| Draft Museums and Galleries (Northern Ireland) Order 1997
|
|
Mr. James Cran (Beverley and Holderness): I, too, welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Wells. I know that you will be scrupulously fair. We accept the general principle behind the order, so there is no difficulty there. However, it stretches the imagination when the Minister says that the difficulties and disagreements that have been expressed by some of those who have made representations have been only about details. Almost all of the respondents who have made representations to the Department have been distressed by the tight time scale that was allowed for the order. That is illustrated by a letter that I received from the Ulster museum, dated 4 December, which says that the museum awaited a copy of the draft order, promised to it by the Department of Education, Northern Ireland, but that, as of that date, it still had not received a copy. Many of us experienced the same difficulty, but that will not prevent us from getting to the root of those matters that worry not only Opposition Members but, more importantly, interested bodies in the Province. It brings delegated legislation into disrepute when insufficient time is allowed for interested bodies to consider it. This is a deceptive order in that it is in fact very important and deals with a very big change in the Province. Therefore, it will take some time to scrutinise. When the Minister and I met in similar circumstances to discuss an order regarding, I think, the Department of the Environment, Northern Ireland, that Department produced helpful documentation after the consultation stage outlining what it had agreed. That made it infinitely easier for Opposition Members and respondents to judge what the Government had done. I assure the Minister that there is a good deal of confusion in the museums affected by the order, especially because they have been unable to consult their boards of management, and that is undesirable. I am aware of the pressue to be brief, but I think that might be difficult. I had intended to quote from the representations that have been made by interested parties in the Province, but several letters from other bodies landed on my desk at lunchtime, which place the issue in context. The first letter to land on my desk--I hope that all Committee Members have received a copy--was from the Museums and Galleries Commission. The letter makes it clear that the commission has significant concerns about the order because of the implications of the Government's decisions for museums policy in the rest of the United Kingdom. If the commission were of no importance and were just another body, we could, perhaps, not heed what it says, but the Museums and Galleries Commission is the Government's advisory body for museums and galleries. The commission makes it clear that the Government have taken account of one or two of its comments, but that:
I hope that Labour Members have received a copy of the letter. The commission's first point of disagreement--it is not a minor issue but one of principle which goes to the heart of some of the Government's decisions--
That principle is worrying the Government's advisory commission, and the Minister must tell the Committee why the Government appear to have ignored the advice of their own watchdog. The Commission also stated:
That is why the Government's decisions in Northern Ireland have implications for the rest of the United Kingdom and cannot be swept away without adequate answers from the Minister. Ministers in other Departments with similar responsibilities will want to know the Minister's rationale for making those decisions. The commission wants to know why the Government have considered it necessary to take those additional powers.That is the question that I want answered and I doubt if I am the only Opposition Member who wants an answer. Another matter that concerns the commission is that DENI will seek to appoint a board of trustees for the new body commensurate with its expected status as one of the major museum and gallery services in the United Kingdom. The commission, which is considering the matter on a national and not simply a Northern Ireland basis, stated:
that is the key point for the Ministers--
That is why the Minister has challenged just about every decision which has been taken by other Departments as far back as any of us can discover. In addition to that, the commission raised a number of specific points for the Committee's attention. The first is that it continues to be concerned by the powers given in statute to the new body regularly to consult specific institutions in the Province. There is widespread concern that the need and obligation to consult, which the Minister has imposed, is too onerous. The commission points out that there is already a regional museums body--the Northern Ireland Museums Council--which was established by DENI in 1993, and the commission and many others worry about the risk of duplication. That is exactly what I would worry about. Why do we have two stabs at the issue? The commission is not merely dabbling in the matter; it is the Government's own advisory council. It believes that:
and the new body. It goes on to say that it previously suggested
the new museum authority. The whole problem could be resolved in that simple way. Perhaps the Minister could turn his mind to the matter and tell us why he cannot do that to assuage some of the concerns. The commission is also worried about disposals. I have spent quite a long time reflecting the concern articulated by museums in the Province. They have spent a considerable amount of time speaking to the Government about disposals, and I am beginning to become distracted by endless consultations. The MGC says:
I realise that the Minister knows this backwards but I shall just help him--
these are the important words for the Minister to consider--
Mr. Wells, you can see what is happening. The Government have decided what they want to do. It does not matter what anyone who donates an artefact says. Restrictions may be attached, but the Government say that a decision by DENI means that we can ignore them. I am afraid that that challenges every canon of the rules governing museums that I or, more importantly, the MGC can produce. The matter is put into context when one is told:
in the UK. This proposal is a first. Mr. Roy Beggs (East Antrim): Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it might be helpful if the Minister could say whether a precedent is being set by the way in which the new body is being established? Mr. Cran: The hon. Gentleman is correct. He goes to the nub of the question about a precedent being set. Alarm bells are ringing throughout the UK for those concerned about museums, their administration and their future structure. I wonder whether the Government have considered any of those issues. We shall have to wait and see. The commission--the Government's own advisory body--concludes:
not a small matter. The Commission has one or two other small concerns. I shall canter over them so that they are on the record and so that the commission can understand the Government's thinking. With regard to paragraph 4(2)(c) of schedule 1, the commission strongly takes the view that
Why has the Department arrogated those powers unto itself? Perhaps we should remind ourselves that those powers are held by no other like-minded museum anywhere in the United Kingdom--and I am tempted to ask about the situation internationally. The Minister certainly has a question to ponder. With regard to paragraph 4(4) of schedule 1, the MGC says:
or honorarium, or whatever phrase one wants to use. The MGC states that that is a matter for the board of trustees because
I prefer the word ``chairman''--
Again, the Minister is being challenged to give the reason for his decision, which, it would appear, flies in the face of precedent absolutely everywhere else. The problems do not end there. Paragraph 5 of schedule 1 will allow the Department to take the powers to control staffing matters. In any other situation, that would be a matter for the body in question, but here it is the responsibility of DENI, which is the relevant Government Department. The MGC states:
I shall depart from the MGC letter for a second, although I shall return to it, to point out that when the Minister introduced the order, he reminded us that the Committee that originally considered this matter emphasised the need for an arm's length relationship between the new body--with which we have no difficulty in principle--and the Department. It is the view of just about every expert that that has not been established, which is why it is important to get proper answers from the Government. Finally, the MGC says that it would make a ``similar comment'' on paragraph 6 of schedule 1 as it made on paragraph 5. The Minister can ponder that as well, and give his response shortly. The Minister has irritated the MGC, but his decisions have also irritated the National Art Collections Fund. What is the NACF? It is the largest membership-based arts charity, with more than 83,000 subscribers. It was founded in 1993, so it is not by any means a fly-by-night organisation. In other words, it knows what it is talking about. It has helped hundreds of museums, galleries and historic properties to acquire more than 100,000 works of art. Immediately, Mr. Wells, you--and, I am sure, the Minister--will appreciate that the NACF has difficulty with article 5(2)(a) to (d), which relates to the disposal of objects. I received its letter just a few hours ago, so I shall simply read it onto the record--[Interruption.] The Minister is laughing, but he knows that the NACF has an important point to make, which is why we need clear answers. The fund states:
If you, Mr. Wells, had donated a particular artefact to a museum, I think you would be concerned by this. I would be concerned if I were a donor. The fund goes on to say:
I leave the Minister to consider that. The fund believes, however, that its concerns could easily be allayed if the word ``or'' were deleted from article 5(2)(d) and the word ``and'' inserted at the beginning of article 5(2)(e). That would satisfy the fund, and perhaps the Minister will let Opposition Members know what his view of that is. The fund is also very concerned--and I mean very concerned--about the lack of a provision governing the use to which any moneys raised by disposal can be put. If you, Mr. Wells, had donated something, you would expect it to be in the museum in perpetuity, but if DENI gets rid of it by fiat--which all those who have considered this believe it could--what happens to any moneys raised? If the Minister tells me that that is a load of tosh, that is fine, but he will have to give us chapter and verse as this is not an issue that will just disappear. In that regard, I shall quote for the benefit of the Committee--because Labour Members are obviously listening carefully to this--from the Museums and Galleries Act 1992. Section 4(7) states:
All the Government need say is that that is their intention. I could say a great deal more on this subject, which would express the legitimate concern of the fund, but I will put that letter aside for a moment. May I draw the Minister's attention to another letter that was passed to the Minister by one of his colleagues. That letter was from the Museums Association. The Minister has done well thus far, but with this order, which I would have expected--as, I think, Mr. Wells, you would--to lead to representations from one or two organisations in the Province, he has irritated three national bodies, including his own advisory commission. The Museums Association's views should be considered along with those of other reputable bodies. Its letter says:
these are the important words--
I will not rehearse what is at issue again--I know, Mr. Wells, that you would rightly rule me out of order for tedious repetition--but it is the question of the powers to dispose of an object according to certain conditions. The Museums Association says that its interpretation of the provisions concerned might be wrong, but the Minister must tell us if that is so. When the Minister tells us, we will all examine the wording carefully. I have a great deal more to say on the matter, and the museums in question--one of which is in the constituency of the hon. Member for West Tyrone--raise such issues, and others besides. The trustees of the Ulster American folk park, one of the museums in question, make it clear that:
I should have thought that in the long gestation period that we have have had, starting under the previous Government, reasonable assurances would have been given. It would appear that such assurances have not been given, or, if they have, they must be given again. The Minister has the opportunity to elucidate, and to give such assurances again if necessary.
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 1997 | Prepared 11 December 1997 |
