Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank (Liberal Democrat) in the House of Lords on Thursday, 18 March 2010. It occurred during Debate on Culture as a Front-Line Service.


Culture as a Front-Line Service

My Lords, just over two years ago, the noble Lord, Lord Harrison, introduced a debate on the forthcoming role of Liverpool as the European Capital of Culture 2008. I am delighted that the right reverend Prelate has chosen to develop this theme in the aftermath of the events, reviewing the outcome, assessing the lessons and looking ahead at the economic prospects and anticipated restraints on public spending. That debate two years ago was a prologue to a celebration. We sang the praises of Liverpool and drew from our own personal experience. I was born and brought up in the city and was proud that it had won—rather to everyone’s surprise—an ambitious programme of special events in what would be a very demanding year. However, I was anxious. In the course of preparations there had been some rough passages and arguments reorganising administration, with some leading participants dropping out and gaps among the plans. Liverpool’s reputation had always been up and down. Could it really work? However, it did work. It was a triumph and a huge success for the people of the city, the north-west and for many visitors who had never before been to Liverpool. I was in a queue at the Klimt exhibition at the Tate Liverpool—that was seen as a world-class occasion—where I saw a very distinguished academic who rarely travelled outside Oxford. "What are you doing there?" I said rather foolishly. He said that he was enjoying his visit immensely and was staying for several days. Another of my concerns was the possibility that for Liverpool culture meant only the Beatles, street parties and popular scouse comedians laughing through their tears. But in my formative years in Liverpool, when I played and watched football and listened to traditional jazz, I and my contemporaries had benefited greatly from libraries, the Walker Gallery, architecture, music and scholarship—high culture, as it is sometimes called. I hope that, two generations on, they will be encouraged and that people will be excited by them, thus opening up ideas and challenges. I made six separate trips to Liverpool and all the occasions met my criteria. I and my friends were tightly packed between St George’s Hall and Lime Street Station when the music helped to launch the year. On another occasion, I watched fascinated and in pouring rain the extraordinary spider-like mechanical creature to which the right reverend Prelate referred, called La Machine or La Princesse. I am not sure whether it set off from the city centre. I also listened to the Berlin Philharmonic, conducted by Sir Simon Rattle. It did not play music by Beethoven—an obvious choice—but an unusual and provocative piece of music that I—or, more relevantly, most of the audience—had never heard before. That certainly widened my cultural boundaries. Now that it is all over, what next? I remember that, following the 1953 coronation festivities, David Low produced a famous cartoon with the caption, "Morning after". The ball was over—an unreal occasion—and the cost had been high. In a different context and time, I am much concerned about what will happen when the 2012 Olympics are over. When energy, enthusiasm and money are exhausted it will be all too easy to collapse with happy memories and not take essential further steps to regenerate and raise standards. As the right reverend Prelate said, the City of Liverpool council, to its credit, commissioned a five-year research programme from the University of Liverpool—what I used to call the old university—and Liverpool John Moores University to examine Liverpool’s experience and the impact on it of being the European Capital of Culture. As has been said, the report was published last week. It is rigorous and disciplined although analytical rather than prescriptive. I will not repeat all the details as the report is available through the Library. However, the programme had an income of £130 million over the six years to and including 2008. It attracted 10 million additional visits to Liverpool and these generated more than £750 million for Liverpool, Merseyside and the region. Of the 2.6 million European and global visits, 97 per cent were first-time visits. As for what the report calls "cultural access", one-third of the audience was local and during the period 2006-08, there was a 10 per cent rise in each year, and in 2008, 11 per cent of Liverpool residents "tried something new". Over the years, Liverpool has often had a very negative profile in newspapers, on the radio and on television. However, most of us who followed the coverage during the year found that it was positive—initially cautious but wholehearted later. The report concludes that Liverpool has undergone "a remarkable image renaissance", and that, ""levels of confidence have been raised across the city"." It says that culture, ""is more widely accepted as a driver for economic change, health and social inclusion"." At several points it refers warmly to partnership. I agree very much with the right reverend Prelate on that matter. Speaking personally, I think that partnership will be essential in the years ahead because religion and politics have often divided the city. For the past 10 years or so there has been welcome relative stability. The council showed imagination and strength in carrying through the programme. I hope that all parties will build on Liverpool’s success because there are very many tasks ahead. Unemployment is high and, as the report shows, skill levels are low. Household income rose 40 per cent over a decade, but Liverpool remains one of the poorest cities in the country. I welcome the intention announced earlier this week to develop an Atlantic gateway covering the hinterland of both Liverpool and Manchester. In 1997, the Government of the day published a famous report, Change or Decay. I still have a copy. There has not been enough constructive change over those years. In 1945, I campaigned as a sixth-former during the general election where I lived and close to my school, Quarry Bank. In Liverpool there were 11 parliamentary constituencies, one of them uncontested with only 21,000 voters whose single candidate was carried from street to street on a horse-drawn cart. In the forthcoming election there will be only four parliamentary constituencies, each with five, six or more candidates. I hope that all these candidates will congratulate those who put together Liverpool’s year of European Capital of Culture and, more importantly, strongly support the culture of the city and the growth of its vital constructive industries.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
718 c718-20 
Session
2009-10
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Arts Culture Finance Museums and galleries Liverpool European Capital of Culture
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk