HL Deb 02 December 1969 vol 306 cc75-95

5.58 p.m.

LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU

rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will reconsider their decision to disperse the historic transport relics at present housed at Clapham and appoint a committee to investigate possible alternative sites in the London area. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I rise to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. I make no apologies for raising here to-night the matter of the future of the Clapham Museum, particularly in view of the fact that discussions regarding not only its future but also the location and the contents of transport museums in this country as a whole were carried out by a Departmental Committee in secret, and that it is only recently that the papers relating to the decisions have been made available to Members. Furthermore, it was doubly unfortunate that, due to Her Majesty's Government's decision to use the "guillotine" procedure on the Transport Bill in another place, the clause of the Bill dealing with transport relics was not discussed. I am certain that the public at large are still ignorant of the fact that our best national transport collection is about to be dispersed.

Let me remind your Lordships that the museum at the Clapham site was established in, I believe, 1959, as an effort by the British Railways Board to carry out undertakings given at the time of nationalisation of the railways that they would be responsible for the various relics which had been collected over the years by the private companies. Admittedly, Clapham was not an ideal site, and in the 1950s a sum of, I think, £1 million was even allotted by the British Railways Board to set up a permanent museum. But, of course, owing to the increasing deficit position, such money was not forthcoming. Nevertheless, the Clapham Museum came into being, and I should imagine that, in addition to the £15,000 spent on moving the vehicles in, a considerable further sum—probably about £100,000—has been spent on making the building suitable for the public to view the exhibits and on carrying out other work.

Of course, before the war we had a railway museum established in York, and since the war another smaller one at Swindon. But since 1959 Clapham has established itself as a considerable tourist attraction, and in recent years it has been visited by nearly 200,000 people a year—in spite of the fact that virtually no money has been spent on publicity. When I compare the amount spent on publicity —and the last figure I saw was £500 in 1966–with the expenditure made by other successful transport museums, I feel that it is amazing that so many people have gone there. It has always been realised that Clapham was not an ideal long-term site. Moreover (and I am sure that this is what has prompted the Government to take the steps they have), it has always operated at a considerable deficit. But, having now, at last, had an opportunity of looking at the figures I cannot but confess to being shocked at the very unbusinesslike way that the Museum has been organised and run.

First of all, so far as income is concerned, the admission charge has always been absurdly low, especially when one takes into account the quality of the exhibits, and compares it to that of other similar institutions in Europe. Out of the total outgoings of approximately £100,000, no less than over £60,000 is spent on wages and administration. From my own experience I must say that this is a sum which is completely out of proportion to what should have been spent. I appreciate that few recent Chairmen of British Railways have taken much interest in Clapham, and it would be fair to accept the fact that it is not the job of any Railway Board to run museums. But, even so, the lack of museum expertise and the resulting deficit which has been accepted year after year without anyone taking any action about it, is little less than scandalous. I can say with complete confidence that had the Museum been run in a businesslike way, not only would there have been no deficit but there would probably have been a profit.

Be that as it may, the Government have now, in their wisdom, decided to close Clapham, having received advice from a Committee set up, without public knowledge, under the chairmanship of Mr. Barber, of the Ministry of Transport, and which included civil servants from other Ministries. Only six meetings were held and I am not aware (although I may be wrong here) of any public consultations which took place. In fact it was only recently that the papers were placed in the Library of another place. After the Committee had examined and costed some sites in the London area and elsewhere, a railway building at York became available. And with very little further investigation the country was faced with a fait accompli decision to close Clapham and to move some, but not all the main railway relics to York.

I think the British public can be forgiven for getting the impression that all that was to happen was that the exhibits were going to be moved en bloc to a splendid new and more suitable building in the North Country. This, however, cannot be further from the truth—and here perhaps even York has been led up the garden path. The fact is, my Lords, that the Clapham Transport Museum, as it is known today, which many consider houses one of the finest collections of transport relics ever to be gathered under one roof in Europe, is in fact being destroyed and dispersed; and no equivalent museum is to be set up in its place. Only the railway relics—the vast majority of which have special Southern connections—are going to York, which already houses all the important railway relics which relate to the North country. The very line London Transport collection, which forms an important part of the Clapham collection, will be without a home and will be stored— goodness knows where!—in conditions that will inevitably lead to further deterioration of the exhibits. Nor will the national tramway exhibits have a home.

In addition, it has been decided that the records also should go to York—this against the advice of all the official bodies and the experts, and those who are interested in consulting the documents. This move was strongly attacked by the British Records Association in last year's annual report, and it is also opposed by the Royal Commission on Historical Manuscripts and by the Standing Committee on Museums. Only the Public Record Office has remained neutral, perhaps because it has to, being a Government institution, and because, in any case, it has no room for the papers.

One of the more unfortunate aspects of the whole affair has been the relegation of the discussion in this matter as one of regionalisation and a fight between London and the Provinces. It has been suggested by some noble Lords, in letters to The Times and other newspapers, that opposition to the move to York is from those of us who want everything in London and who resent the policy of giving the Provinces some share of the cake. Let me make it quite clear tonight that this is the last thing I mean to convey, and the last thing that I personally feel is relevant. It is unfortunate that certain persons in Yorkshire, and certain newspapers there, have shown an almost paranoic tendency whenever the subject is discussed. Those who are putting forward the point of view of retaining a transport museum in London are labelled as—a marvellous new term!—" Metropolitan maniacs". As one whose family and whose wife's family have close Yorkshire connections I deeply resent the charge, especially in the light of the fact that neither I nor, indeed, my own museum reside anywhere near London.

York is of course free to have what museums it wishes. It already has several, including a railway museum, which could easily be improved by having further exhibits added to it. Indeed, if those in York who are expressing concern have so much faith in an improved railway museum why do not the local authority take it over, as has been done at Swindon, and run it themselves? It is a great pity that they give the impression in Yorkshire that they want a railway museum only so long as no one else is allowed to have one. There is certainly no shortage of exhibits, and there are 30 locomotives already in store without a home. The fact is that to-day we have three railway museums—Clapham, York and Swindon—but in future we shall have only two: one in York and one in Swindon, and none in London.

Much as I personally approve the policy of the British Travel Association of trying to get tourists out of London, the facts of international life are that those who travel to-day spend much less time in each country, and I think it is not entirely realistic to expect tourists who are coming to England for a few days to travel all the way to York, or indeed to any other provincial capital, to see museums there. Indeed, compared with the splendid attendance figures for the Castle Museum at York (nearly 600,000) I do not find the attendance figures for the Railway Museum there very impressive. Perhaps York has enough delights to show its visitors already, and certainly in the district of York we have the splendid Bowes Museum, the Tramway Museum at Crich and the museum development on the Tyneside. I have no doubt that if a good site were found in the London area any such transport museum would not only complement those of York and Swindon but would have a good chance of doubling and trebling any attendance figures that could be attained by York.

Let us assume for a moment that the Government do not change their mind and that the plans for the destruction of Clapham go ahead. It has been estimated that it will cost about £500,000 to set up the new museum at York. Of this sum I should imagine that no less than £150,000 will be needed just to move the exhibits from Clapham up North. I gather that the Treasury have said that the only money available for this new museum will be the money they obtain from the sale of the site at Clapham. So since the exhibits cannot be moved out of Clapham until the new museum is ready, the question arises, who is to provide the £500,000 bridging finance which will be needed? Secondly, if, owing to planning restrictions or any other reasons, the Clapham site does not reach its expected price, who is going to make up the deficit? Thirdly, when can the public see the design plans for the new museum at York? Fourthly, what is the programme for the move?

With regard to the exhibits themselves, can Her Majesty's Government tell me what plans are afoot for the safe storage of the London Transport exhibits, and where the precious National Tramway exhibits will be housed? Who will be paying for the removal of these exhibits from Clapham to the new storage area, and will London Transport have enough money each year to maintain them, pending a decision on their future?

Another question which I think the Government should answer is this. In view of the fact that one of the main reasons for closing down Clapham is the annual burden of the deficit, which incidentally is not usually an argument used about national museums, what comment have they on the report by the present Director of the Science Museum that even after moving he expects a deficit of about £15,000 a year on the York Museum? Arising out of this, can Her Majesty's Government tell me what decision has been made with regard to the admission charges at the York, Swindon and Clapham Museums for 1970, and the years afterwards?

I now turn to the main point of my Question, and that is to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will at this late hour set up an immediate Inquiry which will be empowered to take public evidence in order to investigate the situation thoroughly. To-day we hear a lot about Skeffington, but in this matter there has been a conspicuous lack of public consultation. Since the original departmental inquiry several other sites have become available: for example, Nine Elms, a site at Lambeth, and, last but not least, the most exciting idea of St. Pancras Station.

I think Her Majesty's Government should realise that considerable suspicions have been raised by the sequence of events by which the British Railways Board announced that St. Pancras Station was closing down, but once certain people, such as His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh, began to take an interest in it as a museum of industrial archæology, which would also include a transport section, and bodies such as the Victorian Society and the Transport Society began to draw up plans, it was announced that St. Pancras was going to be kept as a station after all. I should warn the Government to-night that there is deep suspicion that the moment York Museum is opened, St. Pancras will be duly closed down. Perhaps the Government can give an assurance that the delaying decisions about St. Pancras have not been influenced by these considerations.

With regard to the future of any transport museum in this country, it is a pity that the Government cannot, perhaps at the same time as this inquiry, if they agree to set it up, consider a consortium between official bodies, the Department of Education, the Science Museum, the Greater London Council or Lambeth County Council, and commercial interests which may care to participate with restaurants and other commercial activities to make a future site viable. As noble Lords know, I have some experience in this matter, and the fact remains that with the increasing free time for all nowadays, such visits to museums are an important part of the nation's leisure time activities. The most important thing to remember is that successful museums are run by people who realise that the public want a good day out, and this includes such facilities as restaurants, car parks, souvenir shops and so on. These are essential for attracting large numbers of people. Both St. Pancras and the sites at Lambeth and Nine Elms lend themselves excellently to such development. Whether York does or not I do not know, but I was not very impressed by the Minister for Arts' statement on July 17, on her visit to York, when she said that she saw a great expanse of land right down to a very decorative river side which satisfied me that we could have internal mobility at York". She perhaps failed to notice that the main line through York ran between the proposed site and the river.

To sum up, the breaking up of the Clapham collection as it is now constituted would be a major disaster. It would rob London, without replacing it elsewhere, of one of the finest transport collections in the world. As I have pointed out, only the railway exhibits are going to York and the others will be virtually left homeless. To pretend that the excellent but small railway section of the Science Museum is sufficient alternative is clearly nonsense. Whereas at the moment the York Railway Museum contains all the railway relics which relate to the North, those which are going to be sent up there are those which, historically, have been owned and operated in the South.

Finally, tempting as it may be to house the records with the relics in York, this will cause considerable hardship to scholars and students researching the history of transport. How can you expect students in Wales or the West Country to go to York to study records? I know it is the opinion of many in this country that it would be a disastrous decision to break up what is a fine national collec- tion of transport. After all, if anyone suggested that the National Gallery should be broken up because it was not paying and that three-quarters of the pictures should be sent to Bristol and the Van Dycks and El Grecos back to Windsor, there would be a national outcry. In the realms of transport, the development of which has affected the history of this country, and in which the British contribution has had such a great effect on the world, the decision to break up an important national collection like this cannot be passed over lightly.

It is the clear duty of the Government to hold a public inquiry so that all points of view can be considered, as once dispersed such a collection can never be put together again. Future generations must hold this Government to blame for a decision which is going to have a disastrous long-term effect on our national heritage. Failure to hold an inquiry in public will confirm the suspicion that the Government have something to hide, that they are unwilling to let the public know the facts, that they are not prepared to consult public opinion, which they are always urging others to do, and are willing to destroy one of our national collections on the altar of regionalisation, only to set up in its place a far less impressive museum.

6.17 p.m.

LORD ROBERTSON or OAKRIDGE

My Lords, I am afraid that I have gathered the impression from speeches made in Parliament by Government spokesmen on this subject, and particularly from speeches made in this House during the discussion on the report of the Steering Group which was attached to the Transport Bill, that the Government are entirely bored with this subject; I mean with the subject of museums and relics and records. I hope that the tabling of this Question by the noble Lord, Lord Montagu of Beaulieu, and the very powerful speech that he has just made on this subject will have awakened their interest, if indeed they were bored. They have listened to an expert on the running of museums; I do not think anybody would question that. I can claim some knowledge of railways, but I have no knowledge of running museums such as is possessed by the noble Lord, Lord Montagu of Beaulieu. I hope that not only the debate on this Question but also recent correspondence in The Times will have awakened some interest in this subject and will have impressed on the Government that there are many people who feel very strongly about it—and I am one of them.

I should like to add one thing to the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Montagu. He spoke of the attractions of museums to tourists, and certainly one agrees very much with that. There is another point. Our engineers originally led the world in the construction of railways; we built the railways all over the world in many countries other than our own. In past years we have been busy telling everybody what rotten railways we have. In view of the overworked railways during the war, and having starved them of capital for many years after the war, it is perhaps not surprising that we had bad railways. We have been very busy telling people so, and there are a certain number of people still saying so. I believe that a number of your Lordships have now come to the conclusion that the situation has altered a good deal. The electrification of much of the line, the excellent work coming out of the laboratory at Derby, have persuaded foreign railways that the British have, after all, something to look at and something to sell.

Your Lordships may ask what has that got to do with a museum. I think it has a good deal to do with it. The Joint Steering Group, whose report accompanied the Transport Bill and was presented in 1967, recommended that this museum should go to York. They justified that recommendation on one ground only, finance. They did not mention anything else.

Wherever it is, the new museum must be paid for out of money that is obtained by "selling" Clapham and York. Given such a limitation, it is not surprising that British Railways have found themselves unable to recommend any alternative. I have no prejudice against York any more than has the noble Lord, Lord Montagu; it is a wonderful city. I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord James of Rusholme, who wrote a splendid letter about it to The Times. But neither the noble Lord, Lord James, nor anybody else is going to persuade me that York is a suitable place for a great national museum, and I am quite sure that it is not a place for a national transport museum. As for records, I leave that matter to my noble friend Lord Hurcomb.

I support Lord Montagu in his request that there should be a fresh investigation into the possibility of a site in London. I support him, but as I have already said I am afraid that the Government have got thoroughly bored with this question. If that proves to be the case, and if they have made up their minds—it looks to me very much as if they have— then I must suggest to them, with all the deference which is due to our rulers, that they should ensure that the museum at York is a really first-class museum, because if it is not they will find that they have roused up a hornet's nest.

6.23 p.m.

LORD HURCOMB

My Lords, I will not detain you for more than a few moments, but I should like just to recall the course of the debates in this House on the Committee stage of the Transport Bill of a year or two ago. My main purpose then—and I had the support of the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, and of other Peers—was to object strongly to sending the archives of transport away from London. I hope that the noble Baroness who is going to reply this evening will at any rate agree that that matter should be looked at again.

Here in your Lordships' House are a mass of papers, running back a century and a half, relating to all the Parliamentary and statutory history of the railways and other transport undertakings, paralleled of course, a little way along the corridors, by similar documents in the other House. They deal with the statutory side, and with many other matters which require the authority of Parliament. In the Record Office there is the vast accumulation of the Board of Trade all through a century and a half, containing records relating to the great British activities and achievements in engineering. These will be in Fetter Lane or Chancery Lane. The Government have decided that any papers the railways have must go to York. Thus any scholar or economic historian who desires to look into the history of the nineteenth century from the railway side, or who is interested in all the important papers relating to the settlements and arrangements between the railway companies and the Government in two world wars—documents of great interest in many respects—will have to go to York.

I have recently seen in the Press some argument suggesting that it would be an advantage to have all these documents housed close to the locomotives. There is nothing more ridiculous than that suggestion. The economic history of the railways, their charges and so on, are of no interest to the people who made the drawings and worked out the plans for the locomotives, which, as my noble friend Lord Robertson of Oakridge has said, are one of the great features of British achievement. That suggestion, at any rate, I hope will be looked at again, and looked at from the point of view of what really is going to be convenient to scholars, economic historians and economists, who will not want to have to go to three places to find out anything they want to know.

But as regards the Museum itself, and the relics, I have the greatest sympathy with the attitude taken by the noble Lord who has opened this short debate. Just as I took the view, when I was Chairman of the Transport Commission, that we needed a centralisation of archives in the charge of a competent archivist, I also took the view, with which my colleagues agreed, that we needed a proper collection of historical relics relating not only to railways but to all the other transport undertakings—road, canal and dock. We arranged a number of exhibitions in the Great Hall and Shareholders Room at Euston, buildings which alas! have now disappeared, but they were meant to be only a prelude to a much bigger and a truly national collection.

If I may read from a short brochure issued some time in the early 'fifties, called Transport Treasures we said: The British Transport Commission are anxious that all items of historical interest appertaining to public transport shall be preserved. What is ultimately envisaged is not merely another railway museum at large, but a comprehensive permanent collection which will cover the whole vast field of inland transportation, for the properties vested in British Transport include docks, river navigations. canals, railways and road transport undertakings. That was in days when we were viewing transport as a whole. We seem to have got back, more or less by general agreement or lethargy, or as my noble friend said boredom, to a sort of atmosphere of fragmentation.

I agree entirely with what the noble Lord, Lord Montague of Beaulieu, has said, that these things would be better looked at as a whole, and the collections kept as a whole. I agree that there are difficulties in finding a site when one is dealing with objects as large as locomotives. Models can do something, and some of the great epoch-making discoveries and inventions of British engineers ought to find their place—and, indeed to some extent do find their place—in the Science Museum at Kensington. But to preserve a large enough number of actual locomotives was always a problem, and the line I took was to say to the Institution of Mechanical Engineers and to the Newcomen Society, and to bodies of that sort of standing, "If you can point to some existing locomotive which really marks a stage forward in British mechanical science, then we will do our best to preserve it. We cannot preserve every engine which merely had some railway engineer adding a few gadgets to get it called after his name, and it does not matter what colour it was painted. But if it really is related to the development of British mechanical and engineering achievement, we will do our best to see it preserved". And that, I think, was done.

Then my noble friend Lord Robertson, who succeeded me, was faced with the problem of where to put these things. I hoped then (here again I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Montagu) that we might be able to find one of the major architectural or civil engineering achievements of the British Railways of a century or more ago in which to house these; and I still feel that that might have been done with enough imagination, and good will perhaps, on the part of the railways themselves. I suggested, in fact (and was extremely interested to heard the noble Lord, Lord Montagu of Beaulieu, mention it), the little building at Nine Elms, built, I believe, by Sir William Tite, which was severely damaged, if not destroyed, during the war, but kept its façade—a very attractive little piece of 19th century architecture. Now something of that sort could be used.

I still hope that the Government will see whether they can think in terms of transport, and not merely in separate terms of railways, of London transport, of a canal or two, or a bus somewhere or other. Cannot they, even at this very late date, review the matter, as the noble Lord, Lord Montagu, has requested, in a wider spirit, and try to find somewhere in London, or near London; and, if possible, a building which has also some architectural merit?

Having said all that, I must say that I was bound to admit, during the debates on the Transport Bill, that if the main railway collection had to go to the Provinces, York was for many reasons a very good centre. But I asked for an assurance, which I got (I think it was from the noble Lord, Lord Hughes) and which I hope the noble Baroness will be able to repeat this evening. I said, "If these things must be moved away from Clapham, or wherever they are in London, will you undertake that there is maintained in London a sufficient collection of steam locomotives so that London children can go and see these things which have fascinated generations of young people?" And not only London children, but also, as my noble friend Lord Robertson of Oakridge has stressed, mechanical engineers of all grades and all stages in their profession, who ought to be able to go and look at some of these magnificent inventions and constructions without being told that if they want to see anything more than a model or a drawing they must go to Swindon or. probably, to York.

On general grounds, therefore, I think that there is a case, even at this very late stage, for reviewing these problems again. The archives may be past praying for—, I do not know; although I hope not. But as regards the Museum it is surely not too late to review the decisions. If the decision is that the major part of the railway collections must go to York, may we have an assurance, or a reiteration of the assurance given earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, that London children and London mechanical engineers will be able to see a proper series of steam locomotives without having to go so far afield?

6.33 p.m.

LORD GRIMSTON OF WESTBURY

My Lords, I had not put my name down to speak, but as, so to speak, an outsider, may I add my plea for this matter to be further investigated? As my noble friend Lord Montagu of Beaulieu has said, we in Britain really gave railways to the world, and it seems to me more than a pity if there is to be no transport museum left in London. When all is said and done, I suppose the bulk of tourists come to London, and far fewer go to York, for instance. When I was last visiting the Clapham Museum—I think it was some time during the summer—I was told there that the attendance at that Museum had gone up enormously during this last year.

I add my voice, as I say, as an outsider—the ex-Chairman of the British Transport Commission having spoken, and my noble friend Lord Montagu having spoken—in a strong plea that this matter be looked at again before London is entirely denuded of any Museum of one of the greatest things that we gave to the world.

6.35 p.m.

BARONESS PHILLIPS

My Lords, first of all I should like to pay a tribute to the two noble Lords, Lord Hurcomb and Lord Robertson of Oakridge, because I feel I should be doing them less than justice if I did not say that were it not for their work in this connection we should not have a Clapham Museum to debate to-night. I should also like to pay a tribute to the interest which the noble Lord, Lord Montagu of Beaulieu has shown from the start in the future of the transport relics in the Clapham Museum. I certainly do not think of him as a Metropolitan maniac; in fact, if that is the definition of a Londoner interested in retaining things in London, then I come into that category.

I would assure noble Lords that the Government are certainly not bored with this matter. I know that the Minister responsible for the Arts is not, and I can assure all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate that I am personally very interested in, and very fond of, the Clapham Museum. I have been a most ardent fan and have visited it frequently; so you have at least two members of the Government who are not bored and who have the interests of this Museum very much at heart.

The noble Lord, Lord Montagu, was the first Member of this House to speak on the clause of the Transport Bill dealing with this subject during the Second Reading debate in June last year. He suggested then that St. Pancras would be a very suitable site for a transport museum if Clapham could not be made viable. The noble Lord, Lord Montagu, speaks in his Question of a decision to disperse the relics, and in a letter to The Times last week the Government were accused of taking a decision which would completely destroy the Clapham collection. Before I go on to the question of alternative sites and the other issues that have been posed this evening, I want to explain again what is in fact proposed and why, including the financial limitations that restrict the choice of site. Noble Lords can then judge for themselves whether these harsh descriptions a the Government's action are justified.

Clapham is on several accounts unsuitable to continue as a Transport Museum. First, it is not rail connected. On the occasion that a locomotive was moved in, it cost £1,800. Secondly, there is in the absence of a turntable no possibility of developing the collection by moving heavy objects around. Thirdly—and nobody can gainsay this—the Museum is full up and there is no space for expansion. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, would be the first to agree, following on the remarks that he has just made, that a museum should be a living organism with room to cover recent and future developments. That is how I took the noble Lord's point. The locomotives of Clapham are all steam, there are no electric ones, and offers of two diesels recently had to be turned down. The railway collection there belongs to a past that will become increasingly remote—though I take the point of the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, that children should be able to see a steam train. However, I think the noble Lord would also agree that the present situation could not be a good advertisement for a forward-looking railway system.

On the other hand, the fact that the Clapham Museum is not self-supporting was not regarded as a reason for closing it. Personally, I am always puzzled when people talk about deficits and profits in relation to something so valuable to a nation's heritage as a museum. That was certainly not the reason why the closure of the Clapham Museum was considered necessary. It is difficult to see how anything approaching, the number of visitors to Lord Montagu's estate at Beaulieu, for example, which I understand is just over half-a-million, could possibly be expected at Clapham, however well it was managed. Nor could a much larger entrance fee be justified. The noble Lord asked about the future entrance charges at Clapham, York and Swindon. I understand there is no intention to increase the Clapham charges, though perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Montagu, would suggest otherwise. However, those at the present Museum at York and the one at Swindon may be increased slightly in the New Year.

At the time when a move to York was first mooted, the Government were by no means wedded to a site outside London. It was just that York satisfied one very simple condition, which has largely been lost sight of in all the subsequent controversy—and I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Oakridge, for reminding us of this to-night—which was met by no other site in or outside London; namely, that the money to provide a new museum was limited to the funds that would be realised by the sale of the Clapham site. The estimate of the proceeds, made two years ago, was £500,000. This basic fact was revealed at the start in the White Paper on Railway Policy, issued in November, 1967. It was stated in Appendix C that the proceeds would be sufficient for the conversion of an existing building but not for the construction of a new, purpose-built transport museum. This statement was not guesswork: it was based on an estimate for a new building at Harrow to accommodate most of the railway and road transport relics at Clapham; and that estimate came to about £750,000.

A widespread search by the Railways Board for an existing building suitable for conversion revealed only one—a redundant locomotive maintenance depot at York. This, of course, is rail-connected, and it contains two turntables, which will be of great use to a railway museum. This seems so obvious that I am sure your Lordships will accept the point. A building at York can also accommodate the contents of the small railway museum which is already there; and the proceeds of selling the site can be added to the funds available for the new museum. Contrary to the letter in The Times already quoted, there will be room at York for all locomotives and railway stock at Clapham apart from two locomotives for which good homes can be found; and there will be room for all the smaller objects that are considered worthy of a national museum. And, my Lords, there will also be room for expansion. The site will be close to York station and will, appropriately enough, have railway lines on several sides, although I take the point that the noble Lord, Lord Montagu, felt that this was not, perhaps, an advantage. If plans materialise for the planting of trees and for the provision of a footbridge from the existing riverside walk, the museum could in fact provide a very attractive oasis.

The noble Lord asked what would happen if the sale of the Clapham site did not raise the sum expected. We expect that the sum will prove adequate, but if by any chance it is not we shall have to consider whether the deficit should be met by the Railways Board or whether modification should be made to the plans. On the question of bridging finance, the Railways Board have agreed to provide this.

When the York site was found, the London Transport Board somewhat naturally indicated that they would prefer to take their relics back into their own keeping rather than see them go to York. London Transport will have a duty to preserve these relics, including the trams, in suitable accommodation. The intention is that they will be available for viewing. Ultimately, it is hoped, they will take their place in a museum of transport for the London region; and I am sure that London Transport will do their best with the interests of Londoners at heart. The very few other road transport relics will be offered to appropriate museums and preservation societies.

Those are the facts, my Lords. It is patent that the Clapham collection is not going to be "completely destroyed". The London Transport relics constitute about 15 per cent. of the collection, and other road transport items a tiny percentage of the total. The first definition of "disperse" in the Shorter Oxford Dictionary is, "To scatter in all directions". How can that description of the Government's proposals be justified when over 80 per cent. of the whole collection is being kept together and nearly all the remainder will be under the control of a single body? Further, the people who complain about the break-up of the collection ignore the fact that, originally, Clapham also contained material about waterways. When nearly all this was removed in 1963 to a separate Waterways Museum at Stoke Bruerne on the Grand Union Canal, this did not cause any outcry, and it has proved an eminently satisfactory arrangement. The field is so vast that it would be impossible to do justice to all forms of transport in a single museum; and I feel that even the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, with his plea, will see this point. One would feel that there is much to be said for specialist transport museums of national standing—motor cars at one spot, railways at York and so on.

I will now return to the question of alternative sites. Despite the financial condition which appeared to preclude a completely new building, the Government have shown that they are ready to consider other sites. With regard to St. Pancras, British Railways announced a year ago that the station would remain in service indefinitely. This was a decision for operational reasons, and has nothing to do with the possibility of using it for other purposes. When Miss Lee met a deputation from the London Boroughs Association in August, 1968, she offered to consider a firm, costed proposal for a site at Nine Elms, or elsewhere, if one was put forward.

Nothing more was heard of Nine Elms until the Clapham Society came to see Miss Lee on October 16, 1969; and shortly afterwards the secretary of the Society sent the Department of Education and Science some rough sketch plans prepared by the Borough of Lambeth for a museum on the Nine Elms site. No indication of cost has been given; but apart from this problem the space shown in the sketch plan would be inadequate for large exhibits. Its area is only 35,000 square feet, whereas the area proposed for the main hall at York is 75,000 square feet. Finally, it would be necessary to lay down a spur line to make the site rail-connected. Another suggestion put forward by the Victorian Society was Woolwich Arsenal. This. however, is not rail-connected; and the same objection applies to one or two sites that have also been suggested. In addition, in all cases the cost of a completely new building is expected to be prohibitive.

I realise that Clapham does not want to lose it Museum, but I cannot really regard its inhabitants as being absolutely cut off from the National Gallery or the other national museums. The West End can be reached in 20 minutes on the Northern Line from Clapham Common Station; it is served by a number of buses, and trains run from Clapham Junction to Victoria and Waterloo every few minutes. In saying that I sound rather like a public relations officer for London Transport, but this is just one of the facts of life.

The noble Lord, Lord Montagu, also raised the question of railway records, as did the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb. Here, I would candidly admit that the case for moving the records to York, to an annex of the new Museum, is much less strong than that for the relics. For the bulk of researchers it would clearly be better to keep in London the records at present there. though too much must not be made of this. It might be possible to establish an information point at the Science Museum to deal with some of their inquiries; and the record office at York will have facilities for dealing with telephone and postal inquiries. On the other hand, York will attract a great many visitors who live nearer to it than to London. On two sample dates in 1967 it was found that nearly half the visitors to the Porchester Road record office in London came from the regions, many of them from places nearer York. There are, my Lords—and we must not forget this—seven universities within 50 miles of York. Further, one of the three sets of records involved—the mechanical drawings at Clapham—plainly ought to be in the same place as the locomotives and the other exhibits to which many of them relate.

The building at York is at present the only firm prospect of finding a permanent home for the records, and any other solution would cost considerably more money. It is not true, of course, that the decision to move the records was taken against the advice of all the advisory bodies concerned. The Standing Commission on Museums and Galleries was consulted before the publication of the White Paper and expressed itself broadly satisfied with the proposals for transferring the relics and records from London to York. The Chairman has recently written asking that the decision to move the records to York should not be irrevocable if it should later be found practicable to house them in London. I think this bears out the point which the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, made. The Chairman of the Science Museum Advisory Council wrote in 1969 expressing the misgivings of the Council as a whole at the prospect of the records leaving London, but I understand that the members are not now unanimous about this.

The noble Lord, Lord Montagu, also made the point that there had not been public consultation in connection with the moving of the relics. I would only remind him that after the Transport Act 1968 had been passed, Miss Lee held meetings with the London Boroughs Association, the Victorian Society, the Transport Trust, the Greater London Council, the Borough of Camden, the Standing Commission on Museums and Galleries and the Clapham Society. I am not sure whether the noble Lord would regard these as public consultations; but certainly the interested bodies were consulted. The noble Lord, Lord Montagu, sought information about the programme for the move. The new building should be ready in the second half of 1971. It will take a year to move the relics to York. The new museum is expected in 1972.

My Lords, I am sure that the Government's policy of trying to spread the good things around the whole country is right. This is not a question of pressing anything in the nature of a regional policy. The museum at York will in fact be linked with the Science Museum in London. Work is about to start on detailed plans. If sufficient people wish to see them on completion, they will certainly be placed on display. The Government see no need for a public inquiry. The time has surely come for railway enthusiasts and others to stop arguing about the move and to concentrate on making the new building at York a museum of which the whole country will be proud.