---

Arts

My Lords, I, too, add my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Bragg, for securing and so eloquently introducing this debate. It has been a wide-ranging debate, encompassing the diverse interests and knowledge of Members of your Lordships’ House. That only goes to show the many ways in which the arts can filter into and enrich all corners of society. My noble friends Lord Lloyd-Webber and Lord Colwyn spoke about music from the depths of their own great experiences and achievements. What excellent examples they are of how the Members of this House so frequently contribute unrivalled expertise to our debates. I declare an interest as a dealer in watercolours, a picture framer and a lover of art. I therefore hope your Lordships will forgive me if I focus a few of my comments on this particular subsection of what have become known as creative industries. The House of Commons Select Committee pointed out in its report The Market for Art:"““The state of the visual arts is a useful proxy for the health of our cultural life””." As we have heard today, Britain currently leads Europe in the provision of services for the buying and selling of art. Our country has more than 50 per cent of the European art and antiques market share and 25.3 per cent of the global market share. It is a market made up of around 10,217 businesses—I do not know how you arrive at ““around”” 217—which provide employment for more than 37,000 people. The UK art market is particularly dependent on cross-border trade and, in this key respect, is the only serious local competitor to the US. These figures may look good, but I remind the House that the droit de suite directive was implemented by a gold-plated statutory instrument early this January. This has been described to me as ““the darkest cloud on the horizon for the international competitiveness of our art market””, a statement with which I concur. The Government, unfortunately, changed their mind, despite having fought hard for concessions on this issue in Europe. Through the SI, they have added considerable costs and complications which will inevitably affect, in particular, the smaller, more dynamic art businesses. Will the Minister reiterate the Government’s commitment to review the impact of these measures and to think again if they are seen not to work or to threaten our art market? When does he plan to undertake the first review, and how will this be reported to Parliament? Figures released this March by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development place Britons at the top of the spending league for culture and recreation, averaging at 7.9 per cent of GDP more than for any other commodities and services except transport. However, UK Government spending on culture and recreation is low, at only 0.6 per cent of GDP. It is not an unfamiliar story. For example, the Government introduced free admission to the national museums and galleries in an aim to promote access, particularly for socially vulnerable groups. Despite being heralded as a success, there remain concerns within the industry that although visitor figures are increasing, the diversity of people is not. It is simply the same people visiting more often. The problem is compounded because although admission fees have been removed, the DCMS has imposed an increasing number of targets and aims regarding the numbers of children attending, the uptake of opportunities by new users and social inclusion projects, to name just a few. How can we realistically expect museums and galleries to meet targets and perform without sufficient additional funding? At the local government level, arts and heritage provide a powerful source of social capital, which lies at the essence of any community, through which we can promote an indispensable source of local identity and pride. In London, we have seen the success of design and regeneration projects such as the Tate Modern and the Great Court at the British Museum—both conceived under a Tory government—while the Tate’s sister in Liverpool has been just as popular. Yet inevitably, at a time when grant expenditure from central government has become ever more popular, these very services are on the hit list for cuts. I am reminded of the vast collections of art that many local authorities have; either they do not allow access to them or, as one local authority recently decided to do, they sell them to raise much-needed funds. In that case, I am told the painting was a Lowry. Additional funding will always be problematic; that is why we on these Benches support the creation of a national acquisitions fund out of the National Lottery, to be managed by the National Heritage Memorial Fund. That would enable the acquisition of collections of national importance and works of art called in by the export reviewing committee. This issue was raised in detail by my noble friend Lord Astor in the Committee and Report stages of the National Lottery Bill but to date it lacks response from the Government. Can the Minister at least say that Her Majesty’s Government are considering the proposal? We risk losing so much abroad as a result of the Government’s inability to come up with any policy or scheme. Museums do not have the funding required to purchase major works of art or to part fund with public appeals, and ““acceptance in lieu”” is limited by the Treasury. I cannot mention the current National Lottery Bill without raising its proposals which will enable the Government to raid the lottery pot even further. If the Government had accepted my noble friend’s amendments, the Arts Council and the National Heritage Memorial Fund would be getting 25 per cent of the distributions, not 13 per cent Since the formation of the lottery, both organisations have received more than £2 billion. I consider that a Conservative triumph. This Government, however, have siphoned off 50 per cent of the money to the Big Lottery Fund to help pay for things, however worthy, that should be sourced from general taxation. The four original core pillars—the arts, heritage, sports and charities—are inevitably losing out; they could receive nearly double under our proposals. I am aware of time and have only brushed the surface of a few of the different themes covered in today’s debate. We have concerns regarding the downturn in the number of borrowed books and the precarious future of our public libraries unless that historic service is given the due care and attention it needs. We would like to encourage the making of films in this country and ensure that that happens through a fair tax regime, increasing lottery funding to the UK Film Council. We want to review how the licensing law changes have affected performances of live music and if they are restricting performances, we will change the arrangements. I believe that the arts are an integral part of all your Lordships’ vision for a better quality of life for the people of this country. In an age of a more consumerist outlook, where there is demand for more choice and better quality in our public services, we must recognise that the provision of arts and culture needs to move with the times. However, as communities become ever more disparate and fragmented, the power of culture and the arts is increasingly important as a unifying force to bring people together. Vibrant arts provide social cohesion, increase both foreign and domestic tourism and are good for our culture and economy. The number of different cultures represented by our population from different cultural backgrounds makes a stimulating, interesting arts mix in this country. I argued that we need to focus less on access and more on excellence of provision, so people have the opportunity and reason to engage in their cultural passions, whether in galleries or in the village hall. In summary, I reiterate the words of a colleague in another place:"““The role of government in our cultural life should be as an enabler, not a controller. Improving Britain’s cultural opportunities and with it attracting engaging new, excited audiences will only come by trusting those with the passion, enthusiasm and energy in our cultural sector to innovate and perform in their own way””." I look forward to hearing the Minister’s reply.