§ 11 am
§ Hywel Williams (Caernarfon)(PC)I am pleased to have this opportunity to debate national lottery funding and the future of our national botanic garden of Wales, which is in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for East Carmarthen and Dinefwr (Adam Price).
The national botanic garden opened in May 2000 and was the first such garden to be opened in Britain for about 200 years. It is located in the south-west of Wales, in what some people call the garden of Wales, in my hon. Friend's constituency and it is indeed a national institution, which is one of the themes that I want to pick up in the debate. The garden way given the status of a national institution by the former Secretary of State, now the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, and it was praised by the First Minister of the National Assembly Government for Wales—at least when it suited him.
The garden has many virtues; for example, in terms of its academic work. On Friday, I visited a community garden in the village of Deiniolen in my constituency, which is being established and supported by the horticultural college at Llaneurgain. I was told that the college sees the national botanic garden at Llanarthne as a vital resource and support, ever though Llaneurgain, more commonly known as Northop, is at the other end of the country. The college is almost as far away as one can possibly get from our national botanic garden, yet it sees the garden as a national resource.
The garden has an important role in conservation, doing vital work in protecting and preserving the biodiversity of our planet, which is now under such threat, that some projections estimate that many tens of thousands of species will be lost over the next 20 to 30 years. The garden studies and conserves plants from all over the world, including trees. It also has an important role as a public garden of beauty and interest to be enjoyed not only by people from all over Wales but by people from all over the world. There are visitors from many countries, including England. It is the third-largest paid-for visitor attraction in Wales, drawing in more than 200,000 visitors in 2000–01 and about 142,000 in 2002–03. It is in no way unpopular, but a significant attraction in its own right.
The garden has historical significance, as the garden of a great house that was demolished and rebuilt over the centuries. The present garden is, in some ways, a revival of the 18th-century garden that was left when the house was demolished in that period. It also has significance in respect of the medicinal plants grown there. Many Welsh people know of the famous doctors of Myddfai, which is close to the garden. The Meddygon Myddfai were for generations medical practitioners in the south-west of Wales and used the medicinal plants of the area; those plants are reflected in the collection at the national botanic garden.
Lastly, and not insignificantly, the garden contributes greatly to the local economy in south-west Wales. The Institute of Welsh Affairs estimates that the garden's contribution to the local economy is about £4 million per annum. Other estimates put the figure much higher, for example, at £8 million, but clearly the garden 28WH contributes greatly to the local economy by drawing in visitors from all over the world and from Wales and England.
The garden is a national institution in a country which has few such institutions, compared to Scotland, for example, and those that we have, such as the national university of Wales have been hard won. It is relevant to the funding of the garden, and indeed to discussions to be held elsewhere in Parliament today, that the university of Wales was originally funded in part by contributions from the mass of the people of Wales—quarrymen, miners, farm workers and their families—who were prepared to forgo a small part of their income to contribute to the fund to set up university colleges at Bangor and Aberystwyth. That might be seen as an early example of a lottery, or as a proto-income tax. The so-called ordinary people of Wales were prepared to make voluntary contributions that were clearly intended to fund an institution from which they might not derive direct benefit themselves, although their children might have done so. It was a proto-income tax raised and spent for the national good. That is an important principle whose virtue should be self-evident to any socialist Government—perhaps even to the present Government.
The garden is a national institution and was set up at a cost of £42 million, half of which came from lottery funds. It is highly significant that such an amount came from the heritage fund; the garden was a millennium project. The other half was raised from various bodies, including the Welsh Assembly Government and private sources. In that respect, the project was a very good model.
As a national institution, the garden is alongside other institutions such as the national library at Aberystwyth and the national museum, which has various locations, including one in my constituency. Entry to the national museum is free to the public. There is no charge for entry either to the national museum of the slate industry in my constituency or to the national museum of Welsh life at St. Fagans just outside Cardiff. There is clearly a contrast with the national garden, as it charges for entry. Other national institutions are the National Assembly for Wales and the Welsh Assembly Government.
The botanical garden is in some financial trouble, although I do not intend to go into the fine details of those problems this morning, but I understand that it needs a sum of about £3 million to secure its medium-term future to 2009. It is estimated that the garden needs about £500,000 per annum, so given its current financial problems, how does the Minister for the Arts see the role and the responsibilities of the original funders being discharged now and in the future? The garden is a large public investment—£21 million from the millennium fund alone—and there is no little danger that the value of the garden will be lost to Wales and indeed to the world. How does the Minister see the original funders as discharging their responsibilities? Does she see herself as having any responsibility to safeguard that public investment, or is it merely a matter for the Welsh Assembly Government?
How does the Minister view the future funding of the botanic garden, as compared, for example, to funding for the millennium dome? The dome was of course set up at the cost of many hundreds of millions of pounds of 29WH public money and now lies almost idle—some would say idle and useless—yet I understand that it is still being funded, to the tune of about £50 million so far. An end may be in sight, but it is quite far away and a large amount of public money is still going into the dome. How does that compare with the botanic garden? Indeed, how does the dome compare to a garden of great public and academic value—a living thing? Apparently, the Welsh Assembly Government do not even rate the garden at £3 million. What does the Minister think?
It is ironic that I as a Welsh Member and, indeed, as a Welsh nationalist, have to seek answers on those issues in this place, but I understand that the Welsh Assembly Government have refused to discuss the matter further in Cardiff. That is, of course, entirely a matter for them. How does the Minister view the responsibility and power of this place—if any—in respect of the national botanic garden of Wales? There seems to me to be a crack in the constitutional floorboards, and responsibility for the national botanic garden—set up in part with UK money—seems to be slipping through.
May I ask the Minister another question that the Welsh Assembly might well have pondered, given the fact that the garden was set up by a UK body? There are similar institutions in the UK; I understand that there is a botanic garden in Scotland and there is, of course, the garden at Kew. I understand that the garden at Kew is funded by the Government in London to the tune of —21 million. May I ask the Minister whether there is a Barnett consequential to that sum? If so, the sum in Wales would be —1.2 million, which would be more than enough to tide the garden over. It would also complement the lottery funding that I have already mentioned, and the funding from private sources and from the Welsh Assembly Government. Is there a Barnett consequential? If not, why not? If there were a Barnett consequential, that —1.2 million would, of course, have been sent on to Cardiff. There are also serious questions for the Welsh Assembly Government about how the moneys involved were disposed of, and my Friends in the National Assembly will be assiduous in pursuing that matter.
I have tried to confine my enthusiasm to asking questions directly relating to the responsibility of this place for financial matters relating to the Barnett formula. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for East Carmarthen and Dinefwr is keen to make a contribution to this debate—with your permission, Mr. McWilliam—as he has a constituency interest in the matter. However, I would like briefly to finish by making one slightly broader point about how we value institutions such as the national botanic garden. Is it a national institution that has value beyond being a visitor attraction? What is now being proposed appears to be to do with it being a visitor attraction and nothing else. Are we prepared to risk the future of such a great institution by relying on the whim of an extra visitor who might be drawn in by an attraction, or do we value the place for what it is: a national garden of academic, historical and local interest, as well as of value to tourism? I would be interested to hear the Minister's philosophical take on this question. Should we allow the markets to rule what happens to the garden, or should either the Westminster or the Welsh Assembly Government intervene? There is 30WH not a great deal of funding at stake here; £3 million is not a great deal. I am sure that that money should be found if we value the best things that our country has to offer.
We have seen acts of great philistinism in Wales over the years. I remember, as a young student, seeing the destruction of the Triangle in Merthyr Tydfil—a fine example of 19th century working-class architecture—which was razed to provide extra parking space for a factory. Recently, we have also seen the destruction of the Dunlop factory in Brynmawr. That amazing example of modernist architecture at the top of an industrial valley was razed to the ground to provide space for a shopping centre. Shopping centres are all very well and good, but we need to stand against this tide of philistinism and ensure that the national botanic garden of Wales does not go the same way.
§ Adam Price (East Carmarthen and Dinefwr)(PC)I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Caernarfon (Hywel Williams) for allowing me to make a brief contribution to this debate. As he said, it is not with any great alacrity that we, as Welsh nationalists, stand here urging the Westminster Government to intervene where the Welsh Assembly Government have so far walked away from their responsibilities and washed their hands of the problems of the national botanic garden of Wales. It is ironic that, 100 years ago, when Wales did not have home rule and was a good deal poorer than it is today, it was able to create a national university with five university colleges, a national library and a national museum, yet is now unable to create a national institution despite having democratic devolution.
The national botanic garden was meant to be a great national institution— a Welsh Kew, a botanic garden of world-class quality. Unfortunately, however, the eyes of the world are now being focused on Wales for all the wrong reasons, with the crisis that is still going on at the national botanic garden. However, in this case, some responsibility does lie with the Government here at Westminster. One of the benefits of devolution is that we are allowed to make our own mistakes, and I fully accept that we have to take on the responsibility that comes with that. The Welsh Assembly Government do have some responsibility for this matter, but there are also questions that need to be asked at Westminster.
Much of the funding for the garden has come through routes that involved ministerial responsibility, including £22.6 million from the Millennium Commission to date, and a further £6 million from the European regional development fund, which was at the time the responsibility of the Department of Trade and Industry here in Whitehall. Prior to the creation of the National Assembly, the then Secretary of State for Wales, the right hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy), declared Middleton to be a national botanic garden, with all that that entails in terms of its scientific and educational work. The location was chosen by the Secretary of State and the Wales Office, and the Wales Office signed off the business plan, which clearly stated that the garden would need ongoing public funding for its scientific and educational work.
My hon. Friend the Member for Caernarfon has pointed out that the garden is quite successful as a visitor attraction. It is the third most successful paid- 31WH visitor attraction in Wales; the figure of 150,000 visitors a year in a location in Carmarthenshire that has not been a traditional tourist destination represents a success.
In the brief time that I have, I would like to concentrate on the areas of responsibility of the Minister for the Arts. Questions need to be asked about the millennium fund award. In July last year, a further supplementary grant of £600,000 was made available to the national botanic garden for the creation of the walled garden. It now appears that the Welsh Assembly Government had already made the decision at that time not to fund the garden after the end of September last year. Will the Minister tell us whether the Millennium Commission was informed by the Welsh Assembly Government of their decision to pull the plug on the national botanic garden of Wales? If it was not informed, was that grant a defensible use of public money? Should not the commission have been clearly told by the Welsh Assembly Government that they were effectively going to force the garden into voluntary liquidation?
Is the Minister also aware that the trustees of the national botanic garden of Wales are claiming that the Welsh Assembly Government are now putting pressure on the garden's creditors to force the trust into voluntary liquidation? What would the implications of that be, in terms of the Millennium Commission's investment in the garden? If the garden were forced into voluntary liquidation by the Welsh Assembly Government, would not the commission have to claw back the money that has been invested, in accordance with the conditions attached to the grant?
Is the Minister aware that the Millennium Commission believes that the Welsh Assembly Government have effectively been operating as shadow directors from January to June last year, when the Welsh Assembly Government provided some additional funding with strings attached? They forced the trust to engage in what was described as "blue skies thinking", and the First Minister of Wales asked the trust to produce a paper on what he called the "wow factor". At a time when the trust wanted to stabilise the garden's financial situation, the Welsh Assembly Government—through their First Minister—were forcing it to invest in further speculative projects. The Millennium Commission is of the view that that constituted operating as a shadow director. If the Welsh Assembly Government force the trust into voluntary liquidation, the commission will act to claw back its £22.6 million investment from the Welsh Assembly Government, who have been acting as shadow directors without being prepared to take responsibility in terms of financial accountability.
In relation to some points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Caernarfon, substantial money is still going into the millennium dome, which is closed, but it seems that we do not have a Barnett consequential for Wales in terms of the money going in at Kew. The money necessary to save the £22.6 million of lottery funding that has gone into the national botanic gardens, and the £3 million involved to 2009, would be a small public investment compared with the public investment that has gone into other projects.
32WH Clearly, there would need to be discussion with other Departments, but I ask the Minister whether it would be possible to save this national institution for Wales and to prevent the Millennium Commission from having to claw back that money from the Welsh Assembly Government, who hitherto have not lived up to their responsibilities.
§ The Minister for the Arts (Estelle Morris)It is good to see you in the Chair again, Mr. McWilliam. First, I must say that this is the most difficult position that I have ever found myself in during an Adjournment debate in terms of my responsibilities. I want to put it on record that I have no problems with answering on behalf of ministerial colleagues here in Westminster. That is proper—I would never seek to hide behind the fact that another Westminster Department, not mine, is involved—but I have genuine, and I think understandable and acceptable, difficulties: I should not answer for the Assembly in Wales, and I want to explain the Government's relationship with the Millennium Commission. This is not how I normally like to answer Adjournment debates, so I almost apologise in advance for being about to opt out of addressing some questions for reasons that are obvious, but which I will put on the record.
I understand the passion with which the hon. Members for Caernarfon (Hywel Williams) and for East Carmarthen and Dinefwr (Adam Price) have spoken. If such an institution was in my constituency, I would have felt as optimistic and joyful about having it as they did, and I would feel as pessimistic and sad about possibly losing it. We would all take that parochial and national pride and pleasure in housing a project that could have been, and I hope may still be, so important and so good.
One thing that neither hon. Gentleman said is that Wales was the only country in the United Kingdom that did not have a national botanic garden. I would imagine that when the original allocation was made it was seen as a right and proper thing to do. As the hon. Member for Caernarfon said, the gardens are not just for Wales, but are of international significance. They would have been a place of international research, studying sustainability and conservation. Indeed, I understand that they are the third most popular visitor attraction in Wales and the most visited gardens.
All that stands well, and I understand where people are coming from, so let me explain the relationship with the Millennium Commission, because that is my area of responsibility, for which I stand and answer here today. First, this is an arm's-length relationship. It would be wrong if the Government interfered day by day in the distribution of lottery money. That is not tax money, and we do not have a mandate from the electorate as to how to spend it day by day. The arm's-length principle, which was established when lottery funding began—that is where the Millennium Commission gets its money—is right and proper.
It is my responsibility to safeguard the propriety of that relationship, which is set out in the letters of intent and of instruction. My ongoing relationship with the Millennium Commission is not about seeking to force it to do something different from what it is doing; it is about ensuring that it is standing by the way that it was asked to work when it was set up.
33WH Having said that, we are discussing an example of an issue that has emerged from Millennium Commission funding in general. I want to touch on that, because it is where, to some extent, I have to rest my case. We should think back to how things were set up: this project is no different from any other that was funded through the Millennium Commission. That has to be made clear. Of the £43 million estimated to be involved in setting up the gardens, roughly half came from the Millennium Commission.
On the face of it, this was an excellent joint initiative supported by a number of admirable Welsh bodies, as well as United Kingdom bodies—we were setting up the Welsh Assembly at that point. Those bodies included the then Welesh Office, Carmarthenshire county council, the Welsh Development Agency, the Wales Tourist Board and the Arts Council of Wales. Again on the face of it, the initiative should have worked. It should have flourished and flown, and we should be having an Adjournment debate on how well it has done, not about the difficulties it is in.
I should put it on the record that the Millennium Commission was committed to finding about £22 million—about half the money—of which £10 million went in the first phase. That has gone, as it was part of the expenditure involved in setting up the gardens. Also, £13 million was available for phase 2; £10.7 million was paid while £1.6 million is being held back due to the lack of match funding.
The issue here is one of revenue, not capital; this is a revenue problem, not a capital problem. The Millennium Commission is acting properly in saying, "We have £1.6 million, but at this point we are not convinced that the match funding is there to enable us to release it." Both hon. Gentlemen properly asked, "Should not the Government act now to secure the Millennium Commission funding that has already gone in?" In a way, that is justification for holding back the £1.6 million of capital that has not gone in so far, so I support the Millennium Commission in the way that it has acted. However, the non-negotiable, non-breakable rule for the commission is that it has never offered revenue funding. It is not involved in that.
The Millennium Commission will get no more money. It will become part of the merged distributor. It does not have a life beyond the duration of the millennium projects. I want to put this as carefully as I can: I need to put it on the record that the commission funded more than 200 capital projects on 3,000 sites. Only two have closed—the Big Idea in Irvine and the Millennium Faith Experience in Bradford. Wales received a total grant of £130 million across the commission's grant programmes, involving nine capital projects on 55 sites.
Having said that, the truth is that this is not the only Millennium Commission-funded capital project with revenue problems. There are not a lot of those, but there 34WH are a few, and some science centres are in exactly the same position. I support the Millennium Commission's decision not to go down the line of saying, "Okay, we'll make an exception with the botanic gardens. We'll come in with revenue." That was never the reason for setting up the commission, and it has not broken that golden rule with any other institution. It is a proper way to safeguard its role in lottery funding and the millennium celebrations to say, "We are not going to down the road of revenue funding."
That deals with my Government accountability and that is my explanation. I am happy with those, but my problem in terms of answering this Adjournment debate arises over the fact that the challenge for the botanic gardens is securing that revenue funding from somewhere so that the Millennium Commission can be confident in releasing the £1.6 million that it has been unable to release so far.
Both hon. Gentlemen were bound to say that the Welsh Assembly could or can, might or will come in with further revenue funding. That is the Assembly's decision. I put it on the record that the Assembly has released £1.6 million in three tranches—£360,000, £1.06 million and £150,000. This is properly a decision for the Welsh Assembly. It is not for me to comment on it or to urge that certain actions be taken. I do not want to tread on the Assembly's toes, and I state for the record that it is not a job of the Westminster Government to second-guess how the Assembly spends its revenue.
The hon. Member for Caernarfon opened the debate very honestly, and there is a problem for Wales in that devolution means inheriting the problems as well as the good things. The botanic gardens project has not yet come to an end, and I hope that in the time left funding is found from somewhere in Wales. I hope also that there is a partnership that can achieve that.
§ Adam PriceWill the Minister address the issue of claw back?
§ Estelle MorrisYes. The Millennium Commission would become a creditor should the botanic gardens close. Without being an expert on that, I understand that there are creditors such as banks and perhaps others that would be ahead of the Millennium Commission in the queue. The hon. Gentlemen were right to say that, if the project folds, the Millennium Commission would obviously seek to regain such money, but I think that their prediction is right in that there would be no way that it could recoup the money invested on a capital basis. I wish them well in their campaign.
§ Sitting suspended until Two o'clock.