HL Deb 15 September 1972 vol 335 cc605-9

11.11 a.m.

LORD STRABOLGI

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

The Question was as follows:

To ask Her Majesty's Government

  1. (i) whether they are aware that the entry kiosks and railings erected outside the National Maritime Museum and the Greenwich Observatory, in anticipation of the proposed admission charges, are now being removed on amenity grounds,
  2. (ii) whether, in view of the architectural importance of Greenwich, the approval of the Secretary of State for the Environment was sought and obtained before the work was put in hand, and
    3. 606
  3. (iii) whether they will give the estimated costs of erection and removal of the kiosks, their concrete bases and railings.

LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON

My Lords, as regards the first part of the noble Lord's Question, the kiosks and railings were originally erected at the entrances to the grounds at the request of the museum trustees, who did not want the charging points to be inside the buildings. Later, doubts were expressed about the legality of charging for entry into the grounds, which, under the provisions of the National Maritime Museum Act, are managed as part of Greenwich Park. The trustees have therefore agreed that charging should take place inside the museum, and the kiosks and railings are being removed, with consequent amenity benefits.

In answer to the noble Lord's second query, the design was settled in the normal way within the Department. There is no rule that schemes affecting Greenwich must all be submitted to Ministers for prior approval. My right honourable friend naturally accepts full responsibility. The total cost, including removal, is some £10,000.

LORD STRABOLGI

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that Answer. I am sure it will give considerable satisfaction to hear that these kiosks are being removed. Arising out of his Answer, may I ask him, first, if the design of these hideous huts was approved by the trustees? Secondly, will the Government give priority to removing the kiosk outside the old Royal Observatory, as this is not only impeding the meridian line but is also spoiling the view of the beautiful Wren buildings? Thirdly, if collection is to take place within the very numerous entrances, do the Government not think that the percentage of the running costs, which are already well over 30 per cent. based on the kiosk collection, will now rise to completely uneconomic heights?

LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON

My Lords, regarding the first supplementary question, I cannot give the noble Lord an assurance that every trustee was implicitly happy with the design. The kiosks were put up in something of a hurry for at one time it was thought that they might be needed by January 1, 1972. In regard to the second part of the question, about the kiosk at the Royal Observatory, I can confirm that that is going. On the third point, we are dealing with a hypothetical case. The running costs of the National Maritime Museum are expensive; the Vote is something like £772,000 a year. It is estimated that we shall get a net income of some £62,500. I do not think that extra staff Will be needed as there will be coin machines inside the entrances—and attendants will have change if needed.

LORD STRABOLGI

My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that there are ten entrances at the National Maritime Museum and the Royal Observatory?

LORD MOW BRAY AND STOURTON

My Lords, my information is that there will in future be two entrances which the public will use at the Maritime Museum: Caird entrance and the East entrance. There will be one entrance at the Observatory.

LORD REIGATE

My Lords, if there are really ten entrances, is it not high time that something was done to cut down on the number, on security grounds alone?

LORD AIREDALE

My Lords, can the boards of the trustees of other museums be assured, as a result of this very unfortunate false start at Greenwich, first, that they will be in order in taking the dignified course of waiting until Parliament has approved present proposals before they begin schemes for erecting turnstiles and so on; second, that they will then be given adequate time in which to set about the job of erecting turnstiles in an orderly manner; and third, that they will not be bullied and pushed by Parliament into starting to collect their 10p pieces before they have been able to make proper arrangements?

LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON

My Lords, I take the noble Lord's point. It is not really a point for me personally. I think that question should be addressed to the Paymaster General.

LORD AIREDALE

My Lords, in this House we are not able to ask questions of particular Ministers; we have to ask questions of Her Majesty's Government.

LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON

My Lords, I am sure that Her Majesty's Government have every intention that the trustees of all museums will be fully consulted about these matters.

LORD STRABOLGI

My Lords, arising out of the supplementary question put by the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, may I ask the noble Lord whether he is aware that there is also a hideous hut outside the Natural History Museum at South Kensington which is giving grave concern to lovers of Victorian architecture? Will the Government arrange for that to be removed?

LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON

My Lords, as a lover of Victorian architecture I will look into the matter and let the noble Lord know.

LORD SEGAL

My Lords, will the noble Lord say whether any advice has been given to these museum authorities about the design of these "Eccles" kiosks, and whether any financial assistance is likely to be given to other museum authorities who are willing to collaborate with the noble Lord in raising his meagre million pounds?

LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON

My Lords, these kiosks are being removed now. Where they will be sent to eventually I do not know.

LORD PLATT

My Lords, as a matter of interest, has the noble Lord who is replying to the Question actually seen these hideous monstrosities which have been erected at Greenwich? If not, has he seen the very revealing photographs of the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi?—because they are really worth seeing.

LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON

My Lords, I have not seen them personally, but I understand from officials in the Department that it is considered to be somewhat problematical as to whether they reflect the greatest taste that we have ever exhibited. I think we would agree that we can do better.

LORD SHACKLETON

My Lords, am I right in thinking that the noble Lord, Lord Platt, said that the photographs of my noble friend Lord Strabolgi were "hideous"? If so, is this not a case for invoking the Standing Order about acrimonious remarks? Secondly, may I ask the noble Earl the Leader of the House whether the noble Lord who so far has been replying for the Government is in some way restricted so that, contrary to normal practice, he is not able to answer on behalf of the Paymaster General?

LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON

My Lords, one thing for which I do not think Her Majesty's Government can be held responsible is the view about the photographs of the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Platt, was intending no insult. The noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, offered to show the photographs to me: only lack of time prevented me from looking at them. With regard to the question put by the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition, of course I am empowered to answer; but I did not have the information at my finger tips.

THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (EARL JELLICOE)

My Lords, in rising partly in response to what was said by the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition—and I hope that this will be the ultimate reply on this particular and entrancing Question—I can only reaffirm that my noble friend is not only empowered to answer but eminently competent to answer on behalf of Her Majesty's Ministers.