| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Dr. Reid: I should like to raise two matters. First, the Government have nearly got it right, and they have done so by that most unusual of expedients in the Ministry of Defence--consulting and listening to people. That process has extended to the Armed Forces Bill and threatens to overcome the Ministry of Defence, a Department that I have never seen as being in the vanguard of open government. The Minister has taken to it with the zeal of a convert, and long may it continue.
Secondly, the achievement of the safeguards that are required to preserve the Royal Naval college for the nation is much to the credit of all parties, many hon. Members, not least my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford). It would be the icing on the cake if, as hon. Members have said, the Minister accepted the amendment or gave assurances that substantially give effect to its spirit, because that would save a Division.
The criteria to which the Secretary of State must have regard under clause 27(2) are architectural integrity, public access and the history and heritage of the building. They must be the necessary prerequisites when he is considering the use of the powers that are vested in him under subsection (3), which contains the power to sell or lease the land for an extended period. If he agreed to do that expeditiously it would save much time, we would not need to divide on the amendment, and we would have one
of those rare occasions on which hon. Members could go away happy and ready to praise not just a Minister, but a Minister in the Ministry of Defence.
Mr. Soames:
The speech by the hon. Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid) was almost seductive and I had to think hard to resist his blandishments.
I shall try to deal with the issues that have been raised. As the Committee knows, the clause will allow the Secretary of State to grant a lease to a non-Government body in respect of the royal naval college, Greenwich. Section 7 of the Greenwich Hospital Act 1869 restricts the use of college buildings to occupation by the Royal Navy, Government Departments, or organisations that are associated with seafaring.
The clause was extensively amended by the Select Committee, to whose members I pay tribute for their admirable work, and by Government amendments that were tabled there. The principal amendment was intended to ensure that there should be appropriate acknowledgement in the Bill of the interests and considerations to which the Secretary of State in his capacity as trustee of Greenwich hospital should have regard in reaching a decision on a lease in respect of the royal naval college. Those include maintaining the absolute architectural integrity of the site, preserving it for the nation's benefit, the desirability of public access and ensuring suitable use of the site. For those reasons, much of what the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford) said was ungracious and unfair.
Other important amendments added more detailed provision in relation to sub-leases because of the proposal to grant the head lease of the royal naval college to a trust, which would, in its turn, grant sub-leases or licences to others. Thus, it is made clear that only the Secretary of State can authorise the granting of the sub-lease or assignment of the lease on terms that he has agreed.
It is important to remember that the Secretary of State is holding the land for the benefit of a charity: Greenwich hospital. It would be unfair to that charity if he could determine future occupation without having regard to the charity's interests. As amended by the Select Committee, the clause seeks to achieve a proper balance between the charity's private interests, which the Secretary of State, as trustee, must seek to safeguard, and the wider public interest.
I turn to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson). His idea of a tri-service college is interesting. As he knows, Greenwich simply does not have the capacity to accommodate the tri-service college as it forms up, but I was interested in his proposal and I would be grateful if he would send me more details of his scheme, although we would not be able to do it at Greenwich.
Sir Michael Grylls (North-West Surrey):
As my hon. Friend has raised the question of the tri-service college in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson), will he think again about the proposal temporarily to coelocate the staff college to Bracknell? The information that I have is that the staff college in Camberley in my constituency is concerned about that and that Bracknell will be an unattractive temporary solution. I realise that something must be done while the main new tri-service college is
Mr. Soames:
No, I will not reconsider. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the matter with me--he has already done so by letter--but the tri-service staff college will form up initially at Bracknell. It may not be as smart as it has been and for a couple of years it may not be as comfortable, but the reason why so many of our foreign friends choose to come to the staff college of all three services and the tri-service staff college is not because of the beautiful surroundings, but because the training is undoubtedly the best in the world. The tri-service staff college will continue that formidable record of training. I am familiar with the views of the people at the staff college at Camberley. Those were not the views that were presented to me when I was there last week.
Mr. Wilkinson:
May I make it absolutely clear to my hon. Friend that I am not harping back to the dispute, or the argument, about staff college training, but referring specifically to the possibility of a tri-service officer cadet college at Greenwich--perhaps operated in co-operation with the university of Greenwich--in relation to the use of those fine buildings for an educational purpose, especially as the professional training at the three individual service academies of Cranwell, Sandhurst and Dartmouth is so truncated that officer cadets do not receive enough grounding in the basic disciplines and military sciences that are required for a long-term career?
Mr. Soames:
I was aware of what my hon. Friend was suggesting and that there is no suggestion that we can do that at Greenwich, but I was saying that it is an interesting proposition that has not been advanced before. I would be happy if he would let me have details of his idea and I will consider whether I can take it forward.
I am grateful for the comments by my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) whose knowledge of this matter cannot be gainsaid and who had considerable experience of and responsibility for part of the national heritage when he was Minister. It is right that there is a proper debate on Greenwich; such a debate was needed. After all, as the hon. Member for Greenwich rightly says and as we all agree--no one disagrees--the collection of buildings there is one of, if not the most, important in the United Kingdom.
I am surprised that the hon. Member for Greenwich is so sceptical, but I suppose that his commercial snobbery is getting the better of him. He is unkind to poorMr. Rutley. I am also surprised that the hon. Gentleman is sceptical as he said, halfway through his speech, that he believes that the Government's approach is a triumph of common sense, with which I entirely agree.
I sympathise with the concerns that the hon. Gentleman is expressing in the amendment. We took considerable care to table in the Select Committee an amendment that is now included in clause 27, which ensures that, as far as possible, the wider interests of heritage and access are reflected in future decisions on the Royal Naval college.
It is important to remember that the Secretary of State is holding the land as trustee. The clause seeks to achieve a proper balance between the private interests of a charity,
which the Secretary of State must seek to safeguard, and the wider public interest. It lists considerations to which he must have regard in exercising discretion, but they cannot be conditions to be satisfied as the amendment seeks.
Mr. Raynsford:
I am disappointed with the Minister's response, which revealed a characteristic inability to grapple with the key issue: although the safeguards are spelled out in clause 27(2), there is no direct link between subsection(2) and the powers under subsection(3) to grant a lease. That is why we believe that the amendment is necessary.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) for his support for the amendment's principle. I regret that the Government do not recognise the need to do this. I trust that their assurances will be honoured. We will examine whether the particular commitments that have been given are met before any leases are granted. The other place may wish to reconsider the issue; it has certainly taken considerable interest in Greenwich's future. In order, however, to not detain the Committee further--hon. Members want to raise many other matters of concern--I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |