---

Sir Patrick Cormack (South Staffordshire): I apologise to my hon. Friend and to the House for coming late to the debate. I went to considerable trouble to be here for seven o'clock, because I was told that it would begin then. The issue must be the survival of the British museum, which is a very special place. Whoever is to blame for what has gone wrong--my hon. Friend has understandably worked himself into a lather about it--the fact is that it is not the scholars or the public, who visit the museum in great numbers. It is crucial that the British museum should remain the flagship of our museums. We must not put the trustees into a straitjacket, restrict the scholarship and make it difficult for people, young and old, to visit the museum.

Mr. Sproat: That is a very important point, but it is not the only one. If museums care well for the artefacts in their charge--as the science museum and the natural history museum have done--it would be unfair to take money away from them to pay for those who have not performed their function. It is the parable of the virgins or the talents--[Interruption.] I was groping for the biblical quotation about the wise and the unwise virgins, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

18 Dec 1996 : Column 1011

Of course, we shall do everything we can to help the British museum, but its trustees must decide whether to charge. We shall be very happy to provide advice or to meet the trustees to discuss the matter. I noticed that the Opposition spokesman did not tell us whether Labour would reinstate compulsory charging in those museums that have removed it already. I see Opposition Front Benchers nodding, so that is another pledge.

Mr. George Mudie (Leeds, East): I was agreeing that my hon. Friend had not told the House.

Mr. Sproat: Perhaps he will tell us now. Labour should tell us whether it intends to reinstate charging. Charging currently brings in £15 million; if the British museum were to put aside the charging option, it would have to find that sum from Government funds. It is yet another example of the Labour party not telling us what it would do in government. I do not care what a Labour Government would do, but Opposition Members should have the courage of their convictions and tell the House whether they would forbid the museums to charge. If they would, they must confirm whether they would compensate the museums.

Mr. Fisher: I am happy that the Minister has given way on an issue that is hardly central to the Bill. We are getting distracted, but the Minister provokes me somewhat.

I shall make our position clear. My right hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) has said on numerous occasions that the Labour party wishes to see access to all the core collections of our great national museums returned to the state of being free by the end of the century. To achieve that, we shall work with those museums. It is a matter not of compulsion, but of coherent partnership policies. Having discussed this matter with many of the museums, we believe that we can achieve that by the end of the century.

What a good way to celebrate the millennium--all our great national museums, such as the British museum and the Victoria and Albert, should be free and open to access. If the Minister is serious about the Bill and about our heritage, he should support that principle and work constructively with us when we are in government to ensure that it happens.

Mr. Sproat: That was an absolutely classic Labour weaselly pledge. Labour would like to see that happen by the end of the decade, but the hon. Gentleman did not and dare not say what Labour will do, because the right hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) will not allow him to do so. All that the right hon. Gentleman allows Labour Members to do is to speak out of one side of their mouths, give a nudge here and a hint there. They say in private that of course they will do that, but when challenged at the Dispatch Box to say whether they will give another £15 million or £25 million to museums, they will not say.

Mr. Fisher: The Minister has such a crude and unimaginative understanding of these matters. As he said, it is not within the power of Government either to compel or to prevent charges. We believe that it is wrong, and we will work with those galleries and museums to ensure that charging ends. We will not compel them, and we will

18 Dec 1996 : Column 1012

certainly not fully fund them. The museums that do not charge have had roughly the same budget treatment, but they have deployed their resources differently to ensure that they do not have to charge. They have not received more favourable treatment than those museums that have chosen to charge. We believe that the museums that have charged could have organised their affairs in such a way that, like the Tate or the British museum, they did not need to charge.

We hope that, in the next three years, we can work with the museums, using lottery money and their grant in aid, but we will not give them favourable treatment, and we will certainly not compensate them for giving up charges. We believe that they can reorganise their budgets by the end of the century, and we will work with them to that end. We will not compel them to do so. As the Minister said, it is a matter for the trustees. We believe that most trustees want access to their core collections to be free. They will be working over the next three years with a Government who are positive on that point.

Mr. Sproat: That was another fudge. We still do not know whether Labour will give the museums £15 million. The hon. Gentleman is wrong: the museums that have not charged have received more in the past five years. That is not because they do not charge; it is just a matter of fact. I have given the figures.

As ever, my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon (Mr. Coombs) made a much more sensible speech. He talked about the lottery's great success, and was extremely modest about the fact that he was one of the first to say that private owners needed more help. Two thirds of listed houses are in private ownership. It was ludicrous that those private owners could not be helped, but now they will be.

My hon. Friend is an expert on tourism. Last year, 24 million tourists--a record number--visited this country. One of the main reasons why they come here is our heritage. The Bill will greatly help the tourist industry. The problem of matching funds is serious, and I look forward to returning to that issue in Committee.

The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland gave a general warm welcome to the Bill. He made some interesting points that we shall return to in Committee. I also look forward to discussing his major disagreement with me about charging for admission to museums.

My right hon. Friend the Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke) said that English Heritage should be able to work abroad. He is right. It was partly with that ambition in mind that, earlier this year, English Heritage established its former direct labour force as an independent company, which is now able to use its considerable skills on projects beyond these shores. It is not the Bill that will allow that: it was English Heritage's wise and prescient move in setting itself up as an independent force.

With those few and gentle words, I commend the Bill to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills).

18 Dec 1996 : Column 1013

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to delegated legislation,

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

Contracting Out

That the draft Local Authorities (Contracting Out of Allocation of Housing and Homelessness Functions) Order 1996, which was laid before this House on 28th November, be approved.

Town and Country Planning

That the draft Town and Country Planning (Fees for Applications and Deemed Applications) (Amendment) Regulations 1997, which were laid before this House on 2nd December, be approved.

Town and Country Planning (Scotland)

That the draft Town and Country Planning (Fees for Applications and Deemed Applications) (Scotland) Regulations 1997, which were laid before this House on 2nd December, be approved.

Social Security

That the draft Social Security (Incapacity for Work and Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 1996, which were laid before this House on 2nd December, be approved.

Rating and Valuation

That the draft Non-Domestic Rating (Chargeable Amounts for Small Hereditaments) Regulations 1996, which were laid before this House on 9th December, be approved.--[Mr. Coe.]

Question agreed to.

STANDARDS AND PRIVILEGES

Ordered,

That Sir David Mitchell be discharged from the Committee on Standards and Privileges and Mr. John MacGregor be added to the Committee.--[Mr. Coe.]

Standard Spending Assessment (Hounslow)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.--[Mr. Coe.]

7.45 pm

Mr. Nirj Joseph Deva (Brentford and Isleworth): I am most grateful to have this Adjournment debate, which I presume will be the last debate in 1996. It is wholly apposite that the last debate of the year should be on behalf of my constituents in Brentford, Isleworth, Hounslow and Chiswick, especially the most vulnerable and dependent who are looking to the House for help.

I am particularly grateful for the opportunity to bring to the House's attention the position on the Government's standard spending assessment for the London borough of Hounslow and the way in which the Labour-controlled council in Hounslow is wilfully ignoring the interests of its residents.

I am sorry that neither the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), whose party controls Hounslow council, nor the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), who is the Labour party spokesman on local government, is present to participate in the debate. I am extremely sorry that no one from the Labour party is present to listen to a debate on matters relating to the borough of Hounslow and the concerns of the people who live there. I shall take note that no one from the Labour party has bothered to be present, and I shall make it known to all my constituents that Labour Members do not care.

I wrote to the Leader of the Opposition on 6 December about his party's proposals in Hounslow. All I have received 12 days later is a brief acknowledgement that my letter has been passed to the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras. My constituents will be interested to know that neither of them is here to defend their party's position. Perhaps they are too ashamed, or simply do not care any more about the old, the infirm, the battered or the dispossessed.

In my letter to the right hon. Member for Sedgefield, I addressed him as "Dear Tony"--it is nice to talk about "Dear Tony" letters. I wrote:

"I am writing with some indignation and outrage that your Labour Council in Hounslow is riding roughshod over the views of local people, including two of your own Labour Councillors, Cllr Vanessa Smith and Cllr Pat Nicholas, to penalise some of the most vulnerable members of my constituency.


I refer to the proposed closure by Hounslow Council of the Isleworth Day Care Centre, which enables hundreds of elderly and vulnerable people to receive care and support; and the proposed closure of the Chiswick Family Centre which helps disadvantaged children and their families.


Last year, Hounslow Council had a budget of £196 million. The Government's recent SSA announcement has enabled the Council to raise its total spending by another £3,790,000. The cost of keeping the Isleworth Day Care Centre open is £235,000 and that of the Chiswick Family Centre £30,000. This represents just 0.133 per cent. of the Council's total budget and more important less than 7 per cent. of the increase in SSA that has been granted to the Council"

by the Government

"for next year.


"It is outrageous that the Council should attempt to make cheap political points by attacking the most vulnerable, especially after receiving this additional assistance from the Government.

18 Dec 1996 : Column 1015

It is simply mind-boggling that two of your own Councillors, who want the centres kept OPEN have been suspended from the Labour Party for their efforts. Is this what 'New' Labour stands for?"

I am glad to see that a member of the Labour party has arrived to listen to what I have to say.

---