HC Deb 19 December 1986 vol 107 cc1549-56

2 pm

Mr. Charles Wardle (Bexhill and Battle)

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this Adjournment debate which comes at the llth hour of parliamentary business for 1986. During the year I have raised the subject of Herstmonceux castle on several occasions, each time in the context of the proposal to move the Royal Greenwich Observatory away from it in 1990. I have done so in questions to my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Education and Science and in a speech on tourism on 9 July. However, the opportunity has not previously arisen to express in any detail for the parliamentary record the extent of my anxiety and that of many others about the plans of the Science and Engineering Research Council to remove the observatory and thereby radically to alter the use to which the castle has been put so succcessfully for almost 40 years.

Obviously, there have been other ways in which my parlimanetary colleagues and I have been able to voice our anxieties during the past months. Many meetings have taken place since the SERC made its initial announcement in March about moving the observatory. There has also been a considerable volume of correspondence with my hon. Friend the Paliamentary Under-Secretary of State, other Ministers and representatives of SERC. However, despite all that activity, which brought to light widespread and fundamental reservations about SERC's proposals on the part of many eminent astronomers and scientists, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has recently announced that he is not willing to interfere with the judgment that the SERC says is made on scientific grounds.

It should be made absolutely clear that, contrary to some rumours about Rayner initiatives over the castle some years ago, the decision to move the observatory was not Government inspired. In fairness to the Secretary of State, I must say that no Government have ever challenged a decision by the SERC on its scientific merits. Therefore, the observatory is due to move to Cambridge in 1990 and the castle is to be sold.

There is, perhaps, an irony in the choice of year in which the castle is to be vacated. 1990 will also be the 550th anniversary of the year when a licence was granted to crenellate the castle. The anniversary will focus attention on the span of five and a half centuries since the castle's early significance was officially recognosed. Yet under the SERC's proposals its importance is now being overlooked. It is in danger of being seen merely as an asset to be divested by the SERC for a target sum. It is a balance sheet item with a hypothetical valuation to satisfy the Treasury that the cost of rebuilding the observatory in Cambridge can be afforded.

No guidelines have yet been set either by the SERC or, to the best of my knowledge, by my hon. Friend for the most suitable type of buyer to be approached, or for the ways in which the castle should continue to be enjoyed as a public amenity of major historic interest after is has changed hands.

The irony becomes more evident when one bears in mind the fact that the castle has been attracting over 60,000 tourists a year to the observatory and has generated revenue for the SERC. It has created local employment opportunities in tourism—a field of endeavour specifically highlighted by the Department of Employment as having special growth potential for jobs. Yet, when I asked the chairman of the SERC, Professor Mitchell, about the tourist potential of the observatory while it is maintained at the castle, he said that tourism simply was not part of his brief.

The castle is an outstanding example of early 15th century brickwork in elegantly symmetrical design. In the Sussex volume of their well-known series, "The Buildings of England", Pevsner and Nairn describe it as a splendid sight and the most striking proof of the extent which all-round symmetry had reached in England three generations before the Renaissance. They say that, despite its moat, battlements and turrets, it is a mansion rather than a castle. In the 18th and 19th centuries it fell into decay, but it was brilliantly restored in the early part of this century, first by Colonel Lowther and then by Sir Paul Latham, with the architect, Walter Godfrey. As a result, the Royal Greenwich Observatory, prompted by observational difficulties at its original site in Greenwich, was pleased to move to the castle in 1948.

The Royal Greenwich Observatory occupied the castle, added new buildings on the west side and installed the six telescopes of the equatorial group in a carefully landscaped position on the east side of the castle park. Over a period of nearly 40 years thereafter, the Royal Greenwich Observatory's international status has grown and its contribution at Herstmonceux to advances in ground-based astronomy has been recognised throughout the world.

In recent years, responsibility for the Royal Greenwich Observatory has been transferred from the Admiralty to the SERC. Operational responsibility is now delegated to the council's Astronomy, Space and Radio Board, which supports the range of observational astronomy from radio to gamma-rays, using ground-based facilities and other systems deployed in space. The search for better quality ground-based observations has led to developments of new, larger and technologically more sophisticated telescopes which have been established on mountain top sites at Hawaii and La Palma where they benefit from the greater transparency of the earth's atmosphere.

The Royal Greenwich Observatory has been made responsible for commissioning the three optical telescopes in the Isaac Newton group at La Palma, the third and largest of which, the 4.2 m William Herschel telescope, was completed this year. Its commissioning programme has been scheduled to run until 1990. Inevitably, the shift of emphasis in observational facilities from Herstmonceux to La Palma has led to a changed but nevertheless a continuing vital role at the Royal Greenwich Observatory. Efforts are now concentrated at Herstmonceux on La Palma's behalf on the development of instrumentation, control equipment and related software, new optical and spectroscopic systems, the upkeep of photographic and digital data banks and the important liaison function with universities and astronomical societies in this country and elsewhere.

As a result of that shift in emphasis, the SERC decided to vacate Herstmonceux castle and move to a university site. It would not be an exaggeration to say that the announcement made by the SERC in March that the Royal Greenwich Observatory would definitely be moved in 1990 caused something of an uproar.

By then it was well known that the report prepared by a working party led by Professor Kingman which the SERC had considered just two months earlier had failed to point to any overriding reasons for moving the Royal Greenwich Observatory. Indeed, the Kingman report concluded that staying at Herstmonceux was a definite and positive option. Therefore, when the SERC appeared to rule out that option in March, with no reason given for its exclusion, the protests began in earnest. In the months that followed, a great many astronomers, ranging from university professors to the well-known television presenter of "The Sky at Night", Mr. Patrick Moore, asked why the Royal Greenwich Observatory needed to be moved, even allowing for the changed role in support of the Isaac Newton group of telescopes at La Palma.

The protesters were joined by worried members of the Royal Greenwich Observatory staff, notably by Dr. Penston and Janet Dudley, by the indefatigable Mary Smith, who presented to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science a petition with 17,000 signatures in support of retention of the observatory at Herstmonceux, by my parliamentary colleagues in East Sussex, by the East Sussex county council, the Weald and District council, and by the Herstmonceux parish council.

Because of the constraints on my time in the debate, I shall simply quote the opinions of three leading astronomers. The first is Professor Rees, who is Professor of Astronomy at Cambridge. On 21 April, he said: I think much the best solution would be for the RGO to remain at Herstmonceux, on its magnificent site, and to be maintained as an outstanding institution for atronomical research and development, as well as a storehouse for the important archives. Professor Rees has also made a powerful argument why the Royal Greenwich Observatory would do well to be located in Cambridge if it must be moved. Nevertheless, at the outset, he said that it would be better for the observatory to remain where it is.

Dr. Lynden-Bell, the president of the Royal Astronomical Society, said: Any policy to dismember, destroy or merge the Royal Greenwich Observatory as an institution will be strongly resisted by a wide body of astronomers. He said that the way forward is

to build up the scientific side of the RGO at the expense of the engineering and facilities side. On 2 June, Dr. P. A. Charles, the university lecturer in astronomy at the University of Oxford, wrote to me: SERC is seen spending an enormous sum of money on a move that nobody has called for and in order to solve problems they can neither specify nor quantify. The long-term effects of this can only be negative. That is the extent of the evidence that I produce from the astronomical community—from those who thought that the observatory should stay where it is and be developed on site.

The main thrust of the argument against the decision to vacate Herstmonceux came from three directions. The first was criticism about the lack of proper consultation. It must be said that that was because other members of the astronomical community who were interested in what the Kingman report said had no sight of it. The SERC eventually embarked upon fairly extensive consultation with the staff at the Royal Greenwich Observatory, but only after complaints had been made in March and April about the lack of consultation until that time. But there is no question that the lack of communication in the early stages of the decision-making process caused much unhappiness.

The second area of criticism concerns the inadequate scientific justification for the move. Only the most generalised arguments emerge from the minutes of the SERC's March meeting. If the Royal Greenwich Observatory was to be combined with the royal observatory in Edinburgh, the benefits were no more specific than a larger operational unit with the increased flexibility, efficiency and opportunity to co-operate and the

interaction of background activities, e.g. information technology, computing, microelectronics. Moving to a university site such as Cambridge or Manchester, which was also contemplated, would avail an infrastructure with strength in astronomy and related disciplines. At Cambridge, there would be good engineering, computing and physics departments, while Manchester offered one of the best astronomy centres renowned for its radio work at Jodrell Bank, with strength in optical astronomy and

a good background in other relevant disciplines. No doubt every point was a worthy reference for the other university sites, but it is hardly the overwhelming scientific evidence that one would have expected the Science and Engineering Research Council to have cited in support of a move that would cost—by way of disposal of Herstmonceux castle—more than £3 million.

The third criticism concerned the absence of proper financial justification for the move. It has been suggested that the disposal of Herstmonceux castle looks like asset-stripping, and several questions have been asked about the detailed ongoing financial calculations which seem to suggest that operational savings will be made when the staff move to Cambridge. It must also he borne in mind that by the time for which the move is scheduled—1990—the Royal Greenwich Observatory staff is expected to number no more than 120 or 130. Therefore, I suspect that some of the savings would have been made whether the Royal Greenwich Observatory stays at Herstmonceux castle or whether it goes to Cambridge or elsewhere. Nevertheless, the financial justification has been called in question by a number of my parliamentary colleagues and other people concerned by the move.

There is then the question of other services at Herstmonceux for which the future has not been clearly demarcated. The first concerns the satellite laser ranger, which I shall describe as briefly as possible. It is a system whereby a laser bounces off a large lens and shoots some 5,000 miles in the sky, rebounds off a satellite which it locates in the sky and comes back down to Herstmonceux so that a computer at the satellite laser ranger can identify within an accuracy of 2 in. the spatial relationship between Herstmonceux castle and the satellite 5,000 miles in space. The moment that that satellite ranger is moved, even if it is moved only a mile, all the valuable work and reference computations will have to be altered, and that will be an enormous waste. The SERC has admitted that it does not yet have the solution to such a move.

Another service of the Royal Greenwich Observatory is the time service, in which my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Boscawen) has taken an interest, on behalf of the Worshipful Company of Clockmakers. It has made these observations: The SERC has given as a reason for terminating the Greenwich time service that the money to replace the electric tubes and other equipment is not available. Yet Concerned American Institutions and Companies have offered to replace all the equipment at the cost of £500,000 free of charge. That is another uncertainty.

I have one general criticism. We should be building up our existing bases of technological and scientific excellence, not allowing a contraction on to fewer sites. Bearing in mind the importance of new technology to this nation's wealth and future jobs, we should adopt an enterprising approach to a site of excellence such as the Royal Greenwich Observatory, rather than seeing it moved to Cambridge where, inevitably, to some extent it will be merged into the university's community.

I do not believe that such a move would have been contemplated if this were in the United States, Germany, Japan or Switzerland. I suspect that one of the reasons is that, worthy as is all the work done by the SERC, it is predominantly led by academics. It has some business men on it, but relatively few. I suspect that if those few business men were to be a little more forceful about adopting an enterprising approach to our sites of technological excellence, the outcome would be different in future when other such cases arise.

I am pleased to say that there is some good news as a result of the SERC's recent concessions. Those stall' at the Royal Greenwich Observatory who are still employed in 1990 will all be offered jobs at Cambridge, and concessions have been made over tourism. The astronomy exhibition centre is to stay open in the park at Herstmonceux and the equatorial group of telescopes will continue working. I emphasise to my hon. Friend the Minister that we need to do even more if we are to fulfill the potential of Herstmonceux castle. Discussions have already taken place with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment and my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment who has responsibility for tourism, and with the chairman of English Heritage, Lord Montagu.

It is perfectly clear that, if the castle is to be sold, we need to embark on a feasibility study now that gauges what the castle's full tourist potential will be when the Royal Greenwich Observatory moves. Perhaps we should talk to the likes of the owners of Madame Tussauds, the Pearson Group, or to, say, the British Tourist Authority, the English Tourist Board or to anyone with expertise in tourism who can suggest how the castle's future potential may be realised. If we do that, I am sure that the best possible price will be realised for the SERC when the castle is sold, which can be no bad thing, and that after that the interested purchaser will no doubt consider a conference centre, a hotel development, a planetarium or a scientific museum that could be combined with the astronomy exhibition centre so that the tourist potential could be maximised.

I said that I believe that the move of the Royal Greenwich Observatory from Herstmonceux castle is a matter of regret. However, given the decision by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, I accept that the move in 1990 is inevitable. However, I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to make sure that that study of the castle's tourist potential is commissioned so that, after 550 years, the castle can embark on a further exciting and enterprising period.

2.21 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. George Walden)

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Mr. Wardle) on being successful in the ballot and on raising the subject of the future of Herstmonceux castle this afternoon. It is clearly one of importance to his constituency. I should also like to pay tribute to his tireless advocacy on behalf of his constituents, including the staff of the Royal Greenwich Observatory, who will be affected in some way by the observatory's move from Herstmonceux.

We have also received several representations and, one might almost say, earnest entreaties from my hon. Friends the Members for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith) and for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow). I believe that what my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle said about his researches into the architectural history of Herstmonceux illustrates the depth of his interest in the whole environment. Now that a decision has been taken on the future of the RGO he is understandably focusing the same energy on encouraging the SERC, the local authorities and the tourist boards to explore ways of minimising the impact of the move on the locality.

I have recently met the leader of the East Sussex county council and representatives of other local interests, and I should like to take this opportunity to express my sympathy to those adversely affected directly or indirectly over the decision to move the observatory. Nevertheless, I believe that the SERC has taken the correct decision. I should also point out that there have been a number of other moves and mergers of research council institutes over the past few years, as a response to the changing requirements of scientific research. My hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle quoted a number of eminent opinions against movement from Herstmonceux, but I do not need to remind him that many of the decisions that the SERC has to take inevitably provoke public discussion and disagreement among academics.

The Royal Greenwich Observatory is a component part of the SERC, whose prime responsibility is to promote the highest quality of British science in United Kingdom universities and polytechnics. The standing of British astronomy is very high, due in no small part to the magnificent facilities that the SERC has provided; the optical telescopes at La Palma in the Canary islands, in collaboration with the Netherlands and Spain; the Anglo-Australian and United Kingdom Schmidt telescopes for observing the southern skies; infra-red and submillimetre wave telescopes in Hawaii, in collaboration with the University of Hawaii and the Netherlands; and experiments on a number of satellites, including the Giotto mission to Halley's comet and the infra-red satellite, IRAS. In 1985–86, the council's Astronomy, Space and Radio Board had a budget of £50 million, which is 17 per cent. of the SERC's total expenditure.

The council has to support research in many other areas of science and engineering, and therefore has a duty to ensure that its activities in large basic sciences, such as astronomy, are carried out in the most cost effective way. If it does not do so, other areas of science, of more short-term applicability, will suffer. It has therefore examined carefully the support required for its ground-based astronomy facilities in the 1990s and beyond.

The RGO has a glorious past of which we can all be proud, and there is no reason to fear for its future at Cambridge. Indeed, its standing would be likely to decline if it remained as an isolated unit at Herstmonceux. In terms of its 300 or more years of existence, the period in Sussex has been fruitful, but relatively short; it moved there from Greenwich in only 1948 in order to take advantage of the clearer Sussex air. Since then, advances in astronomy have completely transformed the subject, with the exploitation of other types of telescopes, such as the radio-telescopes at Jodrell Bank and Cambridge, and, with the advent of space facilities, telescopes in the X-ray, ultra-violet and infra-red regions of the spectrum.

The council believes that an isolated establishment will not be able to provide the level of support that would be required into the next century without a significant increase in planned staffing levels, and the council is unwilling to reallocate funds to astronomy for this from elsewhere in its activities. On the other hand, the council believes that the RGO could provide the required service if it were closely associated with relevant university departments, and, in particular, a university with an active experimental optical astronomy group and also a wide range of other astronomy interests, and—just as important—departments with expertise in the enabling technologies of micro-electronics, computing and communications, which are required for the development of instrumentation and remote operation facilities at La Palma. In the council's view, the most appropriate environment for the RGO would be associated with the Institute of Astronomy at Cambridge, where it could also benefit from the expertise available in, for example, the departments of radioastronomy, engineering and physics.

I stress that the decision was a scientific one, and one that the council believes to be in the best interests of the RGO and the university community that it serves.

A new building is to be provided for the RGO on the university campus, and all of the observatory's activities presently at Herstmonceux can be accommodated there, with the exception of the Equatorial Group of telescopes, which I shall mention later. The observatory will remain a council establishment and retain its integrity and identity.

In order to fund the construction of the new RGO building at Cambridge, the council plans to sell the Herstmonceux estate and has been given the necessary approvals to retain the receipts for this purpose. My hon. Friend rightly addressed the potential of the Herstmonceux estate. I note his remarks on the necessity of a feasibility study.

The SERC is, of course, very much aware of the significant part played by the RGO in the economy of East Sussex and in particular its contribution to tourism in the area. Access to the castle has in the past been limited, but there is no doubt that the grounds and the astronomy exhibition in the Equatorial Group are a major tourism asset to the community. The council understands and is sympathetic to the local concern to remove the uncertainty over future public access to the grounds and castle. It is therefore making a considerable effort to discuss with the interested local and national bodies ways in which the castle can be retained as a tourist attraction.

I can report that the SERC has had two meetings with the English tourist board, the South East England tourist board, and representatives of the East Sussex county council and the Wealden district council to consider various options. My hon. Friend kindly alluded to those meetings. The possibility of these bodies jointly commissioning a pre-feasibility study to examine these options, as my hon. Friend also mentioned, is being discussed, and I welcome such co-ordinated initiatives. There are a number of possibilities open. These range from bringing in a purchaser to develop the whole site as a tourist attraction—including the castle itself—to finding an owner who would simply allow public access to the footpaths in the grounds.

It is very much hoped that any future sale arrangements will allow the astronomy exhibition and the Equatorial Group of telescopes to remain in the castle grounds where they can form part of an integrated attraction. Nevertheless, if the SERC is not successful in finding a suitable owner who is willing to exploit the exhibition and telescopes, the council is willing to exclude this area from the sale. It has set up a joint working party with the National Maritime museum to consider the practicalities of the museum taking over the day-to-day operation of this part of the site. The museum is already responsible for the Old Greenwich observatory and has expressed an interest in the Equatorial Group. This would provide the possibility of developing public access to these telescopes.

I hope that my hon. Friend will understand from what I have said that the potential of Herstmonceux has not been overlooked by the Government or the SERC. I assure the House that I shall continue to take an interest in this aspect of the move of the Royal Greenwich Observatory, although this does not directly fall within my responsibility.

My hon. Friend mentioned the satellite laser ranger. He is technically astute on these matters, as I know from discussions with him. I again assure him that discussions on the future of the satellite laser ranger are continuing with other sponsors and users of that facility.

I congratulate my hon. Friend again on his highly informed and impressive advocacy on behalf of his constituency.

It being half-past Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.