| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Music (Young People)
6. Mr. Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab): What steps her Department is taking to encourage young people to become involved in music; and if she will make a statement. [55623]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr. David Lammy): The Department for Culture, Media and Sport continues to work closely with the Department for Education and Skills to set out a shared vision for music education in the music manifesto. That will take place over the next five years and central to it is the involvement of young people in music education.
Mr. David: My hon. Friend will be aware that Wales is a musical nation—[Hon. Members: "Hear, hear."] I will not burst into song. Will there be any initiatives in Wales to promote music to young people?
Mr. Lammy: Wales is of course a musical nation and Welsh miners valley music is second only to gospel music in huge achievement. I know that my hon. Friend is an oboist of world class status, having played for the Glamorgan youth orchestra. I hope that he is pleased with the work that the music manifesto is taking forward and also with the work of Youth Music, which is ensuring that money goes in particular to our poorest estates and most deprived areas to get those children engaged in music.
Mr. Don Foster (Bath) (LD): I congratulate the Minister and his wife on the birth of their son.
If the Minister is so keen on involving young people in music, why do the Government's targets for attending arts events include classical music, jazz and opera, but exclude the very type of musical events that young people are likely to attend? Why, for example, does the target exclude attending urban music, rock music or world music events? Are not the Government totally out of touch with young people?
Mr. Lammy: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He knows that we consulted closely with the Arts Council in setting that target, but we keep it under review and it is right that we look at all the art forms that can contribute to participation by young people.
John Donne (Portrait)
7. Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab): If she will intervene to ensure that the portrait of John Donne in the National Portrait Gallery is not lost to the nation. [55624]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr. David Lammy):
If the National Portrait Gallery cannot raise funds to purchase the portrait, I have no power to intervene in its
6 Mar 2006 : Column 596
sale to another party, as it is private property. However, if it is sold to an overseas buyer, it will be subject to the normal export licensing procedures.
Chris Bryant: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is a uniquely British portrait? It is a painting of one of Britain's greatest poets, a man who was a priest in the Church of England and a Member of this House. He was also Dean of St. Paul's and wrote that great first definition of socialism:
Will he do everything in his power to ensure that the present owners of the painting, who include the family of the right hon. and learned Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram), perhaps lower their price, to ensure that it remains in this country?
Mr. Lammy: There can be no doubt that John Donne is one of our great poets, but it is right and proper that we see how the process goes forward. The decision may ultimately come to me so I should not comment beforehand.
Sir Patrick Cormack (South Staffordshire) (Con): Although I understand the Minister's reluctance to comment in detail and thank him for what he did over the Canalettos, will he bear in mind that the bell is tolling for our great galleries unless they have proper purchase grants for acquisitions, which they do not at the moment?
Mr. Lammy: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Heritage Lottery Fund has funded £130 million-worth of acquisition purchases over the last 10 years. Of course, in the case involving John Donne, there is a bid before the National Heritage Memorial Fund as well. It is right that we have been able to acquire great works of art and keep them in this country. I have been able to make certain assessments once a decision has been reached by the reviewing panel, so let us wait and see what happens in this case.
Mr. Siôn Simon (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab): May I remind the Minister and the Secretary of State of the words of John Donne about ephemeral excitements—
and suggest that that which is durable, valuable and important not be sacrificed to that which is cheap, easy and immediate, and that that national treasure indeed be saved for the nation?
Mr. Lammy: I commend my hon. Friend on his recollection of John Donne and agree entirely.
National Lottery
8. Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory (Wells)
(Con): What proportion of funds awarded by the Big Lottery Fund in 2004–05 went to the four original good causes. [55625]
6 Mar 2006 : Column 597
The Minister for Sport (Mr. Richard Caborn): The comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Simon) show that those who do not attend the Chamber regularly miss an educational and cultural experience.
The Big Lottery Fund is the operating name of the National Lottery Charities Board and the New Opportunities Fund, until the National Lottery Bill goes through Parliament. They work together. Both bodies continue to distribute funding solely within their existing good cause areas, so one third is distributed to the original good causes of charitable expenditure, and two thirds to the new good causes of environment, health and education introduced by the Government in 1998.
Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Why have the Government abandoned the additionality principle, whereby lottery funds are supposed to be in addition to taxpayer funds and not a substitute for them? Will the Minister comment specifically on the latest annual report of the Big Lottery Fund, which shows funding to, for instance, school learning and child care and cancer and stroke treatment, which are Government responsibilities? Is not he ashamed that the Government have plundered the lottery fund in that way, in defiance of the principle on which the national lottery was founded—at that time with Labour party agreement?
Mr. Caborn: In taking the Bill through Parliament over the past few months, there has been a background of wide consultation with the British public as to what they actually want lottery money to be spent on and how additionality can be justified. The results of the consultations, which are on the public record and have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses, showed clearly that the public wanted that money to be spent on health and education. We have held discussions with all the distributing bodies and I hope that in their annual reports they will give account of additionality for their funds—the first time that we have been able to do that. The distributing bodies will be accountable through their annual reports, which have been deposited in both Houses of Parliament. If parliamentarians want to put questions, in the many ways available to them, it is open to them to do so.
Mr. Gordon Marsden (Blackpool, South) (Lab): Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Government and the Secretary of State were absolutely right to broaden the terms as they did? Arts and education need to be brought together and the issues cannot be pigeonholed as the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) seemed to suggest.
Mr. Caborn: Absolutely, and that is what came from the wide consultation that took place. The lottery is a fantastic institution. It is probably one of the best lotteries in the world, and credit is due to the Opposition and to John Major in particular for introducing it. We need to continue to refresh it and to consult the public, which we are doing, and the proof of the pudding is in the eating in that people are still playing the lottery and, as I say, it is one of the best lotteries in the world, so the public must have confidence in what we are doing.
Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham)
(Con): I should like to inform the Minister that the new MRI
6 Mar 2006 : Column 598
scanner at the Royal Shrewsbury hospital was paid for by the national lottery, because the local consultants put in a bid. I am very grateful to them for securing that money, but should not the MRI scanner have been paid for by the Secretary of State for Health?
Mr. Caborn: The answer is no, and this is the difficulty—[Interruption.] When we consulted the public generally, across the board, health was one of the issues where they believed that lottery funds can be additional to that which is spent in other ways. Quite honestly, when we are talking about investing in the health service, no one can accuse this Government of not doing so. We are spending more money on the health service than that lot on the Conservative Benches ever did when they were in power, and this money is additional to that expenditure.
Mrs. Sharon Hodgson (Gateshead, East and Washington, West) (Lab): On the same point, does my right hon. Friend agree that the provision of hospices and MRI scanners, which would have taken many years of fundraising, are worthwhile areas of lottery funding and that another area of equal worth would be the provision of cancer drugs—such as herceptin, cetuximab and temozolomide—while they are awaiting NICE approval?
Mr. Caborn: Although we have laid out the broad principles about such money and investment, particularly in the new National Lottery Bill on the new lottery fund, the distribution of lottery funds is undertaken by independent bodies, which are at arm's length—[Interruption.] I hope that the hon. Member for East Devon (Mr. Swire) is not trying to bring into disrepute the integrity of the members of the lottery distributing boards. I say very genuinely that the public can have confidence in the distributing boards. They are made up of independent people of integrity who operate to terms of reference and do a fantastic job in distributing that money fairly and in a transparent way throughout the country. Additionality can be brought to Parliament through the annual reports of the distributing bodies.
Hugh Robertson (Faversham and Mid-Kent) (Con): The reverse side of that argument is that, since the creation of the New Opportunities Fund in 1998, more than £3 billion, according to the national lottery website, has been removed from sport, arts, heritage and charities. Given that it is exactly eight months to the day since we won the bid in Singapore, how can the Government deliver on the many commitments made at the time of the bid to elite athletes, and about mass participation and a cultural festival if sport and the arts have suffered a de facto cut of £1.5 billion?
Mr. Caborn:
I do not accept that. Some £750 million has come from the New Opportunities Fund—now the Big Lottery Fund—to invest in school sports facilities throughout the country. That is true right across the board. Lottery money is now being invested with much more value added than previously, when it was very siloed. The British public were telling us very clearly that they want us to take an holistic approach, not one that is departmentalised in the way that the previous Administration had us do it.
6 Mar 2006 : Column 599
9. Mr. Henry Bellingham (North-West Norfolk) (Con): When she next expects to meet representatives of the Big Lottery Fund to discuss lottery grants to village halls and community centres. [55626]
The Minister for Sport (Mr. Richard Caborn): That was a resounding expression of confidence in the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham).
To date the lottery has awarded £258 million to village and community halls. The Big Lottery Fund will make £50 million available over three years through a community buildings programme to benefit projects across England. I have no plans to meet its representatives to discuss that at present.
Mr. Bellingham: Has the Minister seen a recent report that revealed a £400 million backlog of repairs to village halls across the country? He mentioned the Big Lottery Fund making available £50 million over the next four years, but what hope can he hold out to village halls in my constituency, including the one at Terrington St. John, which has twice had its bid turned down? Is there not a danger, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) pointed out, that we are seeing substitution for Government expenditure and not enough money being spent on good causes in rural areas?
Mr. Caborn: I do not think that that is true. In an Adjournment debate a few weeks ago, the investment of £50 million in village halls was welcomed. I have not read the report about the £400 million, but if the hon. Gentleman sends me a copy, I will read it and then write to him and put my reply in the Libraries of both Houses. Through the Millennium Commission and what we are doing now through the Big Lottery Fund, the investment in village halls and community halls is at a level that is commensurate with the role that they play in communities.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |