UK Parliament / Open data

National Lottery Bill

Proceeding contribution from Lord Davies of Oldham (Labour) in the House of Lords on Monday, 24 April 2006. It occurred during Debate on bills on National Lottery Bill.
My Lords, on that last point I shall not dispute with the noble Baroness that there are extremely worthwhile possibilities in terms of the effects of the resources that are available for ensuring that we increase our very extensive art collections in this country. But the issue is not whether there are desirable forms on which expenditure should be made, but whether this is the right way to go about it. We had an interesting discussion in Committee on the desirability of making grants to purchase and conserve items for our national collection, and to preserve historic buildings. It is not the burden of the case that the Government disregard such important priorities; that is why the heritage fund is there. We recognise the importance of those elements in the cultural life of the nation, and I pay tribute to the way in which challenges have been responded to in that area. The Heritage Lottery Fund has made 451 awards for the acquisition of works of art and cultural objects by museums and galleries to a total value of £135 million, and the overall success rate has been 86 per cent. It has awarded more than £1 billion to the conservation of 9,500 historic buildings. The range of what has been supported is a checklist of a great deal of what is of value and interest to the cultural heritage of this country, ranging from Raphael’s ““Madonna of the Pinks”” to the ““Flying Scotsman”” locomotive. Those are some of the big items, of course—and very costly. But there have been many smaller ones, benefiting visitors to regional and local museums and galleries. It bears repeating for those who still feel that a new initiative, or a special fund, is required, that the Heritage Lottery Fund has given more than £590 million, which includes conservation of cultural objects of national importance, such as 42 historic steam, diesel and electric locomotives and 58 ships and boats. We also need to bear in mind that even this wealth of grants from the lottery is not the whole picture. Grants made by the National Heritage Memorial Fund, which is supervised by the same trustees but funded by the taxpayer, have also contributed strongly in this field. Most of the £220 million that that fund has provided in the past 26 years has gone in that direction, saving 1,200 iconic objects and places for the nation, including Tyntesfield House. Its annual budget will soon rise from £5 million to £10 million, which we all welcome. I recognise that the amendment is different from that tabled by the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, in Committee. He is to be applauded for his ingenuity and persistence on what we recognise as a good cause in terms of desirable expenditure. The amendment does not fix a percentage of funds. Indeed, it attempts not to take money from the Heritage Lottery Fund at all. It is still unnecessary, given the track record of grant giving that I have just described. The amendment is not only unnecessary; I am afraid that I still find the concept objectionable. It brings the Big Lottery Fund into the equation, and tries to change the overall remit of the BLF to extend it to cover the heritage fund. The remit that we propose for the Big Lottery Fund is essentially about grants for community groups. More specifically, it is about health, education, the environment and charities. Of course there is bound to be overlap in, say, education and the environment, but it makes no sense at all to try to duplicate complete responsibility for supporting our heritage between two lottery distributors instead of one. If the aim of the amendment is to take money from charities, health and education to boost the money for acquiring works of art, the appropriate way to do that would be to propose a change in the percentage shares each cause will receive. We do not think that there is any need to change the shares. The Heritage Lottery Fund is already well able to assess competing needs and the opportunities out there to which they can respond; they are doing an excellent job. It may help your Lordships to know that the Heritage Lottery Fund recently brought together a preliminary meeting of the museums sector to discuss the existing mechanisms for providing financial support for acquisitions and whether additional support is needed. Another meeting is planned for June, and I understand that there is every likelihood that further improvements can be made to what are already good arrangements in the national heritage fund. What this amendment seeks to achieve does not help the situation at all. It would blur the lines, by creating difficulties in accountability, and it would require judgments outside the expertise of the national heritage fund, when it is surely better to recognise the excellent job done there and ensure that it has the resources to do that job. I am as one with the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bonham-Carter, in emphasising the desirability of expenditure on our national heritage. That is what the heritage fund is there for. Trying to create an acquisitions fund through the back door, by tackling the Big Lottery, is not the way to do it. I therefore ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
681 c25-6 
Session
2005-06
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Back to top