Lords Sitting of 27 July 1953

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers

  UNIVERSITY OF ST. ANDREWS BILL [H.L.]
  2.37 p.m.
  Order of the Day for the consideration of Commons Amendments read.
  THE MINISTER OF STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (THE EARL OF HOME): My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Amendments be now considered.
  Moved, That the Commons Amendments be now considered.—(The Earl of Home.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  [The references are to Bill No. 58 as first printed for the House of Commons]
  Clause 3, page 2, line 27, leave out lines 27 and 28 and insert—
  ("(a) the Rector; (b) the Principal of the University;").
  THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, the effect of this Amendment is to retain the Rector of the University as the Chairman of the University Court. Your Lordships will remember that, at an earlier stage of the Bill, much of our discussion centred round the question whether the Rector or the Principal should preside. My noble and gallant friend Lord Tedder and the rest of the Royal Commission in their Report, had suggested that the Principal should preside over the University Court, and I must say that at an earlier stage of this Bill I felt that those arguments held the field. At any rate, I also felt it was as well to let the Royal Commission's proposals go as a whole to another place where they could be fully debated with the benefit of our full discussion before them. When the Committee stage was finished, I warned the Secretary of State that the arguments and the feeling in your Lordships' House seemed to me to be moving towards keeping the Rector in the Chair, and that he might well find
  880
  in another place a situation very similar to that which prevailed in your Lordships' House. That was in fact the result when the Bill came to Committee in another place; the proposal to retain the Rector in the Chair was carried by a decisive majority, and the Government accepted that view. My Lords, when personality—in the person of Lord Crawford—and tradition hold the field, perhaps your Lordships will allow me to execute a modest political somersault. The Government ask your Lordships to accept the Commons Amendment. I therefore beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
  Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Earl of Home.)
  LORD GREENHILL: My Lords, I wish to add nothing to what the noble Earl, Lord Home, has said: indeed, I was hoping that the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Tedder, might offer his own observations. I think, however, it is correct to say that tradition, and perhaps mainly the personality of the individual suggested, accounts for the fact that the other place decided to reverse the opinion expressed by the members of the Royal Commission. My own feeling is that the Royal Commission were correct in their recommendations. At the same time, one cannot help but recognise, and admit, that the present Rector of the University is one who is acceptable to everyone. It is to be hoped that under his chairmanship the University will have the success that those of us on the Commission hoped it would achieve.
  LORD REITH: My Lords, may I say to the noble Earl that some of us are very glad that the Government saw fit to change their minds on this matter. It is a satisfaction to us that the noble Earl, Lord Crawford, should be retained in the position which we felt he so fully merited. I think we should have been even more glad had the Government seen fit to change their minds a few months earlier, rather than put the Whips on against what we so earnestly and urgently then suggested. At any rate, it is a matter of great gratification that the noble Earl now feels as he does.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  Clause 3, page 3, line 3, at end insert ("not exceeding five years").
  THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, it was thought reasonable that the Crown Assessors who are to sit on the University Court should not have their term extended beyond the initial five years by Order in Council for more than a further five years. The Government's intention has always been that the Crown Commissioners should sit on the Court only during the period of reorganisation of the University, and that clearly, I think, ought not to exceed ten years. That period should give ample time; indeed I hope that the reorganisation will be completed very much sooner. I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Earl of Home.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  Clause 3, page 3, line7, leave out subsection (2).
  THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential. I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Earl of Home.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  Clause 15, page 10, line 5, leave out ("(except subsection (5) thereof)").
  THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, this Amendment will bring the repeal provisions of the Bill, which are in the final subsection, into force on the passing of the Bill. Before amendment the Bill required these provisions to be brought into force by Order in Council. This was proposed only because one of the repealed provisions was a necessary part of the provisions changing the chairmanship of the University Court, and should not have taken effect until the new Court came to be constituted. As there will now be no change in the chairmanship of the court, repeals can take place at once. I beg to move.
  Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Earl of Home.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  Clause 15, page 10, line 10, leave out line 10 and insert—
  ("(5) In that portion of the Act twenty George the Second, chapter thirty-two, which relates to the right of patronage and presentment of the Principal and the several professors in the United College of St. Salvator and St. Leonard the words "Principal and" where they first occur,")
  THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, this Amendment will have two results. It will repair an omission by repealing the provisions of the Act of 1747 which empower the Crown to appoint the Principal of the United College. In future, he will be appointed by the University Court. Secondly, it will delete the provision repealing Section 5 (5) of the 1899 Act, which places the Rector in the chair of the University Court. I beg to move.
  Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Earl of Home.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.

  HOSPITAL ENDOWMENTS (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
  2.46 p.m.
  Order of the Day for the consideration of the Commons Amendment read.
  THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Amendment be now considered.
  Moved, That the Commons Amendment be now considered.—(The Earl of Home.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  [The reference is to Bill No. 59 as first printed for the House of Commons.]
  Clause 2, page 2, line 16, at end insert—
  ("Provided that nothing in this section shall authorise the transfer to the Trust of endowments which in the aggregate yielded in the year ended the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and fifty-two, an income exceeding one hundred and twenty thousand pounds.")
  THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, this Amendment was adopted by the Government in the light of the general view that there should be a specific limit on the

  883
  extent to which the Hospital Endowments Commission are empowered under Clause 2 (1) to transfer endowments to the Scottish Hospital Endowments Research Trust which is to be set up. I think the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill, was interested in this matter. It was thought that there should be sufficient funds left in the hands of the hospital authorities to meet amenities and things of that kind. The Amendment has the effect of limiting the transfer of endowments to the Trust to an aggregate of such an amount as in the year ended March 31, 1952, produced an income of £120,000. This is the equivalent of about 27 per cent. of the current income of the endowments vested initially in the boards of management. That is thought to be a reasonable arrangement, and I hope your Lordships will agree to it. I beg to move.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Earl of Home.)
  LORD GREENHILL: My Lords, may I be allowed to intervene for a moment only to say that I am sorry to see that a specific figure has been put there. I think that both the Trust and the hospitals would have benefited, if anything, by there being no figure at all. It is, I think, an exaggerated fear that the hospitals will not be left with enough money for amenities and certain improvements which they say they have to introduce from these moneys. My belief is that if the Trust are allowed to get the figure which is adequate for their needs, particularly in research, they will be satisfied, and the hospitals will have no reason for complaint. In the circumstances, however, I do not think it necessary or worth while to vote against the figure in the Bill.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  VALUATION FOR RATING BILL
  2.48 p.m.
  Read 3ª (according to Order), and passed.

  NATIONAL INSURANCE (INDUS- TRIAL INJURIES) (No. 2) BILL
  Read 3ª (according to Order), and passed.

  MONOPOLIES AND RESTRICTIVE PRACTICES COMMISSION BILL
  2.50 p.m.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (VISCOUNT WOOLTON): My Lords, I have asked my noble friend Lord Mancroft whether he would be agreeable to my putting this Bill before your Lordships. In the White Paper on Full Employment which I published when I was Minister of Reconstruction, and in the production of which I had the great benefit of beng associated with the noble and learned Earl who now leads the Opposition, we wrote these words:
  "There has in recent years been a growing tendency towards combines and towards agreements, both national and international, by which manufacturers have sought to control prices and output, to divide markets and fix conditions of sale. Such agreements or combines do not necessarily operate against the public interest, but the power to do so is there. The Government will therefore seek power to inform themselves of the extent and effect of restrictive arrangements and of the activities of the combines, and to take appropriate action to check practices which may bring advantages to sectional producing interests but work to the detriment of the country as a whole."
  I think that in the Coalition Government we were wise to make this provision. It was as a consequence of that that the Monopolies Bill was subsequently passed.
  The Bill that I have the honour to introduce to your Lordships to-day has a limited scope and a single purpose. It is to strengthen the Monopolies and Restrictive Practices Commission so that they can deal at any one time with a greater number of investigations. Monopolies and restriction of competition, as we said in 1944, are not necessarily harmful, but they have the power to do harm. The Monopolies Act did not, in fact, prohibit restrictive conditions or any particular example of them, but it instructed and empowered the Government to arrange for their investigation and to take what remedial action they thought was necessary in the public interest. The Commission were embarking on a difficult task: it was a novel task in which they were not able to be guided by precedents. They had to establish a procedure which brought a steady stream of reports, and they have succeeded in doing so. I think they have a good achievement to their credit.

  885
  It is most important that we should now review the situation and make whatever changes experience has shown to be necessary in order to improve the machinery of the organisation that we placed at their disposal. This Bill, which I imagine will have the support of all sections of the House, is a simple machinery Bill. It provides the terms of service of the chairman, makes arrangements for the appointment of one or two deputy chairmen and seeks to lay down the sort of conditions that will attract men of the necessary background and ability. It increases the permissible maximum of the Commission. If I remember rightly, the members originally numbered eight, and when noble Lords opposite were in power that was increased to ten. Now we are proposing, in Clause 2 of this Bill, to increase the number to twenty-five. Having done so, we now propose that these twenty-five gentlemen, or such of them as are appointed, should be permitted to work in groups. As the Act now stands, the chairman is appointed from time to time by direction of the Board of Trade. He may be appointed for a maximum of seven years, in the first instance, and this may be extended to twelve years. There is no power to pay any pension and no power to appoint a deputy chairman.
  We have been fortunate up to date, but it would be relying on extraordinary good fortune to expect that men of the calibre needed for this Commission, and to strengthen it, can be induced to serve on these terms. Whilst it is not necessarily the case that lawyers should be appointed to these high positions, the qualities of mind and personality required are little, if any, inferior to those required in a High Court Judge. Important aspects of the work are of a semi-judicial character. I think your Lordships will agree that, in these circumstances, it is appropriate that we should have terms of security and superannuation likely to attract the right kind of men. The type of men we have in mind is, broadly, similar to that suitable to act as County Court Judges or as National Insurance Commissioners. We are hoping we may get men who have already achieved some distinction in their professions, who would probably be in their early fifties, and in our opinion it would not in these days be reasonable to expect such men to apply for positions
  886
  that were neither permanent nor pensionable.
  Therefore, in the Bill we are proposing that the chairman and deputy chairmen should be permanent appointments. Permanency is conferred by prescribing the age limit of seventy for retirement, with possible extension of not more than two years at a time, without any provision for earlier determination of appointment, except on the unlikely ground of misbehaviour or on the ground of incapacity. The chairman or deputy chairman would not get a pension under the Bill if he retired after less than five years' service, and no pension on retirement below the age of sixty-five except on medical grounds, unless he was certified as being permanently incapable of continuing the work. His pension would be on a sliding scale, rising from one-quarter of his salary on vacating office after five years' service to a maximum of one-half of his salary after completing fifteen years or more. The power to appoint deputy chairmen is permissive. None will be appointed until it is found necessary to make appointments in order to engage in the work.
  Your Lordships will notice that in the Bill we have arranged for groups in the Commission. Experience has suggested that live is the minimum number of members required to provide the necessary variety of outlook and experience, and accordingly it is thought desirable to make this a statutory requirement. In this new field of Government investigation, it is important that we should build up a volume of case law, so that, as a result of inquiries, discussions and conclusions, both public opinion and business opinion may be guided to sound conclusions as to the practices which are, and those which may not be, in the public interest. The expansion of the Commission and the transition to the group principle will hasten the time when this body of case law can be established. As a consequence of the discussions that took place in another place, when we come to the Committee stage we shall make three drafting Amendments of a minor nature, with which I do not propose to trouble your Lordships to-day.
  I have given your Lordships a brief outline of the Bill that is before the House. Since I had something to do with the creation of this body, along with the

  887
  noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, I should like to pay tribute to the present chairman and the members of the Monopolies Commission, men of sound and educated judgment, who have carried on their work free from political bias or preconceived ideas: we are considerably indebted to them. I beg to move that this Bill be read a second time.
  Moved, That the Bill he now read 2ª.—(Viscount Woolton.)
  3.2 p.m.
  LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, the noble Viscount, Lord Woolton, has expressed the wish that this Bill should be passed through your Lordships' House with a blessing from all sides. I can tell him that we shall offer no opposition to the Bill, as a Bill, but during the Committee stage we may endeavour to persuade the Government that certain Amendments are desirable. When I have finished my short speech, your Lordships will perhaps realise that there is some ground for extending this Bill, if we can. I say that, because this Bill has been narrowly drafted. It is bound down closely by the Money Resolution passed in another place, and it may be that, if we endeavour to move Amendments on certain lines, they will not be in order. If your Lordships read the debates on the Committee stage in another place, you will find that some comment was made about this, because it restricted the character of the Amendments put forward by our friends in that Chamber.
  First of all, I should like to say a few words about a sentence in the speech of the President of the Board of Trade in another place. Apparently, he was resisting a suggestion that this Commission should be given authority, not merely to deal with monopolies, as we have hitherto understood them, but to deal with the nationalised undertakings, also. We are pleased that the President of the Board of Trade declined to accept the pressure brought to bear upon him in that regard. We may not entirely agree with the reason that he put forward, but to get a refusal from him seems to me most useful for the welfare of the great undertakings now run by the State. We on this side of the House do not admit that a nationalised undertaking is a monopoly, in the ordinary sense of that term and as we
  888
  have hitherto understood it. A monopoly, hitherto, has been to us a man, or a few men, controlling an industry to the exclusion of everybody else, and possessing the right of exploitation over the whole population. We look upon the nationalised undertakings as something quite different. They are a form of co-operation in which the whole of the population is involved. They do not exclude anyone from participation politically in the government and control of their organizations; they are subject to the power of the Government; they come under decisions of Parliament; and they have to stand every kind of criticism that can be brought upon a public body of every description. Therefore, we are pleased that the Minister found it unnecessary to accept such a suggestion, and has drawn a difference between a nationalised industry and one which is run as a monopoly in the old form.
  A second reference to the speech of the President of the Board of Trade in another place enables me to make a small point about something said by the noble Viscount, Lord Woolton, as to the flow of activities which proceed from the Commission as now constituted. The President of the Board of Trade stated that in the four and a half years of the existence of this Commission there have been thirteen(an unlucky number) specific references to that body, and one general reference. From the Commission we have received in all Reports in six Cases—namely, on Dental Goods, Rainwater Goods, Electric Lamps, Electric Cables, Insulin and Matches. I hope it will be realised that, although we on this side of the House should be reluctant not to give our thanks to the Commission for the work they have done, we still have a feeling that much quicker progress might have been made had the conditions under which they were working been better. I am well aware that the conditions were largely laid down by our own Government which preceded the present Government, but we were then taking our first step in that direction. The scheme now in operation can be looked upon as a pilot scheme, and we were hoping that this Government, now that they have some little time, would, in view of the experience gained, give us a more extensive scheme than this Bill provides. There are many things that we have got to do if we are seriously

  889
  to tackle the evils which spring from private monopoly.
  Let us look for a moment at the extent of the field which is to be covered. In the White Paper published in 1951 it was stated that as long ago as 1938 30 per cent. of the consumer goods reaching the public came under price maintenance schemes laid down by manufacturers for the guidance of the retail trade. If one measures what has been done up to now with the great work that still remains to be undertaken, it will be realised that the steps taken by the Government to-day will not expedite matters very much in the great fields revealed. We should like to see the work of the Commission more developed than it now is. Before I say anything about the size of the Commission as it is to be, perhaps I should mention one other fact about the production of Reports hitherto. Sir Archibald Carter, the chairman, has indicated that, although the Commission have been working very well, none of their Reports have been issued in under a period of eighteen months—and, indeed, the average length of time taken to bring out a report has been just over two years. So, given that great expanse to be covered, and given the rate of progress up to the moment, it will be realised that it will be a long time before we defeat monopolies by the present measures.
  In another place members of my Party moved Amendments as follows: first, that there should be four vice-chairmen, instead of the two vice-chairmen proposed by the Government. They did that, in the first place, because there are to be twenty-five members of the Commission. They are to work in groups of five, so that if there is only a chairman and two vice-chairmen there will always be ten reserves standing by apparently with little to do.
  VISCOUNT WOOLTON: May I help the noble Lord? The whole twenty-five will not be sitting all the time, and in the opinion of the Commission a chairman and two vice-chairmen will be able to cover the work, so that there will always be either a chairman or a vice-chairman in charge of the investigation when they are taking evidence.
  LORD SHEPHERD: I am obliged to the noble Viscount for his explanation.
  890
  While there is a slight difference between what he says and what I say, it will be realised that at no time will there be more than three groups sitting.
  VISCOUNT WOOLTON: I do not realise that.
  LORD SHEPHERD: If there is to be a chairman and two vice-chairmen, and if the groups have to be presided over by the chairman or one of the two vice-chairmen, no more than three groups could sit on any one day.
  VISCOUNT WOOLTON: Yes, on one day.
  LORD SHEPHERD: Or at one period.
  VISCOUNT WOOLTON: No.
  LORD SHEPHERD: Perhaps the noble Viscount will give us more information when he replies.
  VISCOUNT WOOLTON: May I do it now, because it is so simple? The members of the Commission will not be sitting every day, and a chairman or vice-chairman will be able quite easily to be chairman of two groups at the same time, because the groups will sit on different days. I do not wish to pursue the matter further.
  LORD SHEPHERD: I understand what the noble Viscount has said, and I will accept it, but I can still see that if a chairman or a vice-chairman is a chairman of two groups, he will have to sit on different days, and on the day on which he presides over one group there will be no chairman for the other.
  VISCOUNT WOOLTON: The other will not be sitting.
  LORD SHEPHERD: It will not be sitting, because there will be no chairman to preside. At any rate, in another place we moved to have four deputy chairmen, instead of two. The Government, however, decided that they could not agree. Then we moved that the deputies should be made full-time members of the Commission, in order to extend the amount of working time and so expedite the work of the Commission. That, too, was declined. We then wanted to strengthen the basis upon which the Commission worked, by making it impossible that the chairman or deputy chairmen should have a great

  891
  financial interest in the trades or industries with which any inquiry was connected. Whilst it was pointed out that this was borne well in mind when appointments were made, we still feel that it would have been useful had there been something in this Bill which would have made it impossible for anyone who had a strong financial interest to undertake work in a given case. That, too, was refused. Then we moved another Amendment—the last one that I will mention—dealing with the appointment of assessors. We felt that if assessors were appointed, bringing skill and knowledge to the Commission, the work of the Commission would be more efficiently performed and, at the same time, would enable the Minister to enlarge the area from which the Commissioners would be drawn.
  We also quarrel with the Bill because we do not think it looks at the whole field as it ought to do. If, for instance, your Lordships will look at the number of inquiries that have been made and will study the names, it will be found that they are chiefly in the light and secondary industries. We feel that the time has come when we should take cognisance of some of the larger industries, and make quite sure that decisions taken within their own organisations respecting prices are for the public benefit. We are all aware of the fact that, in the steel trade, price fixing is the order of the day, and has been for a long time. Both sides of the House have taken special steps in establishing an authority which could deal with steel prices, on behalf of the State, the consumer and the producing bodies. But another great industry, such as the cotton industry, for example, can fix prices and yet, apparently, not be brought within the Government's supervision and the provisions of this Bill. What we must realise is that we are living in changing times. The old days when the price mechanism could vary the price at which an article was sold are fast passing away. Industry after industry is safeguarding itself against the price mechanism in that respect, and is fixing prices for commodities which will pay a profit and which, at the same time, will give the workers engaged in that industry the standard of living to which they are entitled.
  892
  In the 'twenties, when the cotton industry lived in the fiercest kind of competition, the trade of Lancashire and Cheshire had a very thin time indeed. It was almost impossible for factory and mill owners to make a profit at all. Those industries had been largely built up on loan capital, a part only of which has been subscribed in the first instance. When the bad days under competitive enterprise came after the First World War, to save the textile industry those uncalled monies were called up to the extent of£30 million, and in a very few years, because of continued bad conditions, nothing whatever could be seen for the great sacrifices some people had been called upon to bear. But now, in the spinning mill section of the cotton industry, we have price fixation; profits are again being made and, indeed, some sections of the cotton industry have been doing remarkably well. I should like some reference to be included in the Bill by which that industry could be brought under the terms of this Bill, so that, even though it is not selling goods bearing a trade mark, it shall not, because of its power, be able to hold customers at too high a price. On the other hand, members of my Party do not wish to see a condition of affairs under which there can be no unity or organisation in a trade. We are not anxious that it should be brought down to the level of the cotton industry between the wars, because that is bad for the working people and bad for the country. Therefore, we should like to see the Government taking a more positive line in this Bill than is the case now.
  Under this Bill and the main Act, action is taken only when a fault has been committed. Further action will be taken only when further faults are committed. We should like to see some machinery established which will enable the Government, or their representatives, to take action by which business can be put upon a positive footing. We agree that there must be a return on capital, because we think that capital is entitled to its due, whether it be owned by the State or by a private person. We want to see proper wages paid; we want to see continuous activity in trade. We are anxious about full employment. We desire to see fair and even prices. We want a sensible scheme of distribution, and for that purpose we want the State to enter into con-

  893
  sultation with all concerned, so that in each industry, by organisation, we can be given a certainty of good wages and good business. As I have said, we do not propose to object to the Second Reading of this Bill, but we shall hope, when the Committee stage comes, to make suggestions to the Government which may result in the Bill becoming a little more valuable than, I am afraid, it seems to be at the present moment.

  KOREAN ARMISTICE AGREEMENT
  3.22 p.m.
  THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY): My Lords, I hope the House will allow me to intervene for a short time to make a statement about Korea. I am glad to be able to confirm to your Lordships that the Korean Armistice Agreement was signed in the presence of representatives of the United Kingdom, the British Commonwealth, and other United Nations countries whose forces are fighting in Korea, at 2 a.m. British Summer Time this morning at Panmunjom, with a provision for a cease fire twelve hours later. After over three years of war, including two years of negotiation, the fighting should by now already have ceased along the front, and the two armies will withdraw from their forward lines to permit the formation of a demilitarised zone in accordance with the terms of the Agreement. I know that this news will be received with heartfelt thanks in all quarters of the House.
  It is not out of place to recall the extent of the United Nations achievement. For the first time since the formation of the United Nations, member States have taken up arms in collective resistance to aggression; and the joint action has been successful. Anyone who doubts that assertion should remember the military situation in August, 1950, when the total evacuation of Korea by the United Nations' forces seemed to be almost inevitable. Since that time the forces of aggression have been driven back beyond the line from which they started. These results would not have been possible but for the courageous decision of President Truman and the late United States Administration in June, 1950; and it is also right to remember that immediate support was pledged by the late Govern-
  894
  ment of this country, sustained by all Parties, by members of the Commonwealth and by other member Governments of the United Nations.
  The fighting has, unfortunately, been accompanied by heavy casualties. The United States have borne with great fortitude the main burden among the members of the United Nations, and we pay our heartfelt tribute to their fighting men and to their military leaders. The contribution of this country and of the Commonwealth, although less extensive, has also been one in which we can take pride. All three fighting Services have distinguished themselves. There have been renowned exploits, like the heroic fight of the Gloucester Regiment at the Imjim River, to which the world has paid warm tribute. There has also been a notable example in the Commonwealth Division of co-operation between the countries of the Commonwealth. To-morrow is the second anniversary of the formation of that division. To-day we think of those who have given their lives, and renew our sympathy with their relatives. We remember the sick and the wounded and also the prisoners of war, most of whom have been so long in captivity; and we rejoice with them and their families that they can now look forward to an early release. The people of Korea have suffered the most of all. Their land has been devastated. But the soldiers of the Republic of Korea have fought bravely, side by side with our own, and the civilian population has not flinched in adversity.
  There is one other body of people to whom I should like to pay tribute on the signing of the Armistice. I refer to General Harrison and his team of negotiators. Often criticised, with his difficulties frequently not understood, General Harrison has patiently and resolutely persevered in his task of reaching an agreement. My right honourable friend the Minister of State, as your Lordships know, had conversations with him last year when he was in Korea with the Minister of Defence; and he was greatly impressed by his earnestness and his broad common sense. I think General Mark Clark and he deserve our thanks and our congratulations upon this result.
  And now for the future. We know that there have been misgivings in South Korea about the future. We believe that

  895
  this Armistice was essential for the well being of the whole Korean people. The fighting, whilst it continued, was an absolute bar to any improvement in the general situation in the Far East. We are not yet, of course, through our difficulties; but now that the fighting has ceased we can once more look forward with hope, and we shall enter on the next stages of the meeting of the General Assembly and of the forthcoming political conference with the determination that a solution shall be found to the Korean problem which will lead to the peaceful unification of Korea. We cannot tell how long we shall have to keep our forces in Korea. To-day our main feeling, I am sure, in all quarters of the House, is one of determination that this Armistice shall form a turning point for the better in the Far East. In any case, we shall do our duty by the world causes of which we are the servants.
  3.28 p.m.
  EARL JOWITT: My Lords, I should like on behalf of the Opposition to express our concurrence with the views which the noble Marquess has expressed to-day and our profound thankfulness that this Armistice has at long last been signed, especially when we think of the number of casualties—I believe there have been over 400,000 casualties in all on our side, and that involved about 70,000 people killed. At a time like this, however, we should not think only of one side; we should think of the far greater casualties, as I believe them to be, on the other side; and we should feel thankful that that slaughter of precious human lives has apparently, for the moment at any rate, come to an end.
  I should like to endorse what the noble Marquess has said about the thanks which are due to the various people who have worked so hard, sometimes in the face of misunderstanding, to bring about that result. We should be foolish, on the other hand—as the statement which the noble Marquess has just made makes plain—to think that our difficulties are all over. Like the noble Marquess, I earnestly hope that it will not be long before our troops are back, but it would lie very wrong to treat the matter as though all the difficulties were over and our troops could be expected back in a
  896
  week or so. Unfortunately, it is not so. Although we hope that this will be a turning point, we realise that there are still great difficulties ahead, but I do not want to embark upon a discussion of them to-day, because we are having a Foreign Affairs debate on Wednesday, and that would be a more appropriate time to do so. We can, however inadequately, express our thankfulness. We have reached what the noble Marquess described as the turning point. I earnestly hope that we shall be able to carry on from this point so that, in future, peace may be restored to that tortured country.
  3.30 p.m.
  VISCOUNT SAMUEL: My Lords, noble Lords on these Benches would desire to join with the Leader of the Opposition in expressing our thanks to the noble Marquess for the statement we have just heard and to join also in declaring how we share in the universal feeling of profound relief that this prolonged war, prolonged so far beyond all expectations, has at last come to an end. We realise to the full that this is only the ending of one, though perhaps the most hard and difficult, phase in the Korean struggle, and that there remains the political aspect. The ending of the war only opens up access to those difficulties which lie ahead and which we trust may reach a satisfactory conclusion.
  I observe that a leading article in The Times to-day bears the headline "Fought to a draw." I do not think that that is a true description of this war and its ending. I concur rather with the statement made by the Government, that this is the first time in the history of the United Nations when member States have collectively taken up arms to resist aggression and have been successful. The mistake really has been that at a previous stage in the war we were not content with that, but pushed on beyond the original frontier up to the frontier of China. If that had not been done, perhaps this war would not have lasted so long and the casualties would not have been so great. I think we should take the opportunity to-day of paying tribute to the Government of India, a member of the Commonwealth, which not only took a leading part in arranging diplomatically for the cessation of hostilities, in the face of very great difficulties, but also has taken the lead, together with four intermediary

  897
  nations, in solving the difficult question of the care of the prisoners. I need say no more but renew our expression of cordial satisfaction at the result that has been announced.
  3.33 p.m.
  LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I should like to raise a matter of detail, for I think it is a very important one. Reference has been made to the sufferings and the casualties, and my noble and learned friend the Leader of the Opposition has referred to the very heavy casualties suffered by the other side. But we must not overlook the fact that the civilian populations on both sides have suffered atrociously, especially in North Korea, owing to the intensity of the bombing. The unfortunate peasants there have been through terrible ordeals. In the South of Korea the civilian population has been fairly well looked after, thanks to the efforts of the United Nations and its various organs; but I am informed that in North Korea there is a great shortage of medical stores, curative drugs and the like which were prevented from going there—an action which is perfectly proper when fighting is in progress. Now that there is an Armistice and there are likely to be long-drawn-outnegotiations—I do not want an immediate answer to this question, but I think it is a matter to which we should have an answer on Wednesday—could we not see our way to allow the sending of drugs, medicines and medical relief for the civilians, particularly in the North of Korea, without any further delay? Could arrangements be made for those to be allowed through? This is a matter which will touch the common humanity of everyone, and I cannot see how there can be any real objection to it.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I fully realise the importance of the point raised. I will look into it and give the noble Lord an answer on Wednesday.
  VISCOUNT STANSGATE: I have one question which I think the noble Marquess can probably answer at once, and another question for him to consider. The immediate question is this: to what extent does the statement about being determined to secure a reunited Korea go? Is it a hope, or is it a
  898
  pledge?—because I recollect that the Prime Minister said:
  "I very much doubt whether there could be any agreement at the present time on a united Korea."
  I ask this because it would be dangerous if we entered into a new pledge at this stage. The second question I ask the noble Marquess to consider, for answer in the debate on Wednesday, is this: if the South Koreans break the Armistice, or if the President of South Korea carries out any of the threats he has been uttering with regard to the Armistice, to what extent are we involved? Does it mean going back to U.N.O., is it covered by previous decisions, or is it something we can consider de novo; because, if President Syngman Rhee were to upset the whole arrangement, necessarily it might mean involvement in various serious operations. If the noble Marquess could consider that question by Wednesday—I will not ask him to deal with it now, of course—I should be grateful.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I certainly will look into the second question, which is a delicate and technical one and one which I could not answer without consideration. With regard to the former question, the noble Viscount will notice the words which I used were:
  "will enter…the forthcoming political conference with the determination that a solution shall be found to the Korean problem which will lead to the peaceful unification of Korea."
  The noble Viscount asks whether I make that a pledge. Clearly, nobody can pledge that a solution will be found; but it is a pledge of a definite intention. I do not think I can go further than that. After all, it depends not only on us but on the peoples of Korea and many other States whether a real solution can be arrived at. But it is a definite pledge that it is towards that that we shall work.
  LORD FARINGDON: May I ask the noble Marquess a question, again for answer presumably on Wednesday. Would he consider whether there is any possibility of freeing trade with China during the period, which may be a long period, that negotiations will be proceeding in Korea?
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: There was reference to that in the communiqué, and no doubt it is a matter

  899
  which would properly come out in the debate. The position is that arrangements will remain as they are for the moment, but the matter can be reconsidered in the light of the behaviour of the Chinese Government in the period following the Armistice. So there will be a possibility of reconsideration. That is to say, the door is not shut; the door is open. But I think it would be perhaps rather unreasonable at this early stage to expect a pledge here and now that this or that shall be done, or exactly when. We shall have to watch and see how the situation develops. I do not doubt that something may be possible, but I clearly could not say at this stage definitely what.
  VISCOUNT STANSGATE: What does the noble Marquess mean by saying "in the light of the behaviour of the Chinese Government"? Are there other charges against the Chinese Government except their participation in the Korean War?
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: What I really meant was that obviously our judgment of the situation in the Far East must depend on how it appears that the situation develops—what the frame of mind, the atmosphere, and so on, in that part of the world are. And if it turns out that things are improving, as I most sincerely hope they will, then that will tie a reason for reconsideration.

  MONOPOLIES AND RESTRICTIVE PRACTICES COMMISSION BILL
  3.39 p.m.
  Debate on Second Reading resumed.
  VISCOUNT SAMUEL: My Lords, resuming the Business of the House, I would in the first place express the satisfaction that we feel that the noble Viscount, Lord Woolton, has come to the House today, somewhat unexpectedly, to move the Second Reading of the Bill dealing with monopolies and restrictive practices. He was able to take a very just satisfaction in the fact that, as Minister of Reconstruction, he was able to announce that the Government of that day would introduce the original Bill. Possibly I may be permitted a not less just satisfaction in the fact that the Liberal Party was for many years the only Party that took any interest whatsoever
  900
  in this subject. It was as long ago as 1928, when the Liberal Yellow Book was published as the outcome of the Liberal industrial inquiry, that this question of monopolies and restrictive practices was put upon the carpet of our political life, and I remember very well that for some years before the incident mentioned by the noble Viscount we on these Benches were the only ones who ever raised this question of monopolies, to which both the Conservative and the Labour Parties were indifferent. However, that is by the way, and perhaps your Lordships will forgive a paternal, or perhaps a grand-paternal, interest in this subject.
  We welcome this Bill as a further step towards the solution of what is a serious economic and industrial problem, and we here cordially support its Second Reading, and we will support the Bill if it is challenged at any other stage. The setting up of the Commission on monopolies has been fully justified by its work, and I am glad that tributes have been paid to its membership. Its Reports have always been unanimous on all matters of importance; its recommendations have all been accepted by the Minister, and have been put into operation and have been approved by public opinion. If it has been unduly slow in its operation, that is not the fault of the members of the Commission; it was because the machinery has been inadequate for its purpose. As was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, very few inquiries have been carried to fruition over the period of four and a half years during which the Commission has been sitting—in fact only six, while one of the Reports shows that about forty requests have been made from industry for inquiries to be held. Not all of those have been accepted, not all may be justified; but at all events, there is that list of forty. Although that list may be thinned down, on the other hand others may be added; and if six inquiries have been completed in four and a half years, at that pace, as Lord Shepherd has said, the completion would cover a long time—in fact the 1980's would have arrived before the Commission had reached the end of its queue.
  The Chairman himself has described his Commission as a "bottleneck," and it is a very good thing that the Government propose to provide the Commission

  901
  with a new neck, one having a larger aperture. That is the main purpose of this Bill. The Commission has also been inadequate because it has no power to take any general action affecting a number of industries. There are such questions as exclusive dealing, collective boycott, re-sale price maintenance, and other matters which raise general principles, which extend throughout a large part of industry. This Commission may find, as it has found in particular cases, that a practice that has been customary in a particular trade is definitely wrong. The Commission reports that the practice is wrong, and steps are taken to put an end to it; but precisely the same practice, or very similar circumstances, may be operative in a great many other industries, and the Commission can do nothing. Therefore it is a. matter for consideration and inquiry whether there should not be a change in the legislation—or, if such would suffice, in the regulations—to enable a case which is a general one to be dealt with generally. It may be that opportunity should be given for appeal in the event of special circumstances justifying a case in one instance whilst it might not do as a general rule. But details of that kind can well be left to the future.
  Furthermore, there has grown up nowadays, particularly since the two wars, a practice of limiting entry into industries or trades. Some of them have been made almost into a closed circle, and no one can get in without finding his way through some of the regulations made to keep him out. It is rather like the medieval system whereby people were not allowed to carry on business unless they were admitted as freemen of a certain corporation. I suggest that that is a matter which urgently needs inquiry. The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, spoke about the nationalised industries, and said that they ought not to be treated like the general run of monopolies. I agree there, in principle. I do not think that the coal industry or the road transport industry, or any of these great industries such as electricity, can properly be subjected to an inquiry by a body like this Commission, with a deputy chairman and five members. It is far too great a matter for that. This question, and the right method of proceeding to supply the need for inquiries is now under consideration by a. Select Committee of the House of Commons.
  902
  For the rest, this matter derives its great importance from the fact that it is one element in the great problem of the rise in prices. Only slowly and dimly is the country realising, and the political Parties beginning to realise, that the very essence of our whole economic problem is the question of the rise in prices and the high cost of living: everything depends upon that. The demands for increased wages and salaries, the question of the rising costs of production, the hindrance to our exports, the balance of trade, the stability of the pound, are all tied up with the steady rise, year by year, in the cost of living; and anything that can be done—and this is only one measure among a number—to stop and reverse the trend must be beneficial. At present, the trade unions are occupying a very self-contradictory position in this matter. I have noticed reports of trade union conferences in which two resolutions have been passed, the first vehemently protesting against the rise in the cost of living, and the second demanding an immediate advance in pay of 10 or 15 per cent., whatever it may be. At this moment, some of the trade unions are actively engaged in taking measures to raise the cost of living. That is not their intention or their desire, but it is what must inevitably follow, if the costs of labour and other costs of production go up without a corresponding increase in productivity.
  Furthermore, there is the question of restrictive practices which have to be fought within the trade unions. We must get the willing co-operation of the trade unionist to abolish restrictive practices. I noticed the other day that one of the leaders said, "We must not be Luddites," but I am afraid that they sometimes have been—and perhaps sometimes still are. The reports of the joint committees established by the leaders of American and British industry which have been investigating the cause of the far higher productivity in the United States, man per man, have always, or at all events usually, pointed out that in the United States the whole aim of the trade anions is not to prevent up-to-date machinery from coming into the factories, or to prevent changes in methods that will secure much greater productivity, but that, on the contrary, they attack their employers and protest if they fail to employ the most

  903
  up-to-date plant and adopt the greatest measure of enterprise. That is by the way. I am led to these remarks by the fact that this Bill will have very little importance indeed unless it is a means to prevent the rise in prices, directly or indirectly, and to speed the trend in the opposite direction. Having made those observations, I would again express my cordial support for the principle and for the provisions of the Bill.
  LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, before the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, concludes, may I ask him a question? He has indicated to your Lordships that he supports the principle of the Bill, and he has said that he would support the Bill at other stages of its life, if his support should be wanted. Should I be right in assuming, from that, that on the Committee stage, if Amendments to the Bill were moved, he would give them favourable consideration?
  VISCOUNT SAMUEL: Certainly, if they tended to strengthen the Bill. But having read the Report of the debate in another place, I have not so far come across any Amendment which has greatly raised my enthusiasm.
  3.51 p.m.
  LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, I should not like this Bill to go through without a few words of support from the Back Benches. Like the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, I was struck, when I read the Reports of the Commission, with the number of cases that had been referred to them. Another feature of the Reports which struck me, and struck me very favourably, was the mixture of firmness and sympathy with which the cases they had decided were handled. I regard that as a good augury for the future. I think that the action of the Commission really extends much further than noble Lords opposite seem to think, because every case that is properly dealt with by the Commission acts as a warning, and will be taken as a warning by a great many other industries with the same sort of organisation.
  Moreover, the experience thus gained by the Commission is the best possible source of knowledge as to whether general legislation on a specific point is required (as suggested by the noble
  904
  Viscount) or not. An American friend of mine told me many years ago that when the Anti-Trust Act was passed in the United States, the Standard Oil Company, whose ramifications and associated companies spread all over the North American Continent, was doing very badly. But immediately the Act was passed—and it was strictly enforced—the subsidiary companies that broke off began making profits and doing very well. The lesson to be learned from that, it seems to me, is that the monopolist is often his own enemy: he does not realise what is best in the business. Of course, if I may use a vulgarism, he sleeps soundly because he knows that he is in a position to "soak the public." In spite of Lord Shepherd's observations on the point, I do not see that the nationalised industries are any less monopolists than any other, because I cannot imagine any industries in a better position to "soak the public" than they are. With those few words, I beg to intimate my support for the Bill, and the hope that it will have a rapid passage.
  3.54 p.m.
  LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, the noble Viscount, Lord Woolton, and I are grateful to your Lordships for the kindly and friendly, if not wholly unqualified, support which you have been good enough to give to the Bill. It is, of course, a small measure, and it sets out to achieve narrow and restricted objects; but it is an important Bill, nevertheless. Both the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, and the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, were critical, in their remarks, of the speed with which the Commission have been working in the past. I think that that criticism is not entirely unjustified. But I would remind your Lordships that this Commission were doing pioneer work. I think they would have been justly blamed had they tried to go too fast and produced reports which were hurried or had not discussed details such as ought to have been discussed, and which thereby had produced some injustices. It must also be remembered that the Commission have been labouring for some time under the handicap of shortage of staff. To remedy this is, after all, one of the purposes of the Bill. The Bill is designed to give the Commission a stronger right arm and thus to enable them to work a little more quickly and to

  905
  keep what one might term a head of work constantly before them. The noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, mentioned a bottleneck. It would be impertinent of me to comment in any way upon the noble Viscount's experience of bottles, but I hope he will agree with me that in a great many bottles the neck is at the top. It is for that reason that two deputy chairmen are to be appointed: to make things easier for the Commission to achieve the objects which Lord Samuel has enumerated, and to remove the necessity for him in the 1980's to come down and once again criticise the Commission for their lack of speed.
  VISCOUNT SAMUEL: I did not blame the Commission. I criticised rather the machine that they had to work.
  LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, I fully appreciate that point. We hope that when this Bill becomes an Act the Commission's machinery will be better. I repeat that the Bill is a narrow one. I want to make this point because the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, talked about Amendments. I am not clear, and I do not think Lord Samuel is either, whether Lord Shepherd contemplates putting down different Amendments from those he outlined to us as having been put forward by his friends in another place. We will, of course, consider any Amendment he puts down in as polite a light as we possibly can, but I think even the noble Lord would be surprised if a cordial reception were given to Amendments going wide of the scope of the Bill. I rather thought at one moment that I read into his remarks a suggestion that his Amendments might go wider than the Amendments which his friends in another place put down.
  LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I think we made it clear that we were of opinion that this Bill was very tightly drawn, and that we might find, if we moved certain Amendments, that those Amendments were out of order. Might I suggest to the noble Lord that when we come to drafting our Amendments we should have a little talk with him and see whether his advice can help us in the direction in which we want to go?
  LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, I shall be only too happy to place my mediocre help at the disposal of the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd. But I should warn him
  906
  that I shall hope that his Amendments are more or less within the admittedly narrow scope of the Bill.
  VISCOUNT SAMUEL: When will the Committee stage be taken?
  LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, I must consult my noble friend who is in charge of these matters before I can answer that question definitely, but I should have thought that the Committee stage could not possibly be before October, so there is plenty of time to discuss as many Amendments as Lord Shepherd wants.
  I am glad, for more reasons than one, that my right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade did not see fit to deal with nationalised industries in the scope of this Bill. That would have been wrong, for the obvious reasons given by Lord Samuel, and unfortunate also, because, since Lord Shepherd and I clearly differ considerably on what we think the monopolistic rôle, or otherwise, of nationalised industries is, we should clearly have crossed swords and turned what I hope is a non-controversial Bill into a very controversial measure indeed. I was grateful to Lord Saltoun for raising, in his interesting speech, what I believe to be an important point. Some people, when they criticise—as they have criticised—the Commission, have said: "What have they actually done? Let us see in writing what they have achieved. Where is the order for carrying out this recommendation, or the prohibition against that?" That does not seem to me to be the most useful way in which the Commission can work. The Government do not want to see a whole flood of orders directing one industry to take certain action and another industry to take some other action.
  To take another point to which the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, has drawn attention, it seems to me that the most effective way in which the Commission can work is by gently hinting, or suggesting, that other industries should put their houses in order upon the lines suggested in the case of the industry which is then under examination. Even with the industry which itself is under examination, we would prefer that it should be by the industry's own initiative and volition that their house should be put in order rather than by too much governmental interference. We would far rather

  907
  see the recommendations of the Commission brought into action by persuasion than by force.
  May I conclude by saying that there are three separate views held upon monopolies. There are people who hate all monopolies, who think that all are bad and that all restrictive practices and all trade associations should be proscribed. That is not a view for which I hold much enthusiasm. There are people who would treat monopolies in the same way as they treat babies—they are against them until they have one of their own. The Government's view is that not all commercial monopolies are necessarily bad. Their view is that a commercial monopoly is bad only when it has been proved to be so. That task is one of the principal functions of this Commission. This Bill is a very narrow Bill, designed only to improve the means available to the Commission for searching out monopolies that are bad and industries that are not operating to the national good or to the good of industry as a whole.
  VISCOUNT SAMUEL: Like the B.B.C.?
  LORD MANCROFT: I indicated a little while back that I did not wish to cross swords with the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, on the nationalised industries. I have already crossed swords with the noble Viscount on the B.B.C. and lost badly. I do not propose to enter that affray again this afternoon. I wish to stick to the terms of the Bill, which, as I said, are narrow and designed solely to enable the Commission to work more efficiently. I think that in the speeches that have been delivered this afternoon your Lordships have made it clear that the House is at one with that ideal; and therefore I am confident that the Bill will be given an unopposed Second Reading.
  On Question, Bill read 2ª, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

  EMERGENCY LAWS (MISCELLANE- OUS PROVISIONS) BILL [H.L.]
  Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments: the said Amendments to be printed.
  MERCHANDISE MARKS BILL [H.L.]
  Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments: the said Amendments to be printed.

  HISTORIC BUILDINGS AND ANCIENT MONUMENTS BILL
  4.3 p.m.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (THE EARL OF MUNSTER): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. Your Lordships will recall that a few weeks ago we had a most illuminating and interesting debate on the whole subject of historic houses, and in the course of the Government reply, which was given by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, it was announced that we should shortly be introducing a Bill to enable financial assistance to be given for the preservation of historic houses. This is the Bill: it has passed through another place, and I ask the House to give it a Second Reading to-day.
  I suppose it would be true to say that any discussion on historic houses naturally starts with the Gowers Report. This valuable document, for which we are extremely grateful to Sir Ernest Gowers and the other members of his Committee, sets out a system by which some 2,000 houses of historic and architectural interest may be preserved for posterity. As was announced on the previous occasion, we are unable to accept the heavy financial burden which we should have been forced to accept if we had approved all the recommendations of the Gowers Report. We are not alone in that, for I think I am correct in saying that the previous Government found exactly the same reason for declining to agree to all the recommendations contained in the Report. Nevertheless, we have accepted the main findings of the Gowers Committee: that without financial assistance these houses would perish one by one and with ever-increasing rapidity. The amount of money which can be given in the present circumstances must, however, be strictly limited.
  The House will remember that when we had the earlier debate a statement

  909
  was made by my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack about the financial obligations which Her Majesty's Government were prepared to undertake to implement this scheme. Let me briefly recall them. A sum of £500,000 will be provided from the Land Fund over a period of five years to enable my right honourable friend the Minister of Works to purchase buildings and chattels. In addition, an annual sum is to be made available which in the first year will add £250,000 towards giving grants for the upkeep and maintenance of historic houses and their contents. I am well aware that this sum calls far short of what many of your Lordships think is necessary for the preservation of these houses, but, as I have said, in present conditions it is not possible for Her Majesty's Government to agree to any bigger sum. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has agreed that when the scheme has been in operation for a period of one year, he will consider what can be done in the future, but for the moment, at any rate, he is not prepared to make a bigger grant than £250,000.
  This Bill is intended to attain two objectives: first, to enable the Government to take immediate action to preserve the best of the historic houses in the country and, secondly, to remedy a number of defects in the existing legislation on ancient monuments. Noble Lords who have examined this Bill with care will see that under its provisions financial assistance for the maintenance of historic houses can be given either by grants to owners or by direct purchase. The Gowers Committee recommended that, in the main, assistance to owners should take the form of relief from taxation. Much consideration was given to that proposal, but, for reasons which were clearly stated on the previous occasion, we have not been able to accept it. Apart from this, if the Gowers proposals had been accepted in full, they would have involved Her Majesty's Government in the expenditure of a vast sum of money, which, as I understand it, could not be calculated in any way whatever. We believe that the system of grants set out in this Bill is the best way of maintaining these houses of historic and national interest.
  910
  The Bill is divided into four Parts. The first Part gives the Minister of Works powers for the preservation of buildings of outstanding historic or architectural interest; the second Part makes certain procedural improvements for the making of preservation orders under the Ancient Monuments Acts; the third Part deals with certain minor amendments to these Acts; and the fourth Part deals with sundry matters. Under the first three clauses of the Bill an Historic Buildings Council is to be set up for England, Scotland an Wales, and the primary duty of the Councils will be to advise the Minister in the exercise of his powers under Part I of the Bill. The Council for Scotland will have, in addition, the duty of advising the Secretary of State for Scotland in the exercise of his powers relating to buildings of special architectural or historic interest under certain sections of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act, 1947. Annual reports will be made by each Historic Buildings Council and laid before Parliament.
  Clause 4 enables the Minister to make grants, subject to such conditions as he thinks fit, to the owner of a building of outstanding interest to assist in maintaining its structure, its contents and the amenity land in the immediate neighbourhood. Clause 5 empowers the Minister to acquire, manage and dispose of buildings of historic interest, their contents and amenity land. Clause 6 enables him to assist the National Trust or a local authority in the acquisition of historic buildings. Clause 7 gives authority for the National Land Fund to be used to assist in the acquisition of historic buildings, and Clause 8 enables the Minister to accept endowments from private persons towards the upkeep of historic buildings. I suppose that none of your Lordships will have overlooked the importance of the Historic Buildings Councils as set up in the first three clauses of the Bill. They will obviously have a most important and considerable part to play throughout the workings of the new scheme. It is therefore the intention of my right honourable friend that the members of these three Councils shall be persons who can give him the best possible advice in fulfilling the powers which Parliament intends to give him under the terms of this Bill.

  911
  I turn now to the second Part of the Bill, and the Schedule, which lays down the amended procedure for the protection of ancient monuments. Under the present Ancient Monuments Acts, the Minister may take a monument under his protection by making a preservation order under which his written permission must be obtained for all work done to the monument. If, however, the owner objects to the order, it lapses after twenty-one months, unless confirmed by Act of Parliament. This. I am sure your Lordships will agree, is a very cumbrous and perhaps weird method of procedure. Accordingly, the Bill proposes to substitute the Special Parliamentary Procedure for an Act of Parliament to confirm a disputed preservation order. Clauses 10 to 13 and the Schedule set out the procedure in detail, and perhaps I need not at this stage draw attention to them. But, in passing, I think I must mention Clause 12 of the Bill, which enables compensation to be paid to any owner who suffers loss as the result of a preservation notice or order being served upon him.
  Part III of the Bill deals with Amendments to the Ancient Monuments Acts. Here I think I need mention only Clause 15, which extends the period during which a prosecution can be made under the Ancient Monuments Acts from six months to one year from the commission of the alleged offence. I am sure the House will support the Government, and agree with our view that no one should be able to avoid being prosecuted for an offence under those Acts merely because a time limit of so short a duration had expired. I do not think I need weary the House any further with the important but miscellaneous provisions contained in the other clauses of the Bill. I myself feel that the measure will be welcomed everywhere. I think that it clearly indicates the wishes of Members of both Houses, and of all Parties, that the houses of historic and architectural interest and importance which are to be found in this country, and are, possibly, unique throughout the world, should be preserved, so far as our resources will permit at the present stage. That is the Bill which I ask the House to read a second time. It is one which I believe it is important that we should get on to the Statute Book, and I hope that to-day
  912
  I may have the support and concurrence of noble Lords in all parts of the House when I move that this Bill be read a second time. I beg to move.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2ª—(The Earl of Munster.)
  4.18 p.m.
  LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I can assure the noble Earl who has just introduced this Bill that he will have the wholehearted support of Members of your Lordships' House on this side of the Chamber—indeed, I believe, with confidence, that he will have the support of every single Member of the House. On reading this Bill, my mind went back to the most difficult days of the war, when the nation was in great peril and we were struggling for our lives. Yet we found time, as the noble Earl will remember, to discuss such questions as the Uthwatt Report, the Barlow Report and the Scott Report, and to look to the future with that unconquerable spirit upon which we justly pride ourselves. I doubt whether any other nation in the world, in that situation, would have thought it practical to discuss questions of that kind. To-day, when there is a real financial stringency, and we are faced with great financial difficulties, and when there is every need for economy, it is once more remarkable that we should be discussing a measure of this kind which involves a certain amount of expenditure out of public funds. It is an indication, also, of the fact that we realise that man does "not live by bread alone." I therefore congratulate the Government most cordially on introducing this measure at this particular time.
  Of course, the Government do not claim for a moment that this is the work of one Party. The paternity of this measure will no doubt be claimed by many people—and justly so. The amenities societies, for instance, can claim a great deal of credit for having kept before the general public the idea of the preservation of historic buildings. I think my right honourable friend Mr. Dalton can claim some credit for having set aside the sum of £50 million towards the creation of the Land Fund, out of the interest of which this Bill is able to provide the funds. I think Members of your Lordships' House, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Methuen, can claim a

  913
  good deal of credit for having kept this matter alive in your Lordships' House.
  I believe I am right in saying that this Bill follows very largely the Bill which was in draft and which had been prepared by the late Government. I should also like to pay a tribute to the present Minister of Works, Sir David Eccles, whom we all recognise as a man of high æsthetic interests and culture, and but for whose insistence and pressure, I imagine, this Bill would not at this moment have seen the light of day. I should like to congratulate him also on a practical example of the restoration of an historic building for which he is responsible, namely, Lancaster House—the noble Viscount was there the other day. It is a most remarkable achievement. It is one of the loveliest of the London buildings which we possess, and I think it right that tribute should be paid to the Minister of Works for having carried through this great improvement.
  I will not emphasis the inadequacy of the amounts which are being provided under this Bill. I am glad that no specific sums are stated in the Bill, because that fact will enable constant pressure to be exercised on the Government of the day to ensure that the amounts provided are adequate. I imagine that the amounts stated by the noble Earl in introducing this measure are initial sums. He recognised, as indeed the Minister of Works recognised, that they were inadequate for the purpose, and they are very different from the £10 million which the Gowers Committee regarded as necessary. I feel that the important thing is to get the principle of State assistance recognised in these matters; and this Bill fairly and squarely admits; the principle that, in many cases, historic buildings cannot be preserved without the assistance of the State. For that we are all grateful. It follows that the sums of money to be provided must be adequate for the purpose, and I think that any Government which has once committed itself to the principle will find it difficult to avoid reasonably implementing that principle as time goes on. I do not believe that it will be a very expensive matter at the outset. These schemes have a habit of taking a long time to mature. And if the proposal is that a sum of £250,000 should be made available in the first year, I say frankly that I doubt whether, with the best will
  914
  in the world, that amount will be spent. I hope that it will be possible to carry that sum forward, and even to increase it, if that should become necessary, although I do not ask the noble Earl for any undertaking on that point. I regard it as inevitable that that should be so. The noble Earl has explained the Bill in adequate detail, and I do not think there is anything that anyone need add to the general principle of the Bill, which I am sure we all accept.
  There was a certain amount of discussion in another place on machinery. I do not think there was any substantial discussion at all on principle. I myself was glad—thoughI know there will be some difference of opinion in this House on this point—that the grant is to be given, not by way of relief from taxation but by a direct grant to the individual concerned. There would have been considerable controversy if it had been otherwise, and I think the Minister has been wise in making provision in the form in which it has been made. There was also some discussion as to whether access should be mentioned in the Bill. We all agree that, wherever State money is provided, and it is practicable, the public should have access to the buildings which have been preserved. Obviously, there will be some buildings which will receive State assistance to which it will not be possible to give access, but I think it right that the Bill should contain specific provision that, wherever possible, access should be provided.
  There was another Amendment which was carried against the will of the Government, and carried, not by one Party but by representatives of all Parties. That is the provision which provides for giving an endowment to the National Trust to enable them to maintain buildings, in addition possibly to acquiring buildings on their own behalf. I am not sure whether that was a wise Amendment, so long as the amount available for capital expenditure is limited to £500,000 over a period of five years. If it had been possible substantially to increase that sum, then I think it would have been right to give the National Trust some assurance of continuity in the provision of maintenance grants. As it is, I am sure the noble Earl will appreciate that very little assurance is given as to continuity. All that is provided is £250,000 for one

  915
  year, and I think the National Trust are understandably apprehensive that they might undertake the expense of maintaining a building and then find that there was no guarantee of continuity of the grant. Nevertheless, it may well turn out to be a burden on the £500,000 that is available for capital expenditure, and in actual practice it looks as if Her Majesty's Government may have to increase that sum before long.
  There was also a good deal of discussion of administrative tidiness. It was thought to be untidy to have one Committee listing buildings of historic and architectural interest on behalf of the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, and then to set up another body—the Historic Buildings Council—which would be responsible for advising the Minister of Works and other Ministers on exactly the same type of building. I think that both the Minister of Works and the Minister of Housing and Local Government were alive to the possible untidiness of that. It is, however, one thing to see a certain amount of untidiness, and quite another to find a way of clearing the matter up. My own view, for what it is worth, having gone into the matter, is that it is quite easy to make matters even more untidy by clearing up a particular piece of untidiness. I think that this is a very good example of that. Here I want to confess that, perhaps rather hastily, I allowed myself to be persuaded to sign a letter to The Times, instigated by the noble Lord, Lord Methuen. I think it was right that the point should be put forward; but, having read the speech of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government on an Amendment to combine the two Committees, I am bound to say that I am very much alive to the difficulties that he put forward. Certainly, I realise that it is not as simple a matter as it looks; and there is a considerable danger, as I say, of making matters worse in the attempt to create tidiness.
  Nevertheless, I should like to have this point discussed in this House, and particularly after the Minister of Housing and Local Government—who we are glad to see is well on the way to recovery—has had an opportunity of looking at it. So far, it has been considered
  916
  by the Parliamentary Secretaries of both Departments, but I think this is a very important matter, and one which should be looked at by the two Ministers themselves. I should like, after that has been done, to have an opportunity of discussing the matter in this House and settling once for all whether it is desirable to make any change. A good deal of time was taken up in Committee in another place in considering whether such a change could be made at all—whether it could be done by Order in Council, or whether it was necessary to have a Bill. My own view is that it could not be done by Order in Council. I think it would be essential to have legislation. But whether that be so or not, one must recognise that, of course, it is possible to have either Orders in Council or a Bill which would amalgamate the two functions and take care of all the consequences. That is not the real problem: the real problem is whether it is worth doing; whether it would not create more difficulties than would be removed.
  There is one other matter which I think ought to be discussed—it is a matter of machinery, rather than of principle. I refer to the definition of an "ancient monument." The significance of the point is that ancient monuments are dealt with by the Minister of Works and historic buildings are the responsibility of the Minister of Housing and Local Government. I must confess that until a day or two ago I was under the impression that the distinction lay in the date of the erection of the building—that anything before the year 1700 was an ancient monument, and that anything after that was an historic building. I am now advised that that is not the case. If it is not the case, I do not understand what the distinction is. I have looked at the definition of an "ancient monument" and it certainly offers no help at all. Apparently an ancient monument is a structure which the Minister of Works says is an ancient monument. That does not get us very far. No doubt the Minister says it on advice, but I think we could probably do better than that. In any case, there is the significant factor that there is an Ancient Monuments Board. No doubt they have an organisation and a staff, and so on. But they are busily engaged in doing what seems to me, and to other people, exactly the same job as

  917
  the people who are listing historic buildings. Their job is to list ancient monuments. There is no great distinction between one and the other, and it would appear to be unnecessary to have two separate Committees doing very much the same job.
  I mention this not because I expect the noble Earl who is to reply to give me a definition of an ancient monument, or to explain where it differs from an historic building, but because I feel that this is a matter which we may as well attempt to clear up while we are discussing this Historic Buildings and Ancient Monuments Bill. There are a great many other points of that kind which I think ought to be considered in Committee. Here, however, we come up against a difficulty. This Bill in its present form left another place late on Wednesday night, and was not available here until Friday morning. It is pretty good going to have had it available at all on Friday morning, and I make no complaint about that at all. But to-day is only Monday: we have had only a week-end to look at the Bill. That is not a very long time, and normally one would have liked longer. The Bill was substantially amended on the Report stage in another place. A considerable number of important Government Amendments were made, and one could have no clue as to what the Bill was going to look like merely by having read the Committee stage.
  That is the first point: we have had very little time to consider the Bill. Secondly, some pressure was put upon Members in another place. I do not know whether similar pressure has been put on us here to speed up the consideration of the Bill so that it may become law before the Recess. If this sort of pressure is placed upon us, it means, in practice, that we have to take this Bill or leave it. There is no opportunity of making any Amendment, and very little opportunity even of putting Amendments down. I know that the noble Earl has been engaged on the Rhodesia and Nyasaland Federation Act, and he may have taken the view that that was virtually a treaty, which it was not open to this House to amend. But I do not think he would be right in taking that line with this Bill. I am sure he will agree that we should have an opportunity of amending this Bill, if we so desire. It
  918
  is a great pity, therefore, that the Bill should have reached us so late.
  On the other hand, I say quite frankly that I would rather have this Bill and forgo any discussion on the machinery, rather than lose the Bill altogether. We are, therefore, in a dilemma. I want to ask the noble Earl whether it would not be possible, with the good will of the House—upon which, I am sure, he can rely—for the Committee stage of the Bill to be taken within the day or two after the Recess. I can promise him that it will be considered with all expedition. There are matters which call for consideration, and even for amendment. Even if Amendments are not pressed, it must be remembered that they are often moved in order to obtain explanations from the Government or a statement of their intentions. That is a legitimate purpose for putting any Amendment down. If the noble Earl can assure us that the Bill will not be lost, by the remaining stages being taken after the Recess, then I should very much prefer that procedure to be adopted.
  In order to facilitate matters, I am perfectly prepared to let the noble Earl have in advance, before the end of the Recess, any Amendments for which I or my friends would wish to be responsible. Of course I am not in a position to speak for the whole House, but I should be grateful if he would consider this before the time comes for him to reply, and let us know whether there is any danger of this Bill being lost if the remaining stages are taken immediately after Recess. If his answer is that there is no danger then I believe the whole House would prefer it. Whether that is so or not, we all welcome this Bill. We hope that it will have a successful passage, and we are quite sure that it will do an immense amount of good in preserving the priceless heritages which we in this country possess. They are, indeed, unique, because I know of no country which has so many and such beautiful historic buildings and ancient monuments.
  4.41 p.m.
  VISCOUNT ESHER: My Lords, the National Trust takes a great interest in this Bill, and I have been asked to express on behalf of my noble friend Lord Crawford his regret that, owing to the unconventional Monday Sitting of your Lordships' House, he has been unable to

  919
  represent the Trust on the Second Reading of this important Bill. I am aware I am a pale substitute for the Chairman of the Trust, but I have been on its executive committee for more than twenty years and I have been Chairman of the finance committee for more than fifteen, during which time I have concerned myself with trying to save and preserve the beauty of this ancient land. It is no easy and, indeed, is often a disheartening task, for there are large numbers of "death watch beetles" nibbling away at our endeavours by saying there is no use for old buildings and no money to preserve them.
  For a long while the National Trust has been anxious about the future of these magnificent houses and has watched, helplessly, many of them go down into decay and ultimate demolition. I need hardly say, therefore, that the National Trust warmly welcomes this Bill and that we should like to express our admiration to the Minister whose energy and imagination has enabled it, amid all the pressure of Coronation Year, to reach the Statute Book. Some voices have been raised to say it is inadequately financed; and no doubt it would be pleasant to have command at once of the large sums of money that will ultimately be required to complete the job. But it is the first step that counts, and it is the first step that all Governments find it difficult to take. Reading the debates in another place, I was much struck, as I was on the debate on the National Theatre Act, by the absence of any genuine opposition. I think the reason for that is the wise flexibility of the Bill which will enable us to deal with circumstances as they develop and adapt them in accordance with acquired experience. Another encouraging feature is the intimation of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he will perhaps not look unfavourably on a request from the Minister of Works for a larger grant in 1954.
  Naturally, the National Trust welcomes the principle that the Government have power to use the Land Fund to endow or partially endow houses given to the National Trust. We have lost so many houses by the inability of the donor to endow sufficiently that we consider this amendment of the highest importance. We should like to pay tribute to the
  920
  unusual moral courage shown by the Minister in accepting the Amendment, in spite of official disapproval of the principle involved. I do not share the Minister's alarm. Everybody knows how small the sums at present are for carrying out the purposes of this Bill, and no one is going to bring on the Minister unreasonable pressure for endowments he cannot provide. He also has power—which he certainly has character to use—to refuse such demands. But sometimes such an endowment is the only way to save a great house; and surely the power to do this should be an integral part of the legislative plan—all the more so as we hope that in more prosperous times a larger sum than £100,000 a year will be allowed out of the Land Fund for these purposes.
  After all, our great objective is to save as many houses as possible. I hope the Minister and the Councils who will advise him will not restrict their policy to keeping up a few houses in perfect order. The Ministry, as we know, is too easily led away into expensive restoration; the Trust, on the other hand, has always been obliged to seek the minimum in such matters. But even within its limited scope the Trust, under its country house scheme, has, by the generosity of owners, by grants from the Pilgrim and Dulverton Trusts, by donations and bequests and with the co-operation of the Ministry of Works, local authorities and the Government of Northern Ireland, saved for posterity some 100 houses, great and small, of endless variety and interest, and most of them as living entities. There are many important people who say there is no use for these houses; that a revolution has taken place, and therefore they should be pulled down. Your Lordships will remember that those who guided the Reformation did not adopt this ruthless and unintelligent policy. As many as possible of the abbeys and religious foundations were adapted to the new world and used to house the rising aristocracy.
  We, on the other hand, have already suffered by tearing down so many of the great houses in London—Devonshire House and Chesterfield House, for example—that the Government has found itself in the position of being unable to give a cocktail party to Miss Margaret Truman without turning out the London Museum. Surely we should—as we are

  921
  all Liberals nowadays—"wait and see," and the use for these houses will emerge. They can be put, and have already been put, to many uses. Sometimes the Ministry of Works buys a house like Audley End and uses it for a State institution; sometimes the Ministry of Works leases a house, like Ham House, from the National Trust and the Victorian and Albert makes out of it a perfect museum; sometimes the National Trust divides a house like Attingham into three—the centre full of superb works of art shown to the public; the right wing lived in by the family; the left wing let to Shropshire County Council for adult education. All these result from successful co-operation, the unity of public authorities and private enterprise for a common purpose.
  We live in a time of new experiments in government, and I have been surprised to find that the Treasury, held up as a reactionary institution which says "No" in its sleep, is always ready to back a new idea. The old principle that if the taxpayer pays the Treasury must control has been admirably relaxed to meet the necessary freedom required by the B.B.C. and the Arts Council. In this Bill we move a step further, undertaking what I hope will be a joint enterprise between the Ministry of Works and the National Trust. So far as the National Trust are concerned, I can say that we have no feelings of jealousy in this matter at all. In our view, the Ministry of Works excel in some directions and the National Trust excel in other directions.
  In giving evidence before the Gowers Committee, whose admirable work paved the way for this Bill, I said that I thought the natural division of activity between the Ministry of Works and the National Trust was that the Ministry should deal with houses from which the family has departed and the National Trust with houses in which the family remains. This, of course, is no binding rule, only a general guide. The Trust has shown in its eventful history that it is not out for power and prestige but is ready to work with anybody who shares its desire to save and preserve our great artistic inheritance. We are grateful for this Bill. We believe it will give a great impetus to that objective.
  This is a late date in the Session, and I hope that the Government agree with me that only Amendments will prevent
  922
  its passage into law before the Recess. There are many slips in political life. A General Election may intervene and we may lose the vital advantages which are already written into this Bill. Most of the improvements which we can all suggest—and I can suggest them myself—can be obtained afterwards in its administration. We want the Bill passed and, when it is, I can assure your Lordships that the National Trust will do everything it can to make it asuccess.
  4.53 p.m.
  VISCOUNT WAVERLEY: My Lords, the right honourable gentleman the Minister of Works, when he introduced this Bill in another place, made no extravagant claim: he described it as a small beginning. He suggested—and I think we can agree with him—that it represented a step in the right direction, and he did, in fact, hold out some expectation that the financial provisions contemplated at the moment might be enlarged at some future date. Indeed, he went so far as to liken this Bill to a pilot plant—which, if the metaphor was sound, means something that may be followed by a more elaborate and a more productive enterprise in the future. I was delighted to hear the noble Earl, Lord Munster, give an assurance that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be prepared at the end of the first year to consider the possibility of increasing the annual grant of £250,000. I am inclined to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, that perhaps nothing need be lost by a more modest beginning, but everything will depend on the experience gained and on what it may be found possible to do hereafter.
  Despite the friendly taunt that was addressed to me by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack when we debated this matter some weeks ago, I am bound to say that I am quite unrepentant in the views that I expressed on that occasion. In particular, I think it unfortunate that it has not been found possible to adopt what I have always regarded as the major recommendation of the Gowers Committee: that relief should be given, in part at any rate, in the form of tax allowance. I recognise that such a provision would have introduced a note of controversy, but I think very little of the argument, which I notice was used in another place, that a tax

  923
  relief has the great disadvantage that it gives more to those with the larger incomes. That argument seems to me to be on exactly the same footing as the argument that it would be wrong to make any reduction in income tax because that would benefit, in the main, those with the larger incomes. I do not know whether the noble and learned Lord has had an opportunity of looking again at the observations that fell from him on the previous occasion, but perhaps he would agree that what he said about the financial and economic implications of a grant from the Land Fund was not wholly accurate—certainly not as accurate as it would have been if the interest on the Land Fund had accrued to the Chancellor of the Exchequer instead of piling up in the Fund itself, because in fact the Fund has been quite deliberately segregated from the other operations of the Exchequer.
  I want to say only this further word about tax relief in this matter, as distinct from direct grant. It seems to me that procedure by way of tax relief has this great advantage: that, when once the conditions have been clearly laid down, the operation of the system can be more or less automatic, whereas the administration of what is of necessity a discretionary grant must involve an element of discrimination, and I personally think that experience will show that the practical difficulties of administering a grant of that kind for this sort of purpose are likely to prove greater than is at present supposed.
  Now just one word about the administrative arrangements upon which the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, touched. I notice that the Minister of Works, in introducing the Bill, made some reference to the co-operation that would be necessary between his colleague, the Minister of Housing and Local Government, and the Minister of Works, and he indicated that the discussions that were going on as to the most effective method of co-operation were not complete. I agree that there may be difficulty in bringing about at this stage a more complete integration of the powers of the Minister of Housing and Local Government and the cognate powers of the Minister of Works, but I should have thought, with great respect to what the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, said, that there would be
  924
  a distinct advantage in having one advisory body, responsible, on the one hand, to the Minister of Works and, on the other hand, to the Minister of Housing and Local Government. That is the system which has found approval so far as Scotland is concerned, and I do not know why it should be supposed that difficulties would arise in England or in Wales which need not be apprehended in Scotland. At any rate, it may be found possible to give further consideration to that matter and to have at least a council which could serve in more than one capacity. We do want to mobilise for this important purpose—these councils will have a very important task—the best available talent. That problem may be aggravated if more than one committee dealing with the same kind of subject matter has to be effectively manned. I hope that it will be possible to give further consideration to that matter. I venture to think that what I have in mind could be achieved by administrative action, without express provision in the Statute. However, having made these few observations, I should like to make it clear how warmly I welcome the introduction of this Bill. I hope that its provisions will continue to have the full measure of support of which evidence has been given in the debate, and I, for my part, will certainly support the Second Reading.
  5.0 p.m.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSS AND MARCH: My Lords, it is pleasant to find an important Bill like this one now before the House accepted with such unanimity by all Parties and interests in the country. It is quite right that this should be so. The Bill comes too late to save so many examples of our architectural heritage, which have already perished, but the preservation of the many that remain is becoming more and more the desire and interest of all sorts of people. It is not necessary for me to labour the point that the financial provisions are quite inadequate, for Her Majesty's Government themselves have freely admitted that. What is more important is that the Bill sets up what I feel sure is essentially the right machinery, though doubtless it can be improved later, as experience is gathered. It sets out, according to the right principles, to make a start in this important national work. Here I should like very strongly

  925
  to support the noble Viscount, Lord Esher, in his hope that the passage of the Bill before the Recess will not be prevented by the tabling of a mass of Amendments which, though they may be improvements, are not vital and which may result in the loss of the Bill. In order to make sure that the machinery of the Bill is successful so far as Scotland is concerned, I should like to assure Her Majesty's Government that the National Trust for Scotland are determined to give their wholehearted co-operation and to place any experience they have at the service of the Ministry of Works and the Historic Buildings Council.
  I fear that this question may be premature, but I should like to ask the noble Earl, Lord Munster, to tell us all he can about the composition and the personnel of the Historic Buildings Council, in particular, the Council for Scotland. What type of people will they consist of—how many, and how chosen? What will be the remuneration of the secretary or the chairman? Will such people as, for example, members of the Councils of the National Trusts be debarred from membership of the Historic Buildings Councils, or, on the contrary, will they be welcomed because of their experience? I am sure the House will be glad of any information that the noble Earl is able to divulge at this stage.
  We in the National Trust for Scotland welcome the provisions in Clause 4 (2) that were inserted into the Bill in another place, enabling the Government to give the Trusts capital moneys for endowments. We have long been pressing for this, because we know from experience that in the long run this is the most economic way to use money; and it will enable further funds to be raised from owners and other sources, at no cost to the taxpayer. I should like to emphasise the words "in the long run." We have never claimed that it is the best way to use extremely limited funds for the next year or two when so many buildings are urgently needing support; nor have we asked that the annual grant should be increased for this purpose. We have asked only for the principle to be conceded. Now, however, the principle of endowments from the National Land Fund has been conceded, largely, I understand, at the insistence of the right
  926
  honourable gentleman whom we all acknowledge as the "father" of the Land Fund.
  Whilst not pretending for a moment to understand where the Land Fund really lurks, nor what the Treasury, in their wisdom, have done with it, I should like to contrast for a moment the power to give endowments with the power to purchase, which is also contained in this Bill. The Trusts agree that the power to purchase is desirable—I think I am speaking for both Trusts here—but they would deprecate strongly anything which would encourage a selling mentality in the owners of historic buildings. What we want is a giving mentality. We need to continue and to increase the happy and fruitful co-operation which now exists between the owners, the Trusts, the Inland Revenue, the Ministry of Works and, above all, of course, the general public. It is far better to accept gifts of property in this way and to allow any concerned, including the Government, to put their reserves into a secure endowment fund against future expenditure. After all, if you purchase a property you have still to make provision for future expenditure for its upkeep, either by endowment or in some other way.
  May I ask the noble Earl one final question—namely, is the annual grant to be of the kind that can be carried over from year to year, or will any balance not spent at the year's end have to be returned? I can foresee that an Historic Buildings Council might have a project not quite ripe to be grant-aided, and would wish to keep something in reserve as the end of the financial year approaches. But if there is a threat that the money will be forfeited, the Council may be faced with having to spend it on a less worthy project to avoid losing it. This would appear to be a direct incentive to extravagance, and I hope the noble Earl can reassure us on this point. Meanwhile, I think this Bill should be welcomed and supported generally by all your Lordships.
  5.7 p.m.
  LORD METHUEN: My Lords, I have great pleasure in speaking, as briefly as I can, on this Bill. I am sure we are all pleased to see it and we desire, I know, to congratulate the Minister of Works for having produced it at a time when he

  927
  has been preoccupied with other matters. Those of us who have followed the debates in the House of Commons, on Second and Third Readings, and in Committee, must have been impressed by the way the arguments have gone and how the opinions of Members of that House changed from time to time, as they explored more and more some of the difficulties and intricacies of this particular Bill. I must say that I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, said about the letter that some of us sent to The Times a little time ago. There was a slight delay in the actual publication of the letter, and by the time it was published I had already begun slightly to change my mind. With the noble Lord, I am afraid I also have veered round a little, and I am very doubtful indeed whether it would be wise to amalgamate the listing with the scheduling.
  There have been discussions with the Minister of Works about this particular subject. It is a very difficult subject, and I do not think that at this stage we in this House can say anything particularly definite about it. It is, I think, for the two Ministers to confer and, with the advice of their experts, to come to a conclusion. But in my view, for what it is worth, there is a slight confusion of thought here. We have on the one side, the Ministry of Works, which is responsible for preservation, and on the other hand, the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, which is responsible for the listing. We need in some way to marry the two. But it seems to me that what will happen eventually, and what I believe is already happening, is that when monuments of first-class importance are listed they will be handed over to the Minister of Works for preservation and, where the money is available, for grants.
  It is for the two Ministers concerned to find out to what extent they can amalgamate the experts in their particular Departments. To transfer the investigators to the Ministry of Works might be a fundamental mistake, in so far as they have built up with the local authorities a very great work which might suffer on their transfer. It might be advisable, for that reason, to leave them where they are under the Minister of Housing. Their work is not only listing, but it is closely wrapped up with the actual planning, and it would probably
  928
  diminish seriously the value of the planning Ministry if they were removed. At the same time, there is no doubt that the Minister of Works requires men of experience with regard to seventeenth, eighteenth and early nineteenth century buildings. At the present time—I am not making any sort of suggestion which is in any way derogatory to them—his experts are rather on the prehistoric and mediæval side. I think he needs to strengthen his Ministry with architects with interests in the somewhat later periods, and, of course, he would have them if he had the investigators passed to him.
  This is a matter upon which I should like to put forward Amendments, but that depends entirely on the reply of the noble Earl, Lord Munster, to Lord Silkin's question. If putting forward the Amendments which I personally should like to put forward—they would be similar to Amendments supported by Sir Edward Keeling in the other place—would mean that we should belikely to lose the Bill, then I say for heaven's sake let us have the Bill! If it would mean nothing more than a loss of three months' Treasury money and that we should not lose the Bill (in normal circumstances the Amendments could be considered after the Recess) then let us have the Amendments. As Lord Silkin has pointed out, putting down Amendments is a way of obtaining clarification of matters which have seemed to us obscure. I will name one or two. I have already mentioned the questions of listing, planning, and scheduling—which is obviously a very difficult point which cannot be resolved at once, but which, I think, can be resolved over a number of years.
  Some of the things about which I should like to put down Amendments are these. Clause 4 (3) of the Bill states:
  "A grant under this section may be made subject to conditions imposed by the Minister for the purpose of securing public access to the whole or part of the property to which the grant relates, or for other purposes as the Minister may think fit."
  I do not think that is good enough. I think we should know a little more. I know well what was in the minds of Members in another place when they discussed this matter: it was the question of whether the public should be admitted or not. Obviously, the public should be

  929
  admitted whenever possible to houses which are receiving a State grant. But that is not my point. My point is that if public money is going to be spent on the restoration of buildings, the Minister must see that those to whom he delegates powers have the last say in how that money is going to be spent. They should not necessarily supervise it, but the work should be done to their satisfaction. Subject always to the noble Earl's answer to Lord Silkin's question, I should like to move an Amendment to that effect.
  May I tell your Lordships how the law on this subject stands in France? In France a scheduled monument or a part of it cannot be destroyed or moved, or restored, repaired or modified in any way, without the consent of the Minister. A monument which is receiving a grant from the French Government has to be subject to the Beaux Arts supervision. The Beaux Arts Minister can always undertake, through his administration and at the public cost, with the ultimate agreement of those interested, works of repair or maintenance considered indispensable for the preservation of scheduled monuments that do not belong to the State.
  I see nothing in the Bill—it may be in some existing Act, but if it is I do not know of it—forbidding the building, without the permission of the Minister, of a new structure against a historic building or ancient monument which is receiving a grant from the Ministry. This, I believe, may be covered by the Town and Country Planning Act. Perhaps the noble Earl will let me know if that is so—not now, but at some later time. If that is not provided for in the law, I think it should be. We do not want buildings to be suddenly erected against some historic monument. That has been done in the past, not necessarily in this country but certainly in other countries.
  Another matter which may be dealt with by departmental machinery designed for the purpose is that any historic building of outstanding importance occupied by another Government Department should come under the Minister of Works for preservation purposes, although his Department might not actually pay for its maintenance. That matter should be dealt with. I think it is essential to air these subjects in the form of Amendments, which can, of course, be withdrawn when
  930
  a satisfactory reply is given. Here is one point which I think important. It was touched upon by the Minister in the debate on Third Reading on July 23. Owing to the rate of demolition of buildings of historical or architectural importance it is imperative that a proper record be taken before permission to demolish is given. The obvious body to do this is the National Buildings Record, either itself or in conjunction with some other body. The Minister, at present, has no such powers. It would be a small matter to add this provision to the Bill. The Minister, in the debate which I have mentioned, said he would like to take steps in this matter. I question whether he has power to do that.
  Finally, there is the word "property," which is used constantly in the Bill, particularly in Clause 5. It is apparently defined in Clause 10 (3). I want to know whether it is intended to include chattels, fittings, fixtures, furniture, objects of art and so on. I give a case in point. Suppose there is a house which the owner is contemplating demolishing, and the Minister makes a preservation Order. Let us suppose, further, that this house has some very fine panelling. If the owner says: "You can have the house, but I am going to sell the panelling," can you prevent him from doing so? I doubt it. I think that these are all points that ought to be cleared up. That is why I agree with Lord Silkin that it is essential that at some time or other these matters should be aired and that the best way to air them is by means of Amendments. If it would mean that we should lose the Bill, of course, they are not sufficiently important for that. In conclusion, I should like to say how pleased we are to have this Bill at all. It may be a half measure, but it is a jolly good half measure, and I should like to congratulate the Minister, in particular, and all concerned who have made it possible.
  5.18 p.m.
  LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, I should like to congratulate the Minister on the very crisp and clear way in which he introduced this Bill to the House. I wish that I had his capacity for lucid explanation. This is a Bill for which all of us who are particularly interested in the great historic houses of this country have been waiting for a long time, and it is indeed a great pleasure to find that

  931
  at last there is a real prospect that a Bill for the preservation of these wonderful houses of ours will reach the Statute Book. I should be very sorry indeed if it did not reach the Statute Book before the Recess. I appreciate everything that has been so strongly urged by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, in regard to the desirability of putting down Amendments, and also that some of the suggestions made by the noble Lord, Lord Methuen, do require attention. On the other hand, as the noble Viscount, Lord Esher, has said, one can never be quite sure what is going to happen in a political situation. Quite apart from that, the position in respect of these houses is so disastrous that the sooner we can get these Councils established and at work, and the necessary administrative arrangements ticking over, the better. It may well be that a gain of six, or even three, months at this stage may mean the difference between preserving and losing a number of really valuable buildings. Far from pressure being brought to bear on the noble Earl to forgo the Committee stage, I was pressing him the other day to make arrangements for the final stage of the Bill to be taken before the Recess.
  I was glad to hear the speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Esher, on behalf of the National Trust. I think I have been on the executive committee of the Trust even longer than the noble Viscount, although nobody connected with the Trust has done more valuable work for historic buildings than he has, not only in the National Trust but also in the Historic Buildings Society. I am glad that he has spoken for the National Trust this afternoon, because I can speak perhaps more as a private individual. Although I support the Bill in general, some of my reactions are not so favourable. I think the main value of the Bill is that it sets up useful machinery, the plans for which were worked out by the Gowers Committee, probably the best that could be instituted for the purposes we all have in mind. I think it is a particularly valuable aspect of this machinery that it is being kept flexible, a point stressed by the noble Viscount, Lord Esher. It is especially important that the Councils should be strong bodies. I entirely agree with the noble
  932
  Earl, Lord Wemyss, that the success or failure of the Bill will depend to a considerable extent on getting the right men on the various Councils to be set up, and in getting really competent and able chairmen. There is no doubt that the amount of remuneration forthcoming will be altogether inadequate, but I hope it will be possible to get men with real administrative ability, drive and energy, prepared to take on the work of chairmen.
  I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Methuen, that it is a pity the opportunity was not taken to co-ordinate the existing machinery. I appreciate that it is a fairly complicated task, and it may well be that, in the urgency to get the Bill before Parliament, there was no time to provide for that. If it is possible, I hope that the Government will begin thinking about arrangements which ought to be made, and will, if necessary, introduce a small amending Bill to have that done, because it is an important aspect of the whole problem.
  The main criticism that has been made and—made perhaps more strongly in another place than in your Lordships'House—is of the amount of finance the Government are prepared to provide. That, of course, is quite derisory when we look at the magnitude of the problem with which we are dealing. Assuming that the Gowers Committee's estimate of £10 million a year was right at the time it was made, the amount now needed per annum is a great deal larger. To think of tackling this problem on £250,000 is like trying to put out a fire at a petrol dump by means of a Minimaxfire extinguisher. When I read in The Times that it is proposed to spend no less than £6 million—twenty-four times as much—on a new aerodrome at Gatwick, I cannot help feeling that the Government lack a sense of proportion. I was glad to hear the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, who was responsible for the finances of the country at a vital period, and who is well qualified to discuss these matters, indicate in the recent debate that in his view we could afford a great deal more. I think this point ought to be rubbed in, because it may well get about that as the Government are now supporting the preservation of historic houses, the general public are no longer required to give subscriptions. If

  933
  the result is that the money forthcoming for the two National Trusts falls off substantially, the situation would be as bad as, or even worse than, if we had never had the Bill at all. I do not think there is any need to emphasise that every month which goes by means that a new historic house in some part of the country is lost to us; and therefore, as I have said, it is of vital importance that the Councils should be set up and the administrative machinery put to work as rapidly as possible.
  At this point I should like to make an observation about the important historic buildings which are already in the ownership of the State as such. In these debates we have been preoccupied, very properly, with the problem of privately owned national monuments. We have tended to forget the condition of some of our nationally owned monuments; and just as the financial provisions made by the Government in this Bill for privately owned houses are altogether inadequate, I am afraid that we have been making inadequate provision for some of our most famous State-owned historic monuments. I am credibly informed that the situation at Hampton Court is very serious, because money which is needed, if only to deal with the dry rot which has broken out in several parts, has not been forthcoming. Some of the historic houses referred to in these debates, important as they are, are really insignificant compared with Hampton Court. It would be a thousand pities if, in our anxiety over all these country houes, we were to forget that proper financial arrangements have not been made for dealing with those already under care.
  Kensington Palace, which was badly damaged by enemy action during the war—a war which terminated as long as eight years ago—has not yet been effectively repaired; and every year that passes without the necessary work being done means that this important and valuable building continues to deteriorate. I say that rather aside from this debate, but I feel that the public, as a whole, do not realise what a serious situation exists in respect of a number of these absolutely priceless monuments, which, because they are already in the hands of the Ministry of Works, are regarded by people as being completely safeguarded.
  934
  I should like to turn again for a few moments to the importance of getting on with this work as quickly as possible. Our experience at the National Trust has made it abundantly clear that £1spent this year is often the equivalent of £5 spent next year; and if you have to wait two years, it may well be that you will have to spend £10 instead of the £1which would suffice this year. That emphasises the great importance of persuading the Treasury to be rather more generous in respect of the amount of money which is forthcoming. As the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, said, it may well be that in the first year, owing to the time spent in getting the Councils established and the administrative arrangements made, the whole of the £250,000 will not be spent. If that is so, I hope that use will be made of the Amendment made to the Bill in another place under which endowments can be provided for the National Trust; because I can assure the Minister that over the last few years there have been many cases before the Committee of the National Trust where, if we had had only10 per cent. of the £250,000 to spend, we could have taken over the preservation of most important buildings.
  As the noble Viscount, Lord Esher, indicated, the real difficulty at the National Trust has always been the fact that the owner who has generously brought before the National Trust proposals for handing over his family house has not been able to provide an adequate endowment. Quite often he has proposed to make sacrifices which have evoked one's respect and admiration. The "pinching" to which he has been prepared to put himself, so to speak, and the cutting off of his family, in a way, in order that he may make all the farms on the estate, and other properties, available, has frequently evoked my admiration. But, in the hard light of surveyors' reports, what he could provide has not been anything like sufficient, and we have had to decline his generous offer, with regret. That is why I think the Amendment which was obtained in another place is so important. It may quite easily be that some comparatively small sum will make the difference. Certainly, in a number of cases which I can bring to mind so small a sum as £10,000 would have made all the difference. Out of the £250,000 it might be possible, even

  935
  in the early periods, to provide one or two endowment funds on that sort of scale—although I entirely agree with what was said by, I think, the noble Earl, Lord Wemyss: that it is not likely that there will be much demand during the early years for the use of this provision about endowments.
  The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, said he could imagine that the National Trust would be worried, because this Bill provides the finance for only one year, and after that, from a legal point of view, if the Trust were to take over properties on the strength of the Bill, it might find itself in difficulties. But I am glad to say that we have received assurances of a most generous character, and I am sure they are assurances which would be implemented, not only by this Government but by Governments in the future. It must be perfectly clear that, if these assurances are not, in fact, implemented, it will be quite impossible, in a number of cases, for the National Trusts to preserve houses which they undoubtedly will be taking over on the basis of these assurances. The resources behind these institutions are insufficient to enable them to maintain and preserve a substantial number of further buildings without financial support of the kind contemplated in this Bill.
  The National Trust have frequently taken great risks in the past; and on a number of occasions, as the noble Viscount, Lord Esher, will remember, those risks have proved to be bad ones. We have been hard put to it to find the money required to carry out even rather inadequate maintenance work. I am sure that the risk which we still take on this occasion, in accepting these assurances from the Government, is nothing like so serious as many of the risks that we have taken in the past. I am confident that, as soon as this Bill is on the Statute Book, the National Trust will be able, with the active co-operation of the Ministry of Works, to go ahead with their work; and in the co-operative endeavour referred to by the noble Viscount, Lord Esher, we shall be able to get on—and, I hope, get on quickly—with the job which so many of us have been looking forward to doing over all these years—namely, that of making safe this magnificent heritage of our people.
  5.38 p.m.
  LORD RENNELL: My Lords, I do not want to cover any of the ground which has already been covered by the noble Lords, Lord Esher and Methuen, except to add my hope that time may be found to debate Amendments; although again, like them, I should much prefer to see the Bill go through than risk losing it. There is one point that I should like to raise, however, though it has now been substantially covered by an Amendment on the Report stage in another place which I had the advantage of seeing only this morning. It refers to Part II, to ancient monuments which have been scheduled or on which certain orders have been issued. The two cases I have in mind where the existing provisions were insufficient have been only partially covered by a new clause inserted in the Bill, namely, Clause 15, which gives power to prosecute in the event of an infringement against something scheduled as a monument.
  The point here is that, in practice, a period of six months has been insufficient to collect the information and to institute proceedings under the Summary Jurisdiction Acts in the two cases I have in mind—and in one of those two cases the twelve months now provided in the Bill would have been insufficient, too. If Amendments are to be inserted in the Bill, I should like to see that period of twelve months extended to at least twenty-four months. If a monument is scheduled, and the appropriate entry is made in the Land Register, I do not see why, an infraction of that act of scheduling should be treated any differently from any other infringement of a similar nature—forexample, a charge, like a way-leave, or some other entry in the Land Register, as a charge against that land. In practice, the time taken to collect information about the destruction of some of the more obscure, but perhaps equally interesting, ancient monuments referred to in Part II is such that a period of twelve months is still as totally inadequate as six months has proved to be in the past. That brings me to what is, as I see it, the main gap in Part II of this Bill, the provisions for scheduling and the provisions for making interim orders on a building, delightfully described as one which
  "…appears to the Minister to be an ancient monument."

  937
  I do not know from where the Minister derives inspiration. I suppose that he wakes up one morning and sees something and says," By Jove ! I suppose that is an ancient monument."
  The real difficulty is that the machinery of collecting information of damage or destruction does not appear in any of the Acts. It is almost the case where action by a common informer—if the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack would allow such a procedure again to be established—might be more useful. Nobody will suggest that there should be a large staff of inspectors or people constantly touring the country to see whether ancient or scheduled monuments have been destroyed. None the less, I am sure that the present machinery for collecting information is very haphazard. There are representatives in every county except one—and that is a small one—who are Ministry of Works correspondents for this purpose. Some of the areas which have to be dealt with by these repre5entalives of the Ministry are so large that, unless there is a very close network of information provided by voluntary workers, it seems almost inevitable that the destruction of monuments will escape unnoticed for a much longer time than the limit in which prosecutions can be instituted. If the Bill is debated in Committee on Amendments proposed, I should like that particular point to be raised, just as I should like to see an Amendment introduced extending the period of twelve months to something considerably longer.
  5.42 p.m.
  LORD FARINGDON: My Lords, I should like to support the plea which has been made by the noble Lord, Lord Rennell. I am certain that in this matter of ancient monuments he is undoubtedly right as to the length of time needed to bring a prosecution effectively. It is with regard to the first part of the Bill that I should like to crave your Lordships' indulgence for a few minutes. It is customary on these occasions to genuflect towards the Gowers Report, and I should like to add my tribute to the work of that remarkable Committee. On the other hand, I feel that the Government have been right in their decision to proceed by way of grant rather than by the way of tax rebates or allowances which were suggested in the Gowers Report.
  938
  Such tax arrangements would be open to considerable criticism, and are probably politically not feasible.
  I will not repeat what everyone else has said, that the amount proposed in the Bill is too small. On the contrary, I should prefer to say that I am grateful for what has been given, and I hope for more in the future. I believe it possible that even as this scheme is worked, so it will be found that more is needed, and that the "more" will be forthcoming. The Gowers Report, apart from its suggestion for the method of financing the maintenance of these historic houses, made, in my view, one other miscalculation. I believe that all its proposals, even had it been possible to carry them out in full would have been of only temporary utility. I think they made insufficient allowance for the immense expense nowadays of inhabiting even a fairly large house. It is too much to expect that in the future there will be people who will be prepared—except in a limited number of cases where it is a family house, and even then there will be fewer and fewer of them—to spend a half, and very often much more than half, of their income on running the house. No matter what grants they may receive for maintenance, the mere living in the houses is so expensive that I am afraid as time goes on it will become increasingly difficult—and this must be an anxiety for the National Trust—to find people able to inhabit these houses.
  For that reason, I am afraid that in the long run we shall have to consider alternative uses for these houses. In that matter, again, there are both happy and less happy auguries. Some years ago, many of us were grateful when one of the greatest English country houses was taken over for what has become one of our great public schools. We thought that this would preserve the house and give to the school a setting which would be ideal and would have an influence upon the boys going there. Alas, we have been disappointed. Those who have recently visited that house will have been dismayed by its condition and horrified by the damage which has been done to the house, the park and the monuments in it. This is indeed a very unhappy augury. An American friend of mine who visited this house recently, on leaving it described it as "a pig-pen." I could use even stronger terms. A deep

  939
  responsibility must rest upon those who are in charge of boys coming from homes in which, for the most part, one would expect that a respect for such things as beautiful houses, buildings and parks would have been inculcated.
  On the other hand, to look at the brighter side, I had the pleasure recently of visiting a fine house in my own neighbourhood, Lydiard Ingoze, acquired some time ago by Swindon Corporation. The Corporation had the misfortune to find that the house was in extremely bad condition. They have undertaken extensive repairs, and whilst I believe that at the moment those repairs have had to be supended for lack of funds, the house is made safer and there is a prospect that the superb internal decorations will be restored. It is with pleasure that I read Clause 6 of this Bill, which gives the Minister the right to help local authorities to take over houses. it seems to me that this is one of the most useful parts of the Bill, and I would suggest that the Minister of Housing should send out a special circular to local authorities to remind them that this help may be forthcoming in the future.
  I have two small suggestions which I should like to put to Her Majesty's Government and which I hope it may be possible, if Amendments are moved, to incorporate in the Bill. I suggest that some provision should be made for the recording of those houses not judged to be sufficiently important—though perhaps containing parts of great importance or features of great importance—to merit special preservation by means of grant. Would it not be possible for the buyers of such houses, who buy them in order to demolish them and to make a profit out of their materials, to be compelled to make an adequate record of such buildings before they are destroyed? Heaven knows! it is a small consolation. It would be something if, for example, photographs could be taken and measured drawings made and deposited with the National Buildings Record.
  Another suggestion I should like to make is in connection with the question of endowment. The noble Lord, Lord Chorley, mentioned the embarrassments of the National Trust when offered buildings which they would like to accept, but which their owners are unable adequately
  940
  to endow. To some extent this may occur because the owners have no funds which are not settled funds from which they could make endowments. It might be possible, so far as endowments are concerned, to put settled funds in the same position as settled houses and settled properties under the 1939 Act, under which it is possible for the owners of such properties to give them to the National Trust. It might not meet very many cases, but it would meet a certain number of cases of owners who would be pleased to make over some part of their settled funds as an endowment for houses which they desired to give to the National Trust. I hope these two small suggestions may be considered by Her Majesty's Government, and may also be considered by the House in general to be useful and helpful. I hope that the Bill may be placed upon the Statute Book soon. I believe it to be wholly good so far as it goes, and I hope that in practice it will go a little farther.
  5.51 p.m.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, will you allow me to stand for just two minutes between you and the reply which is to be given by the Minister? I do so as a consequence of certain observations which fell from the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, in regard to the Land Fund. I am quite prepared to accept that in my reference to the Land Fund in the previous debate I was not entirely accurate, and I apologise to the House for any inaccuracy. I wonder whether, in two minutes, I might endeavour to say to the noble Viscount correctly what I appear to have said incorrectly.
  First, how was the Land Fund established? It was established by the Finance Act of 1946, a Fund of £50 million out of the Consolidated Fund. For what purpose was it established? Again we must look at the Act of 1946. It was established in the first place for a specific purpose mentioned in the Act, and in the second place it was established
  "for such purposes as Parliament might there after prescribe."
  They were wholly general. The third purpose for which it was prescribed went back to the Finance Act, 1910. By that

  941
  Act, the Inland Revenue had been empowered to accept land in satisfaction of death duties, and the primary purpose of the National Land Fund was to enable the Treasury to remit to the Inland Revenue the value of property which it had received—because property, unless it is sold, is not immediately available for the purposes of the Exchequer. That was the primary purpose. The second purpose, as I say, was absolutely general: "for such purposes as Parliament might…prescribe."
  It will be asked: In what way was this dealt with? It was immediately invested in Government securities, except to the extent—and it was a large extent, £5 million—to which it was applied to Ways and Means Advances. And it now consists of those Government securities and a sum largely in excess of the £5 million applied in Ways and Means Advances. What, then, is the consequence—and this is the last question—of applying any part of the funds for this or any other purpose? Surely it is this: that when you have applied the money for these purposes it is not available to be applied for any other; and if the money is wanted for any other, then the Government have to raise it by borrowing, or in some other way. I wonder whether that is a satisfactory statement in relation to this National Land Fund.
  I will add only this: that, of course, it might well have been in the minds of the Government of the day that it would be applied for a particular purpose, for some concrete purpose. But it lies with Parliament; and I cannot help thinking that Parliament expressly made the provision in these general terms just in order that future Parliaments might not be bound as to the way in which it should be used. I hope that I have explained the matter clearly and to the satisfaction of the noble Viscount—who, I see, is straining at the leash—and that he will correct me if I am wrong.
  VISCOUNT WAVERLEY: My Lords, with your permission I should like to say that your Lordships will no doubt all be grateful to the noble and learned Lord for what he has said, and for the explanation which he has given. I made reference to this matter only because I had thought that on a previous occasion the noble and learned Lord suggested that I
  942
  had fallen from grace since I ceased to have any responsibility for the national finances, and that he sought to support that view by a suggestion which perhaps he did not intend to make: that payments from the Land Fund, which I suggested might be increased, were for all purposes tantamount to payments out of the Consolidated Fund.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble Viscount has increased in grace. I am grateful to him for what he has said.
  5.55 p.m.
  THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, I think I can rightly say that you have given this Bill a universal welcome: indeed, each noble Lord who spoke made remarks to the effect that he hoped this Bill would soon find its way to the Statute Book. Let me say at once to the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, that it is, of course, true to say that the political Parties in the State, and also outside private individuals, have all contributed towards the progress of this Bill towards the Statute Book. The people to whom we have the greatest sense of gratitude must be the members of the Gowers Committee itself. I should like to endeavour to reply to some of the many questions which have been addressed to me to-day. As was stated by Lord Silkin and by Lord Waverley, I feel that this is a modest beginning. Anyway, we are proceeding on the right path, and I hope that, as the years go by, the importance if this legislation, and of the bodies which are being set up under it, will become greater and greater.
  The question was raised by the noble Earl, Lord Wemyss, whether it would be possible for the Ministry of Works to carry forward any unspent balance from year to year. That, I regret to say, is not possible, as I feel certain Lord Waverley will agree. It has always been contrary to Treasury practice. But I at least feel this: that if the Minister should find that he was unable in the course of one year to spend the £250,000 which had been granted to him, then he might well go to the Chancellor of the Exchequer the next year and ask for a little more. Then there were questions raised about the very important bodies which are being set up under this Bill, the Historic Buildings Councils. What I have said before I repeat now: I imagine that those bodies will become increasingly important as

  943
  time goes on. My right honourable friend is therefore anxious to find the best people he can to serve on them. He is already in discussion with the Secretary of State for Scotland, and he would like to see, in conjunction with him, a small body set up comprising practical men and women who are interested in buildings and who will get their expert advice, not only from the Ministry of Works but from outside it as well.
  Then we come to the question of the work carried out by the Minister of Housing and Local Government and the job carried out by the Minister of Works. I have no desire to go into that question at any length this afternoon, but, as was said in another place during the passage of this Bill there, discussions are now proceeding between the two Departments to see whether some settlement can be reached on what is obviously a difficult and complicated question. It remains to be seen whether some scheme can be worked out. I have no doubt that if and when that has been done, a statement will be made, either in this House or in another place, announcing that a decision has been reached. It could, I think, be done by administrative action, so far as the amalgamation of the committees is concerned; the transfer of powers would require an Order in Council. But it is a complicated story, as the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, said, and one with which for the moment I do not wish to weary your Lordships further.
  I come now to deal with a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Rennell. I doubt very much whether Her Majesty's Government would be wise to extend the period in Clause 15 by a further year. We have already added six months to what was undoubtedly a short period, but I think that the twelve-month period during which someone can be prosecuted for damaging an ancient monument should be sufficient, if we can arrange—and I think it can be done—with local authority bodies, together with voluntary workers, to keep the Ministry well informed about any damage which may take place to ancient monuments. But I hope that in no circumstances shall we again have the common informer to assist us in our task.
  The two questions raised by the noble Lord, Lord Faringdon, I should like to
  944
  discuss with the Department concerned before giving him a reply, but I can assure him that I will write to him in due course.
  Lastly, I come to my noble friend, Lord Methuen. I was a little doubtful as to the particular point he wished to raise. As I understand it, no modern buildings can in fact be erected against historic buildings. I think that that safeguard would be well preserved by the machinery of planning under the Town and Country Planning Act; and, for my own part, I have not much doubt that it is very unlikely that a modern erection would be placed next to an historic building.
  LORD METHUEN: I thought that that would be the noble Earl's answer, but I wished to be certain.
  THE EARL OF MUNSTER: I am glad I have satisfied the noble Lord. I think I have answered the majority of the principal questions addressed to me.
  May I now come to the question of the future stages of this Bill? I do not wish to apply any pressure at all to noble Lords, but we are naturally anxious to get the Bill as soon as we possibly can. If your Lordships concur in my suggestion that we should take the remaining stages of this Bill next Thursday, then it will be on the Statute Book that evening—namely, before we adjourn for the Long Recess. But if there are a large number of Amendments which noble Lords wish to put down for consideration on the next stage of the Bill, then I am bound to admit that it may be wiser to postpone consideration until a later date. I am nervous, not that we should not have opportunity and time in your Lordships' House to discuss the Bill when we come back at the end of October, but because, as noble Lords know full well, the legislative programme in another place might conceivably be heavy, and if your Lordships decided to amend this Bill, there might not be time to bring it back from another place and pass it before the end of the Session. If your Lordships agree with my proposition, I should like to have the concluding stages of the measure on Thursday, if that would be convenient. I think I need say no more except to thank noble Lords again for the way in which they have received the Bill, and I hope they will assist us in the future stages of the

  945
  measure in order to get it on to the Statute Book at the earliest possible moment.
  On Question, Bill read 2ª, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

  WEST BRIDGFORD URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL
  Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments agreed to.
  COVENTRY CATHEDRAL BILL
  Reported, without amendment.