| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
'Where he is satisfied that the objectives set out in paragraphs (a) to (c) of subsection (2) of this section are met,'.
The Chairman: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government new clause 4--Grants for preservation of Royal Naval College site.
Mr. Raynsford: Clause 27 governs the use of the site currently occupied by the royal naval college in Greenwich. As hon. Members know, the subject has been raised in the House on several occasions during the past year or so.
Last summer, the Government decided to put this magnificent complex of buildings on the market following their decision to close the college. The subsequent appearance of some of the country's finest architectural masterpieces in the pages of an estate agent's catalogue rightly provoked a national outcry. It says a great deal for the curious values of the present Government that they could ever have felt it appropriate to flog off such an important part of our national heritage in that way. Fortunately, common sense has finally prevailed: even the Secretary of State for Defence now seems to recognise that this was a privatisation too far. For that reason, we are now considering a clause that has undergone a substantial transformation since it was first debated on Second Reading in December.
That transformation owes a great deal to two main influences. First, there was the weight of public opinion in Greenwich and throughout the country--public opinion that was outraged at the Government's treatment of some of our country's finest buildings, and the risk of their falling into unsuitable hands. Secondly, there was the timely intervention of members of the Select Committee, who visited Greenwich not just once but twice to look around the college complex and take evidence on site. As the Committee's report makes clear, they were convinced that the Bill as originally drafted failed to provide adequate guarantees as to the future occupancy or uses of the site.
The Bill has now been amended. Clause 27(2) requires the Secretary of State to have regard to three main concerns. First, he must have regard to
on the site, and of maintaining its "architectural integrity". Secondly, he must have regard to
Thirdly, he must have regard to
that is "out of keeping" with the "unique character and history" of the site.
So far so good. Those are important safeguards that were not previously in the Bill, and they represent a major step forward as well as a triumph for common sense. Clause 27(3), however, remains unaltered. It allows the Secretary of State to grant a lease on any or all the Greenwich buildings for a period of up to 150 years to
any person whom he considers suitable. There is no link between the provisions in subsection (3)--which, in effect, prompted the public outcry--and the new subsection that introduces the safeguards to which I referred.
The purpose of my amendment is simple--to establish a clear link between the Secretary of State's obligation to have regard to those wider national and heritage issues and interests, and his power to grant a lease. The amendment makes it a precondition of the grant of any lease for the Secretary of State to be satisfied that the objectives set out in subsection (2) have been met. It means that, before granting a lease, he will have to be convinced that the outcome will be the preservation of the historic buildings and architectural integrity of the site, the maintenance of reasonable public access and the prevention of any inappropriate use.
I hope that the Government will accept the amendment. It is clearly in keeping with their own current intentions, now that they have backed away from their ill-conceived attempt to dispose of the buildings on the open market. Subsection (2) is a clear reflection of their admission that the previous approach was wrong, and that there must now be explicit safeguards in the Bill to protect this incomparable site.
While we hear the assurances that the Government have been giving, Ministers cannot be surprised if we remain a little sceptical, given their previous record. We welcome the inclusion of subsection (2), but many hon. Members will want to be absolutely sure that the criteria spelled out in that subsection are effective. That is the purpose of the amendment. Without it, there can be no absolute guarantee that,having had regard to those criteria, the current Secretary of State--or, indeed, any future Secretary of State--will not subsequently offer the buildings on a 150-year lease to an organisation that does not entirely satisfy the objectives set out in subsection (2).
I am not saying that that is what the Government currently intend to do. I understand that negotiations are proceeding with the university of Greenwich and the national maritime museum, both of which are widely recognised as appropriate and suitable users of the site. I hope that those negotiations bear fruit. Having said that, I must add that we are considering legislation that could remain on the statute book for 100 year or more. The legislation that the Bill replaces dates back to 1869, and what we are considering this afternoon could well remain in force for a similar or longer period.
We cannot anticipate the circumstances that may arise at a future date, when the national maritime museum or, indeed, the university of Greenwich may have moved to pastures new. In such circumstances, without the link that my amendment seeks to introduce, it would still be open to a future Secretary of State to grant a lease to another organisation that did not entirely satisfy the criteria in subsection (2).
In that event, the Secretary of State could plead that, having had regard to the criteria, he had nevertheless concluded that the lease that he proposed to grant was the best that he could envisage in the circumstances, even if it did not satisfy those criteria. Future generations will not thank us if we leave any opportunity open for such an outcome, which could involve these magnificent buildings passing into hands that are not appropriate or suitable.
The experience of the past few months should surely have taught the Government a salutary lesson--that we cannot and must not allow the possibility of some of our country's most magnificent buildings ever again to be offered for sale in an estate agent's catalogue.
Mr. Key:
The Select Committee on Defence looked at this matter in great detail, and when we visited Greenwich we were convinced that we should press the Ministry of Defence. I understand the hon. Gentleman's cause and I appreciate the way that he has put it, but I am convinced that his amendment is unnecessary. The Government amendments went considerably further than I and other members of the Select Committee had hoped for in our wildest dreams. It was good to see the Government responding so swiftly.
The hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford) went rather over the top, because the college was never offered for sale: it was a lease that was on offer. That matters, and I do not want the hon. Gentleman to get away with promoting the idea that the Government ever sought to sell the freehold of those buildings. I had some responsibility for our heritage while I was in the Department of National Heritage, and from my experience I can say that the solution is good. I am confident and the people of Greenwich can be confident about that.
I pay tribute to the Minister and to the Secretary of State for Defence who took a great personal interest in this matter. Of course lessons have been learnt: the Minister said that in Committee. I hope that we can put this episode behind us and move forward to ensure that a proper and fitting use is found for those wonderful world heritage site buildings.
Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood):
I support the amendment. The hon. Member for Greenwich(Mr. Raynsford) has campaigned to preserve the royal naval college and related buildings for the nation, and deserves to be widely applauded in Parliament, in London and throughout the country. The royal naval college is an incomparable part of our nation's maritime history and naval traditions, and I am pleased at the drafting of clause 27. However, the strict stipulations that the amendment seeks to introduce are necessary and wise. Clause 27(3) states:
Potentially, that is a long term and "appearing . . . to be suitable" is not the kind of strictly defined criterion that should be demanded for the preservation of the nation's maritime history or of buildings of this kind.
I welcome the interesting new clause, in that it makes possible the granting of moneys from Parliament for the repair and maintenance of the land and buildings on the royal naval college site. I hope that that will make it possible for an appropriate educational function to be fulfilled. My desire has always been for a tri-service cadet college at Greenwich in that fine historic setting. There is an educational tradition at the college, first, as a staff college for the Royal Navy and then as a successor to the former joint services staff college at Latimer.
"the importance of preserving for the benefit of the nation the historic buildings and monuments"
"the desirability of securing reasonable public access".
"the desirability of preventing any use"
"It shall be lawful for the Secretary of State to grant a lease of any of the land to which this section applies, with its appurtenances, to any person appearing to him to be suitable for a term not exceeding 150 years."
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |