Creative Industries

Wera Hobhouse Excerpts

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.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call Jim Shannon.

Animal Testing

Wera Hobhouse Excerpts

Monday 19th February 2024 Westminster Hall

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Dame Caroline. I congratulate the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn) on leading the debate in such a detailed, passionate and knowledgeable way.

My constituents, like all others, are passionate about animals, and many have contacted me to oppose their use in laboratory testing. It is upsetting for all those who love animals to learn that, in laboratories across the country, so many animals—including dogs, which we often describe as our best friends—are subjected to awful experiments under the guise of the public good.

It is often said that the UK is a nation of animal lovers, and I think that that is absolutely true. The UK was the first country to instigate animal protection laws, in 1822, and the first to set up an animal welfare charity, the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. Public opinion is clear, and nearly 100 of my constituents have signed the petition to end the use of animals for toxicity tests and to prioritise non-animal methods, or NAMs. There is enough evidence now that non-animal methods can be more accurate, more cost-effective and quicker than traditional animal models.

Although researchers are already required to use non-animal methods wherever possible, concerns have been raised that the process of checking whether NAMs have been used is not rigorous enough. Cruelty Free International has found cases of animal testing being used despite non-animal alternatives being available. It is therefore disappointing that the Government’s response to these petitions is that there will be no change in the law. Although we should all welcome the fact that we have improved our animal welfare laws over the years, we should not be complacent. At a time when new alternatives and non-animal methods are being developed, we should embrace this opportunity for leadership and to make regulations more stringent.

I am sure we all want to minimise the use of animals in scientific experimentation and the cosmetic industry as much as possible, including by funding research into alternatives. We have already heard about Lush and its very successful reception at the end of last year. There are enough companies that are really promoting the use of alternative methods, so we should really listen to industry on this issue.

We know that animal testing can be unreliable and unpredictable and that it causes unnecessary suffering. Humans differ considerably from animals, so the use of animals often leads to poor results. The regulatory requirement that animals be used before human trials is more than 70 years old. Reviewing that, and removing the needless suffering of animals, will finally bring scientific research into the 21st century.

Of course, there are also methods of digital testing, so we really have moved a long way since the law was last revised. A growing number of human-relevant methods are already being developed. Those are made up of innovative technologies that are helping to deliver better results for humans. Despite that, there is a continued misconception that animal testing provides a gold standard for the regulatory approval of a product.

An expert advisory taskforce could play an important role in exploring animal-free innovation. We should also review all animal procedures to remove duplicative and wasteful methods and to prevent the retesting on animals of any material, chemical, food or drug currently in use. Retesting should be conducted using only non-animal methods or existing human data.

The Government have responded to the petition to ban any testing on dogs by saying that welfare standards are already high and that testing would still continue in other countries. Those are valid responses, yet I think that we can do better and provide even more leadership to other countries. That other countries continue to use dogs is not a good reason as to why we should do so in this country.

Although we should be proud that the UK has some of the highest welfare standards in the world, we must build on our robust record and lead by example. To achieve that, greater funding is required to support the development of new technologies and new, innovative testing methods. Sadly, Government funding for such methods currently represents less than 1% of total UK biomedical research. We can do better, and I would particularly like to hear from the Minister on this point. We know that increased research funding often pays back multiple times to the economy—we have had a debate on research funding in this Chamber before—so investment makes good sense.

There is no excuse for animal cruelty, and we must do all we can to ensure that the humane treatment of animals is upheld everywhere. The moral and scientific case for tighter regulation of laboratory testing is clear. It is time that the Government listened to increasing numbers of scientists and voters.

EU Programmes

Wera Hobhouse Excerpts

Thursday 7th September 2023 Commons Chamber

[Michelle Donelan]

I know that my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour does a great deal of work on this as Chair of the Environmental Audit Committee, with a keen interest in this area. We have a fantastic track record when it comes to Arctic science, being fourth in the world, and we want to climb up that league table. Membership of Horizon Europe will certainly help us to achieve that.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

The announcement that the UK will rejoin Horizon is very welcome, and I am very pleased about it, but there is so much more to be done to restore academic co-operation with the EU, especially for students. The Turing scheme is currently on a very sad par with the Erasmus programme. The University of Bath, as the right hon. Member will know, is a science university. As University of Bath students point out, the Turing scheme requires universities to forecast where students will go before their bid for funding, a year in advance. It restricts the freedom of students and creates a major challenge for universities. Will she work with the students’ union at the University of Bath to ensure that Turing will work as smoothly as Erasmus?

[Michelle Donelan]

I am more than happy to work with the Department for Education and co-ordinate a conversation with the University of Bath, but it is important to note that the Turing scheme is different from Erasmus; it is better. It is global in nature. It is also more inclusive. The statistics on the Erasmus scheme show that it particularly helped children of families from middle-class backgrounds, whereas the Turing scheme is much more accessible.