Economy: Culture and the Arts

Lord Maclennan of Rogart Excerpts

Thursday 13th June 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Maclennan of Rogart]

My Lords, this has been a powerful debate, delivered by those who are highly expert and experienced in the field. I very much hope that what has been said will be taken to heart—as well as into the heads—of those in the Treasury who are no doubt considering future public expenditure problems. Although my vocation has been politics, my passion has always been for the arts. Even year when I played Hamlet and Cinderella at school and had to consider where my future lay, I did not have the guts to pursue what really made me tick. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, for her most insightful opening to this debate.

Before I develop my thoughts, I want to draw attention to one or two people who have, through their life’s work and what they are doing now, contributed to a transformation of the possibilities of the arts. Although the field is under pressure at the moment, I agree with those who have said that we are unrivalled in our contributions and in the creative industries. We have been and we have the basis to continue that, but a big change has come about in my lifetime.

I would like particularly to pay tribute to Denis Vaughan, the former conductor-assistant to Thomas Beecham. He was one of those who powerfully advocated that the lottery should be set up and he is still making the case that the money should go more to the arts. I was glad to hear several contributions, including those from the noble Lords, Lord Puttnam and Lord Grade, making that point, which certainly needs to be considered at this time. Another current contributor to the debate is the present lord mayor of the City of London, Alderman Roger Gifford, who decided to make arts and culture one of the central themes of his mayoralty. He has been talking not about the threat to the City from the European Union but about building on what we have. He has committed to establishing the City music foundation, a new charity to support musicians in the early stages of their careers through mentoring and opportunities to perform. It has been claimed on his behalf that the benefits derived from the City’s arts and culture clusters generate a net contribution of £225 million in gross value added and support 6,700 full-time equivalent jobs in the City.

Speaking for myself, in the past I represented a community which could scarcely be more different. It is the least populated part of the United Kingdom: the constituency of Caithness and Sutherland. I am currently presiding over a charity called North Highland connections, which enjoys the patronage of His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales. We set it up with a very clear view of bringing to that remote part of the country the opportunities for individuals to experience and enjoy the arts themselves, to promote tourism and to encourage young artists from all around the country to have the opportunity to display and develop their talents. All these things have come on rather well, although we decided to do it at a difficult time—namely, 2008. We have subsequently demonstrated that it is difficult even for the philanthropic trusts, which are under pressure at this time. Local and central government have been clamping down on the arts but the benefit of such a development is, to my mind, patently clear. I believe that this kind of effort should be given every encouragement to grow all around our country.

Another area of the arts with which I have been involved was as chairman of the European Cultural Foundation, when there was a national branch of that Dutch-based organisation. That also, it seems to me, provided for the modern world a huge benefit in bringing to the attention of all our citizenry, and right across Europe, the cultural identities of people who are sometimes developing very differently. However, it enhances the whole and I hope very much that the Government will recognise that that is an important part of being European.

Finally, I pay tribute to PRS for Music which, since 2000, has given more than £16 million to over 14,000 new music initiatives by awarding grants and leading partnership programmes that support music-sector directives. It has been invited by Arts Council England to deliver the new Momentum Music Fund which will inject more than £0.5 million into the music industry over the next two years by a seed-funding investment for emerging acts to help develop the careers of talented artists and bands. I am also impressed by the work of UK Music which is launching Skills Academy. It has drawn my attention to a matter of detail and, as an acknowledgement of the work that has been done by such organisations, I would like to draw attention to what a number of bodies have said is vital at this time and that is copyright. Government plans to modernise copyright could have a detrimental impact on creators, potentially jeopardising the income of British songwriters and composers. There needs to be an exception to copyright for private copying, but there should be a requirement for fair compensation. As it stands, in most EU member states, private copying is legal and any loss of income is reimbursed by systems of compensation. We must bear that in mind and I hope that it will be brought into consideration in the various other forums which are considering these matters.

There is a vital report which was commissioned by the Arts Council and published in May which we should all read. I had hoped, had we had longer, to be able to read some of its conclusions into our debate. This report by the Centre for Economics and Business Research has shown that the generalities that we have expressed in this debate about the contribution to industry and the economy are absolutely justified and I hope it will be studied and read with care by the Treasury.

[Baroness Northover]

My Lords, I remind noble Lords that we are in a time-limited debate and we obviously want to make sure that we have time enough for the Minister at the end and also for the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, to respond.

Queen’s Speech

Lord Maclennan of Rogart Excerpts

Wednesday 15th May 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Maclennan of Rogart]

My Lords, in opening this debate, my noble friend well set out the objectives of the Government in defence, foreign policy and overseas aid, but I have to say that the Queen’s Speech is remarkably deficient in indicating how these objectives are to be followed. What the noble Lord, Lord Triesman, described as “minor housekeeping” considerations in respect of the European Union scarcely reflect the importance of our integration with the European Union if we are to attain the goals that my noble friend set out. The time seems ripe to consider a new approach to the reform of the European Union, to ensure not only that we speak with a united voice but that we enjoy the support of the 28 member countries—as there will be when Croatia joins—and their populations in pursuing common objectives. There are different stages of development in all these European countries, but our overriding foreign affairs and defence goals are broadly the same. We are all affected by the threats of international terrorism; we are all affected by the growth of the world’s population; we are all affected by climate change; and we are all affected by extremist religious groups penetrating our society—that can be dealt with effectively only as a reflection of international threats.

I want to spend just a few moments considering how best to take forward this process of integration. One of the reasons why we are seeing a backlash against the European Union, not only in our country but in countries that have been committed from the beginning, is that we are not building up a transnational democracy within the European Union; we are instead aspiring towards executive federalism, and that does not engage the sympathy or support of the man on the street. Consequently, we have to address the democratic deficit in the European Union to enable it to be even more effective than it has been. It has been immensely effective in pacifying Europe, but it has not been so effective in bringing pressure to bear on those countries that have abandoned the civil objectives expressed within the European Union treaties. For example, nothing effective has been done about the progressive move to the right, towards a kind of neo-fascism, in Hungary, despite the fact that we have substantial financial influence on what is happening in that country.

We should not await a treaty suddenly being produced after a German election in the autumn, saying, “Do this; do that”. There will be 28 countries at that time. If the newly elected Federal Chancellor believes that he or she can lay down the law because of his or her power within the eurozone, there will be a great reaction against it in many countries. We should work towards a system of improvement that draws in the public. I served on the Convention on the Future of Europe as an alternate member. Although that constitutional change was rejected in polls in France and the Netherlands, that approach has merit. It can engage civic society and parties across countries and Governments, and ensure a genuine dialogue. That dialogue is not likely to follow or be present in a weekend Council of the European Union. The Heads of Government rarely get together for more than two or three days at a time. How could they possibly produce answers to all the questions causing such disquiet across the Union? How could they possibly go through a detailed constitutional proposal or a list of the concerns that need to be addressed?

I recommend that we, in association with other member countries of the European Union, now engage in a discussion about the modes of change and recognise that we cannot make that change overnight. We have to take our people with us. I fear that Heads of Government are likely to want to clutch to themselves the full responsibility for changes that come about, but that is not the wise way to strengthen a transnational democracy. I hope that the future of Europe will not be bounced on this or any other country in the European Union. We have an immense possibility to influence global governance if we speak with one voice, with some 500 million people and the strongest economic collectivity. That is the way: coming together to recognise how we can influence trade and all those issues bedevilling our development.

Foreign Affairs: Global Role, Emerging Powers and New Markets

Lord Maclennan of Rogart Excerpts

Thursday 6th December 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Maclennan of Rogart]

My Lords, it is a privilege to follow the noble Lord, Lord Judd, with whose views, not unusually, I find myself in complete agreement. I, too, express admiration and gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Howell, for the work he has done over decades in promoting international communication. His wisdom has assisted this country. I do not entirely agree with him in giving primacy to the Commonwealth in the time we are living in.

My first experience of politics when I was elected to the House of Commons was as the Parliamentary Private Secretary to the last Commonwealth Secretary, Lord Thomson of Monifieth. Consequently, I am much more familiar with Commonwealth countries than I might have been. The late Lord Thomson later became one of our first European Union commissioners. That was not in any sense a demotion. He was a most enlightened man who promoted development within the European Union and saw from the beginning that Britain could play a more effective and powerful international role if we were closely integrated with that body of countries that are not just neighbours but have shared our history through hundreds of years—a history we should not forget.

I know that there is wisdom in my noble friend Lord Alderdice’s view that the public are more aware of the present demands than they are of the history of warfare. I do not dissent from that but we have to recognise that mankind does not change entirely. The political situation may change but the impulse to use force to promote a country’s interests is still a danger. In my humble judgment this country has a global role, which can best be exercised by playing a constructive part in the work of the European Union. That was manifestly missing in the World Trade Organisation discussions at Doha and the climate change discussions in Copenhagen. I believe that we did not act as a union on those two occasions, and as a result we have seen great delay and inadequate responses to these very big challenges.

We also have a second role to promote the values that this country holds and which it has translated into a way of life. In that respect, we should particularly regard our history of adherence to public international law as something of which to be proud. I was somewhat dismayed the other day when the noble Baroness, Lady Warsi, would not disclose her view about the public international law situation with respect to a pre-emptive strike against Iran. If we are to expect others to follow the rule of international law, we must animadvert to it in the context of international disputes.

Our other attractive values, mentioned a great deal in this debate, include education, the development of science and technology and our adherence to human rights. I must say again that I find it appalling that there has not been an instinctive positive response to the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights on the right of prisoners to vote in our elections. If prison is to be seen as a reformatory, being instructed in citizenship and the purpose of voting must be helpful to that end.

We have had remarkable cultural achievements, and many in our country have recognised this, in promoting our wide global view of culture. The British Council is probably a more effective organisation in promoting Britain’s interests than those who control immigration. That is something that we should certainly build on. I would like to see the budget of the British Council strengthened and increased.

Our identity is clear, and is not put at risk by being members of European Union. It is now time that Members of Parliament and members of the Government began the task of explaining the crucial importance of the integration of the European Union and why that is not inconsistent with our identity and with playing a global role, and that indeed the two are absolutely tied to each other.

Open Public Services White Paper

Lord Maclennan of Rogart Excerpts

Monday 11th July 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Maclennan of Rogart]

My Lords, while I acknowledge the sense of many of the objectives spelled out in this White Paper, does my noble friend recognise that across the whole White Paper the proposals to achieve these ends raise far more questions than answers? The modes of delivery are very far from clear and this House needs to debate them serially and at length. For example, does my noble friend recognise that cuts in public expenditure are seriously diminishing the access of local people to central services? The closure of the income tax offices and the removal of visa and passport offices in the part of the country that I live in are examples of this. Although these are central services, they cannot be neglected as they touch upon the lives of people in the locality. Does she also recognise that there are big questions about who is going to make the decisions on the money that is to be dispensed by the public service locally—is it to be central, or local government, or some new sources of funding? How is the need of the particular person who is to enjoy the personal budget to be calculated if not by some local organisation which is very closely in touch with the specific circumstances of the individual? I repeat that the general objectives seem unchallengeable but the mode of delivery seems highly opaque.

[Baroness Verma]

I will reassure my noble friend. We are working against a really difficult economic backdrop, and we will have to make some incredibly difficult choices. Having said that, it is also an opportunity for us to open up to a variety of providers and see if services are then better delivered, with best value incorporated into how those services are delivered. As with personal budgets, delivery will not just be left to one set of providers. What is important is working in partnership—in this case, personal budgets and local government. It is about being able to deliver services far better and with greater choice. Those who have access to personal budgets have said to us in consultations that they feel relieved that they are going to be able to make choices on how their care is delivered.

Distribution of Dormant Account Money (Apportionment) Order 2011

Lord Maclennan of Rogart Excerpts

Tuesday 5th July 2011 Grand Committee

[Lord Maclennan of Rogart]

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Higgins has raised a number of the points which I would otherwise have raised, but we wish to reinforce his inquiries. I note that the money is being handled in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland by the Big Lottery Fund. What prioritisation, if any, is being indicated by the Governments of the countries to which power has been devolved? What relationship is there between the views of the Governments in these countries and the Big Lottery Fund? Will it be open to them to seek to influence the judgment of what is apparently being described as money for the public sector? It is to my mind rather odd that no public consultations were deemed necessary to consider this matter, or other matters related to the distribution of the dormant account moneys, since the amount is not negligible. I would be very interested to know if—in the course of the discussions about how the money might be divided up—any representations were made by the devolved Governments about how the money ought to be spent. Were they content with the proposal that it should be left to the discretion of the Big Lottery Fund?

So far as the reliance upon the Barnett formula is concerned, there have been many occasions—some recently in our House—when the limitations of the formula have been considered. Perhaps this is not the occasion to reopen that question, but it is a little disappointing that we have received an indication that the Barnett formula is considered to be the best method of financing the Governments of the devolved countries, without any indication that any sort of inquiry has been made by the Government.

It appears that some interesting suggestions have been canvassed by experts in this area. I draw attention in particular to the views of Professor Iain McLean of Nuffield College, Oxford, on how other countries tackle this problem. He drew attention to the example of how the Australian provinces meet to decide these issues. The time has come at least to put in hand significant research, because there is a widespread perception that the Barnett formula’s outcomes are not just inequitable. However, it would be a mistake, on the back of this order, to carry that out as far as it has been carried out in other forums.

The question of the amounts of money available is of great interest, and I am happy to have heard from my noble friend that the sums anticipated for this year are in the order of between £60 million and £100 million. Have any assessments been made as to whether those sums will be a one-off, or whether they will continue and, if so, at what level? I realise that that is a difficult issue to hypothesise about, but if any work has been done, it would be interesting if it could be shared with the Committee. I am grateful to my noble friend for what she has said.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, I, too, am grateful to the Minister for her introduction. I certainly support the order and I am glad that the money will be distributed. I recognise that now is not the time to discuss how the dormant accounts money is to be spent, nor is it the time to have a discussion about the big society bank. However, I have reservations about the big society bank because, while I believe that it will help some people and organisations, it is a very small answer to the problems that they will encounter as a result of cuts in local authority services.

The noble Lord, Lord Maclennan, asked whether the noble Baroness thought that the £60 million to £100 million that it is estimated will come from dormant bank accounts this year will be a one-off, or if such an amount of money can go into the big society bank every year. If it is a one-off, my concern about the viability of the big society bank is exacerbated because, if there is to be a bank that will really fulfil what is likely to be an important role in supporting charities and civil society, it has to be more sustainable than something that will get possibly £60 million next year—or possibly not. Who knows? That raises some concerns.

I hear what the noble Baroness says about the Barnett formula. Discussions have taken place on whether or not there are other options and, clearly, the decision has been taken and has come down in favour of the Barnett formula. It would be interesting to know what discussions have taken place, and with whom, in order to reach that decision. I am concerned about its specific impact on Wales because it is widely recognised that Wales tends to lose out as a consequence of the Barnett formula.

As I said, I am glad that the money is to be distributed and welcome the order. However, it raises profound concerns which must be addressed, if not today then in the future.

Ministerial and other Salaries Act 1975 (Amendment) Order 2011

Lord Maclennan of Rogart Excerpts

Tuesday 5th July 2011 Grand Committee

[Baroness Verma]

My Lords, this is an order that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister has specifically requested to formalise in legislation the coalition Government’s policy on ministerial salaries, as announced on 13 May last year. The order was laid before Parliament on 21 March and agreed to in the Delegated Legislation Committee in another place on 21 June.

The order, which is intended to remain in force for the lifetime of this Parliament, will ensure that ministerial and other officeholder salaries are reduced in legislation as they have been reduced in practice since the coalition Government took office. The salaries and offices affected are specified in the amendment order and these salaries cannot be at any other rate during this Parliament without further amendments to the legislation. Lords Ministers can be assured that their salaries will remain as listed in the order until the Dissolution of Parliament.

The Government’s policy is that Ministers’ total remuneration is 5 per cent less than that claimed by equivalent Ministers in the former Government. In the case of Lords Ministers, “total remuneration” in the context of the order simply refers to their ministerial salary. For Commons Ministers, it refers specifically to ministerial and MPs’ pay taken together, with the reduction then applied solely to the ministerial salary element. Since entering office, therefore, Ministers have waived their entitlement to receive a full ministerial salary and have been receiving a reduced salary ever since.

The order also ensures that ministerial and other officeholder pension contributions and future accruals are brought into line with the reduced ministerial salary levels. Currently, Ministers and other officeholders receive reduced salaries but, because of the rules governing ministerial pensions, their contributions have to remain based on their entitled level of salary as set by the Ministerial and other Salaries Act 1975 as it stands. This has meant that departments have had to make up the shortfall in pension contributions between the reduced and the entitled levels of salary for Ministers and officeholders. The amending order will eliminate the need for departments to do this and will save the Government approximately £100,000 per year.

As I mentioned, ministerial and other officeholders’ salaries are currently governed by the Ministerial and other Salaries Act 1975, as amended. The salaries of all Ministers, the Speaker in each House and the six paid opposition officeholders fall under the remit of this Act. These individuals have been informed of this order and the changes that it will make to the Act. Currently, increases to ministerial salaries are linked to the average increase in the mid-points of the senior Civil Service pay bands. This order will effectively nullify the link during this Parliament but it will apply again after the Dissolution of Parliament.

I should point out that over several years ministerial salaries have not, in practice, remained in line with the legislation. Since 2008, Ministers in the former Government had waived any entitlement to increases in their salary. This order will therefore bridge the gap that has grown between the legislation and what is happening on the ground. Given the Government’s policy on a Civil Service and wider public sector pay freeze, it is right that Ministers show leadership during this time of financial constraint. Since taking office, this Government have saved around £700,000 on Ministers’ pay. Over a full five years, this will represent a £4 million saving. I commend the order to the Committee.

[Lord Maclennan of Rogart]

My Lords, I welcome the opportunity that the laying of this order gives to enable some scrutiny of the policy lying behind it.

The practice of making alterations to the levels of ministerial salaries is not new, and particular aspects of this order are worthy of consideration. It is perhaps remarkable that since 1975 there have been 30 previous examples of alterations to ministerial salaries. My noble friend the Minister has made it clear that to some extent this is, on this occasion, gesture politics. It is about signalling to those in the public sector that Ministers are also bearing some of the brunt of the financial situation that the country is in. It has to be said, however, that the savings to which my noble friend has referred are rather minuscule. It might reasonably be inquired as to whether such savings might have been better made by reducing the total number of Ministers, which seems inexorably to have increased over the past 100 years—notwithstanding the devolution of power and the apparent commitment of the present Government to decentralise power further. There has been no shedding of Ministers to accommodate that philosophy.

I wonder whether the setting of an example by Ministers will be regarded by those in the public sector as amounting to anything more than a row of beans, in the light of the fact that large cuts in the public sector are being made among civil servants and public authorities around the country. If savings of public funding can be made at that level, some thought ought to have been given to saving at the top in Whitehall. The question arises of why the Government have taken an inflexible view to this order, which does not match or mirror what has happened in the past? Circumstances change, and it is to be hoped that they will change within the lifetime of this Parliament. To set these proposals in stone, as apparently the Prime Minister has decided to do, does not seem to be a pragmatic approach to ministerial pay.

From the point of view of clarification, I should be interested to know what the true position is concerning the changes in the pension arrangements. My understanding is that this is not intended to be retrospective in its effect and that the raising of the contributions will take effect only when the order comes into force. I should be most grateful for my noble friend’s comments on some of these points.

European Union Bill

Lord Maclennan of Rogart Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd March 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Maclennan of Rogart]

My Lords, I find it ironic that the First Reading of this Bill in another place occurred on 11 November, Armistice Day, when we celebrate and remember the consequences of European civil war, not just between 1914 and 1918 but for centuries. It seems strange that the purposes of the European Union have been so inadequately spelt out by those who believe, or say they believe, that the public are not connected with the European Union. We have had some speeches today—many speeches—which have reminded the participants in this debate, and those who will listen, of what some of those beneficent purposes are. But it seems to me that this Bill does nothing to strengthen the process of integration which has brought such potential strength to this country and our neighbours over the long period since the Second World War, more than could be recalled for centuries before it.

The Bill, at its heart, is confused and confusing. It is attempting to suggest that decisions will be taken by popular acclamation about some of the more detailed decision-making that might be undertaken by the institutions of the European Union to enhance the effectiveness of their decisions, not only domestically within Europe but also internationally when, for example, we negotiate with other powerful nations—growingly powerful nations, such as India and China—about our trading; when we seek to combat global threats, such as threats to the environment from the use of unsuitable fuels; or, indeed, when we seek to rationalise and protect those who for reasons of poverty are driven to seek new homes, and to rationalise the system that enables us to absorb multicultural people.

I find it astonishing that we can have such a retreat from the recognition of the virtues of the pooling of sovereignty which lay behind the impulse to reach agreement, as we did back in the 1970s. The British Government's recent decision to pool sovereignty in defence matters with the French in the Anglo-French defence treaty, which presumably will provide for joint decision-making about the use of joint weaponry, has not been subjected to a referendum proposal. That was bounced through, and many of us welcomed it. However, it seems a more immediate diminution of Britain’s decision-making capability in respect of defence than anything that has come from the European Union.

Questions have been raised about the Liberal Democrats' participation in the preparation of the Bill, and very properly so, for there is language in the coalition agreement that appears to be a part of the explanation for why this Bill has been brought forward:

“We will ensure that there is no further transfer of sovereignty or powers”—

from the UK to the EU—

“over the course of the next Parliament”.

That seems to be a gesture made to pacify the more extreme isolationists in the Conservative Party. However, it does not require a Bill to give it force. The Government can simply refuse by using their power of veto or—to take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hannay—by not engaging in a unanimous decision.

It is going way beyond the coalition agreement to suggest that a Bill is necessary. However, even if it was explicit in the coalition agreement, I see no reason why members of the coalition should take that as though it, like the law of the Medes and Persians, were unchangeable. A document of such profound significance as this Bill is not something to be traded or to be based upon an agreement that was put together in a few days—as though it could go on in its impact for a few years in which the circumstances are completely changing. When that agreement was signed, who anticipated what would happen in north Africa within less than a year? It is foolish to believe that that document is something that we cannot readdress and judge in relation to the appropriateness of the coalition Government’s policies.

We heard from my noble friend in opening this debate that the public are disenchanted with the European Union, and there is some opinion poll evidence to suggest a movement in the direction of disenchantment. However, I argue very strongly that the reason for that is the absolutely notable failure of our political leaders to explain what they are trying to do, and to explain and make clear what the European Union is achieving. In fact what happens is that, after Heads of Government meetings or Council meetings, Ministers—and this is not a party point—come back and say, “We triumphed. The British have succeeded. We led the way”. That is not the nature of the European Union. The nature of the European Union is to arrive at consensual agreements that are for the benefit of all the members, to offset the disadvantages to those who have something at stake and might lose by a particular decision.

This Bill has been very well exposed and expounded by a number of noble Lords. I do not need to repeat what the noble Lord, Lord Williamson, and my noble friend Lord Brittan said. They have made those points strongly. I am making a much more general point which I believe all political parties ought to address now. Do they want the gradual disintegration of the decision-making process in the European Union? Do they want to see people lining up and a new balance of power within Europe? That was what the Congress of Berlin talked about in the 19th century, but it led to nothing but disaster.

The actuality is that we have a framework which will be made very much worse if member Governments go around calling for referenda on detailed decisions which are designed to smooth the process of decision-making and to ease and to expedite the process of speaking with one voice so that Europe has some influence over its own future. My fear is that this Bill would delay European Union decision-making. It would jeopardise the Union’s steady constitutional development, which I believe needs to be in a more democratic direction, and it is moving in a more democratic direction.

The immediate outcome will be to marginalise this country because if the other 26 countries cannot achieve their outcomes by agreement with us, they will use the arrangements within the European Union for enhanced co-operation to achieve their purposes without us. This Bill is not just a piece of public relations from the coalition. It is a dangerous Bill, which has to be substantially changed during its progress through this House so that the House of Commons can give renewed, more detailed and considered attention to the impact of its provisions.