Contemporary Cultural Boycotts

Baroness Twycross Excerpts

Thursday 9th July 2026 Grand Committee

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Twycross) (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, for initiating this important debate and all noble Lords for their valuable contributions. As the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, made clear, even where individuals do not agree with each other, it is important that we have this discussion. The debate has reflected many of the issues raised by The New Boycott Crisis, which was published by Freedom in the Arts earlier this year. During the debate, I particularly welcomed the historical perspectives from the noble Baronesses, Lady Spielman and Lady Meyer.

I start by addressing the critical points made by a number of noble Lords—including the noble Lords, Lord Addington, Lord Polak, Lord Frost, Lord Doyle and Lord Parkinson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Spielman—on the scourge of antisemitism in the arts, as highlighted in the report in stark detail, which reflects the wider and, regrettably, growing antisemitism more broadly in society. I want to make it explicitly clear that this Government find antisemitism, wherever it may raise its ugly head, both abhorrent and completely unacceptable. We will do whatever it takes to work with the Jewish community to tackle it in wider society. Antisemitism has no place in our society and, as the Prime Minister made clear in May at a summit he held on the issue, it is our shared responsibility to tackle rising antisemitism.

Since that summit, we have been working with the Arts Council on plans for an independent audit into how concerns are handled and where its systems need to be strengthened. This will focus on allegations of antisemitism, but we anticipate that its findings will strengthen the Arts Council’s handling of all concerns, and more information on this will be shared in due course. The noble Lord, Lord Polak, cited examples of informal exclusion of Jewish arts and artists. We will make clear to ACE that the work it is doing now to tackle this issue in its audit and in its engagement with the sector should and must cover antisemitism as defined in law and the informal exclusion the noble Lord rightly highlighted.

This work by the Government is in tandem with sector-specific round tables that we are launching in partnership with the Board of Deputies. Over the next few months, these sessions will bring together Jewish representatives, DCMS officials and arm’s-length bodies, including Arts Council England, to share best practices and secure meaningful, practical commitments for the next six months. Nobody should feel unsafe, whether performing on the stage or going about their daily life. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Polak, that it is entirely unacceptable and a damning indictment of where we are as a country that an actress such as Maureen Lipman, undoubtedly one of our national treasures, has to have private security. It is completely unacceptable. The noble Lord also raised wider issues around the security of our Jewish community and pointed out that the arts do not sit separate to the rest of society. As noble Lords may be aware, the Home Office has committed record funding of £32.4 million this year to protect the Jewish communities through the Jewish community protective security grant managed by the Community Security Trust.

The noble Lord, Lord Frost, raised points about potential politicisation and referenced my noble friend Lady Hodge’s review of Arts Council England. This Government remain committed to the arm’s-length principle that artistic expression, including decisions around funding and programming, should be free from political interference, but this is not the same as being free from protection. I am sure noble Lords welcomed, as I did, the Government’s response to my noble friend Lady Hodge’s independent review. The response reaffirmed the arm’s-length principle and the importance of public investment in culture supporting a wide range of voices. Arts Council England supports a broad range of artistic practice and viewpoints, including actively investing in organisations that defend creative freedom. Index on Censorship is one such organisation whose work highlights and challenges censorship and the oppression of artists and creatives.

A number of noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Meyer, and the noble Lords, Lord Frost and Lord Young of Acton, raised points around artists with gender-critical views. The Government are clear that while it is right that protections from discrimination exist for LGBT+ people, such as those held in the Equality Act, this does not prohibit and should not exclude people expressing their views, opinions or beliefs, including gender-critical views. Each individual’s right to freedom of expression must be balanced against the rights of other people or those of the wider community to achieve a fair outcome for everyone, including those who are trans or who hold gender-critical views.

As the noble Lord, Lord Doyle, made clear, there is a difference between what we do not like and what is illegal. My noble friend Lady Dacres highlighted the importance of challenge within arts, as did other noble Lords. Freedom of expression carries with it certain responsibilities. Cultural organisations must always comply with the law, including legislation relating to equality, discrimination and public order. When speaking up becomes hate speech, a clear and unacceptable line is crossed. However, within these legal boundaries, organisations and artists should feel confident in presenting their work.

Noble Lords, including the noble Lords, Lord Parkinson and Lord Doyle, spoke about protests and boycotts. While the Government are wholly supportive of freedom of expression, we are equally supportive of peaceful protest. However, there is growing concern across the cultural sector about the impact of organised activist campaigns. They can include calls for exhibitions to be cancelled, performances to be withdrawn, artists to be disinvited or sponsorships terminated.

I note the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Jenkin, about self-censorship also being an issue. The noble Baroness, Lady Meyer, and the noble Lord, Lord Frost, made similar points.

The noble Baroness, Lady Fox, and the noble Lords, Lord Polak and Lord Young, spoke about silent cancellations and boycotts. These boycotts, as well as the silent cancellations noted in the report, are, in the Government’s view, damaging to art and artists. We have been unequivocal in pushing back against these boycotts. Last year, the Secretary of State said:

“Boycotting sponsors, and killing these events off, is the equivalent of gagging society … we will stand against it with everything that we’ve got”.


As the noble Baroness, Lady Jenkin, said, the answer to speech that we do not like is more speech, not silence.

This Government are clear that boycotting festivals, performances and organisations harms the art, not the sponsor. As the noble Lord, Lord Doyle, made clear, we have a great tradition of philanthropy in this country, and the Government want to strengthen it. That is why we published a strategy on philanthropy earlier this year. As the noble Lord said, we need a mixed economy that includes private sector funding.

The noble Lord, Lord Addington, asked about guidance on the legal position and my noble friend Lady Dacres of Lewisham asked about some examples of guidance and best practice. We recognise the increasing and enduring pressure that arts and cultural leaders face on this issue. In response, Arts Council England has supported the recent publication of new guidance on the matter, which I will circulate to noble Lords who have taken part in today’s debate. There are positive signs that the sector is grasping the nettle and rising to the challenge. Arts organisations in Manchester are tackling this head on, with Factory International spearheading the brave spaces principles. Work such as this acts as a north star in guiding organisations through the complexity of programming and sponsorship decision-making in the face of activism.

I will conclude shortly but I want to respond to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, on whether I would be willing to meet Freedom in the Arts. I would be very happy to meet the organisation, but that may need to be after the conclusion of a number of legal matters which it is currently supporting. My private office will arrange a meeting in due course.

As I have outlined, the Government recognise many of the challenges identified in the report The New Boycott Crisis. By encouraging a plurality of voices, this Government are helping to ensure that this country remains one of the world’s leading centres of artistic and cultural excellence. As my noble friend Lady Dacres said, at its best, art allows us to see people through others’ eyes. I am clear, and this Government are clear, that lawful artistic expression deserves protection, that cultural organisations should be free to make their own decisions and that our cultural life is strengthened, not weakened, by the free exchange of differing opinions and ideas.