THE COMMISSION'S FUNCTIONS (Hansard, 5 May 1983)

§ Dr. David Clark
I beg to move amendment No. 33, in page 18, line 35, at end insert— '(5A) Subject to the approval of the Secretary of State the Commission may acquire any group of listed buildings for the purpose of repairing, restoring, improving and disposing of them under a "revolving fund" set up by them for those purposes on terms agreed by the Secretary of State.'. This amendment is essentially about revolving funds, a concept that has been at the heart of a great debate in another place and in Committee. I felt that we were making progress with the Minister on this. I remind the 484 House that revolving funds is a means whereby, with a limited capital sum, great improvements can be made to a building or group of buildings that are renovated and then disposed of. The scheme has been successful, especially in Fife in Scotland. The National Trust for Scotland has used the revolving funds scheme to renovate groups of houses in fishing villages in Fife. The members of the Standing Committee who have seen the work have all paid tribute to the National Trust for Scotland.
The amendment would give the commission power to use the revolving fund scheme to do similar work. The counter-argument has been that this has already happened in many cases. However, it has been possible only where a charity has been empowered and willing to do it. There may be places where there is not a charity or a housing association that can do the work. Therefore, we have put forward this amendment. I am glad to see that the Government have gone some way to meeting our objective in amendment No. 87, which will come up later. Amendment No. 33 does not detract in any way from the Government amendment. If I catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall welcome the Government amendment, which our amendment complements.
The problem about the Government amendment is that it is restricted to conservation areas, which means that an area must be designated by a local authority. In amendment No. 33 we do not have this rather tight requirement, although in another sense we tie it down fairly tightly. Therefore, what we lose on this amendment we can pick up later on the Government amendment, which I hope the House will accept. Similarly, the imperfections of the Government amendment are put right by this amendment. We see the two amendments as complementary and in that spirit I hope the House will accept them.

§ Mr. Cormack
No one who has studied the "Little Houses" scheme in Scotland does not admire it enormously. One would like to think that the commission would have the power to organise such schemes, irrespective of the precise status of the area in which the buildings are situated.
I am delighted at amendment No. 87 to which the hon. Member for South Shields, (Dr. Clark) referred. I do not think that we can or should ask for more this evening. I hope that if Parliament lasts a little longer than certain people are forecasting, it will be possible to extend it a little in another place, because the Bill must return to another place, where their Lordships have already shown that they have a comprehensive grasp of the detail and of the problems involved. We want the Bill to reach the statute book. I welcome what my hon. Friend has done and underline the great importance of the scheme for which the National Trust for Scotland has been responsible.

§ Mr. Stephen Ross
I apologise to the House for having to leave after this debate.
I welcome the Bill, but should like to say a few words about this amendment. I welcome amendment No. 87 and agree that the Minister has made some progress, but the measure applies purely to conservation areas. There is a fear that if we widened the area in which the commission could operate by purchasing and doing up properties and then selling them, which would apply to about 280,000 listed properties in England, that would be an expensive 485 way to conserve them. I have had a good brief from Save Britain's Heritage, with which I totally agree. The suggestion that the commission will come under pressure to acquire all listed buildings is ludicrous. In many parts of the country we have very good preservation societies. I have one in my constituency. I gave an example in Committee, and will not bore the House by repeating it.
I can think of a building similar to the one that the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South-West (Mr. Cormack) described earlier. People did not appreciate that it had such a marvellous interior. On the Isle of Wight there is a house with a marvellous plaster ceiling, which was done purely for a visit by Queen Victoria. Her lady-in-waiting lived there, and the Queeen said that she would visit her. An Italian was brought over for the next year or two to do that fantastic ceiling. One would not know that it was there unless one went into the house.
The commission should step in when repairs are not being done and buildings are not being properly maintained. Acquisition need not be an expensive way to conserve buildings, particularly under the revolving fund system; nor, if buildings are repaired and resold, is there a question of long-term maintenance costs. I am sure that the Government will appoint people of considerable ability to the commission. Such people should have sufficient competence and managerial qualities to avoid any over-commitment to the purchase of historic buildings. I am sorry that we have not been able to go further. However, many of the points that we made in Committee have been taken up by the Government, and I am grateful for that.

§ Mr. Macfarlane
I am grateful for the comments made by the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross). We have made progress, and the House acknowledges that fully. My hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South-West (Mr. Cormack) will forgive me if I do not follow his speculation about what may or may not happen during the summer. I give a word of caution to hon. Members that we must be careful not to have too much redrafting, whether it be here or in another place. Important aspects are enshrined in the Bill.
I understand the arguments of the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark). As he said, we had a detailed debate on revolving funds in Committee. I was much influenced by many of the arguments that were advanced in Committee. That is why we studied closely what was said in that debate and decided to widen the commission's powers of acquisition and disposal, and hence its powers to operate revolving funds, by giving it powers to acquire and dispose of buildings in conservation areas that it considers to be of special—I emphasise that word—architectural or historic interest.
Amendment No. 87 gives the formal details. This is a significant extension of the commission's powers. I am grateful for the constructive way in which the matter was approached in Committee. It provides most of what the amendment seeks. I do not think it right to empower the commission to acquire any listed building, but this amendment would allow only the purchase of groups of buildings. Moreover, the amendment is slightly defective in that it does not define a listed building or revolving funds.
I hope that the hon. Member for South Shields will see fit not to press the amendment in the light of the considerable step forward that the Committee made, that 486 we are now taking on Report and I have taken in proposing to increase the commission's powers to operate revolving funds.

§ Dr. David Clark'
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.