Creative Industries: Creating Jobs and Productivity Growth

Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury Excerpts

Thursday 6th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[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?