Creative Industries

Debate between Gideon Amos and Wera Hobhouse

Monday 27th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

Here’s to a vibrant performance art sector in every community across the UK. Whether we are talking about school plays, choirs or theatre, in pubs, nightclubs or concert halls, the opportunities that they provide for enjoyment and life-enriching moments cannot be underestimated, and they must be valued and supported. I will give some examples of the successes and challenges in my constituency of Bath, and they will be mirrored in other towns and cities. I hope this debate will help to make the case for more Government funding of the performing arts, a sector where more is needed.

The creative world is very diverse. Many organisations have always existed entirely within the private sector. Others are supported locally by council funding or nationally by the Arts Council. Patrons and sponsors have always existed in this space, but for the last decade they have been expected to replace public funding almost entirely. In Bath, this has narrowed the offer and put enormous strain on organisers to balance the books. The finances of far too many organisations have become hand to mouth. Even in Bath, with its strong network of patrons and supporters of the creative industries, the pressure to balance the books and keep the show on the road makes for a long hard struggle.

According to the Campaign for the Arts, DCMS core funding of arts and cultural organisations has fallen by 18% since 2010. Equity’s analysis shows a 16% real-terms cuts in funding by arts councils nationwide, and that is further compounded by nearly £1 billion of cuts to arts and culture funding by local government across the UK. A decade ago, the big events in Bath received core funding from the council and sometimes the Arts Council, but no more. What is the result? Moles, the famous performance space for emerging talent in the centre of Bath, has closed, and despite the best efforts of local campaigners and the new Music Venue Trust, it is unlikely to open again.

The Bath Festival has amalgamated its musical and literary festivals into one and tries to de-risk its musical offer, but each year it gets harder. The Mission theatre successfully turned its buildings into a community asset and hopes to separate the finances of the building from all the experimental and small performances that take place in it, but each time the roof leaks or a window needs replacing, it entirely depends on local donors. The Bath Philharmonia came to Parliament to highlight the work it does with young carers, but none of that could happen without long-term financial backing. These are just some examples of the great efforts made by the creatives in Bath. Some will come through, but others will not survive the retirement of one or two key people or the loss of core funding. How can trusts and patrons be expected to keep these events and community venues alive single-handedly with so little Government support?

The Secretary of State’s recent announcement of £60 million for the creative industries is welcome, but it will do little to reverse the deep cuts of the last two decades. More importantly, funding must not be provided on a piece-by-piece basis. I reiterate what the hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth (Jayne Kirkham) said on this earlier. It should be devised as part of wider industrial strategy integrated with the reform of Arts Council England and a coherent and long-term growth strategy for regional arts. The Resolution Foundation’s state-of-the-nation report, “Ending Stagnation,” argues that the creative industries are a “rising British strength” that should form one part of

“the bedrock for a growth strategy”.

Theatres, for example, make a significant contribution to local economies. For every £1 spent on theatre, another £1.40 is generated in the local economy. If the Government are focused on growth, the creative industries should be at the core of their strategy.

I reiterate what my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson) has already said: the UK now spends only 0.2% of GDP on arts and culture, compared with a European average of 0.5%. That puts us among the lowest public expenditure on arts and culture in Europe.

[Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)]

I know my hon. Friend has been to the cultural mecca of Taunton in Somerset, so will she credit the town council? She talks about long-term funding, and Taunton town council is putting £300,000 of funding into the arts over three years, including for the amazing Gaumont project to restore the Mecca bingo hall as a theatre.

[Wera Hobhouse]

I congratulate Taunton town council on putting that money into the arts. That is absolutely what is needed, but many councils struggle to balance the books and have to make very difficult decisions.

To deliver on the full potential of the UK’s competitive advantage in the arts and entertainment, additional public investment is required. We need to understand why we are so far behind the rest of Europe in terms of funding and take urgent action to correct that. Core funding is key to the resurgence of Bath’s creative sector, and of creative industries across the country. I hope this new Government can turn the page on the constant cuts to our creative industries and ensure that every community has a vibrant creative sector for all to enjoy.

Grenfell Tower Inquiry

Debate between Gideon Amos and Wera Hobhouse

Monday 2nd December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)]

Like Members across the House, Liberal Democrats stand firmly with the many bereaved and their immediate community of family, friends and neighbours as they mourn the 72, including children, who tragically lost their lives in June 2017. In this debate, surely one thing matters more than anything: that their memory must be respected. But, as Sir Martin Moore-Bick’s phase 2 report on the underlying cause of the fire graphically lays bare, they were cruelly let down by the systems, companies, Governments and government bodies that should have protected them.

We welcome the Government’s commitment to address all the recommendations in the report, and the Prime Minister’s promise in response to the phase 2 report to take the necessary steps to speed up the rate at which unsafe cladding is removed from buildings and to ensure that tenants and their leaseholders can never again be ignored. However, the National Audit Office has said that the pace of remediation work is behind where it should be and called for the onus to be placed on developers to pay for the work. Although the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government’s figures show that works have begun in 44% of buildings with unsafe cladding, it is deeply worrying, seven years on, that 66% are waiting and that thousands of people in the UK are still living in buildings with dangerous cladding. I therefore welcome the Government’s announcements about accelerating progress.

As the National Housing Federation has pointed out, 90% of Government funding for the work so far has been received by private building owners, but many have passed the costs of remediation work on to tenants and leaseholders, putting many, quite unfairly, in serious financial peril. Leaseholders have struggled under the cladding crisis, buying properties they believed met safety standards, which they realise now do not, and suffering from huge increases in insurance premiums, as we have heard. We therefore call for the removal of all such dangerous cladding as soon as possible without tenants and leaseholders—including non-qualifying leaseholders —having to pay. After all, they placed their trust in the private companies and regulatory bodies that let them down, so they should not have to pay a penny towards that work. As the hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) said, product manufacturers surely should be paying.

The whole picture points to the need to create a legally enforceable order to remediate premises so that they are safe on pain of criminal sanction. I welcome what the Deputy Prime Minister said about that a few moments ago. Seven years on from this scandal, it is time for justice both for the victims and all those living with potentially unsafe cladding.

The inquiry report clearly establishes lessons to be learned for every authority in the land. The “pathway to disaster”, as Sir Martin called it, is chilling. It is incumbent on all of us in the House and everyone connected with the built environment and fire safety, not least those in my own professions—as an architect and town planner, I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests—to ensure that change happens and to take forward the report’s recommendations. The Architects Registration Board, working with the Royal Institute of British Architects, has a duty under the Building Safety Act 2022 to monitor the training and development that architects complete throughout their careers. The Liberal Democrats welcome the fact that this year it is mandatory for all architects to complete training in fire safety.

But there is one factor that comes through in the fateful chain of events that led to the fire in 2017, and it is one that had a devastating effect on the lives of so many: the promotion of gaining commercial advantage at the expense of building and fire safety. The inquiry said that the Building Research Establishment—originally a public body but privatised in the ’90s—exhibited in its testing of dangerous cladding

“a desire to accommodate existing customers and to retain its status within the industry at the expense of maintaining the rigour of its processes and considerations of public safety.”

The inquiry reports says that the supplier companies

“engaged in deliberate and sustained strategies to manipulate the testing processes, misrepresent test data and mislead the market. In the case of the principal insulation product used on Grenfell Tower, Celotex RS5000, the Building Research Establishment…was complicit in that strategy.”

Since the privatisation of building inspectors in the 1980s—a move with which even the most commercially minded partners at the practice I worked in a few years later strongly disagreed—they have also faltered as a result of commercial pressures, with a resultant unacceptable blurring of responsibilities. Sir Martin’s report concludes that the privatised inspector NHBC

“failed to ensure that its building control function remained essentially regulatory and free of commercial pressures. It was unwilling to upset its…customers”.

The report goes on:

“We have concluded that the conflict between the regulatory function of building control and the pressures of commercial interests prevents a system of that kind from effectively serving the public interest.”

It is also clear that NHBC practices exposed what remains of local authority building control to similarly unscrupulous competition, and has driven down standards there as a result.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

I thank my hon. Friend for his powerful speech. Does he agree that a lot of problems have arisen from the poor funding of local authorities, where building control services have been severely undermined?

[Gideon Amos]

I very much agree. It is clear from my time in the profession that the exposure of local authority building control to private competition, with which it is difficult to compete, has led to a race to the bottom. In fact, hon. Members should not take my word for it; expert witness Professor Luke Bisby summed it up:

“A culture shift in building control had gradually occurred, from one of building control actors ‘policing’ developers to one of them ‘working with clients’ under commercial duress. This resulted in a ‘race to the bottom’”.

Liberal Democrats therefore strongly support the recommendation for the Government to consider whether it is in the public interest for building control functions to be performed by those who have a commercial interest in the process. We would go further and say that the evidence to the inquiry is such that commercial interests cannot be in the public interest, and that both the Building Research Establishment and building inspectors should be brought back under public control. We also urge social housing providers to pay particular attention to their new requirements under the Social Housing Act (Regulation) 2023, and to the need for better inspection and timely remediation of defects.

We also strongly endorse the need for a recognised profession of fire engineer. It is important, too, that our local fire services are properly funded. I was concerned about the reduction in the number of appliances at Taunton fire station, and I have written to the Treasury on behalf of the Devon and Somerset fire and rescue authority, asking the Government for flexibility in funding and tax-raising powers. It is vital that no further reduction of appliances at stations such as mine go ahead.

We support all 58 recommendations in the report, whether for local authorities, the fire brigade, tenant management organisations or local authorities, or on personal emergency evacuation plans being put in place —it is good to see the Government establishing that today—or indeed for the Government themselves. Since what has turned out to be the fatal folly of promoting commercial interest above building and fire safety in the decades from the ’80s and ’90s, Governments of all persuasions have let down some of our most vulnerable citizens. The situation has been reviewed many times over the years by Governments of all stripes. It is now time to put safety once again before profit.

Great British Energy Bill

Debate between Gideon Amos and Wera Hobhouse

2nd reading
Thursday 5th September 2024 Commons Chamber

[Wera Hobhouse]

As I progress with my speech, my hon. Friend will hear that our focus on local authorities, local decision making and local involvement is crucial. Let us ensure that our emerging technologies, which have the potential to be hugely valuable, are not overlooked or forced to seek support from abroad.

[Mr Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the Secretary of State should take on board one of the emerging technologies that could deliver the most for Great British Energy: the potential for tidal range energy? In a previous life, I was responsible for the consenting of the Swansea tidal lagoon, which unfortunately the previous Government failed to fund. It is the second biggest tidal range in the world and could be a massive success story for Great British Energy and the UK. Does she agree that the Secretary of State should take that on board as a key objective of Great British Energy?

[Wera Hobhouse]

I totally agree, and I am sure that the Government will agree too. A lot of these decisions are ultimately about value for money; as these tidal range technologies come on board, they can become cheaper. I hear the Government are saying that this is exactly the plan: that, where it is currently expensive, Great British Energy can come in and provide support. We understand and support that principle.

This new Government must ensure that they have clear and consistent messages. Delays to the phase-out dates of fossil-fuel vehicles and boilers, as we saw under the last Government, have sent mixed signals to investors, businesses and consumers. We hope that GB Energy will go some way in providing confidence to other investment bodies and the wider industry that Britain’s green economy is open for business.

We Liberal Democrats realise the importance of community buy-in. The new Government must put local voices at the centre of the journey to deliver net zero. We need to win hearts and minds to persuade people that net zero projects are good for their communities, for their pockets and for our future national economy.