91Èȱ¬

"I don't want our creative industries to go the same way as our manufacturing industries," Ivan Lewis, shadow culture minister, tells me.

We were talking shortly before his appearance at the this morning to discuss their latest paper called: .

The Work Foundation's Benjamin Reid is one of the report's authors, in which he highlights what he considers to be the imminent threats to our hitherto thriving creative industries (made up of the following sectors: advertising, fashion, film, computer software and services, music, art and antiques, drama, architecture, design, publishing, crafts, TV and radio and computer and video games).

Difficulty in securing bank loans, increased competition from abroad (China, Taiwan and Canada are investing heavily in the creative industries to drive their economies forward) and a propensity to sell off our intellectual property crown jewels (Grand Theft Auto, the Harry Potter film franchise and foreign ownership of our book and music publishers were given as examples) were cited as the major clouds on our knowledge economy horizon.

The creative industries have been doing well. This recently paints a picture of a flourishing sector that makes a significant contribution to the national economy, that has enjoyed above average growth and accounts for over 4% of all goods exported. Dizzee Rascal might not look like Alan Sugar, but when it comes to doing the business he's no apprentice.

But to who is a bank more likely to lend their money? A sharp suited businessman or a tattooed dude who's riding low and wearing a baseball cap the wrong way round? We know the answer. And that according to Benjamin Reid - and others such as the pop-star-turned-industry-voice Feargal Sharkey - it is a very big problem.

They say that the UK is in the talent business - whether that's software designers, architects or makers of pop music - and those individuals and companies need the same sort of investment and support enjoyed by other more traditional businesses.

The report also proposes that financial support needs to be met with a greater level of ambition for what the sector could achieve, or it argues the inevitable happens: the individual or business eventually succeeds and promptly does a deal with an overseas company who then own all their tax-yielding intellectual property for ever after.

Ivan Lewis had other concerns. He points to the recent arts cuts by central government and local councils and the suggestion by David Willetts that all arts and humanities funding for under graduate universities courses be cut too (the reason I gather is that they are cheap to run and therefore the newly approved figure of £6,000 tuition fees would cover the course's costs).

He goes on to say that in his opinion the government has a plan for saving money but not one for growth.

Jeremy Hunt, Culture Secretary and Ed Vaizey, Minister for Culture, have both made clear their shared view that the creative industries are a vitally important component to the British economy.

Jeremy Hunt should know, he has built a successful publishing business. But Ivan Lewis is concerned that without a cross-government group that includes (and is chaired by one of) the cabinet ministers representing education, business, culture and the Treasury then what he considers to be the necessary coherence to deliver a framework in which the creative industries can continue to thrive will not materialise.

At the end of last month David Cameron announced a that he hoped would result in a more flexible approach to IP in order to create an environment in Britain in which future companies such as Google, Apple and Facebook might develop here and not in the States.

Some who heard this announcement pointed to the fact those American companies have all done very well harnessing British ideas within the current framework and didn't need any further help.