HL Deb 14 February 2002 vol 631 cc1203-12

12.38 p.m.

Baroness Blackstone rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 23rd January be approved [17th Report from the Joint Committee].

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, we are here to debate whether the functions now vested in the Secretary of State under certain sections of the 1947 Wellington Museum Act may be exercised on her behalf. I am satisfied that the draft order now before your Lordships is compatible with convention rights.

There are two functions which under these proposals would be contracted out. The first concerns the maintenance and use of part of Apsley House as a museum, commemorating the first Duke of Wellington and his time. The museum may be used for government entertainment or, with the consent of the Duke, for other public purposes. The second is about the maintenance of the fabric of the house.

The responsibility for the running of the museum has been carried out since 1947 by the Victoria and Albert Museum. Responsibility for the fabric has rested with the DCMS and its predecessors. Your Lordships may appreciate being reminded of the historical background to these proposals. Apsley House was given to the Government by the seventh Duke of Wellington, the father of the current Duke, in 1947. Under the terms of the Wellington Museum Act, the Duke and his family retain rights to live in the private apartments of the house and the Duke retains rights to give his consent to events held in the public rooms. We do not propose that any of those rights held by the family should be changed by the current proposals, but we have reached the conclusion that it no longer makes practical sense to have separate management arrangements for such functions. We have decided that the time has come for unification.

Over the years, the department and its predecessors have been competent stewards of the historic fabric. There has been considerable government investment to ensure that this Grade I listed building remains in good shape. In addition to the day-to-day maintenance, a considerable programme of capital work has been funded. Last year more than £200,000 was spent in a thorough overhaul of the east wing roof. My department has also programmed over £700,000 for future work to the Waterloo and central roofs. Any new body will be funded to continue those works.

Apsley House is an important part of the landmark buildings at Hyde Park Corner and fully complements the now refurbished Wellington Arch directly opposite. But Apsley House is the last historic property for which we retain responsibility. The decision was taken as part of the far-reaching comprehensive spending review in 1998 to withdraw from other responsibilities of that kind, such as Marble Arch and Trafalgar Square. It is inefficient to retain specialist contractors for just one property.

Over the years the V & A has done an excellent job. Under its management the Wellington Museum won the Small Attraction of the Year award in 2001. The total number of visitors increased by 37 per cent between 1998–99 and 2000–01 to around 60,000 people. The director of the V & A has said that running an historic house is not a priority for the V & A at present. A change in management of the Wellington Museum, therefore, provides an opportunity for a new focus and direction.

One particularly noteworthy innovation from the V&A that we intend should remain is the emphasis on education. The education programme at the Wellington Museum ranged from formal learning for children and higher and further education students to informal programmes for children, adults and families. Especially popular are the workshops for schoolchildren that have been developed to be uniquely suited to Apsley House and the Wellington Museum, such as the Downstairs Diary, a living history programme of servant life in the Victorian age.

The informal programme includes events such as specialist talks, relating directly to the Duke of Wellington, his life, his times, his magnificent collection, story-telling and art activities for children, and family learning weekends organised in conjunction with the Westminster adult education service, which have attracted an ethnically diverse group of families from north Westminster. We would expect any new management to build on that and that that will be a condition of any contract.

We shall also require the new management to retain the principle of free admission to the museum for children. However, the proposal is that the Wellington Museum should not be classified as a national museum under the new arrangement. Therefore, we shall not require the full range of free access policies to apply. The new operator must have scope to decide on the charging policy if that makes overall operational and business sense. That has been the case in other operations where the Government have put in an independent operator in charge of historic properties; for example, at Somerset House and at the Royal Naval College at Greenwich.

Overall, we would expect the existing visitor experience at least to be maintained, and if possible, enhanced. One possibility is that the new management could establish a relationship with the Wellesley family that would allow more artefacts associated with the life of the first Duke to be exhibited. At present, there is much material at Stratfield Saye in Hampshire that could find a much wider audience if it were made available in London. As we approach the 150th anniversary of the death of the first Duke, that is an exciting prospect.

We see considerable advantage in market-testing ideas for unified management of the building and the museum. The contracting out order now before your Lordships provides us with an opportunity to gauge just what that interest may be. Such interest may come from established heritage operations or from other quarters. We would expect to let a contract in the first instance for five years. The successful bidder would be funded by the department, initially at existing levels of investment, but we expect that a new operator will be able to generate other sources of support, perhaps through sponsorship and increased levels of corporate and other events in the museum.

On all fronts, we believe that the time is right for change. Of course, change is unsettling for many of those directly involved. It is fundamental to our thinking that the position of existing staff in the Wellington Museum should be protected, whatever new management arrangements are put in place. Discussions have already begun between the department and the V & A. If your Lordships agree the proposal now before the House, we shall consult the staff and the unions together with potential bidders. Where staff transfer to the new management we shall follow the Cabinet Office statement of practice on staff transfers in the public sector so that the rights of those employed at the Wellington Museum will be fully protected.

We see real gains all round from the proposal now before the House. The V & A will be relieved of a responsibility that no longer fits with its primary business purpose. The department will relinquish its direct responsibility. The visitor will suffer no reduction and may indeed stand to gain from a richer experience. I commend the order to the House.

Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 23rd January be approved [17th Report front the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Blackstone.)

12.47 p.m.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns

My Lords. I support the making of the order, but I have some questions for the Minister. The order is so unspecific as to the implications of what will happen when it is passed, that although the Minister has given the House some information, I feel that it is important to ask the Government to put on the record details where it is reasonable to do so. As ever, my questions are thoroughly reasonable!They cover the following four issues: funding; the process of transfer to a new organisation; accountability post transfer; and access and exhibits.

On funding, I raise two matters: repairs and maintenance. The Minister has referred to the fact that last year more than £200,000 was spent on a thorough overhaul of the east wing roof and that the DCMS has programmed more than £700,000 for future works to the Waterloo and central roofs. She has given an assurance to the House that the Government will fund any new body to continue those works that have already been identified. That is most welcome.

What will happen if there is an over-run in the cost of those projected improvements? If the costs go up unexpectedly, who will bear the increase in those costs? If there is a dispute as to the cause of the over-run in the budget, who will act as the arbiter? In other words, who will pay?

On maintenance, can the Minister give the House an estimate of the current annual cost of day-to-day maintenance that she mentioned? She said that the Government will fund the successful bidder initially at existing levels of investment. How long does she mean by "initially"? Will that be for one year only. or will the period be longer than that? Will the funding that is transferred to the new managing body be deducted directly from the V & A budget?

I note that the Minister referred to the TUPE practice. I welcome her remarks in that regard. That practice will mean that the rights of those employed at the Wellington Museum will be protected. I want to ask a question about pensions which I appreciate is technical. However, I was able to give the Minister somewhat limited advance notice this morning of these questions. Can she tell the House what the position will be with regard to pensions? I refer to those that are currently claimed by past employees of the museum—those who have already retired—and those that will be claimed in the future when existing employees retire once they have transferred to the new organisation? Will the new body be responsible for funding those pensions, or will they be paid by government?

I pass to the second issue, which comes under the heading of process of transfer. The Minister referred to putting out the transfer to bidders. We hope, as the Government say, that there will be wide-ranging interest. How long does the Minister expect the market-testing process to take? We all wish the handover to be as painless as possible. Do the Government have a target date for the handover to the new managing body?

Last December, I tabled a Written Question on the order. In her Answer, the Minister said that the Government expected that expressions of interest would be sought through an advertisement and that tenders would then be invited. On 6th February, when the order was considered in another place, Dr Howells, the Minister there, seemed to think that a number of bidders were already in the wings, waiting to take centre stage. Is that the case? Have the Government to date received any informal indications of any person or organisation who may be prepared to enter the bidding process? If so, can the Minister say who they are? What plans have the Government made to judge which tender should be accepted, if there is more than one, and if there is only one, whether it is acceptable? What principles will guide their decision?

Does the Minister agree that the people who may best understand the collection—including the parts that have not yet been exhibited—include members of the family? Will the family be involved in the running of the organisation that will take over the management of Apsley House and the Wellington Museum?

I turn to the issue of accountability after the handover to the new organisation. What kind of accountability will follow that transfer? To whom will the managing body be accountable and how will that accountability be exercised? The Minister said that the contract is expected to last for five years in the first instance. I hope that this would never happen, but if the Government were by any stretch of the imagination to be dissatisfied with the management of the museum and Apsley House, could that contract be terminated before the end of five years, or is there any other practical step that the Government could take if they felt that the arrangement was simply not working?

Finally, I turn to the issue of access and exhibits. The matters that I have covered so far are of importance to public finance and accountability, but so far as the general public are concerned, the real test of success of the change to be brought about under the order is simple: when they visit the museum, they want an even better experience than they currently have. I recently visited Apsley House as a paying member of the public and thoroughly enjoyed my visit. I can well understand why it won the London Tourist Board's attraction of the year award last year.

I welcome the Minister's remark about the continuation of the valuable education programme—that it should be a condition of the contract of the new managing body to build on that experience. I also welcome her pragmatic comments about free access. I appreciate her making clear that we should leave those who know best—in this case, the new operators—to get on with making commonsense decisions about where free access should be available and where charging might be appropriate. I am delighted that the noble Baroness was able to build on the remarks about access and exhibits made by the Minister in another place. In so doing, she has made it easier for the House to agree to the order.

Baroness Trumpington

My Lords, when I represented the then Department of National Heritage at the Dispatch Box, I took advantage of my position to pay a thorough visit to Apsley House, which I absolutely loved, especially the pictures. I had no idea that through sheer good fortune it had amassed such a fine collection. I am sorry that the Victoria and Albert Museum, with its great expertise, is giving up responsibility, but I suppose that I understand the reason why.

The noble Baroness mentioned that items may be brought from Strafield Saye to Apsley House. I have no idea to whom those items belong. Do they belong to the family or to the general public? I think that there are more than enough things to see in Apsley House as it stands. It would be a pity if it were cluttered, rather than giving one a little lebensraum as one goes round. I should like to know about the items from Strafield Saye, which is also well worth a visit.

Viscount Falkland

My Lords, the Minister's presentation was interesting and encouraging. I have great confidence following it and, on behalf of these Benches, I am sure that in implementing the order the Government will be sensitive and appropriate to the historical importance of Apsley House and its importance as a tourist site, among other things.

In my youth—I think I was only 22—I worked for a genealogical publication and had to research the Wellesley family. I got in touch with the seventh Duke, who had presented Apsley House in 1947. He kindly invited me to lunch, which was a daunting experience for a 22 year-old. I have never been invited to any meal by a Duke since. Young people nowadays may be rather surprised that one was daunted by such an experience, but in those days a Duke was really something. The seventh Duke was certainly really something. He was an eminent diplomat and had held various offices, as well as being in charge of surveying the Royal works of art—the King's works of art—and had also been a distinguished trustee of the National Gallery.

I may say that the luncheon went extremely well: my genealogical points were answered satisfactorily and he had with him his distinguished librarian. There was an interesting library in Apsley House, as well as some interesting pictures of Spanish origin and other items. I feel rather remiss in not having visited since. I was encouraged by what the Minister and the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay of St Johns, said. At the time, at 22, I had rather too much of the iron Duke, because I was educated—if that is not too strong a word for it—at a school founded in memory of the royal Duke. I see sitting in his place the right reverend prelate the Bishop of Oxford, who was educated properly at the same institution.

I was so impressed and heartened by that visit to Apsley House that I remember thinking that it could become a really great attraction for students and tourists alike, as indeed it has. One remarkable characteristic of No. 1 London, as it is called—so it was not difficult for me to find when I went to lunch with the Duke—is that it gathers together a number of interesting items related to the first Duke of Wellington and his campaigns. In particular, I recall the bivouac that he used at the battle of Waterloo and various other pieces of weaponry, hats and insignia, all of which added up to, to use the modern expression used by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, a good visitor experience. That is not an expression I use, although I do talk about my educational experience, which is somewhat different. It is a remarkable place.

I am sure the noble Baroness will agree that contact with the family needs to be maintained. The seventh Duke gave the house to the nation. The apartments at the top of the building were arranged so that the family could stay there, with arrangements for entertaining and so on. Those have all worked well.

We must count this building as one of the great houses of England. Those great houses are always better presented if the family remains associated with them, but that is not always possible. I give this note of warning, and I am sure that it will not occur in the arrangements that the Government will make. However, when bodies are appointed to look after such houses one must ensure that the personalities involved will work with the family.

The family still maintains a strong interest in Apsley House. A number of items in Stratfield Saye could well be placed in Apsley House. However, I take the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington. It would be a mistake to clutter the house. The relationship between the family and whoever is responsible for the building should be close, sensitive and happy. In that way, one increases its attraction.

I am encouraged by the Minister's remarks about the educational aspect. It is important that young people should have the opportunity to be educated about one of the great figures of our history who has been somewhat ignored, as have most of our historical figures. We are going through a phase where history is not fashionable. Sadly, nowadays children will not know much about the Duke of Wellington. If they attend Wellington College, they will do so because they will see the pineapples which the Duke liked and history is rammed down the throat. However, it is no longer a quasi-military establishment, which is a relief.

The Victoria and Albert Museum has done a good job over the years. We understand why it does not find it possible to continue to run the museum aspect of the house. We have great confidence in the new director of the Victoria and Albert Museum, Mark Jones. He has a large task on his hands. There are important developments for that great museum. He wants to keep his eye on the ball. I understand that Apsley House would be a distraction. It is the time for this change to take place.

We welcome this sensible order. When the Minister has answered the searching questions of the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, I shall be even further assured that it is a sensible measure which will lead to this attraction being increasingly important and a centre of education.

1 p.m.

Lord Blaker

My Lords, first, having recently visited the museum I found it an educational experience. But more than that, it was an exciting artistic experience because the collections are magnificent. I welcome the Minister's remarks about the importance which will continue to be attached to the educational aspects of what the museum is doing. They arc immensely important. I am glad that she spelt out so fully what is being done.

Secondly, I refer to access. When I first went to the museum I was rather terrified at the thought of approaching it. One sees the traffic hurtling along that very wide road and there is no obvious indication that it is perfectly safe to get there. There is very little advertising of the fact that one can cross the road underground in total safety from three directions. Can the Minister ensure that that situation is improved? Potential visitors should be more numerous although the situation is developing well, as the noble Baroness indicated when she cited the figures of attendance. Can the noble Baroness ensure that that somewhat frightening deterrent is changed so that people realise that it is totally safe to go to the museum'?

Baroness Blackstone

My Lords, I am grateful for the welcome given to the order from all sides of the House. I shall do my best to answer the questions put in particular by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay. However, they are rather detailed and if I cannot do so, I shall obtain the answers and write to her.

The noble Baroness asked when the hand-over will take place. We hope that it will be some time in the late autumn of this year. I think that it will take that amount of time for the process to be gone through properly. Noble Lords would want that to be done properly.

She asked about repairs and maintenance and what would happen if there were an overrun. In any contract, it is important to ensure that the bidder pays for any overruns. That will apply with regard to capital contracts at Apsley House as it would anywhere else.

The noble Baroness asked about the pension position after the transfer takes place of staff who currently work there. I cannot add a great deal to what I said in my opening remarks. We shall act in accordance with Cabinet Office guidance on the transfer of staff. We shall ensure that the rights of existing staff are protected.

She asked about accountability. The contract will be managed and overseen by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. I hope that there will be no problems. However, if there were to be a problem about the contract being met, the DCMS could terminate the contract. I hope that that is a clear response.

The noble Baroness asked about the process of market testing; and how many organisations might bid for the contract. I have no idea. I do not know how many people are likely to do so. We know that one body is interested. But it is quite likely that there may be others.

The noble Baroness asked what initial funding meant. It means five years and then it would be right to have a review. As I hope I made clear, the capital works will continue to be funded by the DCMS. I do not anticipate any problems about that.

The noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, asked about objects at Stratfield Saye. They belong to the family, but I know that the family is willing to loan them to the museum. It is intended to make the museum more like the home of the Duke of Wellington than simply a collection of exhibits. I accept the need to ensure that there is no cluttering up. I am sure that that can be avoided. I agree with the noble Baroness about the wonderful quality of the collections at Apsley House, especially the paintings. But I have also seen some wonderful objects at Stratfield Saye. Far more people would be able to see them in London so it is a helpful and generous offer from the family that more objects should be shown in London.

I am sorry that the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, has not had any further invitations from dukes. Perhaps some will now be forthcoming. I am grateful for his welcome for what the Government are proposing, particularly what he said about education. I do not agree that history is not fashionable; it is very fashionable. Large numbers of children and young people are interested in history, and they ought to be interested in the first duke and his many exploits, as a general and as a politician.

The noble Viscount is, of course, right in what he says about the V&A having many other considerations that it wants to fulfil, to ensure that the enormous success of the British galleries continues and that the work that goes on in the V&A and in the other museums for which they are responsible continues to prosper and improve.

The noble Lord, Lord Blaker, asked about access to Apsley House. There are underpasses at Hyde Park Corner, so one can go underneath the road, rather than risk one's life trying to cross the road. I accept that the traffic there is somewhat intimidating, but I doubt whether my colleagues in the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions or Westminster City Council can, in fact, hugely reduce the flow of traffic.

I also accept what the noble Lord said about the need for good advertising and marketing of one of London's great gems. I am sure that whoever takes on responsibility in the new trust will be aware of that.

Lord Blaker

My Lords, I want to clarify a point about which I have obviously misled the Minister. I am not suggesting that any alteration should be made to the traffic. I am suggesting that it should be made clear to the public that it is perfectly safe to get to the museum because of the underground access from several directions.

I find it surprising that there is so little advertising in the underground access or visible above ground in the approaches to it. Perhaps, there could be some banners or something like that, but there is nothing to show that one can get there safely; one finds out by chance.

Baroness Blackstone

My Lords, I am happy to see whether we can make some improvement. Perhaps some signs could be put up making it clear that one can get across from the Underground at the other side of the road through the underpass, without risking life and limb.

I am grateful for the support for the order. I hope that we can now get on with seeking tenders. The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay of St Johns, asked what criteria would be used. They are fairly obvious: the management and business plan must be in order, the education work must continue, and the great asset of Apsley House and its contents must be properly preserved and properly shown to—we hope—an ever-larger public.

On Question, Motion agreed to.