can be absolutely certain that it is simply intellectual hubris to think that we have achieved a perpetual pinnacle of moral superiority to which all current practitioners in the arts and their successors should be bound.
Then there are the human impacts. I will touch on just four, which are well covered in the report. First, works that do not fit the current template are not being put on, or, too often, they are being shut down. Secondly, people are being shut down for their beliefs, even where they have no particular connection with their work. Many of the gender-critical artists are suffering from that. Thirdly, people are suffering simply because of who they happen to be. Examples have been given of Israeli and Jewish artists and groups that are unable to perform. That is simply intolerable. The fourth group I draw attention to are the young of this country. The status quo is affecting so strongly how they are shaped, both in education and in the community. They quickly learn what the high-status beliefs and opinions are and what not to say or acknowledge. If they are not allowed to see anything that contradicts those beliefs and opinions or explores a fresh direction, their lives are stunted and distorted.
Too many people have ducked the difficult issues here. It is time for a great deal more openness and discussion about rebuilding true artistic freedom. This report gives a very good platform for that.
Lord Doyle (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, for securing this debate and Freedom in the Arts for its report, which certainly is rich and detailed. I am sorry that time means that I cannot do justice to all the noble Lords who have spoken before me, but I certainly associate myself with all those who have spoken out about our need to have constant vigilance and zero tolerance of antisemitism.
However, I want to focus on one particular aspect of cancel culture that is identified in the report, and that is the targeting of sponsors of those who fund the arts and who are essential for us to have what should be our starting point—that a healthy arts sector is fundamental to a healthy democracy. Protests, dissent, satire have long been the sources of the best art, and the priorities should always be to enable the most artistic expression possible without fear or favour. That is not to say that art exists in a space free from values. There will always be boundaries. But we should want to make the artistic square as large and inclusive as possible, and that means we need diverse funding, including sponsorship.
When it comes to the choices made, as other noble Lords have said, there should be a clear distinction between things that are illegal and things that simply some people do not like. I look at the recent example of the Sporting Events Bill in your Lordships’ House. There were assorted amendments proposed that would have banned sponsorship from fossil fuel companies and unhealthy food companies. We see within these boycott campaigns that it is not just the companies themselves that are being targeted but even financial institutions that might have minor investments in some of these companies, which are, of course, entirely legal in the activities that they are carrying out. We can take the example of the defence sector, which regularly comes up as being targeted. I regard BAE Systems as a successful British company that employs people in this country in high-skilled, well-paid jobs. If it wants to give something back by supporting artistic or cultural endeavours, then why on earth should it not be able to do so?
I also want to question the role that we have seen some artists take. We need to call out those high-profile artists who have put their names to campaigns to deny funding to the very institutions that those artists benefited from when they were starting out in their careers, when they were in the small theatres and so on that gave them their rise to be the high-profile campaigners that they are now.
We need a mixed economy of cultural funding that encompasses philanthropy and corporate sponsorship. That means we need a climate in which responsible sponsors feel able to support culture without expecting to become the next target of a campaign. Otherwise, we create a structural disincentive to private investment precisely at the time when the sector needs it most. There is a role for government here and for all of us. Institutions need to know that they have the support of politicians in order to resist the pressure of a small minority. We also need leadership in the arts sector. Policy cannot be made by social media, by tactics rather than strategy. There needs to be solidarity within the arts sector because while the beam of the lighthouse might not be at you at this moment, you can guarantee that it will come round to you next.
We are all in this together and, together, common sense can prevail so that we can have the arts and culture we need as a country.
Lord Young of Acton (Con)
My Lords, I, too, pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, for bringing forward this debate and to Freedom in the Arts for having produced this excellent and timely report. I declare my interest as the director of the Free Speech Union and will try and put a human face on what we are talking about. There are plenty of examples in The New Boycott Crisis. I thought I might give some examples from our own case files.
We have fought on behalf of 150 artists, writers and performers in the last six years of our existence, all of whom have been targeted for cancellation or, indeed, cancelled because they expressed views that other people disapprove of. Where possible, we have tried to help them. It is worth noting that more than one-third of the more than 150 people we have come to the aid of have been targeted for cancellation because they have expressed their gender-critical views. That is, I think, the coalface in the arts; it is what people find themselves cancelled or targeted for cancellation for more often than expressing any other point of view. Rosie Kay is a case in point, someone who I am proud to say the Free Speech Union was able to help when she was targeted for cancellation in 2021. It is fantastic to see her recover so magnificently.
I shall give the Committee some other examples. There was a case last year involving Martin Speake. He was referred to the Free Speech Union by Freedom in the Arts, with whom we have a close working relationship. Martin Speake was an internationally regarded saxophonist who was for more than two decades a jazz tutor at Trinity Laban Conservatoire in Greenwich. In February 2024, he replied to the conservatoire’s request for feedback on its diversity plan, and argued, I think reasonably, that Black musicians were not underrepresented in British jazz and that Black Lives Matter was a dangerous organisation. He quoted Martin Luther King that people, including musicians, should be judged on the content of their character, not the colour of their skin. For this, students boycotted his classes, a petition was got up demanding his removal, the London Jazz Orchestra asked him to step down, his album was put on hold, and his UK concerts were cancelled. The stress eventually forced him to resign in November 2024 from a job he had held for two decades. Happily, the Free Speech Union was able to fund an employment tribunal claim for constructive dismissal, and Trinity Laban settled in February 2026 in a way that was very satisfactory.
Another example is Gillian Philip in 2020. She is a children’s novelist who was part of the team producing the best-selling Warrior Cats series under the pen name Erin Hunter. She was dropped by her fiction packager in 2020 after adding a message of support for JK Rowling to her Twitter profile. Not only did she lose her job, but she was unable to get another job as a writer and had to retrain as a heavy goods vehicle driver.
I could come up with more and more examples, but I will close with just one recent case to come in at the Free Speech Union involving an Irish playwright based in New York called Phelim McAleer. He tried to organise a staged reading of a play about the events of 7 October 2023 in southern Israel. He tried to organise this staged reading at the Lyric Theatre, Belfast, which is subsidised by the Arts Council of Northern Ireland. It is a verbatim play based on interviews with more than 100 survivors of the Hamas attack on 7 October. It had a six-week off-Broadway run and was acclaimed by the New York Post as spellbinding, but the Lyric could not find a single evening on which to stage a reading of this play, in spite of the fact that he was going to pay for it privately and even though the theatre had found numerous opportunities to platform Palestinian perspectives, including a poet who described Israel as a settler-colonialist project, a genocidal state and a pariah state. No one is suggesting that that Palestinian poet should have been no-platformed, but all voices in these debates should be heard, and the arts need to play a proper role in facilitating these discussions.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, on securing this debate and thank her and Freedom in the Arts for the work that they have done in highlighting these problems. Above all, as others have done, I thank those individual artists who have come forward to share their experiences. The experience of being marginalised, sidelined and silenced can be lonely and frightening, and I hope they feel a bit less lonely and frightened after today’s debate.
This has been a good debate—rational, articulate and well-informed. We do not all agree on everything, but we have all agreed very strongly about the importance of hearing diverse perspectives and differing opinions. We do so enjoying parliamentary privilege, which allows us to speak freely here. Lots of our arts and cultural organisations do not have the protections of Parliament or the legislative protections that higher education institutions have to preserve free speech, so it is right that we are vigilant in how they are applying their duties.
The noble Lord, Lord Addington, was right about making sure that people are well informed on their legal responsibilities and their founding charters, as well as ensuring that trustees and others take those duties very seriously. Arts organisations have a duty to challenge, provoke and inform us, not to hector, censor or boycott.
The noble Baroness, Lady Dacres of Lewisham, was right to say that, at their best, the arts enable us to see things through others’ eyes. That is why we enjoy them so much and what enriches us when we encounter them. This is particularly important when approaching contested or highly charged issues. For instance, going to a museum or a gallery would give us a different perspective, separated from time and geography, on the question of how other societies have viewed gender roles, and would remind us that conflict in the Holy Land is not a feature of this century alone.
My noble friend Lady Spielman is right to worry about whether the generation coming through the education system and coming to work in the arts will take an illiberal and censorious approach. We are, I think, past what felt like the high watermark of sensitivity readers and authors and others being objected to in writing about things of which they did not have lived experience, but we must remain vigilant on all of this because, if the closing of those minds and those discussions is a loss for us all, it is a particular loss for the generation that is coming through, which needs to be well equipped with critical and inquisitive minds in an age of mis- and disinformation online. They need to see things that challenge them and make them feel uncomfortable.
The noble Lord, Lord Doyle, was right to highlight the pressure on sponsors. I have mentioned previously in Grand Committee that, regrettably, we have seen parliamentarians in both Houses among those boycotting things such as the Hay Festival. We all regret the disappearance of sponsors such as Baillie Gifford. It means fewer, smaller, narrower literary festivals and fewer thoughts for us all.
Noble Lords were right to highlight the silent and sometimes insidious nature of these boycotts, which threaten the enlightenment values that underpin us. My noble friends Lady Meyer and Lady Spielman were right to highlight the importance of dissident and unorthodox voices, which add to our understanding.
Above all, people are right to point to the growing evidence of antisemitism that we see in the arts, as through our whole society. My noble friend Lord Polak was right to say that it is completely wrong to treat all Jewish people as the same or to make them all accountable for the actions of any particular Government of Israel. The powerful Nova Exhibition in Shoreditch, like the extremely powerful museum at Yad Vashem and the Holocaust galleries at the Imperial War Museum, is a way in which the arts can help us understand the terrible atrocities to which this attitude can lead.
As my noble friend Lady Jenkin of Kennington said, freedom in the arts is not a luxury; it is essential to our free society. I am glad that we have been able to highlight these problems today.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Twycross) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, for initiating this important debate and all noble Lords for their valuable contributions. As the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, made clear, even where individuals do not agree with each other, it is important that we have this discussion. The debate has reflected many of the issues raised by The New Boycott Crisis, which was published by Freedom in the Arts earlier this year. During the debate, I particularly welcomed the historical perspectives from the noble Baronesses, Lady Spielman and Lady Meyer.
I start by addressing the critical points made by a number of noble Lords—including the noble Lords, Lord Addington, Lord Polak, Lord Frost, Lord Doyle and Lord Parkinson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Spielman—on the scourge of antisemitism in the arts, as highlighted in the report in stark detail, which reflects the wider and, regrettably, growing antisemitism more broadly in society. I want to make it explicitly clear that this Government find antisemitism, wherever it may raise its ugly head, both abhorrent and completely unacceptable. We will do whatever it takes to work with the Jewish community to tackle it in wider society. Antisemitism has no place in our society and, as the Prime Minister made clear in May at a summit he held on the issue, it is our shared responsibility to tackle rising antisemitism.
Since that summit, we have been working with the Arts Council on plans for an independent audit into how concerns are handled and where its systems need to be strengthened. This will focus on allegations of antisemitism, but we anticipate that its findings will strengthen the Arts Council’s handling of all concerns, and more information on this will be shared in due course. The noble Lord, Lord Polak, cited examples of informal exclusion of Jewish arts and artists. We will make clear to ACE that the work it is doing now to tackle this issue in its audit and in its engagement with the sector should and must cover antisemitism as defined in law and the informal exclusion the noble Lord rightly highlighted.
This work by the Government is in tandem with sector-specific round tables that we are launching in partnership with the Board of Deputies. Over the next few months, these sessions will bring together Jewish representatives, DCMS officials and arm’s-length bodies, including Arts Council England, to share best practices and secure meaningful, practical commitments for the next six months. Nobody should feel unsafe, whether performing on the stage or going about their daily life. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Polak, that it is entirely unacceptable and a damning indictment of where we are as a country that an actress such as Maureen Lipman, undoubtedly one of our national treasures, has to have private security. It is completely unacceptable. The noble Lord also raised wider issues around the security of our Jewish community and pointed out that the arts do not sit separate to the rest of society. As noble Lords may be aware, the Home Office has committed record funding of £32.4 million this year to protect the Jewish communities through the Jewish community protective security grant managed by the Community Security Trust.
The noble Lord, Lord Frost, raised points about potential politicisation and referenced my noble friend Lady Hodge’s review of Arts Council England. This Government remain committed to the arm’s-length principle that artistic expression, including decisions around funding and programming, should be free from political interference, but this is not the same as being free from protection. I am sure noble Lords welcomed, as I did, the Government’s response to my noble friend Lady Hodge’s independent review. The response reaffirmed the arm’s-length principle and the importance of public investment in culture supporting a wide range of voices. Arts Council England supports a broad range of artistic practice and viewpoints, including actively investing in organisations that defend creative freedom. Index on Censorship is one such organisation whose work highlights and challenges censorship and the oppression of artists and creatives.
A number of noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Meyer, and the noble Lords, Lord Frost and Lord Young of Acton, raised points around artists with gender-critical views. The Government are clear that while it is right that protections from discrimination exist for LGBT+ people, such as those held in the Equality Act, this does not prohibit and should not exclude people expressing their views, opinions or beliefs, including gender-critical views. Each individual’s right to freedom of expression must be balanced against the rights of other people or those of the wider community to achieve a fair outcome for everyone, including those who are trans or who hold gender-critical views.
As the noble Lord, Lord Doyle, made clear, there is a difference between what we do not like and what is illegal. My noble friend Lady Dacres highlighted the importance of challenge within arts, as did other noble Lords. Freedom of expression carries with it certain responsibilities. Cultural organisations must always comply with the law, including legislation relating to equality, discrimination and public order. When speaking up becomes hate speech, a clear and unacceptable line is crossed. However, within these legal boundaries, organisations and artists should feel confident in presenting their work.
Noble Lords, including the noble Lords, Lord Parkinson and Lord Doyle, spoke about protests and boycotts. While the Government are wholly supportive of freedom of expression, we are equally supportive of peaceful protest. However, there is growing concern across the cultural sector about the impact of organised activist campaigns. They can include calls for exhibitions to be cancelled, performances to be withdrawn, artists to be disinvited or sponsorships terminated.
I note the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Jenkin, about self-censorship also being an issue. The noble Baroness, Lady Meyer, and the noble Lord, Lord Frost, made similar points.
The noble Baroness, Lady Fox, and the noble Lords, Lord Polak and Lord Young, spoke about silent cancellations and boycotts. These boycotts, as well as the silent cancellations noted in the report, are, in the Government’s view, damaging to art and artists. We have been unequivocal in pushing back against these boycotts. Last year, the Secretary of State said:
“Boycotting sponsors, and killing these events off, is the equivalent of gagging society … we will stand against it with everything that we’ve got”.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Jenkin, said, the answer to speech that we do not like is more speech, not silence.
This Government are clear that boycotting festivals, performances and organisations harms the art, not the sponsor. As the noble Lord, Lord Doyle, made clear, we have a great tradition of philanthropy in this country, and the Government want to strengthen it. That is why we published a strategy on philanthropy earlier this year. As the noble Lord said, we need a mixed economy that includes private sector funding.
The noble Lord, Lord Addington, asked about guidance on the legal position and my noble friend Lady Dacres of Lewisham asked about some examples of guidance and best practice. We recognise the increasing and enduring pressure that arts and cultural leaders face on this issue. In response, Arts Council England has supported the recent publication of new guidance on the matter, which I will circulate to noble Lords who have taken part in today’s debate. There are positive signs that the sector is grasping the nettle and rising to the challenge. Arts organisations in Manchester are tackling this head on, with Factory International spearheading the brave spaces principles. Work such as this acts as a north star in guiding organisations through the complexity of programming and sponsorship decision-making in the face of activism.
I will conclude shortly but I want to respond to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, on whether I would be willing to meet Freedom in the Arts. I would be very happy to meet the organisation, but that may need to be after the conclusion of a number of legal matters which it is currently supporting. My private office will arrange a meeting in due course.
As I have outlined, the Government recognise many of the challenges identified in the report The New Boycott Crisis. By encouraging a plurality of voices, this Government are helping to ensure that this country remains one of the world’s leading centres of artistic and cultural excellence. As my noble friend Lady Dacres said, at its best, art allows us to see people through others’ eyes. I am clear, and this Government are clear, that lawful artistic expression deserves protection, that cultural organisations should be free to make their own decisions and that our cultural life is strengthened, not weakened, by the free exchange of differing opinions and ideas.