| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Soames: Very amusing, Harry.
7.34 pm
Mr. Andrew Hargreaves (Birmingham, Hall Green): It is my pleasure to contribute briefly to the debate, and as so much has been said my contribution will be briefer than I had anticipated.
First and foremost, I disagree with Opposition Members' interpretation of clause 2. It seems to me, as a result of my brief experience with the Royal Navy, visiting various shore establishments during my time as a participant in the armed forces parliamentary scheme, that the clause would help the Royal Navy enormously in some of its difficulties with service personnel acting in and maintaining shore establishments. I should like my hon. Friend the Minister to say whether that is a sensible interpretation of the need for the clause.
I shall canter briefly on through a couple of aspects of concern, which I hope my hon. Friend the Minister might be able to clarify or which might form the basis for further discussion in Committee.
There is much sensible provision in the Bill on procedures for various aspects of courts martial. In many clauses--clauses 18, 19, 20 and so on--there is an important element that refers to internal redress procedures.
I very much support that aspect of the clauses. However, as the ombudsman does not have a locus in the armed forces--I am a member of the Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration-- I hope that it will be a matter of discussion in Committee or that my hon. Friend the Minister might consider that there should be a method to monitor complaints that might arise as a result of the redress procedures, to ensure that the procedures do not come into disrepute, and that the monitoring should be conducted impartially by an independent person or a former officer.
I strongly support clause 27, which relates to drug testing. My hon. Friend the Minister knows that I have played some role in trying to rid sport of drugs. The only way of achieving that is random testing, and I strongly support the concept of compulsory testing. I hope that the Committee will consider that. Testing need not be introduced overnight; it may be phased in gradually. Voluntary testing as a first step is a sensible way to proceed in those services where it is appropriate.
I shall mention homosexuality in the armed services only to say that my comments are already a matter of record. I disagree profoundly with the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen). My sympathies or my opinions on the subject mirror those of my hon. Friend the Minister.
I shall briefly mention the Race Relations Act 1976 and ethnic minorities to say, as someone who has employed and employs people from ethnic minorities, that the issue should be considered with sympathy in Committee. However, we should bear in mind, as the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) said, that it is a matter not of apportioning blame but of encouraging people from all parts of the community to play their part in the armed services.
I was delighted at the enthusiasm of the first black trooper to mount guard outside Buckingham palace, who said that his heart was bursting with pride at being able to take part in that event. He is a splendid example to other people, who I hope will follow.
Mr. Nick Raynsford (Greenwich):
I intend to focus on just one clause of the Bill--clause 26--concerning future uses of the site currently occupied by the Royal Naval college. The clause has already attracted the interest of a number of hon. Members.
The site is steeped in history. From the 15th to the 17th centuries it was a royal hunting lodge and palace and the birthplace of King Henry VIII and Queen Elizabeth I. In the late 17th century it became a hospital, founded by King William and Queen Mary, for elderly and disabled seafarers. The naval connection remained intensely strong, and it was in the painted hall at Greenwich that Nelson's body lay in state after Trafalgar--as anyone who has visited the admirable Nelson exhibition at the national maritime museum will know.
In the mid-19th century, as the need for a specialist hospital for elderly seafarers decreased, the site was transferred to the royal naval college, which has remained the principal occupant to this day. I was slightly puzzled by the comments of the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) who said that the complex had been passed from one Government Department to another. I understand that it has been occupied by the naval college for the last 126 years--not a bad record of occupation by one Department.
Not only is it a location with a long and a proud history, but it comprises an incomparable series of buildings designed by several of the country's greatest architects. Inigo Jones, John Webb, Christopher Wren, John Vanbrugh and Nicholas Hawksmoor left their mark on Greenwich, and they created a complex that not only is unique in Britain but also counts as one of the great masterpieces of European baroque architecture. It is currently being considered for world heritage status.
The site is held in trust for the Greenwich hospital-- the charity established 300 years ago by King William and Queen Mary. As the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) pointed out, the Secretary of State for Defence is the sole trustee and the uses to which the Greenwich complex can be put are prescribed by Act of Parliament.
The Greenwich Hospital Act 1869 paved the way for the establishment of the royal naval college at Greenwich, and I think that I should remind hon Members what section 7 of the Act says. It provides for the site to be used
I do not intend to dwell tonight on the background to that decision. I have already spoken about the matter on previous occasions in the House, most recently in the debate on the defence estimates on 17 October. Suffice to say, I believe that the decision was a bad one, taken on dubious grounds and following consultation that would have made Mr. Alain Juppe proud. While the Minister of State for the Armed Forces was always courteous to me throughout the consultation process, I have no doubt that he made a terrible mistake in failing to recognise the outstanding advantages of Greenwich as the proper location for the country's new tri-service college. I believe that posterity will judge him and the Government harshly for that decision.
Although I understand that the process of establishing the tri-service college at Camberley is proving neither as easy nor as economical as the Minister led us to believe initially, that is a matter to be pursued on other occasions--and I shall do just that. The Minister will have his work cut out to convince hon. Members that the transfer to Camberley will proceed on time and within budget--or that it should proceed at all.
In the meantime, the British public have had their first real taste of the consequences of the Government's decision. In September this year, the royal naval college appeared in an estate agent's brochure as a desirable property for sale on a 150-year, full-repairing lease. Predictably, the brochure contained the typical estate agent's blurb extolling the site's potential.
It is difficult to imagine any other country that possessed such a magnificent complex of buildings treating them in that way. The present Secretary of State for Health, when Secretary of State for National Heritage, famously described Greenwich as the British Versailles. One has only to think about the implications of that comment to realise the absurdity of what is now happening. One cannot imagine the French putting Versailles on the market, the Spanish trying to hawk the Escorial around estate agents or the Greeks trying to flog the Acropolis. It is so absurd a concept as to make the Government's actions quite ridiculous: a British Secretary of State for Defence, who is only too pleased to wrap the Union Jack around him when it serves his purpose, is trying to flog the country's heritage through an estate agent.
It also makes a mockery of the statement made by the noble Lord Cranborne on behalf of the Government in a document entitled "Defending Our Heritage", which was published by the Ministry of Defence just a year ago. It is about historic military buildings on the defence estate, and I shall quote the opening words of Lord Cranborne's introduction:
Even the Secretary of State for Defence, who is not usually the most emollient of characters, back-pedalled very rapidly and gave an assurance that the royal naval college would not be sold to any bidder whatever the consequences. He assured us that Tesco need not apply. I am reassured by the fact that the Secretary of State had some qualms about the prospect of the family firm of the former leader of Westminster council getting its hands on the royal naval college.
The Secretary of State has also assured us that Greenwich will not be sold to the highest bidder, that only appropriate uses will be entertained and that careful consideration will be given to the options before any decision is reached. The Minister repeated those assurances in a recent letter to me on the subject, and he has said much the same thing tonight. That is fine, but should we trust the Government? Their track record does not exactly command confidence. After all, they sold county hall not to an appropriate user, such as the London School of Economics, but to a Japanese consortium that has had great difficulty devising any use for the former seat of London government other than as an aquarium.
Quite apart from their track record, there are two other compelling reasons to doubt the Government's bona fides. The first is the way in which they have handled the response to Knight, Frank and Rutley's marketing exercise. Bids had to be submitted by 15 November, and I understand from an answer to a parliamentary question that I tabled that 11 expressions of interest had been lodged at that date--eight for the whole site and three for part of it. However, we remain in the dark about the identity of the bidders. Ministers have simply refused to reveal the identity of the organisations or individuals who have lodged expressions of interest or how they intend to use the site.
When challenged, Ministers have tried to defend their stance on the grounds of commercial confidentiality. That is nonsense. We are not asking to know the precise terms of the offers, but who is in the running to take over some of the country's finest buildings and to what uses they may be put. I do not accept the assertion made by the Minister in a letter to me of 5 December, in which he said:
The national maritime museum and the university of Greenwich have properly felt it appropriate to reveal their interest in the site. If organisations do not feel confident that their case for taking over the Greenwich site will withstand public scrutiny, they should not be entrusted with control of that magnificent complex of buildings.
In his letter to me, the Minister also claims that the Government need time to clarify the proposals and to consult heritage and other bodies before a decision is reached. I doubt what meaningful consultation can take place with heritage bodies and other interests if the identity of the bidders and the uses to which they propose to put the building cannot be revealed. That would be a
strange consultation. In any case, why did the Government not consult before making the proposal? Why was there not an initial consultation to establish what uses for the site might be appropriate before estate agents were engaged to hawk the buildings around?
The second compelling reason for doubting the Government's bona fides is the wording of clause 26. Section 7 of the 1869 Act allows the use of the Greenwich site for the purposes of any Government Department. That would seem to make possible appropriate heritage or educational activities, such as those proposed by the national maritime museum or the university of Greenwich, but it would not permit a private use. There must, therefore, be real grounds for concern that, in seeking to change that legislation, the Secretary of State is paving the way for the privatisation of the Greenwich complex. If Ministers are not prepared to reveal the identity of the bidders, they cannot hope to assuage our anxiety that it is a prelude to privatisation.
The very broad remit given by clause 26 to the Secretary of State to grant a lease to any person appearing to him to be suitable for a period of up to 150 years on such terms and conditions as he thinks fit gives enormous latitude and would make it difficult even for a bizarre and inappropriate decision to be challenged. The Secretary of State may say that Tesco need not apply, but I see nothing in clause 26 that would prevent him from granting a lease to Tesco, if he chose to do so.
The only limitation on the Secretary of State's power is the requirement that any proceeds from the site should be applied to the benefit of the Greenwich hospital charity. I am not a lawyer, but others who are better qualified may have a view on that. It could be argued that the legislation imposes an implicit obligation on the Secretary of State to seek the best possible return for any lease that is granted. That obligation could make it difficult for the Secretary of State to approve an appropriate use generating a low income as against an inappropriate use generating a substantially higher income as that would be in the interests of the Greenwich hospital, of which he is the sole trustee. That issue should certainly be considered closely in Committee.
It is not acceptable, not least after the sobering disposal of county hall, to allow such wide-ranging powers to the Secretary of State to dispose of the Greenwich site to whomsoever he chooses. It is arguable that the clause should be dropped entirely and the 1869 provisions retained. That would allow appropriate uses for the purposes of any Government Department, such as the Department of National Heritage, and might prove sufficient to enable the national maritime museum, which occupies the adjoining premises, to take over the painted hall and the chapel and to organise through the proposed trust the letting of the other premises.
Even if it is felt that a new clause is now required to reflect the changes over the 125 years since the existing legislation was passed, it cannot be right to allow the Secretary of State such unfettered discretion to dispose of the Greenwich site. At the very least, clause 26 should be amended to provide proper safeguards so that only uses that are clearly compatible with the remarkable historical and architectural qualities of Greenwich could be approved.
"for the purposes of the naval service or any department of Her Majesty's Government".
The amendments now proposed to the Act stem from the Government's decision earlier this year to locate the new joint service command and staff college at Camberley and to close the existing Royal Naval college and the joint services defence college at Greenwich.
"The Ministry of Defence is the single largest owner of historic buildings of any Government Department . . . Some, such as Horse Guards in Whitehall, the Royal Naval College at Greenwich and the Royal Hospital at Chelsea, are more than part of the history of the Armed Services alone: they are part of the nation's history and the Department has a particular duty to act as their preserver and guardian".
Is that how the Government fulfil that role--by offering them for sale in a brochure by Knight, Frank and Rutley? It is hardly surprising that the Government's actions
prompted a national outcry--a reaction that has clearly surprised and alarmed Ministers, who cannot have anticipated the strength of public feeling about the issue.
"It would be quite wrong for the Government to reveal the identity of interested organisations, if they do not themselves do so, before we have had the opportunity to analyse their expressions of interest."
I put it to the Minister quite simply: what do they have to hide? If they are reputable serious organisations that would make appropriate tenants for the premises, they can hardly wish to hide their bids under a cloak of secrecy.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |