Museums and Galleries: Grant Reductions (Hansard, 5 December 1995)

§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of National Heritage (Lord Inglewood)
My Lords, expenditure on museums and galleries funded directly by the Department of National Heritage is planned to be £205.6 million in 1996–97 and £200.5 million in the next two years, compared with the previous planning figure for 1996–97 of £211.6 million.

§ Lord Barnett
My Lords, I declare a non-financial interest as a trustee of the Victoria and Albert Museum. Is the Minister aware that I am the first to recognise the need at tines to control public expenditure, having done a fair bit of that for over five years? Is he also aware that what may be modest cuts by Treasury standards are catastrophic to the museums and galleries, not least to the Victoria and Albert Museum? The cut in the museum's grant is almost 3 per cent. for 1996–97 and 3.4 per cent. in later years. While the Minister's right honourable friend the Secretary of State says that we should seek not to erode core activities, is he aware that the Victoria and Albert has already taken all the necessary steps, as I imagine have other museums, to get maximum value for money by making appropriate savings? If we were to go beyond that in order to meet the Minister's criteria we should be in very serious difficulties. In those circumstances is it too late to ask 889 the Minister and the Secretary of State perhaps to reconsider the decision to cut expenditure again in the next two years?

§ Lord Inglewood
My Lords, I am grateful that the noble Lord recognises and agrees a need to keep public expenditure under control. At the risk of stating the obvious, it was with no pleasure that these cuts were imposed. The noble Lord described their context. We recognise the steps taken in the past by the trustees of various national institutions and the resourcefulness they have displayed in meeting the difficulties that face them. We appreciate that.
In ensuring that the core activities of the institutions are properly carried out, the important focus is on safeguarding the managing of collections, continuing to promote access to those collections and delivering improved value for money. Bearing in mind the traditional resourcefulness and record of the trustees in this regard, we believe that it will be possible to ensure that appropriate activities are carried on in the museums. It is the case that forward spending plans are determined by the corporate plans of the institutions, which are reviewed every year. If any national institution wishes to discuss the matter with my right honourable friend the Secretary of State, that option is open.

§ Lord Boyd-Carpenter
My Lords, is my noble friend aware that many of us are very glad to see the Government exercising strong pressure to cut expenditure?

§ Lord Inglewood
My Lords, my noble friend's remarks are very welcome. They support the Government's whole case.

§ Lord Strabolgi
My Lords, how do the Government reconcile these reductions with the undertakings that they gave, not once but on several occasions, in both Houses of Parliament when the lottery Bill was going through; namely, as a result of lottery money there would be no reduction in the arts budget?

§ Lord Inglewood
My Lords, it is important to be clear. What was said was that there would be no reduction in respect of the lottery. The particular reductions to which the noble Lord refers arose as the result of cuts in public expenditure. There is no direct nexus between the existence of the lottery and the cuts that we are discussing this afternoon.

§ Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn
My Lords, would my noble friend care to remind the House of what has been a decline in real terms in the purchasing grants; namely, grants for new acquisitions for the nation's major museums? I speak as a trustee of the British Museum. Will my noble friend concede the very sad circumstance that significant purchases from these grants are simply no longer possible for the great museums and the Tate Gallery?

§ Lord Inglewood
My Lords, my understanding is that the specific hypothecated purchasing grant that applied a few years ago no longer applies. It was a general grant to each of the museums. It is up to the 890 trustees and management of the museums to allocate resources in the manner best appropriate to the circumstances in which they find themselves.
It is the case, as we have seen occur frequently, that appeals, and indeed successful applications, are made to the lottery fund in order to help museums acquire new items.

§ Lord Donoughue
My Lords, is the Minister aware—I am sure he is—that these damaging cuts of many millions will in reality result in museums and galleries having to reduce the number of hours per day and days per year during which they can open to the public owing to the enormous cost of security for their treasures? How do the Government reconcile that with the department's declared public policy of increasing the access of the British public to their cultural institutions and cultural life?

§ Lord Inglewood
My Lords, the noble Lord draws from cuts conclusions that I do not believe are justified according to logic. As I said to a supplementary question from the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State emphasised that the important core activities for the museums are to safeguard and manage the collections; to continue to promote access to them; and to deliver improved value for money. We believe that that approach will achieve the kind of results that we all hope to see.

§ Lord Mowbray and Stourton
My Lords, would not the museum authorities gain more credit if certain among them—not the main museums to which my noble friend and other noble Lords referred—do not support prizes to people who produce cows' and sheep's intestines? That does not help the art world in its search for help for more important matters.

§ Lord Inglewood
My Lords, in the context of an aesthetic debate, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. My noble friend expresses his personal opinion; other noble Lords may hold different views.

§ Lord Freyberg
My Lords, does the Minister agree—

Noble Lords
Order, order! Thirty minutes.

The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Earl Ferrers)
My Lords, the problem is that Questions have run to 30 minutes and therefore we should move on to the next business.