Live Music

Baroness Gill Excerpts

Thursday 2nd July 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Gill (Lab)]

My Lords, I, too, congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, on securing this debate and on his eloquent speech.

Live music is a defining strength of UK culture. Live music matters because it reflects the diversity of the UK, from grime, bhangra and indie to classical orchestras and global festival sounds. Events such as the BBC Proms, Glastonbury, and the Leeds, Reading and Wireless festivals and others showcase the richness, while local schools and community performances keep music venues accessible at every level. It is where, as we have heard, new artists break through and where established acts stay connected to audiences across generations.

It is also a massive contribution to our economy, as the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, has already outlined. In 2023, the UK live music industry contributed around £6 billion to the economy and attracted more than 23 million music tourists. The sector also sustains over 200,000 jobs, from performers to technicians to venue staff. According to a briefing from Live Nation, it welcomed 16 million fans to shows and festivals in more than 200 UK towns and cities across 750 venues just this year and generated an estimated £1.65 billion in additional consumer spending, including £1 billion for local economies.

However, as we have already heard, the sector is also facing challenges with AI, secondary ticketing, Brexit and visas for artists. In recent years, we have heard that AI has begun to reshape the music industry. It can generate songs, mimic voices and even simulate live-style performances without a human artist on stage, as again was highlighted earlier by the Musicians’ Union. While it is also used to support production, lighting and ticketing, its growing ability to replicate creativity is a serious concern: if music can be generated and performed without musicians, what happens to the uniqueness and value of live performance itself?

Places of Worship Renewal Fund

Baroness Gill Excerpts

Thursday 25th June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Gill (Lab)]

My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to debate this important topic, and sincerely thank the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Prentis of Banbury.

I recognise that places of worship are an important part of the UK’s heritage and architecture. It is fair to say that my opinion differs greatly from the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, who spoke before me. I have taken a particular great interest in them since I was a board member of English Churches Housing. Places of worship have held a special fascination for me, regardless of the faith—not just for their spirituality, serenity and intimacy, but because they give real insights into the history of the locality. Over the last years, post Brexit, I have regularly visited my local churches for art lessons, musical performances and local fêtes. From the number of activities posted on the boards, you can see they are a real centre of the community—a hub for community cafés, parent and toddler groups, food banks and for addressing many other welfare concerns.

Likewise, sacred places of other faiths provide similar support for their congregations. My own experience of Sikh gurdwaras is that many of them provide a daily hot meal to everyone in the community, not just to the practitioners of that faith. Therefore, I believe the renewal fund of £92 million of capital funding over four years announced earlier this year will address the challenging state of repairs of some of our oldest buildings in disrepair. The fact that the funding priority will be to those areas of high deprivation is a positive factor, given it is harder for those places of worship to raise funds in their localities.

I appreciate that many of the oldest buildings are churches and cathedrals. Nevertheless, there are notable older buildings belonging to other faiths that will qualify, including 27 synagogues, 15 mosques, seven Sikh gurdwaras and five Buddhist temples. I am particularly pleased that many of them are in my old constituency in the West Midlands.

However, I have had a lot of feedback about the loss of universal VAT refunds. This will be felt as a real cut by many places of worship, which will no longer have access to VAT-free repairs. I recognise that many of these are new, but they are iconic landmarks, such as Guru Nanak Road Gurdwara in Southall, Neasden Hindu Mandir Temple and Birmingham Central Mosque. They are not listed, but they are very important centres for long-established communities. I recognise that they have recourse to National Lottery funding, but there are real dilemmas faced by the committees of those organisations about accessing funds from gambling. Regardless, I welcome that this Government are safeguarding our heritage for future generations to enjoy—believers and non-believers.

Could I finally ask the Minister whether any additional support in navigating complex application processes will be given to deprived neighbourhoods which lack dedicated heritage staff?

National Arts Bank

Baroness Gill Excerpts

Thursday 4th June 2026 Grand Committee

[Baroness Gill (Lab)]

My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord John of Southwark on securing this debate and introducing the concept of a national arts bank—capital for our culture. He has already outlined his first-hand experience of implementing similar initiatives at a local level and I believe that he is well placed to lead on this project in your Lordships’ House.

It is widely acknowledged that our cultural institutions are starving for capital. Theatres, galleries and art colleges face a crisis. Commercial banks reject them as too risky and traditional grants offer only short-term relief. We need a permanent structural solution and I think that that solution is a national arts bank.

While I welcome the funding that the Government have outlined under the Arts Everywhere project, it is limited to five years and we need longer-term solutions. We know that artistic venues are vital public infrastructure, yet they are struggling to secure commercial loans. Older theatres require urgent structural modernisation, galleries need high-tech climate control systems and colleges require cutting-edge digital media equipment. Private lenders do not understand creative revenue. They see seasonal ticket sales as unstable. Consequently, as I said, our cultural foundations are crumbling.

I recognise that, 18 months ago, the Government set up the ACE review, under the leadership of my noble friend Lady Hodge. That report highlighted:

“The UK spends less on culture than most of the countries in Europe. In 2022, public investment in culture in the UK was 0.25% of GDP, the lowest across a … list of European countries for whom there is comparable data (including France, Germany, Italy, and all of Scandinavia), and only higher than Greece”.


The Campaign for the Arts has also reported that the UK ranks among the lowest spenders on culture, both as a percentage of GDP and per person, in comparison with various European countries. The sector reports that some local authorities have completely cut their spending on culture. The British Council has curtailed its investment in culture. Nesta, a research and innovation foundation, which had a £250 million government-funded endowment for the creative arts, has pulled out of funding the arts. As I said, local authorities have almost completely given up.

We need to expand our horizons and look for new solutions, and we also need to include the film sector in that. The capital gap that we are speaking about is not exclusive to live stages. Consider our booming, yet vulnerable, film sector: local production studios require massive upfront capital. I have some second-hand knowledge of this; my son is a screenwriter and director, so I hear a lot about this sector. They need virtual production walls and sound stages. Without advanced facilities, international investment tends to go elsewhere.

I believe an arts bank would secure loans for independent film infrastructure. It would allow local studios to compete on a global scale because, as we know, infrastructure is the foundation of modern storytelling. That is why countries such as France, where there is an institute for funding cinema and creative industries, operates two financial tasks: a bank guarantee and a loan, similar to what the noble Lord, Lord John of Southwark, outlined.

I wonder whether we could also link this to another topical question that we have all been tackling this week: the NEET crisis. I know that capital funding could directly impact our youth unemployment crisis. Thousands of young people are NEET—not in education, employment or training—but I have seen that the creative industries are a proven magnet for re­engagement. When I was in the West Midlands as an MEP, I visited a lot of FE colleges, and I saw the level of engagement for young people who did not want to continue studying. They were happy to go into a music studio, drama or anything to do with creative arts. So I think this could be a way of reaching that goal too. I again stress that we need state-of-the-art facilities to run apprenticeships, and we could benefit across the whole sector by having a skilled creative workforce.

By investing in capital, we also drive up educational enrolment. The infrastructure itself becomes a motivation to learn. A national arts bank would make a change. It would not replace commercial financial markets; it would act as a powerful guarantor. This would be an investment, not charity. This model protects hard-earned taxpayer money. Grants disappear once a venue spends them. Guaranteed loans must be paid back fully. Venues build sustainable, long-term business models. The arts generate massive economic ripple effects. Every pound invested would boost nearby hospitality. It would create jobs for technicians, builders and creatives.

To conclude, I believe it would bridge the gap between finance and culture. It would transform state funding from charity to investment. Let us secure our venues and colleges. Let us back the creators who inspire us.

Sporting Events Bill [HL]

Baroness Gill Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 3rd June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Gill (Lab)]

My Lords, today marks a critical milestone in the preservation and elevation of our country’s status as a leading host of major sporting events. We are embarking on a golden decade of sport, from the roar that will greet the 2028 UEFA European Football Championship to our ambitious bid for the 2035 FIFA Women’s World Cup, on to a potential 2040 Olympic bid for the north of England. This Government are readying the United Kingdom to show the world that we are the ultimate home of global sport.

For decades, this nation has welcomed global sporting fans with open arms, providing the stage for moments of historic athletic achievement that have inspired generations, promoted healthy living and driven economic growth into our local communities. This Sporting Events Bill also directly delivers on the Government’s manifesto promise to bring these high-profile international events to our shores. By creating a permanent streamlined framework, it signals to international sports bodies that the UK is permanently open for business, operationally secure and ready to build a legacy.

I warmly welcome the fact that the Bill explicitly puts fans first. If I may indulge your Lordships’ House, as I stand in this Chamber today, I am struck by a profound sense of personal history. I rise today, as I rose for the very first time in the European Parliament, back at the turn of the millennium, as a member of the Friends of Football group. More than a quarter of a century ago, I stood up in Brussels to sound the alarm about ordinary football fans losing out from attending matches because of opaque, predatory ticketing practices.

Because of that history, I am heartened to see the mechanisms within this Bill. Under Clause 1, the Secretary of State can designate qualifying events, unlocking the enforcement powers we desperately need. Most crucially, Clause 2 sets up a robust, UK-wide criminal offence targeting the unauthorised resale of tickets. This is an essential step forward. We have all seen the grotesque excesses of the secondary black market. During the 2022 Champions League final, standard category tickets with a face value of £60 were being resold online for over £9,000—a staggering one-hundred and fiftyfold mark-up that completely locks out genuine, ordinary supporters. Even in our domestic game, tickets for regular Premier League final-day fixtures routinely skyrocket by 1,000% on predatory secondary platforms within minutes of selling out. This is not a free market; it is extortion.

However, while I fully support the architecture of the Bill, it is the duty of this House to think creatively. If we are to successfully enforce Clause 2, we must back it up with total market transparency at the primary point of sale. If we truly want to protect fans, they must know exactly what they are paying for. I must therefore press the Minister on some fundamental questions about transparency that this text currently omits. Why does the Bill not explicitly mandate that the original, fixed face-value price be permanently, visibly and immutably displayed on the face of every single digital and physical ticket issued for qualifying events? How can a fan easily spot an illegal secondary mark-up under Clause 2 if the baseline price is obscured behind shifting digital platforms? How can consumers make informed choices when hidden platform fees, processing mark-ups and shifting price points are obscured from view until the very final click? Why have the Government omitted a ban on dynamic pricing—the corporate euphemism for legalised primary touting, as my noble friends Lord Mann and Lord Bassam so eloquently highlighted—whereby prices skyrocket mid-transaction simply because a fan is waiting in an online queue?

That brings me to a significant omission in the scope of this legislation. Although the Bill beautifully safeguards international tournaments, it is a great pity that its protections do not extend to our everyday domestic sporting fixtures or world-renowned live music events. A fan being ripped off for a cup final or a grass-roots local derby deserves the same statutory shield as an executive sitting watching a Euro 2028 match. Similarly, a young music lover trying to buy a ticket to see their favourite band at a local arena faces the exact same automated harvest bots and predatory pricing platforms. Live music and domestic sport are the lifeblood of British culture; leaving them exposed feels like a missed opportunity to create a truly comprehensive consumer protection standard.

Further, while Clause 5 provides necessary enforcement powers to local authorities and police to stamp out illicit trading, we must connect these grand international events back to the communities that host them. A major tournament should not be an island of corporate wealth. The financial success of these global events must directly feed down into our local youth clubs and grass-roots sports facilities, as stressed by my noble friends Lady Paul and Lady Dacres. Our local clubs are where the next generation of athletic talent is discovered. They are where healthy living is fostered and community cohesion is built. I want to ensure that the regulatory framework we are debating today explicitly guarantees that a percentage of tournament revenues is funnelled directly into sustaining these vital community assets.

This Bill has the potential to be historic legislation. It honours a vital commitment, cuts through needless red tape and guarantees our sporting future. I do not wish to delay this legislation, but I do urge the Minister to take another look at some of the specific areas I mentioned earlier. Let us work together to expand our horizons, think outside the box and use this opportunity to shine a light on pricing, protect the wider cultural economy and ensure that local fans and grass-roots communities remain the beating heart of British sport. I commend this Bill to the House.