Westminster City Council: Community Funding (Hansard, 23 March 1999)

§ Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton
My Lords, the Government have no intention of interfering in the decisions taken by Westminster City Council in this respect.

§ The Earl of Clancarty
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. Apart from the cuts, which are proving disastrous for some organisations, would not the Minister agree that one major problem is the extent to which they have come out of the blue? Can she tell us what practical measures the Government intend to take to discourage councils from acting as laws unto themselves in the areas of arts and community funding?

§ Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton
My Lords, the noble Earl asks a complicated question. In areas where there is no statutory obligation for a local authority to provide funding—for example, Westminster City Council—the Government can offer an opportunity for a partnership approach. For instance, the coming year will see the Arts Council and the London arts boards spending between them £36 million in Westminster. But ultimately it is for the council tax payers in Westminster to make their views known when they believe that the council is not getting its priorities right—perhaps 1144 I should declare an interest as one of those council tax payers—particularly in this case when reductions of such magnitude will have a grave effect on services.

§ Lord Strabolgi
My Lords, I, too, declare an interest as a resident of Westminster. Is it not a fact that the cost of looking after the asylum seekers, which has been used as an excuse by Westminster City Council for these arts cuts, can be recovered from central government?

§ Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton
My Lords, the Government are gravely concerned about reports that the chairman of Westminster City Council Arts Council has stated that the issue is one between funding for the arts and funding for asylum seekers. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary has made available an additional £30 million to support arrangements for asylum seekers, particularly in the areas most affected such as Dover and London. Local authorities will be able to recover the: costs of accommodation and supporting asylum seekers. It would appear to be a tragic juxtaposition of two competing claims on a false premise.

Viscount Falkland
My Lords, does the Minister agree that the Government have made it clear that arts funding is fundamental to our society, as it is in any civilised society? How is it that an inner London borough which embraces many important arts projects can decide to put arts so low down its priority list? What liaison exists between the Minister's department and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport on this issue?

§ Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton
My Lords, the noble Viscount raises a particularly difficult question. If, like the Government, one believes that some areas of local authority provision must be a matter for subsidiarity, the choice must be made by Westminster City councillors, guided by the exhortations by Members of your Lordships' House and others who believe that they are wrong. However, the Government cannot be held to account for not imposing their views on every authority and then criticised for being big brother and running a nanny state. I and the Government believe that the council's judgment is not sound in terms of its priorities, but ultimately it must be a matter for the council. I leave it to your Lordships' House to judge whether there is any relationship between, for example, the majority political controlling group and the decisions that are made.

§ Lord Marsh
My Lords, will the Minister not revert to her original stance that the matter has nothing to do with this House? I, too, declare an interest as a council tax payer in Westminster. Does she agree that it is a matter purely for the council, and that on all the evidence of the elections, it and we are very happy?

§ Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton
My Lords, your Lordships would be most surprised if I were to subscribe to the noble Lord's invitation to say that we are happy with Westminster City Council. I believe that cuts of 48 per cent. for the Serpentine Gallery in the year 1145 following an election, which will have a grave impact on the gallery's education programmes and the service offered to local residents, is very regrettable.
In a democracy we are free to express views on decisions taken, albeit by legitimately autonomous democratic authorities. I believe that for an authority to slash funding for the Serpentine Gallery, the Photographers' Gallery, the Institute of Contemporary Arts and the orchestra of St. John's, Smith Square, which must offer solace to people working in Smith Square, and to have a situation in which we are not even allowed to comment is asking too much.

§ Baroness Seccombe
My Lords, does the Minister agree that as local authorities are independent this type of situation will arise from time to time? In any event, is this not likely to become an even more common situation, given the Government's commitment to devolution?

§ Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton
My Lords, the policy of devolution inevitably carries with it the opportunity for people in different regions and local areas to make judgments within the framework laid down by Parliament. However, I believe that the noble Baroness is mistaken in saying that it is not for Members of your Lordships' House to raise the issue here or for the Government to defend their position. Grant cuts made in a year when an additional £5 million has been given to Westminster City Council is not the kind of political action that one can expect to go unchallenged.