To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to protect freedom of speech in the cultural sector.

My Lords, everyone has the right to express themselves and share ideas without interference from the Government. This right is protected by Article 10 of the Human Rights Act 1998. I reassure the noble Lord that the Government are absolutely committed to freedom of speech, including in the cultural sector, and the Secretary of State for Culture has expressed an unequivocal ambition that the era of the Government stoking culture wars should be over.

In thanking the Minister for that reply, I ask: is she aware that the Independent Press Standards Organisation’s recent rulings breach its own editorial code of conduct? Would she please use her good offices to impress upon it that it would be well advised to stop issuing media versions of non-crime hate incidents and stay within its remit?

I am not going to be drawn on specific cases, but the whole point of this Government’s approach is to focus on delivery for the people of this country, not to stoke individual cases or culture wars. This is what we are going to do, and what we expect other organisations to do as well.

My Lords, the cultural sector often operates with very fragile operating models. One source of revenue is corporate partnerships and we have seen those, such as the brilliant long-term partnership that BP has had, year after year, with the British Museum, come under attack in recent months. Does the Minister agree that we should encourage cultural organisations to be more robust to allow the voices of corporates and, of course, the staff of those corporates to enjoy the culture so that the rest of the cultural sector can flourish?

It is important to recognize that arts organisations operate independently of government, and which philanthropic donations they should accept are therefore commercial decisions for them. But I am clear that philanthropy has historically allowed audiences, including me, to enjoy fabulous cultural experiences that they would not otherwise have enjoyed and which open up the arts and culture. Some of the big exhibitions rely on philanthropy; I am thinking particularly of the Van Gogh exhibition, which I know from speaking to Members that many people in this House have attended. The Charity Commission has published guidance in the past year to help charities when deciding whether to accept, refuse or return a donation. I hope that will provide some clarity and, where organisations are charities, they should have regard to it.

My Lords, creatives in the cultural sector need their intellectual property to be protected—as a key source of their livelihoods—as well as their human rights. This is being actively threatened by artificial intelligence—“theft” is the word that the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, used in this Chamber—because when it comes to training AI models, there is no transparency. The Government accept this, so do they also accept the words of the Creative Rights in AI Coalition? It says that the solution is not just about transparency but that the priority in safeguarding UK creative IP from exploitation by AI must be to ensure that current copyright Laws are registered and enforceable.

The noble Baroness raises a really interesting point. It goes some way from the original Question so I will be honest and say, rather than answering it on the hoof, that I would be very happy to sit down with her and talk through the issue that she raises in more detail.

My Lords, does the Minister agree that the rules for what was permitted to be put out on social media were written before it was controlled by two billionaires, who seem to be determined not to have any fact checking in their processes? Can the Minister assure us that when we are drawing up and making our rules, we make sure that people are not allowed to put things out on social media that have not been fact checked?

As my noble friend the Leader of the House said yesterday, the new approach taken by Meta, which I think my noble friend Lord Watts refers to, relates to the United States and not Europe, where fact checking will remain. As my noble friend said, all platforms will want to ensure that their information is as accurate as possible. I know that noble Lords across the House will agree with that point.

My Lords, for over 200 years the Royal Society of Literature has been promoting excellence in literature but over the last couple of years, it has exercised censorship; it failed to denounce the attempted murder of Salman Rushdie; and it has tried to silence its own members. Will the Minister make representations to the RSL and remind it of its duty to freedom of speech? I mention my interests as president of the Cliveden Literary Festival and as a Speaker at the Sevenoaks Literary Festival, where, sadly, fewer people turned up to hear me speak than there were oaks.

I say to the noble Lord that I would turn up to hear him speak.

In relation to the question, I am aware of the issues that have been in the media this week; clearly, they have been going on for some time. I note that the society has commissioned an external review by the National Council for Voluntary Organisations, which has a lot of experience in these matters. This will, I hope, support the organisation in its governance and management, including on issues around freedom of speech, and help it focus on the really important work it does.

My Lords, does the Minister agree that, if arts and creative organisations are forced to rely on philanthropy from billionaires and giant multinational companies, then they are the people who will decide what arts and creative offerings are available to the public? It is crucial that there is proper, decent, democratically decided government funding for arts organisations. That means that we have to tax rich individuals and multinational companies so that money is available for democratically decided allocation of arts funding.

While I support philanthropy, I am clear that there is a place for government funding as well. We need to make sure that we do not cut off people’s willingness to put money into the arts for fear of repercussions. We have to get the balance right between saying that the state should fund art and recognising that there is a valuable source and tradition of philanthropy in this country. For example, I think of Carnegie libraries. There is a huge tradition of philanthropy in arts and culture in this country that we should celebrate and want to continue, rather than rejecting it out of hand.

I warmly welcome what the Minister has just said. Following a rather spurious campaign, including by Members of your Lordships’ House and the Society of Authors—it turned out that its own charitable arm had investments in fossil fuels—Baillie Gifford was bullied into ending its long-standing generous support for book festivals, including in Cambridge, Edinburgh, Wigtown, Cheltenham and Henley. Does the Minister share my concern about such campaigns? They cause great distress to the staff and volunteers who run such events. Does she agree that cultural events, such as literary festivals, are precisely the sort of forum in which people should be able to come together to exchange ideas and disagree constructively?

I would like to think that the art of disagreeing constructively is something we do reasonably well in your Lordships’ House—on most subjects. In relation to sponsorship, it is something we need to consider. People have the right to object to the work that organisations do, but when it is to the extent that people are feeling harassed in the workplace, we have to recognise that, with the right to express and protest comes a responsibility not to harass and intimidate those trying to do their job.

My Lords, what action will the Government take regarding mischievous booksellers who have put Boris Johnson’s autobiography in the fiction section?

Noble Lords:

Oh!

Like a number of noble Lords across your Lordships’ House, I had the pleasure and privilege of being an assembly member while the former Prime Minister was Mayor of London. I am going to say absolutely nothing about my noble friend’s point.

My Lords, since 7 October 2023 the atmosphere in the cultural sector towards Jewish artists, writers and performers has been chilling. The Tate has been threatened with a boycott unless it ends sponsorship from trusts deemed to be close to Israel. Michael Etherton, the head of the UK Jewish Film Festival, has stated that cinemas have now made it almost impossible to make film bookings. What action are His Majesty’s Government taking to protect Jewish people, who contribute so much to the country’s cultural sector?

I thank the noble Lord for bringing us back to a specific example that is adversely affecting a significant portion of our society. Anti-Semitism has absolutely no place in our society, which is why this Government are taking, and will take, a strong lead in tackling it in all forms. Making sure that all British Jews are not only safe but feel safe and able to express their views, cultural identity and religious views is really important. It is unacceptable that, in 2025, this could ever be called into question.