|Back to Table of Contents
|Lords Hansard Home Page
The Government are open to representations on the particular items planned for sale next week. I can assure the House that any representations, particularly including views which noble Lords may want to express this afternoon, will be considered carefully, sympathetically and quickly.
Lord Freyberg: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. I am disappointed that the Government are willing to see such items being lost to the nation. I urge the Government to reconsider and re-examine their policy with regard to works of art held in government departments.
The DCMS recently managed to get an exemption for items that are in its department. Could that be extended to other departments? Furthermore, can the Government re-examine the way that the Treasury looks at the matter?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the offer that I made of the Treasury listening to representations applies specifically to the items which are in Bonham & Brooks' catalogue for sale next Tuesday. The noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, will find the Treasury less sympathetic to a general review of the policy on disposal of assets.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, in the 1990s the items which had been held as part of the civil estate by property holding were divided between departments. I do not know whether the figure of 1,000 quoted by my noble friend Lord Strabolgi is correct. It is certainly true that there are substantial assets which have been allocated to the Treasury and to other departments of state as a result of this policy.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, is the Minister aware that a few years ago when Liverpool City Council planned to sell some of that city's silver from its splendid collection, the National Museums and Galleries on Merseyside made a good case for acquiring it for the purposes of local heritage interest. It occurs to me that in this particular case the Government may consider creating, setting up or building a museum of parliamentary heritage, in which not only this Privy Council silver and the other hundreds of exhibits to which the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, referred could be exhibited, but also the public could be reminded of the significance and historic value of your Lordships' House before the recent reforms.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I shall leave aside the last few words of the Question of the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper. The noble Baroness makes a valuable and helpful suggestion. Unfortunately, from the present point of view, it is something that would take a considerable time. The offer that I made--I make it in the hope that museums and galleries all around the country will look at these items--is that someone should make a proposition to the Treasury quickly before next Tuesday.
Viscount Falkland: My Lords, in the Minister's earlier reply one could be excused for thinking that the criteria for disposing of assets of this kind was purely on their predicted value in the sale room. The noble Lord will be as familiar as I am with them. I was at Bonhams this morning and looked closely at the catalogue. Unfortunately, the items are not available to see before next Tuesday's sale until tomorrow. The collection of silver is an interesting and charming one. Some of the items in the catalogue are at a relatively low level of cost, some even between £500 and £700. But they all have a historical resonance. Will the Minister agree that, when one has a number of items which were commissioned either by governments or by monarchs, some of them for the Privy Council and so on, there is an argument that--low value though some of those items may be--they represent an interesting part of Britain's history? One has a slight fear, from
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, in my original Answer I referred to historical and heritage value; I did not refer to the price at all. So I do not think that the noble Viscount should get that idea. I have also looked at the catalogue. They appear to me to be not only charming items--as the noble Viscount says--but also, if one looks at the inscriptions on them and their provenance, of considerable historical and heritage significance.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, can the Minister tell us why this generous offer--so to speak--is made but four days before the sale? If the Treasury is taking the matter seriously, surely it should have been publicised weeks before this auction. My second point is a rather modest question. Those of us who have sat, or are sitting, in the Privy Council will be aware of the magnificent 18th century inkstands in the Privy Council room. Are they to be included in the sale?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the items to which I referred in my first Answer that are not being sold include inkstands and candlesticks. Those are probably the ones to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, refers. As a member of the Privy Council, the noble and learned Lord has standing in this matter and is entitled to make representations. The question arises today because the matter was put down by the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, as a topical Question for the day.
Lord Renton: My Lords, if the Government are determined, as the noble Lord has said, to sell the Privy Council silver collection, should not the right of first refusal be given to members of the Privy Council?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, as I am not a member of the Privy Council, I am not consulted on such matters. Indeed, I do not think that I ought to be hearing what is being said by the noble Lord, Lord Renton. As I have said, I believe that members of the Privy Council have a standing--a locus, should I say?--in this matter.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the view I expressed was an aesthetic opinion. The political views I express are those of the Treasury. The most important items are as follows: James II silver snuffers and tray dating from 1685; William and Mary silver snuffers and tray from 1693; and a matched pair of silver snuffers from 1685.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the difference between this House and a harbour is that, in a harbour, anyone sailing a ship has to wait for the tide to come in before the ship can be brought over the bar. In this House, one has to wait for the tide to go out to the Bar before one can put any business before the House. I am moved to entertain noble Lords in a similar fashion for a moment or two longer in order that the substance of what I have to say should not be lost in the movement of those not concerned with its content.
In moving Amendment No. 1, I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 2, which is grouped with it. I am deeply obliged to the Chief Whip for his guidance in this matter, which should not have been necessary. Amendment No. 2 is the substantive amendment, the effects of which I shall remind your Lordships in a moment. Before I do so, I should tell the House that my noble friend Lady Cox, in whose name Amendment No. 2 is tabled, has to be away from Westminster at a time which may fall before the House decides what should be done with the amendment. Because only the mover of an amendment has a right to reply to the debate, my noble friend has asked me to move the amendment and it is my privilege so to do. I cannot pretend to speak with anything like the authority of my noble friend on this or any other humanitarian matter, but I shall attempt clearly to put the issues before noble Lords. Before my noble friend leaves the Chamber, she will tell noble Lords whether I have got them right.
The situation is this. The Bill before the House seeks to confer on the Secretary of State the power to give development assistance to institutions and governments outside this country. In the past that assistance has consisted, and will in the future consist, of very substantial amounts of money, as well as other forms of aid. Therefore it is a matter on which both Parliament as a whole and the taxpayers of this country have a legitimate interest. The effect of Amendment No. 2 would be to deprive the Secretary of State of the power to give aid to certain organisations; namely, those which use coercive methods to achieve policies of population limitation.
In the past and, under the Bill as drafted, in the future, money and aid could be given to a large number of bodies. Among those are the International Planned Parenthood Federation and the United Nations Population Fund. The amount which in recent years has been given fairly regularly to the Planned Parenthood Association is £5 million per year. In the calendar year 1999, that aid amounted to £5,883,000. When she joins the debate, the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Amos, will be able to confirm that in her reply.