here - United Kingdom Parliament

821 1 DECEMBER 2010
822
Point of Order
12.32 pm
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab):
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I should like to secure
advice on an answer that was provided to me yesterday
during questions to the Attorney-General. In response
to my question—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker: Order. May I appeal to hon. and right
hon. Members who are leaving the Chamber to do so
quickly and quietly? It would be helpful if I could hear
the point of order from the hon. Lady—I might then be
in a position to respond to it.
Chi Onwurah: I asked the Solicitor-General about the
UK’s failure to sign up to the proposed EU directive on
preventing and combating the trafficking of human
beings. He said that the UK was a signatory, and
repeated that in response to a question from my hon.
Friend the Member for West Dunbartonshire (Gemma
Doyle). However, that is not the case: the UK has opted
out of the proposed directive. Could you advise me,
Mr Speaker, on what is the best way for the Solicitor-
General to correct his mistake?
Mr Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her
point of order. The short answer to her question is that
the best way for a mistake to be corrected is for the
Minister, if he has made a mistake, to correct it. We are
about to hear from the hon. and learned Solicitor-General.
The Solicitor-General (Mr Edward Garnier): There
was a degree of confusion; the hon. Lady’s question was
too general. I answered the question correctly. There are
two European directives, one of which is signed, and
one of which is not, hence the confusion. The former
right hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts, now Lord
Reid, signed on behalf of the Government the European
directive to which I referred in my answer yesterday.
The hon. Lady may have referred to a different directive
that has not yet been signed, so we were both right and
we were both wrong.
Mr Speaker: I do not want in any sense to treat this
matter with levity, but I hope the Solicitor-General will
understand if I say that that absolutely ingenious response
is proof of the argument that no reply from a lawyer is
ever simple.
The Solicitor-General rose—
Mr Speaker: Order. We are grateful to the hon. and
learned Gentleman. The hon. Lady has put her view
very fairly and squarely on the record. We will leave it
there for today. I am grateful to the hon. Lady, and
indeed to the Solicitor-General.
Public Libraries and Museums Act 1964
(Amendment)
Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order
No. 23)
12.34 pm
Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab): I beg to
move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Public
Libraries and Museums Act 1964 to broaden the scope of the
general duty of library authorities so as to include a duty to
provide related cultural facilities alongside the library service; and
for connected purposes.
At a time of global economic turmoil, it may seem
strange to some to want to talk about culture. However,
I would like to quote in favour of doing so one of this
country’s finest economists, Maynard Keynes. On the
publication of the first annual report of the Arts Council
in 1945, he said:
“The day is not far off when the economic problem will take
the back seat where it belongs, and the arena of the heart and the
head will be occupied…by our real problems—the problems of
life and of human relations, of creation”.
He was right about that. The economic problems that
we face are real, many and serious; however, culture and
its role in our towns and cities is highly important. I
want to raise the matter in my ten-minute rule Bill, in
order to put on record my concerns about what could
happen to culture in some of our towns, cities and
counties in Britain.
There is real fear out there that there could be not just
cuts in the arts sector—everybody appreciates that there
will be cuts and that the cultural sector will need to bear
its share of efficiencies—but the total withdrawal by
some local authorities from providing cultural services.
I give the example of Somerset, which recently cut all
160,000 of its direct grants to arts and cultural bodies,
while Bedfordshire looks set no longer to fund its music
service. I draw on my own experience as a councillor in
the London borough of Southwark, where I had to
watch the local authority close the only children’s museum
in London. That showed me the importance of ensuring
that local authorities continue to prioritise culture.
Of course local funding choices are important. I
would not dream of telling local authorities what to
do—by and large. The Government’s role in giving local
authorities enough funding will have a massive part to
play in determining whether they can provide decent
cultural services. Nor do I want to be prescriptive. I am
not introducing my Bill in order to tell local authorities
that one kind of culture is good for them. Diversity in
the cultural services provided by our local authorities is
a truly good thing. In my experience, great local authorities
lead on culture in places as diverse as Kent, Merseyside—my
part of the world—and Leicester. We have some visionary
local authorities. I pay tribute to what they do in
ensuring that our towns and cities are places we can be
proud of, and where there are public spaces that bring
people together to share in their history and heritage.
The reason for my suggestion is to start a debate. The
Public Libraries and Museums Act 1964 gives the Culture
Secretary an important role. It enables the Culture
Secretary, if they feel it necessary, to say to a local
authority, “You’re in danger of not providing sufficient
library services. I want you to stop with those plans.