Creative Industries
Max Wilkinson Excerpts(4 days, 2 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)
The Minister referred to his greatest creative output, which apparently is hitting bookshelves soon. I am afraid I cannot match that—a Jaffa Cake haiku, which was cruelly overlooked by the McVitie’s marketing department, and a local news story about gnomes being banned from the graveyard in Wrington in north Somerset are as good as I can muster.
The creative industries are the lifeblood of our nation’s cultural wellbeing, and we neglect them at our peril. We must never ignore the voices of creators themselves. This weekend, many of us will have been disturbed to see the interview given by Paul McCartney about the challenge that AI poses to the creative industries and to creators.
The Government are correct to pursue artificial intelligence as a route to solving problems in our public services, boosting economic growth and creating new jobs. Nobody would argue with suggestions for speeding up and improving NHS treatment, removing pointless interactions with local councils or smoothing out bureaucracy for businesses in their interactions with Government Departments. In the creative arts, however, we have a very different challenge, and the Government must not put at risk the value of human creativity.
I will make no luddite arguments in this House—as the MP for the constituency that is home to the most influential cyber-cluster outside London, that would be daft. I am pro-business and pro-technology, as are the Liberal Democrats. I regard myself as a techno-optimist. Innovation is not just desirable but necessary. However, it is not an absolute, particularly when we are discussing threats to human creativity. I know that because my constituency is home not just to a cyber-cluster, but to a creative powerhouse. Cheltenham festivals bring visitors from around the world.
Because we are a creative powerhouse, I receive plenty of communication from creatives in Cheltenham. Robin, a composer, told me that he could no longer advise young creatives to rely on a job in the industry, because it simply will not pay. He told me that things will get worse if the changes to copyright go through. Let us consider for a moment the ability of the human mind to compose a tear-jerking piece of music, or of the delicate human hand to paint an evocative landscape or write prose to persuade, inspire, or move the reader. That is innately human. Such creative endeavour can and does change the world. It brings us growth, and so much more besides.
There is no doubt that technology has an important and positive role to play in this process, and it is already doing so. Technology and creative content must work side by side, but if original human creators are not compensated by default, we risk a future not of glorious, creative technicolour but of many shades of pale grey. Some have already warned that we risk a future of infinite pale grey, in which there is no incentive for humans to initiate any creative process whatsoever. It would be a dereliction of duty by Members of this House if they failed to engage with that risk as part of this discussion and the ongoing discussion about AI.
Last week, along with other MPs, some of whom are in the Chamber this evening, I joined a meeting with a tech company and one of its social media creators. I will not name the company or the creator; that would not be fair and would not add much to the debate. We were told of the huge growth potential for creators that the online and social media world presented. We were told that creators are employing teams of people to produce their content—a big jobs boost. During the discussion, they were asked what happens to jobs growth when a creator’s work is crawled by AI to the extent that it is reproduced hundreds, thousands or even an infinite number of times. If an answer came, however, it was not comprehensive or persuasive.
The mood music suggests that the Government and big tech firms favour an opt-out approach for creators, placing burdens on individual musicians, artists and writers to protect their work. I asked an expert about the potential risks of an opt-out approach and received an illuminating answer. The expert told me:
“For human creators, an opt-in model generally offers stronger protection.”
The first reason for that was control, as
“creators retain explicit control over how their work is used by AI”.
The second was compensation, as
“An opt-in system could be linked to licensing agreements, allowing creators to receive compensation for the use of their work in AI training”.
Pete Wishart
I am listening very carefully to the hon. Gentleman, and he is spot on about some of the dangers and threats posed to the sector by generative AI. Does he agree that there is a way to do this that could benefit and serve both AI and the creative industries, but that it will not involve a clearly unworkable opt-out approach? Indeed, it has never been explained how exactly that would work. Will he encourage other colleagues to look at working together to ensure we get a solution for both sectors?
Max Wilkinson
The hon. Gentleman is entirely right. I agree that the concepts of opt-out and opt-in need to be pursued at greater length.
Thirdly, the expert told me that the preservation of value offered stronger protection:
“By requiring explicit permission, an opt-in model helps maintain the value of original creative works.”
The expert did point out two drawbacks. First, an opt-in approach has potential drawbacks in the form of an extra administrative burden on creators. Interestingly, this expert’s second listed drawback was that an opt-in model would place limits on AI’s ability to gather data for training and development, which does not seem to me like much of a drawback for creators.
I asked that very same expert what would happen if creators lost their intellectual property rights to AI. The expert told me there was a risk of
“a loss of income and motivation, a devaluation of creative work, ethical concerns, legal uncertainty”
and, intriguingly, “domination by AI operators.” I use the word “intriguingly” because this expert seems aware of its own power—the expert was Google Gemini.
At this stage, those considerations are unknowns, and there is much uncertainty. Google Gemini is pulling information produced mostly thanks to human endeavour and discussion sourced from across the internet, but the fact that this view is being presented by AI itself surely suggests there is cause for some concern. Our role as parliamentarians must be to protect the interests of humans, not big tech companies; to scrutinise the proposals of big tech companies; to avoid the luddite tendency, crucially; and to build in suitable safeguards.
Chris Bryant
As the Minister, I do not want to intervene too much. I sympathise with a great deal of what the hon. Gentleman has said. One of my concerns, however, is that if this country legislates in a particular direction, in order to reinforce copyright in the way that several hon. Members have suggested, the danger is that companies would simply train overseas, using the UK’s creative talent and intellectual property without any form of remuneration whatsoever. That is why I think it is really important that we get to a place where we have both sides working together.
Max Wilkinson
Of course. The Minister will not be surprised to hear that I will be moving on to that in a moment.
If, against the will of the creative industry, the Government are to proceed with an opt-out approach—I hope they do not—it seems logical that such an approach must come with strong safeguards, which may come in the form of automatic attribution, in order to identify the creative inspiration for any work that has been crawled and reproduced. However, more importantly, we need suitable levels of compensation to be automatically awarded. In short, if the big tech companies want default access to our creators’ work, they must expect the default to be that they pay for it. Tech firms will argue that an opt-in approach, or one that places the burden on them, would place us out of step with other nations, and I accept that that might be the case. However, let us look at it from another perspective. Is the suggestion that we might give our creative industry more respect really such a terrible idea? I do not think so. Given the widespread threat to the UK’s creative industries from this and other economic circumstances, I would suggest not.
Having touched on AI, I will now address a few other subjects more briefly. First, I turn to the unfashionable topic of Brexit. The previous Conservative Government’s disastrous Brexit deal excluded artistic provisions, and the effect of that is reflected in a shocking statistic: between 2017 and 2023, we suffered a 23% drop in the number of British artists touring the EU. The Liberal Democrats backed free and simple short-term travel arrangements for UK artists to perform in the European Union.
Secondly, I turn to education. It is well known that changes to policy in the past decade or so have diminished arts education in state schools, with more than 40% of schools now no longer entering students for GCSE music or drama, and almost 90% not offering GCSE dance. Universities are also scaling back their arts offerings. The Liberal Democrats would restore arts subjects to the core of the curriculum, ensuring that every child has the opportunity to study music, dance, drama and the visual arts.
Finally, I turn to local government. Local councils are historically the single biggest funders of culture in their areas, but their spending powers have been much reduced. There is a risk that as part of the devolution process, and as local government reorganisation happens, additional pressure will be placed on social care and children’s services. Although those things need attention, we must not allow the arts to be forced further to the fringes of public spending debates.
John Milne (Horsham) (LD)
On the funding of local arts and theatres, my constituency has a wonderful local theatre called The Capitol, which is owned and managed by the district council. However, our council is likely to be merged with some debt-laden neighbouring councils, with some of the responsibilities my hon. Friend has outlined, and that poses a severe threat to the theatre’s long-term survival. Does he agree that the Government need to look at inventive ways to reverse the decline in local funding? One option would be to emulate France’s patronage law, which provides for 60% tax relief on donations to art organisations.
Max Wilkinson
That sounds like a good idea. I think there are some really logical ways we could do this by ringfencing some assets for local value—attaching them to car parks, which are already producing revenue in local areas. There are creative ways that different local areas could do that. However, it is a concern, and I do not think that discussion on this matter has been had as part of the discussion on devolution and local government reorganisation.
Graham Leadbitter (Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey) (SNP)
I want to go back slightly to the point about health and social care spend by local authorities. Is there a good argument to be made that as more and more people require social care and support, particularly in care homes, there may be advantages in investing in the arts and culture in order to take them to people who would otherwise find them difficult to access?
Max Wilkinson
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Older people in care homes can benefit from such creative outlets—both from having people bring arts and culture to them, and from days out at our local cultural institutions.
As some of the challenges we face are global, I will finish with a look at how other Governments are supporting their creative sectors. Since 2010, Germany, France and Finland have all increased their budgets. In the same period, the UK reduced its budget for arts and culture provision by 6%. More recently, Governments of EU nations and others around the world have begun spending more on their creative sectors, with the cultural centres of China, Russia, Portugal, France and Spain all increasing their budgets. This year, we cut the British Council budget by £12 million.
Ms Polly Billington (East Thanet) (Lab)
The British Council may have to sell half of its art in order to pay back a £200 million debt from covid. Surely it is an example of knowing the price of everything and the value of nothing if we cannot reschedule that debt to enable the British Council to retain its valuable pieces of art, 4,500 pieces of which are under threat.
Max Wilkinson
The hon. Lady makes a very good point. That does sound like a potentially devastating blow to our nation.
Britain has gifted the world the likes of Charles Dickens’s literature, the music of The Beatles and the best film of all time, “Paddington 2”. By amending our education system, protecting cultural spend locally, securing a fairer deal with the EU and protecting creatives from exploitation by AI, we can properly support our creative industry and ensure we continue to make a similar contribution for many years to come.
Children’s Social Media Accounts
Max Wilkinson Excerpts(2 weeks, 4 days ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Twigg. I thank the Petitions Committee for enabling this debate and the hon. Member for Sunderland Central (Lewis Atkinson) for opening it.
There is nothing any parent fears more than the loss of a child. Tragically, in 2022, Ellen Roome suffered this loss. Her world was shattered when she came home to find her son Jools not breathing. He had taken his own life aged just 14. While Ellen was dealing with the enormous pain of her loss, she also had questions about what had happened in the days, weeks and months leading up to Jools’ death. Jools was a happy boy. A video filmed just before his death shows him playing happily with friends. The absence of any hints that he might have been inclined to harm himself led Ellen’s search to his social media accounts.
In her search for answers, Ellen found herself blocked by a legal system unable to tackle the complexities of social media and obstructive social media giants that placed process ahead of compassion. The police had no reason to suspect a crime, so did not see a reason to undertake a full investigation into Jools’ social media. The inquest did not require a thorough analysis of Jools’ online accounts. None of the social media companies would grant Ellen access to Jools’ browsing data, citing regulations. A court order was needed to access his digital data, which required eye-watering legal fees.
Ellen sought nothing more than what amounts to access to her deceased child’s personal effects. In years gone by, that would have required searching through a child’s bedroom, perhaps looking at diaries, notes, letters, toy boxes, stickers or any other clues. The modern-day equivalent of such a search necessitates access to social media accounts, but because the law has not kept pace with the realities of modern life, that search has not been and cannot be completed. This is a cruel and inhumane process to impose on a grieving parent seeking nothing more than answers about what happened before their child took their own life. That is all Ellen wanted.
I ask all of us present, and anyone watching at home, to consider what we would want to happen if we found ourselves in Ellen’s shoes, and go further to think what rights a parent would assume in those circumstances, as a matter of natural justice. There is, of course, a much wider debate about online harms, but Ellen is using her experiences and her campaign to bring about positive change in this debate. She is seeking answers in order that others do not have to in future.
The case of Jools and Ellen is not the first time that social media companies have come up short. The dynamic and fast-moving nature of the internet means that social media companies are able to act before legislators have a chance to catch up. This is a problem that has persisted for many years, but it is notable that they act only when pushed by brave campaigners like Ellen shining a light on what is happening.
As we have heard, the Online Safety Act takes us a step forward, and it does improve rights of access. The current legislation, however, means that bereaved parents like Ellen are still left to fight bureaucracy. In Ellen’s case, she is seeking retrospective action too. The Government should look at how exactly they can rectify that urgently and in retrospective cases.
There is now an acknowledgment that giving parents the right to automatic access to living children’s social media accounts may have unintended and undesirable consequences relating to child protection, but if the law and parents are to acknowledge that balance, social media companies must do their bit to keep children safe online from predators, inappropriate content and content that may cause children to harm themselves.
Sadly, in recent weeks and months we have seen social media companies make increasingly vociferous claims that the protection of free speech and freedom of expression online must come above all else. The examples of Elon Musk’s bizarre approach to X and Meta’s decision to ditch moderation in favour of community notes are instructive of what is happening and what could happen next, and there has also been much discussion of the impact of the TikTok algorithm on children’s mental health. Other platforms and examples will come up in the future. We have also seen democracies start to act to curtail the power of social media companies—the example of the Australian Government’s approach is instructive, whether or not Members of this House agree with the detail.
I thank the hon. Member for Darlington (Lola McEvoy) for her support for my constituent Ellen; I know it has been valuable to her over the past few weeks and months. I thank Ellen herself and pay tribute to her: she is the person whose petition brings us here today. The heartache and devastation she has endured is unimaginable for the rest of us, but Ellen has turned her grief into something that is positive and could be even more positive for this country and other parents. Having watched her campaign so tirelessly, and provided support where I could for the past few months, I am immensely proud of what she has achieved. We should all be thankful for what Ellen and other members of Bereaved Families for Online Safety are doing. They know what we in this Chamber, the Government, the legal system, police forces and social media companies know: the system is badly failing children and families.
Social media companies must now be placed on notice. They must protect children and respect families or face the consequences. They must protect children so that the Joolses of the present and the future do not meet a tragic and early end. They must respect the Ellens of the past, present and future so they can be confident that their children can be safe too.
Tourism: Northumberland
Max Wilkinson Excerpts(2 months, 1 week ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I congratulate the hon. Member for Hexham (Joe Morris) on securing this important debate. I am fortunate enough to have enjoyed tourism in Northumberland very recently; I stayed in Longframlington and Hexham with my wife and daughter, where we visited Hadrian’s wall. During the few days we spent there, we also visited Lindisfarne, from where we took home a bottle of spiced mead. I can recommend it to Members seeking ideas for an alternative Christmas tipple that would be popular with Vikings and monks alike. We enjoyed time at Bamburgh castle, Alnwick castle and Warkworth. At Bamburgh, we saw the exhibition about “The Last Kingdom”, which prompted us to start watching that series on Netflix. If there were a competition for UK castles, Northumberland would surely be the premier league.
Liberal Democrats believe that tourism is the lifeblood of the UK economy. The UK contains a rich tapestry of destinations beyond our capital cities, ranging from traditional bucket-and-spade resorts such as Blackpool to creative hotspots such as Brighton, rural retreats such as the Lake district and modern city attractions such as Hull. If our tourism industry is to flourish, more focus is needed. We must all work, as the Minister alluded to in the previous debate, to rebalance tourism away from London; that is why this debate is so important. Doing so would benefit not only Northumberland, but also my constituency, Cheltenham, which welcomed 2 million visitors in 2022—an influx that supports around 4% of local jobs. Many of those are found in Cheltenham’s excellent hospitality sector, as will be the case in any tourism destination, and most of those businesses will be small and medium-sized enterprises.
The previous Government let small businesses down badly and took them for granted. When businesses needed certainty and stability during the recovery from the pandemic and the energy bills crisis, the chaotic approach of the previous Government made things so much worse. Liberal Democrats have called for a complete overhaul of the unfair business rates system, replacing it with a commercial landowner levy based on the land value of commercial sites rather than their entire capital value, thereby stimulating investment and shifting the burden of taxation from tenants to landowners. That this new Government are exploring changing the broken business rates system is positive and we welcome it, but small and medium-sized businesses need action sooner rather than later—they need it now, and much more urgently as a result of the decision to reduce the retail, hospitality and leisure business rates relief from 75% to 40%.
At the weekend, I visited Emma, the landlady of the Hewlett Arms. She told me that it currently feels as if the Government still do not quite understand properly how the hospitality sector works. She thought that the contribution of independents in the hospitality sector needed to be better acknowledged, and that the combined impact of the Budget, alongside cost differentials between pubs and supermarkets in particular, meant that her job was getting significantly harder. I am sure that applies to many places in tourism destinations, including in Northumberland. I am certain that the new Government have a vision for tourism, having heard about it in the previous debate. I cannot promise the Minister that I will agree on every single point, but I will always aim for the compassionate, creative and constructive approach of the monks at Lindisfarne rather than that of a Viking invader.
Secondary Ticketing Market
Max Wilkinson Excerpts(3 months, 1 week ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Rosindell. I congratulate the hon. Member for Cramlington and Killingworth (Emma Foody) on securing this important debate. I will put it on the table: the last gig I went to was Jason Donovan at Chepstow castle, and I think the next one on my agenda is also Jason Donovan, at Cheltenham town hall. For that, I have to thank my wife.
From personal experience, I know that it can lead to huge frustration and an inclination to do whatever it takes to get in if someone is denied the ticket they want. Fans often feel they have no choice. For fans of sports, music and festivals, there is nothing quite as disappointing as missing out on the tickets we want for that one event of the year that we want to attend. In some cases, it is 10, 20 or even 30 events, because we know that fans are fans. The one thing they want to do is get through the front door and see the thing they love.
Sadly, there are too many unscrupulous organisations that prey on good-natured dedication to a band, team or regular event. These unscrupulous organisations and individuals are getting away with it. It is an extreme example of market failure. When honest, hard-working fans miss out or are forced to pay hundreds of pounds over the odds because secondary ticketing platforms and touts sweep up the market, the sense of unfairness is very real. The UK’s secondary ticketing market had an estimated annual worth of £1 billion in 2019, with ticket touts mass-buying tickets—the “harvesting” we heard of earlier. They are doing that for sporting and cultural events, then selling tickets on at massively inflated prices.
Mrs Hodgson
The hon. Gentleman is making an excellent speech. When fans are forced to pay way over the odds, they are not able to then go to 10, 20 or 30 other concerts or sporting events, because they may have spent their budget for the year on that one special event that they really wanted to go to. Does he recognise that this issue robs the fans of those multiple opportunities?
Max Wilkinson
Of course, and fans want to be there, in the room or the stadium, as often as they possibly can. It enriches their cultural enjoyment, and it is really unfortunate when they end up only able to go to one match a season, or one gig a year, because they have to pay 10 times the price in some cases.
This problem contributes to the unacceptable and extraordinary statistic that an estimated half of Britons have at some point been priced out of the market for tickets to events that they want to attend. When I read that, I did wonder whether it was true, but apparently it is, which is absolutely extraordinary. That is simply unfair. The fact that this subject is being debated today, and that the Government have signalled their intent to make things fairer, is definitely to be welcomed.
Liberal Democrats have, for some time, been calling for greater protection of fans who are exploited by ticket touts. That means that we want to see the implementation of the Competition and Markets Authority’s recommendations to crack down on illegal ticket resale—and it was mentioned earlier that the authority itself might take a more expansive role.
We are calling for the prohibition of platforms that allow sellers to list more tickets for an event than the seller is able to procure legally from the primary market. That practice is clearly exploitative, misleading and wrong. The Liberal Democrats are calling for platforms to be strictly liable for incorrect information about tickets listed on their websites. Dodgy tickets that are not what they seem mislead the public, as my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Marie Goldman) told us earlier.
We also believe that all secondary ticketing sites must be forced to hold a licence to operate in the UK. Many of us who have been going to sporting events for some time are familiar with the person standing outside the music venue or stadium who says “Any spare tickets?” as crowds walk past. The unlicensed nature of this market means that some secondary ticket operators are little more than that, but they are fronted by an official-looking website. Licensing will bring them into line or put them out of business, which is what they deserve.
The Liberal Democrats are calling for a ban on the use of surge pricing by ticket platforms. It cannot be right that people pay a significantly higher price for the same product based on the fact that many others are seeking the same ticket at the same time. That is not an example of a liberal market that helps consumers; it is predatory behaviour. That said, it is clearly desirable for sellers to retain the ability to give early-bird discounts or late deals on undersold events. Those are examples of variable prices that work for consumers.
The Liberal Democrats are also calling for a reform to transaction fees, with the aim of placing a cap on the amount that can be added to ticket prices. How can it be right that a ticket listed for £50 or £60 can, by the time it gets to the checkout, end up costing £80 or £90? That is another example of dishonest and predatory behaviour.
We believe that the changes we are calling for would make it very difficult for professional sellers to sell tickets that have been procured unlawfully. They would also make it more difficult for the professional sellers to sell through secondary ticketing platforms in breach of the law. The changes would help event organisers too: their terms often prohibit or restrict resale to identify and cancel tickets, but sometimes those rules cannot be enforced.
Attending gigs, sporting events and festivals is core to the enjoyment that so many of us take in our leisure time. This issue is central to people’s ability to be happy and healthy, and to enjoy their lives. We must do all we can to stop the widespread abuse that causes so much frustration to so many.
I finish by saying that there is a suspicion that ticketing companies could solve this whole issue tomorrow, using technology that is currently available, but that choices have been made not to do so. That is why a crackdown is needed.
Edinburgh Festivals: Cultural and Economic Contribution
Max Wilkinson Excerpts(3 months, 3 weeks ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)
It is a pleasure, Mr Efford, to serve under your chairmanship and I congratulate the hon. Member for Edinburgh East and Musselburgh (Chris Murray) on securing this important debate.
We have heard many inspiring stories today about Edinburgh. I regret that my most recent cultural experience in Edinburgh was bellowing out Proclaimers songs in Fingers piano bar at my stag party. That was a great day out, but it does not match up to some of the other stories that we have heard—
The Minister for Creative Industries, Arts and Tourism (Chris Bryant)
It does not sound like it would. [Laughter.]
Max Wilkinson
It was a lovely evening out as well, Minister.
Our challenge is that we must build a creative environment that showcases the best of British talent—bringing together British culture and creativity, and showcasing it for the world—and that we use that to foster a thriving and informed democracy. The impact of cultural festivals in achieving those aims is substantial.
In the case of the Edinburgh festival, we have already heard that it benefits Edinburgh itself by more than £400 million; the wider impacts on the rest of Scotland and the UK are much, much bigger. The festival opens the door to tourism for the rest of our nation, which is a really important aspect that we must not miss out when speaking about cultural events.
That is why it is very worrying to hear the concerns of festival organisers, which have been highlighted in recent news coverage. Regardless of funding pressures, it is our opinion that it is extremely important that the Scottish Government do what they can to meet their past funding pledges. For appropriate balance, I will add that such responsibility extends to other public funders of cultural activities across the rest of the UK, whether those are devolved nations or local government.
Festivals, such as the festivals in Edinburgh that we are debating today or the Cheltenham festivals in my own constituency, play a key role in our cultural life. It is vital that they receive the support necessary to continue to flourish. This week, my constituency is celebrating the 75th anniversary of the Cheltenham Literature Festival, which continues to flourish. However, despite large ticket sales, reductions in funding and in-kind support mean that the organisers of the Cheltenham Literature Festival have had to make some really tough choices in the past few years. Nevertheless, they still engage youngsters in reading to the tune of around 23,000 children every year. Of course, reading for pleasure is one of the single biggest indicators of a child’s future success.
At the launch event for the Cheltenham Literature Festival last Friday evening, supporters—including me—were reminded that the UK spends just 0.46% of its GDP on culture; that is based on the latest figures, which are from 2022. According to the University of Warwick’s “The State of the Arts” report, the UK is not alone in Europe in cutting its cultural budgets in recent years, but that does not make it right and we remain towards the bottom of the European league table, lagging behind our neighbours. If we are to remain a cultural superpower, that situation needs to be addressed.
Cultural funding extends to local festivals, theatres, cinemas, museums, art galleries, music and dance venues, libraries and public spaces. These are all vital to communities the length and breadth of our country. They are spaces devoted to creative endeavour. They not only fuel local economies; they also stimulate community participation across a whole range of creative activities.
In addition, we must not ignore the positive impact of the cultural sector on another great challenge facing our nation: deteriorating mental health. As we seek to reduce pressure on the NHS, we should look to the arts and culture as part of the non-medical therapy available. While few in the Chamber would dispute the difficult economic inheritance of this Government, we cannot look past the positive economic and social impact of investment in culture. It generates incomes and helps communities to thrive in non-monetary measures, too, as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) pointed out.
What can we do to help our cultural sector boost the economy and increase happiness and wellbeing? Central Government can make a difference in many ways, although at heart it often comes down to money. However, Westminster and devolved Governments can make other important contributions. The promise made by the new Government for the restoration of multi-year funding settlements for local government will provide an important route to that. The hon. Member for Mid Derbyshire (Jonathan Davies) mentioned creative subjects, and we agree on that.
Planning reform offers another opportunity. Engaging the cultural sector in that will be important. We can beef up powers for local areas to protect cherished cultural venues. The cultural sector, too, would benefit from the abolition of business rates and the introduction of a commercial landowner levy.
A more sensitive subject is freedom of expression in the cultural sector. We all need to remember that sometimes we will see and hear things that we do not agree with. If art is not there to stimulate debate, it is nothing.
Finally, Chair—
Max Wilkinson
I appeal to the Government to make a small re-prioritisation: appoint a Minister for tourism and hospitality.
Technology in Public Services
Max Wilkinson Excerpts(4 months, 4 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Peter Kyle
I am grateful for that intervention and welcome the hon. Member to his place, too. The Government take extremely seriously the role that AI and digital technologies have in productivity in all public services and, as my speech unfolds, I hope that he will hear more detail about the scale of our ambition. To take just one of the schemes that we will be unfolding, the fit for the future programme—a £480 million commitment in our manifesto—will be responsible for driving innovation through the NHS, with adoption of the very latest scanning equipment as well as other equipment right across the NHS in England. Those are just some of the things that we are committed to, and I assure him that the Government are wholly committed to this agenda.
Nothing about change is inevitable. The future of technology is ours to shape, and the opportunities it offers are ours to seize. My ministerial team and I want to see a future where technology enriches the life of every single citizen and a future with safety at its foundation, because only when people are safe and feel safe can they embrace technology and the possibilities that it presents.
Today, Britain’s tech sector is showing us what that future might look like, but far too often our public services are simply stuck in the past. The contrast could not be clearer. Much of the century so far has been defined by the sheer speed of technological advancement. The digital revolution has transformed our lives in ways that would have been unimaginable just a couple of decades ago. Most of us can access our bank accounts anywhere, at any time, and transferring money takes just seconds. Social media and video calls have given grandparents back precious time with their grandchildren, no matter how far away they may live. Young people live in a world where they can find thousands of jobs at the click of a mouse and work for a global brand without having to leave the community they love living in. Yet, as innovation has accelerated, the state has fallen further behind. Our citizens still need to contend with up to 190 different accounts, with 44 different sign-in methods, to access Government services online. Each of them is easy to lose or forget.
Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)
This is obviously a positive debate, as there are so many benefits for us all. I could not remember 191 passcodes—I struggle to remember my own to log in every day in Parliament—but of course we have to underpin everything that we are talking about in terms of technology with cyber-security. In Cheltenham, we have a 4,900 member-strong community speaking for our industry in CyNam, and of course we have GCHQ, where thousands of people work every day; they do not ask for our thanks, but they deserve it in bucketloads.
The Secretary of State may be aware of the golden valley development in Cheltenham, which I recently sent him a letter about and which would include the national cyber innovation centre. I wonder whether he might like to find out more about that by sending members of his team—or he could come himself—to have a chat with me about it.
Peter Kyle
The hon. Gentleman, who I welcome to his place, spent quite a bit of time on his intervention, but I realise that there is simply so much to talk about in his constituency. I pay tribute to the organisations he referenced, including GCHQ and CyNam. The work that they do often goes unthanked, but it is absolutely essential to the security, wellbeing and economic welfare of our country. I certainly intend to visit as soon as I can, and it would be great to meet any of his representatives at any point; I am sure that my ministerial team will be willing to do so as well.
Andrew Griffith
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will make some progress. I understand that colleagues will want to move on to other points, but this is a very important point. Once this Rubicon has been crossed, it will not be possible to un-bake that cake of an independent civil service. Imagine the ambitious civil servants—the directors, the directors general—who never even had the chance to be considered for this role!
Max Wilkinson
Interested as I am in this question of process and the discussions about cronyism, I turned up here to listen to a debate about tech and public services. I was wondering whether the hon. Gentleman had any opinions on that subject.
Andrew Griffith
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will have a chance to speak about exactly that subject later. However, it is critical and, I think, a point of commonality across the House that we can deliver change only through professional and competent civil servants, and it is important that the morale of the Secretary of State’s Department, like that of every other Whitehall Department, is maintained.