HL Deb 14 May 1953 vol 182 cc569-83

5.42 p.m.

Debate resumed.

LORD SILKIN

My Lords, I should like to begin by congratulating and thanking the noble Lord, Lord Methuen, for having initiated this Motion. I say this in all sincerity. Lord Methuen has been a great and a persistent fighter for the cause of historic houses—and I hope houses of architectural interest, though they were less prominent in what he said. I do not know whether the information which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor gave us at the outset has any connection at all with this Motion; but it is a happy coincidence that the Government announcement was made a few minutes before the commencement of the noble Lord's speech. Perhaps at the end of the debate the Government may be induced to do even better.

Nobody in this House, I am sure, will dispute the great need there is for doing something about the preservation of beautiful and historic buildings. I need not take up any of your Lordships' time in arguing that case. I think the case has been conceded by the Government and by all complexions and shades of opinion in this country. I think the noble Viscount who spoke last was in error in saying that no Government had given any consideration to this matter since the Gowers Report: it is a fact that, prior to the end of the last Parliament, the Labour Government had prepared legislation which was intended to cover the same subject. Whether it would have been more generous or less generous than the present Government I do not know; but at least there is an interest on both sides of this House and in both Parties in this subject, and I am happy to be able to say that we can discuss this question on a wholly non-Party basis.

That, of course, is not to say that there are not very grave difficulties in this matter. I thought that both Lord Methuen and Lord Waverley tended, perhaps, rather to minimise some of the difficulties that exist in dealing with this problem; and, as young enthusiasts in this subject, I can quite understand it. But we must be realistic and we all want to be as reasonably practical as possible; and I should like to put before your Lordships, if I may, some of my own personal difficulties. The first is one of definition. Lord Methuen, throughout his speech, referred to historic houses. On just one or two occasions he did refer to beautiful houses or houses of architectural interest; but I thought that all the emphasis was on the historic houses—and, indeed, in his Motion he calls attention to the "demolition of historic houses"; he does not refer to the others. Now this is not a technical point: it is a point of substance; for when we are considering what we ought to preserve, are we considering the houses that are dealt with by the Gower; Report, or with a special class of house?

If we are dealing with historic houses, it is difficult, even then, to say what is an historic house. It may be difficult to say what is a house of architectural interest, but I notice that in the Report there is a reference to the house in which Byron spent his honeymoon as an "historic house". I should not myself have thought that that fact alone was sufficient to justify the description of the house as an historic house, any more than one would describe a house in which Queen Elizabeth the First once slept as being an historic house on that account alone. So we have got to have a perfectly clear conception as to the type of house about which we are talking.

I thought Lord Methuen was speaking almost entirely of country houses; but some of the most lovely houses which must be preserved are in the cities and the towns. I am thinking of parts of London first of all—for instance, Bloomsbury, Blackheath, Highgate and Dulwich, where we have an immense wealth of beautiful old houses which are in danger of demolition. I am thinking also of places such as Cheltenham, Bath and Brighton, and other Georgian towns, and of such cities as Edinburgh. These houses also come into the category of "houses of architectural interest" and in my view are equally deserving of consideration and preservation. I want to come back to this question of the preservation of houses in the towns, because that is rather a special problem, but it is one that has to be faced.

Then, again, what is the point of preservation? Let us be quite clear in our minds why we want to preserve these houses. In the debate in another place and in the debate we had here some two years ago, practically every speaker felt that the main point of preservation was to enable people to see these beautiful and historic houses in the atmosphere in which people were living in them; that people do not want to seeempty houses or shells, or even museum pieces; they want to see houses lived in. The question we have to ask ourselves is whether, in the case of these, possibly, 2,000 houses that are regarded as worthy of preservation, it is at all likely in the future that any but a very small number will ever be lived in. The noble Viscount has referred to economic difficulties, and so on, which we are going through, and he knows, as we all do, that the level of taxation to-day and in the foreseeable future is such that it is quite impossible for people to live in the type of houses we are considering to-day. Some people are fortunate enough in having capital which they are willing and able to spend, but even that is a diminishing quantity.

But an even greater consideration is the social revolution that is taking place in our method of living. I have a friend who lives in one of these historic houses and who occasionally comes to visit me in the country. I have a house with four bedrooms and three reception rooms. He is willing to change houses with me, but I am not prepared to make the change. The fact is, we are all tending to a much more simple life, not only because we cannot afford the other type of life but because it is physically impossible. It is impossible to get servants. Many of these houses are in remote areas, and many have mile or mile-and-a-half drives, and servants are naturally very unwilling to walk along long drives. The position—and I think we have to face it before long, possibly in the next generation—is that the economic and social changes that have taken place will make it virtually impossible for people to live in these houses in these circumstances. There may be exceptions here and there, but, by and large, we have to find some other uses for these houses. We are not going to be able to preserve them merely for the purpose of showing to the world exhibits of people living in them. The Gowers Committee gave a good deal of consideration to alternative uses. They realised these difficulties, as most of us must do, and they came to the conclusion that there were a very limited number of uses for these houses. They are set out in the Report, and noble Lords have no doubt studied them. There are a limited number of purposes for which they can be used, and a limited number of cases in which they can be used for those particular purposes.

Again it sounds very good to say: "Here is an old house, a beautiful house; let us use it as an old people's home;" but it is not suitable as an old people's home. It will require an immense amount of reconstruction to make it suitable. You have to provide heating, you have to divide up the rooms—the rooms are very large, quite unsuitable for the purpose—and by the time you have made all the necessary alterations the house has entirely lost its character. One may question whether in these circumstances it is really worth preserving. So we have to face up to the question: what are we to do with these houses if we preserve them? Of the 2,000I would suggest that 200—my guess is as good as anybody's—might be used for alternative purposes. But as to the other 1,800 I cannot imagine what can be done with them except to exhibit them as beautiful specimens of architecture. The noble Lord, Lord Methuen, jokingly talked about ruins. It is an awful thing to say about these houses, but if they cannot be used arid it is going, to be extremely costly to maintain them, there is beauty in ruins. Noble Lords know the classic example of Tintern Abbey, one of the most lovely pieces of ruin that can be imagined. I am not suggesting that these houses should be allowed to go to ruin, but I am pointing these things out as some of the difficulties which we have face and which, in my judgment, Sir Ernest Gowers, for whom I have the highest admiration, and his Committee have not faced up to completely.

Let us consider one other difficulty. The noble Viscount suggested that there is nothing extraordinary in making grants or allowances by way of relief from taxation to certain classes of persons for certain specific purposes which are in the public interest. He instanced the case of farmers, and so on. Can he really put this in the same category as the subsidising of food production? It is going to be extremely difficult to tell the public, who are very heavily taxed, that some of their taxation is going to the relief of people who are, generally, very much better off than themselves, to enable them to live in these large mansions. I know some noble Lords may think that that is a distorted way of putting it, but that is how it will be seen by a great many people. After all, whether it is relief of taxation or whether it is given by way of direct subsidy really makes no difference; it is public money just the same. If you spend £1 million in relief of certain classes of persons by way of taxation, or if you collect tax and then give it to them, it is exactly the same from the public point of view and it is going to be very difficult to get over to the general public that it is a good thing in the public interest to take this selected and favoured class of persons and give them relief from taxation, regardless of whether they need it, regardless of whether they have large capital sums available, regardless even of whether they want it or not. That is the difficulty which we have to face.

It occurs to me that the noble Lord, Lord Methuen made a proposal which perhaps might meet the psychological difficulties: the proposal that persons should make a definite settlement of money on trustees for the express purpose of maintaining their houses, and that if such a settlement is made it should be free of taxation. That is worthy of consideration. It would not have quite the same psychological objection as the large-scale relief from taxation of a certain class of persons.

Those are some of the difficulties, bur there is one other difficulty, and that is: to what class of house are we to give the relief? As I have said, there are 2,000 of them; and if the Gowers Report was implemented in accordance with their recommendations, it would cost, we are told on the authority of the Minister of Works, £10 million a year. That figure does not surprise me. As a matter of interest—I do not think I have quoted a speech of my own, either here or anywhere else—I was looking at the Report of the debate in this House about two years ago and this figure coincides very nearly with the estimate that I then made. I did not consider death duty; the Minister of Works did. But if you take death duty into account, it would cost £10 million a year to implement this Report.

The Minister of Works went further and said that in his personal opinion—and he was basing his opinion on what it would cost to preserve those houses and buildings for which he was responsible as Minister—that figure was an under-statement. His own view was that it would cost substantially more. I would ask: Is any noble Lard here, including the two great enthusiasts, Lord Methuen and the noble Viscount, prepared to recommend to this House, or to the present Government, or would they have recommended to their predecessors, that we should spend £10 million a year on this objective? I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Methuen, would like to answer that point now. I should be interested to hear what he had to say.

LORD METHUEN

I hesitate to be drawn at this moment.

LORD SILKIN

I am not surprised. It is a fact that the work would cost that sum, and naturally the noble Lord hestitates to say that he would approve that expenditure, as I think most of us would hesitate.

LORD METHUEN

I have been asked a question. May I point out that what I did say was that I think we ought to start in a very small way and increase our commitments as money becomes available. That, I know, is not answering the noble Lord's question, but I never suggested anything of the sort.

LORD SILKIN

No. I hope that the noble Lord does not feel that I am trying to draw him into a controversy. I am merely putting a dilemma, and it is a dilemma which even the noble Lord, with all his enthusiasm, has to face: that to implement this Report, which both noble Lords were advocating, would cost that figure. I was asking whether they were really serious about it. If the noble Lord is now saying that we should start in a small way, and that he hopes gradually to build up to more, that is the thin end of the wedge; there may be something to be said for that, as a matter of tactics.

LORD METHUEN

I hope that it will eventually come up to the noble Lord's £10 million.

LORD SILKIN

But, in the meantime, more of these houses must be demolished. That will not preserve these houses that are threatened. The £500,000 which we have been offered to-day is very small fry compared with the £10 million a year which the Minister of Works himself considers inadequate for the purpose of preserving these houses. If we are going to rely merely on this £500,000, spread over five years, it will not preserve a great many of the houses that are threatened. Would it, indeed, preserve any of those that are threatened? I do not know. The noble Lord gave us examples of houses which have been demolished or houses that are threatened. If only a small amount of money is available, why not make some selection and try to preserve those houses which are of the greatest merit? I do not know whether or not the houses to which the noble Lord referred would come into that category. The fact is that it is extremely doubtful whether the money which is now being offered would have any really effective purpose.

Now, I want to come on to another point which I indicated earlier—that is, the question of the town houses. I feel that we ought to try to preserve what we can of the great heritage which we all of us appreciate; but included in that heritage are the lovely Georgian terraces and squares in various parts of the country. They, equally, are threatened by the same social and economic causes that are threatening the large country houses, perhaps not quite so radically or so rapidly, but they are equally being threatened. People are not able or willing to live in the lovely Georgian houses that one sees in different parts of the country—though many of them have already been demolished, while others are threatened.

But what are we going to do about the groups of Georgian houses that we see in many parts of the country? They are a real problem. We can convert individual houses into flats. Any noble Lord who knows Dublin, and who has seen what has happened in the conversion of individual houses into flats there, will be terrified at the thought. Some of the loveliest of the Dublin Georgian houses that have been treated in that way have to-day become slums. There is only one way of dealing with these houses such as we have in Bath—that is, by taking a whole group and doing conversion horizontally, taking two or three houses and making really good flats out of them. I wonder whether noble Lords have studied the economics of it. It just does not pay. When I was Minister, I had conversations with the Bath Council. They would dearly have loved to do it, but I am not surprised that they were hesitant to face up to the burden that it would have imposed upon them. Moreover, of course, it would involve compulsory acquisition, and I gather that the present Government are not favourably disposed towards compulsory acquisition. Nevertheless, it would be a deplorable thing if we lost some of these lovely houses in towns such as Edinburgh, Cheltenham, Bath and Bristol. Something must be done, and it looks as if it can only be done out of public money.

I have criticised, as I feel justified in doing, the particular proposal of the Gowers Report that this benefit should be given to individuals by way of relief of taxation. I would, however, say in all sincerity that, rather than allow the most precious of our houses to be demolished, I would face up in inconsistencies, and even criticisms. I think that the danger is very great. I do not think we can afford to wait while we argue out the best way of giving this assistance. What we have to do is to take first aid measures, and perhaps argue out later on the most satisfactory way of giving the help. It has occurred to me, since the Lord Chancellor's statement, that this £500,000 is coming out of the Land Fund and that here we have a fund of £50 million which, I presume, is earning interest at the rate of £2 million a year. Why cannot that interest be allocated to this purpose? It was designed for the purpose. The Fund was created for the purpose. I understand that the money is there. Why cannot it be used? What is the point of piling up the interest and using a fraction of it—£100,000 a year for five years? What is happening to the rest of the money? Perhaps the noble and learned Lord Chancellor can give me the answer—at any rate, he has ample time in which to find out what the answer is. I suppose there must be an answer. But there is the money. It is doing nothing, and it was designed for this particular purpose. I should have thought that the least Her Majesty's Government could do would be to provide the interest on that money for the purpose of preserving old buildings.

I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Methuen, that we have got to find some machinery for administering this, and particularly for selecting the type of house to be preserved. I have indicated that I do not think we can afford to preserve all the houses that are in the list. We have got to make some selection, and we have got to solve this problem of the use that will be made of those that we do preserve. But, nevertheless, there has got to be some selection made, and some administration; and I believe that something on the lines of the Council recommended in the Gowers Report, possibly as an advisory committee, with or without executive functions—I do not mind—is essential—

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

Perhaps the noble Lord did not hear me, but I did say that it is part of the Government's proposal that Historic Buildings Councils shall be set up, in an advisory capacity.

LORD SILKIN

Then I need say no more on that point.

I would conclude by saying that there is no difference of opinion on this matter in any part of the House; we all wish to see these beautiful and historic buildings preserved. We may disagree as to the emphasis to be laid on different types of buildings. I think that not sufficient emphasis is laid on urban buildings, and that possibly rather too much emphasis is laid on what are rather optimistically described as "historic buildings." Of the country residences, I would prefer to preserve the more beautiful ones. But I think we can probably agree in the long run in the selection; and anyway, if it is proposed to leave it to the Council I should be quite prepared to do that. I believe that, whatever we do, the amount of money that has been suggested is quite inadequate. On the other hand, I do not believe that we can wholly carry out the terms of the Gowers Report. I am very glad that we have had an opportunity of ventilating this question before the legislation is introduced, and I hope that, even at this late hour, this debate may exercise some influence on Her Majesty's Government, and induce them to do rather more than allocate the pitiful sum—pitiful on their own admission—which they are proposing to allocate to these buildings.

6.14 p.m.

THE EARL OF WEMYSS AND MARCH

My Lords, the large number of distinguished speakers from both sides of the House who are taking part in this debate only reflects the deep concern that is felt by all sorts of people in the country at the rapidly increasing ruination of so many buildings of interest, beauty and charm. Indeed, people have been becoming most impatient for the Government to do something about it. I think, however, that everybody should be grateful for the provision in this year's Finance Bill, whereby the contents of houses may, in suitable cases, be accepted in lieu of money for death duties. This will do much to prevent the break-up of some of the great collections of pictures, furniture, and other treasures which many of our houses contain, and the dispersal of which would be a national disaster. We should also be thankful for what has just been said on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, but I think it requires some time to digest before comment can be either well-informed or final. The statement does, however, go some way at least towards solving our problems.

I myself am closely connected with the work of the National Trust for Scotland and, much less closely, with the National Trust in England and Wales. The two Trusts have gladly given their advice to the Government from their fund of useful experience, and the debate in another place on February 6 has indicated that there is a great degree of unanimity between the Parties, which I hope will be an encouragement to the Government in their plans for helping us. But in order to preserve this unity, the Trusts are not at the moment pressing for the tax concessions to owners which were recommended in the Gowers Report, for we fear that such a proposal would immediately throw the whole matter into the realms of political controversy, which would indeed be a political disaster at a stage when unity is even more important than time.

The National Trust for Scotland is deeply concerned, not only with the large country mansions but also with smaller buildings, many of which, as the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has said, are to be found in our cities and towns. I might mention that it has lately undertaken the preservation of the oldest house in Aberdeen, which is called Provost Ross's house. Provost Ross was not the builder of this house, but he lived in it in about the reign of Queen Anne, and died in 1714. The other day, however, we had the inspector of taxes ringing up to find out whether Provost Ross was still occupying the house since the Trust took over. I am afraid that this shows that our Government officials are in some ways not quite abreast of the times.

I hope that it does not mean that, if and when Government assistance towards the preservation of houses is available, they will be too much wedded to the good old methods, whereby, if you spend only £992 out of a £1,000 grant, you have to hand back the remaining £8 on March 31. The recent statement indicates the contrary, but I should like to emphasise the vital need for security. The only good and sure way yet devised in regard to preservation is the way worked out by the two National Trusts, whereby the maintenance fund, wherever it comes from, is somehow permanently secured. Only by this method can the owners themselves fairly be asked to hand over the ownership and provide all that they can of the necessary money themselves, and the public and outside charitable bodies fairly be asked to contribute their money and their efforts. This method only can give confidence to all concerned, and in the long run it will make the taxpayers' money go very much further. Some of your Lordships may have read an article in a newspaper this morning to which the noble Lord, Lord Methuen, has already referred. In its reference to the National Trust this article is highly misleading, if not offensive. The Trust's way is no easy way out for the hard-pressed owner. He undoubtedly has to put his heart, as well as his money, into the business—and right well have many owners done this.

May I make one final point, which is purely a Scottish one—that is, to ask the Government to consider most seriously the question of owners' rights. With us, only half the rates are payable by the occupier of a building the other half are payable by the owner. Although so often we have to be fitted into an English mould in legislation, in this one matter where we have been crying out for the English system, Government after Government, including the present one, have declined to do anything about it. Under the present system, an owner, to avoid paying rates, has to take the roof off, or at least perform some act of ruination, to let in some weather, in order to make the house uninhabitable and, therefore, officially unlettable. Nor has the local authority any discretion whatever to exempt from owners' rates, which are thus a positive contribution to the spreading ruin we see around us. Perhaps this point can be answered at the end of this debate, when it has been resumed. I would beg the Government to help us if they possibly can by doing one of three things. I suggest that they get to the bottom of the whole problem and get all the rates put on the occupier; or they could leave half the rates payable by the owner but only to be collected if the house is in fact occupied. Or, again, they could give local authorities discretion to exempt owners from rates in cases where they think fit, and so give owners and other interested parties time—and time is vital—to search for some purpose for which the building can eventually be used.

6.23 p.m.

LORD MOTTISTONE

My Lords, this debate calls to our minds the old maxim, "It's never too late to mend," and it shows how tragically untrue that can be. It is already too late to save many of these buildings that have been mentioned to-day. There is, therefore, the greatest possible urgency to find a solution. Many suggestions have been made, all of which I think indicate that the solution depends on money. Without money, shortcomings in the Acts or in those who try to administer them preclude success. With money, all those difficulties might be and could be overcome. Pondering on this, I realised how like buildings are to human beings. In youth, they stand on their own feet, their foundations. They have a capacity to earn, to do useful work. In old age, they need loving care and support. I thought then: why should not young buildings contribute in some way to the upkeep of the old, as we humans do in youth? In our case we do it by way of contributory schemes, insurances and so on.

Following this line of thought, I have a proposal for Her Majesty's Government's urgent and, I hope, favourable consideration. The value of work authorised in new buildings—excluding maintenance and repairs—in Great Britain last year was £924 million. The value of new building work this year looks as if it will be something in the neighbourhood of £1,000 million, and that in spite of the most rigid control of licensing. Of course, expenditure will leap up when the situation eases. Any amount of money is frozen intentionally by the Government's limitation of capital investment arrangements. Suppose, however, that £1,000 million a year is going to be spent on new building for the next few years. I put forward the simple suggestion that each new building should contribute £1 in every £1,000 spent in its erection to a fund for the preservation of buildings of architectural or historic interest. On the basis of £1,000 million we should acquire £1 million a year, even now when times are so extraordinarily bad. In normal times, I do not see why that figure should not rise to £5 million, £6 million or £7 million a year—it might even reach the £10 million that Lord Silkin mentioned—without causing any hardship to anyone.

A man who wishes to build a small house costing £1,500 surely would not grudge the thirty shillings he would be contributing to this great preservation project. On the other hand, a great commercial undertaking would not feel embarrassed at putting down £2,000 out of the £2 million it would be spending on the building of new premises. And even the man who was going to build only a £250 garage surely would be pleased and proud to think that his five shilling contribution might go, for instance, to help in a tiny way towards the preservation of such a house as Ightham Moat in Kent, the fate of which is now hanging in the balance as it is not settled whether it should be abolished or not.

May I make it clear that this proposal is for one single contribution from each new building at the start of the building operation. And it would be easy to collect—or comparatively easy. A man about to build has to be in close touch with the local planning authority. We all, in such circumstances, have to make application. Therefore, the time when we are granted permission would be an easy moment at which to make the collection of this suggested subscription, shall we call it, to the fund. The fund could be administered by the Historic Buildings Councils—and in this connection I know that everyone must have been delighted to hear what the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack had to say on the subject of the proposed setting up of these bodies; it was indeed excellent news. Under my proposal these councils would themselves start off with three times the promised Treasury contribution, plus the newly proposed £500,000 grant, so that we should be on the way towards attaining the object which we all have in mind.

In the future, as building work increased, the fund would increase with it, and possibly we might be able to embrace all categories of historic buildings—those of the different sorts that have been mentioned to-day. I should like to think that perhaps one day out of the fund would come benefit to the cathedrals, the abbeys and even to the ancient parish churches up and down the land which are now appealing so earnestly—and, I am afraid, in many cases, so forlornly—for our help. My Lords, many aspects have already been mentioned, and many more will be mentioned, but I think there is no doubt that finance is the key, and what is required is a large, steady income. Therefore, I earnestly and urgently offer this suggestion as one worthy perhaps of inclusion in the new Bill which is now being drawn up.

THE EARL OF ONSLOW

My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend the Earl of Airlie, who has had to leave to attend another engagement, I beg to move that the debate be now adjourned.

Moved, That the debate be now adjourned.—(The Earl of Onslow.)

On Question, Motion agreed to, and debate adjourned accordingly.