King’s Speech

Lord Berkeley of Knighton Excerpts

Tuesday 19th May 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Berkeley of Knighton (CB)]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Hobby, on his maiden speech and look forward to those maiden speeches that are to come.

If there was precious little in the gracious Speech about the arts per se, social cohesion was mentioned, and they are inextricably intertwined, as we have heard. A society bereft of culture cannot question itself and cannot rejoice in itself, but whenever the economy comes under pressure, the arts are one of our first casualties.

We seem gifted at scoring own goals. Whatever your feelings about Brexit, few would deny that it has been catastrophic for the creative industries. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Frost, graciously conceded that his Government got wrong the negotiations on artists and musicians performing in Europe. That has had a disastrous effect on countless artists, in terms of reputation and income, and on the Treasury and the cultural reputation of the UK. When I put this to the Prime Minister in an interview on Radio 3, he agreed. So here we are with agreement across the political spectrum—Reform, possibly, aside—but no advance, though I hope that Erasmus might be a chink of light, as a door gradually opens. Can the Minister make me feel better by reporting on progress on European access for artists and musicians?

I also tackled Sir Keir on AI and copyright, and the implacable concern of colleagues such as Elton John that allowing the unfettered use of copyright in AI training is the thin end of the wedge. Intellectual property either belongs to its creator or it does not; there is no halfway house. The long-established principle of ownership being vested in the creator cannot and must not be watered down to appease big tech. The UK must of course be at the forefront of AI, but not by ceding control of copyright.

I too admired the noble Baroness, Lady Hodge, in her report on the Arts Council. Can the Minister say whether her Government will mandate the Hodge recommendations, particularly on tax cuts or tax easing for performing organisation? We are in real danger of diminishing beacons of innovation such as the London Sinfonietta, an aural equivalent of the Tate Modern, through funding cuts. It is 41% down on its grant. The equivalent in Paris, the Ensemble Intercontemporain, works to a budget 12 times that of the Sinfonietta, and it is the same in Germany.

Finally, I turn to where it all begins—music in schools and tuition for all, not just the well-off and privileged. I felt shame when the mother of that wonderfully gifted tribe, the Kanneh-Masons, told me that, in today’s educational set-up, her children would not emerge. I know that the Government are very committed to work at this stage, and I welcome that, but there is so much more to do so that every child is exposed to music, if only, for example, at assembly. Some schools do a very good job here, playing a piece of music at every assembly—perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Hobby, can confirm this. It is such an easy and cheap thing to do. Hearing three minutes of music, be it pop, classical or jazz, can change lives. This is something that I would love to see the Government insist on in every school.

We have much to be proud of, but we need to continue the legacy for the next generation. It is our legacy, it is their legacy and it is society’s legacy.

Great British Energy Bill

Lord Berkeley of Knighton Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 13th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Berkeley of Knighton (CB)]

My Lords, perhaps I may add a few words to some of the comments from the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton of Epsom. He mentioned the carbon cost of steel, but there is one other element we should not forget. I understand that building pylons to take power overground is cheaper than putting it underground, but I plead with the Minister to accept that there are areas that we should try to protect. In fact, in the long term, it is probably as cheap, if not cheaper, to put power lines underground. I recognise the dilemma that the Minister is in, but we should look at the aesthetic value of what we are talking about, as well as the financial one. I believe that there are some areas of the United Kingdom that we should protect at all costs.

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak briefly in support of my noble friend Lord Hamilton of Epsom on carbon accounting. He said that he does not know very much about oilseed rape, but I do. About 20 years ago, in some of the very earliest stages of emissions reduction, I was involved commercially in that.

My noble friend asked that we should have pilot plants and studies to see whether the energy balance of oilseed rape can be done, as if it has never been done before. I can tell your Lordships that pilot plants were set up on Teesside, at enormous expense, and analysed to death. Although this is not a debate on farming, I can say that, at normal yields, when all was said and done, after the ploughing, sowing, fertilising, spraying, harvesting, processing and transportation, you came ahead on a carbon basis only when or if you burned the straw that otherwise would have been left behind in the field. Of course, at low yields, you spent more carbon on growing it than you got back at the end.

I make no other comment save to say that my noble friend is correct that, often, superficially attractive green energy schemes, when you boil them down, cost more carbon than they yield. That is important to look at because, otherwise, we could sleepwalk into an enormous waste of public funds through GB Energy, chasing projects that do not hit the target—which, of course, is to allow us to be more sustainable in future.