| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Art Exports
4. Mr. John Bercow (Buckingham): What assessment he has made of the current levels of exports of works of art from Great Britain. [110599]
The Minister for the Arts (Mr. Alan Howarth): I refer the hon. Gentleman to the annual report of the Reviewing Committee on the Export of Works of Art for the period 1 July 1998 to 30 June 1999, which was published on 26 November 1999 and laid before Parliament, and provides information about the level of exports of works of art requiring individual export licences for that period.
Mr. Bercow: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply, but is he proud of the fact that the committee's latest report shows that funding for the safeguarding of important national art treasures fell last year by 75 per cent., from £23 million to under £6 million? What plans does he have immediately to address that chronic decline? If the answer is none, will it not be best for him to export himself, if he is able to find a gullible enough buyer?
Mr. Howarth: The hon. Gentleman makes a charming suggestion. I am pleased to tell him that our plans include more than doubling the funding available to the national heritage memorial fund. I am also pleased to say that the trustees of the heritage lottery fund have indicated that the money that they will allocate for the acquisition of works of art will be doubled. He will also have noted that, in the period shortly after publication of the report, the heritage lottery fund rose magnificently to the occasion, as did the national art collections fund, to enable the purchase by the national gallery of Scotland of Botticelli's "The Virgin Adoring the Sleeping Christ Child".
Mr. Peter Ainsworth (East Surrey): May I associate myself with the remarks about Michael Colvin? Among his many other talents, he was a very accomplished artist, and he did a great deal of work on behalf of the arts, both locally and across the country. Hon. Members on both sides of the House will have their own memories of Michael. I came to know him best through his work for the arts. I am quite sure that the entire House will join me in sending our heartfelt sympathy to Michael and Nichola's family on this tragedy.
Notwithstanding the comments that the Minister has just made on export of works of art, does he accept that the verdict of the export reviewing committee was that
Britain does face a heritage crisis? What will the Government do about museums' acquisition budgets, which are at an appallingly low ebb? Should not providing the funds and the assistance to help museums to acquire works of art be a key part of the Government's policy of enhancing access?
Mr. Howarth:
Before responding to the hon. Gentleman's question, I should like to say that I have the happiest of memories of a visit to York with Michael and Nichola Colvin, and with the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) who is in the Chamber. We went to look at the heritage in York, and it was a very happy day. Michael and Nichola were great lovers of heritage, and the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth) was absolutely right to make that important point in the House on this particular day.
As for the hon. Gentleman's question on the alleged crisis in funding for acquisitions, I should remind him that funding levels are very much what they were whenthe previous, Conservative Government left office. Subsequently, not only have we been able to ensure that the Botticelli was obtained for the national gallery of Scotland, but the United Kingdom national gallery, in London, has acquired Stubbs's "Whistlejacket" and Durer's "Jerome". Extremely important acquisitions have been made in museums and galleries in Bolton, Leeds, Doncaster, Bury St. Edmunds, Cirencester and Cambridge.
As I said, the national art collections fund and the heritage lottery fund rise to the occasion when required to do so. There is not the crisis that the hon. Gentleman asserts that there is.
5. Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold):
If he will make a statement on the Millennium Commission funding for the dome. [110600]
The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr. Chris Smith):
The Millennium Commission is supporting the dome as the centrepiece of its UK-wide spectrum of millennium projects. In 1997, the commission agreed a grant of £449 million gross to the New Millennium Experience Company. In response to an application from NMEC, the commission has further agreed to provide a repayable grant of up to £60 million to assist the company with its cashflow, subject to detailed appraisal and to the company demonstrating clearly the need for those funds. To date, £32 million of the additional grant has been released by the commission after such appraisal.
Mr. Clifton-Brown:
I thank the Secretary of State for giving us the figures on Millennium Commission money that has gone into the dome. If those funds--which, on his own figures, amount to more than half a billion pounds--had not been spent on the dome, they would have gone into the lottery and to other good causes. Has he met anyone who would have preferred that money to go into the dome, rather than to be spent on a range of other public services--which, with that vast sum, could have been hugely improved?
Mr. Smith:
The project has had cross-party support ever since its inception. It is remarkably well appreciated
Mr. Gerald Kaufman (Manchester, Gorton):
Is my right hon. Friend aware that yesterday, with a guest from overseas, I was one of many thousands of people who had a great time at the dome, not only enjoying the zones and the show but appreciating the excellent and courteous service from all the staff? Is not it about time that the Tory party and the chattering classes abandoned their snobbish sniping at a project that has a great potential for success if given a chance?
Mr. Smith:
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right, especially about the courteous and expert way in which the staff deal with visitors, which has been widely appreciated. It is not absolutely everyone in the Tory party who takes a negative view, however. The former Deputy Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), in last Monday's debate, strongly said:
Mr. Norman Baker (Lewes):
In respect of dome funding, why, almost two years to the week after BSkyB said that it would sponsor the dome, has it yet to sign on the dotted line? What is the hold-up? We have never had an explanation. What conditions does the company want to attach to its sponsorship? Should not those who want to use the dome mark cough up the dome cash?
Mr. Smith:
The details of those arrangements are matters for the New Millennium Experience Company, not for me. As far as I am aware, the discussion is simply over minor details and there is still a clear commitment on the part of BSkyB to sign the contract and deliver the money that it has promised.
Mr. Jim Dobbin (Heywood and Middleton):
Will my right hon. Friend pass on my deep appreciation to Lord Falconer for his intervention last Thursday in response to specific requests from the children of Alkrington county primary school, who visited the dome and had a tremendous time? I visited it yesterday with my two grandsons and we enjoyed it immensely. It is no wonder that the dome is proving highly popular, despite the Tory party's efforts to undermine it.
Mr. Smith:
I will indeed pass on those welcome remarks to my noble Friend. Such admirable assistance would probably be condemned by Opposition Front Benchers as meddling.
Mr. Peter Brooke (Cities of London and Westminster):
When the £32 million is repaid, what will the Millennium Commission spend it on?
Mr. Smith:
The commission's programme of work for capital projects, the millennium festival and the millennium awards is well in place. Clear priorities are set out, as the right hon. Gentleman will know, and the money is destined for valuable projects throughout the country.
Mr. Robin Corbett (Birmingham, Erdington):
Does my right hon. Friend recall that many of us in Birmingham and the west midlands felt cheated when the previous Government changed the rules to get the millennium exhibition on a bend in the river in the furthest reaches of east London? That said, we welcome the success that the dome now promises to be and we are glad that so many people enjoy it. Will he invite the Opposition and most of the national media to admit that they have got this wrong?
Mr. Smith:
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his generous approach to the issue. One reason why Greenwich was chosen as the location for the exhibition was the regeneration impact that the dome will have on a deprived part of south-east London, with the creation of many jobs and a specific tourism effect. I very much endorse his comment that it is time that the Conservatives got behind the project and helped to make it the real national success--without political partisanship--that I believe it can and should be.
Mr. Peter Ainsworth (East Surrey):
I do not know how many times I have to tell the right hon. Gentleman that the Conservatives want the dome to be a success. As I have told him many times before, not least in the debate last week, we wish P-Y well. However, we do not support the Government's atrocious handling of the project. What guarantee can he give that the dome will not be back for more money before the end of the year? What estimate has he made of the cost to the commission and to taxpayers of his Government's decision to keep the dome in place after the exhibition closes?
Mr. Smith:
Adopting the language that the hon. Gentleman has used on occasions over the past two months is a strange way of hoping that the dome will be a success. The legacy competition is in place. We anticipate that funds will be coming back into English Partnerships and the New Millennium Experience Company--and through them to the Millennium Commission--because of our decision to continue the life of the dome beyond the end of this year.
The dome is a national project . . . We must be seen to support it and give it every chance to be the success that I have always believed, and still believe, it will prove to be.--[Official Report, 21 February 2000; Vol. 344, c. 1320-21.]
He speaks more clearly than anyone on the Opposition Front Bench for the 872,000 people who have visited the dome to date.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |