What impact recent, and future, spending cuts from central and local Government will have on the arts and heritage at a national and local level;
What arts organisations can do to work more closely together in order to reduce duplication of effort and to make economies of scale;
What level of public subsidy for the arts and heritage is necessary and sustainable;
Whether the current system, and structure, of funding distribution is the right one;
What impact recent changes to the distribution of National Lottery funds will have on arts and heritage organisations;
Whether the policy guidelines for National Lottery funding need to be reviewed;
The impact of recent changes to DCMS arm’s-length bodies – in particular the abolition of the UK Film Council and the Museums, Libraries and Archives Council;
Whether businesses and philanthropists can play a long-term role in funding arts at a national and local level;
Whether there need to be more Government incentives to encourage private donations.
The Committee will also examine other areas of interest that are raised during the course of its inquiry. A copy of the submission should be sent by e-mail to cmsev@parliament.uk and have ‘Funding of the Arts and Heritage’ in the subject line. Submissions should be received by Thursday 2nd September 2010.

It assists the Committee if those submitting written evidence adhere to the following guidelines:
Each submission should:
1. State clearly who the submission is from, i.e. whether from yourself in a personal capacity or sent on behalf of an organisation

2. Be about 3,000 words in length / run to no more than six sides of A4 paper; as far as possible comprise a single document attachment to the email;  begin with a short summary in bullet point form;  have numbered paragraphs; and

3.  Be in Word or Rich Text format (not PDF) with as little use of colour or logos as possible.   Please supply a postal address so a copy of the Committee’s report can be sent to you upon publication.
 
4. You should also be aware that there may be circumstances in which the House of Commons will be required to communicate information to third parties on request, in order to comply with its obligations under the Freedom of Information Act 2000.
 
5. Though there is a strong preference for emailed submissions, those without access to a computer should send a hard copy to:
 
Committee AssistantCulture, Media and Sport Committee
Committee Office
House of Commons
7 Millbank
London SW1P 3JA
 
A guide for written submissions to Select Committees may be found on the parliamentary website at: http://www.parliament.uk/commons/selcom/witguide.htm
 
Please also note that:
·         Committees make public much of the evidence they receive during inquiries. If you do not wish your submission to be published, you must clearly say so. If you wish to include private or confidential information in your submission to the Committee, please contact the Clerk of the Committee to discuss this.
·         Material already published elsewhere should not form the basis of a submission, but may be referred to within a proposed submission, in which case a hard copy of the published work should be included.
·         Evidence submitted must be kept confidential until published by the Committee, unless publication by the person or organisation submitting it is specifically authorised.
·         Once submitted, evidence is the property of the Committee. The Committee normally, though not always, chooses to make public the written evidence it receives, by publishing it on the Internet (where it will be searchable), by printing it or by making it available through the Parliamentary Archives. If there is any information you believe to be sensitive you should highlight it and explain what harm you believe would result from its disclosure. The Committee will take this into account in deciding whether to publish or further disclose the evidence. 
 
For up-to-date information on progress of the inquiry visit: http://www.parliament.uk/cmscom
Committee Membership is as follows: 
Mr John Whittingdale (Chair) (Con) (Maldon), Ms Louise Bagshawe (Con) (Corby), Paul Farrelly (Lab) (Newcastle-under-Lyme), Dr Thérèse Coffey (Con) (Suffolk Coastal), Alan Keen (Lab Co-operative) (Feltham and Heston), Damian Collins (Con) ( Folkestone and Hythe),Jim Sheridan (Lab) (Paisley and Renfrewshire North)
Philip Davies (Con) ( Shipley), David Cairns (Lab) (Inverclyde), Mr Adrian Sanders (Lib Dem) (Torba) and me, Mr Tom Watson (Lab) (West Bromwich East),
 

Specific Committee Information:  cmscom@parliament.uk/ 020 7219 6188, Media Information: Laura Humble  humblel@parliament.uk/ 020 7219 8430, Committee Website: www.parliament.uk/cmscom ,Watch committees and parliamentary debates online:  www.parliamentlive.tv 
 
Publications / Reports / Reference Material:Copies of all select committee reports are available from the Parliamentary Bookshop (12 Bridge St, Westminster, 020 7219 3890) or the Stationery Office (0845 7023474).  Committee reports, press releases, evidence transcripts, Bills; research papers, a directory of MPs, plus Hansard (from 8am daily) and much more, can be found on www.parliament.uk

1. The BBC exists to serve the public interest.

2. The BBC’s main object is the promotion of its Public Purposes.

3. In addition, the BBC may maintain, establish or acquire subsidiaries through whichcommercial activities may be undertaken to any extent permitted by a FrameworkAgreement. (The BBC’s general powers enable it to maintain, establish or acquiresubsidiaries for purposes sufficiently connected with its Public Purposes…..

4.The Public PurposesThe Public Purposes of the BBC are as follows—

(a)sustaining citizenship and civil society;

(b)promoting education and learning;

(c)stimulating creativity and cultural excellence;

(d)representing the UK, its nations, regions and communities;2

(e)bringing the UK to the world and the world to the UK;(f)in promoting its other purposes, helping to deliver to the public the benefit ofemerging communications technologies and services and, in addition, taking aleading role in the switchover to digital television.

5.How the BBC promotes its Public Purposes: the BBC’s mission to inform,educateand entertain

(1)The BBC’s main activities should be the promotion of its Public Purposes through theprovision of output which consists of information, education and entertainment, suppliedby means of—

(a)television, radio and online services;

(b)similar or related services which make output generally available and which may bein forms or by means of technologies which either have not previously been used bythe BBC or which have yet to be developed.

The White House, Washington D.C., April 9, 1963. (Awarding of honorary citizenship of the United States of America to Winston Churchill)

President John F. Kennedy said:-

“We meet to honour a man whose honour requires no meeting – for he is the most honoured and honourable man to walk the stage of human history in the time in which we live. Whenever and wherever tyranny threatened, he has always championed liberty. Facing firmly toward the future, he has never forgotten the past. Serving six monarchs of his native Great Britain, he has served all men’s freedom and dignity. In the dark days and darker nights when Britain stood alone – and most men save Englishmen despaired of England’s life – he mobilised the English language and sent it into battle. The incandescent quality of his words illuminated the courage of his countrymen. Given unlimited powers by his citizens, he was ever vigilant to protect their rights. Indifferent himself to danger, he wept over the sorrows of others. A child of the House of Commons, he became in time its father. Accustomed to the hardships of battle, he has no distaste for pleasure. Now his stately Ship of Life, having weathered the severest storms of a troubled century, is anchored in tranquil waters, proof that courage and faith and the zest for freedom are truly indestructible. The record of his triumphant passage will inspire free hearts for all time.

By adding his name to our rolls, we mean to honour him – but his acceptance honours us far more. For no statement or proclamation can enrich his name — the name Sir Winston Churchill is already legend.”

1. The date of the election was originally printed as Thursday 6th May. An amendment added in black ink to put the new date.

2. This is the bit that simply takes the biscuit. In the section headed “Together building a better town” you see the line “investment in schools”. Above, clearly visible for all to see through the black ink are the words “200 million”!

The Tories cut the Building Schools of the Future programme last week so they just blocked it out. As well as the bare faced cheek of it, it’s politically inane.

Investment in schools

Simon Burns: We are not able to publish the requested report as it is central to the formulation of government policy. The KPMG report on NHS Choices and NHS Direct is informing the Department’s Information Strategy.

Time for the Freedom of Information Act: NHS Choices/NHS Direct

Dear Mr Watson

Wine purchases by HM Government

I have followed this news item and I would like to offer you my comments. Let’s establish, at least, that bottles of wine are not warheads.

Leaving aside for a moment the specific points they raise for denying you access to their database, I don’t see why the FO can provide any grounds for declining to make available overall figures for acquisition costs, increases in values, stocks held etc etc.

Now to the specifics. I don’t intend to mince my words because arguments put forward in the letter you publish on your site dated 28th June from Robert Alexander contains a number of false suppositions. My own conclusion is that these statements were made intentionally to mislead you and were made in the full knowledge that they would mislead anyone who read them.

1.’Releasing information would hurt suppliers, thus ending discounting and prejudice the future dealings with GH to obtain cheap prices’. The wine market is a transparent market. Prices on wines, retail, wholesale and at auction are available in an instant and as a result the market is highly competitive. Certainly, some discounts may be given for larger orders. It is however wrong, in my view, to suggest that GH’s discounts might be curtailed and in any case for the more expensive wines, which presumably make up the bulk of the department’s investment, their statements regarding discounting would not be applicable. Additionally, the overall size of the government cellar is rather small and would have no impact on the wine markets as a whole.

2.The question as to providing detailed information – they are prepared, in some cases, to reveal the name of the wine, but not the vintage – because it might affect the ‘volatile wine market’ and indicate an endorsement of specific producers, presumably affecting the discounts the GH might obtain and values. This too is a completely false picture (someone should tell them this isn’t ‘Yes Minister’). Everyone in the wine market, producers, suppliers, critics, consumers (if sufficiently interested) know perfectly well what is a good wine, a good year, and, yes, a good price. I think it more likely, for example, they probably don’t want you to know that they may have bought 23 cases of Margaux 1993 at a high price.

3. The wine market is far from ‘volatile’ or is this a reference to the fact it is a liquid? All research shows that it is one of the best performing and most consistent investments.

4. It is suggested that the GH considered its position following consultation with its suppliers. Were I a supplier and was asked by the GH in a way which suggested they did not want to publish information about their activities, I wouldn’t want to dispute it with them either. Would you? I have already explained in (1), (2) and (3) above why this is a false premise.

A copy of a meeting of the Committee which advises the GH is published on the web –http://foi.fco.gov.uk/content/en/foi-releases/2010/158-243. This seems to me a highly negligent way to be proceeding.

There are serious issues pertaining to this subject which might form a paradigm for other government departments. I recently wrote an article which was published in the Drinks Business (June 2010) and which was based upon a Quality Price Index for the new Bordeaux vintage (2009). I attach it to this email. As you can see, very clearly, there are wines which might be purchased by any government and which would provide good value for money even in an exalted year for Bordeaux such as 2009.

Further, the FO or any government department might adopt a strategy of careful investment which might provide drinking wines for its functions at little or no cost to the taxpayer by periodically divesting itself of wines it owns – I am sure Christie’s/Sotheby’s would be only too happy to help.

A combination of acquiring wines at the right prices at the right time, buying high quality wines which are relatively inexpensive, seeking sponsorship for certain events could probably reduce the cost considerably.

I would not be content with the lists of the wines themselves, costs etc but also I would like to know their strategy and objective for their wine acquisitions, how they put out a tender for the wines, etc etc.

Perhaps if you could make it all sound a little less like sour grapes you might get a little further?

Kind regards,
Fabian Cobb,  http://www.finewinejournal.com

Here’s the information in full:

He replied, ” When we can give you some guidance we will.”

He was asked if there were any plans to fly the Saltire tomorrow for
Andy Murray’s Wimbledon match. He replied, ” I do not think
we have any plans to do that at this time.”

He was asked if the Prime Minister had any views on the restitution of
the death penalty or a new law to allow ‘human beings to marry
horses’ (proposals received since the Deputy Prime Minister launched his
website today asking the public to nominate laws and
regulations they would like abolished and adopted).

The spokesman replied, ” I think we shall let that process continue. We
will be responding to it (the public suggestions) in due
course.”

” So, you are not ruling it out then, ” asked a correspondent.

He replied, ” I do not want to make any precipitate comments, especially
on the horse issue.”

Another correspondent asked about the law requiring citizens to file a
report to the police every time they see a grey squirrel in their
garden – ‘an offence, I must admit, I have committed many times’.

It was put to him that the Government had just announced a review of
Government websites, saying they wanted to examine whether
they provided value for money. There was, said a correspondent, already
a website for ‘crackpot proposals’ – that was the Downing
Street website. Why did the Deputy Prime Minister have to set up his own
website for crackpot proposals. Was this not the
duplication the review had been set up to avoid.

” We are trying to engage the public and using the internet is one way
of doing that, ” said the spokesman. ” I can see you are not
enthused by this idea, ”

DM: …Staying with football, those footballers have just set the wrong example haven’t they, I mean so many people who have travelled out there, so many people who have been watching at home saying we really didn’t play as a team it is not an example to set to youngsters.

JH:   Well yeah of course it was disappointing because we have this enormous talent and for some reason they just didn’t gel as a team but I have to say, you know as a Minister I was incredibly encouraged by the example set by the England fans, I mean not a single arrest for a football related offensive and the terrible problems that we had in Heysel and Hillsborough in the 1980s seem now to be behind us and I think you know there is small grounds for encouragement there even though obviously we are very disappointed about the result.

“Frankly, gamers, developers and publishers were misled by the Tories”