House of Commons Hansard Debates for 18 Apr 1996 (pt 32)

10.25 pm

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Jeremy Hanley): The Government welcome the debate. The Commonwealth Institute has many supporters, and I congratulate one of its most faithful supporters--my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath (Mr. Townsend). He is an honourable Friend indeed, and his knowledge of, and interest in, foreign affairs the world over is second to none in the House. The Foreign Affairs Committee has taken a close interest in the Commonwealth Institute's well-being, and included some pertinent observations in its welcome report, "The Future Role of the Commonwealth", which was tabled before Easter.

My noble Friend the Minister for Overseas Development will visit the institute next week to discuss with Asian high commissioners in London how their galleries can best be developed. The permanent under-secretary of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office will be able to answer questions about the institute when he appears before the Foreign Affairs Committee next month to discuss the FCO's departmental report. My right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth

18 Apr 1996 : Column 940

Secretary has taken a close personal interest in the institute since he assumed office. He discussed future financing by the FCO for the institute with its chairman, Mr. David Thompson, in October and decided in March to make available £1.5 million this financial year, to enable the institute to maintain its core education, library and conference operations.

The Government's support for the Commonwealth Institute is part of a wider support for Commonwealth links worldwide, but I shall not rehearse them all now. Our decision to invite the Commonwealth Heads of Government to meet in the United Kingdom next year shows our confidence in the Commonwealth's continuing vitality and usefulness. Differences of view between Commonwealth countries over Rhodesia and South Africa have been replaced by a shared adherence to the democratic and liberal values set out in the Harare declaration and by the work that the Commonwealth can do to fulfil them. That common purpose was evident at the last Heads of Government meeting in Auckland last November.

Next Tuesday, my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary will attend at the Commonwealth headquarters at Marlborough house, as one of eight Foreign Ministers who are members of the Commonwealth ministerial action group, which was established in Auckland to follow up the Harare declaration. They will see how they can best influence the Nigerian and Gambian military Governments to return to civilian democratic rule. Recent elections in Sierra Leone received significant help from the Commonwealth and we hope that the Commonwealth can help the Gambia to organise free and fair elections later this year.

I do not deny that the Commonwealth Institute and, specifically, providing adequate funds for it, poses the Government a problem. The essence of the problem is simple: funds at a level required to make the institute vibrant, to increase visitor numbers, to bring its galleries and exhibitions up to a modern standard and to put the building, which has special features, in a good state of maintenance cannot be financed out of the FCO's budget alone without unacceptable damage to other priorities. We already contribute significantly across the board to Commonwealth activities: to Commonwealth scholarships, the Commonwealth Secretariat, the Commonwealth Foundation and the Commonwealth Fund for Technical Co-operation.

The Commonwealth Institute does worthy work. I shall talk later about its interesting history, but its overall role is somewhat apart from the FCO's core activities. That means that we have to be imaginative in finding ways of securing the comparatively large sums needed to make it thrive.

Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: I may be forecasting what my right hon. Friend is about to say, but it is important that this should come out. What efforts are the Government making to get a greater contribution from Commonwealth members?

Mr. Hanley: My hon. Friend, as ever, is right. I shall refer to that a little later.

In 1993, the Commonwealth Institute celebrated its 100th anniversary. We are dealing not with a new body but with one which, at a number of points in the last century, has changed its focus to remain up to date and

18 Apr 1996 : Column 941

useful. The Imperial Institute, to which the Commonwealth Institute is the legal successor, began life in the 1890s as an integral part of Imperial college, as one of those fine institutions established in Kensington, using funds from the Great Exhibition and public subscription. Indeed, the Imperial Institute's distinctive tower can be seen standing out among the newer buildings of Imperial college, behind the Albert hall. Its original purpose was as a scientific research institute that made its findings available for all Britain's colonies and dominions.

Those with an interest in the history of the British empire will not be surprised to know that the hand of Joseph Chamberlain, the energetic colonial secretary at the time, was active in creating the institute. By the 1920s, in the trend that led to the Statute of Westminster in 1931, the willingness of the dominions and some colonies to fund a central research organisation in London came under question. Canada, Australia, South Africa and others understandably established their own scientific research institutes, specialising in products of interest to them.

In 1925 the Imperial Institute passed to the care of the Board of Trade, as a body concerned with furthering economic links in the empire. Indeed, at that time it was touch and go whether the institute would survive. However, it developed a new role, publicising the empire and particularly the economic benefits for its constituent parts, in line with the major imperial exhibitions held in the 1920s and 1930s. The institute played its part, with film shows and other activities, in spreading knowledge of the empire. After the second world war, that new educational and publicising role was recognised, when responsibility passed from the Board of Trade to the Department of Education.

In the 1950s the Department of Education launched an ambitious programme to increase the number of science graduates in the United Kingdom. The space occupied by the institute was needed to expand Imperial college. The Department of Education decided to provide the institute with a new home on Kensington high street, in a new building designed as a symbol of Britain's support for the Commonwealth and opened in 1962. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office took over responsibility in the late 1960s, in recognition of the role that the new Commonwealth was playing in British political life.

To begin with, everything went swimmingly. Commonwealth Governments contributed generously not only to the building, but to their exhibition galleries. The building was new. The Commonwealth was renewing itself. New educational techniques were exciting for children coming on visits. By the 1980s, the picture was somewhat different. Precious little money was forthcoming from other Commonwealth Governments to help run the institute. Indeed, in recent years the UK Government's contribution has been some 99 per cent. Some countries provided money to renew their exhibitions, but far from all did so. Many of the exhibitions have begun to look rather tired. As I am sure my hon. Friend knows, there is a splendid New Zealand mechanical cow, which illustrates that country's dairy industry. It has been munching away to the delight of schoolchildren since the 1960s, with all the transparency of Damien Hirst, but 25 years earlier. Perhaps for some, the cow has the same horror, but for most it has been supremely educational.

18 Apr 1996 : Column 942

The Department for Education and Employment has increasingly devolved money to schools to decide on their own purchasing. Institute curriculum materials and education programmes are highly valued, but other Government Departments do not contribute to running costs.

Then there is the building itself. Those with the appropriate powers decreed that its special architectural merits--I understand it was a forerunner for the Sydney opera house--made it of outstanding architectural importance. It was listed as a grade 2 starred building and, in practice, that means that it can be altered in any way only with the greatest difficulty. Whatever views are held on the design, the requirement for money to maintain the roof--a novel and spectacular design, certainly in the 1960s--and other features in the building, has come back year after year to haunt us.

Against that background, the Government decided in the mid-1980s to find a way to inject new money into the institute. Initially, an ambitious plan to develop the site commercially was investigated. It looked promising, but the decline in London property values in the late 1980s put paid to it. In 1992, we asked Lord Armstrong, now the vice-chairman of the institute, to report on how the institute's future could best be secured. Essentially, he concluded that the worst option would be to allow the institute to wither on the vine. Visitor numbers have been declining. The building was deteriorating. The exhibition galleries were becoming outmoded. Running costs were high in relation to the work that the institute did. After considering Lord Armstrong's report, the Government decided that the institute should be given two years to find commercial private sponsorship. If that was not forthcoming, the Government concluded, reluctantly, that their own funding for the institute should cease and the building be put to another use.