HL Deb 16 April 1996 vol 571 cc59-61WA
Lord Kennet

asked Her Majesty's Government:

Whether they intend to accept the advice of the Royal Parks Review Group on the membership of the Advisory Board.

Lord Inglewood

The Government has only just received the review group's revised report. We are now giving detailed consideration to all the report's recommendations. We hope to make a formal response before the Summer Recess.

Lord Kennet

asked Her Majesty's Government:

Whether they will secure from the Treasury greater flexibility for the Royal Parks Agency to manage its own expenditure, as recommended in the Final Conclusions of the Royal Parks Review (paragraph XV, page 11).

Lord Inglewood

The Royal Parks are already included in the arrangements which allow the department, with the Treasury's approval, to carry forward from one year to the next a portion of eligible funds not spent fully on capital and running costs. There are no plans to seek additional flexibilities.

Lord Kennet

asked Her Majesty's Government:

Whether the reorganisation of the management of the Royal Parks now being examined by the Royal Parks Agency is to be in full accord with the recommendations in the final conclusions of the Royal Parks Review Group, particularly as regards the inadmissibility of any commercialisation of the parks which has recently been proposed to the Agency by one of its consultants.

Lord Inglewood

Responsibility for the subject of this question has been delegated to the Royal Parks Agency under its Chief Executive, Mr. David Welch. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

Letter to Lord Kennet from the Chief Executive of the Royal Parks Agency, Mr. David Welch, dated 16th April 1996.

I have been asked by Lord Inglewood to reply to your parliamentary Question about whether the proposed reorganisation of the management of the Royal Parks is in full accord with the recommendations in the final conclusions of the Royal Parks Review Group.

The Royal Parks Agency, in common with most other departments and agencies, is required to achieve a 6 per cent. reduction in running costs during the financial year 1996/97 and a further 5 per cent. reduction during each of the two subsequent years. As salaries form the greater part of our running costs budget, it has been necessary to consider ways in which these can be reduced.

In order to achieve this aim, we decided that a full review of the agency's staffing needs should be carried out and an independent consultant was chosen, in order to ensure a fair and unbiased view. The review was carried out during 1995 by Ms Sally Hubbard, ex HM Inspector of Constabulary, who had already carried out a review of the staffing requirements of the Royal Parks Constabulary.

In her report, Ms Hubbard comments that, while horticultural excellence in the Royal Parks remains a paramount consideration, commercial estate management and income generation are of growing importance. Commenting on the need for the agency to operate on an increasingly commercial basis, she highlights the need for staff to be more flexible, entrepreneurial and alive to business opportunities. However, we have not read the report as suggesting the commercialisation of the parks and we would have rejected it if we had. We do however try to charge the best obtainable rate for such things as existing underground wayleaves, get the best rates we can from people who run events in the parks and charge fully for filming in the parks.

I can confirm that Ms Hubbard's report has been accepted in principle by the Royal Parks Agency, although her specific recommendations on number and content of individual posts are still being evaluated.

The Royal Parks Review Group, in its final conclusions report (which discusses progress made since its first review of Hyde Park and Kensington Gardens in 1992), refers to Ms Hubbard's report and comments that while it is important for the Royal Parks to generate income where feasible and sensible, this should not be at the expense of "the character, fabric, integrity and… survival of the parks as they are known to meet the needs of the public."

I agree wholeheartedly. Amongst the agency's seven specific objectives—as set out in our Framework Document—is one which requires us "to protect the parks from every kind of encroachment contrary to their purpose so that the public of future generations can enjoy them to the full" and another which requires us "to maintain free access to the parks for the public whilst developing suitable opportunities for increasing income." Both have equal weight, and are not, in my opinion, mutually exclusive. In his speech to the Royal Parks conference on 14th March, the Minister of State for National Heritage, Mr lain Sproat, made it clear that there is no question of Ministers looking to increase commercial use of the parks to make good recent reductions in the level of funding.

In the same way, I can find no contradiction between Ms Hubbard's conclusions and those of the review group. I believe that in common with every other government department and agency, we need to be aware of the costs associated with carrying out a specific course of action, in order to prioritise our needs, and to consider ways of increasing our income in order to provide funds for the advantage of the parks. In seeking independent advice on how this might be achieved, we are simply seeking an alternative view, which will be evaluated alongside our responsibility to ensure the future of the Royal Parks. I believe this to be reasonable and sensible.