| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, may I point out that as the Labour Party with the FA initiated the bid for Euro '96, we now wholly support all efforts to have the World Cup tournament played here? However, is the Minister aware that for Euro '96 the Government provided only a measly £100,000 to the eight cities which hosted the games and incurred the brunt of the costs? Are the Government prepared to assure the local authorities and those involved in football that they will provide more significant financial support next time?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, to the first part of the noble Lord's question I can say only, "Goody goody two shoes"! As I said in my original Answer, it is too early to talk about costs and funding for the tournament.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: My Lords, in order to blow the final whistle on this Question, will the Minister share with me the hope that of all the United Kingdom countries which participate in the World Cup in 2006 none will score as many own goals as have this present Government?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, my answer to the noble Lord is, "Boo"!
British Museum: Finance
3.3 p.m.
The Earl of Clancarty asked Her Majesty's Government:
- Whether they are prepared to intervene to ensure that the British Museum will not at any time in the future operate general admission charges.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, no.
The Earl of Clancarty: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that short Answer. Does she agree that any reduction in accessibility for whatever category of visitor does not just lead to but positively represents a worsening of the cultural health of our society, the very possibility of which the Government should do their utmost to disallow?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the Government have long held the view that the decision about whether to charge for admission is for individual boards of trustees. The Government neither impose nor prohibit the introduction of admission charges.
Lord Callaghan of Cardiff: My Lords, I declare an interest as a member of the Trustees Appeal Council of the British Museum. Is the Minister aware
that there is almost total opposition to any proposal to charge for entry to this great national heritage, to which there has been free admission for at least 200 years? It should not be regarded as a business but as part of our civilisation. Is she further aware that the alternative to not making charges will be to cut exhibitions? There is a suggestion that the number of staff will have to be reduced by 20 per cent. That is quite intolerable and the situation results from the Government's decision to cut the grant year after year after year.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the Edwards Report suggests that to a considerable extent the museum has the power to solve its own financial problems. The report reveals that there is great scope for the museum to improve its efficiency. People may enter the British Museum without paying a fee, but each and every taxpayer pays for it at £6 an entry.
The Earl of Perth: My Lords, in view of the Minister's original Answer, will the Government ask the trustees to consider a compromise; namely, that there should be charges for six months from April to September when the tourist season is at its height? People from other European countries, for example, will readily understand that because almost all those countries charge for their museum entrances. During the remaining six months there would be no entry charge and the British, or anyone else living here, could enjoy the great pleasures of the museum for free.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, to return to the issue of money, the Government are providing more than £33 million to the British Museum in 1996-97. That is a substantial commitment. The matter is for the galleries themselves. I am not aware that, for instance, the National Gallery has any intention of introducing charges. However, it is up to the gallery to decide.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the Minister aware--
Noble Lords: Strabolgi! Order!
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am well aware of the ticking of the clock and I hate to intervene in any internal Labour Party quarrel. However, I wonder whether perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, has not been standing longer than the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney. I am in the hands of the House.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, are the Government aware that last year there were more than 6 million visitors to the British Museum? By how much does the Minister believe that that figure will reduce if charges are introduced?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I could not possibly give a hypothetical figure. Where charges are made, children, OAPs, unemployed and disabled people enter for half price and organised children's groups enter free of charge. Season tickets work out much cheaper than daily tickets and apply to most museums which charge; for example, the Victoria and Albert Museum. Furthermore, the Natural History Museum lets everyone in free after 4.30 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the Minister aware--
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I believe that I understand the sense of the House; that it prefers the Cross-Benchers to come in.
Lord Annan: My Lords, may I correct the Minister in one respect? She said that it was up to the trustees to decide whether to charge. In the 1960s the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, imposed a charge upon the trustees and they were powerless to resist. Has the Minister taken into account the fact that when the British Library moves, the British Museum will lose a considerable amount of money in rent? Not only must it make up that amount in the running of the museum but it must find the funds to transform the centre of the museum and the space that has been vacated by the books.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I hate to say it, but the noble Lord is wrong. The Government have given £5.2 million in 1998-99 and 1999-2000 to replace income currently received from the British Library.
Social Security (Recovery of Benefits) Bill [H.L.]
3.10 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That it be an instruction to the Committee of the Whole House to whom the Social Security (Recovery of Benefits) Bill [h.l.] has been committed that they consider the Bill in the following order:
Clause 1, Schedule 1, Clauses 2 to 8, Schedule 2, Clauses 9 to 32, Schedules 3 and 4, Clause 33.--(Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Consolidation Bills: Joint Committee
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That pursuant to Standing Order 49 the following Lords be appointed to join with a committee of the Commons as the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills:
Alexander of Tunis, E. Clyde, L. Colville of Culross, V. Dilhorne, V. Gisborough, L. Haskel, L. Lloyd of Berwick, L. Mallalieu, B. Meston, L. Strabolgi, L. Wigoder, L.;
That the committee have the power to agree with the committee of the Commons in the appointment of a chairman;
That the minutes of evidence taken before the committee from time to time be printed and, if the committee thinks fit, be delivered out; and
That a Message be sent to the Commons to propose that the joint committee do meet on Tuesday 10th December at half-past four o'clock in Committee Room 3.-- (The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and it was ordered that a Message be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith.
Preparations for EMU: ECC Report
3.11 p.m.
Lord Barnett rose to move, That this House takes note of the report of the European Communities Committee on Preparations for EMU (2nd Report, HL Paper 18).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. I start by thanking the Members of my committee. I was fortunate to have a very distinguished, able and experienced committee, which I had the great honour to chair. I say that they are very able and distinguished not just because the report is unanimous. I would have said that anyway. But I am pleased to see that the debate has attracted a few equally distinguished noble Lords who may not be quite so unanimous in agreeing with the committee. I hope I am wrong about that.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, the chairman of the main committee, whose help was important in order to obtain a unanimous report, after an amendment was defeated by 15 votes to three with the support of a very important distinguished group of 15 noble Lords.
But the background to the report is that the Chancellor said that he would be "grateful" for our views on the important matters which he raised both in his letter and the memorandum from the Treasury. Those are included in Appendices 3 and 4 to the report.
There are three main issues: the stability pact, the exchange rate mechanism and the euro. The basis of our report is our letter to the Chancellor which is set out in Appendix 5 to the report. Since then, I have had a reply from the Chancellor to which I shall refer later.
The background to our letter is our major report An EMU of 'Ins' and 'Outs' and there are six bull points in that report which, I should point out, was also a unanimous report despite having as a member of the committee at that time my noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington. Therefore, I cannot say that he agreed with every dot and comma of the report. Indeed, it may be fairer to say that the report was agreed nem con and he did not vote against it.
The bull points of that report are set out at page 20 in Appendix 5: first, that EMU is more likely to work well if it comprises only member states which have met the convergence criteria and are judged to be likely to sustain them; secondly, that budgetary discipline is necessary for all member states of EMU; thirdly, that the single market is the main economic benefit of EU membership to the United Kingdom; fourthly, it is of critical importance that access to the single market is not restricted if the United Kingdom is not participating in EMU; fifthly; that exchange rate stability is important for the maintenance of the benefits of a single market; and, finally, that the achievement of a sustainable convergence is the critical condition for exchange rate stability.
My present view is that implicit in that report was that there are bound to be consequences for the UK, whether we are inside or outside EMU. Therefore, the report exposes as a nonsense the ideas of those who wish to say no now to EMU. Indeed, I know that many would prefer to say no to our membership of the European Union altogether, although I do not believe that many noble Lords here would say that. But at least now any government in the UK can seek to influence the policies which will have serious consequences for the UK.
Therefore, I come to the first of the three main items in our report--the stability pact. We say in terms:
- "We strongly support, in principle, measures which work to maintain fiscal discipline".
I emphasise that member states seeking to join EMU should not just meet the criterion of 3 per cent. of GDP. They must do so without one-off accounting devices and what might be called creating accounting fiddles or--the Minister did me the honour of quoting from my book about wheezes--wheezes. I hope that we shall have none of that in deciding whether the 3 per cent. of GDP is met. Therefore, we are not just talking about 3 per cent. to meet the criteria for one year but that the
member states which seek to join should be judged whether they are likely to sustain convergence thereafter. That is crucial.I turn now to the question of fines and sanctions. At the bottom of page 20 the report states that,
- "we see as desirable some system which effectively deters fiscal irresponsibility. We see the problem of devising a system which strikes the right balance between effective deterrence and credibility. We recognise that the Commission's proposals raise questions of feasibility and political acceptability".
However, in my view the whole issue of fines and sanctions has been blown up out of all proportion to the issue. If one were to read the excellent evidence which we had from Mr. Gus O'Donnell, the senior Treasury official who gave evidence to us, he made it quite clear that it would be years before fines or sanctions of any kind might be imposed on any of the ins. He made it crystal clear that that is the situation and he spelt out the way it would work. The fact is that we are talking of a deterrent and, like all deterrents, if we have actually to use them, that could and indeed might destroy the EMU itself.
The Chancellor's letter, to which I have referred, states:
- "It is however, too early to judge how the conditions for membership will be interpreted. The Council, meeting as Heads of State or Government, will not decide which Member States qualify for EMU membership until 1998 at the earliest".
I turn to the exchange rate mechanism which is referred to at page 21 of the report. I note and accept that ERM2 membership is voluntary for the outs. My concern is that if the opt-out that we have is genuine, it is also an opt-in and that is genuine too, I hope. Therefore, the question must be whether we must be in the exchange rate mechanism for two years prior to joining. As I have said, the Chancellor feels it is too early to judge. Our view--with which, in his letter, the Chancellor agrees--is that if we meet the test of exchange rate stability on other convergence criteria, it would be straining at a gnat to find difficulty over formal membership of the exchange rate mechanism. In any event, the provisions and procedures of ERM2 are in line with government policies. I hope that they are also in line with the Opposition's policies. No doubt my noble friend Lord Peston will be able to confirm that.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page