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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The speech made by Mel Stride, the Conservative MP for Central Devon, in the House of Commons on 28 January 2022.
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
This is a short, two-clause Bill that extends the period of protection against court-ordered seizure for cultural objects on loan from abroad. The Bill amends part 6 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007, which provides immunity from seizure for cultural objects on loan from abroad in temporary exhibitions in public museums and galleries in the United Kingdom. Under section 134 of the Act, cultural objects that are on loan from abroad to feature in exhibitions held in UK museums and galleries approved under the Act are protected from court-ordered seizure for a period of 12 months from the date when the object enters the United Kingdom.
The legislation was prompted by events in 2005, when 54 paintings, including works by Picasso, Matisse and Cézanne, were seized by customs officers in Switzerland. The paintings, from the Pushkin State Museum of Fine Arts in Russia, were impounded after they had left the town of Martigny in Switzerland. The Swiss authorities acted on a court order obtained by a Swiss import-export firm, Noga SA, which claimed that the Russian Government owed it several million dollars in unpaid debts relating to an oil-for-food deal signed in the early 1990s and which sought to enforce a Stockholm arbitration award in its favour.
The impounding of the paintings was just one of several attempts by Noga to recover its purported debt by seizing assets abroad. In 2000, Noga instituted proceedings to seize a Russian sailing ship that was due to take part in a regatta in France; it then sought to freeze the accounts of the Russian embassy in Paris. Both actions were dismissed by court rulings in favour of Russia. In 2001, it tried to appropriate two Russian military jets during the prestigious Le Bourget air show in France; that attempt also failed.
But it was Noga’s seizure of the Pushkin paintings that sparked the most outrage of all. The director of the State Hermitage Museum in St Petersburg said that
“works of art are now being used as hostages in trade disputes”.
Although the seizure order was quickly cancelled by Switzerland’s Federal Council, the Hermitage warned that no Russian museum would be able to send objects on loan to any overseas venue unless it received concrete legal guarantees that its artworks would not be seized during the loan period.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his Bill. Does he agree that the relatively minor change in it will give great reassurance to overseas lenders about their capacity and confidence to lend assets to the United Kingdom? In the Scottish Borders, across Scotland and across the UK, all our constituents will now benefit from being able to enjoy those assets, and the lenders will have the comfort of knowing that they are safe here.
Mel Stride
My hon. Friend precisely pinpoints the advantage of the Bill, which is very narrowly defined but will provide extra certainty to those who lend artworks to England and Scotland and the museums therein that those artworks will be returned in due course. That comfort will drive further loans in future, which will be to the benefit of the people in this country, our tourism industry and our cultural offering in general.
The measures in the 2007 Act enable the UK Government, the Governments of Scotland and Wales and the Northern Ireland Executive to give guarantees for such loans in the United Kingdom. Since the Act’s introduction, the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport has been responsible for approving institutions in England for immunity from seizure, and the devolved Administrations have similar powers for other parts of the United Kingdom. To gain approval under the Act, institutions must demonstrate that their procedures for establishing the provenance and ownership of objects are of a high standard.
In 2007, it was considered that 12 months was an adequate period to allow objects to arrive in the UK and to be returned following their inclusion in a temporary exhibition. Section 134(4) of the Act therefore provides:
“The protection continues…for not more than 12 months beginning with the day when the object enters the United Kingdom.”
Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on getting this far with his Bill. Has he received any letters of objection from anyone, anywhere, to what he proposes?
Mel Stride
The Bill has widely been received very positively. There have been very positive discussions with the devolved Governments, as I outlined in the debate on amendment 1 and my other amendments. There have been some changes in relation to Wales and Scotland, but the Bill has received support across the House; it went through Committee without Division, and my amendments on Report have been agreed to without Division. It is an important and widely supported set of measures.
The only exception in which the 12-month period can be extended is where an object suffers damage and repair work is needed. The legislation has been effective over the years and has enabled many exhibitions to be enriched by loans that the public might not otherwise have been able to see. There are now 38 institutions across the United Kingdom that have been approved for immunity from seizure and where objects have benefited from protection. Those 38 institutions are in England and Scotland; there are currently no approved museums in Wales and Northern Ireland.
Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)
For many of our regional museums, galleries and historic houses, temporary exhibitions are made up with a relatively small number of items from abroad. Does the right hon. Gentleman think we will expand on that number of 38 institutions, to allow many more of our regional museums and galleries to have immunity from seizure?
Mel Stride
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. My understanding is that the application process to become an approved institution or museum is relatively straightforward. It is rigorous in the sense that, clearly, a number of important aspects have to be met. I would defer to the Minister, who might tell us a little more in his concluding remarks about the guidance that is appropriate and how it operates in those circumstances.
As I was saying, my Bill was drafted to allow the period of protection to be extended beyond 12 months, at the discretion of the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport for institutions in England or the relevant approving authority in the devolved nations. That was to ensure that the protection remains fit for purpose and can adequately respond to unforeseen circumstances, and to provide increased confidence in the UK system for those who generously share their cultural objects with UK audiences. The new power to extend would apply following an application from an approved museum or gallery, and extensions would be granted for a further three months initially, with a possibility of a further extension if that is considered necessary. The circumstances in which an extension may be considered will be set out in guidance.
Anthony Browne (South Cambridgeshire) (Con)
I commend my right hon. Friend for getting the Bill before the House. It is clearly an important measure and it is important to support the tourism industry, which generates so many jobs. In what sort of circumstances might an institution want to apply for the extension? Have those circumstances happened in the past or is this just a precaution to deal with situations that might arise in the future?
Mel Stride
I will come on to these points imminently, but let me immediately address the question my hon. Friend has posed. The circumstances have not arisen in the past in the UK, and the 12-month period has always been adequate. However, things such as the covid problems and the grounding of air flights—a volcanic eruption happened in Iceland some years ago and grounded flights—are causes for concern. The most important thing is that although we have not had a situation where we would have needed an extension in the past, there is no doubt that this comfort is required for those lenders who generously lend their cultural artefacts to our museums and galleries.
The devolved Administrations have all shown strong support for the purpose of the Bill. However , the Department for Communities in Northern Ireland has decided at this time that it is unable to prioritise a legislative consent motion in the Northern Ireland Assembly and that Northern Ireland must, regrettably, be removed from the Bill. That is unfortunate, although in practical terms it has little impact at present, as there are currently no approved museums in Northern Ireland, as I have said. Furthermore, following discussions between the UK and Welsh Governments it has not been possible to reach agreement on how the concurrent power to extend the 12-month period of protection will apply across the two nations, the Welsh Government have declined to table a legislative consent motion for the Bill as it stands. Therefore, the Bill has been amended to remove its application in Wales. As with Northern Ireland, there are currently no Welsh institutions approved for immunity from seizure, so in practical terms that has no direct impact at the moment. I am informed that a legislative consent motion has been successfully lodged in the Scottish Parliament so that the measures in the Bill can and will have effect in Scotland. Given the decisions taken in relation to Wales and Northern Ireland, the Bill has been amended so that the power in proposed new subsection (4A) to extend the protection period for three months applies only in relation to objects that are either in the UK for the purpose of a temporary exhibition in England or Scotland, or in England or Scotland for one
“of the purposes mentioned in subsection 7(b) to (e)”.
I know all hon. Members will be very familiar with them. That will limit the effect of any extension of the maximum protection period to England and Scotland. I emphasise that the 12-month protection period under the 2007 Act will continue to apply across the United Kingdom as it currently does.
Our museums have shown, particularly during the anxious times of the past two years, that they are incredibly good at managing unforeseen events. Where it has been possible, exhibitions have gone ahead and works returned to lenders on time. However, that has not always been the case and the restrictions and difficulties with international travel that we have all faced mean it has not always been possible to return loaned items as rapidly as desired once exhibitions have concluded.
As restrictions in the UK continue to be eased, museums will be able to plan with greater confidence. A number of exciting exhibitions are already planned for this year, including the Raphael exhibition at the National Gallery, Van Gogh’s self-portraits at the Courtauld Gallery and “Surrealism Beyond Borders” at Tate Modern. We can expect all those exhibitions to be popular with the public.
We may feel safer in going about our daily lives, but we should not forget mother nature’s ability to surprise us. On Second Reading, I raised the disruption to air travel caused by the Icelandic volcano that erupted in 2010; the eruption earlier this month of the Tongan volcano, which threw out a huge cloud of volcanic ash, is further evidence that we can be taken unawares and forced to change our plans, sometimes at very short notice.
Anthony Browne
I thank my right hon. Friend for his detailed exposition of the legislation, which I strongly support. He mentioned in his introduction the various circumstances in which it is deemed necessary for there to be protection against action taken overseas—in Switzerland, France and so on; is he aware of any UK cases of the court-ordered seizure of artworks that have come here for exhibitions? In what sort of circumstances might that happen in future? Would it be when law enforcement authorities are worried about, for example, the breaking of anti-money-laundering rules, which we have talked about? Or would it be families trying to get back goods that they think belong to them rather than to foreign galleries?
Mel Stride
My hon. Friend is, of course, very familiar with the issue of economic crime as he serves with me on the Treasury Committee and we are currently looking into these very matters in great detail. I believe there probably have been instances in which there has been a need within our country’s borders to seize objects and cultural artefacts. I cannot give my hon. Friend specific examples, but there will have been such seizures and the capacity for them will remain—for example, under proceeds of crime legislation if artefacts are used to conceal drugs or similar or for something associated with money laundering. Seizures could still occur under certain circumstances, but those circumstances are narrowly defined and will not be changed in any way by this legislation.
I hope that right hon. and hon. Members will agree that the Bill is an important and worthy measure that will give our museums and galleries, and those who lend to them, greater comfort in knowing that the protection afforded under the 2007 Act can be extended if travel plans are disrupted and it is not possible to return loaned objects within the current 12-month period.
Sir Greg Knight
I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way again; he is being generous. I notice that the power to extend by three months can be repeated again and again—there is no limit on how many times the relevant authority can extend the period for three months. Why has my right hon. Friend phrased the legislation in that way? Would it not have been better to give the relevant authority the power to extend for a longer period?
Mel Stride
I believe the three-month period came out of the consultation process. The Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport has been conducting an informal consultation with museums and the rest of the sector and it was felt that, in the context of the existing 12-month protection, three months was a reasonable and proportionate further extension. It is relatively straightforward for the Secretary of State, or for Scottish Ministers when the question relates to Scotland, to bring forward further extensions—it is not a lengthy or onerous process—so three months seemed a reasonable period of time. We have to put forward some kind of period for extension because that has to be addressed.
The Bill will ensure that our national museums and galleries can continue to host major exhibitions, which provide so much enjoyment for the many millions of people who visit them every year and which are vital as we continue to rebuild our economy. I commend the Bill to the House.
The comments made by Julia Lopez, the Media Minister, on 5 January 2022.
Radio’s distinctive and much-loved format means it continues to be at the heart of people’s lives. Today we are confirming plans to extend radio multiplex licences until 2035 so our hugely popular stations can continue to reach audiences through digital radio networks and we can give broadcasters the certainty they need to invest in their future services.