Arts

Lord Bragg Excerpts

Thursday 1st February 2024 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Bragg]

That this House takes note of the contribution of the arts to the economy and to society.

[Lord Bragg (Lab)]

The creative arts generate more revenue than the life sciences and the aerospace and construction industries combined. Add the input from television, films, advertising and broadcasting and we are faced not with a charming marginal activity but with an industry ready to grow to the massive benefit of this country, commercially and educationally, and equally in areas such as health and social equity.

First, however, the arts industry needs a radical overhaul. At present, it is dangerously patchy and punching way below its weight. Last year, there were over 3 million job roles in the creative and cultural industries—and there could be more, if we recognised and reached the full potential of what is still considered too often to be the cherry on the cake. The arts are not the cherry on the cake—they are the cake. It is the opportunity this society needs to reform itself, to replenish all parts and pockets, and to stem the slide to the bottom of just about any listing that appears. It is an open goal.

There is no doubt that this country could build itself up through a cultivation of the arts, and a determination to release its energies and take on the mantle of other places and other times—this is not too fanciful—such as Athens, Florence and elsewhere, which transformed their societies through the arts. Why cannot we do so? We have the skills, but what we need is the vision and the will. We need to think of the arts as an industry, and a new industry, which it is.

What we have to build on deserves attention and often praise. Cities which have imploded, especially in the north, because of government abandonment and investors seeing no future beyond the stock market—I will take three: Newcastle and Gateshead combined, Leeds, and above all, Manchester—have regrouped and found profit from their engagement with the arts. This goes for similar smaller venues too: Keswick in Cumbria, middle-sized cities such as Bath, and towns such as Cheltenham. In many places, the arts have reinvented and magnetised dying conurbations. However, this still does not provide the fundamental requirement, which is to engineer a deep change which will be universal.

To get to the best, we need to take a close look at the worst. Recently, the Times chief cultural correspondent, Richard Morrison, said that British theatre is “dying” and “in a dreadful state”, its demise hastened by the dominance of television and streaming, and that

“Those theatres not facing closure because of local authority budget cuts … are struggling to attract audiences for anything except musicals and famous plays featuring famous actors”.


National Theatre Wales has lost its subsidy from the Arts Council of Wales. Creative Scotland has received a big cut from the Scottish Government. An all-party report from a House of Lords Select Committee last June commented that the current Government policy towards the sector is

“complacent and risks jeopardising the sector’s commercial potential”.

It is strange that, although over the past decade the creative industries have grown at 1.5 times the rate of the wider economy and contributed billions of pounds of business activity and exports, again and again these profits drain away and the only begetter of the arts is left stranded on overdrafts. This is at least unfair and at most blind to the power and potential of the arts.

When they built the first steam engine, they did not say, “Okay, we can do it—we’ll stop now”. They went on to create a network, here and abroad, with a brilliant non-university workforce. Why do we stop here now, in this country, when it is losing its theatres, its music and its dance? We are sleepwalking into permanent mediocrity, and cultural institutions once the guardians of the arts have, in crucial cases, become accessories to this deterioration.

The Arts Council, for example, set up in 1948, in those flagship years of public service, has been of the greatest value for the arts, especially its arm’s-length management. Yet in November 2022, English National Opera was given 24 hours’ notice by Arts Council England that all current funding would be withdrawn and the company removed from the national portfolio by April 2023. This was said to a company approaching a century of often outstanding work: opera in English; free ticket schemes for young people; 51% of audiences first-time bookers; and a world-class infrastructure. The way in which this was done disgraced the Government. Nadine Dorries, the Culture Secretary, “instructed” in a short letter—she used the word several times—Nicholas Serota, chairman of the Arts Council, to do as the Government, that is, Nadine Dorries, dictated. We had become, it seemed, a state-run arts country, one step away from the dictatorship of the state on the agenda. Without being rude, what on earth was she playing at? Who did she think she was, and why did the Government back her? Dr Harry Brünjes, chairman of ENO, fought it, and eventually the Government shifted their ultimatum back a few years. What on earth is going on? ENO makes a profit, just as importantly as it makes a mark on the future of opera in this country. The magnificent Royal Opera House is incomprehensibly besieged by not dissimilar troubles.

Ms Dorries did not stop there. She threatened the reviewing of the BBC licence fee by 2027 in such terms that the BBC knew it would have crumbled—a policy which seems to have been adopted by her successor. So far, the BBC has stood firm. We will see what happens in the media debate. The finest cultural institution in this country is the BBC. Classical music would be bereft without it. From the Proms to new composers, music of all genres is given airtime. BBC drama on television has pulled in some of the most memorable work over the generations, as have discussions and features on the radio. In the broadest sense, BBC radio is a tailor-made embroidery of our tastes, aspirations and intellectual achievements.

Then there is the World Service of the BBC, surely our greatest ambassador. From the diurnal to the most distinguished, the BBC defines the range and ambition of our society. Yet it is under constant attack from those who envy it and want to capture its audiences, not to make better programmes. There is to be a debate on the media in your Lordships’ House quite soon. I trust that this House will develop some themes which are brought out today, and come out emphatically to leave the BBC unweakened.

The key word is “education”—to change the society thoroughly. This can lead us to a new state of the arts. I owe much of the next passage to the composer Howard Goodall. In the last century, there were the county music services, free instrumental lessons, Saturday morning music schools, orchestras and choirs. After 2020, these services were transferred into “hubs”, a private enterprise model. The local authorities lost responsibility for them and the slide began. In 2022, the number of hubs was reduced nationally from 116 to 43, in direct contradiction to consultations saying that this would be the worst possible option for state schools. The 43 hubs had to do the same work as the 116, and on the same money.

The uptake in GCSE music has dropped from 50,000 entrants in 2009 to 29,000 in 2022. Consequently, staff numbers in music and other arts have dropped dramatically. The noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone, in her excellent speech on the depletion of support for the performing arts, referenced this, pointing out that

“the decline in teachers of dance, drama and music”,

and in “teaching hours” and “position in the curriculum”, is disgraceful,

“nor is there support for small music venues, which are closing down at the rate of one a week”.—[Official Report; 30/3/23, col. GC 108.]

Mr Sunak promised assistance, but none has arrived yet.

Howard Goodall writes that what has happened to music education in the past 13 years is a “seismic reconfiguration”. He continues that “the Conservative agenda being driven through the Arts Council seems to be to let classroom music die out in state schools”. The Department for Education met only 27% of its target for newly trained music teachers last year.

In 2008, under a Labour Government, a programme was funded that revived group singing in 97% of all primary schools in the country, with a verifiable increase in discipline, attendance and work in classrooms. Music mattered—it lit the flame— but the scheme was dropped. Why cannot the 93% of children in our state schools receive the same musical offering that the 7% in private schools take for granted? It is shocking, unfair and just wrong—and what a waste. Just imagine what talent could be released and what benefits would flow were not only music but all the arts given a chance to be a part of the engine of growth in a country which used its proven assets—talent, flair, cultural enterprise—to grow to its full potential? Of course, this needs more investment and rescuing from the doldrums, but look at how we are wasting money at the moment. We are squandering it. What enormous rewards could follow from building up the arts. Let us look again at the Industrial Revolution—the greatest revolution, I would say, that the world has ever seen. Why do we not have an Industrial Revolution for the arts? It is possible.

Finally, Professor Daisy Fancourt has just delivered a book to be published first in America. If ever utterly conclusive proof were required of the benefits of the arts in our society, here it is—she has nailed it. She says: “In 2018, the World Health Organization reported that after 3,500 studies, it had cast-iron evidence of the deep and widespread health improvements which came from the teaching of the arts, from neurological disorders to child development. Cohort studies have shown that tens of thousands of people of all ages benefit physically, emotionally, and intellectually by going to galleries, by dance and singing in choirs”.

I shall not club your Lordships with statistics at this stage, but the evidence of the connection between the arts and intellectual health has now been conclusively made. We have scientific proof that art exercises the imagination and feeds us in positive, unique and lasting ways. We cannot afford to ignore this. We can no longer go on to cut, stint, cancel and slash. If we are to bring up generations whose minds and feelings are moulded by the best work, good teachers, and multiple opportunities, we could indeed make a brave new world. Why not, and why not start now? I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Bragg (Lab)]

I will make a very short speech; I have a very small amount of time, and that suits me, because I have enjoyed listening to other people. The support for the arts all over the House has been such a pleasure. There has been well-thought-through information; people are coming at it not with swipes of prejudice, but having looked at their own experience—personally, in the places where they live, and historically. If we know one thing after this debate, it is that the House of Lords is firmly on the side of the arts: of digging into them, developing them and seeing them in their rightful place in society. All we have to do is convince the rest of the country.

I just had a good time. You do not often go down a street and see so many people you admire and like saying all the things you want to listen to, but I had that experience today. I will single out one person: my noble friend Lady Smith, who encouraged me to do this. I was very nervous, as I had not been in the House for one reason or another, but she could not have been more helpful—or more firm. Right up to the last minute, I felt I was almost going to be pulled into the Chamber. It was wonderful working with her.

I thank everybody. It is a great thing noble Lords have done for the arts, and I think it will move things forward. I hope so.

Motion agreed.

BBC: Government Support

Lord Bragg Excerpts

Thursday 2nd December 2021 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Bragg]

That this House takes note of the BBC’s value to the United Kingdom and a wider global audience and the case for Her Majesty’s Government giving it greater support.

[Lord Bragg (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the House very much for the opportunity to introduce this debate. It is a privilege to open a discussion on such a subject.

I work for BBC Radio 4 and Sky Arts as a freelancer. I joined the BBC in 1961 as a trainee. My first television posting was to Huw Wheldon, editor and presenter of “Monitor”, the arts programme. Huw was a man full of terse advice, chiefly plucked from his distinguished military career. One example is: “You ignore the obvious at your peril.” He also said that the BBC is the “sum of its programmes”.

I begin by stating obvious things about the BBC. It is regularly sniped at, sliced up, and its parts disparaged. It is blamed for this, that and the other, and every current malaise. It purpose is often punctured. Few of its detractors take on the obvious—the full darts board—and concentrate exclusively on a double top to make a splash. I think that the BBC is unique in the world of broadcasting; so, in my experience, do many world broadcasters. Its strengths are even more valuable now when all around us, at this tipping point in our history, so many other institutions seem to be failing.

No other single broadcasting company in the world is as targeted, comprehensive, Hydra-headed, cross-class, successful on several levels and knitted into the audiences as the BBC. Of course it makes mistakes and stumbles, and is subjected to justifiable criticism, but on the whole, over almost a century, this institution has grown into one of the most reliable staples of our troubled society. It is all the better for being neither propagandist nor fawning on its public. Despite many assaults, it is still independent and arm’s length from a Government who are slow to praise, quick to blame and sometimes eager to interfere.

At a time like this, the BBC deserves to be appreciated for what it really is and not presented as the obstacle to certain factions, corporations and individuals who see it getting in the way of their own broadcasting ambitions. Unfashionable though it is, it seems that, by and large, the BBC’s ambition is now as it was when Lord Reith invented it almost a century ago, which is to reach all of the people some of the time and many of the people all of the time but, most of all, to weave itself into the texture of this country and serve it, which the BBC has always attempted to do. It is called public service. That original vision was to inform, educate and entertain the UK without favour or prejudice. It was a bold and tall order but, on the whole, it has been steadily pursued.

Reliable statistics show that the BBC is still on track. The findings are remarkable. The BBC is used by, on average, 90% of UK adults and 80% of young adults every week. During the Covid-19 pandemic, the BBC extended its role as a broadcaster to bring programmes to audiences safely, while creating new shows and events. Nearly 6 million people watched “Lockdown Learning”, and 45% named the BBC as their number one source for information and news on Covid. The nearest runner-up was 13%. Who else would have done that?

Radio 4 is the UK’s most listened-to speech station. In any year, it broadcasts over 3,200 hours of news and current affairs, 375 hours of documentaries, and new strands of drama and the arts. Its many experts and reporters at flashpoints all around the world keep us up to date. There are news programmes that feature probing, feisty discussions that skilfully dice with impartiality, bias and wokeism on issues of the moment. There are programmes on science, the arts, philosophy and sociology that pick out some of the most relevant intellectual arguments of the day.

At the BBC’s pinnacle are the Reith lectures, which are currently on air, but it is also in the context of quizzes, comedies and quirky niche shows that make many people’s day. I see it as an ingenious, illogical patchwork, inspired by the tastes of its audiences—from “Strictly” to “Panorama” to David Attenborough. Half the output of Radio 3 is live or specially recorded music. Last year alone, 50 new musical works were commissioned. Then there are the magnificent Proms and the BBC orchestras. This directly feeds into the quality, wealth and reach of classical music-making in this country. Without BBC support, that would deflate like a burst balloon.

Another example is BBC Radio 2, the most listened-to of the BBC radio channels, with high production and presenting values in popular culture. Oh dear: some who want the BBC to be exclusive rather disapprove of popular culture. But what is wrong with it? I would like to know. Popular music can be transformational and Radio 2 satisfies millions with its carefully orchestrated shows in a vital aspect of the arts. It is part of the BBC’s broad culture.

BBC television drama, such as “Line of Duty”, “Small Axe”, “Sherlock”, “Doctor Who”, “Call the Midwife”, “I May Destroy You”, “Normal People” and “Killing Eve”, hold their own in world television drama, despite the jumbo bombers coming across the Atlantic, powered by budgets that could buy a small country. Along with the Americans, we mop up the prizes. BBC drama is at the heart of the outstanding and profitable arts, media and entertainment industry in this country. More than 2 million highly and particularly skilled people are employed in the sector. They bring back profits in the billions—more than many of our great industries.

I wonder why the Government do not double the subsidies—or should we call them investments?—in the arts and the BBC. These areas could be at the forefront of an energised British recovery. They have grown unstoppably since 1945. It is not too fanciful to imagine the arts, universities and media—culture—becoming the dominant part of our economy before too long. Why not play to our strengths now? The future is already here. We need to recognise it, back it, celebrate it and hang on for the ride.

We get all of this from the BBC for about 40p a day. By the time one adds together the basic subscriptions just for Netflix, Amazon Prime, Disney+ and Apple TV, that alone is more than double the cost of the licence fee, despite the limited range of their programmes. The BBC can also produce big figures when it has to: 25 million people watched Euro 2020; 25.8 million people watched the last Wimbledon on BBC TV; and over 28 million people come to the BBC every evening for their entertainment on an average day.

The BBC World Service is a triumph. Almost a billion people listen to its voice—our voice—which carries authority around the world. Yet, for incomprehensible reasons, the Government are presiding over cutting its budget and producers are being forced out. At such a crucial moment in our history, it beggars belief. I am tempted to say that if around the world our Government were accorded the same respect as the BBC, we would be home and dry.

In another area, the BBC is being resolute in its determination to nurture diversity on radio and television nationwide. Greg Dyke, a previous director-general of the BBC, called it “hideously white and middle class”. That is being steadily eroded in London and the regions —an underrated part of the BBC.

So why is the BBC so often attacked, and why by the Government? It makes no sense. Over the last decade, the BBC’s income has been cut by 31% in real terms through the freeze in the licence fee from 2010 to 2017. The Government have stopped paying for the World Service and removed the funding for free licenses. In short, the Government have fleeced the licence fee paying public to dig themselves out of a hole in social services.

The multiplication of new channels continues to test the BBC but, on the creative side, it has not buckled. The press, some of which has its own fish to fry, keeps up a relentless offensive against the BBC. Sometimes the criticism is fair, and the BBC has often benefited from competition, such as when ITV came in and challenged the BBC on its news and documentary values. Sometimes it can seem that the BBC is taking on too much. Can it still, as Lord Reith hoped, serve all the people? The answer is in the programmes. The BBC is not letting that down. Many of those programmes stand up with the best on the spectrum wherever one looks.

This Government seem bent on making the BBC weaker at the moment, when every indicator suggests that the opposite course would be the wiser. The Government seem to be ignorant of the BBC’s deeply held strengths and the affection in which it is held in this country for its reliability, talent, fun, originality and the feeling of being part of a nation that it engenders. It belongs to us, the licence fee payers.

Recently, it has sometimes seemed that, sadly, we are becoming a lesser country by the year. I hope that the BBC is not allowed to become part of this surrender to a creeping deterioration. Indeed, I believe it could be one of the forces that leads by example the fight against what is happening and organises us to get out of this mire. It comes down to what sort of country we want this to be. The BBC has earned our respect and repaid our support, in war and peace, over many years. It has built itself in our image. Surely, now that it is so clearly up against it, we cannot let it down.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Bragg (Lab)]

I thank everyone who took part in the debate. There were a lot of interesting speeches. It shows that I am a bit taken by surprise when I use the word “interesting”, because it is an easy and ordinary word. It was fascinating to hear the level of support for the BBC; I had not quite expected it to be so warm and deep. It was equally intriguing to hear people criticise the BBC in such a well-informed way. The BBC, like any institution, does not like to take on critics, even friendly fire as it may be. But there are things wrong with the BBC, as I said once or twice, and things that could be improved. With great respect, I started to get worried when the Minister said that the BBC should do this, would do that and needed such and such—if it is going to be prescribed from the top in that way, especially when these things are coming up in the next two or three years, we will all have real worries again.

When the debate finished, I thought, “Well, we’re in quite a settled state”, but if the Government are going to say, “We’re going to take this opportunity to do this, that and the other, and look at this, that and the other”, there will be worries. The BBC is taking care of itself pretty well. Its critics around the place have been listened to—I hope that more of them will be listened to after this debate because their criticisms were so good—but it also has the support of so many people for the right reasons. It can go in the right direction if it is given that support and that support increases.

I thank noble Lords for their speeches and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Liverpool for such a fine entrance. I am delighted that we have had this debate.

Motion agreed.

BBC and Public Service Broadcasting

Lord Bragg Excerpts

Thursday 5th March 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bragg (Lab)]

My Lords, first I thank my noble friend Lord Young for calling this important debate, and for speaking so well and covering so much ground. It is a starting shot in what will be a long and, regrettably, corrosive ideological battle. I declare an interest: I work as a freelancer for BBC Radio 4.

My greater interest is that, as far back as I can remember, the BBC, one way or another, has entertained, educated and informed me and millions of others through radio and television—and it still does. For almost 100 years, it has been in the grain of our lives—and it still is. The BBC is the sum of its programmes. Its range is incomparable—from the cosmic to the minority to the eccentric—and it is envied globally. Yet it appears that this Government want to thwack—a word straight from the nursery—the BBC. The Tories have had a good record of thwacking over the years. The northern manufacturing industries, which once compared with anything in Germany and France, were thwacked by Mrs Thatcher. How else could an island that began shipbuilding in the time of Alfred the Great have totally lost its shipbuilding traditions? Local government —the proud continuation of ancient and independent regions—has also been thwacked, and on it goes. The BBC needs to be redirected because of the new television armadas storming across from America—aided and cheered on by Dominic Cummings —elegantly eviscerated by my noble friend Lord Puttnam and scorched by my noble friend Lady Bakewell.

The BBC licence fee should be examined, but the best way is to reform, not dismantle, it. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord McNally, that the licence fee, so far, is the least bad method of doing that. A means test, one way or another, might work—perhaps there are other ways—so I agree with the noble Lord on that one. The declared policy of sending a wrecking ball through an organisation that has taken almost a hundred years to evolve and is now fine-tuned to every class, age group, creed and niche in this country is childish. The BBC is deeply intermixed and intermeshed with our culture. For many people, it is our culture, so why tear it apart? Is this the best we can do? It is depressing that the Conservatives do not understand the monetisation of the big American networks—with their many billions of dollars of debt—which are very limited in their programme spectrum and, as far as this country is concerned, are a model from hell. We do things differently here. Many Americans believe that they should learn from us, rather than we from them, in the matter of range, reach and depth of broadcasting.

Post Brexit, we have to build a new country. We have strengths in the City, which need to be affirmed, but our three modern strengths—our universities, culture and media—are all accelerating employers, capable of being even bigger earners and deeply influential for this country’s good. The BBC is key to all of these—for instance, almost two million people work in the media. It has grown rapidly since the 1940s and outstrips most of the traditional industries. There is no reason why those two million should not turn into three or four million, providing skilled, niche jobs globally and in demand. The BBC is the core of this development. We could become a media island, rivalling Silicon Valley.

Link this with the strength of our universities. English universities are rated as the top universities in the world—not least the Open University—and their research departments are growing at pace. We then have the widely praised strength of the arts, in which the BBC is a huge player. This trilogy—the media, universities and the arts—could rise post Brexit, but not if we fail to see the profound, interwoven basic structures at work. The BBC is crucial to this.

What sort of country do we want to be? That is the question. The BBC is key to a transformation that will be sorely needed, not only in itself but in what it feeds and drives. Above all, it stands for and tells us who we are. That cohesive self-knowledge is increasingly necessary and energising in what is a fractured time. People in this country will march for the BBC because they know that, since the beginning, it has served them well in a democratic and equal way. For almost 100 years, they have paid for it with very little complaint. It is a public service; it belongs to them and we cannot let them down.

Older Persons: Provision of Public Services

Lord Bragg Excerpts

Thursday 13th June 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bragg (Lab)]

My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, for his stirring and comprehensive opening and for this debate. I declare a couple of interests: I work for BBC Radio and for Sky Arts.

This debate has covered a wide and impressive canvas, but I am going to stick to the BBC licence fee, an issue which is current and of great importance in my world and many of our worlds, including those of many of the elderly in this country.

The BBC’s decision to limit free licence fees to those over 75 who receive pension credit and to take the £0.25 billion-a-year hit from its own funds—i.e. from us, the licence fee payers—seems to me to be a difficult solution, arrived at with a great deal of pain, to a problem not of its own making. A lifeline has been thrown to the poorest in our society, which shows how the BBC, out of our funds, is taking on a government job.

When several years ago the Government steamrollered the BBC into accepting responsibility for giving the licence fee free to all pensioners, it was seen as something that just happened under the yoke of government austerity at that time. Like many others, I thought it was a bad idea. The BBC licence fee is there to support BBC programmes; it is the responsibility of the state to support pensioners. This has been said again and again, from the beginning of this debate and throughout. This move by the Government crossed a boundary. It was a mean snatch-and-grab raid which the BBC board at the time could summon up neither the wit nor the nerve to resist, which it was its duty to do.

The BBC’s independence from government is an essential pillar of its constitution, still admired throughout the world—unlike, sadly, our own current constitutional antics. Yet the BBC, with its 347 million viewers around the world each week, along with the 91% of the adult population of this country who use it every day, is still the gold standard in broadcasting globally, domestically and locally. My own view remains the same: the BBC should not have to shoulder the Government’s social policy. It is already shouldering four times more television channels, twice as many national radio stations and new web services for 24% less in real terms than 20 years ago because of the clamping down on the licence fee. Had the BBC continued to accept the diktat and given everyone over 75 a free licence, when it is widely proved that many pensioners are very willing and able—more able, often, than the younger population—to pay that £3 a week fee, that tax would soon soar to £1 billion a year, resulting in the loss of channels and numerous programmes that are vital to the lives of many, especially those who live on their own and find in television and radio programmes entertainment, solace, companionship and conversation.

The BBC has woven together a tapestry, a niche in minority programmes, unlike anything else in the world. The armada coming over from America will do nothing about that; nothing to help that; nothing to replace that. It is unique in this country and unique to this country. We need all the evidence that we can muster to show that we in this country are still capable of making things that are universally valuable, widely available and richly rewarding. That is what the BBC does. It can continue to do that if the Government stop penalising it, begin to cherish it and see it for what it is: something great that we have. It does not need the Government to undermine it.