| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I know that everyone who has spoken is motivated by a genuine desire for improvement in Northern Ireland, and I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, as always. He took the view, which I entirely respect, that a Thursday morning with a small House is not the moment to test the opinion of the House. He was scrupulous in discussing this with me before we began.
I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, for what he said about Dr Reid. On his visit to the United States he made the important point that if there is to be financial and other assistance from the United States community it ought to go evenhandedly also to the Protestant sections of the Northern Ireland population. It seems to me—and I do not say this because I am a Member of the same Government—that he is showing himself, as every week passes, to be a very considerable Secretary of State indeed.
I am grateful for the scrupulous support of the Liberal Democrats, as always in the context of Northern Ireland, and I am grateful for the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton. The noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth, has referred on a number of occasions to those who are sent away from their homes. She never exaggerates the problem and, without commitment, I shall look again in detail at what she said.
The noble Lords, Lord Fitt and Lord Brooke, have recent facts behind them. The citation given by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, is quite right: 331 people were the victims of paramilitary shootings and assaults
in 2001; 17 persons were murdered. There were 344 bombings and 350 shootings. Of course it is not right to say that the authorities are powerless. Later this morning I shall ask your Lordships to extend the additional powers in the context of Northern Ireland which are required for a further year. In the context of what was said by the noble Lords, Lord Brooke and Lord Fitt, 635 people were arrested in 2001 either for terrorist activity or serious public disorder offences. I do not think that it is right for me not to include those figures in a tribute to the continuing work of the police service in Northern Ireland.The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, is quite right. What this Bill does is to extend what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, called, attractively and accurately, the possessory immunity provisions for one year. It extends the provisions for one year, and there is the possibility—but no more—of further extensions, subject to the annual positive approval of this House. Therefore the difference between us is whether or not a possible further series of extensions should run for two years or for five years. For the reasons already set out by the noble Lords, Lord Smith of Clifton and Lord Dubs, I think that five years is appropriate.
That does not mean that there is no obligation on people to surrender arms before that. Indeed, if anyone is arrested in possession of arms in Northern Ireland, as in any other part of the United Kingdom, and they are not able to bring themselves within this possessory immunity, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, called it, they are committing criminal offences and are liable to be charged, are capable of being charged, and are charged with serious offences.
I appreciate that the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, does not wish to put the matter to the vote on this occasion although he may well revert to that when we meet on Third Reading. I believe that we are right to set this five-year period. As the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, said, that was the letter of the law on the first scheme and it is suitable—though perhaps regrettable—as an aspect of this further extension.
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have joined in this debate again. I believe that it is right for us to continue to pressurise Her Majesty's Government to do all they can to attain decommissioning, and there are different ways of doing that. I thank the noble and learned Lord the Lord Privy Seal for his reasoned and careful response, and I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Contracting Out (Functions in relation to Apsley House) Order 2002
12.38 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 23rd January be approved [17th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, we are here to debate whether the functions now vested in the Secretary of State under certain sections of the 1947 Wellington Museum Act may be exercised on her behalf. I am satisfied that the draft order now before your Lordships is compatible with convention rights.
There are two functions which under these proposals would be contracted out. The first concerns the maintenance and use of part of Apsley House as a museum, commemorating the first Duke of Wellington and his time. The museum may be used for government entertainment or, with the consent of the Duke, for other public purposes. The second is about the maintenance of the fabric of the house.
The responsibility for the running of the museum has been carried out since 1947 by the Victoria and Albert Museum. Responsibility for the fabric has rested with the DCMS and its predecessors. Your Lordships may appreciate being reminded of the historical background to these proposals. Apsley House was given to the Government by the seventh Duke of Wellington, the father of the current Duke, in 1947. Under the terms of the Wellington Museum Act, the Duke and his family retain rights to live in the private apartments of the house and the Duke retains rights to give his consent to events held in the public rooms. We do not propose that any of those rights held by the family should be changed by the current proposals, but we have reached the conclusion that it no longer makes practical sense to have separate management arrangements for such functions. We have decided that the time has come for unification.
Over the years, the department and its predecessors have been competent stewards of the historic fabric. There has been considerable government investment to ensure that this Grade I listed building remains in good shape. In addition to the day-to-day maintenance, a considerable programme of capital work has been funded. Last year more than £200,000 was spent in a thorough overhaul of the east wing roof. My department has also programmed over £700,000 for future work to the Waterloo and central roofs. Any new body will be funded to continue those works.
Apsley House is an important part of the landmark buildings at Hyde Park Corner and fully complements the now refurbished Wellington Arch directly opposite. But Apsley House is the last historic property for which we retain responsibility. The decision was taken as part of the far-reaching comprehensive spending review in 1998 to withdraw from other responsibilities of that kind, such as Marble Arch and Trafalgar Square. It is inefficient to retain specialist contractors for just one property.
Over the years the V & A has done an excellent job. Under its management the Wellington Museum won the Small Attraction of the Year award in 2001. The total number of visitors increased by 37 per cent between 1998-99 and 2000-01 to around 60,000 people. The director of the V & A has said that running an historic house is not a priority for the V & A at present. A change in management of the Wellington Museum, therefore, provides an opportunity for a new focus and direction.
One particularly noteworthy innovation from the V & A that we intend should remain is the emphasis on education. The education programme at the Wellington Museum ranged from formal learning for children and higher and further education students to informal programmes for children, adults and families. Especially popular are the workshops for schoolchildren that have been developed to be uniquely suited to Apsley House and the Wellington Museum, such as the Downstairs Diary, a living history programme of servant life in the Victorian age.
The informal programme includes events such as specialist talks, relating directly to the Duke of Wellington, his life, his times, his magnificent collection, story-telling and art activities for children, and family learning weekends organised in conjunction with the Westminster adult education service, which have attracted an ethnically diverse group of families from north Westminster. We would expect any new management to build on that and that that will be a condition of any contract.
We shall also require the new management to retain the principle of free admission to the museum for children. However, the proposal is that the Wellington Museum should not be classified as a national museum under the new arrangement. Therefore, we shall not require the full range of free access policies to apply. The new operator must have scope to decide on the charging policy if that makes overall operational and business sense. That has been the case in other operations where the Government have put in an independent operator in charge of historic properties; for example, at Somerset House and at the Royal Naval College at Greenwich.
Overall, we would expect the existing visitor experience at least to be maintained, and if possible, enhanced. One possibility is that the new management could establish a relationship with the Wellesley family that would allow more artefacts associated with the life of the first Duke to be exhibited. At present, there is much material at Stratfield Saye in Hampshire that could find a much wider audience if it were made available in London. As we approach the 150th anniversary of the death of the first Duke, that is an exciting prospect.
We see considerable advantage in market-testing ideas for unified management of the building and the museum. The contracting out order now before your Lordships provides us with an opportunity to gauge just what that interest may be. Such interest may come from established heritage operations or from other quarters. We would expect to let a contract in the first instance for five years. The successful bidder would be funded by the department, initially at existing levels of investment, but we expect that a new operator will be able to generate other sources of support, perhaps through sponsorship and increased levels of corporate and other events in the museum.
On all fronts, we believe that the time is right for change. Of course, change is unsettling for many of those directly involved. It is fundamental to our thinking that the position of existing staff in the
Wellington Museum should be protected, whatever new management arrangements are put in place. Discussions have already begun between the department and the V & A. If your Lordships agree the proposal now before the House, we shall consult the staff and the unions together with potential bidders. Where staff transfer to the new management we shall follow the Cabinet Office statement of practice on staff transfers in the public sector so that the rights of those employed at the Wellington Museum will be fully protected.We see real gains all round from the proposal now before the House. The V & A will be relieved of a responsibility that no longer fits with its primary business purpose. The department will relinquish its direct responsibility. The visitor will suffer no reduction and may indeed stand to gain from a richer experience. I commend the order to the House.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 23rd January be approved [17th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Blackstone.)
12.47 p.m.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I support the making of the order, but I have some questions for the Minister. The order is so unspecific as to the implications of what will happen when it is passed, that although the Minister has given the House some information, I feel that it is important to ask the Government to put on the record details where it is reasonable to do so. As ever, my questions are thoroughly reasonable! They cover the following four issues: funding; the process of transfer to a new organisation; accountability post transfer; and access and exhibits.
On funding, I raise two matters: repairs and maintenance. The Minister has referred to the fact that last year more than £200,000 was spent on a thorough overhaul of the east wing roof and that the DCMS has programmed more than £700,000 for future works to the Waterloo and central roofs. She has given an assurance to the House that the Government will fund any new body to continue those works that have already been identified. That is most welcome.
What will happen if there is an over-run in the cost of those projected improvements? If the costs go up unexpectedly, who will bear the increase in those costs? If there is a dispute as to the cause of the over-run in the budget, who will act as the arbiter? In other words, who will pay?
On maintenance, can the Minister give the House an estimate of the current annual cost of day-to-day maintenance that she mentioned? She said that the Government will fund the successful bidder initially at existing levels of investment. How long does she mean by "initially"? Will that be for one year only, or will the period be longer than that? Will the funding that is transferred to the new managing body be deducted directly from the V & A budget?
I note that the Minister referred to the TUPE practice. I welcome her remarks in that regard. That practice will mean that the rights of those employed at
the Wellington Museum will be protected. I want to ask a question about pensions which I appreciate is technical. However, I was able to give the Minister somewhat limited advance notice this morning of these questions. Can she tell the House what the position will be with regard to pensions? I refer to those that are currently claimed by past employees of the museum—those who have already retired—and those that will be claimed in the future when existing employees retire once they have transferred to the new organisation? Will the new body be responsible for funding those pensions, or will they be paid by government?I pass to the second issue, which comes under the heading of process of transfer. The Minister referred to putting out the transfer to bidders. We hope, as the Government say, that there will be wide-ranging interest. How long does the Minister expect the market-testing process to take? We all wish the handover to be as painless as possible. Do the Government have a target date for the handover to the new managing body?
Last December, I tabled a Written Question on the order. In her Answer, the Minister said that the Government expected that expressions of interest would be sought through an advertisement and that tenders would then be invited. On 6th February, when the order was considered in another place, Dr Howells, the Minister there, seemed to think that a number of bidders were already in the wings, waiting to take centre stage. Is that the case? Have the Government to date received any informal indications of any person or organisation who may be prepared to enter the bidding process? If so, can the Minister say who they are? What plans have the Government made to judge which tender should be accepted, if there is more than one, and if there is only one, whether it is acceptable? What principles will guide their decision?
Does the Minister agree that the people who may best understand the collection—including the parts that have not yet been exhibited—include members of the family? Will the family be involved in the running of the organisation that will take over the management of Apsley House and the Wellington Museum?
I turn to the issue of accountability after the handover to the new organisation. What kind of accountability will follow that transfer? To whom will the managing body be accountable and how will that accountability be exercised? The Minister said that the contract is expected to last for five years in the first instance. I hope that this would never happen, but if the Government were by any stretch of the imagination to be dissatisfied with the management of the museum and Apsley House, could that contract be terminated before the end of five years, or is there any other practical step that the Government could take if they felt that the arrangement was simply not working?
Finally, I turn to the issue of access and exhibits. The matters that I have covered so far are of importance to public finance and accountability, but so far as the general public are concerned, the real test of success of the change to be brought about under the order is simple: when they visit the museum, they want an even
better experience than they currently have. I recently visited Apsley House as a paying member of the public and thoroughly enjoyed my visit. I can well understand why it won the London Tourist Board's attraction of the year award last year.
I welcome the Minister's remark about the continuation of the valuable education programme—that it should be a condition of the contract of the new managing body to build on that experience. I also welcome her pragmatic comments about free access. I appreciate her making clear that we should leave those who know best—in this case, the new operators—to get on with making commonsense decisions about where free access should be available and where charging might be appropriate. I am delighted that the noble Baroness was able to build on the remarks about access and exhibits made by the Minister in another place. In so doing, she has made it easier for the House to agree to the order.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page