| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
4.24 pm
Mr. Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham): I congratulate the hon. Member for Houghton and Washington, East (Mr. Kemp) on introducing his Bill.
There is nothing personal in my opposing it. I have nothing against the north-east region of England, even though I represent a Sussex constituency. I have nothing against the Lindisfarne gospels as a student of archaeology. Indeed, they are such an important work that they should be seen in their best context. I also have nothing against the sterling work that the hon. Gentleman is doing in the "Free Deirdre" campaign. I certainly do not want my opposition to be seen as a slur on the work that he has carried out on that.
The problem is that what the hon. Gentleman is trying to do is just wrong. This is not fiction. It is real life. I speak as a long-standing member of the British Museum Society. The Bill will set a bad precedent, which would ultimately threaten the integrity of national museums across the world.
As the hon. Gentleman acknowledged, the real importance of the Lindisfarne gospels is not as some treasure or priceless artefact that is nice to look at, but as an important illuminated manuscript in the context of early Christian literature, and an important milestone in the spread of Christianity in the dark ages across the whole of Britain, not just the north-east of England, or Holy Island.
Not all the manuscript's origins are even in the north-east of England. As the hon. Gentleman said, many of the illuminations were crafted in Ireland. The Lindisfarne gospels are notable for their combination of Celtic decoration with classical and byzantine styles, so, although they may have been collated in Lindisfarne in the seventh century, other parts of the British Isles may have an equal claim to them.
The Lindisfarne gospels are undoubtedly special, but they should not be the only item claimed by the north-east of England. What about the treasures in the British museum? What else is important to the north-east? When will the north-east ask for the Vindolanda tablets to be returned to Northumberland? What about returning the Sutton Hoo treasures or the Mildenhall silver to the people of East Anglia? What about the return of the Hinton St. Mary mosaic to Dorset, or the return of Lindow man to Cheshire?
Before we know it, our national galleries, museums and libraries will become warehouses for empty showcases and a hotch-potch of unloved, second-tier artefacts that fail to titillate the tourists hankering after the in-your-face buzz so beloved of the creators of cool Britannia.
To use that awful word, this is all about "decontextualising". To decontextualise is to turn treasures of national and international importance into objects just to be gawped at. They are best seen in collections that recognise no arbitrary boundaries of time or place.
The Lindisfarne gospels are best seen in a national and international context. Indeed, if displayed in the likes of an internationally renowned institution such as the British library--not the British museum, as the hon. Gentleman suggested--they would provide the finest advertisement for the arts of the north-east of England, for all our nation and all other nations to see, seven days a week and free for all, for as long as the Government failed to admit that they had reneged on their promise to provide free admission to our national museums, with their woefully inadequate £2 million in the Budget.
It is ironic that the hon. Gentleman should attempt to denude the British library of one of its most successful exhibits, just when it is about to be displayed, on 21 April, in the new exhibition galleries on the St. Pancras site, which has had £511 million lavished on it. That is a funny way to laud the opening of this important new building. The British library attracts many people at the moment, and will, I hope, attract many hundreds of thousands more.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the access that people from the north-east--indeed, anywhere in the country--will have through the agreement between the British library and Northumberland county council, and the electronic viewing facilities. Let us take the example of the British museum.
I have campaigned long and hard for the Elgin marbles to stay where they are. Some 1.6 million paying people visit the Acropolis in Athens each year. More than 6 million people are freely admitted to the British museum each year, where they can see the Elgin marbles as a centrepiece and in a magnificent and classical context, whereas fewer than half a million people a year visit Durham cathedral, which was one of the locations that the hon. Gentleman suggested for the Lindisfarne gospels. The British museum generously lends out thousands of items around the world each year. Currently, there is a collection of Indian art in Bombay to celebrate the 50th anniversary of independence, and a collection of Hogarth prints is in New York. The British museum and the British library successfully raise many millions of pounds from the private sector.
The Lindisfarne gospels are not in the British museum--the Bill is a flawed Bill. They have been and will be housed in the British library. There would also need to be a change--the hon. Gentleman did not touch on this--to the British Library Act 1972 to enable the gospels to be relocated. More important than anything else, it is an act of philistinism to remove important works of art and antiquities from their wider context--the rich tapestry of our heritage and cultural development--just to put them on a pedestal.
As the hon. Gentleman himself said, the Lindisfarne gospels are a treasure of the nation. It would set a bad precedent and spell the beginning of the end for the integrity of national museums everywhere if the gospels were removed. This is another example of the insidious consequences of regionalism gone mad. Ironically, it was The Guardian which once stated, in the context of the Elgin marbles, that demanding their return happened regularly in Athens--once a year in normal circumstances, and twice a year in election years. I trust that this does not mark the beginning of similar claims from other hon. Members for all manner of items of local interest to be stripped from our national museums.
It is with the greatest of respect to the hon. Gentleman that I oppose this Bill, so that the Lindisfarne gospels can be retained in London. It is also with the greatest respect that I suggest that he concentrate on freeing Deirdre.
Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow):
On a point of order, Madam Speaker. It would be helpful to know whether the speech that we have just heard was, in fact, the British
Madam Speaker:
I do not think that that is of any importance. The hon. Gentleman made his own speech, just as all hon. Members do.
Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 19 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business), and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Fraser Kemp, Mr. Stephen Hepburn, Mr. Peter Atkinson, Mr. Ronnie Campbell, Mr. Denis Murphy, and Mr. Jim Dobbin.
Mr. Kemp accordingly presented a Bill to provide for the transfer of the Lindisfarne Gospels from the British Museum to a location in the North East Region of England: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 3 July, and to be printed [Bill 172].
Order for Second Reading read.
Madam Speaker:
Before calling the Home Secretary, I should inform that House that, between 7 and 9 pm, Back-Bench speeches must be limited to 10 minutes.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw):
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The Bill has a simple, practical ambition: to build a safer and more responsible society. My wish is that everyone should enjoy that most basic of human rights: the right to live life free from fear and free from crime.
I will spell out the provisions of the Bill in a moment, but first I want to speak of its roots. The Bill marks out the new approach to policy making by which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister transformed my party from one of opposition to one of government. The Bill represents a triumph of community politics over detached metropolitan elites.
In the early 1980s, my party lost its way, not least by failing to listen to those whom we claimed to represent, and by failing to learn from them. My right hon. Friend broke decisively with all that and ensured that our policy making would be inspired above all by our constituents. Among many other things, that led us to a serious examination of how to reverse the apparently inexorable rise in anti-social behaviour and teenage crime.
Some pioneering councils, working with the police, contributed to that new thinking. In Coventry, the city council developed new ways of tackling alcohol-related crime and neighbourhood disorder. In Wigan, the local authority and the police introduced a model partnership scheme to prevent crime and to reduce the fear of crime. In Northumbria, a community safety strategy has made huge strides, by tackling drug-related crime and helping victims. It has also led to significant reductions in recorded crime. There are many other examples across the country.
As shadow home affairs spokesman, I built on those ideas. I was struck by the degree to which the problems and experiences of my constituents had changed since I was first elected in 1979. Then, the great bulk of my constituency case work concerned housing complaints and social security, but that changed from the early 1990s. More and more people came to me complaining of intolerable anti-social behaviour, of harassment and of intimidation. Much of the trouble was caused by children and young people who were out of control. The criminal justice system appeared to be incapable of enforcing decent standards of public behaviour on children and adults alike.
In my Blackburn constituency a few years ago, five members of a family were arrested on more than 50 occasions for offences ranging from attempted robbery to burglary, theft, criminal damage and public disorder. Convictions resulted, but, despite them and despite being evicted twice by their public landlord,
the family, in the words of the local police, continued to terrorise local residents. I saw the results of the terror produced by that family.
On the Stoke Heath estate in Coventry, two brothers terrorised their neighbourhood. The city council commendably took action. After it made legal history by winning injunctions to exclude the two men from the estate, the quality of life for residents was restored. When I visited the estate, I saw that measured by the reduction in the number of voids--dwellings that had been left empty--on it. But the injunction was then quashed by a higher court, and the brothers were allowed to return. They caused mayhem yet again. The number of voids went up, as many people took the only action that they could take within the system--they moved from the area in which they had spent their lives.
In opposition, the views of colleagues in the House brought home to me the failures of the youth justice system. Three years ago, I wrote to every Labour Member of Parliament seeking their opinions on the youth justice system in their areas. I was stunned by the response. Every Member representing an English or a Welsh constituency who replied expressed dissatisfaction with that system of youth justice.
4.32 pm
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |