| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, can the noble Lord enlighten me before he leaves that point? The decision to go for €1,000 rather than €3,000 will produce some extra revenue for the artists concerned. What is the Government's estimate of the annual revenue per artist who will fall into that category—the additional money that they will receive from that reduction?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I do not think that we have a total figure, but it obviously depends on what the spread of the figures is. Everyone can do their own calculation on this. There is a tariff and you can apply that to any figure within it. That will give you the result, minus the amount that DACS will take away, which will usually be equivalent to a quarter—but I will check that point and let the noble Lord know. It is not a difficult calculation and if he would like some help with that, we shall provide him with some examples of the figures and the amounts that DACS might withdraw.
In closing this debate, I would like to reassure the noble Earl, Lord Howe, that the Government are committed to monitoring the impact of these
24 Jan 2006 : Column 1173
measures, and we will revisit any issues which threaten our art market. If it is found that the measures do not work, we can go back to a figure of €3,000—it can be moved up as well as down. As it is unlikely that resale will be made compulsory under Berne, we will press for the derogation for deceased artists to be made permanent. Frankly, we should be focusing on that issue, the real threat to the British art market, if one is looking after the interests of that market, and not be concerned about £22,000 of extra costs.
I thank noble Lords for an interesting debate and I commend the regulations to the House.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, I thank everyone who has spoken in this good debate. I shall do my best to conclude by 10 o'clock. Three departments look after the art market—the DTI, the Treasury and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, to whose Select Committee inquiry the Minister gave his famous original answer. This is a culture matter and I express mild regret at the irony that the one department that is not represented on the Government Front Bench is the culture department.
The issue raised in the Merits of Statutory Instruments Committee of your Lordships' House was that this regulation introduces an important matter in legal terms, as my noble friend Lord Inglewood said. I regret that it did not merit that same view from the DTI. There is symmetry in relation to the three departments. The Minister had only three supporters during the debate—three times more than he received in the press or on the media, when his only supporter was DACS, although I acknowledge that its chairman and chief executive wrote to the press. They might, however, be regarded as interested parties.
I wish to respond to the three speeches made in support of the Minister. The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, said that the thresholds have been set at much lower levels by other countries, but he did not specify them. I have an uneasy suspicion that he was relying on Christopher Bryant's remarks in Westminster Hall on 8 November, which was quite some time ago. The German figure that Mr Bryant quoted was €50 at that stage; he said that the level was set at such-and-such a figure. As my noble friend Lord Astor said, the Germans have now moved their figure from Mr Bryant's notional €50 to at least €1,500 and are thought to be going higher still. That is the most vivid index of all that the Germans have learnt from experience that, at low levels, the right is very expensive to manage and administer. It is interesting that they should suddenly have gone up by an enormous margin because the directive allows them to do so.
I sincerely congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, on having changed his mind. It is too late tonight to conduct a seminar on how the secondary market works, although I would be happy
24 Jan 2006 : Column 1174
to have a conversation with him outside the Chamber. I genuinely respect him for having changed his mind and for explaining why he did so.
The spokesman for the Liberal Democrats, the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, despite all he said about all the research that had been done, based his argument on the claim that 50 per cent of—I took him to mean British—living artists would benefit from the Government's decision. I do not think that even the Minister would make a claim above 1 per cent. I just cannot conceive of the quality of the research on which one could base the claim that 50 per cent of living artists would benefit. However, the noble Lord was the Government's third supporter. If the Minister feels that he has been well served by that support, I admire him profoundly.
I agree with the Minister that the issue of relocation does not occur at the lower level; I agree that it does not apply to the threshold issue. I also agree with him that the derogation is of exceptional importance. However, I reiterate what I said in my opening speech: the fact that the Government could give up concessions that they had won so hard over the five years of negotiations does not inspire me—and I suspect may not inspire the art market—with any sense of constancy of purpose in terms of the next campaign. I agree that the derogation is very important and I am delighted to hear the Minister say that he thinks so, but it is just unfortunate that the actions that he has taken have, in fact, belied the words that he has uttered. If you weaken the top end of the market, as will happen if the derogation is not extended, unquestionably the bottom or lower end of the market will become weakened, too, as of course it is the profitability at the top end that enables so many other things to happen at a lower level.
The Minister says that what the Government have done is not gold-plating. I do not know what gold-plating is if it is not what they have done; I do not know what the Chancellor of the Exchequer is saying when he says that gold-plating is no longer occurring. The principle of gold-plating is that you go further than the directive requires you to do, which is precisely what the Government have done on this occasion—that is, frankly, the gravamen of the charge that we have laid in front of them.
I will not go on because, as I say, the hour is late. I told the private secretary to the noble Baroness the Leader of the House that my amendment would not be fatal. However, I hope that the Minister will take stock of how far he has been outnumbered and, it might be said, outgunned in this debate, which, instead of lasting 45 minutes as the Government thought, has actually lasted for nearly two hours. I hope that he will consider very seriously before he takes the matter forward in the way that he currently intends. As I said, my amendment was not intended to be fatal, so I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at ten o'clock.
Written Statements
Tuesday 24 January 2006
24 Jan 2006 : Column WS53
Africa: Food Shortages
The Lord President of the Council (Baroness Amos): My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for International Development (Hilary Benn) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
Since my Statement of 8 December, the numbers of people assessed to be at risk of food shortages in Zimbabwe, Malawi, Zambia, Mozambique, Lesotho and Swaziland have remained at around 11.4 million.
Rains started late across the region. During the past few weeks, however, very heavy rains have flooded parts of Malawi and Mozambique, leading to loss of lives, crops and homes. The governments of Malawi and Mozambique do not think that additional emergency assistance is needed at the moment. But we are monitoring the situation closely, especially in Mozambique, as the cyclone season approaches and the risk of further flooding increases.
The period between January and the end of March/April, when harvests start to come in and the price of staple food crops begins to fall, is particularly difficult. At the moment, food shortages are worst in Zimbabwe, southern Malawi and southern Mozambique.
The breakdown by country is as follows:
Zimbabwe: The national assessment was formally released on 17 November and indicates that 2.88 million people will face food shortages, assuming stable maize prices. However, maize prices have risen significantly and, while hyperinflation in Zimbabwe makes it difficult to assess affordability, it is possible that as many as 5 million people face food shortages. Despite this, widespread starvation is unlikely. Recent nutritional data show that malnutrition is below emergency levels. The underlying causes of food shortages are a combination of erratic rains, HIV/AIDS and bad governance. WFP has expanded operations in the country, helped by a £10.5 million contribution from DfID. It is providing rations to 3.4 million vulnerable people during the peak months until the harvest comes in at the end of March. In addition, approximately 1 million schoolchildren, orphans and people affected by HIV/AIDS are benefiting from supplementary feeding programmes. WFP signed a memorandum of understanding with the government of Zimbabwe on 1 December which guarantees WFP and its implementing partners humanitarian access and freedom from political interference in their operations. Only a few minor attempts to politically interfere with the food aid operation have been reported. These have been dealt with appropriately.
24 Jan 2006 : Column WS54
The UN Under-Secretary General for Humanitarian Affairs and Emergency Relief Co-ordinator, Jan Egeland, recently visited Zimbabwe. He urged the government to allow NGOs free access to assist the affected population. It is regrettable that the Zimbabwe Government continue to delay and obstruct UN agencies in their attempts to provide shelter to displaced people. Despite these problems, the UN and NGOs continue to operate relief programmes reaching 40,000 affected households, including those affected by HIV and AIDS, providing food, blankets, medical care and other essential items. DfID's most recent commitments are helping to tackle problems of overcrowding and access to basic services for the worst affected people in urban areas.
Malawi: The numbers at risk of experiencing some food shortages before the next harvest has not changed since my last Statement. Around 4.9 million people are affected. The Government and WFP are implementing a co-ordinated emergency response across affected areas of the country. We are supporting these efforts. Plans are in place to reach all of those facing food shortages in the period leading up to the harvest in March/April 2006. Total aid pledged so far to the Government and to WFP's humanitarian operation is $116 million.
Zambia: The numbers of people in Zambia facing food shortages before the next harvest in March/April remain at around 1.4 million people. Most of them live in the southern, western and eastern provinces of the country. The government have appealed for assistance and have declared a national disaster. WFP, the government of Zambia and an NGO consortium are leading the response. Priority concerns over the next few weeks are to ensure that food aid reaches those most in need—supplies have been limited due to transport bottlenecks—and that the nutritional situation does not deteriorate.
Mozambique: A total of about 800,000 people face some degree of food shortage until the end of April. WFP continues to scale up its distribution of food aid and plans to feed 75 per cent of the worst affected populations between now and the end of the hunger season. The cereals pipeline is healthy until the end of April. Flooding has affected parts of central and southern districts of the country. Although this has not yet increased the numbers of people who face food shortages, further flooding and cyclones could increase the numbers in need of assistance. A national contingency plan is in operation to monitor flooding risks.
Lesotho: Assessments in Lesotho have not changed. About 440,000 people could face food shortages until the end of March. WFP has adequate supplies until the end of April. Commercial imports of maize from South Africa have been good this year and these have helped to keep prices stable. The government of Lesotho are responding through safety nets, including a recently introduced pension for those over 70 years of age. With support from DfID and FAO, implementing partners are promoting seeds distribution and livestock programmes in the worst affected areas.
24 Jan 2006 : Column WS55
Swaziland: Assessments in Swaziland have also not changed. About 225,000 people could face food shortages until the end of the hunger season. As in Lesotho, other responses to chronic hunger, apart from food aid, are being encouraged. These include providing seeds and fertiliser to poorer households. Late rains in Swaziland have created problems for the maize crop, which is planted earlier in the year. The Ministry of Agriculture and Co-operatives will undertake a rapid assessment at the end of the month to check the latest situation. We will closely monitor the situation through our links to the VAC system.
What are the UK Government doing?
In response to this crisis, the UK Government have now allocated over £65 million in humanitarian assistance for the region this year. Some of this has been channelled through UN agencies and some has gone through governments or NGOs. The breakdown of our commitments so far this year is as follows:
Zimbabwe: £40 million covering relief programmes for up to 3 million people provided through non-government channels, including contributions to WFP and HIV/AIDS programmes. DfID has also committed over £1 million in response to the government of Zimbabwe's forced clearance of unauthorised dwellings earlier this year, under Operation Murambatsvina ("Clean Up"), which displaced or destroyed the livelihoods of 700,000 people.
Malawi: DfID has contributed £19.7 million (equivalent to $35 million) or about 30 per cent of total food needs. This makes DfID the largest contributor to the relief effort this year. Our support has been used largely to purchase food for distribution in affected districts in the centre and northern areas of the country. It has also provided logistical support, and money for seeds and other inputs. It has also allowed for an expansion of nutritional programmes across the country. Planning for the emergency began in March with help from early pledges from the UK.
Zambia: DfID has provided a range of assistance to help people facing food shortages this year. We have given £2.43 million to WFP for food aid programmes to cover the needs of approximately 150,000 people. In addition, we have also provided £1 million to Oxfam for a programme of cash transfers to provide emergency relief to approximately 81,000 people in need. We have also provided £500,000 for emergency seed distribution to 20,000 vulnerable households. To stem the risk of worsening malnutrition in Zambia, we are providing £500,000 for nutrition programmes, targeting vulnerable groups.
Mozambique: We have already provided £235,000 to provide seeds to drought-affected farmers, using the Ministry of Agriculture's drought mitigation plan. WFP's cereals pipeline is currently healthy until the end of the hunger season. We are working with WFP to see how we can help fill funding gaps in the vegetable, oil and pulses pipelines between now and the end of the hunger season. This will improve the protein content of rations distributed by WFP. We are also carefully monitoring flooding and cyclone risks.
24 Jan 2006 : Column WS56
Lesotho: We have provided FAO with £350,000 for distribution of seeds, fertilisers and small-scale livestock interventions for affected households in Lesotho.
Swaziland: We have provided £300,000 for distribution of seeds and fertilisers to help vulnerable households. In both Lesotho and Swaziland, we have supported programmes that help diversify production towards more drought-resistant crops.
I am once more urging EU partners to review their response to current needs in the region and to co-ordinate closely with the UN in the international community's response. I also urge them to consider support for strengthened early warning systems and better vulnerability assessments in the region. Improvements in this are needed to ensure better responses to hunger.
As I said in my last Statement, we must address the high levels of chronic hunger in southern Africa more effectively and take action to reduce the risk of repeated crises affecting the region.
In addition to the short-term responses I have outlined, and as we have done in previous years, DfID will work with SADC as part of a wider effort to improve vulnerability assessment and analysis in the region. This is needed to improve the effectiveness of our response to hunger. We will be providing funds to allow the VAC system in Southern Africa to undertake further needs assessments later this year.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |