§ 2.39 p.m.
§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTHMy Lords, I beg 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 upon what grounds, for what purpose and upon whose authority are charges being levied upon the public for sitting in Government-erected stands to view the ceremonial processions subsequent to the Coronation, and also for entry into Westminster Abbey.]
§ THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (THE EARL OF MUNSTER)My Lords, charges for seats on the stands erected in the Royal Parks and elsewhere are made on the authority of the Minister of Works, who is responsible for the management of the Royal Parks. My right honourable friend thinks it only right that those who occupied the stands on these special occasions should contribute towards the cost of erection and thus reduce the call on the Exchequer. The receipts are applied as an Appropriation in Aid of the Vote for the Coronation of Her Majesty. The charge for entry into Westminster Abbey is made to reimburse the Dean and Chapter for the loss of revenue, including collections, due to the closing of the Abbey for nearly a year; and also to meet the cost of opening the Abbey to the public.
§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTHMy Lords, is the noble Earl aware that there is a popular supposition that the cost of erecting the Government stands was covered by the price which the Government charged to those who purchased tickets to sit in those stands? Does he not think that it would be a gesture to the common populace of this country that they should not be charged for sitting in the stands, the revenue of which has already accrued to the Government? It appears to me that the amount collected in this way is a small matter, compared with the vast public expenditure connected with the Coronation. Regarding 936 the noble Earl's Answer to the second part of my Question, relating to West-minister Abbey, if there is any loss of revenue because the Government had to take over the Abbey for twelve months, should not the recompense to be made to the Abbey authorities be included in the cost to the Government? Is it not rather a shame that, again, the ordinary people should be exploited by being charged to go into the sacred premises where their Monarch was crowned?
§ EARL HOWEMy Lords, I should like to ask, in relation to the supplementary question that has been put, why it is that working men, and those who pay taxes in other parts of the country, should have to subsidise people who may occupy these stands? Is it not rather a good thing to have business methods in government?
§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTHMy Lords, if what the noble Earl says is true, then the working man has subsidised your Lordships who went into the Abbey to see the Coronation for nothing.
§ THE EARL OF MUNSTERMy Lords, in reply to the questions which have been addressed to me, may I say this. As my right honourable friend the Minister of Works announced on February 3 of this year, the prices of £6 and £4 per seat in these stands were calculated on the average cost of construction, and it is now perfectly obvious to him, and to others, that that will not meet the charge. With regard to the noble Lord's second point, I should have thought that the British people would be only too delighted to go into the principal Abbey in this country on the payment of a sum as a donation, a subscription to a charity, rather than that the money should be voted by Parliament.
§ LORD WINSTERMy Lords, may I ask the noble Earl whether there is any evidence of discontent on the part of the public in these matters?
§ THE EARL OF MUNSTERThe answer to the noble Lord is, No. In point of fact, all the seats were fully occupied, and if they had been big enough to take two people in one seat they would have been equally full.