(3 days, 2 hours ago)
Lords ChamberThe noble Baroness is correct that it is a positive sign that it was mentioned in the announcement following the UK-EU summit on 19 May. Both the UK and the European Commission are committed to supporting travel and cultural exchange, including the activities of touring artists. We are continuing to engage constructively with the European Commission to address the challenges that touring artists and their support staff face, while respecting regulatory frameworks on both sides. My colleague, Sir Chris Bryant, has held a number of bilateral meetings with other countries and the Commission to try to move this forward.
Given that music has disappeared from many state schools, what are the Government doing to bring music back, particularly to primary and secondary school children?
This Government are absolutely committed to ensuring that every child has access to quality creative education, including music. As noble Lords will be aware, we launched an independent curriculum and assessment review, which seeks to deliver a broader curriculum so that young people do not miss out on music and the arts. The Government are also working with Young Sounds UK on a four-year music opportunities pilot to break down barriers to music education for disadvantaged and SEND students.
(2 weeks ago)
Grand CommitteeMy Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, for initiating this debate in such a powerful way; he is a trained craftsman himself and a staunch supporter of craft. I also thank Daniel Carpenter from the Heritage Crafts Association, of which I have the honour to be a vice-president. How sobering it was to receive the latest list of endangered crafts recently.
I also pay tribute to Patricia Lovett, a wonderful calligrapher who has been the driving force behind the All-Party Group on Craft, of which I was a founder member. She has been instrumental in introducing us to a bewitching range of specialists in gold, glass, leather, printing, sewing, neon lighting, clock-making, instrument-making and too many other skills to mention. The meetings always leave us inspired and enriched, which is sadly not something we can say of all meetings in Parliament. As a winder, I regret that four minutes does not permit me to mention all the great contributions to this debate, but I thank all noble Lords.
This country is rich with heritage crafts but, sadly, a number are lost each year as the number of young people coming forward to spend time and trouble on apprenticeships to learn them is not sufficient to ensure their lasting appeal. Often, the practitioners are sole traders or very small businesses, who need financial support if they are to take time from practising their craft and earning a living to teaching it. Why can there not be a dedicated point of reference to help craftspeople through the myriad complications of trading, particularly —as the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, said—with the EU? It used to be a rich source of customers and colleagues.
We are aware that further education colleges do a great job in supplying teachers and opportunities, but, of course, they are beset by funding limitations. These skills require patience and attention to detail, which was part and parcel of my generation but is often a far cry from modern-day instant results. Setting up each letter in a printing press, having to mind the Ps and Qs, and, indeed, the need to type accurately with a typewriter are processes outwitted by the speed of computing. However, the satisfaction of a job well done is not matched by the speed of automation.
Craft skills and creativity are key to the country’s economy, as we have heard from various noble Lords, but we have lost many of the teachers who encourage the young into practical skills. Many state schools no longer offer woodwork, metalwork, cookery, needlework and pottery, which used to be part of our educational offer and enticed many young people into learning when maths and English were not their forte.
Part of the problem we have with the disturbing number of young people not in education, employment or training—the NEETs—is that their interests and skills were not on the timetable at school, so they lost interest in learning. Among them, there will be many potential craftspeople, who could be encouraged into work if their craft skills were recognised. Can the Minister say whether the curriculum review will recommend that opportunities for craft should be available in all state schools?
There are organisations, enthusiasts and livery companies who work hard to regenerate enthusiasm. In the livery world, we know that goldsmiths, leather-sellers, carpenters and many others promote the crafts on which they were founded, often many centuries ago, but which still have relevance today. We have heard from both right reverend Prelates about the importance of the Church, which has such beautiful buildings and artefacts that are of course made by craftspeople. When we allow this crumbling building to be renovated, we shall need all the skilled craftspeople available. We should not allow ourselves to be outdone by Notre Dame, which was renovated in such amazing time.
Might the Minister look to using the smart fund, a private copy remuneration scheme already modelled in 45 countries including much of Europe, Canada and Mexico, to generate much-needed funding for craft? Why do craft courses not qualify for funding? People often have to self-fund.
We are only too well aware that independent schools continue to encourage crafts as they do art, drama, dance. Surely, however, it should not just be the preserve of the privileged to be able to show talents and learn skills in these subjects. Crafts improve hand-eye co-ordination, enhance mental health and give a great sense of accomplishment when something beautiful or useful is being created. What steps are being taken to reintroduce craft disciplines into state schools so that the country’s proud tradition of excellence can be continued and so that young people are not turned away from learning and can contribute their talents to the economy?
(1 year, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberMy Lords, it is a great pleasure to contribute to this debate on the arts from the noble Lord, Lord Bragg. As the wonderful Darren Henley said:
“England’s artists, arts organisations, museums and libraries enrich our lives, increase our knowledge and open our minds to new possibilities”.
They not only are life-affirming but contribute around £126 billion in gross value to the economy and employ some 2.4 million people, so they are value for money and good for us too.
I declare an interest in that a son-in-law, Jon Rolph, is a talented television and radio comedy producer. His son Tom Rolph has already had leading roles in local musicals, with his amazing singing voice. Their skills have brought pleasure to many and will continue to do so, because of how important both music and comedy are to our well-being. I used to sing and play the piano. After the exhortation of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, I will perhaps try to do better in the future.
It is enormously challenging for those talented in the arts to be recognised and employed to use those talents. It is a cut-throat business, severely damaged by Brexit and the pandemic. In many areas, artists struggle to survive, even when they are highly skilled, highly talented and very real assets to our national life.
The noble Lord, Lord Bragg, has a highly distinguished career in the arts. “In Our Time” always makes fascinating listening. Since listening this morning, I know a whole lot more about the Hanseatic League than I ever thought possible. Age is no barrier to achievement, as we see from amazing octogenarians, nonagenarians and even centenarians who are still contributing their artistic talents to our enjoyment.
As the noble Lord, Lord Bragg, said so eloquently, the BBC is a national treasure if ever there was one. We see its significant contribution to education as well as enjoyment. It has the BBC Bitesize programme, its flagship educational website, and BBC Teach with resources for teachers and students alike.
We know that the Government are pressed for money, with health, education and housing all vying for well-deserved eye-watering amounts, if our people are to be housed, cared for and educated to the standards that we all wish for in one of the wealthiest countries in the world. But the arts too need proper support if they are to continue to be world beating and economically advantageous.
As one fascinated by heritage arts and crafts, I congratulate the Minister on the part that he played in ensuring that the Government will at long last ratify the UNESCO Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage; I thank him for that.
We hear that, since Brexit, teaching, lecturing, exhibiting, entering competitions and, importantly, trade with the EU for our brilliant crafts men and women has virtually ceased, which obviously affects the contribution of crafts to the economy. What provision will the Government make to ensure that the skills of our arts and crafts people will be supported so that the UK continues to hold its place as a creative centre in the world? What plans do the Government have to ensure that music, drama, dance and art are taught in all schools—various noble Lords have already identified that there has been a woeful shortfall in recent years—to ensure that the next generation has every opportunity to use its artistic talents to the benefit of the economy and for the enjoyment of us all?
(2 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberA variant of that is that we want to see elite sports themselves put money into grass-roots sport. We are working in partnership with Sport England, for example, and its 10-year strategy called Uniting the Movement. That reinforces a commitment to more participation in sport. Sport England has also invested an additional £20 million in the together fund, previously known as the tackling inequalities fund, to reach underrepresented groups in many communities. It is also investing money in multi-use grass-roots facilities between 2022 and 2025. The important thing is that this should not be just about elite sports but should reach right down to local communities.
My Lords, I had the great privilege of being the Olympics Minister in 2012, which surprised many people who knew me well, but it was fascinating. Part of the point was to get schools more engaged in sport. We all know that many state schools do very little sport. What are the Government doing to make sure that all schools have access to sports facilities?
This issue came up in the Health and Care Bill, funnily enough. I remember, when we were talking to noble Lords who raised this, that we raised the issue of the cross-government participation committee. That is now being reviewed, but what we are looking at now, given the learning, is what may need to be tweaked. There will be an updated strategy, but we want it to be cross-government, cross-department and co-ordinated to ensure that we encourage more participation, not only in schools but in out-of-school activities as well.
(4 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberI cannot accept the noble Lord’s criticism of the Government’s action, which has been speedy, generous, broad and effective. Of course we keep it under review, but it is unparalleled in its generosity.
My Lords, with all the birthday wishes, in which I join, we have run out of time, so I apologise to the noble Lords, Lord Berkeley of Knighton, Lord Foster of Bath and Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, that there was not time to take their questions.
(4 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberI can say only to the noble Earl that we tried hard in these negotiations to make the case based on the evidence given to us by the sectors that we represent, and the EU rejected those suggestions.
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has now elapsed. I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord McNicol of West Kilbride, that we did not have time for his supplementary question.
(4 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberI thank both noble Lords for their questions and their welcome to this funding. I echo the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, in thanking the civil servants in both DCMS and the Treasury for their incredible work on this package.
The noble Lord, Lord Bassam, started by asking about timings for the disbursement of these funds. This package is aimed at those clubs really facing an existential threat, particularly as a result of the recent lockdown and the inability to allow fans back and the income that comes with that. We are keen on and committed to getting the first tranche of funding out by year end. More detail will be published about that shortly. There will also be an independent board overseeing the disbursement of the funds.
The noble Lord also asked about funding for the women’s game. I must confess that I heard my honourable friend the Minister for Sport be slightly more vehement about the importance of those clubs receiving funding from the Government treating women and women’s sport exactly the same as men’s. The criteria for this fund are identical for women’s sport and men’s sport.
I fear that I will disappoint the noble Lord regarding a further update on the fan-led review. As he noted, it is a manifesto commitment and we are committed to doing it. Progress is being made but no firm date has yet been settled on.
Both noble Lords talked about the importance of returning fans to stadia. We are all enormously keen to get fans back and delighted by the recent decision that in tiers 1 and 2, in particular, there will be capacity for up to—in tier 1—4,000 fans in the open air. As the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, noted himself in a later comment, the decisions about the number of fans in a stadium are based not purely on the capacity of the stadium but also on the design, entrances, exits and travelling arrangements. We have done a number of pilots which have helped inform our thinking. We will watch and learn from the opening-up that is shortly to be with us, and then we will build on that. But we really do feel optimistic about the prospects for this as we go into the new year, and particularly beyond Easter.
The noble Lord, Lord Addington, asked specifically about rugby union and rightly pointed out the risks in the scrum—to the long list of which a new risk has now been added for those brave enough to go into the scrum. We are obviously aware that this is a close-contact sport and will have particular challenges. We aim to give more detail on how we hope to address the points that the noble Lord rightly raised around vaccination in particular. We are working and hope to be able to publish a not-later-than date. As I mentioned, the Health Secretary has been very optimistic about seeing a significant change in conditions around Easter. We all look forward to that.
The noble Lord, Lord Addington, also asked about trainers. Obviously, with the £40 million going to racecourses and the ability for racing to take place, there will be a trickle-down benefit to trainers from the prize money from those events.
I felt that the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, was not at his most generous when he talked about the progress and implied that there would be a stop-start pattern. I think that we have come a really long way. There is light at the end of the tunnel for both grass-roots and professional sport. We have a lot of hope, based on the vaccine results announced recently and on the level of testing that we are now achieving. We are very grateful to the Sports Technology and Innovation Group for its advice on how we can bring fans back as quickly as possible.
My Lords, we now come to the 30 minutes allocated for Back-Bench questions. I ask that questions and answers be brief so that I can call the maximum number of speakers.
I reassure the noble Baroness that my department does not need any nudging in relation to the importance of sport for young people. As I mentioned, we committed £220 million to grass-roots sport, much of which will benefit young people. Crucially, we have also worked closely with the youth sector throughout the pandemic, so that youth workers are able to carry on providing the critical support for just the vulnerable young people to whom the noble Baroness rightly alludes.
My Lords, all supplementary questions have been asked and answered.
(4 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberNot only is it good to announce a package that exceeds expectations but it is very nice to respond to one as well. The noble Lord raises a critical point as regards new entrants. Obviously, the fabric of the grants that we give out will need to reflect not only the ecosystem of our arts and heritage and culture but its future, of which new entrants are a critical part.
My Lords, the time allowed for this Urgent Question has now elapsed. I apologise to the three noble Lords who were not able to ask their questions.
(4 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberMy Lords, Amendment 4 is in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Livermore. The amendment is an attempt to get the Government to say more about what happens to people who feel that they qualify for an upgrade to the standard set, apparently, by the USO, which is 10 megabits per second. Who pays for what, and what alternatives exist, such as the perhaps too little-known community fibre partnerships?
Shortly after Committee, I received an email from someone caught up in this issue. He told me about his experiences, which, I suspect, are not unique. He had to prove, first, that his existing service fell below the standards set by the USO. The official figures seemed to indicate that he was receiving a better service, and therefore did not qualify—apparently quite a common mistake. Who decides this? It seems that Openreach is both judge and jury in its own case. What rights do individuals have?
Having proved that he did in fact fall below the USO, alternatives were suggested to my correspondent, but they proved technically infeasible. He was, therefore, left with no option but to consider a co-payment approach that would cost him just over £18,000—not an insubstantial sum.
None of this seems very fair, so I have some questions. What alternatives do people living in isolated, and indeed not so isolated, houses have? Who decides on co-payment costs: what they are and how they should be shared? The legislation suggests “reasonable” costs: who defines “reasonable”? Is there any appeal or ombudsman process to this? What role might community fibre partnerships play in sharing costs and offering a better service? Should they not be given more prominence than they have had until now, in this area?
I do not necessarily need a detailed response to these questions. I know that the department is already in correspondence with the person who contacted me, and I am grateful for that. A letter would be sufficient at this stage. I will not be pressing this amendment to a vote, but I beg to move.
The noble Lord, Lord Livermore, will not be speaking, so I call the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering.
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, for giving us the opportunity to look at this very vexed area. Is the Minister aware of the situation and the fact that many living in isolated situations and deeply rural areas, as described by the noble Lord, feel that they are being disadvantaged in this regard? It would be helpful to know that. I entirely endorse what my noble friend said about seeking a balanced relationship between the landowner, the operator and the tenant, but can she confirm the point that I made earlier—I do not know whether she addressed it—that the landowner cannot use any delay, in any way, to prevent the service and the upgrade to a fibre network that would benefit the tenant? She would surely agree with that.
Lord Naseby? Do we have Lord Naseby? Is Lord Naseby not available? In that case we will go to the Minister.
My Lords, that was quicker than I expected. I shall speak to Amendment 4. The Bill aims to support lessees to access the services that they request from the providers they want. Nothing in the Bill prevents a tenant requesting a stand-alone connection or taking part in a community-led scheme such as a community fibre partnership with their neighbours.
Community-led schemes, including community fibre partnerships, to which this amendment specifically refers, allow a group of premises to work together to upgrade their broadband connection through a joint funding arrangement with any broadband supplier that offers it. Community fibre partnerships are offered only by Openreach and are just one example of a community-led broadband scheme. Such schemes can take a variety of forms, to suit the needs of individual communities. The DDCMS itself lists six broad categories that such schemes might fall into, details of which can be found on the GOV.UK website.
It might be helpful to give some examples of successful community-led schemes. These include Broadband for the Rural North, a non-profit community benefit society run by a local team of landowners and volunteers. The scheme has so far delivered gigabit connectivity to 13,000 premises in parts of rural Lancashire and Cumbria, with further schemes planned for parts of Cheshire and Northumberland—and indeed further afield, including East Anglia.
If my noble friend Lord Naseby had managed to join this part of the debate I would have drawn his attention to Tove Valley Broadband, a community-owned and operated group in Northamptonshire—close to the constituency that he represented in another place for a long time—that has delivered fixed wireless access broadband to 650 premises. In this context I mention also Cybermoor, which provided a broadband service to some 300 premises in the South Tyne Valley, and continues to own and operate the network.
We now come to the group consisting of Amendment 5. I remind noble Lords that Members, other than the mover and the Minister, may speak only once and that short questions of elucidation are discouraged. Anyone wishing to press this amendment to a Division should make that clear in debate.
Amendment 5
(6 years, 5 months ago)
Grand CommitteeI may have missed the noble Lord’s point. The regulatory framework set up through EU directives and regulations has been implemented in UK law and is administered and regulated by the UK. It will change, so in certain cases we have provided that Ofcom, the regulator, will bear in mind the current status of EU directives but in future will have the liberty to move away from them, which is only to be expected because we will not be in the EU. Therefore, we have taken account of EU law as we are trying to maintain the existing regulatory framework, although I accept that in future we might move away from it. The noble Lord, Lord Foster, says that it is changing. It is, and the basis of this SI is that we are leaving the EU, so there is change.
The noble Lord, Lord Griffiths, asked about paragraph 7 of the Explanatory Memorandum: why Ofcom may exchange information with the EU Commission or BEREC. The reason is that it will be given the option to do so if it is in the best interests of this country. It would be perverse to deny it the option to do that, so we are giving it that power. Both noble Lords rightly made the point that it will not, ex officio, be a member of BEREC. We expect it to be either an observer or a member of the various groups that I mentioned, and we hope that it will be. Whether it is or is not, we think it would often be in the regulatory interests of this country to exchange information. I think it is extremely likely that it would do so and I am sure that regulatory information will flow the other way. It is the subjunctive, I feel, in answer to the noble Lord’s question.
I am grateful for the consideration of the instrument and expect a very brief further discussion—consultation, possibly—later; I have made commitments on that. We think that the amendments contained in the SI are essential to ensure legal clarity, to reduce litigation risk and to protect consumers. Beyond that, we have agreed on the necessity for the regime to exist to correct deficiencies in retained EU law. On that basis, I hope that noble Lords will be able to approve the consideration of the regulation.
The Question is that the Motion be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion will say “Content”; to the contrary “Not-content”.
I must remind the Grand Committee that a single call of Not-Content has the effect of negativing the Motion.