UKPOL.CO.UK

Category: Culture

  • Nadine Dorries – 2022 Statement on Russia’s Attack on Ukraine

    Nadine Dorries – 2022 Statement on Russia’s Attack on Ukraine

    The statement made by Nadine Dorries, the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, in the House of Commons on 3 March 2022.

    We have entered the eighth day of Ukraine’s fight for survival. In the week since Vladimir Putin launched his unprovoked, premeditated and barbaric attack on a free and peaceful neighbour, the UK has led a united Western response to his brutality. We are working with allies around the world on multiple fronts to ensure that the Russian dictator feels the full cost of his invasion. On the military front, we have provided Ukraine with the weaponry to inflict significant losses on the invading Russian forces. On the economic front, we have worked with international partners to cripple the Russian economy, but as history has shown us, there are other powerful ways of isolating rogue regimes.

    Culture and sport can be as effective as economic sanctions if used in the right way, and so in the last week I have been working to mobilise the full might of the UK’s soft power against the Russian state, and applying pressure both publicly and privately across the sectors to use every lever at their disposal to entrench Putin’s position as an international pariah. Culture is the third front in the Ukrainian war. Earlier this week, I brought together governing bodies from across sport and I made the UK’s position clear: Russia should be stripped of hosting international sporting events, and Russian teams should not be allowed to compete abroad.

    Across sport, the arts and entertainment, we are ostracising Putin on the global stage. The upcoming Champions League final and Formula 1 Grand Prix will no longer be held in Russia. Likewise, Russia has been banned by UEFA, FIFA, World Rugby, the International Tennis Federation and the International Olympic Committee. Venues across the country have cancelled upcoming performances by the Bolshoi and Siberian ballets. Disney and Warner Bros. have pulled their films from Russia. Netflix has stopped its projects. BBC Studios and ITV Studios have stopped trading with Russia too, and Russia has been banned from taking part in the Eurovision Song Contest.

    Putin is now suffering a sporting and cultural Siberia of his own making, and it will be causing the Russian leader real pain. Ask Ukrainian tennis player Sergiy Stakhovsky, who gave a very moving interview on the radio earlier this week. A few weeks ago, he was playing at the Australian Open. Now he is back in Ukraine, preparing to fight for his country’s survival. He said that Putin loves nothing better than watching Russia’s sports teams’ glory on the world stage, his athletes draped in the Russian flag.

    Putin needs the kudos of these global events to cover up his illegitimacy and the hideous acts he is perpetrating in Ukraine. The Russian despot is desperately trying to hide the grim extent of his invasion from his own people. That is why I strongly support, and continue to encourage, the kinds of emotional displays of solidarity we have seen across sporting events in the last week, including the Carabao cup final and the Six Nations. Lights and symbols cannot stop bullets and bombs, but when Russians see their favourite footballers wearing shirts emblazoned with the bright blue and yellow of the Ukrainian flag, it helps to open their eyes to the cold reality of Putin’s actions. Likewise, every time an international organisation or figure publicly stands up against what Putin is doing in Ukraine, they chip away at his wall of lies. I thank and applaud all those who have done so, in this country and internationally, and I continue to push for organisations to exile Putin’s Russia from their ranks.

    That is why I have called on UNESCO to bar Russia from hosting its annual world heritage conference in June. It is absolutely inconceivable that that event could go ahead in Putin’s country as he fires missiles at innocent civilians in neighbouring Ukraine. If it does go ahead, the UK will not be attending. That is also why I urged the International Paralympic Committee urgently to rethink its decision to allow athletes from Russia and Belarus to compete. Such pressure works; the IPC’s decision was the wrong call, and I welcome the fact that overnight it has listened and this morning it has reversed that decision. I wish our athletes the best of luck in Beijing over the coming days. Later today, I will be hosting a summit with countries from all over the globe to discuss how we can continue to use the power of sport to isolate Putin at home and abroad. We have to keep ratcheting up the pressure. Putin must fail.

    In my Department, we have been working tirelessly to use the power of tech and the media against the Russian dictator and to shut down and counter his propaganda and lies, because they are key weapons in his arsenal. The Department’s counter-disinformation unit has been working to identify and remove Russian disinformation online. Alongside the US and others, we have been working closely with platforms to take pre-emptive action against Putin, and to demonstrate the consequences of his brutality in real time to the Russian people. Apple has paused all sales in Russia, Google has added new safeguarding features to Google Maps and Search, and WhatsApp is hosting a helpline for Ukraine’s state emergency service that sends people information and critical news about the local situation.

    While big tech has stepped up in a really positive way, we are also encouraging and supporting platforms to go even further to tackle certain challenges, including disinformation, service disruptions and the humanitarian crisis triggered by the conflict.

    In this digital age, the Ukrainian war is being fought on the ground and online, so we need to use tech wherever we can as a force for good to counter Putin’s aggression, to expose his weaknesses and to bolster the people fighting for their survival in Ukraine.

    From the very moment that Putin began his invasion, I was very clear that he must not be allowed to exploit our open and free media to spread poisonous propaganda into British homes. RT’s own editor-in-chief has called the network an “information weapon” of the Russian state. That is why I wrote to Ofcom last week, urging it to examine any potential breaches of the broadcasting code. Ofcom has since opened 27 investigations into RT and is now reviewing whether to revoke RT’s licence entirely.

    In the meantime, those investigations have been overtaken by events. I was very glad to see yesterday that the channel is now officially off the air on British televisions, after it was shut down on Sky, Freeview and Freesat. I have also written to Meta and TikTok asking them to do everything that they can to prevent access to RT in the UK, as they have done in Europe. I am glad that YouTube has already answered this call and done so.

    We are on the side of free media. That is why it was brilliant to see that the audience for the BBC’s Russian language news website has gone up from 3.1 million to 10.7 million in the past week. Despite his best efforts to censor reporting in Russia, Putin’s own citizens are turning to factual, independent information in their millions.

    At this point, I would like to offer my heartfelt thanks and admiration to all those journalists, working for the BBC, ITV and other news outlets, who are risking their lives to bring us unbiased and accurate news from a live war zone. We will keep ratcheting up the pressure on Putin, and I will use all the levers in my Department to ensure that he is fully ostracised from the international community.

  • Robert Cooke – 1972 Speech on Public Service Broadcasting

    Robert Cooke – 1972 Speech on Public Service Broadcasting

    The speech made by Robert Cooke, the Conservative MP for Bristol West, in the House of Commons on 23 February 1972.

    I beg to move.

    That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for the greater freedom of public service broadcasting; and for purposes connected therewith.
    At present, all broadcasting is just that, and until the spoken and televised word are as freely available as the printed word some element of public service will remain.

    I seek to provide for greater freedom within the existing framework and to modify that framework in such a manner as to pave the way to the ultimate freedom for broadcasting which the Press in Britain now enjoys.

    When the printing press was invented, the church was against it because it helped to disseminate knowledge and spread education beyond the closely guarded confines of church and court life. There are still some clergy today who are against local radio, though their reasons remain obscure. Radio has been a means of mass communication for half a century, yet it retains many of the shackles that it acquired at the outset due to public and parliamentary fear that it would be misused. I suspect that some of the heirs and successors of those timid and suspicious churchmen of centuries ago sit in this House, and I have noted the suspicion or caution with which some hon. Members approach any proposal for the extension of mass communications. They are not confined to one side of the House.

    That is why with the arrival of television, which is the ultimate in powerful and intrusive means of reaching every household, it was regarded as being too dangerous to be let out of the hands of those to whom radio was entrusted 50 years ago. Later we created the I.T.A. and the companies which work within its framework, in the affairs of one of the smallest of which I have some experience and interest. It is not they who are under attack today, but the massive and in some ways rather splendid bureaucracy that, alas, the B.B.C. has become.

    I recognise that the B.B.C. produces a vast quantity of first-rate material, and long may that continue, but the B.B.C. problem undoubtedly exists and must be tackled. One reads in this morning’s newspapers of a massive shake-up in its current affairs department. Resignations are talked of. There is a report of a savage attack by a union on administrative waste at the top. There is a report of a settlement of a libel case involving the B.B.C., and the number of public apologies made by the corporation for its actions have increased greatly in the last 18 months. It has set up a special complaints committee, but with a fanfare of publicity and somewhat narrow terms of reference.

    It is against this background of the B.B.C. problem and the need to reorganise independent television long before 1976, when the new pattern of contracts and, one hopes, two channels instead of one will emerge. It is time to set up a small group to report within a year on the future of broadcasting as a whole.

    My Bill provides for a review of broadcasting by a group of not more than seven nor fewer than three persons, at least one of whom shall be a woman and one of whom shall be under the age of 45, appointed by the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications, subject to the affirmative Resolution of this House so that the House will have absolute control of its composition. My Bill defines its terms of reference. It would seek to modify the existing framework in such a way as to give a greater number of separate originators of programmes greater freedom to express divergent views, and, broadly, to place broadcasting on the same footing as the national and local Press. The I.T.A. would be known as the Television Authority, with two channels served by separate competing companies preserving regional character, with ample opportunity for clash of view. Indeed, by extending the opportunities for coverage of controversy of a national or local character, public participation would be vastly increased.

    The television authority would continue to exert an influence over the programme companies. The companies would continue to be financed by advertising. The same disciplines over them would apply via the authority as applies at present. I would not preclude in my Bill the possibility of a company which did not comply with the reasonable wishes of the authority finding itself fined for its malpractices, which has not been happening recently but could, I believe, happen if the House would give my Bill the force of law in due course.

    In the case of the B.B.C., to some people even to suggest change is like advocating the demolition of West-minister Abbey. I am asking my review body to consider the possibility of a broadcasting corporation receiving licence fees as at present but augmented by clean sponsorship; that is, not allowing any sponsor to make a personal appearance or to advertise but merely to have the name of an organisation prepared to sponsor a programme attached to it, and only after the programme has been produced, so that there could be no collusion between the sponsor and the programme producers. The corporation would have responsibility for transmission, as the B.B.C. does now, but Channel 1 and Channel 2 Television, should replace B.B.C.1 and B.B.C.2 and they should be completely separate, each with its own policy and views on current affairs and matters of that kind. They could be relied upon then to produce a different but nevertheless balanced clash of views.

    I believe that the present situation gives the B.B.C. far too great an exclusive artistic patronage but that with two channels one could get divergence of view and much wider scope for artistic patronage. So many other benefits flow from having two quite separate channels that I need not detail them here.

    Lastly, I come to the question of overseas services, which would be replaced by a new corporation, Radio-Television Great Britain, which would broadcast into Europe and into the world at large with material drawn from all available sources—B.C.1, B.C.2, T.A.1 and T.A.2; and similarly with radio. I believe that in this way Britain’s voice abroad would be far more representative than it is at present. It is within this framework, and with the knowledge that many more channels of communications will shortly be possible by means of cable to every household, that the review should be conducted. There could be 60 channels via cable to each household, revolutionising the means of communication and taking some of the burden off the far-stretched postal services.

    I do not believe that a better future for broadcasting lies in councils, committees or commissions to control and confine the talents of those who work in radio or television. We talk a good deal in this House of the right of freedom of speech.

    This Bill is designed to help us find a way to confer that freedom upon those who broadcast, in the belief that freedom of speech and clash of view is where the real safeguard of the truth lies.

    Finally, my Bill is a kind of backbencher’s Green Paper, a basis for discussion. I do not imagine for a moment that the House will be unanimous about all its details, but the central theme, about which we must all agree, is that freedom of speech and communication is the greatest possible safeguard of the truth.

  • Nadine Dorries – 2022 Comments on Moving DCMS Staff to North

    Nadine Dorries – 2022 Comments on Moving DCMS Staff to North

    The comments made by Nadine Dorries, the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, on 14 February 2022.

    The days of London-centric decision making belong in the past. It’s an exciting time for DCMS as we expand our regional offices and tap into a more diverse talent pool.

    Our strength comes from our people and this will allow us to recruit the best, wherever they may be, to deliver the wide range of DCMS policies which drive growth and enrich lives all over the UK.

  • Nadine Dorries – 2022 Statement on News UK Undertakings

    Nadine Dorries – 2022 Statement on News UK Undertakings

    The statement made by Nadine Dorries, the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, in the House of Commons on 10 February 2022.

    On 1 February 2021 News UK submitted an application requesting the Secretary of State to release in full the undertakings accepted in 2019. The 2019 undertakings were accepted in lieu of the conditions put in place when the newspapers were acquired by News International in 1981.

    The conditions included provisions relating to the continued publication of The Times and The Sunday Times as separate newspapers, to the number and power of the independent national directors of Times Newspapers Holdings Ltd, and to editorial control over the journalists working for, and political comment and opinion published in, each of newspapers.

    The undertakings accepted in 2019 made changes to the conditions, to allow for sharing of journalistic resources between the two publications and to strengthen the arrangements relating to the independent national directors. News UK now seeks the release of the undertakings in their entirety.

    On 24 June DCMS issued a public “invitation to comment”, which included a redacted copy of the application, and the written views received from the editors and independent national directors. On 30 July, DCMS requested Ofcom and the Competition and Markets Authority to advise by 24 September on the public interest considerations and changes to market circumstances relevant to the case, respectively. The CMA’s report concludes that releasing the undertakings would have a significantly positive impact on News UK’s financial position and ability to adapt to changing market conditions. Ofcom’s report concludes that the impact on media plurality of releasing the undertakings is likely to be limited and that, on balance, releasing the undertakings is unlikely to operate against the public interest needs for free expression of opinion and accuracy of news.

    On 25 November, acting in a quasi-judicial capacity, I announced that, having taken into account the reports and all relevant information submitted to the Department, I was minded to grant the request by News UK and release the undertakings. I consulted publicly on this minded-to decision and did not receive any further evidence relevant to my decision. I therefore confirm that I am satisfied that there has been a material change of circumstances since the acceptance of the undertakings in 2019 and that, having considered the public interest considerations applying to newspapers, the undertakings are no longer appropriate or necessary for the purpose they were intended to achieve and so should be released.

    In accordance with the Enterprise Act 2002, I have taken a final decision to approve the application and will notify News UK that the undertakings relating to The Times and The Sunday Times are to be released.

  • David Moyes – 2022 Comments on Kurt Zouma

    David Moyes – 2022 Comments on Kurt Zouma

    The comments made by David Moyes, the manager of West Ham United, on 8 February 2022.

    It’s something we’re all disappointed with and something we can’t understand. He’ll learn from it, but today I had to pick a football team that gave me the best chance of winning the game as manager of West Ham. I know how people feel, but I’m also a football manager here. My feeling was that Kurt has apologised and I understand a lot of people will not just be accepting of an apology.

  • Chris Philp – 2022 Statement on Child Online Safety

    Chris Philp – 2022 Statement on Child Online Safety

    The statement made by Chris Philp, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, in the House of Commons on 8 February 2022.

    Protecting children online is a Government priority and the strongest protections in the draft Online Safety Bill are for children.

    The Online Safety Bill will establish new statutory duties requiring companies to take robust steps to improve safety online. The duties will cover user-to-user services—those that allow users to upload and share content that may be encountered by others—and search engines. All companies in scope will need to protect their users from illegal content and activity, and companies with services that are likely to be accessed by children will be required to protect children from legal but harmful content. While the Bill is technology neutral, we expect companies to use age verification technologies to prevent children from accessing services that pose the highest risk of harm to them, such as online pornography.

    The online safety regime covers many of the most visited pornography sites, social media, video sharing platforms, forums and search engines—thereby capturing many of the sites through which children access pornography. These companies will have to prevent children from accessing pornography or face enforcement action by Ofcom.

    The Government recognise the concern, raised by the Joint Committee during pre-legislative scrutiny of the Bill and by other child online safety stakeholders, that the Bill needs to go further to protect children from online pornography on services that do not currently fall within its scope.

    To strengthen protections for children further, we will make changes to the Bill to incorporate a stand-alone provision requiring providers who publish or place pornographic content on their services to prevent children from accessing that content. This addresses the concerns that have been raised about a gap in scope for non-user-generated pornography, and ensures that all services that would have been captured by part 3 of the Digital Economy Act, and all the user-to-user and search services covered by the Online Safety Bill, will be required to protect children from pornography. This new duty will be enforced by Ofcom with providers being subject to the same enforcement measures as other in-scope services.

    The Government are committed to bringing forward the most comprehensive approach possible to protecting children online. We will introduce the Online Safety Bill as soon as parliamentary time allows and will continue to engage with Members of Parliament in both Houses on the protections for children within the Bill.

  • Keir Starmer – 2022 Comments on the Creative Industries

    Keir Starmer – 2022 Comments on the Creative Industries

    The comments made by Keir Starmer, the Leader of the Opposition, on 2 February 2022.

    Thank you Caroline, and hello everyone.

    I’m so pleased to be here talking to you for the first time.

    This should not be a one off.

    But the beginning of a conversation we can keep coming back to.

    As I was planning this talk, I was reflecting on how lucky we are.

    We live in a country with a cultural heritage stretching back thousands of years.

    Our literature, art, music, theatre, advertising and fashion are admired all over the world.

    We have a truly national culture, maintained by universal public broadcasting.

    And 2022 will be a big year to celebrate that culture.

    It is Her Majesty the Queen’s Platinum Jubilee.

    The Women’s Euros are here, Birmingham will host the Commonwealth Games and the BBC will celebrate the centenary of its creation.

    But as great as they are, I am not here just to celebrate the cultural achievements of the past.

    Instead, I want to look at the source of this heritage – our creativity as a nation.

    Creativity allows us all to see the world in entirely new ways.

    We saw it in the scientists at Oxford developing the coronavirus vaccine every bit as much as we see it in our great painters, actors, and musicians.

    So my focus today is not just on what are known in policy circles as “the creative industries”.

    I want to widen the conversation to talk about our creative nation.

    Because I believe that all good industry is creative.

    To be creative is the economic necessity of our times.

    Creativity brings beauty and meaning into our lives.

    But it is also the source of innovation and invention.

    It is the expression of talent and imagination.

    It is the key to the security, prosperity and respect that our country needs and nowhere is this more in evidence than in the creative industries themselves.

    At the beginning of this year, I set out my contract with the British people.

    Its objective was the creation of a new Britain in which people get the security, prosperity, and respect they deserve.

    Today, I want to fill in the details of this contract.

    To give you a sense of how those values will make us an even more creative nation.

    I’ll talk about how Labour will work in partnership with you to provide security to a creative workforce to bring prosperity to the nation and to restore respect to the industry and creative communities across the nation.

    The first term in my contract with the British people is security.

    Labour is committed to providing security for people working in every sector.

    The creative industries were left especially exposed to the pandemic.

    Output in the creative industries declined by more than a third between 2019 and 2021.

    That’s partly because – beyond Britain’s renowned creative brands –

    there are legions of small businesses, micro-businesses and freelancers who depend for a living on the success of those brands.

    A third of creative workers are freelancers – double the UK average.

    That rises to 7 in 10 workers in music and the performing and visual arts.

    The pandemic left many people in these industries insecure and short of support.

    110,000 jobs were lost.

    And if Britain is to recover strongly from the pandemic the creative industries must thrive.

    We need your entrepreneurial spirit, your ability to navigate and embrace change.

    We need you to feel safe to take risks.

    We need your ideas and innovation.

    In return for that, the government should provide you with the security to do so.

    A decade of this Conservative government, though, has let you down – badly.

    Economic growth has slowed and the cost of living has risen faster than earnings.

    This makes it harder to build new businesses.

    Labour would unleash the entrepreneurial spirit so evident in the creative industries – with our plan for 100, 000 start-ups across the country.

    Sadly, today the British economy is increasingly defined by insecure work and low pay.

    The government I lead would deliver the security at work you need and deserve.

    We would raise the minimum wage to £10 an hour.

    We would give workers full rights from day one.

    We would ban zero-hours contracts and we would increase Statutory Sick Pay and make it available to all.

    In addition, we have a ten-point plan to live well with Covid, preventing the need for future restrictions.

    This would give the creative industries security from the threat of cancellations.

    We will not prosper if we are not secure.

    Security and prosperity work together.

    The second term in the contract is prosperity.

    Under my leadership, Labour is back in business.

    We will equip the next generation for work and we will invest to create high-skilled jobs.

    In response, we expect each sector to invest in the long term, too.

    We expect businesses to contribute to the aim of net-zero.

    And we expect them to be good local citizens by supporting their workforces with fair pay and flexible working.

    Labour believes Britain’s future prosperity lies with its home-grown industries.

    And the creative industries are a Great British success story.

    In 2019, for instance, they contributed over one hundred billion pounds in gross value added to the UK economy.

    That’s greater than the aerospace, automotive, life sciences and oil and gas sectors combined.

    And that’s not all, these industries supported a further £62.1 billion across the supply chain.

    There are 2 million jobs in the creative sector and a further 1.4 million more rely on it.

    And creativity is nation-wide.

    Some of Britain’s most famous characters – James Bond and Harry Potter were brought to life in Pinewood Studios in Buckinghamshire through the acknowledged excellence of our film crews, technicians and set-builders.

    The UK theatre industry is world-beating. Our productions are in huge demand and our West End, regional theatres and community arts are envied worldwide.

    We have world-leading 3D capture technology at Dimension Studios in London.

    The UK gaming industry has evolved into the UK’s most lucrative entertainment sector and is the leading video game market in Europe.

    More than 1,500 people are employed in the industry in its birthplace in Dundee.

    In 2020, the universities of Abertay, Dundee and St Andrews announced the launch of a £9m gaming research and development centre in the city.

    The University of Reading’s Thames Valley Science Park is soon to become the UK’s biggest film studio, creating 3,000 jobs.

    There are studio developments underway in Cardiff, Northern Ireland, Yorkshire, Manchester and Scotland.

    The creative industries are growing four times the rate of the UK economy as a whole.

    Their gross value-added has grown by over a third in the North-West and almost half in Scotland over the last decade.

    The creative industries are creating jobs at three times the UK average.

    Employment in the sector grew 21% in Northern Ireland and 30% in the West Midlands between 2010 and 2017.

    And we are exporting the fruits of our creativity too.

    The creative industries account for 12% of total UK exports.

    Our creativity enhances Britain’s international reputation.

    It attracts investors and visitors.

    But leaving the EU does of course pose challenges.

    There is, for a start, a potential loss of funding.

    Between 2014 and 2020, the UK received 68 million euros in funding from Creative Europe.

    And we will lose funds such as Erasmus+, Europe for Citizens and the European Structural & Investment Funds.

    In addition, EU citizens are a significant part of the UK’s creative industries workforce.

    Creative professionals need to be able to travel abroad at speed so the impact on them has been tough – with musicians especially hard hit.

    The Conservatives believed it was enough to get Brexit done.

    It’s not.

    We urgently need to Make Brexit Work.

    We would push for a visa waiver for touring artists.

    And we would negotiate an EU-wide cultural touring agreement – including allowances for cabotage, carnets and custom rules.

    It is only when we achieve security and prosperity that we will be paying the creative industries the respect they are properly due.

    Respect is the third term in my contract with the British people.

    Every village, town and city in Britain has a sense of identity.

    And nothing creates more civic pride than a cinema, a museum, a theatre, a gallery, or a concert hall.

    Creativity has driven the regeneration of so many of our towns, cities and regions.

    Margate, for instance, the home of the Turner Contemporary, attracts 2.9 million visitors and generates £68 million for the local economy.

    In Folkestone, the Creative Quarter has regenerated the area with arts, creative industries and education.

    And of course in Scotland we have the world’s largest international arts festival – the Edinburgh festival.

    The Edinburgh festival, as many of you will know first-hand, is the launch pad for creatives across the country – and indeed the world – who bring their performances and new works to the city.

    And Scottish TV productions – like Outlander – are exported across the world helping to promote jobs in the media that make Britain such a world leader in TV production.

    The UK video effects industry thrives in Cardiff Bay with successful businesses like Bait Studio.

    And Creative UK launched the Culture and Creative Investment Programme in the North-East.

    We need to look after our national culture, too.

    The UK’s public service broadcasting is a national treasure because it is also local and global.

    Local news, the World Service, the BBC and Channel 4 are the narrators of our national story.

    They create jobs and drive productivity.

    The Conservatives threaten the future of these two great institutions.

    The plan to privatise Channel 4 and the threat to the BBC as we know it are a direct attack on some of the best of Britain’s creative work.

    There will be an economic price to pay, too.

    Yesterday, the Secretary of State announced £50 million of investment for the creative industries.

    But the privatisation of Channel 4 would put £2.1 billion of gross value-added to the supply chain at risk over the next ten years.

    It risks putting 60 UK production companies out of business showing that the Government isn’t interested in growth.

    Meanwhile, a commercial BBC would rob us – and the world – not only of superb news services with unparalleled local knowledge but of a valuable cultural export.

    I want to challenge all of you here today and the wider sector to be bold to come together and assert your collective clout by speaking out in defence of the value of public sector broadcasting against the government’s attacks.

    I promise you this.

    You can do so knowing that a government I lead will always have your back.

    Our record, in government, on creativity and culture speaks for itself.

    The last Labour government oversaw a boom in creative industries and institutions.

    Tate Modern opened in 2000.

    The Eden Project in Cornwall in 2001.

    The Baltic Centre for Contemporary Art on the Quayside in Newcastle opened in 2002.

    And the Sage Gateshead concert hall opened in 2004.

    In Salford, meanwhile, MediaCityUK began life in 2006.

    The next Labour government will help the creative industries flourish again.

    Creative roles now make up a significant part of the Government’s Shortage Occupation List.

    And they include many of the jobs predicted to grow as a share of the workforce by 2030.

    As I tour the country, I am frequently struck by how often I am told about skills shortages.

    A recent survey showed that 80% of businesses were worried about skills.

    In this context the Government’s squeeze on creative subjects in curriculums is self-harming.

    Even STEM industries say that the stripping away of vital creative subjects including drama, music and art is costing them.

    Even primary age children have seen almost a 40% decline in participation in music activities.

    Not only does this affect access to careers in the performing arts it also further degrades the creativity upon which our national prosperity rests.

    The skills gaps in the creative industries workforce aren’t being filled by the available training.

    Funding per student in further education and sixth form colleges has fallen by 11% in real terms since Labour was last in government.

    Digital skills are another area where the UK needs to improve.

    But fewer than half of employers believe young people have the digital skills they need.

    In government, we would add digital skills to the basics of reading, writing and arithmetic.

    And last year, we launched our Council of Skills Advisors.

    David Blunkett, a former education secretary will work alongside the tech entrepreneur Praful Nargund the skills expert, Rachel Sandby-Thomas and Kevin Rowan of the TUC.

    In government, we would ensure that everyone leaves education ready for work and ready for life.

    The reputation of the creative nation depends on it.

    Prosperity, security and respect.

    The three terms of my contract with the British people.

    A Labour government would extend this contract to the creative industries.

    You have achieved so much.

    But to succeed as a country, we will need more creativity than ever before.

    I want us to become an even more creative nation.

    A nation defined by its willingness to take risks and embrace change.

    Creativity can make us more prosperous as a country.

    And it can bring meaning, beauty and pride to every village, town and city.

    It can give people opportunities to flourish.

    The security they need to do so and the respect they deserve.

    Together we can build the creative nation of which we can all be proud.

    Let’s keep this conversation going.

    Thank you.

  • Nadine Dorries – 2022 Comments on National Youth Guarantee

    Nadine Dorries – 2022 Comments on National Youth Guarantee

    The comments made by Nadine Dorries, the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, on 1 February 2022.

    We want every young person, no matter where they’re from, to get the best start in life. That is why we are supporting young people with a National Youth Guarantee to access regular club activities, adventures away from home and volunteering opportunities.

    Our Youth Review told us exactly what young people want and that’s what this Government is delivering on – levelling up opportunities for young people, regardless where you were born or where you are headed in life.

  • Suzanne Webb – 2022 Speech on Cultural Objects Protection from Seizure Bill

    Suzanne Webb – 2022 Speech on Cultural Objects Protection from Seizure Bill

    The speech made by Suzanne Webb, the Conservative MP for Stourbridge, in the House of Commons on 28 January 2022.

    I will try not to make this a political broadcast, Mr Speaker, but stick to the subject matter.

    I rise to support this Bill, which I know will be of great reassurance to museums and galleries in the Black Country and the wider west midlands, particularly because I spent much of my youth and adult life in museums and galleries. They are a joy. That is what I used to do: we did not have the internet or those exciting things that absorb us now, attached to a phone. We used to get out there and see incredible exhibitions. My hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Julie Marson) mentioned the blue badge, and I may look into that myself—it sounds very interesting.

    The coronavirus pandemic underscores why this legislation is needed. Back in March 2020, no one could have foreseen the disruption to international travel that would occur. With nearly all overseas flights suspended, objects on loan to British museums could not be returned to their country of origin. As a result, the artefacts were at risk of being left unprotected by the current 12-month period of protection from seizure. By changing existing legislation, this Bill will help to mitigate those unforeseen disruptions to the timely return of artefacts on loan from lenders abroad.

    However, the Bill is more than a contingency for unforeseen events: it strengthens the partnerships between our museums and international institutions by providing a greater degree of certainty and building trust. Many foreign lenders insist on immunity from seizure when lending artefacts, so the Bill is crucial to ensuring that international owners have the confidence to lend culturally significant objects to British institutions, in the knowledge that they will not be at risk of inadvertently being left unprotected.

    Museums and galleries across the country and in the west midlands stage incredible exhibitions, many of them only made possible by the borrowing of objects from international lenders. These international exhibitions are vital to both enhancing their existing collections, and attracting new audiences. Other hon. Members have stolen my thunder, because I was going to mention Tutankhamun myself. My hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho) mentioned the 2019 exhibition, which I believe marked the 100-year anniversary and was the last visit. Some of us remember the 1972 exhibition, which I remember as a child of the time—my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Julie Marson) mentioned that, and I think it quite unbelievable that she can remember it. It was absolutely thrilling, the excitement of it all, and there were record crowds of 1.7 million people. I remember the black and white pictures of the queues going round—I think we used the word Egytpomania at the time—and it was so exciting. It was an exhibition of the beautiful painted wood torso of the young king, exquisite domestic objects, and the glint of gold everywhere. I seem to remember that exhibition coming to Birmingham, which is where I was born and bred, but when I did a bit of research I could not find it. Nevertheless, I believe it moved around slightly. Imagine if that incredible exhibition had been blighted by a pandemic.

    The Bill provides a greater degree of certainty, and makes it easier for British museums and galleries to plan their exhibitions. It will help to ensure that the UK continues to be able stage international exhibitions, with the finest artefacts from around the globe. Many such exhibitions are made possible only through the borrowing of objects from international lenders.

    I now want to tell the tale of an artefact of great distinction and notoriety that resided in the midlands: an 8 foot tall, 890 kg fibreglass statue commissioned for display in Birmingham in 1972, as part of the sculpture for public places scheme in partnership with the Arts Council of Great Britain. It was commissioned to make something city-oriented, and the sculptor chose King Kong—I do not know whether my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley North (Marco Longhi) remembers the King Kong that resided in Birmingham. I do not want hon. Members to do a quick Google now, as I will be told off by Mr Speaker, but when they leave the Chamber, they can see the incredible artefact that was in Birmingham and supposed to represent it. It was down to the sculptor’s association with New York City, and he created it for their own petty reasons. It was displayed in the heart of the city for many years—imagine if it was actually seized! It was something of a notoriety, and I loved it as a child growing up. We used to drive round to look at it. Hon. Members will be pleased to hear that King Kong lives on, and is now retired in Penrith.

    I welcome the Bill for non-UK artefacts, because the ability for museums and galleries to stage international exhibitions is vital for the tourism sector in the UK. Tourism is a vital part of the local economy in Stourbridge, and in the wider Borough of Dudley. More than £534 million was spent by visitors to the area over 7 million trips, supporting more than 8,000 jobs. The west midlands is home to plenty of fantastic museums and galleries, such as the Glasshouse Heritage Centre in Stourbridge’s historic glass quarter. That heritage attraction is a real gem in my constituency. It is run by a dedicated team of staff and volunteers, and it hosts a wide array of artefacts that tell the incredible 400-year story of glassmaking in Stourbridge. I know that the Bill will be welcome by institutions such as the Glasshouse Heritage Centre, as the arts sector makes a strong recovery after the pandemic. The Bill will be of great reassurance to museums and galleries in my region, and the wider west midlands. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Central Devon (Mel Stride) for introducing the Bill, and long live King Kong.

  • Claire Coutinho – 2022 Speech on Cultural Objects Protection from Seizure Bill

    Claire Coutinho – 2022 Speech on Cultural Objects Protection from Seizure Bill

    The speech made by Claire Coutinho, the Conservative MP for East Surrey, in the House of Commons on 28 January 2022.

    I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Central Devon (Mel Stride) on bringing forward this important Bill. My constituents care passionately about our arts sector, as do I, and I am enormously proud to represent Caterham, which is home to the world-famous East Surrey Museum.

    The pandemic has been extremely hard on our cultural sector, but it has made me and my constituents realise how lucky we are that this country is home to some of the finest museums, galleries and exhibitions in the world. Thanks to the Prime Minister’s world-leading booster programme, our country was spared another lockdown and our cultural organisations were spared having to close their doors once more.

    Some challenges remain, however, which is why I am delighted to support this iconic sector in any way I can, including through this Bill. Many objects have benefited from existing legislative protections, such as the baby mummified mammoth Lyuba, which was borrowed by the Natural History Museum from Russia in 2014; the terracotta warriors loaned from China to the National Museums Liverpool in 2018; and the Tutankhamen treasures loaned to the Saatchi Gallery in 2019.

    Without protection from seizure, the loan of such objects would never have been granted; world-famous exhibitions and galleries may never have come to fruition; and the opportunity of blockbuster success for our museums and cultural sector would have been squandered. Although the risk of seizure in Britain is, of course, very low, legislative protection none the less ensures that our museums and galleries can reassure their lenders and retain their status as some of the most enviable across the globe.

    We have heard about some of the exhibitions this year, such as at the Courtauld Institute of Art in London, which will host several self-portraits of Van Gogh, three of which will be loaned from the Detroit Institute of Arts, the Van Gogh Museum in Amsterdam and the Art Institute of Chicago; the Tate Modern, which will host pieces from Vancouver, Berlin and New York; and the Victoria and Albert Museum, which will host a piece from Princeton University library. That gives a sense of how difficult it can be to weave together the wonderful exhibitions that we can all enjoy so much.

    The prudent three-month extension that we are discussing will further boost Britain’s exhibition sector by increasing the confidence of international owners to lend to British institutions and will make the exhibition planning of our museums and galleries easier. Although the 12-month period of protection has generally provided a sufficient length of time for museum exhibitions to take place and for objects on loan to be returned in line with agreed schedules, on occasion, we can see how that would leave us vulnerable. We have heard a bit about international travel; we all remember the 2010 volcano eruption in Iceland; and we have debated in the House some of the real difficulties that we see in Tonga this year as well.

    Supporting our cultural sector is about not just the arts but our economic strength. Over the years, I have witnessed many attempts by other countries to lure our brightest and best—our top talent—to other areas. It is our rich cultural fabric that acts as a magnet to this country. The museum sector alone also generates £2.64 billion of income and £1.4 billion of economic output to the national economy, which inputs to our £75 billion tourist economy. We know that several countries would almost certainly be unlikely to loan us objects if the protection was not in place.

    As I have said, the risk of seizure in Britain is low, but I wholeheartedly support the Bill to ensure that all our opportunities in museums, galleries and exhibitions remain open. It will reassure those who lend to British institutions, secure our ability to host some of the finest cultural objects across the globe, and retain Britain’s status as a cultural superpower.