HL Deb 11 July 2003 vol 651 cc609-11

1.8 p.m.

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 11th June be approved [22nd Report from the Joint Committee].

The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of this order is to correct an error made in an order in 1998. I am satisfied that the draft order is compatible with convention rights.

The draft order is made under Section 69 of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994, which allows a Minister to authorise another person to exercise the Minister's statutory responsibilities. The responsibilities are those of the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport and for the management of the historic Royal Palaces and Royal Parks.

The draft order extends authorisation approved by your Lordships' House in the Contracting Out (Functions in relation to the Management of Crown Lands) Order 1998. The 1998 order allowed the Secretary of State to contract with the Historic Royal Palaces Trust to manage the Historic Royal Palaces. I can assure the House that this draft order does not allow the contracting out of additional responsibilities. It puts right an error, made at the time of the 1998 order, which only recently came to light.

The draft order allows the Secretary of State to contract out the responsibilities for the management of Hampton Court gardens, green and road and Hampton Court park and Kensington Gardens. The 1998 order authorised the contracting out of responsibilities under Section 21 of the Crown Lands Act 1851. Unfortunately, powers to manage the gardens, green and park at Hampton Court and Kensington Gardens are contained in Section 22 of the 1851 Act. The 1998 order should have made reference to Sections 21 and 22 of the 1851 Act, and the draft order will put right that error.

The Secretary of State entered into a contract with the Historic Royal Palaces Trust on 1st April 1998 whereby the charity would manage all the unoccupied Royal Palaces, including the gardens, green and park at Hampton Court. I can confirm to the House that the 1998 arrangements work very well. The right decision was made in 1998 to pass day-to-day management of the unoccupied palace to a body of expert and experienced trustees. The unoccupied Royal Palaces have been maintained and presented to the highest standards, consistent with their status and architectural and historic importance.

The visitor experience has been further enhanced by several improvements and innovations with absolutely no compromise on standards and no over-commercialisation. Since 1998, HRP has invested £41 million in the conservation of the palaces and their contents. The state of conservation is better than at any time in the past. This success is due to the commitment of the trustees and a very dedicated staff.

Therefore, the draft order does no more than put right an administrative error made in 1998. It confirms Parliament's authorisation for the Secretary of State to contract with HRP to manage the gardens, green and park at Hampton Court and parts of Kensington Gardens which are currently looked after by HRP. HRP will continue to manage and present those areas to the highest standards. I commend the order to your Lordships. I beg to move.

Moved, That the draft order laid before the (louse on 11th June be approved [22nd Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Evans of Temple Guiting.)

Baroness Hanham

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his explanation of the order. It seems just a little careless to have ignored places such as Hampton Court and Kensington Gardens—I declare an interest as living very close to Kensington Gardens—when the original order was made. However, the order begs one or two questions, and I should be grateful if the Minister could answer them for me.

I am not certain what is the base of the contracting arrangements. Presumably, there are financial implications in these contracts and arrangements. Therefore, was the extra work involved in including Hampton Court and Kensington Gardens taken into account in the original contract or is it additional? And, consequently, does recompense need to be made to the trust for the years when it carried out that work, apparently without either contractual or, indeed, monetary liabilities?

Secondly, was the contract ultra vires in terms of the properties that we have mentioned? If the work was carried out without a contract, what is the legal position?

Thirdly, what is the length of the contract? Is it now a perpetual contract, devolved by the Minister to the trust, or will these properties fall within a certain time period for the duration of the contract? I should be grateful if the Minister could respond to those points.

Lord Addington

My Lords, I shall not take up too much of the House's time on this issue. It is rather reassuring to hear that the Government can make this degree of mistake. I feel rather more relaxed about all the drafting errors that I have made when tabling amendments. However, does the order mean that, not only has the work been done, which I took to be the situation, but that it will now be done on a proper legal basis? And has it been assured for the future? Those are the only questions that I believe are relevant following the very good introductory set of questions put forward by the noble Baroness. I hope that the Minister can give us an assurance because, if the answer to my questions is "yes", I do not believe that there will be anything else to worry about.

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting

My Lords, the answer to the first question posed by the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, is that there is no recompense to the trust and HRP is not asking for any recompense. The question whether the arrangement was ultra vires was raised when the order was spoken to in another place. The answer was that it is not and there is absolutely no problem in that respect. Finally, this matter has now been devolved by the Minister to the trust and there is no time limit.

I can give the noble Lord, Lord Addington, the assurance that he seeks. If this is the only mistake that the Government have made in the past two years, that is absolutely brilliant.

Baroness Hanham

My Lords, I have a further question to ask out of pure ignorance. Is it correct that the historic buildings trust was set up in order to take on these properties? Otherwise, "contracting out" would be rather an odd term to use if the matter were devolved. Possibly the body is now legitimately responsible for all those properties. The second question arising from that is whether there is then never any need to re-contract or re-tender.

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting

My Lords, with regard to her first question, the noble Baroness is right. The body was set up for this specific purpose. There is a maximum 10-year limit to contract under a contracting-out order.

On Question, Motion agreed to.