| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Sir Patrick Cormack: There are two here tonight.
Mr. Lammy: The hon. Gentleman indicates that he would challenge the statement that museums in this country have never had as much investment as they have now. I am surprised by that because the facts do not bear that out—I am sure that his maths is better than that.
The situation is thanks to the Government’s commitment to the sector and our belief that the best of our cultural heritage should be open to everyone, regardless of their background. The public repaid our faith by visiting in their tens of millions after the financial barrier of charging and the insidious snobbery of elitism were swept away. There was an almost 66 per cent. increase in attendance at museums that used to charge after that charge was waived. The hon. Gentleman says that the Government are meddling in our museums, but that is about ensuring that our museums are free. We wish to ensure that our museums receive people from socially excluded groups so that the collections are enjoyed not solely by the sort of people who are fortunate enough to grace the House, but by the people of this country. I make absolutely no apology as a Culture Minister for the fact that we wish to ensure that the collections are available for everyone to enjoy.
Sir Patrick Cormack: I was campaigning for free admission to museums before the Minister was born.
Mr. Lammy: Sadly, the hon. Gentleman’s party did nothing about it. It took the election of a Labour Government in 1997 to take the issue seriously. I am sorry, but I will not take any lectures from him on that point.
Grant in aid, self-generated income, business sponsorship and any number of grant schemes and tax concessions that either help directly or free up funds that museums and galleries can use have grown, as the hon. Gentleman knows. In addition, there is a safety net that helps to give UK institutions a second chance when pre-eminent items are threatened with export. For the record, I have used that mechanism on a number of occasions to ensure that valuable treasures remain in the country. Our system of export licence deferrals has remained pretty much the same for more than 50 years. It has the respect of the trade, as well as an international reputation for common sense and even-handedness.
I am very pleased to be able to tell the House that, last year, more than 50 per cent of the items on which the Government put a temporary export stop were saved, in addition to the hundreds of items saved since the reviewing committee was set up by a previous Government in 1952. Exquisite pieces as varied as “The Death of Actaeon” by Titian, Canova’s “Three Graces”, a 102-piece Sèvres dinner service presented to the Duke of Wellington, and the Macclesfield psalter have all been saved thanks to that system. They will remain in this country, with full public access, for ever. I therefore do not accept the hon. Gentleman’s argument.
I am not going to apologise for the Government’s record on the arts, culture, museums and galleries. It holds up fantastically well in comparison with that of
the previous Administration, of whom the hon. Gentleman was a member. He is right to highlight the issue of acquisitions and to raise matters about which museums feel keenly, but I am afraid that I must take issue with the manner in which he did so. He correctly pointed out that the international art market, on which
museums have to trade, is something of a law unto itself. He is absolutely right.
The motion having been made after Seven o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. Deputy Speaker adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at twelve minutes to Eight o'clock.
| Index | Home Page |