HL Deb 27 February 1973 vol 339 cc591-615

6.5 p.m.

THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR NORTHERN IRELAND (LORD WINDLESHAM) rose to move, That the Draft Museums (Northern Ireland) Order 1973, laid before the House on January 24 be approved. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move that the Museums (Northern Ireland) Order 1973, a draft of which was laid before Parliament on January 24, be approved.

The need for this Order, as for many others we have discussed recently, arises from the reorganisation of local government in Northern Ireland. The present position is that Northern Ireland has two national museums—the Ulster Museum and the Ulster Folk Museum—both of which are mainly financed by grants from the Ministry of Finance. Each, however, also receives grants from local authorities. The Ulster Museum is assisted by the Belfast Corporation and Londonderry Development Commission. After reorganisation later this year, the new district councils will only bear the cost of those functions for which they are directly responsible and it would have been unreasonable to expect them to contribute to the increasingly heavy burden of financing the two national museums. The Order therefore provides for the ending of these contributions at September 30, 1973. The district councils will, however, have powers to run local museums. There are already one or two local museums in Northern Ireland, one of which is of a particularly high standard—that is, the Armagh County Museum, which is financed by the Armagh County Council. Local interests fear that the cost of maintaining this at its present standard would be too great for the new Armagh District Council, when it comes into existence, and so this Order empowers Armagh County Council to transfer the County Museum to the Trustees of the Ulster Museum. The cost of the museum will consequently be met as part of the Government grant to the Ulster Museum. Discussions on the proposed transfer are already under way.

The shortfall in the income of the museums will be made good by an increase in Ministry grants. In the case of the Folk Museum there is at present an obstacle to this, as a statutory limit of £45,000 is placed on the grant. In practice, this limit has already proved too low and additional extra-statutory payments are already being given. The Order removes this limit, and also that of £70,000 on grant from the Ulster Land Fund at present at the level of 50 per cent., on the most of minor development at the Folk Museum. In future these grants will be 100 per cent. without any statutory maximum. These changes put the Folk Museum in the same position as the Ulster Museum.

In both museums, local authorities are represented on the Boards of Trustees and even though their financial contributions will cease we want to encourage them to maintain their links so far as possible. The opportunity has been taken, however, to revise the composition of the Boards. At the Ulster Museum, a Trustee will be nominated from the New University of Ulster (that is the new University at Coleraine) in parallel with the Trustee already nominated by the Queen's University of Belfast, while three persons appointed by the Council of the City of Belfast will join the nine nominations by the Minister, bringing the total to 14 in all. I might add that the Chairman of the Trustees of the Ulster Museum for the ten years between 1962 and 1972 was a Member of your Lordships' House—the noble Duke, the Duke of Abercorn. I think it would be right to put on Record the Government's appreciation of the very significant contribution the noble Duke made to the Museum in terms of great expansion and re-modelling. On the Ulster Folk Museum Board at the moment several associations of local authorities are represented. As these associations will disappear, provision is being made for the nomination of four trustees by the proposed association of the newly-formed district councils. In all, the Minister will appoint seven Trustees, the Council of the City of Belfast two and the two universities one each, giving a total of 15.

There are other changes in the Order. To indicate the scope of its interests, the Folk Museum will become the Ulster Folk and Transport Museum, while the Trustees will be able to lend moveable property for up to 12 months without the approval of the Ministry. The Order also provides power for the Trustees of the Ulster Museum to impose charges for admission. At present there are legal impediments to their doing so full-time. The Order not only removes these, but clarifies their right to charge. Admission charges are already made at the Folk Museum—at present 15p for adults, 5p for children; with pre-arranged groups at half-price.

The Order also provides that at April 1, 1973, responsibility for the grants to the museums, and also to Armagh Observatory (to be distinguished from the museum at Armagh), will transfer from the Ministry of Finance to the Ministry of Education. This was recommended by the Macrory Report and is in line with Great Britain where the Treasury handed over its responsibilities in this field to the Department of Education and Science some years ago.

In this brief introduction I have, inevitably I am afraid, had to concentrate on the organisation and financing of the two national museums in Northern Ireland. But I do not want to end without saying a few words about the contents and resources of these two splendid collections; both of which I have been able to visit for myself. The Ulster Museum is now a major regional museum, multidisciplinary in its approach, which compares well with any in the United Kingdom outside London. An ambitious expansion programme over the past decade has been completed which has had the effect of almost doubling the amount of display space. I am particularly pleased to see in his place the noble Lord, Lord O'Neill of the Maine, because I have heard what a very important part he played in this expansion programme, first as Minister of Finance in Northern Ireland, and latterly as the Prime Minister of the Northern Ireland Government. I believe that now the noble Lord has the pleasure of acting as President of the Friends of the Ulster Museum, so he has maintained his connection with the museum right up to the present time.

In addition to an architecturally distinguished new building opened as recently as last autumn, the greater part of the galleries in the original building have been renovated and remodelled at the same time. The director has a staff of about 130 people, and departments cover: antiquities; art, botany and zoology; geology; and technology and local history. The treasure from the Armada galleon, the "Girona", is now permanently on display at the museum.

The Ulster Folk Museum is much newer, although I understand that it, too, acknowledges its debt to the noble Lord, Lord O'Neill of the Maine. It dates back only about fifteen years, but in that time a superb site has been acquired at Cultra in County Down, and a highly original folk museum developed which takes the form of a composite picture of the social and cultural life of Ulster. A number of smaller representative buildings from different parts of the Province (such as farm houses, a weaver's cottage, a spade-maker's mill, a Blacksmith's forge, and so on) have been acquired and moved brick by brick in a most conscientious way to the Folk Museum where they have been restored to what they were in the past, in some cases even to the extent of having contemporary exponents of the old crafts of hand weaving, spade-making and forging iron work, actually working in the original buildings when transferred to their new site. These are backed up by exhibitions at Cultra Manor.

My Lords, I must not go on too long, although there is much more that could be said. Let me simply affirm that both museums are an admirable example of enterprise and artistic endeavour and, what is more, in a field that by broadening the knowledge and interests of those who visit the collections, or who benefit from the various educational activities carried out by both institutions, can only help to bridge the sectarian and cultural divide in Northern Ireland. I beg to move.

Moved, That the Draft Museums (Northern Ireland) Order 1973, laid before the House on January 24, approved.—(Lord Windlesham.)

6.15 p.m.

BARONESS LEE OF ASHERIDGE

My Lords, this ought to be an entirely happy occasion on which we need do little more than give our thanks to the noble Duke, the Duke of Abercorn, to the noble Lord, Lord O'Neill of the Maine, and a very distinguished company of Trustees who have obviously worked so hard and with such distinction in giving to poor, strife-torn Northern Ireland and, in particular, Belfast, something in the case of the Ulster Museum which is not only a treasure house but, situated as it is in the botanical gardens, a sanctuary. I was fascinated by the figures of attendance in the past few years, when the Ulster Museum was being so adventurously expanded. In 1969 the attendance figures were 66,400, and by 1972 they had risen to 185,200, almost a 300 per cent. increase. The big upward jump came after June 1971, when one of the main expansions was taking place.

I speak with the disadvantage that I have not had the privilege of seeing either of the two great museums that we are discussing. I know that the noble Lord has seen them very recently, and therefore I should have been only too happy if all that we were required to do from this side of the House was simply to congratulate everyone concerned, and he thankful that in the circumstances of Northern Ireland the flag of civilisation was still flying. But in the debate in the other place a number of matters were left in some doubt, although they have been clarified more recently by Questions and Answers. Just to make quite sure, I would ask the noble Lord whether lie would confirm that in certain instances we have the correct picture.

For example, there was some alarm in case the appointment of the chairman of the Trustees should be a Ministerial decision rather than as a result of the selection of the fellow Trustees. I hope I am right in saying that the whole matter has now been cleared up. When the Trustees body was being reconstituted the noble Duke, the Duke of Abercorn, was appointed by the Minister. But his successor has now been appointed, and it is firmly established that the chairman will be selected by fellow Trustees. This point is important because the trustees of our great national galleries here and in Ireland have been knocked about a great deal from the political end. For instance, they have had to swallow the imposition of charges, although it is quite clear that the trustees of the Irish galleries are just as hostile to them as our own trustees. We want to be quite sure that those who are responsible for running the museum, and who ought to know one another's calibre, have the privilege and responsibility of appointing their chairman.

We should like to be quite clear that there will be no imposition of charges during the present period of price controls. I have in my hand an Answer which has come from the other place to-day, but the matter is still a little ambiguous. The Member for Smethwick asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he intends to increase any admission charges at public buildings or monuments under his control during the period of price restraint. The answer that was given to him was: This matter is under consideration in the light of the Government's programme for controlling inflation, but admission prices will be held at present levels during Stage 1 of that programme. What about Stage 2 of the programme? We should like to be absolutely certain that, so far as the immediate issue before us is concerned—that is, the future of the museums in Northern Ireland—there will be no charges whatsoever while we are in a period of attempted price controls. I think it ought to be clear to everyone that we cannot possibly expect the trade union movement to co-operate with Ministers and to feel that there is fair play all round if, on an issue such as this, they feel that the Government are insisting on going ahead with charges—and I am speaking about both the period while the freeze is on and the period beyond the freeze.

The argument in relation to Belfast is in many respects the same as the argument we have tried to put before the Government about charges in our own great national museums and galleries; with this difference, that there is something, even more ignoble. Here is Belfast, with its unemployment, with sectors with very low wages; here is a great museum in the park, and here is the Folk Museum on the outskirts, a contemporary concept that interests and excites a younger public because it is dealing with crafts, with industry, with transport and all kinds of things. Surely, what we want to do is to attract the maximum number of young and old into civilised environments. It took us a long time to convince some Members on the Benches opposite that education for all children ought to include a knowledge of the Arts. But that battle has been won and now it is a benediction to go into most of our primary schools, where it is no longer a case of austere teaching of rudimentary facts that would help the children to become good machine minders, good factory workers, good bus drivers and the rest; our children now have a sense of colour and design, of painting, dancing and music.

We are giving the younger generation those opportunities. It is not uniform all round, but this is the spirit of contemporary education. So how can we justify not giving the maximum encouragement to the young who follow on from the schools to the great centres of culture? In my judgment—and I hope I have the support here of all Members of your Lordships' House—our great museums and galleries are a most important part of schooling. They are part of the school. There is no justification at all for imposing charges if we really want to follow the logic of trying to give to our children a civilised education. We hear a great deal about automation meaning that there is going to be more leisure in the future, and if we want the children to be saved from rowdyism, from despair and boredom, then of course we must help them in every way we can.

I know that some Members of your Lordships' House may say, "What a lot of fuss to make about £11,000"—because from the answers given in the other place I gather that the revenue which is expected from the charges will be in the region of £11,000. I shall be corrected if I am wrong, but from the questions and answers in the other place I believe the figure is between £10,000 and £12,000.

At present no money is being raised from this source and we should like to be clear that so long as the freeze lasts no charges will be imposed. But is it the case that, although there is no revenue from this source, at present additional expenditure is being undertaken? Is it the case that in Ireland, as here at home, the poor trustees have been obliged to spend money, to go ahead engaging extra staff, putting up turnstiles and all the rest of the squalor? should like to know about that because this seems to make the situation madder than ever.

So this is the big thing that divides us. We are in agreement that the changes made are good and necessary, but I still have a certain sympathy with some of those who are a little afraid of the transfer from the Ministry of Finance to the Ministry of Education. We had to discuss this in the last Parliament and the way we settled the matter was to transfer responsibility for the Arts, museums and galleries from the Treasury to the Ministry of Education, but at the same time a Minister for the Arts was appointed, and although the Treasury officials detested the arrangements we made nevertheless we stuck to them. The arrangements were that the Minister for the Arts negotiated separately with the Treasury the grants for the Arts and for the museums and galleries. This was necessary, because if you have a Minister of Education who has to find financial support for primary schools, nursery schools, universities, and so on, he already has so many mouths to feed that if an extra, such as museums and galleries, is imposed on him then the Minister regards it as a kind of cuckoo in the nest—one more mouth to feed.

One way out of the dilemma—and if there is any optimism in future developments this may come—in England, is to have a separate Ministry for the Arts, but we decided that we were not yet ready for that because we know the fate of small Ministries. Very often they cannot attract the best of the Civil Service; they have to have a most expensive administrative machinery and often small Ministries are apt to come a cropper. So I think we made the right decision in appointing a Minister for the Arts, including the museums and galleries, and if you have a Minister who is really the champion of those interests he can save them from being thrust aside by the counter, and equally essential, claims in other fields of Government expenditure.

But our problem is that while our concept of a Minister for the Arts was someone who would be the champion of the museums and galleries, who would defend their rights and privileges and fight for our musicians and our theatres, instead of that, unfortunately, at the present moment we have a Minister for the Arts who is leading the battle, not on the side of his own trustees but on the side of the charges. This is the basis of the divisions between us. If I may respectfully say so, I think the Government have got themselves into quite unnecessary ill-repute and difficulty over what is a paltry sum. It is pouring salt into the wound of people who are concerned about rising prices; it is adding bitterness, because of course paying 5p or 50p means nothing if you are well-to-do, so this is discrimination against the poor.

There was a revealing sentence in one of the contributions in the other place, to the effect that if charges were imposed there could be more control over admission. I wonder what that means—whether too many people tried to go in; whether old-age pensioners who simply wanted to sit down in pleasant surroundings went in. Would the Government rather that they did not go in? Were there children from the back streets of Belfast playing in the park who thought they would have a look, too? What is interesting is that if there is that kind of objection, it does not come from the trustees. The trustees are opposed to charges. It comes from the Government. What are the Government trying to do? With one hand they accept the civilised attitude that the Arts are part of the heritage and the education of the children of the nation; but at the same time we have this indefensible situation in which the poorest of the children will have an unnecessary hurdle put in their way.

My Lords, I now conclude this speech because I do not think there is any reason why we should cover the entire ground that was covered in the other place. This is a measure in which there is Party agreement. There is no dissension among us about the necessity for transferring the controls in the way that has been done— the reorganisation of local government; all that is agreed territory. But we shall have to be careful because the size of Northern Ireland means, I am assuming, that one cannot have a special Minister who is responsible for the museums, galleries and the Arts, I am assuming that that means that the Minister of Education will have to establish the priorities. We have been given an assurance in the other place that this will not be in any way damaging to the future interests of the museums and galleries. All we can hope for is that that will in fact be so. But, even at this late hour, may I say to Government Ministers: "Your Government have had to turn a great many somersaults." I am not raising this point in malice. With changing economic circumstances, Governments often have to amend and change their course, but could not a Government who have turned so many somersaults on major issues—wages, working conditions, price control, trade unionism, and the rest—do just one more little somersault and stop this crude, unworthy attempt to penalise the poorest of the people in our communities by these foolish charges that cause so much trouble to all of us? As I said, I wish that my congratulations could have been unequivocal, but I am afraid that they cannot be that between the two sides of this House so long as we have to go on fighting, as we intend to go on fighting, to get rid of charges.

6.33 p.m.

LORD WADE

My Lords, I should like to join in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, for explaining this Order. The noble Baroness has spoken very forcibly on the subject of museum charges and I shall not, therefore, go over all that ground, but I should be interested to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, what effect the price restraint policy will have on the proposal to authorise charges for admission to the Ulster Museum. There seems to me to be a case for deferring these charges during the period of price restraint. On the general subject of museum charges, I remember the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, answering a number of supplementary questions in this House. It seemed to me that it was getting so very complicated that I was inclined to suggest that we might adopt the policy of simply having collecting boxes. I was not quick enough on my feet to put forward that proposal, and I realise that that is a little wide of this particular Order.

The point I should like to raise relates once again to the constitutional position. I know that we have had several discussions about the constitutional position so far as the Northern Ireland Orders are concerned, and I apologise if I am going over the same ground. But there is just one point. On one other occasion I mentioned the value of the Special Orders Committee. On this occasion, if we read the Seventh Report of the Special Orders Committee we see: The Committee have no doubt about the vires of any of these Orders nor is there any other matter in these Orders or in the enactments under which they are made to which they think it expedient to call the attention of the House. At first sight it may seem that that implies there is nothing to discuss. But it is clear already that there are matters to discuss and of course the Special Orders Committee are not concerned with the merits; they are concerned with technical aspects. But it is right that this should be mentioned because it may be that some noble Lord in reading this Order will assume from it that there is nothing to discuss. This is of special importance in the case of these Northern Ireland Orders, because, as the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, has pointed out on other occasions, they are in the nature of Bills coming before this House, and the merits of these Bills have to be considered by the House. It is perfectly proper that these points should have been raised which have already been raised, for example, by the noble Baroness. I conclude by simply adding my tribute to the trustees to whom reference has already been made.

6.37 p.m.

LORD AUCKLAND

My Lords, I intervene only for a moment because my family and I have paid two visits to the Ulster Folk Museum at Cultra while we have been holidaying there with a very good friend of ours who was a member of the Ulster Unionist Party over here. I should like to pay my own tribute to the trustees of that museum and to those who run it. It is a unique place and I hope that my noble friend is able to give an assurance that at least during the period of "freeze" no additional charges, over and above the charges which have, as I understand it, always been made in this particular museum, take place. I should hope also, though this is perhaps outside the scope of the Order, that even during the present troubles in Northern Ireland, as many people as are able who are visiting Northern Ireland from other parts should visit this marvellous museum if only, so to speak, to help swell the exchequer. Anything that can be done to promote the survival and the beauty of museums of this kind is to be actively encouraged, and inasmuch as this Order does that, I very much welcome it.

6.38 p.m.

LORD O'NEILL OF THE MAINE

My Lords, I must apologise to the Minister for arriving halfway through his remarks, but unfortunately in time to hear him piling pæons of praise upon my shoulders and therefore making it all the more difficult for me—as he doubtless intended—to criticise this Order. But I should like to make a few remarks. First of all, on the national front, I am absolutely against charges for entry into museums. That is a remnant of the "lame duck" days which were quickly killed when Rolls-Royce went "bust" and I should like to think, like the noble Baroness, Lady Lee of Ashridge, that before the term of the Government's office comes to an end they might be able to make a tiny backward somersault on this problem, which would be nothing compared to somersaults that they have already been able to carry out.

Historically, the Minister is extremely well informed and does his homework on Northern Ireland very well, but many noble Lords may not know the small fact which I should like to give you. When I became Minister of Finance in 1956 there were no national institutions whatsoever in Northern Ireland. I believe I am right in saying that under the Government of Ireland Act 1920 certain finances were set aside for cultural institutions. But, whatever other qualities Ulster Governments may have had, they were not particularly interested in that sort of thing. I think this sum of money—very large at that date; about a quarter of a million pounds—was spent on more mundane matters. It was a difficult thing to turn what had been a municipal institution in Belfast into a national institution. It required great tact, as I relate in the book that I wrote before Christmas, and but for the charm of the chairman, who was a lady, of the Museums and Libraries Committee of the Belfast Corporation we should never have had a national institution at all. She was the first to realise that if I tried to "pinch" this municipal institution, all the members of the Belfast Corporation would rise on their hind legs; so she very cleverly came and asked me whether I would take it over, which, of course, simplified everything. Later on we were able to spend a large sum of money on the magnificent extension which the noble Lord visited, and now we have a national institution in the Botanic Gardens of which we can be proud.

The history of the Folk Museum is rather different. That came into existence only with the assistance of the local authorities, and that, I think, is probably why a charge was instituted. It is a national institution and a very fine one, as the noble Lord has just said—a magnificent site. In fact we were much praised by the Swedes, who are experts in folk museums and who came over and said that this site was far better than theirs. Nevertheless the origins of the Folk Museum, under its excellent director George Thomson, are different from the origins of the Ulster Museum. That is why it was thought necessary to make a slight charge for entry, and, like the noble Lord who has just spoken, I very much hope that the charge will not be increased in any way.

I am in rather a strange position, in that the Prime Minister of Southern Ireland, Jack Lynch, made me a governor of the National Institute in Dublin, and I am president of the Friends of the Ulster Museum, so to that extent I straddle the Border, on a purely cultural basis. So far as I know, there is no intention whatever to create a charge for entry into the magnificent National Gallery of Dublin. Of course, chickens always come home to roost. In the excellently drafted Green Paper, which we all read, there was that enigmatic phrase "the Irish dimension". Past Ulster Governments may be criticised for their unreasonable attitudes to the South of Ireland and all that kind of thing, but if we are discussing this "Irish dimension" —I do not know quite what it meant; it was thought to mean Irish unity in Dublin, and statements were hastily issued from Whitehall to say it meant nothing of the kind—it seems rather strange to me that Westminster should raise a barrier between the cultural situation in Belfast and the cultural situation in Dublin. For however many charges the Government in London intend to put on museums in any part of the United Kingdom, so far as I understand there will still be free entry to the magnificent National Gallery in Dublin. If we are talking about the Irish dimension, either in the Green Paper or even (if this name is going to be dropped) in the White Paper, this point should be borne in mind.

Like the noble Baroness, Lady Lee, I would ask whether a charge for entry into the Ulster Museum, which is being made against the wishes of the Trustees, would be against the provisions of the Counter-Inflation Bill; and if, in fact, it is against the provisions of the Counter-Inflation Bill, then I should like an undertaking that in no circumstances will any charge be imposed until after the provisions of that Bill have lapsed. I would also ask whether this Order removes a legal stipulation that the Ulster Museum should have some free days, because if there are going to be free days in other national institutions, is it right that the power to have free days of entry into the Ulster Museum should be abolished by this Order? I question that very much indeed.

Next, I would say this—and this may apply to other museums in England; therefore I should not like to suggest that it is in any way unique. The Minister quite rightly mentioned the magnificent Armada treasure which was found by a Belgian underwater diver in a spot where somebody else ought to have found it years ago, called Point L'Espagna, next door to the Giants' Causeway. This magnificent treasure, as the noble Lord knows, has now found a home, very rightly, in the Ulster Museum, While it is perfectly true that the Ministry of Finance are going to be faced with some financial assistance for that, it is nevertheless also true that the Friends of the Ulster Museum have, on their own account, raised quite a lot of money in order to make it possible for that Spanish Armada treasure to stay in the Ulster Museum. This also ought to be borne in mind. If the Friends of the Ulster Museum have gone out of their way to raise money, thousands of pounds, in order to ensure that the Girona treasure stays in Northern Ireland, then we have in effect made a contribution to the expenses of the museum.

Finally, I would ask this question. Am I right in thinking that 41.6 per cent. of this small sum of money which is going to be collected by imposing charges will be spent in the actual cost of collection? In normal circumstances this kind of thing would be frowned on by the Treasury, but of course I realise we are not living in normal times. As a last postscript, I would say, as a former Minister of Finance, that while I am perhaps one of the only Ulster Protestants to be in favour of direct rule, had I been Minister of Finance in Northern Ireland to-day I would have come over to the Treasury and seen William Armstrong, then in charge of Home Finance, and I have no doubt whatsoever that this ridiculous charge would have been waived in view of the fact that Northern Ireland is in a far worse financial position than the rest of this country. Therefore I regret very much that these charges have been imposed on this national institution, of such recent date and of such a difficult birth. I would express the hope that the Minister will consider very seriously what I have had to say. May I finally say to your Lordships that anything I have to say, or have said, to-night in no way detracts from the great admiration I have both for the Minister and for the Secretary of State.

6.50 p.m.

LORD SHACKLETON

My Lords, this has been a very interesting debate. The Irish dimension has very firmly come into your Lordships' House, and it is quite right that it should. I am now using "the Irish dimension" in terms of England in relation to Northern Ireland; I realise the context is different elsewhere. I particularly welcome the fact that on this occasion we should be debating an Order that is concerned with cultural matters that are so far removed from the hard day-to-day business of Government administration and some of the more difficult Orders concerned with law and order.

This has been a notable debate. My noble friend Lady Lee, whose personal contribution to the Arts has been so widely recognised as quite tremendous, and the noble Lord, Lord O'Neill of the Maine, whose own work in this field as well as in Ireland generally is so valuable and so valuable to your Lordships' House when we come to consider what the Government are doing, have both taken part in this debate. A further reason why I welcome this debate is that was well aware, as a B.B.C. producer in Northern Ireland many years ago, of the vitality and urge for cultural life there. It was interesting to hear the noble Lord, Lord O'Neill, pointing out the absence of national institutions, because we were well aware how important the B.B.C. was in Northern Ireland as providing a focus for a tremendously strong spirit for the Arts among Ulster people. Therefore, it is interesting that we should now be debating an Order to which the House has given a general welcome except in one respect, and I want to say a few words about that before I close.

I should like to refer to an institution that I have not visited but which the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, with characteristic thoroughness, has visited. It is typical of him that among all his other duties he should have paid a visit to the two principal institutions. We recognise that characteristic. I am referring here to the Folk Museum. I am bound to echo the tributes that were paid by the Member for Down North in another place to Professor Estyn Evans. If I may change my hat once again, as President of the Royal Geographical Society I recognise that he is a most distinguished geographer, who has made a tremendously important contribution in the cultural field. I could continue at greater length, because we know so well how important his work has been.

It was interesting to hear the noble Lord, Lord O'Neill, reporting the reaction of a Swedish delegation to this institution. I was interested in the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, about Armagh Observatory. Looking at the national position, I take it that in this country the observatories receive their financing—and I am not sure of this, because there have been so many changes in these institutions—from the Department of Education and Science. The institution is a valuable, historic one, and I assume that this matter is in some way linked with the transfer of the Armagh County Museum to the Trustees.

LORD O'NEILL OF THE MAINE

My Lords, the origin of the Armagh Observatory, curiously enough, is ecclesiastical. The Church of Ireland Archbishop, Archbishop Robinson, established it in about 1790. In recent years we have built a wonderful planetarium there which is a great success, and so, in a sense, the Observatory has become not only nationalised but more interesting.

LORD SHACKLETON

My Lords, I am interested to hear that. I ought to have known that because in my B.B.C. days in Northern Ireland I not only visited the Observatory but also produced a talk programme on the subject. I remember that it was the then curator of the museum who explained to me the mysteries of the expanding universe and the shape of the galaxy, and I remember his demonstrating it. I am grateful to the noble Lord.

There are one or two points that I should like to raise in relation to the subject of charges. I would ask the Minister to take very seriously the matters that have been put before your Lordships, and particularly the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Wade. Once again here is virtually an Act of Parliament, and all we know about it under the Special Orders Committee procedure is that it is intra vires, and all right for us to pass. The Special Orders Committee have done precisely what they are required to do. We are getting all too inclined to accept the fact that anything that the Government bring forward in regard to Northern Ireland, because it is an Order and it is Northern Ireland, somehow or other we have to let through. In fact this is the position that we are in to-day. If this was a Bill I have no doubt that in the present atmosphere—and noble Lords have shown a good deal of independence on many matters lately—this particular item would be struck out of the Bill. It was a miracle that that wretched charges Bill ever got through in the first place; I do not believe that it would now.

Although we have talked about trying to improve procedure, we have done nothing about it. This may be just as much the fault of the Opposition as of the Government, but I should have liked to ask the Government to take this Order back and re-lay it without this particular paragraph, for the reasons that have been given by my noble friend Lady Lee and by other noble Lords. That is what we ought to be doing if we are taking this sort of legislation seriously. We know that it had gone so far as having a Second Reading at Stormont when the clouds were getting thicker on the horizon, and that it did not receive the full consideration that it should have done. None the less, it was presumably considered by the Advisory Committee. I find it difficult to believe that the Advisory Committee that vets Northern Ireland legislation can have welcomed this particular paragraph.

I wonder how far the noble Lord is aware that some of the arguments, particularly those used in another place, do not really stand up at all. We may have one of those arguments again to-day—and while the noble Lord is now an expert on so many things, he cannot be an expert on everything—for consistency with the rest of the United Kingdom, even though it produces an inconsistency with the Republic of Ireland. But the Army Museum in Britain does not have to charge, and the Folk Museum already makes charges, for reasons that have been fully explained, because of special circumstances. The Ulster Museum, I understand, can make charges if it wants to do so. Mr. van Straubenzee, in another place, said that the Trustees of the Ulster Museum are not yet empowered to make charges. I do not know whether that is correct. I have been informed that they are empowered to make charges but on not more than 4 days in the week. Will they now be empowered to keep to that number if necessary, and make charges on 4 days but have 3 free days? We should like clarification as to whether Mr. van Straubenzee's remark on February 23 was correct.

I hope the noble Lord will not dismiss this matter as something unimportant, because it is a matter on which a number of people feel very strongly. Furthermore, the de minimis argument does not carry much weight against the opposition: rather, it is against putting this item into the Order. Again, if the figures of the noble Lord, Lord O'Neill, are correct and these charges will produce only £10,000 (I think my noble friend said £11,000), and 43 per cent. will be spent on administration, it becomes a nonsense. We do not expect the noble Lord to be willing to take the Order back to-day, but I hope he will see that his right honourable and other friends realise that this is a mistake, particularly in the Northern Irish context. Otherwise, my Lords, we welcome the Order.

7.1 p.m.

LORD WINDLESHAM

My Lords, one of the subjects I thought I had escaped from when I went to Belfast was museum charges. But now, several months later, I find myself, somewhat surprisingly, the target in this particular controversy. What I can say is that I shall certainly bring to the attention of my noble friend the Paymaster General, who has overall responsibility for national policy in this respect, the very well-informed debate we have had on this matter this evening. I shall also bring it to the attention of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

Noble Lords will accept that an Act of Parliament—the Museums and Galleries Admission Charges Act 1972—has been passed by your Lordships' House and by another place and is on the Statute Book. The noble Baroness, Lady Lee, played a major and active part in the debates on that Bill. What is being done now is to bring the two national collections in Northern Ireland into line with the national museums elsewhere in the United Kingdom.

I shall say something in a moment or two about the question of museum charges and how they affect Ulster, and I am grateful to the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition for informing me in advance that this was a matter which was concerning Members of the Opposition Front Bench. I accept that this concern is not just confined to the Front Bench opposite, since the noble Lord, Lord Wade, and the noble Lord, Lord O'Neill of the Maine, spoke in similar terms. Therefore, I have prepared myself to make a short statement on this matter. I hope it will be interesting and useful to the House to have some additional information, even though I fear it may not satisfy absolutely everybody. However, before I do so, let me deal with one or two of the other points raised.

The noble Baroness, Lady Lee, asked about the chairmanship of the Trustees of the Ulster Museum. A misunderstanding arose—I do not know how—but the position is quite clear and is fundamentally as she stated it. The first chairman of the newly-constituted Trustees of the Ulster Museum in 1961–62 was the Duke of Abercorn. He was appointed in the first instance, but was re-elected on a number of occasions and served over a 10-year period. He retired last year and his successor, Dr. Mayne Reid, the new chairman, was elected. I had the pleasure of meeting Dr. Mayne Reid on Saturday last when I visited the museum. Future chairmen of the Trustees will be elected. I think that clears up that point.

The noble Baroness also asked about the transfer from the Ministry of Finance to the Ministry of Education. I agree with her in what she said when she remarked that it is the personal interest of the Minister with responsibility for the Department which is of paramount importance. In our case, this means that Ministerial responsibility transfers from one Minister of State who is responsible for finance to another who is responsible for education. It happens that education is the responsibility of my honourable friend, Mr. van Straubenzee, who handled museum charges in another place on behalf of the Paymaster General. He has already visited the Ulster Museum and the Ulster Folk Museum, and I know that he intends to take just as close an interest in these two Museums in the future as others have done before him.

I was pleased to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Auckland, that he has some personal experience of the Ulster Folk Museum and I hope he will come back and see it again soon. There are some new additions to the museum which I think he will find interesting. I can give him the assurance for which he asked, which was also asked for by the noble Lord, Lord O'Neill of the Maine. I understand there is no intention by the board of the Ulster Folk Museum to increase the level of charges at the present time, subject to any adjustments that may be necessary for value added tax. The noble Lord, Lord O'Neill, spoke most interestingly about the origin of these two museums. I had heard some of that information on my visits to both museums, but to have it from the horse's mouth, as it were, is particularly valuable and interesting for those Members of your Lordships' House who have not had the opportunity of seeing the museums at first-hand for themselves. As to the Girona treasure, this was purchased by the Ulster Museum. A grant of, I think from memory, £88,000, was made available from Government funds and the balance, of the order of £50.000, has been raised by public subscription and, I may say, by charges. Charges are made for special collections and for the Girona exhibition at the Ulster Museum at the present moment. It will form part of the permanent collection so it will be located in the Ulster Museum, except when it is out on loan.

LORD O'NEILL OF THE MAINE

My Lords, is it not a fact that when there has been a special exhibition at the Victoria and Albert, for instance, we have been charged to go to it since long before the Government ever thought of making charges for a museum? It is quite true that there are charges for the Girona treasure, but has this not been an established fact in London for years?

LORD WINDLESHAM

My Lords, I am on thin ice already, and I do not think I should stray on to other museums outside those for which I have any responsibility. The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, paid a tribute to Professor Estyn Evans, the distinguished geographer, who can claim to be regarded as the father of the Folk Museum. Professor Evans, as it happens, is also a Trustee of the Ulster Museum representing the Queen's University of Belfast, and we hope that, with the advent under the new Order of a second university representative from the New University of Ulster, a contribution will be made by both of the national universities in the future. The noble Lord also asked about the Armagh Observatory. This is separate from the Armagh County Museum and is not directly affected by the Order, except that its funds, at the present time running at the level of a £22,800 Government grant, will in future come from the Ministry of Education rather than from the Ministry of Finance. The noble Lord, Lord O'Neill of the Maine, explained that the Observatory has its origins in the Church of Ireland and was set up by an Archbishop of Armagh in 1791. I have a historical note on the Observatory, but perhaps it would be in the interests of the House if I sent it direct to the noble Lord rather than read it out at this moment. Let me turn now—

LORD SHACKLETON

My Lords, will it be too long for a reply to a Written Question?

LORD WINDLESHAM

No, my Lords. That is a very happy suggestion. I should be delighted if the noble Lord would put down a Question to enable me to supplement that body of knowledge which he started to acquire when he was a B.B.C. talks producer in Northern Ireland. I was pleased to hear that the noble Lord's interest in astronomy began at that time. Let me move on now to the central question—the only question—which has divided noble Lords in considering this Order; that is, the question of charges. The Order is, of course, enabling legislation. That is the first point I should like to make. The Order itself does not impose any charges.

The policy of Her Majesty's Government, as explained by my noble friend the Paymaster General on a number of occasions, is to introduce charges at national museums. The date when such charges are to be introduced is still under consideration, and it is not for me to add to what was said in another place to-day. What I can say, however, is that no charges will be made at the Ulster Museum if they are not introduced in Great Britain. The scale of charges, the provision of free days and so on is a matter to be settled by the trustees with the approval of the Ministry of Education, again in line with general United Kingdom policy. As noble Lords are aware, the Northern Ireland Folk Museum already charges for admission; the Ulster Museum does not.

The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, asked about the legal powers of the Trustees of the Ulster Museum in relation to charges, and referred to the fact that there was an obligation to open free on three days. I have studied a note from the lawyers, and find that this particular situation is exceptionally complicated. As I understand it, and subject to correction, the position is that at the Ulster Museum there has been, as the noble Lord correctly said, a long-standing obligation to open free on three days a week. The museum was originally a municipal museum—it came under an Act of 1891—and the trustees, therefore, it might be said, had a right to charge on certain occasions, but not on the three free days. There are, however, I understand, other ambiguities—by-laws are involved; and there is also the change in status from a local museum to a national museum in 1961. What the legal opinion says, in a nutshell, as often happens with opinions of this sort, is that the position is obscure. There is ambiguity; there is the point I mentioned about three free days. It was decided that a provision of this sort was needed to make the position clear.

LORD SHACKLETON

My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord? I am grateful to him. I take it that his colleague, Mr. van Straubenzee, will now correct his statement in another place. This has caused some uncertainty. This statement simply says: The Trustees of the Ulster Museum are not yet empowered to make such charges. It is at least an ambiguous statement. However, I leave it there.

LORD WINDLESHAM

My Lords, am grateful to the noble Lord for drawing my attention to this, and for giving me notice of the Answer to which he has referred. I believe it really turns on what is meant by "such charges". The Question by Mr. Money was to ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he intends to request the trustees of the Ulster Museum to impose admission charges. Most people, both in another place and here, would understand that what the honourable Member was referring to in his Question was the overall scheme of museum charges which has been the subject of controversy for so many months. The Answer was that there is no power at the present time, because the Order in Council has not yet been passed and does not come into effect until April. But, as the noble Lord says, one can look at these things in different ways.

LORD SHACKLETON

My Lords, I will not press it. The noble Lord of course quoted the Question asked by Mr. Money rather than the Question asked by Mr. Kilfedder, which would suggest that this Answer is not entirely satisfactory. But I leave it to another place to deal with that.

LORD O'NEILL OF THE MAINE

My Lords, I wonder whether, before the noble Lord gets up again, he would answer the question I put to him. I appreciate from what he has said that the legal position is very obscure, but I wonder whether the noble Lord would be willing to answer the question I asked, despite that fact. Does this Order in fact remove the legal stipulation that the Ulster Museum—even though its origin was municipal—must have certain free days? That, surely, is a fairly simple question, despite the fact that the legal position is obscure.

LORD WINDLESHAM

My Lords, it is usually unwise to give an unqualified reply to a question of that sort, but I think the answer is, "Yes".

LORD O'NEILL OF THE MAINE

It does remove that stipulation?

LORD WINDLESHAM

I believe it does, my Lords. If I am wrong on that, I will write to the noble Lord and qualify my answer, but I think he is correct in saying that it does remove it.

My Lords, let me give a few further details, because they cover some of the points which have been raised. The Trustees of the Ulster Museum have not had any formal discussions with the Ministry of Finance about the level of charges, but it is anticipated that they will be kept in line with the charges in Great Britain that is, 10p for adults and 5p for children and old-age pensioners. As in Great Britain, there would be free admission for organised school parties and students on pre-arranged visits. It is unlikely that the rate for adults will be doubled in July and August, as is proposed in Great Britain. Season tickets would be available. Any proposals put forward by the Trustees for free hours of opening would be considered in the light of the policy in Great Britain. So that touches on the answer I have just given to the noble Lord, Lord O'Neill of the Maine. I understand the Paymaster General has said that he envisages some free opening provided that the total charging arrangements allow for a compensatory effect, or some other resources are used. As I said earlier, the introduction of charges at the Ulster Museum will take place only if charges are introduced in Great Britain.

My Lords, the final point to which I ought to refer—it is one of detail—is the question put by the noble Lord, Lord O'Neill of the Maine, about the cost of collecting charges at the Ulster Museum. The estimated receipts after deduction of value added tax have been correctly quoted in this debate as of the order of £11,000. That is the estimate. But I understand that the first year's running cost as a percentage of receipts are expected to be, not 43 per cent. but 29.6 per cent.

LoRD SHACKLETON

And the second year the same?

LORD WINDLESHAM

We must be careful about this. In the second year, it might perhaps be about the same. In some ways one would expect it to be less, because some part of the costs are costs of installation. On the other hand, we have to remember that, despite the exceptional efforts of Government to restrain them, costs do have a way of rising. So it might be that the two trends would cancel each other out. But the figure I have quoted is the one I have before me at the moment for the first year. My Lords, I quite understand the strength of opinion on this matter but, as I have said, this is an Order which falls within the policy which has been accepted recently by Parliament in the Museums and Galleries Admission Charges Act. I have provided some detail which I hope will be of interest to noble Lords who are concerned about these matters, and, as I say, I can undertake to pass on the opinions which have been expressed to those of my right honourable and noble friends who are mainly concerned.

On Question, Motion agreed to.