Museum of London Bill (Hansard, 3 February 1986)

§ The Minister for the Arts (Mr. Richard Luce)
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I feel that I should at this stage explain why the proposed new clause 2, which was in my name, was withdrawn last week, and what I propose to do about it.
In Committee I undertook to consider further the need for the production of regular reports by the board of governors on the activities of the museum to be required by law. That was in response to an amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Buchan). I accept the need for that additional overall statutory obligation. However, I have been advised that the new clause was hybrid and could have introduced additional and lengthy delays. I have a clear sense of obligation to the Committee. I therefore undertake that the Government will table a new clause in Committee in another place which, broadly described, will put a statutory obligation on the Secretary of State to lay regular reports before both Houses on the exercise of the board's functions. I hope that that explanation will be helpful to the House.

§ Mr. Norman Buchan (Paisley, South)
We understand what the Minister has said, and we are glad that he took our proposal on board. We look forward with interest to the new clause that is to be tabled. The Minister is fortunate because if he had tabled a potentially hybrid new clause in front of the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) we might have been here for a long time.
I should like to raise a concomitant point of order, on new clause 1. It was debated in Committee for about an hour. We were just beginning to consider the ramifications of the problem when I decided, with the approval of the Committee, that it would be more appropriate to debate such a major matter of principle on the Floor of the House. Therefore I did not put it to the vote, despite pressure from many of my hon. Friends. I thought that it would be better for the House as a whole to have a look at what has become a major matter of principle. We have learned today, from the tapes, that the number of attendances at the Victoria and Albert museum since the introduction of charging has dropped by almost half. We warned the museum at the time that that would happen. For this reason I hope, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you will reconsider the decision about selection. It is a matter of urgent importance. The unions are keen to have an answer. No answers were given, since the questions were never put to the Committee. For these reasons, I ask that we should be allowed to discuss the new clause.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker)
I assure the House, and the hon. Member, that Mr. Speaker had all these considerations before him. He has made the selection, and we shall proceed accordingly.

§ Mr. Nigel Spearing (Newham, South)
Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The selection of amendments for discussion is something of a mystery, but may I ask you whether or not new clause 1 is in order? May I take it that if it were not in order it would not be on the amendment paper?

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
New clause 1 has not been selected. Mr. Speaker had before him all the 94 considerations which the hon. Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Buchan) very properly raised. New clause 3—Mr. Norman Buchan.