House of Commons Hansard Debates for 4 Jul 1990

Mr. Terry Dicks (Hayes and Harlington) : I have moved from the Back Benches to a Front Bench because I am the only authentic opposition voice in the House. As my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Arts is likely to be moved, perhaps I shall get a phone call from No. 10 asking me to take over the arts. If that happens, I shall do away with the subsidies within a week.

We have wasted yet another day of parliamentary time on a non-issue. We spend a great deal of time talking about the arts spending other people's money for things that most people do not want to see or hear. Tonight 24 million people are watching the World cup semi-final. That is indicative of the importance that England attaches to its football team, despite its poor performance. That interest should be compared with the general approach to the arts. Football must have an intrinsic interest or people would not watch it. There is a great deal of entertainment to be had from watching Roger Milla after he has scored a goal for Cameroon because he runs to the touch line and

Column 1061

does the samba. It is as good as or perhaps better than watching Rudolf Nureyev doing his "Nutcracker" or perhaps, as some people might say, cracking his nuts.

The arts world is not satisfied with £600 million guaranteed for three years, even though no other area of Government spending gets such a guarantee. The Arts Council grant of £175 million is rising to £190 million, but it seems that that is not enough. Some 60 per cent. of Arts Council clients have overspent their allocation and want additional funds. They do not need extra funds. It is just that they could not keep within their budgets in the way that everyone else has to and want another dip into the taxpayers' pocket.

The grant given by my right hon. Friend has a built-in inflation factor of approximately 12 per cent. That should be compared with the 3.9 to 4.2 per cent. factor allocated by the Government to the community charge grant. However, the arts get 12 per cent. built in and guaranteed for three years. In a press release issued by my right hon. Friend a short time ago, he apologised to people in the arts because inflation had eaten so badly into their funds. There is no apology from my Government to old-age pensioners or others about inflation eating into their way of life, but then the arts lobby is rather special.

The history of the arts is a catalogue of total mismanagement, financial ineptitude, productions that are too expensive, and artistes' fees that are too high. The arts are living beyond their means. Taxpayers' money is being poured down the drain and we should be ashamed of that. If the arts cannot afford to pay the proper price for their so-called stars, they should employ second division singers and ballet dancers. The arts are even worse than the race relations industry. Many incompetent hypocrites are seeking power without financial responsibility and are willing to sponge off the rest of us to maintain their status. The ballet, classical music and the opera are the nouvelle cuisine of the entertainment world. When I was a kid, my mother used to eat the peas and throw away the pod. In this modern age we throw away the peas and eat the pod.

Arty-farty people are running the arts and they want more money from us. As my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) tried to show, they are always emphasising how special they are. Neither he nor anyone else could define art. If someone is willing to try to explain it to me I would be willing to listen. The definition of the arty-farty world is quite simple. Art is what people want it to be and what they can con the taxpayer into paying for.

Mr. Hugh Dykes (Harrow, East) : Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Dicks : No, I will not give way.

I shall now discuss the film industry, which is also on the gravy train. Richard "call me Dickie" Attenborough has made two of the most boring films that one could hope to see. They were "Gandhi" and "Cry Freedom". David Puttnam walked out of Hollywood because he could not cope with the pressure. Those two conned the Prime Minister into giving them £5 million for the film industry and then walked out of the meeting with the Prime Minister and joined the Labour party. If ever the Government were taken for a ride that was it. They said, "Thank you very much, Prime Minister. Please, Mr. Kinnock, you have no brains in your party, so let us in instead." What a gravy train it all is.

Mr. Fisher : Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Column 1062

Mr. Dicks : No, I will not.

Mr. Fisher : On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for me to say that England are one-nil up? That might shorten the hon. Gentleman's speech.

Mr. Dicks : I hope that you will add that few seconds to my time, Madam Deputy Speaker. I congratulate the lads and am delighted to hear the news. It is much more important than the arts.

Richard Attenborough and David Puttnam have made a fortune from films, but they want more public money and will not take a penny from their own pockets.

Let us come nearer to home. The House advisory committee on works of art has just bought a painting. I do not know the exact price, although someone mentioned £300,000. That painting will be added to the 3,000 that are already in the Palace of Westminster.

Mr. Cormack : Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Dicks : No, I will not give way. Please sit down.

Mr. Cormack : On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. What the hon. Gentleman has said is completely untrue.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd) : That is a matter for debate.

Mr. Dicks : I understand from a press report--I do not believe them all, although I tend to believe this one--that an artist called Milly Childers painted a picture called "The Terrace" which shows Members of Parliament lounging about, no doubt in a tired and emotional state, on the Terrace. If that is true--I bear in mind what my hon. Friend says--

Mr. Cormack : This man is a disgrace to the House of Commons.

Madam Deputy Speaker : Order. We hear all points of view in this Chamber.

Mr. Dicks : My hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) reminds me of Henry VIII--not with all the doublet and hose, but at least well fed. Andrew Lloyd Webber's "The Phantom of the Opera" and "Miss Saigon" demonstrate that shows can attract audiences and survive without subsidies. The same applies to professional football, although my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea disputes that. Any money that goes from the pools to professional football is private sector, not public sector, money. That is important. Pavarotti is making a small fortune introducing football on the BBC. I wonder how much that overweight Italian is contributing to the Royal Opera house from the money that he receives. My guess is that he contributes nothing and that the money is going straight into his pocket. I do not blame him, but so much for the need to support the arts.

I shall give an example of an important aspect of independence. The tie that I am wearing is that of the Wooden Spoon society. In 1983, when England received the wooden spoon for losing all its rugby matches, a group of supporters--not hooligans--were flying back from Dublin and decided that, despite the despondency caused by watching England lose, they would start to raise money for charity as a means of remembering the day. They have

Column 1063

now raised almost £1 million and they have done it without lobbying and without subsidy. They have not squealed or whinged, they just pushed on with hard work. I shall be happy to enrol for £10 any hon. Member who wants to join the Wooden Spoon society.

The Government should immediately stop all subsidies to the arts. There can be no justification for asking an ordinary chap to pay money for such nonsense. The arts should learn to cut their suit according to the cloth and productions should be economically viable. People should be taught simple double entry book-keeping because they do not understand what is going on. They should, of course, stop whingeing.

I quote from an article whose author is not known to me : "The best way to lower cultural' standards is to subsidise them. Men and women without wit, talent or experience of life-self-supporting are found decorating subsidised theatres, galleries and centres'. They overflow into radio and TV. Incomprehensible rubbish is described as the work of genius. Dull, confusing plays without middle, beginning or end are lauded as great works. At the centre is the Arts Council handing out your money. They tell you what is good for you. They are the experts who said so? They did. The more money they get the more they demand. The culture vultures fight over the grants Opera battles with Willie S the little ones complain of the shortage of crumbs ; but all are united, no matter if only one ticket in ten is sold, the show must go on until all the grants are spent.

They are also united in their arrogance."

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody (Crewe and Nantwich) : On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. We should all be delighted that the hon. Gentleman can read, but is it in order for him to quote at such length?

Mr. Dicks : I did say that I do not know the identity of the author. Nevertheless, the article goes on to say that those people "are willing to go slumming with the masses like a bit of old time music hall, a limited offer of slap and tickle drama but the people' must not take to their hearts any of the higher forms' unless it is approved"--

Madam Deputy Speaker : Order. I have given the hon. Member a little injury time because he was interrupted by three points of order. I know that the hon. Gentleman will now respect the Chair. I call him to order, and I call the next speaker.

Mr. Fisher : On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I believe that the House was misled by the Government, because the Minister's parliamentary private secretary informed us that England had scored against West Germany. In fact, it seems that the Government cannot get their facts right. I am sad to say that there is still no score.

Madam Deputy Speaker : The House is much obliged to the hon. Member for keeping it up to date with what is occurring elsewhere. Mr. Tony Banks.

7.51 pm

Mr. Tony Banks (Newham North-West) : I cannot say that it is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks), but he always makes an interesting contribution. I apologise to the House because I shall have to leave soon after I have made my speech to attend the press night of "The Dragon Can't Dance", a

Column 1064

new play by Earl Lovelace at the Theatre Royal, Stratford East--and I promise not to look at a television on my way out of the House. I shall refer to that event again later.

It is good to have an arts debate, but there are times when they seem to exist only to provide a platform for the theatre of the absurd provided by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington. I hoped that he would say something about the rumour that the BBC is to offer him a programme commenting on the arts. I understand that that rumour is absolutely true.

Mr. Dicks indicated assent.

Mr. Banks : I can hardly believe that, but I must take it as being true. I expect that we will hear sooner or later about the endowment of the Ronnie Kray chair in fine arts, or perhaps the SAS will open a charm school. Those are all unlikely events, but if the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington is to pontificate on the arts, anything is possible. If he offers me a slot in his programme, I assure him that I shall accept.

During the Minister's speech, I intervened to ask about local authority funding for the arts, and received the reply that it varied from authority to authority. The right hon. Gentleman said that it is for authorities themselves to decide how much to spend, which I thought was a disingenuous remark. The Secretary of State for the Environment and the Minister for the Environment and Countryside know all about the strictures imposed by central Government on local authority finance.

It is all very well for the Minister for the Arts to say that it is up to local authorities to determine their arts expenditure, but other Government Departments pursue policies that make it difficult for authorities to maintain their housing programmes, social services and so on.

One can imagine the situation in town hall after town hall throughout the country, where local councillors, much abused by the press and the Government, have to decide whether to go along with poll tax capping and cuts in central Government funding, and whether they should cut expenditure on housing, social services, education, or the arts.

The Minister cannot wash his hands of those real decisions that local councillors must take. He should start telling his colleagues at the Department of the Environment that, if local authorities are to fund the arts, careful consideration should be given to the restraints imposed on them by central Government. The right hon. Gentleman cannot walk away from the hard set of choices that local authorities must take because of central Government action. I return to the subject of the Theatre Royal, Stratford East, which is an excellent theatre under one of our best directors, Philip Hedley. Its budget largely comes from the London boroughs of Newham and Waltham Forest. The sum of £222,000 comes from Newham, £53,000 from the London borough grant scheme, £26,000 from Waltham Forest, and £262,000 from Greater London Arts. The increase in Newham's grant was about 9 per cent. It is the second most deprived local authority area in the whole country, according to the indices of the Department of the Environment. Newham has massive housing problems, but the council is desperately trying to save the Theatre Royal by keeping it open and making sure that it receives

Column 1065

enough money to stage excellent productions. The council wants more than just a pat on the head from politicians and the Minister--it wants fairly substantial support.

When the Department of the Environment looks at the allocation of funds to Newham next year, I hope that it will hear from the Minister about the excellent work that the borough is doing, particularly in respect of the Theatre Royal, Stratford East.

That theatre tried hard to secure business sponsorship, to which we have no ideological objections. We will take money from anyone prepared to give it. Capitalist gold is as good as anyone else's gold in that respect. Wanting to maximise its income, the Theatre Royal appointed a full-time fundraiser to investigate business sponsorship. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) said, it is difficult to raise money in poor parts of the country. It is extremely difficult to do so in Newham and the rest of the east end. Businesses want to support the prestigious national companies and are not too interested in provincial theatres or those on the fringe of London, however good may be their productions.

I received today from Philip Hedley some of the comments that the Theatre Royal received when it tried to raise money among the local business community. They included, "New work might fail". The Theatre Royal stages eight new productions a year. Where does the Minister think they all come from? Where is all the innovation coming from? It is coming from theatres such as the Theatre Royal. Business people do not want to know that, or to be associated with a possible failure--but the arts must have the right to fail as well. That is part of innovation. One cannot always guarantee success. Because art is a matter of taste, today's failure might at another time be deemed a great success. There are plenty of examples of that throughout the arts.

Another comment was, "You are too controversial." The arts are meant to be challenging and controversial. One does not want people to sit there looking at something that is like a moving chocolate box top. Instead, one wants to stimulate, encourage and enthuse the audience or viewer. Of course the arts are controversial. A further comment was,

"Your audience is too mixed, and doesn't make a good target market."

We in the east end are poor. That is one of the other reasons why a large number of black people patronise the Theatre Royal. It has one of the best mixed audiences in the country. That may not constitute an economically attractive audience to someone who views the arts as a way of getting money back on the investment that they make in the theatre.

One remark that I can attribute is that from the Midland bank. When asked to support the theatre, it replied :

"No, you do plays against Mrs. Thatcher."

Oh, dear. That was the reason given by the Midland bank, which of course takes a politically partisan position.

The other attributable quote was from the London Docklands development corporation, which has so much Newham land. There is much wealth in the south of the borough, but little of it finds its way anywhere near my constituency. The LDDC replied : "We are giving money to the National Theatre and not you because the people who go there"--

meaning the National theatre--

"can afford our expensive flats down by the river."

Column 1066

They wanted to sell some of the unsaleable flats that they could not sell because of the high interest rates caused by the Government's economic policy.

Those are the problems that we have had in the east end when we have tried to raise money through business sponsorship. Despite all that, the play that I am attending tonight, called "The Dragon Can't Dance"--which, incidentally, is a play by Earl Lovelace--is about a carnival in Trinidad where one of the sponsors tries to clean up the carnival. I do not know whether one of the business sponsors of tonight's production knows that.

I approached the London electricity board for some money. It said, "We have a pot of money for some good causes ; what would you suggest?" I replied, "Give some money to the Theatre Royal." We had £4,500 from the LEB, and we were very pleased with that, but it was just a drop in the bucket-- although we were prepared to take it. I want the Minister to be aware of exactly what is happening. I also want him to know that theatres such as the Theatre Royal have major problems trying to get money from the local authority and the local community.

The Minister has obtained some good money for the arts. I do not wish to sneer at his achievements in competition with other Ministers. He has done a good job--we know that because the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington hates him for it, which is why we must be on the right hon. Gentleman's side tonight. However, 0.3 per cent. of our national wealth is pathetic in comparison with, say, the 11.8 per cent. of our national wealth that we spend on defence. I want that peace dividend. I want the defence budget to be slashed right the way through, and I hope that a Labour Government will do that. We can then start investing the money in the finest form of investment, which is the creativity and the arts of our people. 8.1 pm

Mr. Andrew Hargreaves (Birmingham, Hall Green) : I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to the debate. I preface my remarks by declaring an interest as I once worked in the arts business as a fine arts auctioneer.

I am disappointed--as, I suspect, are some other hon. Members--with the timing of the debate. Once again, the arts have been relegated beneath an important football engagement. Nevertheless, the House should have its attention drawn to the importance of the arts as a sector and as an industry. I regret that there are not more Opposition Members present. They might have been pleased to reflect on the fact that the arts sector nationally has a turnover of more than £10 billion and represents more than 2.5 per cent. of all the spending on goods and services. That makes it comparable with such major industries as vehicles or, indeed, anything in Britain. With that in mind, it is extraordinary that the Labour party does not take more interest in it.

The arts give direct employment to almost half a million people, or 2.1 per cent. of the working population. Twenty-seven per cent. of all spending on tourism is specifically attributable to the arts, and £2.7 billion of all general consumer spending is specifically attributable to the pulling power of the arts. The arts is a major industry in this country and should be treated as such. I join hon. Members on both sides of the House in supporting the idea of promoting the ministerial post for the arts to a Cabinet

Column 1067

appointment. It would do the arts an enormous service. The combination of an arts, heritage and tourism post within the Cabinet would make good sense.

No hon. Member would seriously argue against the social benefits of a thriving arts industry--not only are the arts an integral part of our national heritage and culture, the very spirit of the nation, but like sport they have the power to draw people and societies together. They can be a key element in the revitalisation of inner cities--as Birmingham, the city that I have the honour to represent, has rightly recognised--restoring civic pride and bringing public safety and live people, who spend back into our otherwise deserted central city streets. In the evenings, the strong cultural infrastructure is an economic asset to the business community and can assist cities such as Birmingham to attract conventions, conferences and businesses to the area, as well as to retain important business executives and talented people in the area. It is a tremendous advantage to any regional centre.

My right hon. Friend the Minister mentioned the work of Birmingham both in promoting its share of the 1 per cent. scheme, and in sponsoring the City of Birmingham symphony orchestra, in attracting the Sadler's Wells Royal ballet--now the Birmingham Royal ballet--and the D'Oyly Carte opera. I ask my right hon. Friend to give strong support to the idea of Birmingham becoming one of the first in the city of culture scheme leading up to the millennium. Birmingham would do that with great aplomb. The creation of a new environment for the symphony orchestra would enormously enhance the city's prestige and would support the moves that Birmingham has made in trying to improve its image and its significant patronage of the arts.

I join my hon. Friends in praising my right hon. Friend the Minister for recognising the importance of regional centres of culture. I ask him especially to recognise the importance of Birmingham as a regional centre of culture. When making a distinction between where funding should go, it is important that, however important the flagships to which the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) referred, the natural tendency of the Arts Council will always be to put funding in the direction of the major flagship, often leading to a paucity in other areas which are doing their best to encourage sponsorship in partnership with the private sector, as Birmingham is doing.

As I have worked as a fine arts auctioneer, a business involving the sale of art abroad, I would be interested in my right hon. Friend's comments--or he may communicate with me privately--on the possible conflict of interest between the necessities of freedom of goods and capital consequent upon 1992 and the possible loss to collections in Europe of major works of art which might otherwise be retained for the British nation. There is a grave danger of our being hoist by our own petard. We support the idea of the movement of capital and goods within the EEC, but we want to ensure that we retain our works of national importance in Britain. Can my right hon. Friend give further clarification as to what steps will be taken to ensure that we do not lose out in that tug of war?

Mr. Luce : Article 36 of the treaty of Rome makes it clear that each member country of the European

Column 1068

Community should continue to carry out protection of its heritage in whatever way it wishes. That does not mean that there is no problem with movement through the frontier because there would be no control, but article 36 gives member states the right to continue protection policies in relation to their heritage.

Mr. Hargreaves : I am most grateful to my right hon. Friend for that clarification. I hope that the position that I have outlined will not materialise. If my right hon. Friend wishes to make a lasting, valuable contribution to the future of the arts in this country, he should try further to persuade his Treasury colleagues that a special relationship needs to be established between the state and the private sector in funding for the arts. There may be arguments about how much, where and when. Gift aid is a step in the right direction, but it is not enough. If we want to keep major works of art in this country and to improve our national art collections, we have to offer tax advantages to private as well as commercial sponsors.

There have been arguments about the way that has worked in the United States. I do not necessarily agree with some of the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) because I am not sure that they would necessarily benefit us. Some stronger formula has to be established in the relationship between the tax advantage to an individual in purchasing works of art for the nation and its availability to the nation thereafter. That is the only way we shall secure and keep valuable works of art in this country. I ask my right hon. Friend the Minister to press that point with Treasury Ministers. We need a structure for the future, which could be inflation-linked in terms of state contributions and tax set-offs. We must give priority to tax incentives for this purpose. I would not normally say that tax incentives are a good idea, but we must make an exception for charitable giving or donations to the arts and national heritage. I urge my right hon. Friend to press his Treasury colleagues on that point.

I join others in congratulating my right hon. Friend the Minister on the tremendous service that he has performed for the arts in the past five years. Before I became a Member, I knew from friends in the industry that my right hon. Friend had many friends in the arts world. They all recognise the debt that the arts owe him for his service.

8.11 pm

Mr. Martin Flannery (Sheffield, Hillsborough) : I know that the Minister plays an excellent role--I have always respected him--but, as I said in an intervention, he must be a little more incisive. A struggle must be made to get much more money for the arts. It is no good saying that money does not exist--of course it does.

I should like to comment on the important subject of whether we should charge an entrance fee for access to our great national museums and galleries. I have served on each of the three Select Committees on Education, Science and Arts. The latest Committee's first report on museums was a major one. We rampaged around the country to put the information together and split up to visit theatres, especially in Newcastle. Like the Labour party, I profoundly believe that there should be free access to our great galleries and museums, just as there has always been.

Occasionally, a charge must be made when important bygones from other countries are brought here--for example, when the British museum held its Egyptian

Column 1069

exhibition. It could be proved that that exhibition paid off splendidly. There were great queues of people willing to pay large amounts of money. Labour Members are not attacking that practice. We know that it will continue.

When examining galleries, members of the Select Committee went to the Louvre and discussed entrance fees with its leading figures. Since Napoleon, the French have always paid entrance fees, so there is a great gap in their knowledge. The authorities do not know how many people are kept away because of the fees. The people who go into the great galleries change, so the authorities cannot form a correct conclusion. The Conservative majority on the Select Committee wanted the Committee to go to a place where people paid entrance fees. It would be wrong to generalise.

It is nauseating to talk about lack of money in this rich and powerful country. Labour Members believe that all the breast beating about poverty is nonsense. The coffers are filled with money as never before in our history. At least £100 million has come from North sea oil--a bonus that no other European country has had. The selling off of the family silver--the national assets--has brought in many billions of pounds. Those sources have provided a massive amount of money, yet the Government are prepared to charge people entrance fees for the first time.

During all our difficult periods in the past 200 years--slumps, immense poverty and wars--we have somehow managed to let people have free access to all our national treasures. My right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton- under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) pointed out that people wander into galleries to get out of the rain. If one takes a child into a great gallery on such an occasion, one may be convinced that the child will be bored, but the gallery may open the gates to tremendous enthusiasm for the exhibits. By excluding people from galleries, we are perhaps excluding them from culture and beauty for a long period of their lives. Most people can appreciate culture and beauty. Despite all the money at our disposal, as a percentage of gross national product we give to the arts and heritage only about half as much as Germany and France. The Swedes give three times as much as we do. The fact that we are low on that table is inexcusable. We must fight for more money.

I have referred previously to the mess at the Victoria and Albert museum. I went into the great Raphael cartoon gallery, which is miserable just because of lack of money but which houses some of the noblest works that humankind has produced. It was dark and looked almost tawdry. It is not fitting for a great nation. No matter how much we praise the Minister--I know of his integrity and honesty--as a nation we must go more deeply into this matter and realise the damage that we are doing by advocating payment to enter our great galleries and museums.

The three Select Committees on Education, Science and Arts have never before failed to achieve consensus. Although members of the Committee disagreed, we never parted company on issues and never presented a minority report--except on this matter, on which we took a stand. I know that as one who drafted the minority report and struggled for it. We were defeated all the way through by five to four.

Mr. Cormack : Not in 1981.

Column 1070

Mr. Flannery : No, not in 1981. The hon. Gentleman knows that if I had my way he would have been Chairman of that Select Committee after Chris Price went.

Charging cannot be separated from the regime under which we live. The Government talk about law and order, but they have spawned more crime as a result of the get-rich-quick mentality and, to some extent, have so corrupted us that we should even consider making admission charges. When charges were first made in Wales, attendances at the national museum of Wales dropped by 85 per cent.

Those in favour of making charges try to play down the number of people who are discouraged from attending museums and galleries, and the quality of the people who are discouraged. Research shows that those people tend to be visitors to London, probably a mother and father and two children. The Victoria and Albert museum put up a sign inviting voluntary contributions. I watched people read it and then go away. It is no good anybody saying that that did not happen. People either thought, "I am not paying" or "I will have to pay", but they still turned away. Attendances fell by 40 per cent. after that sign went up and the museum has hardly recovered--it is in grave difficulty. I think that Roy Strong led the opposition to voluntary charges at the Victoria and Albert, but he capitulated. We are slipping up badly by excluding so many people.

Some members of the Select Committee did not think that they were doing anything untoward when they decided that the issue was so important that they had to issue a minority report. The great Tory leader, Sir Robert Peel, decided that museums should be free. Speaking in 1832--the Victoria and Albert opened in 1824--he said that he wanted it to be free because many people did not have access to beauty whereas the wealthy had big houses and could buy their own pictures. I know that times have changed, but none the less this is part of our education system. If we take action which militates against people going into our--

Madam Deputy Speaker : Order. I regret to have to call the hon. Gentleman to order, but his 10 minutes have passed.

Mr. Flannery : I have made my points. I would have liked to develop them further, but I shall leave the matter there.

8.22 pm

Mr. Gerald Bowden (Dulwich) : I should like to take the opportunity of this debate to focus attention on the environment and the threat to the heritage--our architectural and art heritage--and the artefacts that form part of it.

The hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) drew attention to loopholes in the planning legislation, which tried to introduce safeguards to stop developers intruding on part of our national heritage. The planning provisions are frequently being circumvented not only in the way mentioned by the hon. Gentleman but in ways that are not so readily realised.

In recent months, we have seen attempts by large public bodies such as British Rail to avoid the statutory provisions protecting listed buildings. The now notorious clause 19 of the King's Cross Railways Bill attempted to oust the normal planning provisions safeguarding listed buildings. That issue should be brought to the attention of

Column 1071

hon. Members who are concerned about protecting and safeguarding our architectural heritage. I have no doubt that when the Committee considering the King's Cross Railways Bill reports it will draw attention to that.

I should like to draw to hon. Members' attention three further Bills that are based on that point--the London Underground Bill, the London Underground (Safety Measures) Bill and the Midland Metro Bill. Someone has noticed the loophole in the legislation and, by clever draftsmanship, is attempting to avoid the proper statutory provisions that the House passed to protect listed buildings.

I understand that there may be good and innocent reasons for the inclusion of clause 19. Although it does not appear to affect a listed building, it fails to take account of the fact that after the Bill has been deposited the line of the route may be changed, perhaps posing a threat to buildings. The clause is too clever by half, and we should exercise our constitutional duty to object to it on principle to ensure that it is not included in the Bill. When those other Bills are considered by the House, there will be an opportunity to sound the siren and to ensure that parliamentary draftsmen and agents recognise the threat.

The answer is to have early consultation with English Heritage to allow it to discuss with any potential developer or promoter of private Bills what is or is not acceptable. Hon. Members who observed the disgraceful way in which English Heritage was barred from making any representations about the King's Cross Bill will recognise how important that is. It was only on the insistence of members of the Committee that English Heritage was given a hearing. It is disgraceful that the promoters of a private Bill, whether it be a public body such as British Rail or a private developer, should be able to oust, for private gain, the statutory provisions for protecting our heritage. I hope that the reforms of the private Bill procedure will close that loophole.

My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. Hargreaves) and the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) mentioned the protection of our movable heritage--arts and artefacts that can be moved from this country. My hon. Friends the Members for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) and for Wimbledon (Dr. Goodson-Wickes) and I spent this morning at the Wallace collection. It struck a chord when the right hon. Member for Ashton -under-Lyne implied that from now on there should be no export of art from the country where it was domiciled. Over the years, the magnificent Wallace collection has been gathered from all parts of the world, particularly France, but it is now domiciled in London. It would be regrettable if, in ensuring that those important aspects of our national heritage remain here, we were so to stultify and to place such rigid controls on the art market that there was no free flow of works of art on the continent of Europe. Only by allowing certain works of art to flow freely will we achieve that European feeling which should be engendered by the treaty of Rome.

It is interesting that the treaty foresaw the possibility of such a provision by trying to strike a balance between the free flow of works of art among Community countries

Next Section

Home Page