| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Lottery Grants (Charities)
6. Miss Lestor: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage to what extent the revised criteria for national lottery grants will support the work of British charities providing emergency medical relief in the developing world, with special reference to Merlin; and if she will make a statement. [16701]
Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: Charities based in the United Kingdom and working overseas, including Merlin, were eligible to apply for a grant from the National Lottery Charities Board under its international grants programme. In framing the priorities and policies for the programme, the board consulted British charities and voluntary organisations working overseas. Their view was that funds would be best spent in supporting long-term development to help people to help themselves, rather than on emergency provision, for which there were other sources of funding.
Miss Lestor: In view of the declining aid budget, the effect of the lottery on small charities and the fact that the requirement to plan nine months in advance makes it difficult for organisations such as Merlin--which is, as the Secretary of State said, an emergency relief organisation--should not the criteria be changed to include, say, training for staff, the stockpiling of medicine and the provision of infrastructure? That would enable such organisations to qualify for lottery money, and exclude them from the nine-month criterion. Will the Secretary of State consider that proposal?
Mrs. Bottomley: The hon. Lady will be aware that these precise decisions are matters for the charities board. I think that it will examine the £25 million of the first round to see what lessons can be learned, but I commend it on the fact that almost £500 million has been allocated in virtually 7,000 awards. I am pleased that some charities about which the hon. Lady is concerned have benefited. I believe that the Red Cross, for example, has had about 12 awards; Oxfam, too, has received an award, and I know that it hopes for a substantial award in the new round. I wish Merlin well and greatly respect its work.
Anglers
8. Mr. Robert Ainsworth: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what estimate she has made of the number of anglers in the United Kingdom. [16703]
Mr. Sproat: The National Rivers Authority commissioned a national angling survey in 1994 which concluded that there were 3.3 million freshwater and sea anglers aged 12 and over in Great Britain.
Mr. Ainsworth: I thank the Minister for that reply. Given that angling is clearly the most popular participatory sport in the country, why did it receive a miserly £72,500 of development money from the Sports Council last year? Why was angling not even mentioned in its list of the top 22 sports? In the light of their appalling record, will the Government give a commitment to match Labour's commitment to oblige the Sports Council to give more assistance to angling for its administration needs?
Mr. Sproat: The amount that the Sports Council gives in grant to angling or any other sport is a matter for the
Sports Council. However, the hon. Gentleman will be aware that £500,000 from the national lottery and £100,000 from sportsmatch have gone to angling. He will be further aware of the Government's record of improving river quality, ending the problems caused by saboteurs through the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 and reviewing predatory bird and other measures, which shows our commitment to the popular sport of angling.
Sir Patrick Cormack: Does my hon. Friend accept that country sports in general, and angling in particular, are enjoyed by a wider cross-section and by more people than any other sport in the country? Does he agree that the last thing any of them want is Government interference?
Mr. Sproat: They quite like Government money from time to time. None the less, my hon. Friend is absolutely right. One of the most pleasing aspects of the past few months has been that the three bodies representing game, coarse and sea angling have come together for the first time, and the Sports Council will be keen to help.
Mr. Pendry: Is the Minister aware that my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Ainsworth) is absolutely right about the fact that anglers are furious with the Government for ignoring their legitimate claims to recognise angling as a major sport? Is it any wonder that the president of the National Federation of Anglers wrote to the Prime Minister to bemoan the fact that the Government had no policy on angling, in contrast with the Labour party, which has a clearly defined charter for angling? The NFA president concluded by stating the obvious--that anglers are coming to the view that Labour cares about angling but the Government do not. Will the Minister, at the very least, dissociate himself from those in his party who claim that Labour will ban angling after we win the general election? Furthermore, on behalf of the Government, will he match our firm commitment to the sport?
Mr. Sproat: In anticipation of some major exaggeration of the contents of Labour's so-called charter for angling, I reread its few pages this morning, and I was surprised by how little it said.
I mentioned earlier some measures that the Government have undertaken. We have also abolished non-domestic rates for angling riparian owners--a measure that was welcomed by the angling community. That underlines the fact that the Opposition are basically hostile to country sports, and that no angler who wants his sport to be maintained should be so foolish as to vote for the Labour party.
Mr. Peter Atkinson:
Does my hon. Friend agree that the worst threat facing angling is Labour's policy to give an unrestricted right of access to riverbanks, canal banks and lakesides, which would make the management of fisheries impossible and would destroy the opportunity for anglers to enjoy their sport quietly?
Mr. Sproat:
My hon. Friend is right: the Labour party poses a serious threat to angling, and he has mentioned one aspect of that threat.
Plymouth Millennium Fund
9. Mr. Jamieson: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what representations she has received in respect of the Plymouth millennium fund. [16704]
Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: The Millennium Commission, of which I am chairman, has received representations from the Port of Plymouth, the West Country tourist board, the Plymouth marketing bureau and five individuals on Plymouth 2000 Partnership's bid "Plymouth Waterfront--A Celebration of Discovery". The bid is still under consideration. The commission is always pleased to receive representations on a project, whether supportive or otherwise. Representations are one of the key criteria used in assessing applications for funding.
Mr. Jamieson: Does the Secretary of State accept that, because it reflects the area's maritime history, the Plymouth 2,000 millennium bid is most deserving? Will she ensure that it is considered in its entirety? Will she also clarify the purpose and role of individual commission members in trying to change individual bids?
Mrs. Bottomley: The commission is looking extremely sympathetically at Plymouth's proposals. Not only the hon. Gentleman but my hon. Friends the Members for Plymouth, Drake (Dame J. Fookes) and for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. Streeter) have spoken at length to me about the proposals. Mayflower harbour, Plymouth and the Royal William yard, Plymouth are being considered in particular. I have also had discussions with Baroness Cumberlege, the sponsor Minister, who has been extremely helpful in relation to Plymouth's cause and concerns. Sutton harbour, Plymouth, the national marine aquarium and other projects have already received substantial funding, and I hope that the Millennium Commission can add to the £4.5 million of lottery money that is already being spent on 35 awards in the Plymouth area.
Individual commission members may have their own views and opinions, but they will simply refer those back to commission meetings, when matters are debated carefully by all the individuals concerned.
Tourism Grants
10. Mr. Waterson: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will reintroduce section 4 grants for the tourism industry in England. [16707]
Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: The Government have no plans to reintroduce section 4 grants in England. Tourism is a highly successful industry and is increasingly making use of many opportunities to benefit from public money. Those opportunities include challenge funding, the single regeneration budget and, in eligible areas, the European regional development fund. Moreover, the national lottery is playing a major role in financing exciting new capital projects, many of which help to encourage tourism and bring widespread benefits to communities across the country.
Mr. Waterson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, like me, many hoteliers and guest house owners in my
constituency remain puzzled about why those grants are payable in other parts of the United Kingdom but not in England? Is she also aware that those same constituents very much welcome the fact that, under the National Heritage Bill, funding will now be available for great examples of our national heritage, such as Eastbourne pier?
Mrs. Bottomley: I know the concerns of my hon. Friend's constituents. If the Labour party had its way, there would of course be no coherence in what happens in the different parts of the United Kingdom, and I think that would be very much more alarming. I well recall the visit to Eastbourne pier, and the inconsistency of piers in private ownership being unable to benefit from lottery money, unlike those in charitable or local authority ownership. I am delighted to say that, last Thursday, the National Heritage Bill received Royal Assent. Therefore, my hon. Friend's pier, like other piers in the realm, will now have lottery assistance available when appropriate.
Mr. Pike: Does the Secretary of State realise that tourism is rapidly developing in industrial areas such as Lancashire and Yorkshire, and that section 4 and other grants to help the industry develop are very important for their employment prospects and for taking advantage of existing tourism facilities?
Mrs. Bottomley: Old Labour shows its face once again. Of course a cheque from the centre is always helpful to those who apply, but the Government believe that the reason why we have had the incredible boom in the tourism industry is that we keep taxation and regulation to the minimum. We have been able to boost the many national assets which are such an attraction for people around the world. There is no doubt, however, that well over £1 billion has gone from the national lottery to many massive regeneration projects, such as the Lowry centre and redevelopment of Newcastle's Sunderland glass centre. Across the United Kingdom, city centres are being restored. Only last week, a massive £140 million was awarded to museums, and the key awards were in Manchester. I think that everyone will agree on the awards' importance and significance for the tourism industry.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |