Museums and Galleries: Admission Charges for Non-UK Residents

Debate between Lord Wood of Anfield and Baroness Twycross

Thursday 6th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wood of Anfield]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have for introducing admission charges to museums and galleries for non-UK residents.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Twycross) (Lab)]

The introduction of universal free admission to national museums and galleries was a landmark policy of the previous Labour Government which we do not currently have any plans to change. These museums attract huge numbers of national and international visitors, and they support jobs and investment across the retail, hospitality and leisure sectors. We continue to support these museums in their efforts to broaden access to national collections. That is why the DCMS Secretary of State announced a 5% increase to their funding and £120 million for critical estates maintenance in 2025-26.

[Lord Wood of Anfield (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for that Answer and warmly welcome the £270 million announced by the Culture Secretary in her Jennie Lee lecture, including £20 million for renewal of museums across the country. I am glad to hear that there are no plans to change the free admissions policy, a landmark policy of the previous Labour Government. I wonder what the Minister can say about the approach to individual museums which, like the Louvre, the Acropolis and the Met, want to pursue the possibility of charging non-UK residents. Would they be allowed to do it? If so, has the DCMS looked at how they would check for the identities of UK citizens? Would they be checked at the door?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I am unclear whether I can respond as to how the Louvre is going to do this in practice. I understand that it has a way of checking eligibility. The decision in respect to the Louvre is clearly a decision for it, as it is for other museums—my apologies if I have misunderstood the question. As I said in my initial Answer, we remain proud of the landmark Labour policy, which means that everyone is able to enter our national museums free of charge.

Football Governance Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Wood of Anfield and Baroness Twycross

Committee stage
Wednesday 18th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend Lord Wood of Anfield for tabling Amendment 235. Clause 48 has been designed to prevent clubs unilaterally moving their home ground with no regard for the vital role it plays in the club’s history and identity, as well as its financial position. In essence, it is intended to capture instances such as Wimbledon’s move to Milton Keynes and is a really important protection in the legislation. The Government believe that this protection must remain in the Bill to enable the regulator to deliver its key objectives and ensure that home grounds have the appropriate safeguards in place. This amendment, however, seeks to address a slightly different but related issue of competition organisers relocating matches elsewhere. Many of the current instances of this are, for example, play-off matches at Wembley, which have become a key part of English football heritage in and of themselves.

However, I am aware that my noble friend wants this amendment to address situations in which a match could be moved outside England and Wales. Noble Lords will be aware that FIFA is currently reviewing its position on overseas league matches. I do recognise the point the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, made—although I would not presume to paraphrase my noble friend Lord Mann—and how significant this would be for supporters. FIFA has committed to looking at how it might impact supporters, as well as players and a number of other valuable considerations. While the industry is still considering its position on this matter, and many clubs have spoken against the proposals, we do not think the regulator should have a specific power to directly address this. However, the regulator will ensure that clubs consult fans on any changes to match days, including moving the location. The Government will remain in conversation with the relevant governing bodies on this developing issue.

I am happy to continue conversations with noble Lords who have a specific interest in this issue before we get to Report. But for the reasons I have laid out, I must ask my noble friend to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Wood of Anfield (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for that reply. I also thank her—I did not before—and her officials for the generous way she has spared time not just for me but for lots of other Members of this House over the last few weeks. It is really appreciated.

I understand what the Minister says, and I also understand that FIFA is currently revising its proposals. We have spent a lot of time worrying about provoking FIFA, and I understand why there is sensitivity there. The requirement to consult fans on moving matches assumes that there is already a scheduled match that needs to be moved. My amendment is about two problems that there are in fact technical ways around. So, that issue is still a live one. There will be more discussion about this, and I know the Minister is going to be as generous with her time as she has been already, so with that in mind—