THE COMMISSION: GOVERNMENT OWNED AND USED SCHEDULED MONUMENTS AND LISTED BUILDINGS (Hansard, 5 May 1983)

§ Dr. David Clark
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Hon. Members were surprised to learn in Committee that even the Secretary of State for the Environment has no right to interfere with the way his colleagues run their Departments. We did not realise that the Secretary of State for the Environment has no say in the way that another Department might use or misuse its building, even though it may be a listed or scheduled monument. We understand the reticence of the Secretary of State to take powers over other Secretaries of State, but we believe that Parliament should express a view on this matter.
It is strange that we, as parliamentarians, are establishing a commission which, although separate from Government—it has not been separate in the past—is related to the Department of the Environment. The Department of the Environment has no real right to express concern about the lack of repair of listed buildings which belong to another Government Department. The new clause requires that the Department of the Environment should be afforded "reasonable facilities" so that the commission can make inspections and report to the responsible Minister.
However, the new clause goes on to provide a sanction—that the reports may be published by the commission "as the Secretary of State for the Environment may allow." We still maintain the power of the Secretary of State in that respect.
I do not want it to be thought that I am in any way knocking the Property Services Agency. It does a fine job in looking after the scheduled monuments and listed buildings under its control, but it does that fine job because it is required to do so. We want to encourage Departments, other than the Department of the Environment, to be more considerate in maintaining their own buildings which may be scheduled monuments.
That is the reason for the new clause. It is an attempt to require the Government to set an example.

§ Mr. Macfarlane
The practical effect of the new clause would be to set up the commission as a watchdog on Government Departments to check how they maintain, repair and use the ancient monuments and historic buildings in their ownership or use.
I understand the hon. Gentleman's motives in tabling the new clause. I believe that the Secretary of State should make the fullest use of his advisers, but I do not believe that it would be right to insert the new clause in the Bill.
First, the House will recognise that, at this late stage of the Bill, the drafting of new clauses is crucial because they cannot be further amended. Unfortunately, the new clause, as drafted, does not achieve what I think the hon. Gentleman intended. For example, it requires the Secretary of State at large to afford the Secretary of State for the Environment "all reasonable facilities". The purpose of the new clause is that the commission should be given "all reasonable facilities", but it gives those facilities to the Secretary of State for the Environment. There is no obligation on the Secretary of State at large to provide facilities to the commission. Moreover, buildings owned by the Ministry of Agriculture are not covered.
Secondly, because we should be more concerned with principle than drafting, I do not believe that this is the right 472 way to achieve the hon. Gentleman's objective. Forcing the commission on Government Departments is not conducive to establishing the positive and constructive relationship which will be needed if the commission's advice is to have the greatest effect. We are concerned with the results rather than the means of obtaining them. I firmly believe that the right way for the commission to proceed is by way of establishing good relations so that its advice, encouragement and influence achieve the greatest effect. After all, that is precisely what we expect the commission to do in respect of all the scheduled monuments and listed buildings in non-Crown ownership. It is just as appropriate here.
In Committee I agreed to draw appropriate attention to the constructive ideas of my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South-West (Mr. Cormack) for meetings between the commission and those in Government Departments who are responsible for historic property. This is exactly the kind of positive approach that this important commission will want to adopt. I am sure that the commission will be involved in advising on all works that are proposed by Government Departments — that was the point made by my hon. Friend—and under the powers in the Bill it can achieve by agreement everything that the new clause seeks to do. That is the proper way forward. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree, and will not press what I believe is a defective clause.

§ Mr. Cormack
In my opinion, it was right to bring this matter to the Floor of the House, if only briefly, although I think that the new clause should not be pressed. My hon. Friend has obviously taken positive note of what was said in Committee. It is important that there should be proper co-ordination and that real attention should be drawn to these matters. Having been on the Historic Buildings Council for a few years now, I know, as does my hon. Friend, that some public bodies do not look after the heritage in their charge. However, I entirely accept his argument, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not press the new clause.

§ Mr. Sandelson
A similar new clause was debated in Committee. I hope that it will not be suggested by the Minister that I did not pay attention to what was said on that occasion. It became clear that the real point at issue was whether even the Secretary of State for the Environment had any right to interfere with the way in which his colleagues ran their Departments and was entitled to maintain any surveillance or inspection in deciding whether there was any misuse or failure to maintain and repair the fine buildings that often come within their departmental ambit.
As the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) rightly said—and this is the crux of the matter—this is for Parliament to decide. In my opinion, it is not proper to say that it is unconstitutional in some esoteric conceptual form for one departmental Minister to interfere in another's Department. That is not the right approach. I hope the Minister will concede that this, like other aspects of the matter, should be decided by the House of Commons. We make the rules. It is only right that the issue should be ventilated in this Chamber so that, even if the new clause is not accepted, at least all Secretaries of State will be aware that they must perhaps do better in future to ensure the care and repair of all the buildings in their guardianship.
473 What the new clause does not do—I hope that no one will suggest that it does—is to introduce an element of obsessive interference by the Secretary of State. All that we propose in the new clause is that the Secretary of State should be afforded "reasonable facilities" so that the new commission can make the relevant and necessary inspections and report to the responsible Minister what is required, in the view of the Secretary of the State and the commission, for any particular historic building. I commend the new clause to the Minister and to the House.

§ Dr. David Clark
I have listened carefully to the Minister and to those Conservative Members who have spoken, and also to the well argued case that was put by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Sandelson). I am reassured by what the Minister said. I take it that he is pressing ahead with the meetings. As I understood him to say that he will continue to do that, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.