Museums win a vital reprieve

CULTURE Minister Ed Vaizey’s assurance that 
none of the Yorkshire museums under threat as a result of cuts to the Science Museum Group’s budget will close is an important step forward in the campaign to preserve these hugely important institutions – but only a step.

The cuts to museums to be announced in the Government’s spending review later this month may not now be as deep as previously anticipated but there will still be funding reductions.

Indeed, securing the museums has been achieved at a cost. The funding gap will principally be bridged through reductions in the budget for tourism, a key economic sector for Yorkshire.

Given the state of the country’s finances and the continued economic malaise, further cuts in the future are a near certainty.

Neither Mr Vaizey nor the Science Museum Group has yet articulated a clear vision for how the northern-based museums will operate in this financially hostile environment.

It is one thing for a Minister to promise the doors of these museums 
will remain open, quite another to say what visitors will find when they venture inside.

That is not to belittle the tremendous achievement of campaigners across the region who put political and geographic rivalries aside to speak with a single voice that could not easily be ignored.

Their determination to keep the issue in the public eye has left Mr Vaizey in no doubt that these are valuable organisations whose closure would significantly damage the cultural fabric of the region.

They have been rewarded with Mr Vaizey’s important promise, but the campaigning must continue to ensure the museums remain substantial institutions in their own right and are not allowed to become little more than token presences in the North.

The enthusiasm for maintaining the museums should now be channelled into developing long-term plans for their future development and how they can be financed on a sustainable basis.

Until those plans are in place, Mr Vaizey’s welcome reprieve can only be considered a temporary one that may not survive future Government spending reductions.

Afghanistan milestone is reached

HOW ironic that 4,000 soldiers should receive their redundancy notices on the day that Nato forces handed over security responsibilities to Afghan soldiers in a “hard-fought milestone”, the words of Defence Secretary Philip Hammond.

Some will lament the Ministry of Defence’s crass insensitivity in allowing such a juxtaposition, but it was never envisaged in 2001 that British forces would be deployed to Afghanistan for at least 12 years – and that more than 440 service personnel would make the ultimate sacrifice.

They must never be forgotten. Nor must their relatives who have to live with the consequences of this conflict.

The still-perilous security situation on the ground in Helmand, and those other provinces where Britain suffered heavy losses, meant that this handover had to be completed in total secrecy in order to minimise the risk of violence.

Yet, while David Cameron and President Barack Obama are anxious to accelerate the timing of the withdrawal, it would be a betrayal of the fallen if a hasty retreat led to anti-Western elements being able to establish another stronghold in Afghanistan – the original objective of the Nato mission was to eradicate this possibility.

Nato still needs to be in a position to respond to any resurgence that has the potential to jeopardise the security of the West, another reason why Mr Hammond must ensure that the Armed Forces retain sufficient flexibility to respond to unforeseen occurrences.

Despite these austere times, the MoD will still be expected to respond to the unexpected.

In doing so, Mr Hammond must also ensure that the Army, Navy and RAF continue to appoint new recruits – they are the service personnel who, in time, will be expected to make life and death decisions in the battlefield.

Funding farce squanders resources

EVEN though the work of Yorkshire’s hospices is invaluable in caring for the terminally ill, and providing emotional support for their loved ones, the reality is this work is increasingly dependent on the benevolence of fundraisers.

Without charitable donations, they would not be able to provide such dignified care to the dying. The reason is this: hospices have always been the Cinderella service of the NHS and continue to receive a disproportionate amount of public funding.

Yet these funding arrangements have become even more farcical following the latest NHS spending shake-up, with some hospices having to apply for funds from up to eight different commissioning bodies because they serve a large geographic area.

The consequence is scarce resources being wasted on serving this time-consuming bureaucracy when the priority, at all times, should be accommodating the wishes and needs of the terminally ill and their relatives. Although this is an unforeseen consequence of the Government’s reforms, it needs further addressing without delay.