RESTRICTION ON DEMOLITION AND OTHER WORKS (Hansard, 23 October 1968)

§ Mr. Graham Page
I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, at end add: '(which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament)'. Clause 35 provides that when there is to be a demolition of a listed building, a reference shall be made, or notice shall be given, to the Royal Commission on Historical Monuments so that it may have an opportunity of preserving, by photographs or otherwise, a record of the listed building. It contains a provision that the Minister may appoint some other body in place of the Royal Commission to whom notice of the demolition of a listed building shall be given. Surely the House should be concerned with such an alteration. I do not know why it is necessary to make this provision. What is to happen to the Royal Commission on Historical Monuments? Is it to fade away? If so, what is to be put in its place? That is a matter of great concern.
I hope that my Amendment will be welcomed by the Government and that they will bring such an important matter as this before the House.

§ The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Arthur Skeffington)
I am sorry that on my first appearance in to night's proceedings I cannot advise the House to accept an Amendment, especially as the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) has been in such a constructive frame of mind tonight.
The hon. Member asked what was likely to happen to the Royal Commission on Historical Monuments. We do not think that anything will happen to it—we certainly hope not. It is doing a wonderful job. Its historical records section has a collection which is not only the best in the country, but probably the best in the world. However, it is thought necessary to make provision in case for some reason at some time it should be wound up. The Bill will provide that failure to notify the Commission, or some other body in its place, could, in certain circumstances, carry penalties. An Amendment was introduced in another place because it was felt wise to get some publicity by having a Statutory Instrument for such a change.
1459 However, to go as far as the hon. Gentleman suggests would be to make rather heavy weather of it and moreover his Amendment could lead to an absurdity. If such an Order were defeated in both Houses, there might be nobody to do any photographing or anything else and not only would records not be kept, but in certain circumstances the demolitions of the buildings might not be notified and they would be in peril. We have gone a considerable way forward in providing that if there is any change, which we do not expect, it would be the subject of a Statutory Instrument and would, therefore, excite attention in both Houses, but not have the bizarre effect of the hon. Gentleman's Amendment, which might be that no recording was possible.

§ Mr. Graham Page
The hon. Gentleman's argument is that he wants power to make an Order which Parliament cannot question because he is afraid that Parliament might chuck it out. That is no way in which to bring forward an Amendment of this sort. If an Order is made, and the hon. Gentleman wants publicity for it, let him bring it before the House and allow it to be debated.

§ Mr. Skeffington
I do not accept that. The fact that the provision would be in the form of a Statutory Instrument would give the necessary publicity. It would be brought to the notice of all those interested in the Parliamentary sense, quite apart from any other action which the Minister may take, in what anyway would be a remote contingency. To go further would make it analogous with the situation in which nobody was keeping records, which would be unwise. Therefore, I could not ask the House to accept the hon. Gentleman's Amendment.