THE COMMISSION: AMENDMENTS

HC Deb 05 May 1983 vol 42 cc497-510

Amendments made: No. 83, in page 43, line 36, leave out 'situated in Scotland or Wales' and insert 'not situated in England'.

No. 84, in page 43, line 38, leave out 'situated in Scotland or Wales' and insert `not situated in England'.

No. 85, in page 43, line 39, leave out sub-paragraph (2).—[Mr. Macfarlane.]

Mr. Macfarlane

I beg to move amendment No. 87, in page 44, line 19, leave out from beginning to end of line 21 and insert— 'any building which is situated in England and in an area designated as a conservation area under section 277 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 and which appears to the Commission to be of special historic or achitectural interest; (c) any land which is situated in England and which comprises, or is contiguous or adjacent to, any building mentioned in paragraph (a) or (b) of this subsection; (d) any garden or other land which is situated in England and which appears to the Commission to be of outstanding historic interest but which is not contiguous or adjacent to a building which appears to the Commission to be of outstanding historic or architectural interest.'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

With this we can take amendment No. 95.

Mr. Macfarlane

These amendments all relate to gardens. We have brought them forward to fulfil our commitment to extend the commission's role in this area. The first empowers it to acquire or accept any garden or other land which is of outstanding historic interest but is not adjoining an outstanding historic building. This brings its acquisition powers into line with its grant-making powers. In addition, the first part of the amendment empowers the commission to acquire, with the Secretary of State's consent, any building in a conservation area which appears to it to be of special historic or architectural interest. As I mentioned in discussion on an early amendment about the revolving fund concept, we have decided to give the commission this additional power in response to the views, clearly expressed in Committee, that the commission should have a wider role to play in operating a "revolving fund" for the renovation and resale of historic buildings. This will enable it to undertake such work not only for outstanding buildings but also for special buildings in conservation areas, about which hon. Members seemed particularly concerned. I believe that the House will welcome this amendment. The second part ensures that the commission can acquire land adjoining such buildings in a conservation area. That, too, was a matter of concern to members of the Committee.

This may be an appropriate place for me to say a few words about a suggestion put forward in Committee for a revised definition of "land adjoining" an historic building. This would apply to the commission's grant and acquisition powers. The definition is that in the Finance Act 1976 and refers to land which adjoins a building and is essential for the protection of its character and amenities". First, I have to say that I do not see the necessity of bringing the two definitions "into line" just for the sake of it. It is more important to get the wording which achieves our intended objective. Secondly, while I do not think that there is any great difference between the 1953 Act wording and the 1976 Act wording, I think that the 1953 Act version is, if anything, capable of a slightly wider interpretation. This is chiefly because there is no test of the "essential" nature of the land. Providing that it adjoins a building, the commission can at present acquire land whether it is essential or not. It is entirely up to the commission. I believe that we should leave the definition as it is, to give it the greatest possible flexibility. From recollection of our deliberations upstairs, that was one of the objectives of most of the members of the Committee.

Following on from the acquisition powers is the power contained in amendment No. 95 to accept endowments for any gardens or other land which it acquires. A related matter which I agreed in Committee to reconsider, and which I can perhaps best deal with here, is the question of endowments for monuments which are not buildings. As I said I would do in Commitee, I have checked on my statement of what would qualify as a building and I can confirm precisely what I said then. The word "building" covers any structure or erection, and that would include virtually everything which it is appropriate to cover. Certainly it would include Stonehenge.

That means that there is very little which would not be covered, except perhaps dykes and cave dwellings. But if somebody were to want to endow such monuments it would be possible for him to covenant or bequeath money as against property to the commission on condition that it be used for the upkeep of a specified monument. I suggest that the simplest course would be to leave it at that.

Dr. David Clark

We are pleased with this series of amendments, even if it does not go far enough; we are thankful for small mercies. What concerns us most about amendment No. 87 is that it is restricted to conservation areas. That means that whereas the great problem with art is that in this case it is restricted to areas where there are local planning authorities which are progressive—which is where often the problem is the least — the major problems occur in areas where there are not the same progressive planning authorities. But as it is now past 9 o'clock, perhaps that situation has been changed by today's balloting.

I was pleased to hear the Minister's comments about the application of the amendments in that they will apply to nearly everything, including Stonehenge. However, would they cover barrows and underground caves—for example, the Ridgeway and ancient tracks? Even at this late stage we should make sure that we are covering those. If the Minister does not have the answer now, perhaps he will look into it. Otherwise I am pleased to welcome the amendments.

Sir Albert Costain (Folkestone and Hythe)

As a keen gardener, I am interested in the clause and should like clarification of amendment No. 95. The clause says that the commission may accept a gift and refers to a charitable trust. A number of people may be considering making such a gift. If it is not a charitable trust, how will that affect the transfer of funds at cost rather than at valuation? That could, it seems, affect the income of the organisation if it must transfer at valuation rather than at acquirement cost.

Mr. Cormack

It is a pleasure to have the Secretary of State for Defence with us because he is the architect of this extremely important Bill. I hope that he will stay and hear the plaudits on Third Reading. If not, at least he will know that hon. Members are pleased that he has dropped in on our proceedings, and we are grateful to him for what he has instituted.

The hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) made a valid point when he referred to conservation areas. I should like to think that one of the first things the new commission will do, in consultation with the Secretary of State, will be to circulate all local authorities asking whether they are entirely satisfied that they have designated the right number of conservation areas. As we know, there are local authorities and local authorities. We had this debate with some hilarity but with an underlying seriousness in Committee. We do not want to repeat it now, but it is important that conservation areas should be designated throughout the country, and I sincerely hope that the new commission will make one of its earliest tasks the urging of local authorities to designate what should be designated.

Mr. Macfarlane

I acknowledge the points made by my hon. Friends the Members for Folkestone and Hythe (Sir A. Costain) and Staffordshire, South-West (Mr. Cormack) and the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark). I draw the attention of the hon. Member for South Shields to the important definition of "buildings". He referred to barrows and caves. Amendment No. 95 means that there is little that would not be covered except perhaps dykes and cave dwellings. That is something at which the commission would need to look.

My hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe raised a number of points about convenanting and endowments that I shall study and upon which I shall give him a detailed answer. It will be perfectly possible for someone to covenant and bequeath money, as against property, to the commission on the clear condition that it will be used for the upkeep of a specified monument. That would be recorded and acknowledged by the bequeather.

I am grateful for the welcome of my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South-West and I am certain that the important points that he made will be noted by the commission, because they seem to be wholly sensible.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Macfarlane

I beg to move amendment No. 89, in page 44, line 22, leave out `Subject to subsection (4) of this section,'. The amendment deletes a reference, which is no longer relevant, to the commission obtaining the Secretary of State's consent to the acquisition or acceptance of objects. The requirement was removed from section 5A(4). It deletes the unwanted references in section 5A(2) which were overlooked.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 91, in page 45, line 42, leave out `situated in Scotland or Wales' and insert `not situated in England'. No. 95, in page 47, line 10, at end insert—

Endowments of gardens `8AA — (1) Where any instrument coming into operation after the establishment of the Commission contains a provision purporting to be a gift of property to the Commission upon trust to use the income thereof (either for a limited time or in perpetuity) for or towards the upkeep of a garden or other land acquired or accepted by the Commission under section 5A(1)(d) of this Act, or a garden or other land which the Commission propose so to acquire or accept, or for or towards the upkeep of any such garden or other land together with other property situated in England, the Commission may accept the gift, and if they do so, and the provision does not constitute a charitable trust, the following provisions of this section shall have effect. (2) The validity of the gift and of the trust to use the income as aforesaid (hereinafter referred to as "the endowment trust") shall be deemed not to be, or ever to have been, affected by any rule of law or equity which would not have affected their validity if the trust had been charitable. (3) In relation to the property (of whatsoever nature) comprised in the gift and any property for the time being representing that property (hereinafter collectively referred to as "the trust fund") the Commission shall during the continuance of the endowment trust have the like powers of management, disposition and investment as, in the case of land held on trust for sale, are conferred by law on the trustees for sale in relation to the land and to the proceeds of sale thereof; but this subsection shall have effect without prejudice to any additional or larger powers conferred on the Commission by the trust instrument. (4) If while the endowment trust continues an event happens such that immediately thereafter the Commission are not entitled to any interest in the garden or other land to which the trust relates, and apart from this subsection the endowment trust would not then be determined or be deemed to have failed, then on the happening of that event the endowment trust shall cease by virtue of this subsection and the trust fund shall devolve accordingly as on a failure of the trust. (5) If the trust instrument contains a provision whereby on the failure or determination of the endowment trust the trust fund purports to be given, or to be directed to be held, on charitable trusts, the validity of that gift or direction shall be deemed not to be, or ever to have been, affected by any rule of law or equity relating to perpetuities. '.—[Mr. Macfarlane.]

Mr. Macfarlane

I beg to move amendment No. 97, in page 47, line 28, leave out from beginning to end of line 42.

This was another subject of detailed discussion, revealing deeply held views by members on both sides of the Committee. The amendment will delete the provision that was inserted in the Bill in Committee against my advice. It deals with the creation of a register of gardens in Scotland and Wales. I put my views on the record clearly on that occasion and they hold good today.

There are two reasons for the amendment. First, as has been stated clearly on a number of occasions, the Bill in so far as it relates to the commission, has always been intended to deal with England only. It reflects the decisions of my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland and Wales that they did not wish to follow England in setting up an independent agency. Secondly, the present provision is not appropriate as it gives executive functions to the purely advisory Historic Buildings Councils.

The Secretaries of State for Scotland and Wales already have powers to produce a register of gardens and to publish the results if they wish. No explicit powers are needed in the Bill for that and I am certain that my right hon. Friends will take account of the views expressed about this by the House.

Dr. David Clark

This is another disappointment. As the Minister acknowledges, we argued long and well about it in committee. Views were deeply held on both sides. It was generally felt that it was not right for us to take extra powers for England that we were not going to grant to our fellow countrymen in Wales and Scotland. I do not understand why the Government have taken such an intransigent stance on this point. Many hon. Members have spoken, and I know that many hon. Members are aware, of the attractiveness of many of the gardens in Scotland and Wales, and of the wish of various councils to compile a register. It is most unfortunate that the Government have decided to reverse the Committee's decision.

We have the support of the National Trust of both countries for this provision. I have letters from Lord Wemyss and Lord Gibson which we had hoped would persuade the Government to give the National Trust for Scotland the same powers as the National Trust in England will have under the Bill.

We feel that it is most regrettable and wrong that the Government have decided to penalise the Scots, the Scottish National Trust, the Welsh, and the National Trust in its operations in Wales. We regret very much the Government's refusal to accept our proposals that would have allowed Scotland to share equally the benefits of the legislation with England.

9.45 pm

Mr. Cormack

This is an unfortunate deletion. It illustrates the absolute necessity of trying to set up common systems in the three constituent countries of the United Kingdom. I hope that early efforts will be made to bring the organisations together. I should like to put it on record that the National Trust has strong supporters on both sides of the House. We hope that there will be an early conference of all those concerned to try to bring about what the National Trust so understandably and reasonably wants.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 98, in page 49, line 3, after `section', insert 'in relation to a building or part situated in England'.

No. 99, in page 49, line 13, leave out 'without the consent of the Secretary of State' and insert `unless—

1. (a) the land is situated in England, and
2. (b) the Secretary of State has consented.'. — [Mr. Macfarlane.]

Mr. Macfarlane

I beg to move amendment No. 100, in page 51, line 9, at end insert— '(2B) Where the Secretary of State, after consulting with the Commission, notifies a local, county or district planning authority in writing that subsection (2A) of this section shall not affect the authority as regards any notice relating to any kind of application specified in the notification, then that subsection shall not affect the authority as regards any such notice. (2C) The Secretary of State shall send to the Commission a copy of any notification made under subsection (2B) of this section.'. There was considerable discussion in Committee about the best way of keeping the commission informed about the planning applications that local planning authorities are required to publicise under section 28 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971. As the Bill stands, all the applications to which the section applies — that is, applications which, in the authority's opinion, will affect the character or appearance of a conservation area or the setting of a listed building—must be notified to the Commission.

We shall in due course discuss the question of which papers the Commission should receive about each application, but, regardless of the outcome of that discussion, the amendment offers the Secretary of State an additional power to restrict the flow of papers to the commission. He can direct a local planning authority that a notification requirement does not apply to any specified kind of application. This could, for example, be defined by the grade of listed building whose setting the development would affect. That will mean that where the commission consistently finds that certain groups of applications present no problems, and where it feels that it no longer needs to be notified about them, the Secretary of State may direct the planning authority to that effect.

Dr. David Clark

I am glad that the Minister has accepted that point, for which we argued strongly in Committee, the amendment makes sense. It will modulate the flow. We are slightly worried about whether the commission will have sufficient flexibility. We hope that the commission will take note of the attitude of the Government, and we therefore accept the amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

We now come to amendment No. 101. Mr. Macfarlane.

Mr. Macfarlane

rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. Amendment No. 101 is in the name of the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South-West (Mr. Cormack).

Mr. Cormack

I beg to move amendment No. 101, in page 51, line 9, at end inseet— (2B) When a local planning authority notifies the Commission of an application for planning consent under this section it shall also concurrently direct the applicant forthwith to send a copy of the application to the Commission, together with copies of all plans and documents that were submitted with it."' I am most grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and in no sense wish to criticise my hon. Friend's alacrity in leaping to the Dispatch Box. This is an admirable Bill—even though it may have one or two minor blemishes—and we are all eager to see it on the Statute Book. I await with interest the Minister's reply. The amendment 'seeks to ensure that proper information is given, and that the commission has a proper role to play. Unless there is full consultation and total awareness, there will be a repetition of the unfortunate case to which I referred in one of my first brief comments today.

Mr. Macfarlane

I had only your interest, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and that of my hon. Friend at heart when I rose earlier. It seems to be a day of misprints, including the classification of this as a Government amendment on the paper provided by the Speaker's Office.

We had an important and detailed discussion in Committee and I undertook to examine the argument again to see whether I could find a better solution than we now have. I have fulfilled the first part of that undertaking by considering the whole issue again very carefully. Taking everything into account, however, I can find no better solution than that which we now have. I am the first to admit that the arrangements under the Bill are not perfect. If there were a perfect solution, I think that between the lot of us, in Committee and elsewhere, we should have found it by now.

Let us consider the disadvantages of the Government's proposal as compared with those of the amendment. The Government's procedure provides the commission with initial information on which to make an initial judgment as to whether it wishes to involve itself. I think that there is wide agreement that in the vast majority of cases if the commission decides that it wants the detailed information it will be able to obtain it through the local authorities. I recognise, however, that our procedure does not cover with certainty the possibility that a non-heritage-minded local authority may make difficulties or that problems may arise with regard to plan copyright. It is fair to say, however, that in each of these cases, although our solution is not perfect, it will always be open to the commission to send somebody to inspect the detailed, plans at the town hall, if an expert member of the commission staff is not already familiar through local knowledge with the details of the proposal.

The proposal in the amendment and the possible variants would give the commission all the details in every case. That has the advantage of ensuring that the commission has full information, but the task of sifting and evaluating all the plans would impose heavy costs on the commission. Many applicants would also be put to unnecessary expense when the details that they had to provide would be neither used nor needed by a body that was in any case created solely as an advisory organisation and not with executive locus in the matter. The amendment would also add to the work load of local authorities in obtaining and forwarding material. I and my Department care deeply about that as a matter of policy because we are anxious to keep local government as lean and efficient as possible, and central Government must play its part in exercising self-discipline in imposing extra burdens, however small they may seem individually.

At the end of the day, the disadvantages as well as the advantages of the two approaches must be balanced. As I said in Committee, I am second to none among those who support the new commission, which will be of supreme importance. Nevertheless, I have had to conclude that an advisory role does not warrant the blanket bureaucratic approach of the amendment or its possible variants. I believe that our proposal can be made to work quite simply in the vast majority of cases and through a personal visit in the minority of problem cases.

It will be open to the commission to come back to the Government on this if they find that the arrangements are not working satisfactorily in practice. Unless and until that happens, I believe that we have found the best available solution in all the circumstances. I hope that the House will agree and that my hon. Friend will, on reflection, seek leave to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. Cormack

I was greatly reassured by my hon. Friend's final observation that if the commission felt that the powers were not adequate the matter could be reconsidered. I cite just one analogy. Long ago, shortly after I became a Member of Parliament, some of us proposed an amendment to a local government Bill in which we sought to ensure that all planning applications within an area were referred to the local parish councils —not so that the parish councils should have any power of veto but to ensure that they were informed and consulted. There is a parallel her. I accept my hon. Friend's comments about the paperwork, excessive bureaucracy and so on, and I understand his reluctance to accept the amendment, although I regret it. Nevertheless, he should bear in mind the genuine analogy of the parish council case and accept that the whole subject must be properly—not tritely, as is sometimes the case—kept under constant review. If the commission subsequently makes out a case to the Minister that it needs these extra facilities and powers I hope that they will be readily granted.

I take it from the nods of assent and from what he said at the Dispatch Box just before he sat down that my hon. Friend is in agreement with me on that general principle. As long as I have not misunderstood those nods of assent, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Macfarlane

I beg to move amendment No. 103, in page 51, line 35, leave out paragraph 17.

As hon. Members will have realised, this amendment seeks to delete from schedule 4 a paragraph, inserted against Government advice in Committee, which would empower the commission to serve building preservation notices. Between the Committee stage and today, I have of course considered carefully against the arguments advanced in favour of this provision to see if they could persuade me to leave it in, but I have to say that I am no more convinced now than I was then that it would be right to give the commission this power.

I still believe that it is not appropriate for an appointed body like the commission to exercise powers which impose restrictions, even time-limited restrictions, on the rights of private property owners. Such funcions are properly exercised only by democratically elected representatives. I have considered the argument that this is not really important because the Secretary of State, who is, of course, an elected representative, can overrule a building preservation notice issued by the commission. If he says that he has decided definitely not to list the building in question, the building preservation notice lapses at once. In theory he could do this the day after the notice had been served, if he disagreed with it.

It is wrong to say that, because there is this safeguard, this possibility of being overruled,it does not matter who has the power. If we followed that argument too far, we would end up saying that any body or person could have the power, as long as there was always the Secretary of State behind them as a longstop to step in when needed. This surely cannot be right. I believe that we have to approach the question from the other side and ask if it is proper for an appointed body to have powers over private property notwithstanding the existence of a safety net. I believe tha it is not proper. Nor do I think that it is proper in the context of the relationships we want to see between the commission and local authorities, and none of us wants positively to encourage the Secretary of State to intervene in the commission's affairs.

At present local authorities are the only bodies that can serve building preservation notices. They are, therefore, fully aware that they are the only ones which can act swiftly in this way to prevent the imminent loss of historic buildings and to buy time for further consideration. In giving the commission these powers as well, we would be allowing it to step in and in effect to overrule a local authority by serving a notice where the authority had decided not to. There will always be occasions when opinions differ over whether a notice should be served, but we cannot get round this simply by giving out these powers to more and more people. Someone has to make the decision and take the final responsibility, and the Government firmly believe that in this case it should, as now, be the local authority—the elected body.

The commission will still be able to make urgent representations to the local authority to serve a building preservation notice, or to the Secretary of State to use his spot-listing powers. Given the commission's relationship with the Secretary of State, I believe that the latter avenue could often be the most effective and important, but both offer every opportunity for the commission to use its influence. I am clear that we should leave it at that.

Dr. David Clark (South Shields)

This is a complicated but very important matter which raises important points of principle, as the Minister has already acknowledged. He makes the point, quite fairly, that in his view it would not be proper—I think he said—for these rights to be held by a nominated body over private property. I fully see the argument which he so lucidly advanced.

As I listened to what the Minister was saying, my mind cast back about four hours to when we were discussing new clause 4, in which we were giving the commission the power to enter upon private property. I supported the Government in giving this power and I made the point then that heritage is no one's private property; it is the property of civilisation, of the nation. It seems to me that the argument which I advanced then, and which the Minister acknowledged and agreed with, applies equally in this case. The Committee having considered it right that the commission should have powers in relation to building preservation orders, it is regrettable that the Minister feels that he is unable to accept that decision. I do not understnd the logic of his argument. It is no answer for the Minister to say that the Secretary of State could overrule the commission's decision. We know that that could happen but we could provide some protection for property rights. Circular 23/77—

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Ordered, That, at this day's sitting, the National Heritage Bill [Lords] may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour. —[Mr. Archie Hamilton.]

Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

Dr. Clark

As I was saying, circular 23/77 makes it clear that it is always possible, if a building preservation order has been served wrongly, for an individual to obtain compensation. The private individual is covered, and we have already accepted the precedent that the commission, as an appointed body, has rights over private property. I regret the fact that the Minister is seeking to withdraw the combined wisdom of the Committee.

Mr. Cormack

I agree with the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark). The great feature of a Standing Committee is that it consists of a group of Members who try carefully to study a subject in depth. When a Committee makes an amendment, it is no light thing to overturn it. I know that my hon. Friend thinks that he has not made his decision lightly, but this matter will probably have to be considered again.

If, when the commission's activities are reviewed and its experience is analysed after the first year, it tells my hon. Friend that in certain respects it needs extra facilities and extra powers to those contained in new clause 4, I hope that he will listen sympathetically. I shall be grateful for that assurance.

The last thing that we should do is to divide the House. The Bill must not end on any note of acrimony. I hope that my hon. Friend will acknowledge the force of my argument.

Mr. Macfarlane

I acknowledge the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South-West. Any legislation passed by this place has constantly to be reviewed. This is a difficult area which we discussed fully in Committee. The issue takes us back to the role of the local authority — the democratically elected representatives—and the role of the Secretary of State. It is an area in which there are difficult problems. I hope that the House will acknowledge the assurance that I have given.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Macfarlane

I beg to move amendment No. 104, in page 52, line 39, at end insert— '21A. After section 277(6) of the 1971 Act (designation of conservation areas) there shall be inserted— (6A) Where a designation under subsection (1) or (2) above, or a variation or cancellation of it, affects an area in England, subsection (6) above shall have effect as if the first reference to the Secretary of State were a reference to him and the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission for England; and where a designation under subsection (4) above, or a variation or cancellation of it, affects an area in England, subsection (6) above shall have effect as if the second reference to a local planning authority were a reference to the authority and the Commission."' The amendment seeks to ensure that the commission will be kept fully informed of the designation of conservation areas in England. It requires local planning authorities and the Secretary of State, who also has designation powers, to notify it of any designation, variation or cancellation. That is clearly sensible.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Macfarlane

I beg to move amendment No. 105, in page 57, line 21, after 'monument', insert 'have been or'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

With this it will be convenient to take Government amendment No. 120.

Mr. Macfarlane

The two amendments add to the commission's powers of entry. The first amendment seeks an extension to the commission's existing powers that will enable it to enter land to ascertain whether unauthorised works have taken place or are taking place. The amendment closes an obvious loophole in the present provisions.

Amendment No. 120 gives the commission the same powers as that of the Secretary of State. It enables the commission, where it has exercised its right to enter land to observe works covered by a scheduled monument consent, to take custody of anything of archaeological or historical interest which is discovered.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Macfarlane

I beg to move amendment No. 107, in page 60, line 18, leave out 'obtain the consent of and insert 'consult with'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 110 and 111.

Mr. Macfarlane

All these amendments deal with the question when and whether the commission should have to obtain the Secretary of State's consent to its activities. Our guiding principle has been to give the commission as much freedom and independence as possible, consonant with the need for the Government to be involved in decisions that may have substantial implications for the Exchequer. A detailed check through schedule 4 has identified two places where we think it should not be necessary for it to get consent, and these amendments therefore delete those requirements.

The first instance is when the commission wants to terminate a guardianship agreement, and thus divest itself of any responsibility for a monument. It may do this only in very narrowly defined circumstances. It seems appropriate therefore to make it subject to consultation, which will also bring this provision into line with the commission's general disposal powers which require consultation rather than consent.

The other two amendments are concerned with transfers of guardianship monuments. Again, when the commission is transferring a monument to a local authority, consultation seems most appropriate. Where, however, the transfer is to the commission, substantial resource implications may be involved and it is therefore right to retain the requirement to seek the Secretary of State's consent.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Macfarlane

I beg to move amendment No. 108, in page 61, line 19, at end insert— '(4) At the end of the section there shall be inserted— (9) References to an ancient monument in subsection (1A) above, and in subsection (3) above so far as it applies for the purposes of subsection (1A), shall be construed as if the reference in section 61(12)(b) of this Act to the Secretary of State were to the Commission."'

Mr. Deputy Speaker

With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 112, 113 and 116.

Mr. Macfarlane

These amendments are intended to allow the commission to decide whether something is an "ancient monument" without having to consult the Secretary of State. Certain of its powers can be exercised only in relation to ancient monuments. At present ancient monuments are defined as scheduled monuments or any other monuments which in the Secretary of State's opinion are of public interest. Under these amendments, the commission, which will after all be the expert, will be able, where appropriate, to decide for itself if a monument is of public interest and thus ancient.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made:

No. 109, in page 62, line 33, leave out 'situated outside' and insert 'not situated in'.

No. 110, in page 62, line 39, leave out 'or (g) above without the consent of and insert 'above without consulting'.

No. 111, in page 62, line 40, and end insert— '(6) The Commission may not enter into an agreement mentioned in subsection (1)(g) above without the consent of the Secretary of State.'.

No. 112, in page 63, line 4, at end insert— '(3B) Reference to an ancient monument in subsections (1) and (2) above, as amended by subsection (3A) above, shall be construed as if the reference in section 61(12)(b) of this Act to the Secretary of State were to the Commission.'.

No. 113, in page 63, line 15, at end insert— '(3B) References to an ancient monument in subsections (1) and (2) above, as amended by subsection (3A) above, shall be construed as if the reference in section 61(12)(b) of this Act to the Secretary of State were to the Commission.'. —[Mr. Macfarlane.]

Mr. Macfarlane

I beg to move amendment No. 114, in page 65, line 4, at end insert '(if the investigating authority is not the Commission). (11) On varying or revoking a direction given under subsection (8) above in relation to a site situated in England the Secretary of State shall notify the Commission (giving particulars of the effect of any variation) if the investigating authority is not the Commission.'. There is nothing ancient and modern about this amendment. It tidies up the arrangements for notifying the commission about directions made by the Secretary of State relating to the powers of investigating authorities for areas of archaeological importance.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made:

No. 115, in page 65, line 4, at end insert— '(5) Nothing in sub-paragraph (2) affects the right of an investigating authority to excavate a site in respect of which an operations notice was served before the appointed day.'.

No. 116, in page 65, line 43, at end insert ; and the reference to an ancient monument in this subsection shall be construed as if the reference in section 61(12)(b) of this Act to the Secretary of State were to the Commission.'.

No. 117, in page 66, line 11, leave out 'if it is situated elsewhere' and insert 'in any other case'. —[Mr. Macfarlane.]

Mr. Macfarlane

I beg to move amendment No. 118, in page 66, line 15, at end insert— '62A.—(1) Section 49 of the 1979 Act (grants by Secretary of State to Architectural Heritage Fund) shall be amended as follows. (2) In subsection (1) for the words from "institution" to the end there shall be substituted "Architectural Heritage Fund". (3) After subsection (1) there shall be inserted— (1A) The Commission may make grants to the Architectural Heritage Fund for the purpose of enabling it to perform its functions in, or in relation to, England.". (4) In subsection (2) after "Secretary of State" there shall be inserted "or the Commission (as the case may be)". (5) At the end of the section there shall be inserted— (3) In this section 'the Architectural Heritage Fund' means the institution registered under that name under the Charities Act 1960.".'. This amendment, which I promised in Committee, enables the commission as well as the Secretary of State to make grants to the architectural heritage fund in respect of its functions in England. I believe that the House will welcome the amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 120, in page 66, line 19, at end insert— '63A. In section 54(1)(b) of the 1979 Act (treatment and preservation of finds) after "(4)(b)" there shall be inserted "or 6A(2)(a)".'.—[Mr. Macfarlane.]

Mr. Macfarlane

I beg to move, amendment No. 121, in page 67, line 31, at end insert—

'Pastoral Measure 1983 (No. 1) 67A. — (1) Section 66 of the Pastoral Measure 1983 (transfer of redundant churches) shall be amended as follows. (2) In subsection (1) after paragraph (b) there shall be inserted— (c) where a redundant building or any part thereof is situated in England and is vested in the diocesan board of finance, whether in pursuance of a pastoral scheme or a redundancy scheme or pending the making of a redundancy scheme, the board may, with the approval of the bishop and the Commissioners, enter into and carry out an agreement with the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission for England for the acquisition and preservation by the Commission of the building or part with or without other land so situated and so vested in the board; (d) where a redundant building or any part thereof is situated in England and is vested in the Redundant Churches Fund in pursuance of a redundancy scheme or a pastoral scheme to which section 47 applies, the Fund may enter into and carry out an agreement with the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission for England for the acquisition and preservation by the Commission of the building or part with or without other land so situated and so vested;". and for "the next two following subsections" there shall be substituted "subsections (2) and (3)". (3) After subsection (1) there shall be inserted— (1A) The Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission for England shall not enter into an agreement under subsection (1) (c) or (d) without the consent of the Secretary of State.". (4) In subsection (2)(a) after "the Secretary of State" there shall be inserted "or (as the case may be) the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission for England", after "him" there shall be inserted "or them" and after "his" there shall be inserted "or their", and in subsection (2)(c) after "the Secretary of State" there shall be inserted "or (as the case may be) the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission for England". (5) In subsection (3) after "the Secretary of State" (in the first place) there shall be inserted "or (as the case may be) the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission for England" and after "the Secretary of State" (in the second and third places) there shall be inserted "or the Commission". (6) After subsection (3) there shall be inserted— (3A) Before giving his consent under subsection (3) in relation to a building or part situated in England, the Secretary of State shall consult with the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission for England.". (7) In subsection (4) after "the Secretary of State" (in the first place) there shall be inserted "or the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission for England" and after "the Secretary of State" (in the second and third places) there shall be inserted "or the Commission (as the case may be)". (8) After subsection (4) there shall be inserted— (4A) The Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission for England shall not enter into an agreement under subsection (4) unless—

1. (a) the land is situated in England, and
2. (b) the Secretary of State has consented.".

(9) In subsection (5) after "the Secretary of State" there shall be inserted "or (as the case may be) the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission for England.". '(10) After subsection (5) there shall be inserted— (6) Where a redundant building (or part) situated in England has been acquired for its preservation by the Secretary of State under subsection (1) either with or without any other land so situated, the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission for England may by agreement with the Secretary of State undertake on his behalf the management and preservation of the building (or part) together with the other land (if any). (7) Where the Secretary of State has under subsection (4) acquired land situated in England for its maintenance with a building (or part), the Commission may undertake, in any agreement made under subsection (6) in relation to the building (or part), the maintenance of the land on behalf of the Secretary of State. (8) Where the Secretary of State has under subsection (5) acquired for their preservation the contents of a redundant building (or part), the Commission may undertake, in any agreement made under subsection (6) in relation to the building (or part), the preservation of the contents on behalf of the Secretary of State.".

This amendment duplicates the powers of the commission set out in an amendment to the Pastoral Measure 1968 in paragraph 12 of schedule 4. It is needed since the new Pastoral Measure 1983 is a consolidation measure which, when it is brought into force, will repeal the 1968 measure. This amendment ensures that the commission's powers to acquire redundant churches will continue under the new measure.

Amendment agreed to.