HL Deb 24 January 1979 vol 397 cc1390-2

2.44 p.m.

Lord AVEBURY

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 whether the expenditure of £945 on the hire of a special crane to make an immediate inspection of Nelson's Column following its ascent by Mr. Colin Rowe and Mr. Ed Drummond, and the subsequent expenditure of £500 on "repairs" to the column, were authorised in advance; out of what Vote this expenditure was incurred, and how they reconcile it with their policy of limiting public spending.

The PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY of STATE, DEPARTMENT of the ENVIRONMENT (Baroness Stedman)

My Lords, the costs referred to are charged to Class VIII, Vote 2, and were properly authorised before they were incurred. It was considered necessary to ensure immediately that no loose or potentially dangerous objects remained on the Column. A detailed inspection and repairs to the lightning conductor were carried out as soon as possible.

Lord AVEBURY

My Lords, can any Tom, Dick or Harry in the Department of the Environment decide to spend £1,500 of public money because he thinks that something is urgent? Is the noble Baroness not tempted to suppose that political motives might have underlain the immediate incurring of this vast sum and the frivolous prosecution brought against Mr. Drummond when it would have been quite possible to carry out an inspection using binoculars or a camera with a telescopic lens? Will the noble Baroness favourably consider the offer which has been made by Mr. Drummond to carry out inspections, if they are considered to be physically necessary, at a saving to the taxpayer annually of £400?

Baroness STEDMAN

My Lords, even using binoculars, it was impossible to determine from the ground what, apart from the banner and the ropes, had been left on the Column, and it was important to determine that quickly. The contractors who normally inspect and maintain the Column had no other equipment immediately available. So far as the prosecution is concerned, the Department did not bring the prosecution; it was brought by the police. With regard to the offer that was made, we could not accept that offer because we are advised that the method used for climbing does not comply with the Health and Safety at Work Regulations.

Lord AVEBURY

My Lords, do not the Regulations need to be looked at again in the light of Mr. Drummond's offer? When the noble Baroness said that it was impossible to determine from the ground whether any damage had been caused, is she not aware that photographic evidence was presented in court, and accepted by the magistrates, showing that Mr. Drummond and his colleague had not caused any damage and that therefore photographic evidence could have been taken by the Department of the Environment?

Baroness STEDMAN

My Lords, this was something in which we had to move fairly quickly; we could not wait for all the photographic evidence. It could not be determined by binoculars what the damage was and we certainly could not have removed the ropes and the banners by using binoculars. We had to have something to bring them down, and the sensible thing to do from the point of view of public safety was to send up the contractors who are used to maintaining and cleaning the Column.