---

Creative Industries

I am delighted that we have the opportunity to have this debate. As has been said, it is disappointing that a debate on something that everybody in the room has said is crucial for the future of this country is taking place at the fag end of the parliamentary week, just before a holiday. It deserves much greater prominence. None the less, we are having a debate, and I am delighted to have an opportunity to join in. We have already had some fantastic contributions from both sides of the House. It has been a stimulating debate, and I have learned a great deal. I am grateful to hon. Members for the insights that they have shared. I have only one criticism. It is of the hon. Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson), who, in a passing reference in his speech, referred to the excitement of the creative writers down the corridor. He said that he was at the other end of the corridor doing boring, nerdy science. Those were his precise words—I wrote them down. I am sure that he will reflect on those words and regret them. I know that he believes that science is extremely exciting. Indeed, the stories of why Tycho Brahe spent his life doing fantastic science with an amalgam nose, or of what James Prescott Joule did on his honeymoon and the contribution that that made to the development of science, are as exciting as some of the stories by the people at the other end of the corridor to whom he referred. This is a very important debate. Sadly, nobody so far has used it as an opportunity to point out that this week we have seen the deaths of two important people who worked in the creative industries. The passing of Anthony Minghella at such an early age is a huge sadness, because he made a huge contribution, and Arthur C. Clarke, with his fantastic ideas about communication satellites, all his science fiction, the film ““2001”” and so on is also a great loss. This debate is about ensuring that we can provide the framework to find, nurture and develop the talents of future Minghellas and Clarkes. I am therefore delighted that the Government, through their various Departments—I shall come back to that point shortly—have pulled together this document and shown that they believe that the creative industries are critical for our future. I shall criticise one or two of the proposals contained in it, but, broadly speaking, it is an important and exciting document that helps to chart the way forward. I note with considerable interest Simon Hoggart's sketch in The Guardian on 11 March, in which he referred to the Minister. I note that he says that he is fond of her—we are delighted—but makes the point, with some validity, that some of the figures that are used by the Government are enormously precise for an industry that is incredibly diverse and difficult to get hold of. To be told that it makes up"““7.3 per cent. of our national output””" and contributes a value of £60.8 billion is probably going a little far with the gathering and analysis of statistics. None the less, that is the order of magnitude. Those figures illustrate just how important a part of the economy and the lifeblood of this country the creative industries are. Of course, we have a difficulty in defining creative industries. I listened to the important speech of the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Joan Walley) about an issue that she, coming from the Potteries, understandably feels passionate about: ceramics. She will be disappointed to note that the definition of creative industries in the document features only as a tiny footnote—it is not actually in the main body of the document. There is a definition, but it does not include the word ““ceramics””. I assume that ceramics are included in crafts. The document points out that the list is not exclusive, so she can have hope that the word ““ceramics”” might be included.