§ LORD STRABOLGIMy Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
§ [The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government how they reconcile:—
- (a) The Statement made in the House of Commons on October 27,1970, by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that "we shall introduce charges for admission to the National Museums and Galleries"; and
- (b) The Statement made in the House of Lords on December 16,1970, by the Paymaster General that "anyone who has had anything to do with financial legislation will realise that this is a case where consultation was not possible"; with
- (c) The Statement made in the House of Lords on May 26,1971, by the Paymaster General that "We do not intend to impose charges on any museum; and
- (d) The Statement made in the House of Commons on June 21, by the Secretary of State for Education and Science in reply to the question whether instructions are being issued, regardless of their wishes, to the Trustees of the National Institutions to impose charges, "That is quite clear, the Government require charges to be made ".]
§ THE PAYMASTER GENERAL (VISCOUNT ECCLES)My Lords, it is important to distinguish between the legal powers of the national museums and gal- 418 leries and Government policy. It is Government policy that there should be entrance charges. Detailed arrangements for instituting these charges are now being discussed with all the authorities concerned, and it is expected that charges will be brought in on Monday, January 3,1972. This decision formed part of the new financial policies for public expenditure announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer last October, and on which there could not have been prior consultation. The legal side of the matter concerns the powers of four institutions to charge the public. As was made clear in Cmnd. 4676, legislation will be introduced to enable the Trustees of the British Museum, the British Museum (Natural History), the National Museum of Antiquities of Scotland and the National Galleries of Scotland to charge. Their powers must be proof against challenge. The law is not otherwise involved. Therefore, as I said last May, we do not intend to impose charges by Statute, but to make certain that four of the national institutions, whose powers are doubtful now, do have power to charge.
The Government have told the National Gallery and the Tate Gallery, and all the other national institutions, that we expect them to raise a total of £ 1 million from entrance charges in a full year. We are confident that the institutions will accept this request as part of the general policy of the Government, who provide the money for both the rising current expenditure and the larger capital requirements authorised in the White Paper.
§ LORD STRABOLGIMy Lords, I thank the noble Viscount, the Paymaster General, for that very long and detailed reply, and I should like to ask him two supplementary questions. First, does he think that these charges are a form of taxation, in which case should they not be backed up by fiscal legislation; or does he think they are not taxation? If they are not taxation, would he not agree that the Trustees of the National Gallery and the Tate Gallery should have a free hand to introduce the charges in any way they think fit, with the number of days on which there should be a charge to be decided by them as well as the amount to be raised, and that they should be able 419 to keep the monies concerned for the benefit of their galleries?
§ VISCOUNT ECCLESMy Lords, I am sorry, but the answer to those two questions will be rather long. The whole body of the public are taxed to pay the costs of maintaining museums. Each visit now costs more than £ 1, and the proposed 10p is a contribution required of the user towards the £ 1 cost of his visit. This is not a tax but a charge, as has always been recognised in the many other cases where charges are made. That is the common sense of the matter. But it may be that noble Lords opposite are resting their assertion that this is a tax on the methods by which the money reaches the Exchequer. So far as I can understand, that is their case. May I therefore explain to them how we propose to proceed?
We shall make an estimate of the yield of the charge for each institution. If the estimate is not reached, there might have to be a supplementary estimate for additional grant. If the estimate is exceeded, the surplus will be treated as extra Exchequer receipts in accordance with the Public Accounts and Charges Act 1891, which empowers the Treasury to direct by Minute laid before Parliament that any money in the nature of an extra receipt should be applied as an appropriation in aid. In 1892 the Treasury laid such Minutes in relation to the British Museum, the National and Tate Galleries, the British Museum (Natural History), the Victoria and Albert and certain Scottish institutions. In 1922 and 1955 Minutes were laid for the Imperial War Museum and the National Museum of Antiquities of Scotland, respectively. There is therefore no question that this can be classified as a tax. The second point raised by the noble Lord arises out of his next Question to the House, and perhaps I might leave the reply until we reach that Question, which asks whether the National and Tate Galleries are free to charge or not.
§ LORD COTTESLOEMy Lords, may I ask a supplementary question which I do not think was clarified in the Paymaster General's long and rather complex answer? Will the bodies of Trustees who are required to impose charges he able to provide for a free day during the week, as is the general practice where 420 admission charges are imposed on the Continent?
§ ViscouNT ECCLESMy Lords, we have discussed this matter, and we find that by standing by the basic entrance charge of only 10p for 10 months out of the year and 20p in the two months at the height of the tourist season we can just raise the £ 1 million. If there were a free day, it is certain that the basic charge would have to be more than 10p. I do not think that anybody wants that. Further, there are certain difficulties about free days owing to the numbers of people, which might make going to the museum highly uncomfortable.
§ BARONESS LEE or ASHERIDGEMy Lords, I agree that if we had this idea of a free day we should have the Italian situation, in which the natives who could not afford the charges were crowding in. I appreciate the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Cottesloe, in this matter. I should like to ask a further question. Has the Minister worked out the cost of installing turnstiles and of the extra staff required? Is he also aware that he is going against the wishes of the majority of his Trustees and of the entire trade union and Labour movement; and that he is encouraging all this ill-feeling and expense for a matter of two or three years at the very most?—because we on this side are totally opposed to what he is doing. Nobody can be sure about the future in politics; but in terms of politics would he not consider that he is doing himself a grave disservice in enforcing these charges against practically all civilised opinion, particularly as the charges are not going to last more than a year or two?
§ VISCOUNT ECCLESMy Lords, we have worked out the cost of the introduction and of the operating of the charges as well as we can, and provided that it is as we think, not more than 10 per cent. of the total gross take, we shall reach our £ 1 million a year net on the scale of the charges that we have communicated to the museums.
On the second question, of course I realise that many Trustees do not like the charges; but, after all, this is part of a very large picture in which I am trying to secure, with some success already, considerably larger sums of money for the museums, and the charges are to be seen 421 by the Trustees as part of this general picture.
§ Lox!) GARDINERMy Lords, may I ask whether or not as a matter of accountancy the money is in the first instance paid into the Consolidated Fund, and is it not a fact that on the only occasion on which the Trustees of the National Gallery have so far imposed charges they had the benefit of the money for the good of their own collection? Secondly, is it not a fact that when, in 1924, at the request of the Treasury they were asked to cease those charges they made it plain that they would only agree to do so if the Treasury made up to them the amount they would lose; and that the Treasury did make up to them the amount they lost by stopping the charges?
§ VISCOUNT ECCLESMy Lords, I think the answer is that the Vote for these museums and the National Gallery, I suppose in particular, is bound to go up very much on account of rising costs. The yield of the charges will go a little way, but by no means the whole way, to make up for the additional vote that I am certain they will ask for.
§ LORD SLATERMy Lords, in view of the reply that the Minister gave my noble friend on the Question that he has tabled, will he agree that this in itself is an indirect form of double taxation against individuals who seek to use these galleries and museums? Are the Government not overlooking the fact that a high percentage of people travel with their families from the Provinces into London with the object of visiting the Tate Gallery and other museums? They pay taxes. Taxation contributes part of the money that is expended through the Government towards the upkeep of these galleries and museums, and yet these visitors have to pay extra when they come to London to make these visits. Does not the Minister think it high time that the Government should look again at this matter?
§ VISCOUNT ECCLESMy Lords, surely there are many cases in the social services where the service is paid for by the taxpayers as a whole but where there is a charge on the user at the time of use. There are, for example, prescription and other similar charges. This is simply a question where, when a visit costs £ 1, it should not be considered unreasonable 422 to ask the public to pay something like one-eighteenth of that cost. There is no really new principle involved here.
§ BARONESS LEE OF ASHERIDGEMy Lords, may I ask whether the same principle should apply to education'? We all pay taxes for schools; and I hope that we are all glad to do so whether we have children or not. Are we to ask the families who have children attending school to send those children to the school with a sum of money'? Many of us take the civilised view that our museums and galleries are an essential and important part of schooling and the educational system.
§ VISCOUNT ECCLESMy Lords, I did not quite catch what the noble Baroness said. If children come as a school party they come free. They pay 5p if they come in on their own. I think myself that that is not unreasonable. I spent yesterday afternoon in the British Museum having a good look at this. I do not think it unreasonable.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDSMy Lords, would not the noble Viscount agree that in the course of his education he learned more when he went on his own than when he went as a member of a school party?
§ VISCOUNT ECCLESMy Lords, I do not know about that.
§ BARONESS LEE OF ASHERIDGEThe answer is, No.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (EARL JELLICOE)My Lords, we have debated this matter in the past and I am quite certain that we shall wish to debate it in the future. There is in fact another Question down in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, on which no doubt there may be a mini-debate. Since it is now eleven minutes to three I hope that your Lordships may feel inclined to move on to the next Question.