| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
10.24 am
Mr. Peter Ainsworth (East Surrey): I very much welcome the opportunity to debate Government funding of the arts. This is the second Friday debate secured by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport in three weeks. It is the second debate held at short notice, and on a day when hon. Members will, for the most part, have had long-standing engagements away from Westminster. I am afraid to admit that I am one of those and--with your indulgence, Mr. Deputy Speaker--I shall not be here for the conclusion of the debate.
I welcome the opportunity to debate Government funding for the arts, and I congratulate the Secretary of State on his courage in making this possible. The House has just been treated to a breathtaking display of humbug and complacency from a Secretary of State who seems to think that if he says often enough, that all is well people in the arts will believe him. They do not.
The Secretary of State displays in an advanced--even archetypal--form many of the disturbing characteristics of this fundamentally deceitful Government. Like the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State has surrounded himself with a coterie of cronies. He has set about subverting the independence and integrity of civil servants in his Department. He has appointed a Labour party hack in place of a civil servant to spin news, and to bully and threaten journalists who venture criticism or even an independent view.
Mr. Chris Smith:
The hon. Gentleman is outrageously impugning the integrity of a civil servant. Would he care to name the civil servant about whom he is concerned, and indicate his precise concern?
Mr. Ainsworth:
I am impugning the integrity of the Secretary of State, not the civil servant. The right hon. Gentleman has appointed, for the first time in its history, an Arts Council chairman with no previous commitment to the arts, but with a stated commitment to the Labour party. He has instilled an illiberal and oppressive climate of acquiesence among individuals and bodies who look to the Department for leadership and funds.
Like the Chancellor of the Exchequer--who presents himself as an honest-to-goodness cutter of taxes while presiding over a massive increase in taxation--the Secretary of State has perfected the art of the distracting headline. The only difference is that while the Chancellor is engaged in stealth taxes, the Secretary of State is engaged in stealth cuts.
Mr. Barry Gardiner (Brent, North):
The hon. Gentleman has given a catalogue of criticisms of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the Government's handling of the arts. Has he met one person in the whole
Mr. Ainsworth:
The hon. Gentleman has walked straight into that one. Yes--almost every day.
Mr. Ainsworth:
I meet so many people in the arts who say almost every day that the situation is now worse than it was under the Conservatives.
Mr. Ainsworth:
If the hon. Gentleman closes his mouth and opens his ears, he might learn something--including the answer to his question.
On 24 July 1998, the Secretary of State set out the results of the comprehensive spending review. He had had a bad year. The arts world had grown angry at his failure to deliver the El Dorado which--albeit by nod, wink and innuendo--it had been promised before the election. It was so bad that the Prime Minister himself decided to intervene.
Norman Lebrecht, in The Daily Telegraph on 30 June last year, reported:
It has subsequently become clear that the amount contained in the spending plans is not sufficient to provide for
Mr. Ainsworth:
I am well aware of that, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
In August 1998, the Secretary of State was at the Edinburgh festival, where, presumably to a suitably impressed theatrical audience, he declared:
The same respect for the truth permeates the document with which the Department followed up the press release: "A New Cultural Framework". In the foreword, the Secretary of State said:
The truth is that the Secretary of State's budget for the arts--broadly speaking, the Arts Council of England--is due to rise from £198 million in 1999-00 to £253 million in 2001-02: an increase of £55 million before inflation. For museums and galleries, the increase is from £209 million to £259 million: a rise of £50 million before inflation over three years.
I apologise for belabouring the House with numbers, but this is a debate about Government support for the arts and it is important to establish the facts on the record. Here is another: according to figures provided by the House of Commons Library, as a percentage of gross domestic product, Government spending on the arts will fall between 1996-97 and 2002 from 0.11 per cent. to its lowest level since records began, at 0.08 per cent.
If the Secretary of State is confused about why, instead of awarding him a crown of laurels, the arts world is blowing raspberries behind his back, he need look no further than those figures. Perhaps he is unaware of the hostility that his policies have aroused in the arts world. It has taken a Labour Government to see the establishment of a shadow Arts Council. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) groans, but she knows that the shadow Arts Council has been set up by knowledgeable people who care passionately about the arts and are gathering their forces as we speak to launch a new attack on the Secretary of State and his policies.
Mr. Chris Smith:
The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the litany of people cited by the shadow Arts Council
Mr. Ainsworth:
There is a reason for that. Ministers have derided those people from the arts world as a bunch of whingers and every time one of them criticises the Government, Lord Bragg duly leaps to his feet in another place or writes an article slamming the "tired whingers" or "washed-up has-beens".
The managing director of the Barbican centre, writing in Art News a few months ago, said:
I have dealt so far only with central Government spending and I have tried to suggest that we are not living in a healthy, liberal or even very democratic age, and certainly not an honest one, but it would be wrong to ignore the role of local government. Here, reliable figures are lamentably hard to obtain, but it is hardly surprising, given the non-statutory nature of much local government arts funding and the continued pressure on local government spending, that the Secretary of State will find little to cheer him.
According to the Library, in 1995-96 local authorities supported the arts in England to the tune of £195 million, but by 1998 the figure had shrunk to just over £100 million. According to the Arts Council of England, county authority spending on the arts fell by 11.3 per cent. last year. Again according to the Library, the proportion of overall arts spending, excluding libraries, accounted for by local government has fallen from 30 per cent. in 1996 to below 20 per cent. of total spending.
No consideration of funding the arts would be complete without having regard to the national lottery. Over their 18 years, the previous Government increased Exchequer funding of the arts by 35 per cent. over and above inflation, and the creation of the lottery and the inclusion of the arts and heritage as beneficiaries marked a step change in the overall funding climate, dramatically increasing the amount available.
In the past five years, the Arts Council lottery fund has paid out more than £1 billion to more than 8,300 projects and the national heritage lottery fund has contributed £1.3 billion to 3,072 projects. That is the scale of the Conservative bequest to the arts and heritage.
I am proud to have served in Committee on the original National Lottery Bill. I remember the repeated insistence of Labour Members that lottery money should be additional to on-going Exchequer funding. Our debates gave rise to an awful new word: "additionality" was added to the language of Shakespeare and Pope. Additionality is an awful word, but an important principle.
I remember tabling amendments on behalf of the National Campaign for the Arts to ensure the greatest possible degree of transparency in what was and was not
lottery money. I remember the assurances from Conservative Ministers and the then Prime Minister that lottery funds would not be diverted into core Government programmes. We kept our word, but since the general election the Labour Government have embarked on a cynical and systematic betrayal of the national lottery. They set out to create, in the corny and slightly sinister words of new Labour-speak, "a people's lottery" but they have instead created a Government's lottery.
"The Prime Minister summoned senior cultural figures to Downing Street yesterday to pledge a new commitment to state-funded arts and acknowledge their neglect by his Government . . . a clear commitment was given by Mr. Blair 'to write the arts into the core script' of its programme. The meeting . . . follows mounting criticism of new Labour's attachment to pop music, fashion and film, and its punitive attitude to higher arts."
It was time for a good headline, and here it came--from the Department's press release of 24 July last year:
"Chris Smith Details Biggest Ever Increase in Cultural Funding."
The release said:
"Culture Secretary Chris Smith today set out a new £290 million 'investment for reform' contract for Britain's cultural and creative world which will give new money to modernised arts bodies and enable free entry to the UK's world famous museums".
My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition has referred to the "great Labour lie". There are in fact many Labour lies. The Secretary of State's press release of 24 July 1998 contains several. The figure of £290 million applies to three years and not one, which is what most people are used to, and the fact is that the Department's spending in 1998-99 was £912 million and in 2001-02 it is planned to be £1.038 billion; that is a rise not of £290 million but of £126 million: in real terms, £52 million. It is a lie to talk of an increase of £290 million. Furthermore, the figure applies not only to the cultural and creative world but to the whole Department, over three years: another lie.
"free entry into the UK's world famous museums".
26 Nov 1999 : Column 868
The idea of universal free admission has been quietly shelved. So that is another lie: three lies in one sentence. Having established his specious theme, the Secretary of State began to extemporise.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin):
Order. The hon. Gentleman must make it clear that he is not suggesting that the Secretary of State is lying. Right hon. and hon. Members do not tell lies.
"With the extra £120 million over the next three years, theatre companies will be able to reach new audiences."
Theatres were never going to receive an extra £120 million under his plans. Instead, they got management consultants.
"I was able to announce in July a huge boost for the cultural sectors--£290 million over three years. This will benefit the arts and museums in particular, but all parts of my portfolio will have new money."
New money will indeed go to all parts of his portfolio, except libraries, sport, heritage, tourism and broadcasting, each of which faces a three-year standstill or a cut in real terms. It was simply untruthful to maintain that all parts of the departmental portfolio will have new money. They will not. The Secretary of State and his officials must have known that.
"in its few weeks of existence, the Shadow Arts Council has come across a worrying phenomenon--fear. Many individuals have rung up to express their support of its aims but have said that they cannot afford to be identified in public . . . They fear for their continuing funding if they do."
The Secretary of State may shake his head, but that is what the managing director of the Barbican centre said, and he cannot deny it.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |