§ Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
§ THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY or TRANSPORT (LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE)My Lords, this Bill is one about which I think here is substantial agreement, and I may say at this stage that the Committee stage will not be taken until after Christmas, and that therefore any detailed points can be discussed at that time. Perhaps 1 ought to give the House a general survey of what the Bill purposes to do, and I think I must occupy just a few moments in going back over the past with regard to previous measures of this description. There were Acts concerning ancient monuments in 1882, 1900 and 1910, but not till the Act of 1913, which really was the outcome of a Royal Commission on Historic Monuments which sat in 1908, was there any serious treatment of this problem with regard to State action, and it is under the Act of 1913, which is the Act upon which now all the activities of the Ancient Monuments Department are founded, that all proceedings with reference to ancient monuments are carried on. It introduced an element of compulsion which did not previously exist. The Act of 1013 introduced the idea of scheduling, that is to say, listing ancient monuments. 527 and since that time something like 3,000 have been scheduled. It empowered the Commissioners to give advice, and in many cases that provision has been taken advantage of. It also allowed the Commissioners to buy and accept and become guardians of ancient monuments, and something like 280 ancient monuments have been handed over since that time.
The Office of Works is now the custodian for a number of ancient monuments. It is responsible for their repair, and the whole scheme has very much increased in the last ten years. The introduction of motor coaches has brought a great many visitors to these ancient monuments, and their popularity has very much increased. I will give just a few figures with regard to this point. In 1924–25 there were 180 of these ancient monuments, 275,000 visitors went to them, and the receipts from fees were £5,541. Last year there were 223 of these monuments, the number of visitors was 490,000, and the receipts from fees £9,839. This refers strictly to ancient monuments. In addition to ancient monuments there are historic buildings, such as the Tower of London, Carnarvon Castle, Carisbrooke Castle, and Edinburgh Castle, and it is instructive as showing the increase in the interest in these archaeological relics that, whereas in 1924–25 the receipts were £23,000, in 1929–30 they were £26,814. I ought also at the same time to give some sort of indication of the amount of money spent on ancient monuments. It has varied in the last five years between £45,000 and 255,000, an average of about £50,000. In 1929–30 it was £49,656.
Those of your Lordships who have visited these monuments, which are under the guardianship of the Office of Works, may have noticed how admirably they are preserved, how well the amenities are looked after, and how they form a focus of interest in the districts where they are situated. I ought in all fairness to pay a tribute to successive Commissioners of Works during the last ten or fifteen years who have interested themselves in this particular branch of activity at the Office of Works; and I also think that a tribute ought to be paid to the zeal, enterprise, and, if I may say so, intelligence and good taste of the Permanent Secretary of the Office of Works, Sir Lionel Earle, and also to the exact and profound knowledge and indefatigable 528 activity of Mr. Peers, the Chief Inspector and head of the Ancient Monuments Department. I have thought it worth while to make these few preliminary remarks because it is undoubtedly the ease that this preservation of ancient monuments is a movement which is popular and increasing.
With regard to the Bill, I think the best thing for me to do is just to point out the new element that is introduced in it. While a great portion of the Bill is merely the consolidation and extension of the former Act of 1913, the chief new element introduced in the Bill—it appears in Clauses 1 and 2—gives power to the Commissioners to prepare a scheme for the protection of the surroundings of an ancient monument. The scheme will be on the lines of a town planning scheme, but town planning alone is not enough. Action by a central authority is necessary. This particular provision has been very much brought to the front recently by the threat that was made to the amenities near the Roman wall known as Hadrian's Wall, where quarrying operations were likely not only to interfere with the amenities, but actually to threaten the structure itself. Although the wall, which extends some thirty or forty miles—but not all of it, of course, is visible —and the vallum, which is south of the wall, are both scheduled by the Office of Works, the ground between them, or near the wall, does not come under the control of the Office of Works, and could not, under the 1913 Act, be protected by them. Fortunately, the gentleman who is conducting quarrying operations near the wall has agreed not to do anything that will imperil the wall or come too close to it, and there is no immediate danger. But it was felt that that was only one instance of the many that might he quoted where it is necessary, in order to preserve these monuments adequately, to have the power to control certain sites and land round them.
Another instance I could mention is Stonehenge. If this Bill had been law it would have been possible to control the land round Stonehenge, say a square mile of it, in order to preserve that very interesting ancient monument and prevent buildings and unsightly huts being erected around it, and it would have saved the public the very heavy 529 sum of money which had to be raised in order to acquire the land. Had the matter gone to arbitration, which would have settled the amount of compensation, no doubt a very much smaller sum would have been necessary. There is in Clause 2 a provision for compensation and betterment. It is not anticipated that there will be many claims for betterment, but it is considered necessary that betterment should be taken into account as a set-off against compensation when the claims are examined. Clause 3 gives power to the Commissioners to contribute to the expenses of local authorities making a scheme under the Town Planning Act, if such a scheme has the effect of protecting the surroundings of an ancient monument. In many cases co-operation with a local authority will be sufficient to attain the purpose desired.
I would draw your Lordships' attention to Clause 10, which is to prohibit the export in whole or in part of any ancient monument, whether an occupied dwelling house or not. That is a new provision, and may be subject to a certain amount of criticism. I think the idea which so many people fear is founded more on the probability of buildings being exported than on regret, at an accomplished fact. There is no doubt, and I could give your Lordships some instances, that old houses have been taken down wholesale and exported. There are also many instances of houses having their valuable features destroyed and of panelling, doors, fireplaces or whatever it may be, being wrenched from them and exported. The sum total of these cases may not be very great at the time being but, with the advance of engineering, we may look forward, possibly, to times when there will be no difficulty about shifting a house from one Continent to another, and we feel it is as well that some provision for preventing any eventuality of that sort should be put into this Bill.
The remaining clauses really are a strenthening of the Act of 1913. Clause 4 gives power to examine and investigate ancient monuments under guardianship, and to examine and contribute towards the cost of examining other monuments with the consent of the owner. Clause 5 is important because the Preservation Order shall only require confirmation by Parliament if the owner objects to the Order. Hitherto confirmation by Parlia- 530 meat has been necessary in every case. If the owner does object the Order shall remain in force for two years only; hitherto it has remained in force for eighteen months. If Parliament does not confirm the Order no further Order may be made until after three years; heretofore the period has been five years. Clause 6 allows the Commissioners to accept contributions from voluntary societies towards the cost of works or monuments not under their ownership or guardianship, and towards the cost of preservation schemes. Archaeological and other societies as well as local authorities do contribute from time to time. Scheduling under Clause 7 is to have effect from the (late of notification and not from the date of the publication of the list. Sometimes a considerable interval has elapsed before the list has been published, and it is felt that it is far better that it should take effect from the date of notification. Owners are to give notice of repairs to scheduled buildings as well as of demolition, alterations or additions. Three months' notice of such work must be given instead of one month as at present.
Under Clause 8 the Commissioners are to have power to charge fees for admission. As I pointed out just now when I was giving the figures, fees have, been charged and are charged for admission, but there seems to be some doubt as to their legality. It is very necessary, therefore, that this matter should be placed outside all possibility of question. By Clause 9 the Commissioners are to act uncle their general incorporation instead of, as at present, under their special incorporation. For some reason, in 1913 they were incorporated specially for their activities in connection with ancient monuments. That is found to be totally unnecessary and the Commissioners of Works can now act under their general incorporation. Clause 11 gives power to the Commissioners to enter upon any land and, with the consent of the owner, to excavate thereon. These powers are not likely to be much used, but they are desirable to enable the Commissioners to know what buildings should be preserved. Under Clause 13 the Commissioners are to register deeds of guardianship, Preservation Orders and schemes and notices of intention to schedule, so that new owners may be notified of the various encumbrances. Clause 14 pro- 531 vides for the publication of Orders and Clause 16 gives definitions, while Clause 17 applies the Bill to Scotland. The First Schedule enters into the details of the making of a scheme and the Second Schedule provides for compensation and betterment.
The Bill may seem rather long and complicated but, apart from the control of land surrounding monuments, the clause with regard to compensation and betterment, and the power of the Commissioners to prohibit the export of any ancient monument in whole or in part, the Bill really only consolidates anti slightly extends the former Act. The proper preservation of these ancient heirlooms, which are historical links with the past and many of which by their intrinsic beauty give the highest pleasure to thousands of visitors, is a work which is receiving the sympathy and approval of an increasing number of people. His Majesty's Government have, therefore, thought it to be their duty to extend, where need be, and to consolidate their powers, in order that they may discharge their trust with an efficiency which will gain general public approval. I beg to move.
§ Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede.)
§ LORD DANESFORTMy Lords, I am in entire sympathy with the object of this Bill. It appears to include several very valuable provisions for the purpose of obtaining this object. But there is one clause, a new clause, in it which I think is drawn in terms that are far too wide. That is the clause giving the Commissioners power to make Orders to prevent the export of ancient monuments. It gives power to the Commissioners, apparently on their own initiative without the interference of any one, and without even giving notice to the owner of a monument, to make an Order saying: "You must not export this monument abroad." That Order appears to come into effect the moment it is made and there is no appeal whatsoever by the owner against it. Further than that, extensive power is given to the County Court to grant an injunction against an owner prohibiting the export of such monuments. To what monuments would this apply? Your Lordships will find in the definition clause, Clause 16, that the monument might be any building, struc- 532 ture or other work than an ecclesiastical building and that ancient monuments to which this clause applies would include any monument of which the preservation is, in the opinion of the Commissioners, a matter of public interest, so that all the Commissioners have to say is: "Here is something of public interest. What the owners think of it, or what they have to say, is no affair of ours. We will make an Order, binding upon them, without any communication with them, that they are not to export it."
May I give an illustration which has been suggested to me by a friend of the sort of monument in respect of which such an Order ought not to be made? Take an old tithe barn, of which there are a good many about the country, and which undoubtedly are interesting in their own way. They could be easily sold, and many owners would be glad to have a few hundred pounds from an American or another for those tithe barns, which are not at all unique, and of which there are a great many in the country, that could easily be removed. I am only giving this as an illustration, and there are many other cases. The Commissioners could come in and say: "Here is an interesting ancient monument. You must not sell it. However desirable it may be in your interests, you must not touch it." I would suggest to the noble Lord who moved the Second Reading that that clause will require considerable restriction When it comes to Committee stage.
LORD RAGLANMy Lords, I should like to associate myself with what the noble Lord has said about the work of the Office of Works. They have restored three historic buildings in my neighbourhood, and the way in which they have carried out the work is, I think, in every case, quite admirable. With the general scope and object of this Bill I think I am in entire agreement, but I should like to say a word in support of what the noble Lord, Lord Danesfort, has said about Clause 10. It does seem hard, when a man is hard up and has to pay his taxes, and has a piece of property which he could sell in order to pay those taxes, that the Commissioners should prevent him doing so. I think the noble Lord in charge of the Bill should put in a provision that in such a case it will be 533 open to the Commissioners to buy the building themselves. That might meet cases of hardship.
§ LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDEMy Lords, I quite realise the difficulties that have been pointed out by the two noble Lords with regard to Clause 10, and I should be very ready to pay all attention to their opinions on the Committee stage, but I think we ought to take as a basis of the clause a reasonable attitude on the part of the Commissioners and not an unreasonable attitude. I think the object of the clause—and we shall be prepared to do anything to see that that object is fully carried out—is that the Commissioners should have some hold in notorious cases where a monument of great value, or some part of a house of real value to the nation, is going to be stripped and exported. Although I should be sorry to see the old tithe barns of this country all sent over to America, the case of the tithe barns will be taken into account. The object is to have some sort of control, because a fear does exist that some of these old and really valuable ancient houses may be exported. I can assure the two noble Lords that I will take into account their arguments and be prepared to meet them on the Committee stage.
§ On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
§ LORD DANESFORTShould I be in order in asking the noble Lord not to take the Committee stage too soon? It is rather an important Bill and we should like to consider its details.