National Heritage Bill [H.L.]

HL Deb 14 December 1982 vol 437 cc545-90

House again in Committee.

Viscount Eccles moved Amendment No. 15: Page 20, line 4, at end insert— ("( ) The Director shall be appointed for a term not exceeding 7 years, and shall be eligible for re-appointment.").

The noble Viscount said: Before we adjourned for a well-deserved dinner, we were talking about limiting the period of a trustee's service on the board. Now we come to the director. If the Civil Service rules continue, it means that a man cannot be retired from his post until he is 60. In turn, that means that if a director is appointed at any age, no matter how young, below the age of 60, he is there until he reaches that age. I do not think that that can be right. I remember that my noble friend Lord Clark was 29 when he was appointed Director of the National Gallery. On this basis, he might have been there for 31 years. He retired.

The problem is this. Ought we not to put into the Bill that the director has a contract and that the contract could be for a term not exceeding seven years, but then if he is (as one hopes that he would be) fully satisfactory to all the board and the Government, he shall be eligible for reappointment? I can hardly think that we ought to allow a situation in which those appointing a director would look at his age and, if he is a fairly young man, say, however good he is, "We cannot risk it; because we will have him for 20 or 25 years". I beg to move.

Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge

After some reflection, I think I must support this amendment. I think that the evils which arise from it are less than the evils that it avoids. One wants to appoint young directors and I think that it would be inhibitory that one could not get rid of them. If they are any good, then seven years and then another five or another 12, or whatever you like, covers the situation. On the other hand, if you want to get a good young academic who is a professor in a university and who has an appointment for life, there is a problem. You may miss some; but, on the whole, the evil you avoid is greater than the evil you incur. I support the amendment.

Lord Craigton

I should be glad if the Minister would elucidate to me what the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, has said. If you get a man who is no good then you do not want him even for seven years. You cannot always pick the right man. Is it possible at any time to get rid of him?

The Earl of Avon

If I could answer my noble friend Lord Eccles on one brief point, yes, it is our intention that there should be a contract of employment. That, of course, would answer also my noble friend Lord Craigton. The terms of a contract of employment would enable you to get rid of him after one or two years or whatever the term may be.

Lord Montagu of Beaulieu

I think I must support this amendment. The only possible disadvantage is that somebody who was in prospect of a very good career would have to balance whether he would take up the job for seven years rather than carry on in his present position. However, I think that perhaps the person should have confidence in himself, take on the job and make a good job of it. Unless he is going to do that, he is not the right person to appoint, anyway. Although it is a balance, I am inclined to support the amendment.

The Earl of Avon

The Government agree that it would be undesirable for the post of director to represent an appointment for life. Equally it would not be advisable to go to the other extreme and signify a term of years. The powers to reappoint would provide some flexibility, but the Government feel that the terms of a contract of employment are matters for negotiation and agreement between the trustees and the individual concerned. The trustees will wish to get the best person for the job and it is important that the Bill does not prejudice this.

There is a practical difficulty. At present, we have in the terms of employment a "no worse offer" and there is a point that this amendment could be at odds with such an undertaking. So in the present there is a problem. If we look at the future, then I believe that the contract of employment could be the right solution. The Bill does not preclude the arrangements proposed by my noble friend Lord Eccles. With that in mind. I wonder whether he might consider for the moment withdrawing his amendment.

Viscount Eccles

I am not quite clear what my noble friend means. We now have Sir Roy Strong, who could stay until he is 60, if he wanted to. I did not know that; but I can understand that if it is true that the whole of the staff are now under Civil Service rules. If that is so. it is very important to be quite clear that it does not happen again. It is really not right that the trustees should have to consider the age of a person they are thinking of. They are almost driven then, in most cases, I should have thought, to say "Well the man must be 50. We have got to have him until he is 60". Yet you may want a young man., Everybody wanted Sir Roy Strong, of course. He was very good at the job. To give him 20 years, or maybe 19 years, is really a bit too much. I am not quite clear whether my noble friend is saying that, if we overlook the present position, the Bill itself will allow the trustees to make agreements for a limited period of years with perhaps the possibility of reappointment. Is that what the noble Earl is saying?

The Earl of Avon

Yes, broadly it is. Exactly that. But one does not want to talk about personalities. This is a once-and-for-all case we are looking at at the moment. This is the only time that the V and A has been taken out of the departmental sphere. It will not happen again. It is a once-and-for-all issue.

Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge

As things now are, the noble Earl is telling us that the trustees, at any time, can make any contract they like with the director. I think that that meets the case. If they can, it is up to them to decide what to do according to his age and everything else.

The Earl of Avon

Thinking of this particular time, at the moment we have a clause for the staff to be offered a contract of "no worse conditions". That is a once-and-for-all piece of legislation in this Bill.

Viscount Eccles

I find this very difficult because I do not think that we should leave the trustees in the position I envisage. They are going to be a new body. They ought to have, and I think will have, much more power than the advisory body that is there now. If they are not able to make any changes in the staff until all of those now employed reach the age of 60, this will be very hampering. We ought to consider this again. Possibly I can talk to my noble friend and see what we can do on Report. It is not right to leave them in that position.

Lord Jenkins of Putney

One has to bear in mind that this is a transitional process, and consequently the staff are entitled to know that as a result of the transition their terms and conditions of employment will not be worsened. That being so, one ought also to bear in mind that even a civil servant is not necessarily permanently employed. He can be transferred to other employment. That is one of the advantages of having a civil servant: at one time if somebody was unsatisfactory in the V and A you could always shunt him off to somewhere else. Now you will not be able to do so. I take the point of the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles. The moment you take everybody on to a trustee basis the traditional way of getting rid of a civil servant is lost. You can no longer shunt him off into some job in the DES or something of that sort. So there is a real point here. If one is going to make this transition—and it is no secret that I am unenthusiastic about it—one has to take into consideration that when one makes a transition certain consequences follow from it, and this is one of them.

Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge

This amendment applies only to the director. We have a director and the trustees are under obligation not to make this director's position worse than it would have been if he stayed where he was. If Sir Roy goes off to somewhere else—as is quite likely—then the trustees under the Bill without this amendment have the right to make any contract that they like. In relation to directors that is probably perfectly satisfactory.

Viscount Eccles

I shall withdraw the amendment. I shall think about it and see whether anything should be done at Report stage.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

8.12 p.m.

The Earl of Perth moved Amendment No. 16: Page 20, line 5, after ("Board") insert ("for carrying out the Board's policy and").

The noble Earl said: I beg to move Amendment No. 16, and with it, if it is the pleasure of the Committee, I should like to take Amendment No. 27 because the two amendments hang together. Amendment No. 27 is the egg without which we could not have the chicken of Amendment No. 16. If I may therefore look at Amendment No. 27, what I am trying to make crystal clear is that the function of the board is that of laying down policy, whereas the function of the director is to carry out the policy.

If we look at Clause 2(1) we see that it says: So far as practicable and subject to the provisions of this Act, the Board shall—".

then it is given a whole lot of executive functions to perform. The Bill says that the board shall: care for, preserve and add to the objects in their collections, … secure that the objects are exhibited to the public.

and so forth.

It is perfectly true that the schedule says that the director shall be responsible to the board for the general exercise of the board's functions. But the responsibility of one group or the other is not clear enough. A situation could be imagined when a very determined chairman and board of trustees said, "Well, we have been given functions and we think we must take a more active part in the whole than would otherwise be the case". They would not only lay down policy but would attempt to exercise it in ways which I do not think is proper for a board of trustees.

So I have put forward these two amendments. They both hang together. I recognise that in saying the one, namely, that the board of trustees shall deal only with policy or shall have as their main function laying down policy, I have equally tried to follow the thinking that the director shall have the executive responsibility of carrying out the policy. I hope that I am clear. I believe that it has an importance rather than leaving it open to certain different interpretations. I beg to move.

Lord Strabolgi

I should like to say a few words on this amendment which has been moved by the noble Earl, Lord Perth, and also, if I may, to speak to Amendment No. 18 in my own name which seeks to do the same thing, and it might save the time of the Committee.

I agree with the noble Earl, I think this should be closely defined. As I see it, the director's role should be defined as one of being responsible for the day-to-day running of the museum, and the role of the trustees as in general pertaining to board policy and strategy. This needs to be clarified and we shall be interested to hear what the noble Earl, Lord Avon, has to say.

Lord Montagu of Beaulieu

Perhaps I may also speak to this amendment in view of the fact that Amendments Nos. 17 and 44 in my name are basically along the same lines. My amendments are based on giving the directors of the V and A and the Science Museum the same powers as are given in the British museum Act 1963 to the British Museum director—this includes the care of all property—covering therefore historic buildings and objects held outside the main premises of the museums. It also emphasises perhaps the curatorial responsibilities of the two museum directors. But obviously it is important to try to define the responsibilities of the director towards the trustees.

Viscount Eccles

I should like to support the amendment of my noble friend Lord Perth. It is important to realise that the trustees have to be a good deal stronger than the advisory body that the museum has had up to now. Of course, one fears about this when, as I quoted before, the staff of the museum recommend to us that in normal circumstances the trustees should meet four times a year on the model of the present advisory council. That simply will not do, because it means that there is no clear place where the policy of the museum is going to be made. I suggest that the policy must be clearly in the hands of the trustees or else we are giving a director licence to do pretty well what he likes. He may be a marvellous director; he may be a good director for 25 years or so. I am not talking about personalities; I am talking about the fact that there will be half a dozen directors before the year 2025, let us say. We are passing an Act of Parliament for all those directors. We must be clearer than we are in the Bill as to who makes the policy. Therefore I hope that the noble Earl, Lord Avon, will accept this amendment. It is very difficult for us to leave matters as vague as they now are.

Lord Jenkins of Putney

The generality of the opinion appears to me to be that we are worried about the wording as at present. The intention of the wording is that the director shall be responsible to the board for the general exercise of the board's functions. I think that perhaps the intention of the wording is to see that it is quite clear that the board is to retain policy and the directors are to carry it out. Nevertheless, having said all that, I go along with those noble Lords who would prefer to have it much clearer. All three noble Lords who have spoken to this amendment are seeking the same end. It is my hope that the noble Earl, Lord Avon, will feel able to accept one or other of the amendments, or at least the general sense of all of them.

The Earl of Avon

As has come out during the debate, there is a delicate balance to be struck between the role of the director and the board in the matter of formulating policy. Clearly the board has the overall responsibility for developing policies to carry out the functions laid on them by the Bill. The board will naturally rely greatly on the director and senior staff for advice and help on this matter, but the ultimate responsibility must rest with the board since it is upon them that the functions are laid. The director and his staff will be responsible to the board for the general exercise of the board's functions and no doubt there will be fruitful dialogue between the director, staff and the board so that the development of devising policy is informed by the practicalities of carrying out the functions and vice versa.

However, in practical terms the exercise of functions is entrusted primarily to the director and staff reporting to the board. This means that the board should not intervene in detail in the performance of these duties. The noble Earl's proposals, if accepted, would do two things. First, the overall responsibility for the board's general functions would pass from the trustees to the director. In the Government's view, this step would neutralise the purpose of the board. The prime object of the Bill is to establish boards which will be accountable for their actions. If this accountability were to be restricted to the laying down of policy, the implementation of which falls to the director, the board runs the risk of becoming a rubber stamp. That is plainly-contrary to the Government's intention. Nothing in the Bill precludes the board from determining policies and delegating to the director the duty of implementing these, but that is very different from restricting the board's role to one of policy formulation.

Secondly, the amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Perth, would give sole responsibility to the director for carrying out the board's policy and thus would carry the risk of a director gradually achieving a dominant role over the board. As my noble friend Lord Eccles pointed out on Second Reading, this would be highly undesirable and would carry with it the risk of the promotion of favourites, and so on. The director's role is crucial but it must not be paramount. The director will be responsible to the board for the general exercise of the board's functions. This of itself allows him to implement policies set by the board without the addition of the amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Perth, but with the important safeguard that the board retains final responsibility for the museum's function. The Government consider that this strikes the best balance for the smooth running of the museum.

The noble Lord, Lord Montagu, is putting forward Amendment No. 17. This would restrict the role of a director to one of curation and administration. It would exclude him from those other activities which are undertaken by museums in other fields. It is therefore unlikely to be in the best interests of the museums. The museums are intended to promote public appreciation and knowledge of art, design, science and technology. There are many spheres of educational and commercial activity in which a director should have an interest as the museum's chief officer.

Amendment No. 18, which is put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, poses a different problem. Paragraph 4(2) of the schedule, as drafted, delegates to a director responsibility for the full range of duties laid upon the board by Clause 2. The proposed insertion, by making specific reference to the day-to-day running of the museum, implies he may not have delegated responsibility for some of the other duties laid down. This ambiguity would not clarify the provisions in the Bill. All these three amendments, as their various proposers have said, are trying to do the same thing; but I do not feel that they entirely achieve what they intend. I think the best thing is for me to go back and read this debate and see if we can in any way go towards what the noble Earl seeks to do and to achieve what he is looking for rather than to go down the path he is actually going down.

The Earl of Perth

With that assurance, I would be very happy to withdraw my amendment, but, before doing so, I think it is very critical that the board, its policies and the director's are executive; but I did not quite follow the noble Earl completely when he said that the board should lay down policy and that was all they could do. Even if you accept my amendment, which is No. 27, they lay down their policy and have various functions to perform. If they find in fact that the director and the staff are not carrying out their policy, they can control it again. I do not think that by accepting the amendment I have suggested we are restricting the board to one function and the director and staff to the other. However, the noble Earl has said that he will look at this again. I have my amendments and the noble Lords, Lord Strabolgi and Lord Montagu, have their amendments of a similar kind. There has been support for them and so I hope we shall be able to find something which will satisfy us eventually. With that comfort from what the noble Earl has said, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Montagu of Beaulieu had given Notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 17: Page 20, line 5, leave out ("general exercise of the Board's functions") and insert ("care of all property in its possession and for the general administration of the Museum").

The noble Lord said: In view of what the noble Earl has just said, I should like to make just one point. In considering this, perhaps he would bear in mind that I have based the amendment upon the British Museum Act and the responsibilities which are given to the director of the British Museum. Surely if it is good enough for the British Museum's trustees it should be good enough for the Science Museum and the Victoria and Albert. Perhaps he will be good enough to look at that, and in the meantime I shall not move Amendment No. 17.

[Amendment No. 17 not moved.]

The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Viscount Simon)

Amendment No. 18: the Lord Strabolgi.

8.26 p.m.

Lord Strabolgi moved Amendment No. 18: Page 20, line 6, at end insert ("and for the day to day running of the Museum").

The noble Lord said: I have already spoken to Amendment No. 18, but I should like to move it so that it appears on the record. I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Avon, for saying he will look at this in company with the amendments of the noble Earl, Lord Perth, and the noble Lord, Lord Montagu. With that assurance from the noble Earl, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

The Deputy Chairman of Committees

The Question is, That this amendment be agreed to? As many as are of that opinion will say, "Content"?—the noble Lord has withdrawn this before he moved it, which put me in a slight difficulty.

Lord Strabolgi

I am sorry, my Lord Chairman: I did move it. Then I spoke to it, and then I withdrew it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Birk moved Amendment No. 19: Page 20, line 10, leave out ("as the Board may determine") and insert ("on such other terms and conditions as the Board may determine provided that the remuneration and allowances, terms and conditions are taken as a whole not less favourable than those applying to the Civil Service.").

The noble Baroness said: The amendment I am moving now and wish to speak to is concerned with quite a different subject. It is dealing with staff. With the agreement of the Committee, I should like to speak to Nos. 19 and 20 together, but there are general points which apply to the whole group. The National Heritage Bill creates six non-governmental bodies and they are going to perform activities which are currently handled by civil servants in the Victoria and Albert Museum, Science, the Armed Forces Museums, the Tower Armouries, the Royal Botanical Gardens and, when we come to the second part, the Director of Ancient Monuments and Historic Buildings, situated at the moment in the Department of the Environment.

I think it must be generally agreed that the ability of all these new bodies to carry out their functions will largely depend upon the staff involved being transferred to them. These transfers involve a change of employer and it is therefore essential that all the staff should enjoy conditions of employment that are no worse than at present. What I believe is just as important is that they should feel assured that this is so: otherwise there will be a tremendous lack of confidence and it will all start off on a very unfortunate and uncertain note.

The Bill as currently drafted does not appear to satisfy these conditions, certainly as far as the people involved in it are concerned. As the staff are acutely concerned about their future I hope that these amendments will of themselves be acceptable or that the Government will be able to give the required reassurance if there is going to be a peaceful and satisfactory changeover due to the changes that have been made so far as the museums are concerned.

The purpose of the amendments is threefold: first, to ensure that the conditions of employment are not worsened; secondly, to entrench the "no-worsening" concept, by linking the conditions to those which would have been enjoyed had the status quo prevailed; and, thirdly, to treat all the staff affected by the Bill in the same way, so far as that is practicable and possible. In order not to deal with every museum separately, I shall speak to the amendments which apply to the Victoria and Albert Museum, but the principle goes all the way through this Part of the Bill. So if I speak to Amendments Nos. 19 and 20 it will make it easier for the Committee.

By providing for a link with the Civil Service, we are seeking to ensure that all the conditions of employment continue to be at least as good as those applying had the status quo prevailed. What we are trying to do is to link the terms and conditions with those in the Civil Service and, also, to entrench those links. This is important for two reasons. First, the staff should not have to suffer as a consequence of a change in the machinery of government—and this is a very large change, particularly for those employed in it—and, secondly, in the case of the museum staffs, the trade unions have, over many years, created a comprehensive career structure, which should be protected if the professionalism and dedication of the staff are to be maintained.

In these respects the Victoria and Albert and Science Museums, in particular, have been crucial to the maintenance of standards in the trustee museums, because the departmental museums have acted as bench marks for the other museums. But once they have left the department there will be no bench marks and all the museums will be on their own, so the staff must feel assured that they will be in a secure position.

May I add, perhaps to pre-empt some comments that may be made, that I have gone into this and discussed it with the people involved, and there is no question that there should be security of tenure to the age of 60 for every civil servant involved. At the moment we have natural wastage, redundancies, people leaving and people being moved out of their jobs, but they should feel that they have the degree of security to which they are entitled. They should feel assured about the future, because they are not very happy about it. Although I am aware that other Parts of the Bill deal with this aspect, it is important to open up the whole subject and I should like to get a response from the Government which will more clearly, and in a detailed way, indicate what the Government have in mind. I beg to move.

Baroness Seear

While I absolutely agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, that it is essential that people in these jobs should have good conditions of employment—and I quite understand the problem about the existing staff and what they have come to expect—I would, for a number of reasons, question whether it is right to compare them with Civil Service conditions. I think the noble Baroness said that they should expect the same security of tenure—

Baroness Birk

What I said was that they were not asking for security of tenure that is taken for granted, because they argue that in the Civil Service the position is altering all the time. People are not staying there for life or until they are 60. What the staff are worried about is that they do not know where they are. They want to feel on very much firmer career ground than they feel at the moment.

Baroness Seear

Perhaps the noble Baroness is not asking for absolute security of tenure, which, to a very large extent, the Civil Service still have. I know that there have been some exceptions, but, when you look in detail at the changes that have taken place, they are still having the benefit of considerable security of tenure. In the academic world, which is the other close parallel, I venture to say that security of tenure has gone too far. A good many people recognise that security of tenure has gone too far for the real benefit of the universities and the people in them.

I also think that, in many ways, the people employed in the museums and libraries are closer to the university world than they are to the Civil Service world—a good many of them, in any case—and the levels of pay in the academic world are not as good as the levels of pay in the Civil Service. There is no question about that, and there are good reasons why that is so. So before one agrees that one should line up these people with the Civil Service, it is important to look at other possible analogues and see whether these are the right people to compare with the staffs of museums and libraries.

Lord Jenkins of Putney

The noble Baroness says that one should not line up these people with civil servants, but they are civil servants. That is the whole point of the issue. At the moment, the staff of the Science and the Victoria and Albert Museums are civil servants. That is the basis of the departmental arrangement, so far as these staffs are concerned. For example, Roy Strong has the position of Assistant Secretary, which is a Civil Service appointment. He can be hauled over the coals, under the direct control of the Minister, as no other director can be brought under ministerial control.

There may be something to be said for this change. But I have said again and again, and I shall say it in future, that I am not very keen on it. There was a lot to be said for having two departmental museums because, as my noble friend on the Front Bench said, they provided a basis. While we had the two departmental museums, the other museums, broadly speaking, followed their pattern. For a very long time the staff of these two museums were very much in favour of this proposal, because they had the advantages of the Civil Service and, through them, those advantages were translated to the trustee museums, because, by and large—not necessarily in every single detail—the trustee museums followed the terms and conditions laid down by the departmental museums. The whole basis made a floor which operated very satisfactorily.

More recently, the Civil Service has come under pressure from the Government's monetarist policies and, by and large, the public service is being squeezed, so that the degree of satisfaction in being a civil servant has markedly declined. It is no longer the comfortable niche which it one was, and the possibility of redundancy arises. It would probably be true to say that whereas, when I myself was Minister, the staff would strongly have resisted the idea of losing the status of civil servants, the resistance to this loss is now much less strong. It is no longer the sort of job that it was. Job prospects are not what they were, and the possibilities are being cut. Therefore, there is much less resistance to the proposed change than there might have been a year or two ago. Nevertheless, the staff are entitled to say, "Now that this change is being made, we would, at least, like written into the Act which is making the change some assurance that our terms and conditions of employment will not be worsened as a result." That is the object of the amendment, and I hope that noble Lords will agree that it is reasonable and will decide to accept it.

Lord Montagu of Beaulieu

There seem to be two different points here. As president of the Museums Association. I must speak for the existing staff and say that I am sure they would expect and deserve to have the same terms and conditions as they have at the moment. So far as I can see, that is very clearly laid down in paragraph 5 of the schedule. I do not see how one can expect anything more.

But I must differ from the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, who talked about future employment, because one of the great freedoms that the trustees and the directors will have in the future will be to employ other people—perhaps part-time, perhaps unpaid or perhaps, even, volunteers. Only recently, departmental museums have been closing down for one day a week, and it is the independent museums that have been kept open every day. It is the departmental museums which, long before this Government came to power, started to cut services to the public. They are the museums which close down on Bank Holidays.

It is unreasonable to expect the new directors always to follow Civil Service terms. Great freedom must be allowed for the employment of future staff. Nevertheless, I defend the right of the present staff to have the same terms of employment. Whereas the first point should be accepted and is very well written into the Bill, much more flexibility should certainly be given to the directors and trustees concerning the employment of future staff.

The Earl of Avon

The noble Baroness is properly concerned about the terms and conditions, including pay, of all employees of the trustee boards. In particular, as the noble Baroness said, she is anxious to ensure that future as well as existing staff will be employed on terms not less favourable than those currently operating in these institutions. I hope I can assure the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, about this in a number of ways.

First, existing employees in post when the boards take up their responsibilities will be made offers of employment on terms not less favourable than those existing. It is not the Government's intention that future staff of those boards should be employed on different terms and it is not our intention to create two classes of employee as a direct result of the legislation.

Second, it is intended that the unions representing the staff will be those comprising the Council of Civil Service Unions, who have a pay negotiating role with the Treasury. Although the trustees will have the legal responsibility to determine pay, this will be subject to the approval of responsible departments and the Treasury who will wish to ensure broad comparability with terms and conditions in the Civil Service. The unions, through CCSU, will have access to the negotiating machinery and put their views on behalf of the staff of the institutions. This system is well established and works perfectly satisfactorily in the existing trustee museums and galleries.

Third, and perhaps the most important in terms of safeguarding the interests of staff, the existing trustee museums and galleries are the subject of a longstanding agreement between the Treasury and the Council of Civil Service Trade Unions that in all matters concerning pay, terms and conditions of service, the staff of the trustee institutions shall be treated for all practical purposes as if they were civil servants. It is intended to extend these arrangements to the four trustee bodies covered by this Bill. This is particularly important because the Bill provides that the four bodies shall participate in the principal Civil Service pension scheme. This carries with it an obligation that the staff involved shall be employed on terms and conditions comparable to those in the Civil Service and continued participation in the scheme depends upon maintaining this parity.

I have given what I hope is a full explanation because it is important that those staff employed in the four bodies should be reassured. It is intended to treat them no differently from the other trustee museums and galleries.

I hope that the noble Baroness will agree that these arrangements should achieve the effect sought by her amendments. The Government cannot accept the first set of amendments because they are based upon an implicit assumption that the terms and conditions of the Civil Service will remain static. The provisions in the Bill must leave the boards some discretion—this point was made by my noble friend Lord Montagu—to cope with these inevitable movements but within the constraints I have outlined. For the reasons I have given, it is also important that the Secretan' of State has the opportunity to monitor these arrangements. He also has the final say. The Secretary of State can judge them in relation to the terms and conditions prevailing in the Civil Service. The Government cannot agree to the noble Baroness's amendments, but with all these assurances I hope that she will see fit to withdraw them.

Baroness Birk

I thank the Minister for his reply. I did not think that the Government would accept the amendments as they stand. However, it has been extremely useful and helpful—certainly to me and, I imagine, to the civil servants who will read the report of this debate—to have that enlarged explanation which has filled out some of the lacunae in the Bill. The staff believe that they should neither benefit nor lose by the Bill. The object of the amendments was to try to find a basis for future conditions. The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, quite rightly and understandably made the point about tying oneself down for the future. I very much take her point about academic staff as well as civil servants. These people—even those who have not been in the Civil Service for very long and who may be quite young—consider themselves to be civil servants and believe that their conditions of pay are tied to those now operating in the Civil Service. This is their security link.

It is extremely important that there should be more consultation. I believe that the Minister mentioned consultation. I have been given the impression that attempts have been made to extend consultation but that civil servants do not feel that so far they have received much in the way of a response. Whenever anything like this arises and there is a feeling of lack of security, concern and worry—whether this is well or ill-founded—it is important that there should be communication and consultation. I should like that to take place both now and also in the future as the situation changes. Perhaps I may take it that the Minister accepts that the necessity of consultation is of very great importance. It is necessary even in the case of a big industrial takeover. It is absolutely essential for the staff to know where they are and to feel that they can be consulted. I hope that between now and the next stage, if the Minister cannot take the matter any further at the moment, he will write to me about consultation. For the time being I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. I shall see what happens between now and the next stage and reconsider what to do then.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 20 not moved.]

8.48 p.m.

Baroness Birk moved Amendment No. 21: Page 20, line 20, at end insert— ("( ) It shall be the duty of the Board, except so far as it is satisfied that adequate machinery exists for achieving the purpose of this paragraph to seek consultation with the recognised trade unions representing the staff with a view to the conclusion between the Board and those organisations such agreements as appear to the parties to be desirable with respect to the establishment and maintenance of machinery for—

1. (a) the settlement by negotiation of terms and conditions of employment of employees of the Board with provision for reference to arbitration in default of such a settlement in such cases as may be determined by or under the agreements;
2. (b) the promotion and encouragement of measures affecting the safety, health and welfare of employees of the Board and the discussion of other matters of mutual interest to the Board and its employees including efficiency in the performance of the Board's functions.").

The noble Baroness said: This amendment relates to the consultation procedure which until now has led to the smooth running of all the institutions. The amendment seeks to require the new board to continue such a consultative approach to staff relations. The wording has been taken from the Civil Aviation Act 1973. It is similar also to the provisions relating to the devolution of governmental organisations which appear in a number of Acts. Legislation in the museums sphere is not so clear cut as it is in other pieces of legislation where there has been a changeover of this kind. The British Library Act 1972 contains a similar though not an identical provision. I am sure we all agree that consultation is important, as with all agreements negotiated through the National Museum Whitley machineries within the Civil Service, such as redundancy agreements, promotion arrangements, complementing arrangements, et cetera. These will lapse when the schedule comes into force and therefore will need to be the subject of negotiation between the board and trade unions. I am asking that what is inserted in very many other Acts of a similar kind should be inserted here. I beg to move.

The Earl of Avon

Perhaps the noble Baroness will allow me to respond to her remarks in closing the last amendment. My understanding is that consultations have been taking place throughout and I shall draw her remarks to the attention of those concerned.

These amendments concern essential matters, but we believe that they are unnecessary to the terms of the Bill. The Government appreciate the concern behind the amendments, that proper procedures should be laid down for agreeing terms and conditions of employment of employees and that a reference to arbitration should be available, should settlement not be reached. As I have said already, when speaking to the earlier amendment of the noble Baroness, such provisions are unnecessary given the various arrangements that will apply Civil Service practices to the four trustee bodies, including the obligation under the rules governing the principal Civil Service pension scheme to maintain parity with Civil Service pay and conditions.

The new boards will clearly need to establish machinery to negotiate with their respective unions and establish proper lines of communication. The Government will encourage them to follow the practice of the other trustee museums and galleries, and I am not aware of any suggestion that staff in those institutions have been unable to make their views known through these channels, or that the boards have failed to take these into account. Matters such as health, safety, welfare and matters of practical interest to both sides, including efficiency, are appropriate for raising in this way. The boards as employers will be bound by the terms of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974, which lays down the procedures to be followed for establishing proper safety committees involving staff and unions. It is unnecessary to make additional reference in this Bill. It will, of course, be open to the boards to invite staff representatives to attend their meetings for discussion of particular topics.

These boards will be highly responsible bodies, determining policy in relation to some of the nation's greatest collections. In doing so, they are not going to ride roughshod over their staff, on whose goodwill and expertise they will be dependent for the effective implementation of their policies. Adequate protection for staff already exists in matters relating to employment. The Government believe that the amendments are already met in substance by previous legislation and by established practice, and I would therefore hope that the noble Baroness will not wish to press her amendment.

Lord Jenkins of Putney

If I understood the noble Earl correctly, he was telling us that this amendment was unnecessary because, either in other legislation or in existing practice elsewhere, that which is asked for in the amendment is in fact carried out. If that is the case, it seems to me that if the amendment would reassure the staff enormously, and if they are saying things which the trustees acting as the appointees of the Government will in effect being carrying out, where can the objection lie to having the amendment in the Bill? If it gives confidence to all concerned and the Government are going to do these things anyway, then why not accept the amendment?

The Karl of Avon

If the noble Lord wants an immediate response, the lawyers always hate putting in things which are unnecessary, and this is a case in point.

Baroness Birk

I would ask the noble Earl the Minister to reconsider this although I do not expect an answer from him now. As my noble friend has pointed out. this is something which appears in other Acts and it seems rather unnecessary to have any sort of fight. Even though the Government might feel it to be repetitious, if we ever get a Bill which is not repetitious, it will deserve a very big medal indeed. I do not consider that the examples which the noble Earl gave answered my point. He talked about the Health and Safety at Work Act. but that is an entirely different type of legislation. The nearest example is that which I gave, of the British Library Act, which contains a similar provision. it seems to me natural that the people concerned would turn to the British Library Act rather than to the Health and Safety at Work Act; and that they would want to see the same assurances about consultation procedure incorporated in this Bill. I will again remind the noble Earl the Minister that it refers not only to the V and A but also to the Science Museum and all the other museums which fall within this part of the Bill.

I do not request an immediate answer from the noble Earl the Minister—chiefly because, if I do so, he may be in the position that he will have to say, no. I should like him to take this matter back and think about it. I appreciated his remark about difficulty with lawyers, but if this is going to reassure people and make them feel happier, and since there are many precedents in other Acts, then why not put it into this Bill? I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Birk moved Amendment No. 22: Page 20, leave out lines 30 to 33.

The noble Baroness said: This amendment is a little more difficult to explain. Here we seek to leave out the lines which say that the fact that current employment is Crown service is not a relevant factor when dealing with conditions of service. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that the assessment of the terms and conditions offered, when compared with current conditions, takes all relevant considerations into account. The fact that current employment is Crown service must be a relevant factor. It is not clear why the Government wish to exclude this particular point.

The reason for deleting this paragraph is that when evaluating how contracts compare it is necessary to take account of all factors. One factor is the nature of the employers involved. it is evidently felt by the people concerned, although other people may take a different view, that there is a safety factor involved; and therefore it is morally wrong to predetermine that Crown status or non-status should be ignored. I accept that at some time in the distant future this itself will probably be quite irrelevant, but at the moment it is not, and it is considered highly relevant by many of the people involved. It is for this reason that they are asking for these particular lines to be removed. I beg to move.

Lord Simon of Glaisdale

I am a little puzzled by this sub-paragraph because I do not really know what it is getting at, and perhaps the noble Earl will tell us. Is it that service of the Crown is inferior to other service in that the servant is dismissible at leisure? If that is so. this paragraph is very much in favour of the employee and it is quite right that that matter should be disregarded. On the other hand, there are institutions such as Estacode with which there have been negotiations, and there have been trade union representations and de facto security of employment. If those matters are to be disregarded, it is against the employee. I may have got the whole thing wrong, and I shall be very grateful for an explanation.

The Earl of Avon

If I may return briefly to the amendment before, the noble Baroness has a way of putting a lot into her closing remarks. I was aware of the 1972 legislation that she mentioned, but apart from the Health and Safety at Work Act there is also the Employment Protection Act and trade union legislation since then, which we consider has made a little difference.

We believe that Amendment No. 22 would have the effect of enabling an individual employed at one of the four trustee institutions, on the day that the board takes up its responsibilities, to claim that simply ceasing to be a civil servant constituted a worsening of his terms of employment. The boards of the four trustee institutions covered by the Bill are under an obligation to make an offer of employment to each civil servant in post at those institutions on the day that they assume their responsibilities. The Bill requires those offers, taken as a whole, not to be less favourable than those currently enjoyed in the Civil Service. With that statutory obligation on the boards. surely it would not be right for an individual to claim a worsening in employment conditions simply by ceasing to be a civil servant.

We have discussed the safeguards for staff. The provisions which are the subject of this particular set of amendments represent a safeguard for the boards and the Crown against possible exploitation by staff who wish to have their cake and eat it. It seems to the Government that the provisions are entirely reasonable. I hope that with these remarks I have put at rest the mind of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, and I hope that I have at the same time explained to the noble Baroness why we cannot accept this amendment.

Baroness Birk

I should have retained the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. I find this very complicated, and the exchanges that have taken place have made it even more so. I must confess I am really not clear about it at all, and am even more confused now. I should like to read what the Minister has said and also what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, said. If he is at all unhappy about it, I wish he would say something now to help to elucidate it for us, before I withdraw the amendment. He put very pertinent questions to the Minister, and he has probably been able to understand the Minister's answer far better than I have.

Lord Jenkins of Putney

As I understand it, the noble Earl is saying that a member of the staff could say, "You have worsened my conditions of employment in such-and-such a way, and therefore I object to that because my conditions of employment are not so satisfactory as they were when I was a civil servant". I think the noble Earl is telling us that that would be admissible. But I believe the noble Earl is also saying that if the member of the staff goes on to say, "I was a civil servant and am no longer, and I therefore want £100 a year or £1,000 a year as compensation for the fact that I am no longer a civil servant", then that would not be admissible. Is that so?

The Earl of Avon

Yes.

Baroness Birk

I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Birk moved Amendment No. 23: Page 21, line 3, leave out ("industrial tribunal") and insert ("arbitration machinen' agreed with the recognised trade unions")

The noble Baroness said: This seems to me a fairly simple point after that last one. What this amendment seeks to do is to substitute, arbitration machinery agreed with the recognised trade unions for the words "industrial tribunal". The reason is that, as I understand it, access to an industrial tribunal for these purposes is dependent upon the individual no longer being employed. Therefore, it follows that in. order for any member of staff to take advantage of this sub-paragraph he must have refused the contract of employment offered and been dismissed before the parity of the offered contract can be tested. What our amendment seeks to do is to try to resolve any disagreements before any resignations or dismissals take place; in other words, ensure that the arbitration can take place before the employment is ended rather than afterwards.

If I am right, as I think I am, about this, it would seem to be sensible to substitute the arbitration machinery which has been used all the way through when agreed with the recognised trade unions, rather than put in the words "industrial tribunal", which have this very specialised meaning, I beg to move.

The Earl of Avon

In order to fulfil the requirements laid upon them by this amendment, the boards, and the other comparable bodies covered by the Bill, would have to negotiate arbitration arrangements separately with each of the trade unions representing staff in the institutions who would be in receipt of an offer of employment. The amendments pre-suppose that each trade union involved will want identical arrangements. If there are not to be at least five separate sets of arbitration arrangements, the boards and their counterparts will also need to co-ordinate their own negotiating points. Not only is the procedure already laid down for both sides; these tribunals have now developed experience in handling civil service references, and can therefore refer back to their own case law. It is also the case that the individual involved in a case referred to an industrial tribunal may have his trade union representative with him at hearings. It is our view that the combination of these factors represents a better safeguard for the member of staff than reliance on local arrangements which could be untested. It is also the case that the boards will be under a duty to offer employment on terms not less favourable to the civil servant than his existing terms. As a result, it is likely that fewer disputes will arise. For the boards to have to spend effort in negotiating an unnecessary arbitration agreement is thus probably doubly wasteful.

I am rather conscious that I have not fully answered some of the points raised by the noble Baroness. If I may, I will read what she has said and write to her on the points that I have not covered.

Baroness Birk

I am grateful for the Minister's reply and for his offer to write to me. I am still not satisfied by what he said. We are still left with the words "industrial tribunal", which are still dependent upon the individual no longer being employed. It seems to me that if one could have some form of arbitration machinery which does not depend on this, it must be an improvement. The fact that the individual can be represented at the industrial tribunal does not alter the fact that he cannot go before the industrial tribunal until he is out of work. It seems rather a wasteful way of doing it. Again, it is a complicated matter. I would not have thought it would necessarily have to be the type of arbitration machinery that exists in some places now.

What we are asking for is a form of machinery which does not automaticaly cut out people until they are unemployed and without a job. I think this situation does need looking at because the people concerned who will be affected feel strongly about it. Either they have misunderstood it, or there is some room for manoeuvre to find the right type of machinery which would do the job, rather than what is in the Bill at the moment. I would be grateful if the Minister would look into it further, and, as promised, write to me about it.

Baroness Seear

Is there no grievance procedure? This seems the ordinary case where there is some grievance about terms and conditions—you go through the grievance procedure. There must be some grievance procedure. You do not go to the industrial tribunal.

The Earl of Avon

My understanding, and I believe I said this in my original answer, is that there are grievance procedures at the moment and it is a very well tried case.

Lord Jenkins of Putney

We are asking the noble Earl—and I think he is going to write to my noble friend about it—to consider the possibility of inserting arbitration machinery which is agreed with the recognised trade unions as a procedure which might precede any reference to an industrial tribunal. I hope that is what the noble Earl is taking on board.

Baroness Birk

I am grateful to my noble friend and also to the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, who also put her finger right on the point of this. I shall be grateful, now that the noble Earl has had the advantage of their contributions, if when he writes he will perhaps copy his reply to both my noble friend and the noble Baroness so that we are all clear about the present position. Perhaps he will also bear in mind—I stress this—that what I understand is being done away with is a form of arbitration machinery and that this other very much more guillotine type of draconic machinery is being used instead. I beg to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

9.10 p.m.

Lord Montagu of Beaulieu moved Amendment No. 24: Page 21, leave out lines 5 and 6, and insert— ("(1) The quorum at meetings of the Boardshall be six or such number as shall represent not less than one third of the members of the Board.").

The noble Lord said: With Amendment No. 24 we move on to the section dealing with proceedings under Schedule 1. Although I feel that it is absolutely right for the board to regulate its own procedure, I believe that Parliament should lay down a quorum which is in line with the British Museum Act 1963, which lays down a quorum of six for a board of trustees, its membership being as many as 25. I feel that we should guard against the possibility of a strong chairman persuading his trustees to have a small quorum and then taking decisions which would then be considered by other trustees as having been rushed through. I cannot understand why in this case trustees are being allowed to set their own quorum. This is totally contrary to the practice in the British Museum. I hope that the amendment will be accepted, at least in principle, by the Government and other amendments will be needed in due course to deal with the Science Museum, the Armouries and the Royal Botanic Gardens. I beg to move.

Lord Strabolgi

I support this amendment. I think it is very important that there should be an adequate number of trustees present when decisions are taken. We find in many aspects and sides of our public life these days—I am not talking specifically of museums—that decisions are often made, as we all know, with a minority of people present. As my noble friend Lord Montagu of Beaulieu says, they have this proviso at the British Museum and I see no reason why they should not now have it at the Victoria and Albert Museum, particularly as there will be no provision put into the Bill, and from what the noble Earl said about non-attendance at meetings. We have had cases where trustees have not been able to attend and, as the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington, said, are often held up for good reasons. It could well be that by a series of accidents there is only a small attendance when important decisions are made. I think, therefore, that if there is not a sufficient attendance the decision should be deferred until there is an adequate quorum, as indeed happens in almost every business and institution that one can think of. Therefore, I warmly support the amendment.

Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge

I cannot quarrel with the amendment but it seems to be taking a very pessimistic view of the quality of the trustees to think that it is necessary.

The Earl of Avon

It is clearly important that decisions should be taken by the board only when a representative number of the trustees is present. I sympathise with the noble Lord's wish to set a minimum size which will constitute the quorum for the boards of the trustee institutions. But the amendment has wider implications than that. By deleting lines 5 and 6 of page 21, it not only redetermines the size of the quorum; it also removes the general power to enable the boards to regulate all other aspects of their procedure. I am sure that that is not my noble friend's intention. The board is enabled by paragraph 6(1) to set its own quorum and the Government believe that this is a matter that should be left for its administrative determination.

I believe there is one other factor we should bear in mind. There could be a good reason to change the quorum at some time and it would clearly be undesirable to need to resort to amending legislation for this purpose. I think this follows one of the earlier amendments; the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington, was rather strong on letting the trustees have their own responsibility to set this particular issue. I hope that my noble friend will reconsider his amendment, and the fact that it deletes more than he wanted it to, in the light of what has been said this evening.

Lord Montagu of Beaulieu

I am somewhat disappointed because I am not aware that the British Museum in the past 20 years has found any problems. But if the amendment has been wrongly drafted in any way I will certainly look at it again. However, in my view it should be Parliament's job to lay down the quorum procedures for trustees. I do not believe that in the end it should be left to the trustees to set them for themselves. That is my main point. I ask the noble Earl to look at the matter again to see whether it has been wrongly drafted and, if so, perhaps we can draft something that will satisfy the Committee, because I believe that I have the support of many noble Lords on both sides on this particular point.

The Earl of Avon

I shall happily consider the matter again.

Lord Montagu of Beaulieu

In view of that, I am happy to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

9.15 p.m.

Lord Montagu of Beaulieu moved Amendment No. 25: Page 21, line 18, at end insert ("and the Chairman of a committee shall be responsible to the Board for the actions of the committee and shall report thereon to the Board.").

The noble Lord said: This is the second amendment on the procedures. I am sure we are very happy to see that committees are going to be set up and that there are going to be trustees on the boards. The only matter which should be underlined here is that full delegated powers are being given to these committees. It is important to write into the Bill that the chairman of the committee should be responsible to the board for the actions of that committee and will report to the board about his actions. At the moment one could have a situation where the committees, with full delegated powers, could take a very independent line and would have no duties to report back other than what the chairman might like to do.

It compares in an interesting way with the heritage commission which is going to have only advisory committees and not fully delegated committees. However, there may be reasons for that. I should like to find out what the Committee feel about this because I believe that the chairmen of these committees which have fully delegated powers must be responsible to the board for the actions of those committees. I beg to move.

Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge

The amendment seems to me to add nothing to normal committee procedure.

The Earl of Avon

We believe that there is nothing in the Bill which prevents the boards laying down these duties in respect of the chairmen of committees. Indeed, such responsibilities are common form and the Government would expect that the boards will wish to follow them. We submit that the amendment, therefore is unnecessary. The boards' power to impose those principles contained in the noble Lord's amendment are contained in paragraph 6(5) of Schedule 1 and we would not wish to see any of the boards' wishes prejudged in this respect; there are likely, for example, to be other procedures which the boards will wish to define in connection with committee meetings and it makes sense for all these related matters to be considered as a whole, rather than piecemeal.

I hope that my noble friend will accept that the boards should have freedom to exercise their responsibilities. Let me just say to my noble friend that some of the amendments that we are discussing at present were tabled towards the end of last week. Although, therefore, I am making a reply which is the Government's response today, I shall, of course, listen with interest to every comment made to make sure that we get the best piece of legislation in the end.

Lord Montagu of Beaulieu

In view of what the noble Earl has just said, I am happy to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Viscount Eccles moved Amendment No. 26: Page 21, line 24, after ("such") insert ("remuneration and").

The noble Viscount said: I beg to move Amendment No. 26. As this Committee stage proceeds it becomes increasingly clear that we must do our best to get the very best possible board of trustees. We are not at all sure how much responsibility they have or how much responsibility the director has; but I think we are sure that the board of trustees must be the body which now exercises that control which was exercised by the department. Therefore, I have put down an amendment that they should be given remuneration if that is thought right.

It is interesting that page 34 of the Bill, at paragraph 11 of Schedule 3, says: The Commission shall pay to members of the Commission such remuneration and such allowances in respect of expenses as the Secretary of State may determine with the Treasury's approval".

All I want to do is to reproduce that for the Victoria and Albert Museum because I am convinced, having had some experience in finding trustees, that we are not all rich amateurs nowadays and that it really is very important to be able to ask to serve as trustees people who may need a small fee for so doing. That is done in several other cases, of which the British Library is an obvious example. Of course, if the board of trustees is to be as powerless and is to meet as infrequently as we have been told by the staff of the Victoria and Albert, then it does not really matter. But as they will have to meet not only once a month for, say, 10 months of the year but will also have important duties on these committees, I hope that the Government will accept this amendment. I beg to move.

Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge

I am in a little difficulty here because I am quite convinced that chairmen should be able to be paid—not necessarily that they should be paid—and I think that any organisation should be able to pay its chairman because any chairman in this sort of organisation would be required to spend at least three half-days a week on his task. On the other hand, on the whole I am opposed to paying trustees. I do not think it is necessary and I believe that you can get better people without having to pay them. Therefore, I do not quite know how I should vote if this amendment goes to a Division, but I have made my position clear and I should like to hear what other people think.

Lord Reigate

I should like to support this amendment, albeit with some reluctance because I think that the day of the intelligent amateur is not yet finished. However, I recognise that if we are to get the type of person we want for these boards, we shall have to pay them. We live in a different age from the age of some of the trustees who were discussed at an earlier stage in our debates. I would only add that as to any money which is paid it should be made known whether it is remuneration or allowances. I suggest that the right vehicle is the annual report, which most of these bodies have to produce. May I say to my noble friend Lord Eccles that I am sufficiently interested in this matter to have looked at the annual report of the British Library Board and I could not find from that what was paid.

Lord Strabolgi

Like the noble Lord, Lord Reigate, I support this amendment; and I should like to say that my noble friend Lady White strongly supports it and is very sorry that she cannot be here tonight to speak on it herself. Following what my noble friend Lord Donaldson said, perhaps we need something between remuneration and straight expenses—something like an honorarium, which I do not think should be excluded and which would widen the scope and the choice. It should also draw in many well-qualified people who might otherwise find it difficult to serve on financial grounds.

Mention was made earlier in this Committee stage of the late Lord Crawford. As the noble Viscount said, he gave great public service over many years as a trustee of various museums. I remember him telling me 25 or 30 years ago that he was then expected to pay his own fare down from Scotland and to pay his own hotel bill or the bill to stay at his club. Trustees did not receive a penny. Then, eventually, with great difficulty, as always, they got the Treasury to meet some of the expenses, and the National Gallery trustees then received expenses.

I believe we must now move further from that and pay something rather more, more on the lines of an honorarium, because I do not see why in this day and age appointments should be restricted to those with private means.

Lord Moyne

Without wishing to take any line on this matter, may I ask, for clarification, whether the trustees of, say, the National Gallery and the British Museum are remunerated? Because if they are not, will it not be rather invidious to pay these trustees and not them?

Lord Craigton

I entirely agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, said. It costs a great deal to be a chairman, and an unpaid chairman has a very difficult time and spends a great deal of his life doing this job. I am of two minds about the rest of the board.

Lord Jenkins of Putney

I also agree with the view that has been expressed, that it is appropriate to pay a remuneration to the chairman; but as regards the rank and file trustee, it seems to me that the basis on which we operate in your Lordships' House—in which there are one or two arduous, paid positions and the rest of us subsist on an expense arrangement—is probably the right one. It is one which is followed here; it is one which is followed at local authority level; and I think that it will probably be the right solution in this case.

The Earl of Perth

I support the general feeling that there should be remuneration not only for the chairman but also for some of the members. We do not have to have an exactly comparable rate of remuneration for one and all. Suppose one of the members is chairman of two or three sub-committees of the board and has to do a great deal of work, as I read it at the present time if it is going to be restricted only to the chairman then you could not give them the reward. The whole of this is permissive, and I hope very much that it will be accepted.

9.25 p.m.

Baroness Birk

I support the amendment. We have to come along with the times and accept that there are a great many people who could make a real contribution in these jobs—and they are jobs; they are not pastimes nowadays—but who are prevented because they cannot afford to undertake this just with expenses. My noble friend said that in this House there are some who get expenses and others who are paid. There are some of us who probably are deserving of a bit more pay than we get, just the expenses. Certainly those on the Front Bench are in the same position for getting expenses whether you are here all day and night or here for half an hour. Therefore, I do not think that that analogy works very well.

These people who feel that they would prefer to give public service and can do it without any financial stress to themselves do not have to pick up the tab at all. They do not have to be paid. If they prefer it that way and feel that this is their contribution, they can make it. There is an opportunity in this Bill to move forward a bit. I know that the noble Viscount has not had much success so far with some of the other ideas he has put forward, but over this it is important that we should go into this field.

So far as the other museums are concerned, it does not seem to me that there would be any difficulty, if this were accepted, in either having an enabling clause or inserting something in the Bill which would then cover the other trustee museums. If noble Lords turn to Schedule 3 at page 34, paragraph 11, they will see: The Commission shall pay to members of the Commission such remuneration and such allowances in respect of expenses as the Secretary of State may determine with the Treasury's approval". It may be argued by the Minister that the commission is rather a different kettle of fish altogether. However, I would also argue that people who are acting as trustees of museums and galleries today and are taking an active part in the sub-committees and in the other work involved, and the attendances, and meeting people, and taking a real interest in what is going on in the museum and gallery, are spending a considerable amount of time doing this. I do not go along with the idea that it should just be the chairman who is paid and not the other trustees. There is obviously a case for saying that you pay the chairman more, as presumably one will on the commission; but they should all be paid, and they should be worth paying.

I am not thinking of any particular cases, so there is nothing personal about this at all, but there is often a temptation perhaps to put somebody on a board when it is felt that he should be given a little job, or something like that, but if the whole thing has a more professional look, which this has, without being completely professional—it still has its element of the amateur because people are not picked after a particular training course, or something like that—then one is doing the right thing. As to examples which I am sure we all know of people who have found it difficult to do the job properly and have found themselves in a certain amount of straits over it, which they should not be, the argument today in 1982—by the time this becomes law it will be 1983—really must be that people who are giving this work ought to be paid for it.

Lord Raglan

For a number of reasons we should not be diffident about paying people—not only the chairman but the trustees—for what they do. I had the good fortune—I suppose one could call it that; to me it was good fortune—of being paid in two posts I took up. In one, I had the honour to serve under the noble Earl, Lord Perth, when he was First Commissioner of the Crown Estates. I got a salary for that and a travelling allowance. I could not have afforded time off from my own affairs had I not received that salary. Whether I was worth my oats I do not know, but certainly the others on the Crown Estate Commission would not have found time, I am sure, to do that job)—I am referring to some very expert people—if they had not been paid. In other words, if one wants the people one needs, that is one way of getting them.

For many years—my term is just coming to an end—I have been chairman of a new town development corporation. I have been paid in that post, as have my members, and I know that at least half the professional members would not have been obtained—estate agents and the like—had they not been paid. New towns throughout the country pay a small retainer and thereby get the people they want. The salary need only be small, though it is significant; it provides some recognition of the value which the organisation (in this case the museum) places on the advice it gets from expert people.

Some people collect trusteeships rather in the way others collect clubs. Some of the trusts I have found myself among from time to time have been extraordinarily difficult to discipline. People do not turn up—a complaint about which the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, was hoping to do something in his earlier amendment. I suggest that if one is in receipt of a salary from an organisation, that imposes a certain obligation to turn up and do the job one has been appointed to. So it works in two ways.

My next point may seem rather abstruse, but I suggest that paying the trustees of the museum will help towards engendering a professional, rather than an amateur, attitude, a point made by my noble friend Lady Birk earlier. That may help bring about that desirable state of affairs which the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, was trying to achieve with his Amendments Nos. 1 and 7. I think he was trying to achieve a more professional attitude on to the board of the museum, not to make it a management committee but to make it a group of professional people who would have an attitude towards their job which would make them take more time and trouble when attending meetings. For all those reasons, I hope the amendment will be accepted.

Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge

I am rather distressed by what I have heard. The suggestion from both the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, and my noble friend on the right is that by paying somebody something, one makes him professional. That is the most awful nonsense. The type of person whom one is to appoint as a trustee will normally be a person of general acquaintance, appreciation and knowledge, and not a tremendous specialist. If he or she is a tremendous specialist and is asked for specialist information, he or she should be paid for it as a professional. But the position of a trustee is not a professional one, and if he is paid £5,000 a year it will not make him a professional.

I think that there is an absolute misunderstanding here. My experience, which is not much different from that of most other noble Lords who have taken part in the debate, is that it is difficult to find people who are good enough to be trustees, but when good trustees are found, they are extremely pleased to be appointed, do the work with enthusiasm, and work extremely hard. The way to deal with those who do not work hard is to have a very short period of appointment and then not reappoint them, which is what every decent chairman and every proper board do. One appoints a person for two years, and if he is no good, one gets him off and appoints someone else. The whole question of money does not come into it.

There is one suggestion which I think would enable us to go down the income scale, which I think is what we all want to do. We do not want to have appointed only the well-off. If there were granted a loss of earnings allowance, as is given by local authorities, it would be possible to go slightly lower down the income scale in attracting people. I wonder whether we can persaude the noble Viscount to withdraw the amendment, and on Report to have two amendments, one on chairmen, and the other on trustees. I think it unfortunate that we should have to vote on two matters, when we all agree on the first matter, but do not all agree on the second one.

Lord Simon of Glaisdale

There is much to be said in favour of the amendment, and it has been powerfully said. I am bound to say that I was persuaded by the speech that we have just heard from the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge. I should like to add the following point for the consideration of your Lordships' Committee. Every time that we write a stipulation such as this into an Act of Parliament, we increase the patronage of the Crown. That has had undersirable effects in the past, and still has potentially undesirable effects.

Lord Raglan

I should like to come back to what my noble friend Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge said about the question of the professional or the amateur. I do not say that it obtains today, but apparently at one time the attitude of, "This is a jolly good party that you are coming to, and you are going to have a glass of sherry afterwards", was rife. The point I was making was that instead of turning up for a meeting every now and again, one should apply oneself regularly to the job.

The Earl of Avon

I think I heard the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, say that he does not like the sherry. During the Second Reading debate my noble friend Lord Eccles suggested that remuneration was essential to attract the right people. I agree that it is essential to get the right people, and any board, whether it be of unpaid trustees or salaried executives, fails if it lacks the necessary skills and does not perform adequately. However, I do not believe that remuneration is the key to attract the right people. The existing trustee museums and galleries are run excellently—this answers my noble friend's point—and the Government have found no difficulty in finding willing people, with the right skills and experience, to serve as trustees. That leads us to believe that remuneration is not an essential inducement.

My noble friend's amendment is addressed to all the four trustee institutions covered by the Bill, but he has raised an issue which goes wider, because if there is a case to consider the remuneration at some trustee institutions, the case may apply equally to the others. This also raises public expenditure considerations both in relation to the Bill, which as drafted would have no significant effect on public expenditure, and in the wider context. The Government would be prepared to consider remuneration as a general policy, but for the purposes of this Bill they find it difficult to accept the amendment as drafted.

We have had a very interesting discussion ranging from chairmen to a honorarium, from permissiveness to the point about a trustee drawing a salary if he does not turn up. Perhaps in that regard my noble friend was thinking of remunerating a trustee only if he does turn up, but maybe I am wrong. The noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, made an interesting point about a trustee charging if he gives his advice as a professional. I sit on a trust on which there is a lawyer, and if he charged us whenever he said, "Yes" or "No", we should be in great trouble. I feel that this needs a little more looking at. I should like to take this back and consider it without prejudice having listened to all the speeches tonight; and I shall take to my right honourable friend the tone of your Lordships' debate.

Viscount Eccles

I cannot see why we must have the same for every trustee institution. I quoted the fact that in this very Bill the commission has this power to pay such remuneration as the Secretary of State agrees to. I can only say that I have watched the way in which trustees were looked for for the British Museum, also for the British Library and, of course, for a long time for the Victoria and Albert when I was for many years the Minister responsible. I wish that we could have gone a bit wider. I have particularly in mind the education services. One wants to have headmasters or headmistresses who really have had a knowledge of how visiting exhibitions and that sort of thing can help in the teaching of art in their schools. Those sort of people need some remuneration.

I find myself in some difficulty because I do not think I have had an assurance from the noble Earl that he will put in "remuneration" if I withdraw my amendment. I cannot see anything wrong with it. It is perfectly simple and it is on the lines of paragraph 11 of the schedule. What exactly will the noble Earl give me by way of an assurance that "remuneration" will be put in at the Report stage? Otherwise we shall have to discuss the whole thing over again.

The Earl of Avon

I can give no assurance that I can put in that actual word at Report stage. If the noble Viscount wishes to press his amendment then he must. We have had a discussion which, for instance, took in the word "honorarium". We have also had a discussion about chairmen and other members, and we have also had the word "salary" coming up. We have also had from the noble Earl, Lord Perth, the word "permissiveness" and I would like to ensure that this will enable people either to be paid or not to be paid. These are the sort of things that I should like to look at. If the noble Lord wishes to press the point, he can.

Viscount Eceles

I do not wish to divide the Committee but give notice that I will divide on Report if the noble Earl does not put forward an amendment which covers this point. Having given that assurance to your Lordships, I will withdraw the amendment on this occasion.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 2 [The Board's general functions]:

The Earl of Perth had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 27: Page 1, line 11, at end insert ("lay down policy to")

The noble Earl said: I do not intend to move this amendment but I should like to make one point. This amendment and the earlier one were in relation to the Victoria and Albert Museum. I did not put down similar amendments concerning the Science Museum, but I hope and believe that the noble Earl, when he considers these amendments in relation to the Vand A, will also accept that they are to cover the Science Museum. I see that the noble Earl nods, and I take that as an assurance.

[Amendment No. 27 not moved.]

Lord Jenkins of Putney moved Amendment No. 28: Page 1, line 12, after ("objects") insert (". including books.")

The noble Lord said: I beg to move the amendment standing in my name and in that of my noble friend Lord Strabolgi. I think that noble Lords might reasonably ask: Why include books specifically? Are not books objects? They are objects in one sense of the word, but they are not objects in the normal course of events in the sense of objects displayed by museums. There are some books of a precious and historical character which are objects in that sense as well, and are on diplay as much as any other objects. There are also in many museums, most certainly in the Victoria and Albert Museum, a core of objects of great value which are not objects in the common parlance of museums.

Therefore, it seemed to us that it would be desirable to spell out specifically that the duties of the board would be to, care for, preserve and add not only to "the objects" in the ordinary sense of the word but also to the books which are frequently (and certainly in the case of the V and A) the core of their collection. I think I need say no more except to expect confidently that the noble Earl will take the point and accept the amendment. I beg to move.

Lord Strabolgi

I should like to support this amendment, to which I have given my name. The Victoria and Albert Museum has of course a very fine collection of books, as my noble friend has said. It has the finest art reference library in the whole world; it has several collections which were bequeathed to it; and it has the most important holding of Dickens' manuscripts anywhere in the world, as I said earlier. As well as that, it has an excellent collection of fine bindings and also a series of some of the most splendid illustrated books of this century which are works of art in their own right. The museum also has a separate department devoted to the art of the book and to book illustration, which of course is complementary to the work which is taught at the Royal College of Art. I consider, therefore, and I submit to the Committee, that books are such an important part of the Victoria and Albert Museum's holding that these should be especially defined in Clause 2 of the Bill.

The Earl of Avon

The tricky point about putting down such an amendment is that I am informed that if we use "objects" in this sense and then say that they include books then of course at any other time we use the word "objects" in the Bill it will not include books. That in one of the trials and tribulations.

I appreciate the noble Lords' concern to ensure that the boards' obligations in respect of their respective outstanding libraries should not be overlooked. The Government have taken these into account in drafting the Bill. It is intended that those books having intrinsic value should be caught by the provisions in the Bill relating to objects in the collections; whereas, those having importance as sources of public reference and placed on the open shelves of the libraries should be subject to the provisions relating to the objects in use for the purposes of the collections or for the general administration of the museum and its functions. These are caught up in Clause 3(1)(a) and (b).

It is in the nature of books that with the passage of time they may acquire an intrinsic value that requires the trustee to treat them like the objects in the collections and no longer for everyday use. Such an eventuality would be a matter for professional evaluation by the staff, and the Government are satisfied that the provisions of the Bill will enable the trustees to care properly for the libraries both now and in the future.

I have listened carefully to what noble Lords have said. I should add that we do not think that this amendment would have very much effect, since the Bill has been drafted with the intention that where books have an intrinsic value they should be subsumed under the provisions relating to objects in collections.

Lord Jenkins of Putney

I take very much what the noble Earl has said. Particularly in relation to the Victoria and Albert Museum it seems to me that there is a very special need to be specific on this point. Therefore, with the agreement of my noble friend I shall not press this particular amendment, but I should like to give notice that I shall discuss this matter with others with a view to perhaps including an amendment to Clause 3, making that clause more specific.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

9.48 p.m.

Lord Montagu of Beaulieu moved Amendment No. 29: Page 2, leave out line 4.

The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 29, I should also like to speak to Amendments Nos. 31,52 and 54. The intention in moving the addition of this provision to the general functions of the boards of trustees of the Victoria and Albert Museum and the Science Museum is to ensure that their historic responsibilities for pastoral care are retained. The wording of the amendment has been taken from Recommendation 1 of the report by Mr. Burrett for the Rayner Scrutiny, where he states in paragraph 24(iii): The Government should take the opportunity of including in the aims any specific requirement it thinks right to lay upon each museum in order to satisfy the national interest in its ctivities. For example"— and then it goes on to quite a range of these, ending with, and any provincial obligations".

Mr. Burrett continued by stating that the aims must not be so restrictively or so precisely drafted as to hamper initiative. Thus, the wording of this amendment allows the boards to interpret their obligations in a very flexible manner.

I cannot stress too strongly the importance of the traditional relationship between these two great museums and museums and educational institutions outside London. I know the museum directors and staff outside London are very anxious for the link to be maintained. In recent years there has been a rift growing between the provincial and national museums. It is most important to close this gap. Therefore, in order to lay down clearly the pastoral responsibilities of these museums, I beg to move this amendment.

Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge

I should be happy to support this amendment, particularly in relation to the provincial interests.

Viscount Eccles

I should also like to support this amendment. When we were drafting the British Library Bill I put in, I think it was, Clause 2(1)(b) rather against the wishes of some of my advisers. That gave the British Library the power to give financial assistance to other libraries; and that has been invaluable. In the first place, if you have that in the Bill, or if you have some such amendment as my noble friend is moving, it means that the Treasury has to give you some money because there is then a statutory duty which has been laid on the museum in the Bill. That is very important. Secondly, it greatly increases the prestige of the central museum when it is known to have some special resources with which to come to the help of provincial museums, and share its expertise.

I used to think that a museum of this kind could well model itself on a teaching hospital. That is the place where the most expert doctors are, where the best equipment is and where the most research is carried on. That hospital has relations of extreme importance with smaller hospitals all round. That is a duty that a museum like the Victoria and Albert should assume.

Lord Simon of Glaisdale

I, too, should like to support this amendment. At one time there was a specific grant to the Victoria and Albert Museum to be administered for the benefit of the provincial museums. I think it was originally called "Peter's Pence"—from the official who had the duty of administering the fund. Could the noble Earl tell us what is the present position, and whether any policy has been formed as to that particular deployment of funds? Unless it is written in, as it seems to be by the noble Lord's amendment, it is a matter that might pass into history and, for the reasons given by the noble Viscount just now, that would be deplorable in every way.

Baroness Birk

We support very strongly the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Montagu. I think there is little to add to what has already been said. The point made by the noble Viscount is very important; namely, that if you have it in the statute the chances are—I have not got as much faith as he has in the Treasury, although I do not know how much faith he still has in getting money from the Treasury—that at least you have a weapon in your hand; you have something in the statute book; it is there. There may be an assurance given to us in this Committee Chamber that it will be all right, and that may appear in Hansard; but it is not in the Bill and, therefore, it does not get into the legislative machinery and have any real impact afterwards.

The Earl of Avon

I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Montagu for explaining this amendment, as I must confess that we were in some doubt. The Bill charges the boards of the museums with the promotion of the public's enjoyment and knowledge in their respective fields. They are, therefore, expected not only to satisfy the public's interest in their activities, but to expand their knowledge at the same time. For instance, they are required to publish reports of their activities and the provisions are contained in paragraph 10 of Schedule 1.

My noble friend made reference to provincial obligations and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, also mentioned them. The various out-stations of the two museums are embraced by the provisions of the Bill. The Government are at present considering whether it is necessary to make specific references in the Bill to the local purchase grant schemes; and I know that my noble friend has other amendments down on this subject. If we find that it is necessary, we will indeed submit our own amendment at a later stage. The Bill enables the trustees to consider a wide range of activities of regional and provincial relevance, and we should prefer not to lengthen it unduly. As I said in my opening remarks, the precise meaning of my noble friend's amendment was not clear to us at the beginning. If now, after studying what he has said, we could have a discussion and try to get words for my own department to agree, I shall be grateful to him for that consideration.

Lord Montagu of Beaulieu

Most certainly. But my noble friend has just said that the Bill lays down regional and provincial responsibilities, and I cannot see where that is in the Bill. My noble friend has undertaken to discuss this matter and perhaps we can get something satisfactory in the Bill. But I feel that here again is strong support in the Committee, and the provincial responsibilities of the two museums must be written in, because this has been a very long tradition going back well over 100 years. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Viscount Eccles moved Amendment No. 30: Page 2, line 6, after ("art") insert (", the crafts").

The noble Viscount said: As your Lordships know, the V and A grew out of the 1851 Exhibition, for which the Prince Consort was largely responsible, and his great idea was to show the world that Britain could design and make an unprecedented range of things. Most of the exhibits in that Crystal Palace were, I suspect, things which we should call craft work today. The museum has developed as the only national centre for the collection of the crafts that we have, and there is no stronger supporter of the crafts than the present director, Sir Roy Strong.

A very large proportion of the objects in the V and A began life as crafts, even though they may now be called works of art. That does not make any difference. For example, the museum has recently given us a wonderful retrospective show of the work of our most famous potter, Lucy Rie, and, if any of your Lordships are still looking for Christmas presents, you cannot do better than go to the crafts shop at the V and A, which is very well managed in a very' small space by Tatjana Marsden. I am sure that you will come away with something very good. Therefore, not to put in "the crafts" between "art" and "design" would be a mistake, and would be overlooking the great tradition of this museum as a collection of handwork of all sorts and kinds. I beg to move.

Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge

I am very happy to support this amendment.

Lord Strabolgi

I, too, should like to support this amendment. Although it has always been taken that art and design include the crafts, I am sure, as the noble Viscount said, that there is a special case for including "the crafts" in this Bill in the place where he suggests. I should like to pay a special tribute to the noble Viscount for the work that he did to encourage the crafts when he was Minister for the Arts. I know of the great interest which he continues to take in them. They are a very important part of the work of the Victoria and Albert Museum and, as I said before during our discussions, they are connected closely with the craft work which the Royal College of Art is doing. It was very much a part of Prince Albert's conception, as the noble Viscount has said, and I warmly support the amendment.

The Earl of Avon

I appreciate my noble friend's concern to ensure that the scope of the board's remit is not drawn in such a narrow way as to preclude its duty to promote the public's enjoyment of the crafts. As my noble friend will know, the term "art" is construed in its broadest sense to include the "practical application of any science, industrial pursuit, or craft". This is a very wide definition and should enable the board to continue to undertake all the functions currently performed in relation to crafts as well as those more narrowly construed under "art and design". Nevertheless, the Government are prepared to take on board what my noble friend has suggested.

Viscount Eccles

I thank my noble friend for his reply. This is the first time for many a year that I have been lucky.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendment No. 31 not moved.]

10.2 p.m.

Lord Strabolgi moved Amendment No. 32: Page 2, line 17, leave out from ("things") to ("as")

The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 32, which is to exclude the words: "including requiring payment for admission". Your Lordships will probably be relieved to know that I do not intend (as I am sure my noble friend does not) to press this amendment, it is a probing amendment only. But we are rather concerned, in view of the Rayner recommendation that there should be charges for admission amounting to £ 1.50 per head. I understand that these words were put in the Bill at the request of the Treasury. Therefore I should like to ask the noble Earl for an asssurance that the boards of the museums will not be subjected to financial pressure, whether direct or indirect, to impose charges for general admission to the museums whenever they put in for an extra grant or something of that kind. I hope in particular that there will not have to be charges for entry to the Library. Would the noble Earl describe what is the Government's present policy towards these charges?

The Earl of Avon

The wording of the Bill as published is intended to put beyond doubt that the trustees of the Victoria and Albert and Science Museums may charge for admission to the collections, should they so decide. It does not require them to charge. It is not, and I should like to stress this point, an indication that the Government intend to impose a charging policy on these or any other national museums or galleries. Indeed, we consider that decisions on charging are primarily matters for the new trustees, and I should like to take this opportunity of reassuring the Committee that we have no intention of imposing a decision upon them.

Existing trustee museums and galleries already have the power to require payment for admission. The Bill, therefore, does no more than place the Victoria and Albert and Science Museums on an equal footing in this respect. Both these museums already charge for admission to some outstations and special exhibitions and it is right that they should be able to continue to do so, should they so wish. No doubt they will consult the Government of the day before making any radical changes in practice. In the light of these reassurances, I hope that the noble Lord will feel satisfied.

Lord Jenkins of Putney

May I express my appreciation of the assurance which the noble Earl has given. He will understand our anxiety when one considers that it was the policy of a previous Government to require museums to charge and that legislation was carried in order to remove any impediments which made it difficult for them to do so. therefore it is a little worrying that we are putting in a specific requirement that the museums may charge if they so wish. Nevertheless, it does seem to me that the noble Earl has gone as far as he can in this matter. Unless my noble friend disagrees, it is not my intention to press the amendment, having regard to the assurances which the noble Earl has given us in unequivocal terms.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Montagu of Beaulieu moved Amendment No. 33: Page 2, leave out line 24.

The noble Lord said: This amendment is similar in many ways to that to which I spoke a few moments ago and covers also Amendments Nos. 34, 55 and 56. It is intended to give the trustee boards the specific powers to fulfil their provincial and pastoral obligations. I have taken as a pattern for the amendment very closely the wording of a clause of the Northern Ireland Museums Order 1980, which gave the trustees of the Ulster Museum powers to provide assistance to related bodies. In his summing up on Second Reading, my noble friend Lord Avon referred to the difficulty which the Government were experiencing in reaching a decision on whether or not funds to assist provincial museums and art galleries with the purchase of objects which are at present administered, for art material, by the V and A, and for scientific specimens by the Science Museum, should become the responsibility of the museums and galleries or should stay with the existing museums. Whether or not it has been decided which way to go, it is important that advice on the selection of such purchases should still be available from the two museums.

This curators' advice is very much appreciated by provincial museums. This point has been stressed by them quite recently at a meeting, when the importance of maintaining this vital link with the experts form the national institutions was emphasised. Equally, there is the programme of circulating exhibitions previously organised by the Department of Visual Services at the V and A and, sadly, closed down in 1978; and a smaller commitment by the Science Museum in this field. I believe that all this will be covered by the clause as well as any other assistance which the boards may consider necessary to fulfil their national and provincial interests, which we were discussing a moment ago. I beg to move.

The Earl of Avon

Once again I am grateful to my noble friend for his explanation of what he has in mind. At present the two museums administer schemes to assist local museums and art galleries with the purchase of objects for their collections. These schemes are financed from allocations approved by Parliament and included in the museums' annual votes. As my noble friend reminded us, the Government are at present considering how to go along with these schemes and in particular what sort of reference is to be made about them in this Bill. We expect to submit our amendment at a later stage, and perhaps I may ask my noble friend to take this amendment together with the last one so that we may consider them together to see what we should put into the Bill.

Lord Simon of Glaisdale

As the noble Earl is considering this matter, may I refer him to one particular small exhibition. It is an exhibition of the history of legal costume at the Royal Courts of Justice. I apologise for not giving notice of this to the noble Earl. This exhibition was financed entirely from private sources—mainly legal sources. The show cases were designed by Michael Brawne, who has worked on a number of exhibitions at the Victoria and Albert Museum. It was most skilfully designed to fit in with Street's magnificent architecture. Opposite this exhibition is another of legal topography, which is formed from exhibits belonging to the Department of the Environment. The exhibition of legal costume has been produced by working very closely with the Victoria and Albert Museum—particularly the costume department—who have a representative as one of the trustees. When the noble Earl is looking at bodies having objects which are objects of the board, will he specifically consider that exhibition?

There is only one thing which, in honesty, I think I ought to add. When it was formed I promised my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor that it would not involve any charge on public funds. But subject to that, I would be very grateful if it could come under the noble Earl's umbrella.

Lord Earl of Avon

I shall be happy to look into it for the noble and learned Lord.

Lord Montagu of Beaulieu

In view of the assurance that the noble Earl had given on this particular matter, I am very pleased to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 34 not moved.]

10.11 p.m.

Lord Reigate moved Amendment No. 35: Page 2, line 25, at end insert— ("( ) Any moneys received as payment for admission shall be paid into a separate account to be known as the Acquisition Fund. Payments may only be made out of this Fund for the purpose of adding objects to the collections, unless the Secretary of State authorises otherwise.")

The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 35 and at the same time speak to Amendment No. 58, which applies to the Science Museum. I think the wording of the amendment is perfectly straightforward. I feel that if you are going to have admission charges, it would reconcile the opponents of museum charges to the decision, if it was known that the monies received were to be placed in the hands of the trustees as part of an acquisition fund. I think this would have taken a great deal of the sting out of the disputes which arose ten years ago when there were admission charges. When you think that admission charges were made by the V and A for admission to Apsley House, who would have minded if they had known that anything they paid was going towards enriching the museum that was putting on the exhibition? I beg to move.

Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge

I am happy to support this amendment. I would prefer it to be less specific; I do not think it is necessary for the money to go to the purchase fund, though I think that is quite desirable. I think it would be better if the funds could simply be kept away from the Treasury; that is what we all want. We want to be sure that the following year, the Treasury does not reduce the grant in relation to the money taken. I would prefer to see the money given to the museum for its own use. Subject to that, I am very happy to support the amendment.

Lord Cottesloe

I should like to support this amendment very warmly. I think it is absolutely right. Indeed, if the proposal by my noble friend Lord Eccles to introduce museum charges had included some provision of this sort, I think it might have met a better fate.

Lord Davies of Leek

There is one small aspect that has not been thought of in this amendment. While I may not agree about payment for admission, if film companies, theatres and others want patterns of dress, patterns of artefacts or old tools used in the provinces, and money is paid to the museum for the photographs or accounts of those things, what would happen to that money? We want that money to go direct to the museum. Perhaps the Minister could answer that small question in passing, although there is no amendment down.

Viscount Eccles

I would like to ask one question. The amendment refers to, Any moneys received as payment for admission". Does that cover special exhibitions? It must, I think. That would be very serious, because of the moneys received for special exhibitions a large proportion, if not the whole, is spent on insurance and packing, and that sort of thing. I do not quite see how this would work. Perhaps I have not appreciated what my noble friend wants to do.

Lord Strabolgi

I, too, should like to support this amendment, which I think attractive and which, as the noble Lord, Lord Reigate, said, would do a good deal to reconcile the opponents of charges, of which I was one, during the time of the 1970 Government. The trouble with this has always been that the Treasury would never agree to what I think is called hypothecating, which is a hideous word. The money always has to go into a general pool. If the noble Earl's Government could arrange for the money to be diverted to the museum itself, I think they will have done a very good job towards financing the museum.

Lord Montagu of Beaulieu

My only quarrel with the amendment is that it is too restricting. I do not see why moneys should be kept just for acquisitions. I refer the noble Lord to Amendment No. 39, which is to be moved soon and which gives a much wider interpretation. I hope that the Committee will look at that before restricting moneys for admission and other such activities only to acquisitions.

Lord Simon of Glaisdale

I too should like to support the amendment. I do not consider that it amounts to a hypothecation of revenue, which is for a number of reasons objectionable; in other words, the doctrine that all funds which are receivable by central Government should go into the Consolidated Fund and be paid out on objects in the priorities determined by Parliament. This seems to me no more hypothecation of revenue than Kew charging for admission to the botanical gardens, which has happened for many years. For a long time, that was one of the only two institutions where one got in for a penny. It is now 10p and very much worth it. So far as I know, the Treasury has never made any sustainable claim that is objectionable or is an affront to the Consolidated Fund.

Lord Reigate

May I make one or two comments? In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, and also to the noble Lord, Lord Montagu of Beaulieu, I included at the end of the amendment the words, unless the Secretay of Stale authorises otherwise. I thought that this would be the safeguard, if for some reason there was money which was not to be spent on acquisitions. I still believe that "Acquisition" should be the title of the fund and the purpose of raising the money. That is the important part. In answer to my noble friend Lord Eccles, I do not think that I can have got an answer, if the truth be told, because, after all, the Victoria and Albert now charges for special exhibitions, and yet in the Bill, we are giving it the power, if necessary, to charge for admission. I think that my noble friend and I must sort it out together.

The Earl of Avon

I sympathise with the concern of my noble friend to ensure that moneys accruing to the museums, in the event of the boards' decision to change for admission, should be used for their benefit and should not be clawed back by the Treasury.

The Bill provides for the boards of the V and A and Science Museums to be accorded vote status. This places them on an equal footing with the remaining trustee museums and galleries but carries with it a duty to conform to Government accounting procedures. Under these, the establishment of cumulative funds is precluded. Arrangements exist in the other institutions for purchase funds to be made available separately on a grant-in-aid basis, and the unspent balances may carry forward at the end of the financial year. It is the Government's intention that these arrangements should be made available to the boards of trustees of the V and A and Science Museums.

As drafted, the proposal would constrain the board to spend all income earned from admission charges on acquiring new objects. This would prevent them using any of it to meet, for instance, the expenses of mounting new exhibitions, acquiring related items such as display facilities, producing related educational material or bringing forward other long-term but essential conservation tasks. These matters are not part of the continuous running costs of the museums. Outlay in these directions could not, therefore, be regarded as pouring resources into the black hole of general expenditure. The Bill aims to give independence to these two institutions. If accepted, the amendment would result in the boards having to seek agreement to decisions which we believe should properly fall within their competence.

My noble friend's amendment a would appear to offer the museums little advantage over these arrange- ments because it would tie them to using the proceeds of charging only for acquisitions. The museums may never make a general charge for admission but they already charge, as we have heard, for special exhibitions. It cannot be right that income should be restricted, as my noble friend suggests, when there are so many equally important activities in the museums to be funded.

The Government operate their accounting principles flexibly in the case of the museums. The noble Lord's amendment would hardly fit with this arrangement. I ho pe that in view of my explanation he, too, will feel that it would not work in point of fact to the best interests of the museums.

Lord Reigate

; I cannot say that I am entirely convinced by what my noble friend has said, but I will read his comments and see what conclusions I draw from them. In the meanwhile, I beg leave to awithdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

On Question, Whether Clause 2, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?

10.20 p.m.

Lord Simon of Glaisdale

I have one question to ask of the noble Earl of which I gave him notice and it relates to subsection (6), which seems to cover a great deal of the same ground as Clause 6(3) and is in strikingly different terms. There are a number of other subsections later in the Bill where the same curious dichotomy arises. The clause in the National Gallery Act relating to objects which were given on trust is in yet different terms again. The disposal of objects which are given on trust is highly emotive, and I venture to submit to your Lordships that it is most undesirable that there should be a difference in terminology in the various clauses of the Bill unless there is some very good reason for it.

Lord Strabolgi

I do not know whether the noble Earl would wish to reply first to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale? I also have a point with regard to Clause 2 before we leave it. I should like to take this opportunity to ask the Government what their policy is regarding the outstations. Aspley House is covered by the next clause—Clause 3(6)—but Ham House and Osterley are presumably relative to Clause 2(4). I understand that the contents of these houses which came, of course, as the Committee knows, from the Dysart and Jersey families respectively, are at present the property of the Victoria and Albert Museum.

The Secretary of State for the Environment holds the two buildings on a peppercorn rent. Presumably the trustees, in whom the chattels will be vested, will come to an agreement with the Environment Secretary for their exhibition in the respective houses. Will the Government confirm this, and also that they do not propose to follow the Rayner recommendations? Rayner recommended that the aim should be to make these two historic houses self-supporting. If Osterley and Ham cannot be made self-supporting, then Rayner considered that the V and A should disengage themselves from all responsibility. What a horrifying proposal! But these houses are very much a part of the main museum. They are used, of course, for displaying the furniture and it is a very attractive way in which to show furniture. To close down any of them would be as unthinkable as closing down a department at South Kensington. I hope, therefore, that the Government will give the Committee some idea of their policy as at least two departments are involved and they have not yet given any decision about those sections of the Rayner Report.

The Earl of Avon

First, I should like to answer the noble Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. If I understood his query aright, he was concerned about the difference between Clause 2(6) and Clause 6(3). So far as I understand, one refers to disposals and the other to loans. Therefore, they are different subjects. But I should like to read what he has said and make sure that I am correct.

As regards Ham and Osterley, it is indeed the intention that they should go to the trustees and be maintained in the same spirit as they have been before. The Office of Arts and Libraries is still considering the remaining Rayner recommendations which have not yet been the subject of announced decisions, and the Minister for the Arts hopes to make a further announcement as soon as possible. I hope that reassurance will help the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi.

Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 3 and 4 agreed to.

Clause 5 [Acquisition and disposal of objects]:

[Amendment No. 36 not moved.]

Baroness Airey of Abingdon moved Amendment No. 37: Page 4, line 25, at end insert— ("( ) Where any object has become vested in the Board by virtue of a gift or bequest, the Board shall, if reasonably practicable, consult with a donor or with the personal representatives or trustees of the donor before exercising the powers of this section; ( ) Where financial assistance has been obtained from an outside source towards the purchase of an object, the Board shall, if reasonably practicable, consult with the grant-giving body or person before exercising the powers of this section.")

The noble Baroness said: I beg to move Amendment No. 37 and at the same time speak to Amendment No. 38. As a trustee of the National Heritage Memorial Fund, I feel considerable apprehension that the board, albeit subject to Section 2(6), may sell, exchange or give away—and I would emphasise give away—any object the property of which is vested in it. The National Heritage Fund is a memorial fund which is in memory of those who gave their lives for the United Kingdom. I feel rather disturbed that something which has been helped by this fund and is in one of the museums mentioned should be sold or given away. I know that they have to consult the fund concerned, but even so this object was given in memory of someone who gave their life for this country. I beg to move.

Lord Montagu of Beaulieu

In supporting the noble Baroness, Lady Airey, in this amendment, I should report that there is considerable concern in the museum world over Clause 5(3) in dealing with the disposal of collections, which they feel is perhaps a little too open-ended, although it is recognised that the wording, in fact, follows that in the British Museum Act 1963. However, I think that considerable anxiety has been generated by certain recommendations in Mr. Burrett's Report for the Rayner Scrutiny, urging museums to live dangerously and to take risks in disposing of material.

There may well be a misunderstanding between the layman and professional curator over the term "duplicate".

It says: I think the layman may consider this refers to all duplicative specimens, whereas the curator may consider this material vital for comparative study and research". Of course, it may also be true that objects which no longer fill the criteria of national museums would be of prime value for other non-national institutions.

At present the Bill, in Clause 5(4), provides for the transfer of material to any other national institution, but the present amendment would extend this and make available, by sale, exchange or gift, materials which the museum may wish to dispose of to other institutions. I think that the best definition of this is given in Schedule 12 to the Finance Act 1975 dealing with public collections eligible for capital exemptions. Therefore, I hope that this amendment will receive favourable consideration by the Government.

Lord Simon of Glaisdale

Am I right in understanding that at present loans may be made to the bodies in the schedule to the National Gallery and Tate Gallery Act 1954? I wonder whether the noble Earl can tell us—and I apologise for not having given notice of this—whether by statutory instrument the list of institutions in that schedule has been increased? In any case, it certainly seems that those in paragraph 12 of Schedule 6 to the Finance Act 1975, which is mentioned in Amendment 38, are far wider.

In Yorkshire, for example, there is a building of the National Trust, Beningbrough Hall, and that has been lent a number of fine portraits by the National Portrait Gallery. The National Trust is one of the bodies that is listed in Schedule 6 to the 1975 Act. There are a number of other similar bodies, and it seems to me that some amendment on the lines of that of the noble Baroness might be considered desirable in this Bill.

10.31 p.m.

The Earl of Avon

May I speak to Amendment 37 first. The Government appreciate the anxieties underlying these amendments and the desire to ensure that objects are not disposed of without due regard to the intentions or wishes of the donors. May I reassure the Committee that where trusts or conditions are attached to objects, the Bill requires the trustees not to sell, exchange or give away the object in a manner contrary to these trusts or conditions. That provision in respect of the Victoria and Albert Museum, to which this amendment relates, is found in Clause 2(6). Similar provisions have been included in those parts of the Bill relating to the Science Museum, the Armouries and the Royal Botanic Gardens.

Potential donors or benefactors who may intend to give objects or money to the museum may rest assured that any conditions they stipulated will be respected. The only circumstance where the Bill enables the trustees to override conditions is where an object has degenerated into decay or disrepair beyond restoration. It would not be right to require the museum trustees to verify decisions to otherwise dispose of objects where they were given or financed by others without condition. It would be reasonable to contend that in such cases the donor or benefactor had waived any right or interest in the object. To place the museum trustees under such an obligation as proposed by the noble Baroness and the noble Lord would be to treat them in a manner contrary to usual practice and may present enormous problems where the objects have been in the possession of the museum for some time.

May I now turn to Amendment 38. The institutions listed in paragraph 12 of Schedule 6 to the Finance Act 1975 are all distinguished bodies having interests in the matters relating to the heritage, to education or to government. Many are therefore bodies likely to be interested in any subject the museum proposed to dispose of. However, Clause 5(3) of the Bill, to which the amendment refers, does not attempt to prescribe those organisations or individuals to whom the V and A board may dispose of unwanted objects from their collections. Nor does the Bill confine trustees to give particular regard to certain interested outside bodies. The Bill specifies the conditions to be satisfied before an object may be disposed of and this is considered as far as the Bill should go.

There is nothing in the Bill to prevent the board of the V and A from disposing of an object to one of the organisations listed in the 1975 Act. If I may answer the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, we are working on Schedule 6 to the Finance Act 1975 and not on the earlier legislation he mentioned. There are, of course, some 14 institutions and libraries listed there.

Lord Simon of Glaisdale

May I interrupt the noble Earl? Is it not a possible snag that it is the earlier legislation which is mentioned in subsection (4)? In other words, the National Gallery Act 1954. Is there not then every advantage, instead of that restricted list, in having the wider list to which the noble Earl has referred in the 1975 Act, which includes such bodies as the National Trust or university museums?

The Earl of Avon

I take the noble and learned Lord's point, and I should like to look into the matter for him. As for the amendment, I have been interested in what has been said on both sides, and perhaps we may read those remarks and see where we can go from there.

Lord Raglan

I appreciate what the Minister has said, but, in turn, he will appreciate the anxiety that has been expressed over subsection (3), to which my noble friend Lord Strabolgi has not moved an amendment. The Minister referred us to Clause 2(6), which, one supposes, covers a certain unhappy eventuality. My family was touched (if that is the right word to use) by an accident of a very tragic kind. My great grandfather gave—lent rather than gave—to the then United Services Institution a collection of military souvenirs, including the cloak worn by the Duke of Wellington at Waterloo.

Sometime during the last war somebody let the moth get into the cloak and the then curator (whoever it was we did not discover; apparently there were several curators and there were several people disclaiming responsibility at that time) took one look at the cloak and disposed of it. That was a great shame because, in my view, the Duke of Wellington's cloak, with or without moths, would have been an object of considerable interest. It was a loan, and he should have checked up and discovered that it was a loan. He thought it was a gift and that it came under the kind of provision in Clause 5(3), and he disposed of it. That is voicing one anxiety following a personal acquaintance with a great sadness my family had, and I hope the Minister will take that sort of case into account when looking at the whole matter again.

Baroness Airey of Abingdon

The noble Lord, Lord Raglan, has emphasised the very point I was about to make. There have been a number of instances recently of loans to museums—I was interested to hear Lord Raglan's comments about there having been some uncertainty as to whether it was a loan or a gift—where, because people have been in great difficulty (perhaps needing to repair their houses or meet such an expense) they have felt they must sell those objects. In several cases of that sort the National Heritage Memorial Fund has come in to help and has bought the objects for the museums. Did my noble friend say he would think about the matter again?

The Earl of Avon

I should appreciated an opportunity to read what has been said to see if we can move anywhere towards it.

Baroness Airey of Abingdon

In that case, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 38 not moved.]

On Question, Whether Clause 5 shall stand part of the Bill?

Viscount Eccles

I have a short question to ask about subsection (3), which says that the board may "sell, exchange or give away". I do not think that question of "exchange" is properly dealt with in the Bill. The antiques market is drying up. Not only are certain objects very difficult to acquire, but when they come forward the prices are astronomic. That means that in the future national museums, if they wish to complete certain blocks of material, will be able to do so only by exchange.

I shall give your Lordships' Committee two brief examples. In the British Museum we had a marvellous ivory casket of which we had three sides, but not the fourth side. The fourth side belonged to the Bargello, in Florence. We gave it a Medici cup, and we got the fourth side to our casket. There was marvellous satisfaction on both sides. Then, if you go down into the cellars of the British museum you will find 1,500, or thereabouts, New Zealand assagais. We cannot show more than a certain number of assagais, but our ancestors removed all the assagais from very many villages in New Zealand. Is it not possible that there are museums in New Zealand—in fact, I know that there are—that would like some of these assagais? Could we not exchange them for pottery, or something else?

The V and A has exactly this kind of position. It has porcelain collections from which may be lacking one or two figures. Is it not able to exchange and acquire something that will complete a set? I am not sure whether the V and A has stamps. We have a huge stamp collection at the British Museum, and as little boys we all swapped stamps. Why do we not let the museum swap stamps now?

Lord Simon of Glaisdale

The noble Earl was good enough to say that he would again look into the trust provisions in the Bill. I should like to draw his particular attention to subsection (6) of the clause, which is in very drastic terms. It extends to the destruction of an object in breach of trust. Will the noble Earl compare the subsection with Section 5(2) of the National Gallery Act?

The Earl of Avon

In answer to my noble friend Lord Eccles, I would say that disposal may be by sale, exchange or gift, provided that the object in question is not held subject to an impeding trust or condition, and either is a duplicate, or is deemed by the board to be unsuitable for retention and capable of disposal without detriment to the interests of students or other members of the public. That would appear to me to cover my noble friend's example of the assagai, without any problems at all. It is certainly a duplicate, there are more than one, and it can be exchanged.

Viscount Eccles

They are all unique.

The Earl of Avon

How can they be unique if there are duplicates? The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, asked me a question: I shall look into it and see what I can find out.

Lord Strabolgi

I should also like to raise the question about the Victoria and Albert Museum Library. I did not move the amendment to delete subsection (3) of Clause 5 because I realised that the wording in question is the same as that in the British Museum Act, which works very well. But there is some concern about the Government's policy in view of the Rayner recommendations. These were particularly insensitive and short-sighted concerning the Victoria and Albert Museum Library. In fact the man who wrote the report did not seem to have the remotest idea about what the library stood for or the service that it carried out. The report referred to material of fleeting interest, ephemera, and so on, and advocated a weeding out process. Of course, in an art library of this kind it is very necessary to collect all kinds of material, be it ephemera or not, such as catalogues of exhibitions of the last century, and so on, which are very important for dating purposes, and for use in art historical research. Therefore I hope that the Government will confirm that they will not accept this section of the Rayner Report, and that the Victoria and Albert Museum will not be encouraged to "weed out"—if I may quote the words used.

Lord Jenkins of Putney

I should like to emphasise that I take entirely the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Airey of Abingdon, that when objects are given under certain conditions those conditions should always be observed. At the same time I also share the view expressed by the noble Viscount, that there should be no unreasonable inhibitions upon a museum, and upon this particular museum, in exchanging, disposing of or otherwise getting rid of property which it no longer wants, including, I may say, the restitution of property which it may want to restore to a museum abroad. I hope that, when he comes to look into this question, the noble Earl will take this point into consideration.

The Earl of Avon

I think that the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, has underlined the difficulty which we are in on this particular issue. It is a question of balance between the two sides, between wishing not to have relics in a museum which you do not want and making sure that you are applying the conditions and making a museum acceptable to such things as a national heritage memorial fund. The noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, mentioned the Rayner Report. I do not have it in front of me. I did not bring it with me today because I know that the noble Lord regards it as a red rag to a bull. But I will certainly look at his point. Of course, when talking to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, on his amendment about books, we did then say that they would be totally covered as part of the trustees' heritage when they take over.

Clause 5 agreed to.

Lord Denham

I think we are reaching the stage where we ought to break for the day. I am wondering whether any noble Lord has anything to raise on Clause 6. It would be tidier, if no noble Lord has anything to say on that, perhaps to get that clause out of the way.

Clause 6 agreed to.

House resumed.

House adjourned at thirteen minutes before eleven o'clock.