| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
AYES
Beggs, Roy
Maginnis, Ken
Molyneaux, Rt Hon Sir James
Paisley, The Reverend Ian
Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)
Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strgfd)
Trimble, David
Tellers for the Ayes:
Mr. William Ross and
Rev. Martin Smyth.
NOES
Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Allen, Graham
Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Banks, Tony
Barnes, Harry
Bates, Michael
Battle, John
Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Bell, Stuart
Bellingham, Henry
Bermingham, Gerald
Betts, Clive
Blunkett, David
Bowden, Sir Andrew
Bowis, John
Brandreth, Gyles
Brown, N (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Browning, Mrs Angela
Burns, Simon
Burt, Alistair
Byers, Stephen
Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Carrington, Matthew
Church, Judith
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Coffey, Ann
Congdon, David
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Cox, Tom
Cran, James
Cummings, John
Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)
Denham, John
Dewar, Donald
Dobson, Frank
Dover, Den
Dowd, Jim
Dunn, Bob
Dykes, Hugh
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Fabricant, Michael
Fenner, Dame Peggy
Forman, Nigel
Forth, Eric
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Fox, Rt Hon Sir Marcus (Shipley)
French, Douglas
Gallie, Phil
Godman, Dr Norman A
Godsiff, Roger
Golding, Mrs Llin
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Hain, Peter
Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy
Harman, Ms Harriet
Harris, David
Haselhurst, Sir Alan
Heald, Oliver
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Hoon, Geoffrey
Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)
Howarth, George (Knowsley North)
Hoyle, Doug
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Hunter, Andrew
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Hutton, John
Illsley, Eric
Ingram, Adam
Jenkin, Bernard
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)
Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)
Jowell, Tessa
Keen, Alan
Kennedy, Jane (L'pool Br'dg'n)
King, Rt Hon Tom
Knapman, Roger
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Leigh, Edward
Lidington, David
Livingstone, Ken
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
McAvoy, Thomas
MacKay, Andrew
Malone, Gerald
Marek, Dr John
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Martlew, Eric
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Meale, Alan
Mellor, Rt Hon David
Merchant, Piers
Michael, Alun
Mills, Iain
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Morley, Elliot
Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Mowlam, Marjorie
Mudie, George
Murphy, Paul
Nelson, Anthony
Neubert, Sir Michael
O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)
Ottaway, Richard
Paice, James
Pope, Greg
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Porter, David (Waveney)
Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)
Raynsford, Nick
Shaw, David (Dover)
Short, Clare
Smith, Chris (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)
Soley, Clive
Spearing, Nigel
Spencer, Sir Derek
Spink, Dr Robert
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Straw, Jack
Streeter, Gary
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Timms, Stephen
Townend, John (Bridlington)
Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)
Tracey, Richard
Trend, Michael
Twinn, Dr Ian
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold
Waller, Gary
Walley, Joan
Watson, Mike
Wells, Bowen
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John
Whittingdale, John
Wicks, Malcolm
Widdecombe, Ann
Williams, Alan W. (Carmarthen)
Wilshire, David
Wolfson, Mark
Worthington, Tony
Tellers for the Noes:
Mr. Timothy Wood and
Mr. Derek Conway.
Question accordingly negatived.
Main Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 60 (Amendment on Second or Third Reading), and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills),
That the Bill be committed to a Committee of the whole House.--[Mr. Wells.]
Question agreed to.
Committee tomorrow.
Queen's recommendation having been signified--
Mr. Robert Ainsworth (Coventry, North-East):
I beg leave to present a petition from the residents of Coventry which declares that
The petition has my support, and that of the Labour and Tory groups on the city council and more than 3,000 residents of Coventry.
To lie upon the Table.
Commonwealth Institute
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.--[Mr. Wells.]
Mr. Cyril D. Townsend (Bexleyheath):
I am grateful for the opportunity to bring before the House the serious funding problems of the Commonwealth Institute, which was established by an Act of Parliament. A number of Commonwealth countries contributed substantially to the cost of its specially designed building in Kensington, prior to its opening back in 1962. To some extent, the institute is an international entity.
In an Adjournment debate on the Commonwealth on 31 March 1994, I told the House:
The main purpose of this debate is to bring the matter forward from there and to give the Minister of State a chance to tell us what he is proposing to do to prevent the institute from being permanently closed, which is a real possibility. I warmly welcome the Minister to the debate. I am well aware that he has on his mind some large and crucial responsibilities in other parts of the world.
The Foreign Office can point out that it has been the main source of funding for the institute since its inception, meeting more than 90 per cent. of its costs since 1963. Alack, under this Conservative Government, there has been a general underfunding of the institute. A few years ago, it was estimated that the building required a minimum of £3 million-worth of essential repairs to bring it to an acceptable standard and that desirable repairs and refurbishment would cost between £8 million and £10 million. That is hardly an example of good housekeeping for a building that has grade 2 listed status.
It was, perhaps, mainly falling visitor numbers that prompted the Government to cease grant in aid--more than £3 million for the financial year 1994-95--from March 1996. The Government then offered £2.4 million, to be spread over 1996-97 and 1998-99, conditional upon the institute and its staff attracting £5 million from other sources for its relaunch strategy by July 1995.
I pay tribute to the institute's efforts to raise money. It exceeded £1 million in the financial year 1994-95 but, unfortunately, the £5 million target was not reached and probably could not have been reached. As a result, the Secretary of State proposed that the institute's galleries--they are well known to many hon. Members and I know that Madam Speaker has visited them regularly--should be closed on or before 1 April 1996. In a letter dated 13 March to Mr. David Thompson, the chairman of the institute, the Secretary of State confirmed that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office is now prepared to provide a grant of £1.5 million. Of course I welcome that but, crucially, the letter states:
At present, the galleries remain closed and I regret that. Staff numbers have tumbled from 96 to 37 and are set to fall even further.
I should like to commend to the House the recent excellent report of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs. It is entitled "The Future Role of the Commonwealth". It contains a section on the institute. Paragraph 143 says:
Indeed so. That is the key aim of my speech tonight.
As the Minister will know, permanent closure of the institute would require primary legislation. The Committee sensibly pointed out that the House should have a proper debate on the subject of permanent closure if that is seriously being contemplated by the Government. The Minister's thoughts on that recommendation would be appreciated.
The Minister will know that the Commonwealth Trust works closely with the institute, and the Committee was told by witnesses from the trust that the role of the institute is
The trust leaves to the institute the task of promoting knowledge of the Commonwealth in schools.
During my Adjournment debate on 31 March, I complained--I think justifiably--that the Government had failed to stir the imagination of the younger generation about the Commonwealth. The institute is one obvious way to approach that task. We spend only a few hundred thousand pounds each year educating people about the Commonwealth, whereas the European Union can spend very large sums on educating people about the EU.
I cannot justify the harsh approach adopted by the Government to the institute in recent years. I suspect that part of the rationale behind that approach has been a feeling in the Foreign Office that the Commonwealth itself should give greater financial support. I think that that is right. Apparently only a tiny proportion of the institute's budget comes from other Commonwealth countries. Singapore, Canada and Australia all have a higher gross national product per capita than does the United Kingdom; they could, and should, do more.
I should like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to Mr. Stephen Cox, the outstanding director general, and to his shrinking staff for their sterling efforts to keep the institute's doors open. They must be supported by this House. Indeed, I believe that there is considerable support for them in all quarters.
I believe and have said before that the Foreign Office budget is far too small. We need to expand our diplomatic posts in eastern Europe. As happened about a decade ago, we are back to underfunding the BBC World Service, and
the British Council is in danger of having to close a number of offices. Our aid programme is diminishing as well. Some of us find that pretty depressing and not in the national interest.
The underpinning is, I accept, partly to blame for the crisis facing the institute. The future of this important institute must be seen against the background of the growing importance of the Commonwealth. The Foreign Affairs Committee's report has much to say on the subject. As early as paragraph 4, it remarks on how the Commonwealth's membership has changed beyond recognition in terms of economic performance:
No wonder that the Committee feels that the implications for our country of some of the world's fastest-growing markets being within the Commonwealth ranks deserve urgent re-examination.
Paragraph 9 of the report states:
One wonders if the Foreign Office is running ahead of or behind that kind of new thinking.
the Lord Mayor, the City Council and the citizens of Coventry are appalled by the increasing and uncontrolled use of anti-personnel mines; the apparent indifference of manufacturers to the carnage and the rejection of responsibility by Governments.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons call upon all governments to renounce the use, manufacture and export of anti-personnel mines; and to accept responsibility for the clearance and safe destruction of these weapons worldwide; and that the House of Commons will call upon the Government of the United Kingdom to take a lead and support all efforts at the United Nations to bring this about.
10.12 pm
"When Her Majesty the Queen visited the Commonwealth Institute last May, she remarked:
'The institute brings the reality of the individual countries of the Commonwealth alive, and demonstrates the role the Commonwealth can play in the world and among its Members.'
Unfortunately, as the House will know, in September--owing, I believe, to an excessive Treasury squeeze on the FCO budget, and to a belief that the institute should raise more of its own money--the Government announced, without prior consultation, the decision to stop all future funding of the institute. That represented a massive blow to a popular and important institute."--[Official Report, 31 March 1994; Vol. 240, c. 1100.]
"I cannot, however, give you the assurance you seek about provision of further public funds for your running costs beyond March 1997."
"We are most concerned at the current situation and recognise that considerable efforts have been made by the Commonwealth Institute to cope with the financial difficulties, including imaginative plans for a major new exhibition entitled 'Wonders of the World'. However, the Institute has received no assurances about the provision of further public funds for its running costs beyond March 1997. If, by the end of 1996, the Institute has not secured private finance sufficient to give it a reasonable prospect of being self-financed from April 1997, there must be a real prospect of permanent closure. This must be avoided."
"crucial to us in terms of educating young people in Britain".
"While it is still the case that some members of the Commonwealth are amongst the poorest in the world and rightly deserve the help and support of the richer developed world, the organisation now also contains some of the world's fastest growing economies, and even some of the richest. Thus, Singapore's income per head is a fifth higher than that of the United Kingdom and Malaysia is catching up fast. India's overall poverty conceals pockets of enormous dynamism and prosperity, whilst both Australia and New Zealand are now clear beneficiaries of the Asia-Pacific growth momentum. Hopes are also high for the resumption of significant growth in southern Africa."
"If the centre of gravity of the world economy is shifting in Asia's direction, then the Western countries best positioned to take advantage of this new scene will be those that have taken the trouble to maintain strong links of every kind with this emerging world. The old Commonwealth ties could therefore become, for the United Kingdom, the new Commonwealth opportunities."
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |