Publish, and be damned

First, let me declare an interest. I was a member of the government's Quinquennial Review group which found the Public Lending Right (PLR) operation to be exemplary in its efficiency and effectiveness. Small but perfectly formed - and fulfilling a vital function in recognising authors and creative writing as a key element in Britain's cultural sector.

Second, let me ask a question. Why, when DCMS as a Department has received an inflation-proofed settlement as part of the Comprehensive Spending Review, has DCMS imposed a cut on the funding of PLR - a cut which will reduce the efficiency and effectiveness of the PLR office and may even mean a reduction in the "rate per loan" paid (as a right, remember, not as some sort of discretionary beneficence) to authors?

Publicity given in the last few days to the annual PLR figures shows how much PLR payments are valued by authors - and how much valuable data PLR generates, not just for effective library stock management but also for the general reading public. Does our government not value authors and the process of creative writing - or at least not value them as much as those other cultural activities and institutions which have, unlike PLR, received an inflation-proofed settlement from DCMS?

Questions should be asked - preferably in Parliament. Will DCMS publish a list of the settlements made for each of its cultural bodies and will the Secretary of State make a statement justifying the variation in those settlements? There is - or there should be - just as much public interest in these figures as in those published by the Arts Council.