Performing Arts: English National Opera

Debate between Tim Loughton and Robert Neill

Monday 5th December 2022 Commons Chamber

[Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)]

It is a pleasure but also a sadness to rise to speak in this Adjournment debate, because it is not a discussion we should be having in a society that prizes excellence, attainment and opportunity. It is about the disgraceful behaviour of Arts Council England in removing the English National Opera from the national portfolio and about what some of us perceive to be a significant underappreciation of the performing arts, as opposed to other art forms, in the way we deal with our arts and culture policy—perhaps, I regret to say, in the attitude of Arts Council England itself from time to time.

Let me set out very briefly what causes that. The English National Opera is approaching its 100th anniversary. It was founded by Lilian Baylis to deliberately make opera, in its best and most effective sense, available to everybody—I will come back to the fact that opera is not some kind of elite form in the way it is so often wrongly characterised. That is the same mission that Arts Council England was given: to make art and excellence available to everybody. Regrettably, recent decisions have put that at risk.

For 55 years or so, ENO has had its home at the London Coliseum. It has been a nurturer of talent and, for many people, as audiences and as professional singers, the gateway to opera. It has done a great deal. It has had its challenges from time to time; the Coliseum is a large theatre, and there was a time when the company struggled to find its way in a sense, artistically and financially. It also had some brilliant times, and I remember, as a young student in London, going to the ENO when it was at Sadler’s Wells, before it moved down to the Coliseum. I remember seeing fantastic productions there that opened people’s eyes to what music can do; what that extraordinary juxtaposition of theatre, music and the visual performance can do, in a way that no other art form arguably can.

The ENO’s unique thing was that it was affordable and it did it in English, so the barrier that sometimes makes operas and art forms seem remote did not exist at the English National Opera. That has always been one of its important calling cards. That has also meant that talented people—from Bryn Terfel to Susan Bullock and many others—started their careers and have worked their way to becoming international stars because of the ENO.

[Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on bringing this debate, although it is regrettable that we have to have it. I can attest, as somebody who has enjoyed many particularly un-highbrow productions at the Coliseum, to what he is saying. The ENO has sought to diversify and to open its doors to the less advantaged. It has given free tickets to young people and has encouraged them to get involved with the beauty of music in an accessible way and in English at such a young age. Does he not think it is ironic that the ENO is the victim of a supposed diversification programme by the Arts Council, which is giving questionable money to all sorts of politically motivated causes up and down the country, and that this could scupper the future of such a fantastic institution that has done so much to bring the arts to those who absolutely benefit from it more than most?

[Sir Robert Neill]

I certainly agree with my hon. Friend. The ENO has been about expanding horizons and expanding opportunities. The irony is also that, because of the hard work of its current leadership, and because of the work that has been done by its chair, Dr Harry Brünjes, by its board, and by its chief executive, it is on a sound financial footing.

The ENO was praised by the chair of the Arts Council as being never better led, and the Arts Council’s internal documents show that its governance is beyond reproach. On its financial situation, risk is seen as moderate—for any company in theatre, that is, frankly, very good. It has actually built up reserves and has done all the right things, putting the operation on a much more commercially aware basis. Those at the ENO spend time bringing in musicals to cross-subsidise some of the less accessible and more challenging work, but that is an important part of their mission, too. They have done everything expected of them in the Arts Council’s own objectives, and have ticked the box on the Art Council’s own internal assessments of the Let’s Create objective.

Why is it, then, that a company that has done everything asked of it, and succeeded, has the rugged pulled from under it by the Arts Council, on 24 hours’ notice, with no consultation, no evidence base—that we have seen—to underpin it, no strategy to underpin the approach to opera as an arts form or, generally, to the way that vocal arts are dealt with in the United Kingdom? Why is it, then, that the chorus and orchestra are threatened with redundancy and the creatives are likely to be on notice? That is all on the basis of a laudable objective of the Government to spread where the arts are found in this country. I do not disagree with that, but it is done in such a manner that the Government’s own objective is, I regret to say to the Minister, undermined and almost discredited.

Trade Bill

Debate between Tim Loughton and Robert Neill

Consideration of Lords amendments
Monday 22nd March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Tim Loughton]

rose—

[Sir Robert Neill]

I am sorry, but time presses. I have given way once, and, with respect, it would not be fair on other people.

I hope that, when the Minister responds to the debate, he will make it clear that the Government would facilitate the bringing forward of motions to enable the establishment of such a Joint Committee of both Houses and I hope very much then that Members of the other place with high judicial experience might well lend their expertise to that. The obvious precedent is the work of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, ably chaired by the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman). Over the years, that has established a very high reputation for its rigour of scrutiny, the quality of its decision-making, and the respect in which it is held. It is inconceivable that such a Committee would be ignored by any Government on an issue as important and significant as potential genocide by a potential trading partner. I urge the Government to take that as the right way forward rather than falling yet again into the totally well-intended, but none the less undesirable, constitutional trap of this latest iteration.

State Pension Age: Women

Debate between Tim Loughton and Robert Neill

Wednesday 30th November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Tim Loughton]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I will come on to that in the very limited time available.

I am concerned that the Government’s amendment to the motion is just another example of them sticking their head in the sand and hoping the problem will go away. I acknowledge the wisdom of Mr Speaker in selecting the Government amendment, rather than those in my name and other hon. Members, but it appears to have little to do with the subject of the debate—the effect of pension age equalisation on WASPI women. I welcome the average rise of £550 a year for 3 million women. I welcome the increases in the basic pension, which the Secretary of State talked about. I welcome the introduction of the triple lock. Frankly, however, to produce such an amendment adds insult to injury. WASPI women will not be able to enjoy those benefits for up to six further years. That is the whole point. These women will not qualify for the benefits for a much longer time and they need help now. In addition, and despite what we have heard, women’s life expectancy actually fell last year for the first time in many years. The Chancellor, understandably, recently declined to guarantee the triple lock for years to come. By the time many of the WASPI women qualify, they will not be able to enjoy the security of the triple lock. That is why I cannot support the Government amendment. I urge hon. Members to refrain from supporting it, too. Frankly, to vote for such a disappointing and inappropriate amendment would be an insult to the many WASPI women who have campaigned so hard.

I also have a problem with the SNP motion. Mr Speaker, you were lucky enough not to be here when the hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) spent 36 minutes losing my vote. SNP Members have been unilaterally pushing this cause. I am grateful that they do so, but in Scotland they do not have to pay for it. That is why we never hear solutions from the SNP. The motion references the Landman report, which relies heavily on the magic money tree known as the national insurance fund. We know the fund has been in deficit and that the Government, who have a responsibility for pensions up and down the country, had to top it up. The SNP suggestion is, in reality, a pension fund-raiding exercise.

I am disappointed that Mr Speaker did not choose my amendment, simply because it asked for a dialogue to be opened up—that we prioritise looking at the most extreme cases of hardship, which we all now see in our surgeries. The amendment does not commit to specific substantial spending and it certainly does not call for a reversion to the pre-1995 status quo. We support pension age equalisation. It is just that the speed of the transition process has led to unintended consequences for a large number of women. Many hon. Members have seen cases at first hand in their surgeries. We just want to talk.

[Robert Neill]

I agree that it is regrettable that we were not able to debate my hon. Friend’s amendment. I would have supported it. Does he agree that we are where we are, and that we should not go down the extravagant SNP route? We should take the Secretary of State up on his offer of dialogue to find something constructive for those most in need.

[Tim Loughton]

I agree. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for seeing a delegation from the all-party group just a few days ago, even though there is no preparedness to discuss specific options. He has, however, offered to look at examples of hardship, particularly where women are being offered very inappropriate and impractical jobs by jobcentres up and down the country. We have examples from all over the place of women aged 65 being offered bar jobs in a nightclub or a job stacking shelves at 4 o’clock in the morning. It is just not working in practice. We need to be much more sensitive and sensible to the particular work needs of these women if they do indeed have to go back to work, and transitional arrangements cannot hold them back from doing that.

I also made the point earlier about there being just seven of these older people champions at jobcentres up and down the country. We do not need to go over the issues again. We heard them today, and we have heard them nine times before: the poor communication; the little notice or no notice of the change; the fact that women from the 1950s worked in very different environments, where they did not get equal pay or childcare benefits, or have access to occupational pension schemes, and typically worked part time. I believe if we proceed on these lines it will be a breach of trust between hundreds of thousands of women who have worked hard, brought up families and done the right thing—and some of them also have caring responsibilities—and the Government.

The state pension system is founded on the contributory principle. This is not a state benefit for which no prior commitment is involved, yet this group of women, who have been paying national insurance contributions over many years in good faith, now stand to have their reasonable expectations dashed.

I urge the Government to think again and to talk, and let us come up with a sensible proposal.

State Pension Age (Women)

Debate between Tim Loughton and Robert Neill

Thursday 7th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Tim Loughton]

I applaud the hon. Lady. I have had representations from constituents who were in low-paid jobs with huge caring responsibilities for children and other family members when they did not have access to free child care and other things—and we have them to thank. Yet it is those people for whom I believe there has been a breach of trust, as these changes hit them disproportionately. We have a large duty of care to them, but I do not think we are going to fulfil it.

[Robert Neill]

I very much agree with everything my hon. Friend is saying. Will he concede that in other pension reforms, we were anxious as a Government to make sure that there was protection for those who were not able to change their circumstances? This operates particularly unfairly on people such as one of my constituents who has worked all her life but is unable to return to work because of a pre-existing medical condition, so she cannot change her circumstances.

[Tim Loughton]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is why fairness needs to be applied to everybody, and in this case, there is a cohort of women who are simply not being treated fairly. Our state pension system is funded on the contributory principle. This is not a state benefit for which no prior commitment is involved, yet this group of women who have been paying national insurance contributions over many years in good faith and who have fulfilled their end of the deal face being short-changed retrospectively.

We need to bear in mind many other factors. Fewer than one in four women who qualify for the new state pension in 2016-17 will get the full amount. Right up to 2054, fewer women than men will qualify for the full standard pension. Women are significantly more likely than men to work part time, and to do so for longer periods throughout their working lives, largely driven by caring roles, as hon. Members have mentioned. They therefore tend to be under-pensioned.

I welcome the fact that the new single-tier pension will recognise periods of time spent caring, which will help in the future, and I acknowledge that the Government have made progress on shrinking the gender pay gap—an issue on which consultation is in place. Progress has been made, with more women in work than ever before. We have seen lots of generous reforms—on entitlement to free child care, the national living wage and so forth—but all those are far too late for a generation of women who relied on work without many of the benefits that we now take for granted, while bringing up their families and discharging their caring responsibilities. Because of the number of women who are going out to work, many others have caring responsibilities for grandchildren as well as having to hold down part-time jobs.