(1 week, 3 days ago)
Lords ChamberTo ask His Majesty’s Government whether they plan to introduce legislation to enable artefacts, including the Parthenon sculptures, to be returned to their country of origin.
The Government have no plans to introduce legislation to permit artefacts, including the Parthenon sculptures, to be returned. National museums are prevented by legislation from de-accessioning objects unless, broadly, they are duplicates or unfit for retention. There are two exceptions: human remains less than 1,000 years old and Nazi-era looted objects. Partnerships and loans have been successfully used as a way for museums to share objects with other countries and museums.
My Lords, there is a case for amending the existing legislation in a narrow way to allow our national museums to return permanently certain artifacts to their country of origin on a case-by-case basis—none more so than the Parthenon sculptures, so that the frieze and other sculptures can be seen in a museum close to the original environment and, importantly, in as complete a state as possible, as this is the work of a single master builder, Phidias, and his workshop. Surely aesthetically, this is the right solution. Will the Government amend the legislation to allow this and other returns to happen?
I can only repeat to the noble Earl that the Government have no plans to change the law or introduce legislation to permit objects, including the Parthenon sculptures, to be returned.
(3 weeks, 5 days ago)
Lords ChamberTo ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the value of the subsidised arts sector.
The Government strongly believe in the benefits of publicly funded arts. The arts are vital to the UK’s economy and our well-being and fundamental to our cohesion as a society and our national story, fostering pride and earning global recognition. A recent report for the Arts Council by the Centre for Economics and Business Research estimated that its national portfolio alone accounted for 7% of the gross value added of the sector, equivalent to £1.35 billion.
My Lords, at its best, the ecosystem of the arts and creative industries is a dynamic combination of the non-commercial and commercial, a point well made by the noble Baroness, Lady Debbonaire, in her excellent maiden speech last week. Does the Minister agree that there would be no Steve McQueen, the commercially successful director, without the experimental visual artist supported through the Arts Council by the DCMS? The sectoral plan is a plan principally for the already commercialised creative industries; it is not a plan for the subsidised arts. Is there a plan for the arts and, if so, when will that happen?
Everything we do at DCMS centres around this point, if you look at the work that Arts Council England does in terms of the huge spend on its programmes. I am happy to have a longer conversation with the noble Earl, but the Arts Council England review will look at the whole piece, and the conclusions of the review and the Government’s response will be published next year.
(1 month ago)
Lords ChamberI cannot think of anyone better than my noble friend to carry out this work. We welcome the launch of Parliament’s fan-led review of the live music industry and look forward to considering its findings. From the industry’s own recent fan-led review, we know that fans are deeply invested in supporting live music, particularly local artists and independent venues, but rising financial pressures, dynamic pricing concerns and the closure of beloved venues threaten long-term sustainability. We recognise those same challenges, which is why today, as I mentioned previously, we have announced a major investment to drive growth in the UK music industry.
My Lords, will the Government, particularly in the light of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, ensure that existing music venues are fully protected in areas that face redevelopment? If the agent of change principle were to be incorporated by government into primary legislation, that would be very welcome.
The National Planning Policy Framework is clear that new developments should be able to be integrated effectively with existing businesses and community facilities such as music venues. Existing businesses and facilities should not have unreasonable restrictions placed on them as a result of development permitted after they were established. We want to enable new developments such as housing to coexist with culture and infrastructure such as music venues.
(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Grand CommitteeMy Lords, I declare an interest as the vice-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Craft. I congratulate my noble friend Lord Freyberg on securing this debate and on his excellent opening speech. I thank Patricia Lovett for her excellent briefing on heritage craft and, indeed, whose expertise in this area informs us all. I thank the Minister for the helpful meeting she had with my noble friend Lord Freyburg, the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick of Undercliffe, and me.
I am a fine artist, so my view of craft is that of a close and equally significant next-door neighbour; indeed, there is considerable overlap in our practice. Yet, whereas we have debates and Questions in this House on many of the creative industries—many on music—I cannot remember the last time we had a debate on craft, so this one is especially welcome, since the infrequency of such debates is sadly also indicative of a public perception about craft that is entirely at odds with the reality of the importance of this area, not least financially.
It is worth repeating the statistic that heritage craft alone contributed £4.4 billion GVA to the economy in 2012, which is about five times more than fishing, which contributed £862 million in 2023. Unlike the fishing industry, it receives no funding from government, while contemporary craft, which is funded through the Crafts Council, still receives nothing like the investment that is made in the fishing industry. I do not want to press this comparison too much, not least because some of the ancillary activities connected with fishing, such as net and withy pot making, are themselves crafts. We should be on the same side, but the Government need to think seriously about a more equitable distribution of direct investment, particularly as they rightly identify the creative sector as a growth area. While it is good that, through the spending review, heritage venues will be better supported—perhaps the Minister can say something about that—the overall cuts to DCMS funding are worrying and deeply disturbing.
I will concentrate the remainder of my remarks on the effects of Brexit on the craft sector. That effect is profound. Europe is the most significant trading partner for craft goods. However, Brexit is not behind us: as in all the creative industries, artists and artisans have to live with it daily. Most immediately, it makes us face enormous concerns over paperwork, costs and delays, but the exchange of ideas, tools, materials, teaching and training between the UK and the EU in the craft industry has all but stopped, including the display of work at European craft fairs and exhibitions. The shop window that such exhibitions afford, even when no work is sold, is hugely important in terms of initial cultural engagement as a precursor to trade. Will the Minister look at this?
Will the Minister consider expanding the list of eligible occupations in the creative sector to include heritage craft practitioners? This would enable knowledge exchange for residencies and collaborative projects under the PPE visa. Will she look at the huge challenges faced by journeymen and apprentices in such areas of itinerant work across Europe due to both Brexit and funding, which is either scarce or non-existent due to rigid eligibility criteria tied to fixed business premises?
Finally, I make a plea that the Government reinstate tax-free shopping for tourists, which would benefit both high-end fashion and craft goods. The Centre for Economics and Business Research found that its removal has deterred 2 million tourists a year from visiting the UK and is costing £10.7 billion in lost GDP, with much of that loss, of course, being the EU’s gain.