| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
ESTIMATES, 1999-2000 (NAVY) VOTE A
Resolved,
That during the year ending on 31st March 2000 a number not exceeding 48,340 all ranks be maintained for Naval Service, a number not exceeding 18,330 for Service in the Reserve Naval and Marine Forces, and a number not exceeding 200 for Service as Special Members of the Reserve Naval Forces under Part V of the Reserve Forces Act 1996.
Resolved,
That during the year ending on 31st March 2000 a number not exceeding 135,420 all ranks be maintained for Army Service, a number not exceeding 76,700 for Service in the Reserve Land Forces, and a number not exceeding 6,000 for Service as Special Members of the Reserve Land Forces under Part V of the Reserve Forces Act 1996.
Resolved,
That during the year ending on 31st March 2000 a number not exceeding 58,070 all ranks be maintained for the Air Force Service, a number not exceeding 26,000 for Service in the Reserve Air Forces, and a number not exceeding 430 for Service as Special Members of the Reserve Air Forces under Part V of the Reserve Forces Act 1996.
Resolved,
That a sum not exceeding £2,000 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to make good excesses of certain grants for Defence and Civil Services for the year ended on 31st March 1998, as set out in HC 239.
Resolved,
That a further supplementary sum not exceeding £2,946,254,000 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to complete or defray the charges for Defence and Civil Services for the year ending on 31st March 1999, as set out in HC 237, 238 and 310.
Ordered,
Mrs. Barbara Roche accordingly presented a Bill to apply certain funds out of the Consolidated Fund to the service of the years ending on 31 March 1998 and 1999: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed [Bill 66].
That a Bill be brought in upon the foregoing Resolutions relating to Estimates, Excesses, 1997-98, and Supplementary Estimates, 1998-99: And that the Chairman of Ways and Means, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Alan Milburn, Dawn Primarolo, Ms Patricia Hewitt and Mrs. Barbara Roche do prepare and bring it in.
Arts Funding (Westminster)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.--[Mr. Hill.]
7.28 pm
Ms Karen Buck (Regent's Park and Kensington, North): London is home to a flourishing and diverse artistic community. We are truly fortunate in that we host centres of excellence in the performing and fine arts that draw on a magnificent heritage going back for centuries. However, the arts are not only a heritage from the past. We also have a thriving modern cultural sector that reaches into new mediums of delivery and celebrates our dynamic multicultural present.
Culture and the arts are not an optional add-on for a society that has resources to spare. They give expression to our humanity, enrich our lives, stimulate the imaginations of our children and act as a barometer of our self-esteem. We should be proud of what we do to promote the arts in our society and cautious of those who see the arts as a frivolity or as one more consumer good to be left to the market to deliver.
Fifteen months ago, I was delighted to attend a celebration of the arts in Westminster at the London Palladium, set up by Westminster city council. Westminster's gala nights for the arts were grounds for pride on the part of the council. They showcased the enthusiasm and talent among our schoolchildren and youth in music, dance, drama and the carnival arts. They demonstrated the dynamic that exists when the artistic traditions of China, Bangladesh, the Caribbean and the many countries whence our asylum seekers come meet modern Britain's world of classical, rap and rock music.
My purpose in seeking this debate tonight is to give expression to the profound disappointment I now feel at Westminster city council's decision to slash funding for the arts and community groups in central London. That disappointment is all the more acute because it contrasts with the positive support and statements of support given by the borough up to and including its recent gala nights for the arts.
Only a few months ago, Councillor Harvey Marshall, chair of the arts committee, said:
Out went the grants to the orchestra of St. John's, Smith square. Out went the grant to the Photographers Gallery. The Yaa Asentewa centre lost four fifths of its grant, and it is struggling for its life. That organisation may need to make changes in the services that it delivers, but I must wonder about the message being sent to black Londoners by the loss of support for the only Londonwide black arts centre.
Mr. Andrew Dismore (Hendon):
My hon. Friend will recall that I was a Westminster councillor in my previous
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin):
Order. I am afraid that I must interrupt the hon. Gentleman.
Ms Buck:
I am grateful to my hon. Friend who is completely right.
I need not explain to the Minister the importance of carnival in my constituency. The Yaa Asentewa is among the centres at which carnival arts are nurtured and promoted. They are of great significance, particularly to Afro-Caribbean residents.
The most recent edition of the bulletin, "The Arts in Westminster", advertises the fact that the Yaa Asentewa has been funded by the local single regeneration budget to run a holiday play scheme and an after-school club involving drama and music skills as well as basic skills tuition in literacy and numeracy.
Cuts have also fallen on the Serpentine gallery, the Royal Philharmonic Orchestra, the English National Opera and Ballet, Paddington Arts, Wigmore hall, Photo Works Westminster, the Soho Theatre Company, London Print Workshop, the Institute of Contemporary Arts, Westminster Youth Dance Scene, Alternative Arts--which was singled out for praise by Councillor Marshall just weeks earlier--and more.
In all, £360,000 has been cut from arts organisations. That has been partially offset by some small additional funding, but 15 per cent. of the arts budget--£230,000--has been lost to the arts in the borough. I should like to deal briefly with the borough's arguments in justification of that action.
Westminster claims that the Government have cut support to the borough. Yet the December policy and resources budget paper admitted that the grant settlement meant that
Westminster has long been, and remains, one of those authorities that raise the smallest proportion of spending from the council tax. Only £1 in every £10 spent by the council comes from the council tax payer--a proportion virtually unchanged since 1995. As a percentage of budget, Westminster's council tax requirement was the fourth lowest in the country in 1997, and the fifth lowest last year. Those figures give the lie to claims that the
Government have been excessively punitive towards Westminster and that council tax payers bear too much of the spending burden.
I cannot fail to mention the fact that Westminster is sitting on reserves of £84 million.
The council also ignores the fact that Westminster, which has the highest concentration of arts organisations in the country, benefits from inward investment because of its support for the arts. Westminster's local economy benefits from tourism and visitors, half of whom cite the arts as a reason for their visit. The London Arts Board invests £2 million in arts provision in Westminster, and the city is also a major recipient of lottery arts funding. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will respond to that point in his reply, as it will help to disabuse us of the notion that local council tax payers are subsidising national organisations from which they receive no benefit.
The other important counter-argument to the charges laid by Westminster lie in our schools. Many of the institutions savaged by grant cuts have an excellent record of work with school children. Wigmore hall states:
"Westminster is certainly the capital and it must be the heart of the arts in London and the country. We shall continue to support the arts at all levels, for the benefit of residents, businesses and visitors."
At the beginning of last month, the council cut its funding to all but one of the 24 arts organisations that it had supported. Cuts ranged from 6 per cent. to the complete loss of grant. Decisions came out of the blue for many groups, and they were taken in a thoughtless, blustering manner that made a mockery of the pious words of Councillor Marshall just weeks earlier.
"the position for next year is better than expected".
Since then, the council has received additional money for education and several other additional special grants. As standard spending assessments have been agreed for a three-year cycle, there is no justification for panic spending cuts.
"The £8,000 cut in funding restricts the Hall's ability to fund an education officer . . . our schools projects complement the national curriculum and to date they are offered almost exclusively to schools within Westminster. As the city does not have a Music Co-ordinator, the Hall arranged for teachers to meet regularly to share ideas and good teaching practice . . . the relationship developed and Wigmore Hall raised funds to employ an administrator to arrange inter-school activities and a pool of musical instruments."
The Institute of Contemporary Arts has listed educational initiatives that will have to be scaled down, including a consultancy scheme on the deeply and multiply deprived Mozart estate, developing teaching and learning materials with teachers and community groups and organising evening taster sessions for residents. The Photographers Gallery drew attention to recent community projects that involved working with the Marylebone Bangladeshi society, Soho parish school, deaf artists from the area and others. The Serpentine gallery warns that a 48 per cent. cut will
"have a serious impact on the Gallery's education programme and the service it can offer to residents . . . half the children who attend the Saturday Art Club are Westminster children and they have priority . . . these activities and policies are now in jeopardy."
In conclusion, I should like to raise three points. First, Westminster is wrong to make damaging, philistine and financially devastating cuts to arts and community organisations. Secondly, it is repugnant to attempt to pin the blame on the cost of asylum seekers to the local community.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |