Lords Sitting of 16 December 1982

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Carlisle): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

Local Authority Housing: Sales to Tenants
Lord Gainford: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what is their estimate of the additional numbers of families who will benefit from the extension of the right to buy their own dwellings to those living in leasehold council houses.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Bellwin): My Lords, we estimate that some 50,000 public sector tenants in England and Wales will become eligible for the right to buy from those provisions of the Housing and Building Control Bill that extend the right to buy to properties where the landlord does not own the freehold.
Lord Gainford: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. Can he confirm that, where tenants are leasing houses, local authorities are definitely able to sell these properties, and how quickly can the sales go through, possibly in anticipation of legislation?
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, yes, I do so confirm. Where the local authority is prepared to sell voluntarily and the terms of its lease permit, there is currently no problem. It can, for example, grant similar terms as to discount to those eligible under the right to buy. The difficulty arises in those cases where authorities are reluctant to sell, and the fact that a dwelling is leasehold is at present a loophole which enables them to deny the right to buy.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, can the noble Lord the Minister tell the House whether the sale of these extra houses will help in any way at all to keep down rents of council tenants who cannot afford to buy and who, as the Secretary of State has already announced, will have to pay a further 85p per week increase from next April?
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, the proposals in the Bill will have absolutely no effect whatever on that point.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, can my noble friend tell the House whether those properties that have now been transferred to private ownership are being better maintained and, therefore, whether the life of those houses is being extended?
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I have no information on that point. I think that as to that one would have to make one's own deductions.
Baroness Denington: My Lords, is the Minister aware that under the projected legislation the charitable trusts—particularly the Sutton Housing Trust, of which until recently I have been a member—are profoundly disturbed at the idea that they may be required to sell any houses that have been provided under their trust deed? In the case of Sutton, it flows from the will of Mr. Sutton, who died in 1894; he left his fortune to a charitable trust for,
"the provision of low rented dwellings for occupation"—
Noble Lords Noble Lords Reading!
Baroness Denington: My Lords, it continues:
"for occupation by the poor of London".
I beg the House to bear with me one minute.
Noble Lords: Question!
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I wonder if it would help the noble Baroness if I were to point out that the next Question on the Order Paper is the very one which I think concerns the point that is troubling her.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord the Minister, in order to give a balanced view, could indicate to the House whether the increase in the purchase of houses from local authorities has also led, peculiarly enough, to an increase in the number of tenants requiring housing from local authorities?
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, the statistics for which the noble Lord asks me are not to hand immediately, but I have said many times in the past, and I say yet again, that the purchase of a home does not affect one way or the other the availability of the number of dwellings to rent, because the people who buy their homes are those who live in them and who have, in the main, lived in them for many years. The fact that they then proceed to occupy, and contine to occupy, as owner rather than as tenant makes the dwelling neither more nor less available to the general pool of rented accommodation.
3.5 p.m.

Charitable Housing Associations: Sales to Tenants
Lord Gainford: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what is their estimate of the additional numbers of families who will benefit from the extension of the right to buy to the tenants of certain dwellings let by charitable housing associations.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, we estimate that Clause 2 of the Housing and Building Control Bill will extend eligibility for the right to buy to secure tenants of approximately 80,000 dwellings owned by such bodies in England and Wales.
Lord Gainford: My Lords, again I thank my noble friend for his Answer. Can he say whether Her Majesty's Government can identify the charitable institutions affected by the possibility of tenants purchasing their properties, and can he say how tenants can best find out whether or not they will benefit from the right to buy?
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, unlike the right-to-buy arrangements for housing associations in the 1980 Act, which confers the right by a reference to public subsidy to "an association," the right in buy in Clause 2 is "dwelling specific". If the dwelling has been funded with housing association grant, the right to buy arises. Charitable associations will, in responding to a notice from a tenant claiming the right to buy, be obliged to confirm whether the specific dwelling falls within the terms of Clause 2, and in any case of doubt the housing corporation and my department will be ready to assist.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, are the Government aware that a number of charitable housing associations were formed and founded specifically for the purpose of providing a pool of housing to be available, for instance, to homeless families in grave housing need, many of whom in the past have not been on the waiting lists of local authorities? Are they also aware that if this pool is diminished by compulsory sales, there will be very many fewer vacancies in future for the particular type of family and person in the greatest need?
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I think it might be helpful if I were to remind your Lordships that, as regards the number of dwellings—and this is only an estimate but it is one that I do not think will be far out in the end—out of the 300,000 charitable-provided dwellings it is anticipated that some 80,000 will be affected by these proposals. Further, I would say that the right to buy in this case will not apply if the charity has provided the land, if the charity has provided the building, if it has funded the construction or conversion, or if it has merely received housing association grant to repair or improve property provided by charitable funds, even if the amount of the housing association grant is substantial.
Lord Moyne: My Lords, were not the housing association grants made unconditionally, and does not the state have a means of clawing back surpluses through the Grant Redemption Fund, which has been discussed at great length in this House? Is it necessary to have these two things cutting into the work of charitable trusts?
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, arising from my noble friend's question, I think it is necessary for me to say that charitable investments are being fully protected by these proposals. Only a minority of dwellings
712
subject to the right to buy under Clause 2 will have had charitable funds invested in them, and the amount will not normally be more than 10 per cent. of cost of provision. We propose to make administrative arrangements to ensure that where charitable funds have been spent on the provision or improvement of a dwelling which is sold under the right to buy, the charity will recover, as a minimum, a sum which fairly represented the modern value of its investment. The Secretary of State for the Environment will, where necessary, abate his recovery of housing association grant so as to achieve this.
Lord Jacques: My Lords, is not the question of whether a house is sold a matter for the owner—that is to say, the charity organisation—and not for the Government?
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, it really is not for the Government at all. It is, if you like, the morality of the right to buy about which we are talking. Many of us feel that that right to buy is as important to those who occupy accommodation provided in this way as it is in any other way.
Baroness David: My Lords, is the Minister saying that it is not the Government that is bringing in the new Housing and Building Control Bill?
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I really do not think that that requires an answer, but if the noble Baroness insists, the answer is, of course not.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, is the noble Lord saying that anyone who accepts a Government subsidy may be directed to sell the property?
Lord Bellwin: No, my Lords, I tried to spell it out carefully, and if the noble Lord tomorrow will read in Hansard exactly what I said he will see that it covers the point he raises.
Baroness Denington: My Lords, I apologise to the House for looking as though I wanted to jump the gun. I did not, and I thank the noble Lord for correcting me. May I ask the Minister whether he realises that housing trusts are very distressed about what looks as though it is going to be the moral requirement on them to sell houses which have been provided under the terms of the charitable trust under which they must work and do work, very loyally and carefully? This would be a requirement to sell houses that, under their trusteeship, have been provided, by no matter what monies, to rent to lower paid people who need to rent and cannot buy.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, then we come to the whole issue of the right to buy, and the tightness or otherwise of that. The figures I quoted which illustrated that there are some 80,000 out of 300,000 such dwellings, as the noble Baroness mentioned, put the matter in perspective.
Baroness White: My Lords, will the noble Lord the Minister agree that he should also be sensitive to the right to give?
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, if the figures that the Minister has just given show a 25 per cent.

713
reduction in houses being provided by charitable housing associations, does he not consider that it is a moral issue that the independence of housing associations, and the ability of their trustees to exercise their own judgment, is in jeopardy? Would he not also accept that the trustees of charities have obligations in perpetuity? Can he inform your Lordships how this difficult legal problem will be overcome and solved by the Government?
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I enumerated the circumstances in which the right to buy under this clause will not apply. I feel sure that when the noble Baroness reads those again carefully she will not be as anxious as she clearly is at the present time.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, does the noble Lord the Minister realise that 80,000 out of 300,000 is, on any view, a very large percentage? Does he also realise the difference between local authorities which have a social obligation, and trustees who have obligations under a trust? Does he think that it is proper that beneficiaries under a trust which is a charitable trust should be given the opportunity, which can be enforced upon trustees, of purchasing accommodation which is supposed to be there on the basis of charitable trusts for the poor?
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I think we have to bear in mind two points. First, that what we are talking about here is giving the right to buy to those who live in this accommodation, and I do not see for myself why they should be denied the same right as so many other people have who are tenants of accommodation. Secondly, I enumerated the circumstances in which that right to buy will not apply, and that is quite an extensive list, especially as we are talking here solely about accommodation which has been provided with public funds.
Lord Whaddon: My Lords, bearing in mind the noble Lord's stress on the importance of the right to buy. does he feel that there should be an extension of the right to buy to tenants of tied accommodation, or does he feel that the right of employers to protect their interests is superior to the right of charitable interests to provide accommodation for the needy?
Lord Bellwin: No, my Lords, I think, with respect, that that goes beyond the Question.

The Steel Industry: Future Plans
3.15 p.m.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what plans are being considered for the future of the public and private sectors of the British steel industry.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Lord Trefgarne): My Lords, the British Steel Corporation
714
are at present making heavy losses, and urgent action is being taken by the corporation's management to stem these losses. In addition, the Government are considering with BSC management whether the future plans for the corporation should require all five major integrated steelworks to stay open. A Government statement on this will be made before the Christmas Recess. In the private steel sector a number of rationalisation schemes, involving support under the Government's Private Sector Steel Scheme, are currently under consideration.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the basis of Great Britain's industry can in no way recover without the British steel industry? Is he further aware that Great Britain has adhered to the edicts of the EEC Commission and has savagely reduced British steel production, while other members of the Commission have in no way adhered to those requests, and indeed some of them are increasing their steel production, which, of course, is bound to have a deleterious effect on Great Britain's industry? Will the noble Lord say what the Government are going to do about it?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I absolutely agree with the noble Lord that it is right and proper that the steel industries throughout the European Community should reduce their capacity in the same proportion that we have reduced ours. We have heard a good many fine words about intentions on this in the Community. We shall be watching to see that those fine words are turned into fine action, and we are particularly concerned about the position of Italy.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the noble Minister aware that I am not particularly—and I do not think that the British steel industry, both private and public are—very much concerned whether or not now we adhere to any EEC edicts from their Commission, when it makes no endeavour or effort to get other countries to comply with them but seems to concentrate on Great Britain? The fact of the matter, therefore, is that our Government ought to concentrate on seeing that the great needs of our nation, which can be provided on the basis of British steel, are given top priority, and that that great industry ought also to be given top priority to provide a successful future for British industry.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the noble Lord is mistaken in imagining that there is any difference between ourselves and the European Commission on this matter. The Commissioner who is concerned with these matters, Count Davignon, is of one mind with us that there must be equal misery for all in this matter, and he is determined to achieve that.

Mutual and Balanced Force Reductions
3.18 p.m.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what progress

715
has been made during the last nine years in the talks in Vienna on the Mutual and Balanced Force Reductions.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the area of reductions has been agreed; that all participants with forces stationed there will share in the reductions; and that the first reductions should be made by United States and Soviet forces, with reductions in the latter being greater. It has also been agreed that the end result should be for each side's combined ground and air forces in the area to be limited to around 900,000, up to 700,000 of whom could be ground forces.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, may I ask the Minister what, then, are the obstacles to these reductions actually taking place?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, there are two obstacles. First, there is not yet base data agreement, by which I mean that the Eastern side dispute the West's figures for the Eastern forces. Secondly, as I have told the House many times before, there is no agreement on effective verification measures.
Lord Brockway: My Lords, while welcoming the report, may I ask the noble Lord whether he is aware that many of us are opposed to SS20s just as much as to nuclear arms in this country? But in view of the fact that the Soviet Union has now proposed to reduce the number of SS20s by 50 per cent., has proposed to withdraw its missiles largely from Central Europe and has proposed no first use of nuclear weapons, is there not now an opportunity for fruitful negotiations with the Soviet Union at Vienna?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the noble Lord and the House will well know that the MBFR talks have nothing whatever to do with nuclear weapons. However, there is no doubt, in my mind at least, that one of the objects of the Soviet Government and their allies is to confuse the strategy of the opposite bloc, and neither have I any doubt that by this offer they think they have done so.
Lord Gladwyn: My Lords, is it not a possibility that in these protracted negotiations in Vienna undue emphasis has perhaps been put on the achievement of exact parity? For instance, does it matter if the Russians have a considerable advantage as regards tanks provided we have enough anti-tank weapons with which to knock those tanks out? Is not the only thing that really matters the achievement of some kind of conventional defence in the West which is able, on the face of it, to resist any attack by conventional means from the other side?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the allies are constantly reviewing the size, shape and concept of their operations and equipment, including anti-tank weapons and their forces, and have not been inhibited in so doing by the existence of these negotiations. That does not in any way detract from the need to seek to preserve security at lower and equal force levels. That is the approach which the alliance is supporting in all the current negotiations, including these talks, to
716
which Her Majesty's Government remain fully committed.
Lord Thomas of Swynnerton: My Lords, would my noble friend agree that the very existence of these talks, alongside the IMF and START talks, is a sure sign of the desire of the West to reach agreement on these matters against a most agile and dangerous opponent, who seems very often to be able to persuade people who should know quite well that we are very interested in reaching agreements ourselves?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to my noble friend for that supplementary question. He is, of course, absolutely correct.
Lord Bishopston: My Lords, accepting that the Minister is right in saying that the two biggest problems in the MBFR talks are the data problem (that of the agreed assessment of mutual forces) and verification, may I ask him what further steps the Government have in mind to resolve those two matters, which have been at the base of our disagreement for about nine years? Further, would he consider recommending a freeze on force levels on both sides as well as giving support for a nuclear test ban treaty?
Lord Skelmersdale: As I have said already, my Lords, a nuclear test ban treaty is rather wide of the Question. On the substantive point raised by the noble Lord, after long negotiations such as these it is often forgotten why they originated in the first place. The Eastern bloc never wanted them, for the simple reason that, as is well known, they have superiority of forces in the area and have never wanted to negotiate that away. These talks were proposed by the West as long ago as 1968 but did not start until 1973. That was simply as a quid pro quo for getting the Helsinki Conference off the ground, which the Eastern nations wanted very desperately. As for the other part of the noble Lord's supplementary, at all these international meetings we lose no opportunity to kick against what I am afraid is a rather swollen door.
Lord Shinwell: My Lords, if there is any failure at all, may it not be due to our representation at these conferences? Would it not be more advisable to send over there to talk to the Russians people who are against British expenditure on defence, which may have some impact on the Russian mentality? Would that not be a good idea? In any event, may we have some information about the costs entailed over the nine years of this farce?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I do not think talking about avoiding war should be considered in terms of cost; it is vital to all our lives. While the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, has much more experience of Government that I have, I do not recommend the strategy: when in doubt, change the team.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, would the Government consider the following proposal for breaking the deadlock on data; forget all about our present differences on how many men each side has, pull an equal number out of the hat—which undoubtedly will be below the number on the lower side—agree to go

717
down to that number, institute inspection and then, if the inspection reveals cheating, tear the whole thing up?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I think that is precisely what the Eastern bloc require, so a strategy on those lines would be falling directly into their hands, and I do not recommend it.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, would the noble Lord not agree that a proposal emanating from the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, would hardly likely be intended to aid the Russians? Would he not further agree that the length at which these discussions take place and the total ineffectiveness of the multilateral discussions which have been going on for so many years, in both the conventional and nuclear areas, strengthen all the time the beliefs of those of us who believe in unilateral action?
Lord Skelmersdale: On the principle that that was a question, my Lords, this is the answer. One of nature's most effective beasts of prey is the spider, yet it spends 90 per cent. of its life sitting absolutely still. In this, as in so many other cases, I believe in following the example of the true professional.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, may I ask the Minister to explain why on-site verification is still considered to be of such fundamental importance, bearing in mind that the numbers of troops and quantity and types of weapons can be accurately assessed by satellite observations?
Lord Skelmersdale: Alas! my Lords, I am informed that that is not the case.

Business
3.27 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 this afternoon my noble friend Lord Bellwin will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on the Rate Support Grant (England) 1983–84.
It may be for the convenience of the House if I announce that dinner will be available at the usual time this evening.
The Committee stage of the National Heritage Bill will be adjourned at approximately 7 p.m. for approximately one hour. During that adjournment the Second Reading and remaining stages of the Commonwealth Development Corporation Bill and the Company and Business Names (Amendment) Regulations 1982 will be taken.
I should like to say a word about today's business. The noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, will not now ask today's Unstarred Question which appears on the Order Paper. It will, I understand, be appearing, possibly in a slightly different form, on 22nd December.

Cornwall County Council Bill [H.L.]
Read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
London Transport (Liverpool Street) Bill
Read a second time, and committed to a Select Committee.

Business of the House
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Young): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That Standing Order 37 (Arrangement of the Order Paper) be suspended until the Christmas Recess so far as is necessary to give Her Majesty's Government power to arrange the order of business; and that Standing Order 43 (No two stages of a Bill to be taken on one day) be suspended for the same period.—(Baroness Young.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

International Transport Conventions Bill [H.L.]
Lord Denham: My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the International Transport Conventions Bill, has consented to place her prerogative and interests, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
Bill read a third time; an amendment (privilege) made; Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

Health and Social Services and Social Security Adjudications Bill [H.L.]
3.30 p.m.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Trefgarne.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD ABERDARE in the Chair.]
Clauses 16 to 19 agreed to.
Schedule 8 [Social security adjudications]:
Lord Lyell Lord Lyell moved Amendment No. 121:
Page 60, line 46, leave out from ("from") to end of page 61, line 3 and insert ("the appropriate panel constituted under that Schedule").
The noble Lord said: I hope that your Lordships' Committee will permit me to speak to Amendments Nos. 121, 130, 131, and 133 together. These amendments are all related, and I would assure the Committee that they are purely drafting

719
improvements to clarify in the Bill the provisions concerning the constitution of tribunal panels. Instead of specifying amendments to paragraph 1 of Schedule 10 to the Social Security Act 1978, there has been inserted a replacement paragraph, but I would assure the Committee that there are no substantive changes from the existing print. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 122 not moved.]
Lord Lyell Lord Lyell moved Amendment No. 123:
Page 61, line 4, leave out ("of social security appeal tribunals").
The noble Lord said: With the agreement of your Lordships' Committee, I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 123, 141, and 145 together. These three amendments provide a new definition of the word "president", and so avoid the need to refer to him at each point by his full title. The amendments also correct defective references on page 61, at line 4, and on page 63, at line 7. All of these are purely drafting changes. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Lyell Lord Lyell moved Amendment No. 124:
Page 61, line 12, leave out from ("as") to second ("chairmen") in line 13.
The noble Lord said: With the leave of your Lordships' Committee, I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 124, 135. 136, and 142. All these amendments are intended to clarify the point that all appointments of regional chairmen will be full-time appointments. All these amendments are purely drafting changes. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Lyell Lord Lyell moved Amendment No. 125:
Page 61, line 15, at beginning insert ("Subject to regulations under paragraph 16 of Schedule 8 to the Health and Social Services and Social Security Adjudications Act 1982,").
The noble Lord said: The effect of this amendment is to make clear the requirement that part-time chairmen should be lawyers of at least five years' standing, and this will be subject to transitional regulations which will be made under paragraph 16(1) of the schedule. We propose in the regulations that existing chairmen of supplementary benefit appeal tribunals and national insurance local tribunals who are not legally qualified may be appointed by the Lord Chancellor, or the Lord President of the Court of Session, as chairmen of the new social security appeal tribunals for a transitional period from the commencement of the legislation. That will allow the existing lay chairmen to be retained for such period as may be specified. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Lyell Lord Lyell moved Amendment No. 126:
Page 61, line 16, after ("tribunal") insert ("under subsection (2C)(a) above").
The noble Lord said: This amendment, too, is intended to clarify a point, which is that the amended subsection 97(2D) of the Social Security Act 1975 applies only to subsection 91(2C)(a))—that is, in this
720
particular case, to part-time chairmen. Full-time and regional chairmen are required to have longer experience than the five years that are here specified for part-time chairmen. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Lyell Lord Lyell moved Amendment No. 127:
Page 61, line 20, leave out ("by") and insert ("of").
The noble Lord said: I wish to speak to Amendments Nos. 127, 128, 134 and 153. These four amendments are purely drafting improvements, or corrections of minor drafting errors. Amendment No. 127 substitutes the conventional expression "decision by" by the expression "decision of", relating to an adjudication officer. Amendment No. 128 corrects the definite article, in this case the word "the". Amendment No. 134 omits a redundant provision, and Amendment No. 153 is a consequential amendment to the repeals schedule. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Lyell Lord Lyell moved Amendment No. 128:
Page 61, line 23, leave out ("the") and insert ("a").
The noble Lord said: I spoke to this amendment a moment ago. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Lyell Lord Lyell moved Amendment No. 129:
Page 61, line 31, at end insert—
("4A. In section 115(2) of that Act (tribunals) for the word "local" there shall be substituted the words "social security appeal".").
The noble Lord said: With the leave of the Committee, I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 129 and 146. These two amendments specifically provide that for the references to "local tribunals" in the provisions of the Social Security Act 1975 to which they relate there are substituted references to "social security appeal tribunals". I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): Before calling the next amendment, I have to point out that if Amendment No. 131 is agreed to. I cannot call Amendment No. 132.
Lord Lyell Lord Lyell moved Amendments Nos. 130 and 131:
Page 61, line 38, leave out ("In") and insert ("The following paragraph shall be substituted for").
line 39, leave out from beginning to ("below") at page 62, line 1, and insert—

("1.—(1) The panels referred to in section 97(2A) of this Act shall be constituted by the Secretary of State for the whole of Great Britain, and each panel shall act for such area as the Secretary of State thinks lit, and be composed of such persons as the Secretary of State sees fit to appoint.

(2) The panel for an area shall be composed of persons appearing to the Secretary' of State to have knowledge or experience of conditions in the area and to be representative of persons living or working in that area.

(3) Before appointing members to a panel, the Secretary of State may take into consideration any recommendations from such organisations or person as he considers appropriate.

(4) The members of the panels shall hold office for such period as the Secretary of State may direct, but the Secretary of State may at any time terminate the appointment of any member of a panel.

(5) Subject to sub-paragraph (6)").

The noble Lord said: I hope that I may have the permission of the Committee to move these two

721
consequential amendments, Nos. 130 and 131, en bloc. They are both consequential upon Amendment No. 121, to which I spoke earlier. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 132 not moved.]
Lord Lyell Lord Lyell moved Amendments Nos. 133 to 136:
Page 62, line 4, leave out ("(5)") and insert ("(6)").
line 13, leave out ("qualified person to act as").
line 15, leave out ("qualified persons to act as regional chairmen and") and insert ("regional and other").
line 20, leave out ("regional chairman or a").
The noble Lord said: I hope that I have the permission of the Committee to move Amendments Nos. 133 to 136 en bloc, since I spoke to these amendments on Amendments Nos. 121, 124, and 128 respectively. I hope that it is in order to move the amendments en bloc. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
3.39 p.m.
Lord Kilmarnock Lord Kilmarnock moved Amendment No. 137:
Page 62, line 36, leave out ("Secretary of State") and insert ("Lord Chancellor").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 137 I should, with permission, like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 138 and 139. These amendments provide that the clerk to an appeals tribunal should be provided by the Lord Chancellor's office, rather than by the DHSS as provided in the schedule. In a recent case a social security commissioner stated that the clerk's role is,
"somewhat analogous to that of a clerk to magistrates. His position however differs from that of a magistrates' clerk in that, not having any legal qualifications, he should not tender any advice on the law".
Some clerks, not unnaturally, find this a rather frustrating position to be in and intervene, quite improperly, in proceedings. What is more, the clerk to social security appeals tribunals is increasingly drawn from the local office dealing with the case before the tribunal. It must surely be wrong for one party to the case to provide the clerk to the proceedings. This would be inconceivable in a magistrates' court. How can a tribunal be seen as impartial if the clerk comes from the department against whose decision the claimant is appealing? Ideally, in the long term, we should like clerks to be responsible to an independent body such as a much-strengthened Council on Tribunals. In the meantime, we feel that they must at least come from the Lord Chancellor's office. I beg to move.
Lord Trefgarne: I appreciate the noble Lord's concern to ensure the independence of the tribunal clerk, but I should explain that the role of the clerk, particularly clerks to SBATs, has changed greatly over the years. Since the publication of the Bell Report, in particular, they have not been expected to intervene or give advice during tribunal hearings. Their role is a purely administrative one—and the changes being made in the present Bill will emphasise this. The appointment of a president and regional chairman, and of legally-qualified chairmen, should ensure that the clerk's role is restricted to administrative matters. The president will be consulted on the appointment of
722
clerks and may make representations concerning their dismissal if he thinks that necessary. Making the Lord Chancellor responsible for clerks would not improve these arrangements in any way.
The fact that in future all chairmen will be legally qualified will also help to ensure that in future clerks do not take any active part in the tribunal proceedings and, in particular, are not responsible for summarising the findings of the tribunal or recording their decisions except in a purely clerical capacity. I would point out that the Lord Chancellor's Department is a small one and it is not the normal practice for it to take over the responsibility for clerks for the wide number of tribunals in which the Lord Chancellor has an interest. A significant number of administrative staff would be required for these duties, and the DHSS provides an appropriate source for them. It could be likely to be difficult for the Lord Chancellor's Department to recruit and retain enough suitable candidates and to provide them with appropriate career opportunities. I would also emphasise that the changes we are proposing in the adjudication system will not be made overnight. It will take two or three years to implement them in full. It is our intention to review the arrangements when they have been operating for a few years to ensure that they are working satisfactorily. That, I suggest, would be an appropriate time to consider whether the changes suggested by the noble Lord will be appropriate. I hope that, in the meantime, he will agree to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Kilmarnock: I am grateful to the noble Lord. I take the point about the relative smallness of the Lord Chancellor's Department. The noble Lord has given the Committee an assurance that the clerks will be involved purely in administrative matters—that is, as amanuenses—and that the department plans a review of the new system after two or three years. I think that two or three years may be a little long, and those of us who are interested in these matters will certainly want to keep an eye on how the system is working. In the meantime, in the light of what the noble Lord has said, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 138 and 139 not moved.]
The Chairman of Committees: I have to point out that, if Amendment No. 140 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 141 and 142.
Lord Banks Lord Banks moved Amendment No. 140:
Page 63, line3, leave out from second ("a") to end of line 16 and insert ("social security appeal tribunal as constituted under section 97 of and Schedule 10 to this Act")
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 140. This amendment would replace medical appeal tribunals with social security appeal tribunals. Medical appeal tribunals consist of a legally-qualified chairman and two doctors. We wonder whether the decisions currently made by medical appeal tribunals, which are on entitlement to certain disability benefits, could not just as well be made by social security appeal tribunals. Medical questions would, of course, still require medical judgment, but we wonder if this could not be achieved by way of a medical report in which a lay tribunal could judge. If this were possible, it would

723
save significant amounts of money and there would be little diminution of standards. In other words, is it really necessary to have medical appeal tribunals as well as social security appeal tribunals? I beg to move.
Lord Trefgarne: I hear what the noble Lord says in connection with this amendment and I accept that, in principle, such a system might be feasible, but I very much doubt whether it would be either practical or desirable. It would mean that lay tribunals would have to determine medical questions on the basis of medical advice. Both the claimant and the department would probably have to field their own medical representatives, and the tribunal hearing would therefore become adversarial and the lay tribunal would sometimes be faced with having to decide between conflicting medical opinions. I think that such a system would be far less likely to be satisfactory than the existing, longstanding arrangements under which a legally-qualified chairman sits with two eminent medical consultants on the medical appeal tribunal, which is charged with looking at the facts impartially,
However, we are looking at the whole system of medical adjudication at present to consider what scope there may be for improvements, and the possibility of greater reliance on a lay adjudication system can and will be considered in that context. I would add that we should also, of course, be wanting to hear the views of the Council on Tribunals in regard to this matter. I hope that for these reasons the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Banks: I am grateful to the noble Lord for that reply and encouraged by the fact that the Government are going to review the possibility of greater reliance on lay tribunals. In view of what the noble Lord has said, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Renton: Before the noble Lord withdraws his amendment, may I ask my noble friend whether the Council on Tribunals has already been consulted upon this and other provisions of this schedule? It would seem to be much better that they should be consulted before rather than after we make the enactments.
Lord Trefgarne: We keep ourselves constantly informed of the views of the Council on Tribunals, if I may say so. At least one member of the council is also a Member of your Lordships' House and volunteers his views on these matters from time to time—to the great advantage of your Lordships. We are certainly aware of the views of the council on these matters.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Lyell Lord Lyell moved Amendments Nos. 141 and 142:
Page 63, line 7, leave out ("of social security appeal tribunals")
line 14, leave out from ("as") to ("chairmen") in line 15.
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendments Nos. 141 and 142 together. They are both consequential. I spoke to them on Amendments Nos. 123 and 124 respectively.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Trefgarne Lord Trefgarne moved Amendment No. 143:
Page 63, line 16, at end insert—
("(5) No person shall be appointed to the panel mentioned in sub-paragraph (4) above unless he is a barrister, advocate or solicitor of not less than 7 years' standing.")
The noble Lord said: This schedule already includes provisions which specify the qualifications and experience required of the president and regional and other full-time chairmen of SSATs and MATs, and of part-time chairmen of SSATs. The amendment makes similar provision for the chairmen of MATs. It specifies that they should have at least seven years' standing as lawyers. This puts them on an equal footing with regional and full-time chairmen. Chairmen of MATs preside over tribunals with two leading consultants as members, and it is therefore necessary that they should have appropriate seniority and experience. I beg to move.
Lord Winstanley: On a point on information, may I ask the noble Lord a question? I appreciate that it probably is wise to have this provision, and that the barrister, advocate or solicitor should be of not less than seven years' standing, but I wonder whether there is any provision as to the upper age limit—whether, perhaps, he should be of not more than 70 years' standing, for example.
Lord Trefgarne: When we say "of seven years' standing", we mean seven years' practice in the appropriate profession. Seventy years' standing in the appropriate profession would be a very long time indeed, but perhaps a mere bagatelle to some of your Lordships.
Lord Winstanley: And the upper age limit?
Lord Trefgarne: There is no upper age limit as far as I know.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Kilmarnock Lord Kilmarnock moved Amendment No. 144:
Page 63, line 16, at end insert—
("2A. Sections 105 and 106 of and Schedule 11 to the Social Security Act 1975 shall be repealed and for the reference to "Attendance Allowance Board" in section 37(2) of that Act there shall be substituted "adjudication officer".").
The noble Lord said: The object of this amendment is to abolish the Attendance Allowance Board and to shift the responsibility for adjudication to medical boards and medical appeals tribunals, thus simplifying the administration and appeals procedure of this important benefit. This is an amendment of some substance. The Attendance Allowance Board was established in the early 1970s to administer attendance allowance when this benefit was introduced; it was modelled on the Supplementary Benefits Commission, which has now been abolished. It is significant that when mobility allowance was introduced a few years later no quasi-independent administrative body was established. The DHSS established a mobility allowance unit. Decisions are taken by the Secretary of State and appeals are taken through medical boards and medical appeal tribunals.
Decisions on the attendance conditions for attendance allowance are taken at least in theory by

725
the nine members of the Attendance Allowance Board. Seven are doctors, two are lay people. In fact, the vast majority of cases are decided on behalf of the board by delegated medical practitioners. However, the delegated medical practitioners rarely, if ever, see a claimant. This is done by a totally different examining medical officer. This seems to me to call into question the necessity of the DMS and indeed of the board itself.
In the first few years of the benefit's administration an unprecedented degree of intervention was required by the commissioners. From December 1971, when the allowance was first payable, to March 1974, 365 applicants were given leave to appeal to the commissioner on a point of law. This was an average of over 100 a year. Only 17 were unsuccessful. In more recent times, in 1979, 12,536 claimants received a rate of attendance allowance on review which they had initially been refused. The DHSS say that this figure cannot be broken down further to show the number of successful reviews excluding those simply due to worsening conditions. But even allowing generously for such a proportion of cases, a success rate on review of 75 per cent. requires some explanation.
It seems to me, frankly, that the Attendance Allowance Board is a cumbersome, bureaucratic structure with little to recommend it. The Government have shown a keen interest in both the demise of quangos and in the growth of self-certification by claimants. The easiest way of dealing with the adjudication process would surely be for initial assessment to be done by the claimant's general practitioner. The standard form of medical report required from each applicant's doctor asks a series of questions designed to establish the capacities of the applicant. It asks, for instance, if a person can, without assistance from another, get into bed, turn over in bed, walk, and so forth. These are all matters which could be decided by an insurance officer. Insurance officers might want medical assistance and evaluation, as they sometimes do in relation to a decision on entitlement to sickness benefit, but there is no very good reason why the decision itself as to entitlement to the benefit has to be made by a doctor or by a board of doctors.
I started and I end by saying that this is an important benefit. It is of vast assistance, quite disproportionate to its cost, in keeping elderly people together in their own homes when one of them is fit and the other needs constant care and attendance. Such an object is surely in accordance with the importance attached by the Government to care in the community which we have recently debated in your Lordships' House. Therefore, it seems fundamental to me that questions of eligibility and adjudication should be simplified and speeded up, and take-up improved. I beg to move.
Lord Trefgarne: The question whether someone is eligible for attendance allowance is mainly a medical one since the most difficult issue is whether the medical conditions for attendance allowance are satisfied. It requires skilled medical assessment to decide this, and lay adjudication officers would not be competent for example to interpret the medical advice that they receive where the case was not clear cut. I also believe that it would be a mistake to discount the accumulated wisdom of the Attendance Allowance
726
Board which has been in existence for more than 10 years. However, as I mentioned earlier, the whole system of medical adjudication is under review at present and the future of the Attendance Allowance Board will be considered in that context. I hope that I need not go further than that and that the noble Lord will see fit to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Kilmarnock: I am not entirely happy with what the noble Lord has said. It seems to me that the procedure suggested by me would be perfectly adequate. I do not want it to be thought at all by the Committee that I am trying to interfere with the attendance allowance; in fact, I think its use should be extended and that is what I was striving to achieve. In view of what the noble Lord has said however on a review of the whole question of adjudication procedure, probably it is not necessary for me to press this amendment at the moment. I should like to read what he said and think about it, and possibly come back at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Lyell Lord Lyell moved Amendments Nos. 145 and 146:
Page 63, line 16, at end insert—
("8A. In paragraph 9(a) of Schedule 13 to that Act (procedure) for the word "local" there shall be substituted the words "social security appeal".")
line 16, at end insert—
("8B. In Schedule 20 to that Act the following definition shall be inserted at the appropriate point—

" "President."

The President of social security appeal tribunals and medical appeal tribunals." ")

The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendments Nos. 145 and 146. These are consequential and I spoke to them earlier. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 147 not moved.]
Lord Trefgarne Lord Trefgarne moved Amendment No. 148:
Page 64, line 35, leave out from ("In") to end of line 36 and insert ("subsection (1)(b) of section 15 of the Social Security Act 1980 (appeal to Social Security Commissioner) for the words "if he refuses leave." there shall be substituted the words "subject to and in accordance with regulations".")
The noble Lord said: This amendment provides for regulations to be made concerning the procedure for making applications for leave to appeal to the commissioners. The intention is to enable applications for leave to appeal which are in time to be made first to the chairman of the tribunal and, only if the chairman refuses leave, to the commissioners. Applications for leave to appeal which are out of time will be made direct to the commissioners. This will bring all the arrangements for leave to appeal into line with those which apply to appeals from medical appeal tribunals, and avoids placing an unnecessary burden on the commissioners. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
3.57 p.m.
Lord Kilmarnock Lord Kilmarnock moved Amendment No. 149:
Page 64, line 43, leave out from ("determined" ") to end of line 44.
The noble Lord said: This amendment is designed

727
to prevent the deletion of paragraph 8(4) of Schedule 2 to the Social Security and Housing Benefits Act, which only recently passed through your Lordships' House. The sub-paragraph which the Government now want to eliminate gives a right of appeal to an employee over the amount of supplementary benefit which he or she has been paid and is subsequently shown not to have been payable because the employer should have paid sickness pay. I shall be interested to hear from the noble Lord why the Government want to make this change so soon after the passing of this Act. Certainly a sufficient time cannot have passed to give a balanced view of the operation of this right of appeal. On the face of it, there seems no reason why it should not remain on the statute book to be exercised in circumstances where an employee feels there are grounds for doing so. I beg to move.
Lord Trefgarne: I think that I can satisfy the noble Lord on this matter because I believe his amendment is based on a misunderstanding. The repeal of paragraph 8(4) of Schedule 2 to the Social Security and Housing Benefits Act 1982, which is what this provision effectively achieves, does not alter the existing powers of review or rights of appeal of claimants in any way. The reason for repealing this provision is quite simply that it is no longer needed. We have taken equivalent powers elsewhere to provide appropriate powers of review and appeal. That is in the revised subsection (1) of Section 2 of the Supplementary Benefits Act 1976, which is revised by paragraph 9 of this schedule. Furthermore, we are also repealing in this Bill Section 14(2)(d) of the Social Security and Housing Benefits Act 1982 to which paragraph 8(4) of Schedule 2 refers. So I am afraid that the proposed amendment is in any case slightly-defective. I hope that in the light of what I have said earlier the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Kilmarnock: I am most grateful to the noble Lord for his detailed explanation of the Government's view on this matter. I shall read what he has said and if, on reading it, he convinces me in the same way as he did when he was on his feet, I shall be happy and shall not revert to the matter. But I reserve the right, obviously, to return to the matter on Report stage, subject to reading what the noble Lord has said. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Schedule 8. as amended, shall be agreed to?
Lord Renton: I do not wish to detain the Committee for long, but I must draw attention to the fact that this schedule has been an extremely difficult one to understand. I feel very sorry for the draftsman in view of the instructions that he must have been given. There are six pages of detailed legislation by reference, and a great many references to previous legislation. Without the help of the notes on clauses one could not possibly have understood it, and of course one has to face the fact that not everybody will have the notes on clauses when this Bill becomes law. I would have thought that with this schedule, as indeed with some of the earlier
728
schedules to the Bill, it might have been helpful for us to have had keeling schedules. They would have been fairly long, but they would have enabled us to see exactly what was being done; and some of the amendments which have been tabled by noble Lords opposite might not have been necessary.
I must add one more general comment, and that is to express the hope that there will be consolidation of at any rate this Part of the Bill with previous legislation at the earliest opportunity after the Bill is passed into law.
I have one detailed comment which arises on page 60, where we find that the Social Security Act 1975, referred to on the previous page, and the Supplementary Benefits Act 1976, also referred to on the previous page, are to be read as referring to adjudication officers and social security appeal tribunals respectively, instead of to the references made in those earlier statutes. But, using reasonable diligence—and I have tried to do this thoroughly—I cannot find any consequential textual amendments which bring the texts of those previous Acts into line with what is proposed in subparagraph (3) (a) on page 60. It may be that this is a point which has escaped the notice of even my noble friend Lord Trefgarne, who is so very diligent in these matters. If he cannot give me an answer now I hope he will ask the draftsman to turn his mind to the matter.
Lord Trefgarne: My noble friend really asked me two things, following the strictures. He asked first for an assurance about consolidating legislation. I cannot give him an assurance in the terms in which he asked for it, but I hope that this will be possible, speaking personally, in the reasonably near future.
As to the final point made by my noble friend, I do not think it would be helpful if I expanded on all this at the present time. In any event, I should like to consider this more carefully in the light of what has been said by my noble friend. If he will allow me, I will write to him before the next stage, and if he remains dissatisfied he can then raise the matter on another occasion. Having said that. I hope he will allow the schedule to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 8, as amended, agreed to.
The Earl of Swinton: I beg to move that the House do now resume for the Statement.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Rate Support Grant (England) 1983–84
4.3 p.m.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, with your Lordships permission, I should like to read a Statement which has been made by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment in another place. The Statement reads as follows:
"With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a Statement on the rate support grant settlement in England. In my Statement to the

729
House on 27th July I set out proposals for the main elements of the rate support grant settlement for 1983–84. I have today tabled the main RSG Report. I am placing in the Library copies of the detailed material being sent to local authorities today.
"The Government have three main objectives. The overriding one is to achieve further real reductions in local authorities' current expenditure. We need also to recognise the efforts that most authorities have made to find economies, and we must increase the incentive for all authorities to spend at target, by increasing the grant pressure on the high spenders.
"As well as the main report for 1983–84, I have also tabled today the first supplementary report for 1982–83. The main effect of this report is to reduce block grant for authorities budgeting to overspend both their target and grant related expenditure assessment.
"The holdback for 1982–83 amounts to £308 million. Authorities were warned about the holdback scheme before they drew up their budgets, and they took their decisions in that knowledge. This report implements the scheme. It also adjusts relevant expenditure, and grant, to reflect a number of changes, mainly in the usual variable items caused by interest rate changes.
"I turn now to the main report for 1983–84. The current expenditure provision is £19·7 billion. It is about 3 per cent. more than the equivalent figure in authorities' budgets this year. The aggregate Exchequer grant is £11·8 billion. Although the percentage is lower, the grant is some £300 million higher in cash (almost 3 per cent.) than in last year's settlement.
"There are no major changes to the methodology of grant-related expenditure assessment. Some useful improvements have been made, including 1981 census data, in consultation with local government. There are no changes in the main grant distribution mechanisms. The distribution of block grant between classes of authority is similar to that last year.
"I am now confirming the expenditure targets for all authorities. Since July inflation has fallen and interest rates have dropped, but I have not reduced the targets I announced then to reflect that. A few targets have been raised following minor changes to the methodology. None has been reduced.
"Most low-spending authorities and those that have complied with this year's guidelines are given targets which allow a 4 per cent. cash increase over their budget this year. Usually, authorities spend less than they budget for. In these cases the new target will be a small increase beyond 4 per cent. over actual spending this year. In the light of the current economic trends' it is fair, and it rewards efforts to economise. By contrast, the target for most over-spenders represents a 1 per cent. cash cut from their budget this year. That is tough, but rightly so; because these are authorities which have made no real effort to reduce spending so far, and where the scope for reductions is greatest.
730
"I believe that most local authorities will act responsibly, and will plan to hit their targets. This year and last, two-thirds of authorities budgeted to avoid grant holdback. But we also know that a less responsible minority exists. Pressure must therefore be increased on the highest spenders. The grant holdback scheme achieves this. For each of the first two percentage points of spending above target, there will be a loss of grant worth a 1p rate at ratepayer level. For each subsequent percentage point of overspending, there will be a loss of grant worth a 5p rate. This will help authorities which narrowly fail, but it becomes increasingly severe for overspending at all levels above 2 per cent.
"For the first time since 1945, current expenditure by local government has been shifted to a downward trend. This settlement builds on that. We have not yet achieved the rate of reduction we originally asked for when we took Office. We have made a start, especially with manpower. Local authorities have now reduced manpower by about 5 per cent. since 1979. The Manpower Watch figures, also published today, show that we are back to the level of 1972. We have eliminated the growth in manpower that followed reorganisation. The issue here is not the creation of unemployment: it is the reverse. The fact is that high rates have forced the wealth-creators in our society to reduce staff in order to maintain jobs in local government.
"Any objective survey of a proper cross-section of authorities will show that as a result of this settlement, rate increases next year should, for most authorities, be nil or in low single figures. If authorities spend at target, in many cases rates could actually be reduced. That is the prize offered by this settlement. There is no excuse for overspending this year. Authorities have had more notice than ever before. In the overwhelming majority of cases ratepayers will know that excessive rate increases are the result of excessive spending by their authority."
My Lords, that is the end of the Statement.
4.10 p.m.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, may I, first, thank the Minister for his Statement, and say it is a great pity that the material of the Statements he has to make do not equal the tone in which he gives them. The tone is very good; the material is awful and unfortunate. When the present Secretary of State took office, the rate support grant was 61 per cent; in other words, there was a 61 per cent. grant from central Government to local government. It will now be 53 per cent. as set out in this Statement, but it could be even less than 50 per cent. after the penalties for overspending which have been spelled out to us.
As to these penalties, they are dramatically punitive. For example, if an authority like Sheffield continues at its present spending level it could cost £20 million, which is £40 per week per person. That would be the penalty. That is for spending at this year's level by a sober Yorkshire authority—as I am sure the Minister will appreciate—which is not given to exotic financial eccentricities. But it is not only the Labour councils that are feeling the pinch. Anybody listening to the "Today" programme this morning would have heard

731
what the councillors from Surrey and other Tory areas thought; and, also, the Association of County Councils, which is not a Labour-controlled body, refers to the targets as being arbitrary, unnecessary and unfair. These penalties are for exceeding the targets which were first set out in the 1982 Act on local government and they have been built on ever since. Many inner city authorities, with their hard-pressed social problems, will be faced with a 1 per cent. cash reduction in their 1983–84 budgets, as compared with 1982–83.
In the Statement, the Secretary of State said, "This is tough, but rightly so". I would say, "This is tough, but not rightly so, and quite wrongly so", when we are talking about these very hard-pressed areas. Even the good boys, like Leeds—I am sorry to keep coming back to Yorkshire, but that seems to be a good example—and the shire counties get only a 4 per cent. cash increase on expenditure. Just to show how this is quite out of tone with expenditure in the country today, the CBI is reported in today's Financial Times as stating that pay increases are coming out at 6 per cent. in the present round, which they consider is very good, as it is 1 per cent. lower than last year. Yet the cash increase at the top rate is only 4 per cent., which immediately leaves a gap.
So the consequence of these targets is that there will be more hidden cuts in expenditure. For example, there will be cuts in education, in old people's services, in other social services, in the police—and we hear so much from the Government about law and order—in fire services, in cultural services and in community activities. Almost anything that one can name will suffer cuts through the targets that have been set for this year, and also through the penalties. This will also be at the expense of the already low-paid workers, and in a period of incredibly high unemployment these cuts must add to the problem.
The Statement shows how phoney is the Government's encouragement to spend on capital projects in this financial year. How on earth can they spend on capital projects, even if they have the time to plan them before the end of March, when they will not be able to bear the revenue consequences? The Government are heaping more and more on to the ratepayer—on to both the domestic ratepayer and the hard-pressed industrialist. It really is the height of absolute cheek to say, as this Statement does,
"The fact is that high rates have forced the wealth-creators in our society to reduce staff in order to maintain jobs in local government".
If authorities which are trying to keep down their expenditure are to retain even the most minimal standard of services—and many of them are unable to do that today—the rates must go up. It is because of this that industry and commerce find it difficult to continue.
They are doing this in the prolonged absence of any policy statement on the future of rates. Is this a continued, covert attempt to discredit the rating system and to hasten its demise? It will be interesting to know whether this is so. What local government needs is a healthy financial base. The cumulative onslaught of the Secretary of State's policies must
732
mean a withering away of local government and its services, since local government is becoming more and more the disenchanted pawn of central Government. This is having a disastrous effect on the morale of elected representatives and of officials. What a Christmas present, not only for local government, but also for those millions who used in the past to benefit from it services, and who are paying higher and higher rates for less and less!
Lord Hooson: My Lords, may I also thank the noble Lord for his amiable delivery of what is, obviously, bad news for the ratepayers. I want to concentrate my questions on one very short section of his Statement, which adverts to the suggestion that there should be no rate increases in the coming year and that there could even be a fall in the rates. How can the Government possibly reconcile that expectation with the fact, related in the Statement, that manpower levels are now down to those of 1972? There is a 3·1 per cent. decrease in the central Government contribution, leaving aside the measures to deal with high spenders. There are further duties and responsibilities being put on local authorities. There is the rate of inflation which, though it has fallen, is nevertheless considerable. How can they, therefore, expect no increase, or even a very small increase, in rates without vicious cutting of the services, which would be to the great detriment of the social fabric of this country?
4.17 p.m.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, made her fairly predictable response and may I, at once, remind her, when she talks about the drastic reduction from a 61 per cent. contribution when we took office, that the record will show that it was the Government which she supported which made in one year, 1976, the largest single reduction ever, when the rate came down by 4·5 per cent. I am sure that the noble Baroness will find that interesting. She said that not only Labour councils but Conservative councils would be hard-pressed and would have to put up the rates. I would only say that the record shows that last year the Labour-controlled councils put up their rates by 31 per cent., while the Conservative-controlled councils put up theirs by 12 per cent. I am quite sure that this year we shall see something not dissimilar. The noble Baroness said——
Baroness Birk: My Lords, before the Minister leaves that point. I should like to say that, on the whole, the Tory-controlled councils are in far less deprived areas, need to make far less expenditure and can tolerate cuts far better than the great majority of Labour councils.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, it is the graduated expenditure assessment basis that decides what are the levels of need. That feeds through to the grant, so it is not good enough to say that. The noble Baroness said that, whereas the Statement says. "This is tough, but rightly so", she says "This is tough, but not rightly so". We shall have to see about that. She would not expect me to agree with her. She talked about Leeds being good boys. Leeds used to be good boys. Today they are better than some, but a lot worse than they were at one time. I will not say when that time was. The fact is that

733
I predicted that, if Labour took control of Leeds, within two years the rates would be up 100 per cent. In fact, they were up 88 per cent. So I was out, but not that far out.
The noble Baroness said that the 4 per cent. cash increase was not good and asked how we equated it with the CBI's 6 per cent. reference to pay settlements this year. We are talking about a settlement which will pertain next year. It is not anticipated that settlements will be 6 per cent. next year. They will be less than 6 per cent. next year.
The noble Baroness reeled off—as she always does so well—education and the other items which will have to be cut. But she never mentions the opportunities which exist for local government to provide services at the same or, dare I say it? even higher levels, by means of money which they could save through doing things better. Let me give the noble Baroness just one example, because we do not want a long debate on a Statement of this kind. It is a very dramatic example. The Birmingham workforce, under pressure to contract out the refuse collection service, offered a saving to ratepayers of £3¼ million per year by reducing, at their own suggestion, their workforce of 715 by 263. That is a very massive saving in a very large authority. The same opportunity does not exist in every authority, but in terms of comparatives there are such opportunities and it is up to local government, as I am sure they will and as many do—let me repeat that, as many do—to take advantage of this kind of opportunity. That is why, despite what the noble Baroness said, we shall see at the next round of rate-making many rates established either with no increase or with increases in very low, single figures.
When the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, said that this was bad news for ratepayers, he would not have expected me to agree with him; nor do I. What the ratepayers have to do is to put pressure on the authorities to look at the kind of opportunities which I mentioned a moment ago, because many others also exist. The fact is that some two-thirds of local authorities are managing to work within the targets. That goes right across the spectrum. Why should they be able to achieve them, while other authorities cannot? The simple answer is that the will has to be there. If the will is there the opportunities are there. The Government hope that this will become more and more widespread.
The noble Lord, Lord Hooson, spoke also about the further duties on authorities. I absolutely agree. There always are duties on authorities. That is why we take account of the duties which are imposed when making grants. As we go along I hope that we shall reduce some of the obligations upon authorities. The record will show that this has been done. The noble Lord asked me how I can say that there will be little or no increase, in view of what is said in the Statement regarding a settlement. I believe I covered that point in my observations on what the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, said. I would gladly elaborate upon it, but perhaps today is not the time. I suggest that it is also not the time to go into chapter and verse, tempted though I am, on some of the other observations which the noble Baroness made.
4.22 p.m.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, I believe it was on 27th July that we said we would watch with interest the continuing development of this titanic struggle between the two great traditional parties, one entrenched at central level and the other entrenched in some of the most powerful local authorities in the country. Today's instalment has been a breathtaking one. May I ask the noble Lord the Minister to give the House a few more details of how many authorities are going to suffer from the holdback at the higher rate, at the 5p rate equivalent? Can he tell us what kind of authorities they are? It would also be instructive for the House if we could be told what political colour those authorities belong to: how many Labour, how many Conservative, and so on.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, the answer lies not with me but with the authorities themselves. I cannot tell the noble Lord what they will decide to do. That is a decision they will have to take based upon what has been said today. I cannot anticipate, other than from the budgets which we have received which give certain indications. It is now up to the authorities to see exactly how the settlement affects them, how the targets affect them, what the targets will then be and what decisions they will have to take with regard to their spending. At the end of the day what decides the issue is how much they spend, because that affects also the grant and the total rate-making ability. I am not prepared today to try to anticipate that. I hope the message will go home and that they will recognise they have a responsibility to everybody whom they represent.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, if that is so. how does the Minister know that the holdback is going to be £308 million?
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, the holdback refers to the previous year, not to the current year. The settlement covers both the holdback for the previous year and the settlement for the coming year.
Lord Sandford: My Lords, I doubt whether my noble friend expects a great whoop of joy from either the ratepayers or the councillors at today's announcement of this settlement. There will be gratitude for the recognition which the Secretary of State expresses of the efforts of the more thrifty authorities to keep within his targets, but those efforts have to be very considerable to earn any reward, and there is no guarantee under the system that the rewards, when earned, will be achieved. But it is the extravagance of the minority of authorities—most, though not all, belonging to the party opposite—which has made it not only feasible for the Secretary of State to take the kind of measures he has been taking over the past years, but politically essential for him to take those measures. I believe that they have to be accepted. However, we must get out of this situation as soon as we can and restore to local government some of the autonomy which the constitution requires for them.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for what he has said. He is quite right in saying that the efforts have to be considerable to earn the

735
rewards. I accept that entirely. There has been no attempt to say other than that. I hope I did not give the impression that it is easy to do this, particularly in the case of those authorities which have—as many have—for so long run what they call a tight ship and conducted their affairs responsibly. My noble friend is so right in saying that very many of the problems throughout local government are caused by the minority who increase their spending in blatant disregard of. and cocking a snook at, the Government's public spending requirements. They simply could not care less. This is so sad when one considers the proud record that pertained for so long in local government, which never exceeded by more than 1 per cent. over many years the parameters set down by central Government, of whatever colour. This is what should make us so sad when we contemplate a scene where the totality of local government overspends by as much as it does, whereas so many within it spend within the parameters laid down. I am grateful, therefore, to my noble friend for bringing out that point.
The Marquess of Aberdeen and Temair: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord a question for information. I am not trying to get at anybody. Is any part of local government expenditure on the proper maintenance and repair of rural roads and back streets in urban areas subject to grant, or is that expenditure entirely a charge on the local rates?
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, the make-up of the grant takes into account the type of expenditure to which the noble Lord referred. It is allowed for in the totality of spending.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, the noble Lord referred to the wealth-creators in our society who were having to reduce staff to maintain local authority manpower. Can he seriously sustain that statement? Would he not agree that the reduction in manufacturing employment has been largely due to previous overmanning, to new technology, to the exchange rate and to various factors of that nature? Is he seriously trying to blame local authorities for unemployment in manufacturing industry? If so, I am sure that it is greatly unfair.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, the points which the noble Lord makes are major factors in the effect upon unemployment, and there are others which he did not mention. It would be doing less than justice if we were not to recognise that there are many manufacturers and retailers too who have moved out of areas because they could not afford the rates, and who have closed down because they could not afford the extra burden imposed upon them. When rates are increased by 30, 40, 50 or 60 per cent. in one year, when one is trying to operate on the margin in difficult times, it is surely wrong not to recognise that this is a factor in increasing unemployment.
Lord Morris: My Lords, does my noble friend not agree that the substance of the Statement he has just made, and the reaction of Her Majesty's Opposition to that Statement, is nothing other than recognition by
736
Her Majesty's Government of the fact that there is no such thing as Government money; there is only one kind of money and that is the taxpayers' and ratepayers' money? It is extremely refreshing for noble Lords on this side of the House to see that recognition reflected in the attitude of Her Majesty's Government to the rate support grant.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend and entirely agree with him. I see this settlement as offering a great opportunity to local government, and I am sure that the vast majority of those in it will take advantage of that opportunity.

Health and Social Services and Social Security Adjudications Bill [H.L.]
4.31 p.m.
House again in Committee.
Lord Trefgarne Lord Trefgarne moved Amendment No. 149A:
Before Clause 20, insert the following new clause:
("Fees for certificates relating to notifiable diseases and food poisoning.
.The following section shall be substituted for section 50 of the Health Services and Public Health Act 1968—

"Fees for certificates under section 48.

50.—(1) Subject to any exceptions which he may specify, the Secretary of State may direct that a District Health Authority shall pay to a medical practitioner for each certificate duly sent by him under section 48 of this Act a fee of such amount as the direction may specify.

(2) The Secretary of State may direct that different fees shall be paid under this section in relation to different circumstances.
(3) A direction under this section may make provision in relation to fees payable after a date specified in the direction.
(4) The date may be before or after the date of the direction but may not be before if it would be to the detriment of medical practitioners.
(5) Before giving a direction as to a fee under this section the Secretary of State shall consult any body accepted by him as a proper body for negotiating fees for medical practitioners.
(6) For the avoidance of doubt it is hereby declared that the fact that a medical practitioner who gives a certificate under section 48 of this Act holds the office to whose holder the certificate is required to be sent does not disentitle him to payment of the fee (if any) payable for the certificate.".'").
The noble Lord said: In speaking to this amendment I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 150A and 154. This clause seeks to substitute a new section for the existing Section 50 of the Health Services and Public Health Act 1968, which covers the fees paid to medical practitioners for notification of infectious diseases and food poisoning. The new section directs district health authorities to pay a fee to medical practitioners and sets out the basis for determining the fee in future. On the reorganisation of the National Health Service and local government it was the intention that health authorities should meet the cost of medical services provided to enable local authorities to fulfil their statutory functions, including those relating to public health.
Statutory cover for certain other fees under the collaborative arrangements is provided by Section 3 of the Health Services and Public Health Act 1980, but the fee for notification is outwith that statute because,

737
in law, the obligation to provide the notice rests on the medical practitioner and not on the local authority. Health authorities have been required to reimburse local authority expenditure on notification fees since 1975 on the basis of extra statutory authority given by the Treasury. Subsection (1) of the new clause seeks to legitimise this financial liability upon health authorities and to ease administration by introducing payment directly to the notifying practitioners.
The majority of the section is concerned with future arrangements for setting the fee. The existing arrangements date from as far back as the last century. I hope your Lordships will not wish me to give further detail, although naturally I shall be happy to do so if asked. I beg to move.
Baroness Jeger: We do not quarrel with this new clause, but can the noble Lord the Minister help in connection with subsection (2), where there is reference to the fact that the Secretary of State may pay different fees,
"in relation to different circumstances"?
I am not quite clear what kind of circumstances would warrant differential fees.
Then, in subsection (5) there is a reference to the fact that,
"the Secretary of State shall consult any body accepted by him as a proper body…".
I wonder whether the noble Lord can give the Committee some indication of who are those "proper bodies".
LordTrefgarne: This new clause reproduces what I understand is already available in current provisions elsewhere in statutes. I will take up the point which the noble Baroness has raised and will let her know if there is anything I can add. That, broadly, is also my answer in respect of subsection (5). This brings the arrangements for settling the fee into line with those for many other fees which are paid.
Baroness Mashamof Ilton: On the first day of the Committee stage I moved an amendment to give the Secretary of State the power to fund special hospital units if the need arose. Then, the noble Lord the Minister said that such an amendment was unnecessary. Why, therefore, is subsection (2) necessary? If it is necessary to deal with general practitioners, as the noble Lord is now suggesting, it makes me believe that I should move my hospital amendment again at Report stage.
Lord Trefgarne: If the noble Baroness wishes to do that, it is a matter for her. I certainly rest by what I said in connection with that amendment. This amendment concerns a wholly different matter. As I said to the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, subsection (2) reproduces what is available under current legislation, which is exactly what I said to the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, under the previous amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clauses 20 to 22 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 150 not moved.]
Schedule 9 agreed to.
Clause 23 agreed to.
Schedule 10 [Repeals and Revocation]:
Lord Trefgarne Lord Trefgarne moved Amendment No. 150A:
Page 69, line 22, at end insert—

("1968 c. 46.

Health Services and Public Health Act 1968.

In section 48(2). in paragraph (a), the word "the Area Health Authority within whose area or" and in paragraph (b)(ii). the words "the Area Health Authority for the area".".

The noble Lord said: This amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Lyell Lord Lyell moved Amendment No. 151:
Page 70, line 44, after ("Treasury,") insert ("and shall be").
The noble Lord said: This is a minor drafting amendment. The repeal as printed would leave Section 100(2) with superfluous words, because "shall be" would appear twice. We seek to amend the repeal so that the substantive subsection reads sensibly and properly. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 152 not moved.]
Lord Lyell Lord Lyell moved Amendments Nos. 153 and 154:
Page 72, leave out lines 4 and 5.

line 23, leave out ("(1) to") and insert ("(3) and").

The noble Lord said: These are two consequential amendments. I spoke to Amendment No. 153 when moving Amendment No. 127; and my noble friend spoke to Amendment No. 154 earlier. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 10, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.

National Heritage Bill [H.L.]
4.40 p.m.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(The Earl of Avon.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD DERWENT in the Chair.]
Clause 7.
[Amendment No. 39 not moved.]
Clause 7 agreed to.
Clause 8 agreed to.
Schedule 1: Part II [Science Museum]:
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu Lord Montagu of Beaulieu moved Amendment No. 40:
Page 23, line 9, at end insert—
("( ) In selecting persons for appointment to the Board the Prime Minister shall have regard to the desirability of the person's having knowledge or experience of one or more of the following, namely, the fields of research in science and technology covered by the museum collections, design, non-national museums, tourism, commerce and finance.").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I would remind your Lordships that at the Committee stage the other day the noble Earl gave an assurance that arrangements would be made for the Victoria and Albert Museum along the lines of this amendment. In view of that assurance, I would wish to withdraw this amendment.
The Earl of Avon: I assure my noble friend that the Government are prepared to accept the underlying principle and will offer our own amendment in substitution at the next stage.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 41 to 43 not moved.]
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu Lord Montagu of Beaulieu had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 44:
Page 23, line 25, 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: Again, this was discussed at some length on the previous occasion, and therefore I feel that it is not necessary to have any further discussion, unless any noble Lord wishes to speak.
[Amendment No. 44 not moved.]
[Amendments Nos. 45 to 49 not moved.]
Clause 9 [The Board's general functions]:
[Amendments Nos. 50 and 51 not moved.]
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu Lord Montagu of Beaulieu moved Amendment
No. 52:
Page 6, leave out line 4.
The noble Lord said: At the Second Reading debate I did point out that, for some extraordinary reason, whereas the word "enjoyment" was used for one of the objects of the Victoria and Albert and the Armouries, that word was left out when dealing with the Science Museum. I hope my amendment will right that position. I feel very strongly that items of interest in the Science Museum should be equally enjoyed. Perhaps there was a grammatical reason for leaving that out of this clause; I hope my grammar in this amendment will be sufficient. There is no doubt that scientific objects can be enjoyed, and there should be no differentiation between the Science Museum and other museums. I beg to move.
The Earl of Avon: I think the noble Lord, the Deputy Chairman of Committees, put Amendment No. 52, and I believe my noble friend is speaking to
740
Amendment No. 53. I believe Amendment No. 52 was covered on the earlier occasion.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Derwent): Is Amendment No. 52 moved or not?
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu: That amendment is to leave out the word "and" in order to achieve the next amendment, which follows on grammatically. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu Lord Montagu of Beaulieu moved Amendment No. 53:
Page 6, line 5, after ("public's") insert ("enjoyment of and")
The noble Lord said: I have just spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness Birk: May I ask the noble Lord the Deputy Chairman what happened to Amendment No. 39? Was it not moved?
I should like to support my noble friend Lord Montagu on this amendment, to which I have added my name, especially as I speak as someone who has little bent for science at all yet has found enjoyment in the Science Museum; I have also seen people with their children finding the Science Museum an absolute delight. That applies to many of the exhibitions and also to what takes place in the museum. I did have the pleasure of having quite a lot to do with it when I was a Minister at the Department of the Environment. If this was a deliberate omission—no doubt the noble Earl will tell us the reason—I find it strange, because it is following a sort of tradition that science has to be dour, grave, unamusing and unenjoyable whereas the other museums concerned with pictures, costume, music or the arts in some form or other, one can enjoy. I think this amendment is important; it is not just a trivial matter for laughter, though it is in one way, and it does seem to expose an attitude which I think we should be doing our best to undermine in this Bill.
Lord Geoffrey-Lloyd: As the first Minister of Education to have had a scientific education, I support this. I hope that the noble Earl will have good news for us.
The Earl of Avon: The Government do, of course, accept that enjoyment should be clearly reflected in the words used, and we do accept the principle of the amendment. I would say to the noble Baroness that in no way was this omission deliberate in the sense she mentioned. It was partly a point of grammatical style. What we shall have is "public's enjoyment of … the development of science and technology", and I should prefer to have another look at where to put the word "enjoyment" rather than "enjoyment of development", though if the Committee would like the word "enjoyment" in at that point, I shall be happy to accept that. May I leave it to my noble friend either to accept "public's enjoyment … of the development", or let me try to put it in at another place between now and Report stage?
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu: I should be very happy to bow to the superior drafting of the noble Earl's

741
experts, and I am glad to withdraw the amendment on the understanding that "enjoyment" will be introduced in a Government amendment at Report stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu Lord Montagu of Beaulieu had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 54:
Page 6, line 9, at end insert—

("and

( ) satisfy the national interest in the museum's activities and any provincial obligations.").

The noble Lord said: An amendment similar to this was moved on Tuesday with regard to the Victoria and Albert Museum. The noble Earl gave a satisfactory reply and said he would look at it. Unless any other noble Lord wishes to speak to this amendment, I shall be happy not to move it.
[Amendment No. 54 not moved.)
[Amendment Nos. 55 and 56 not moved.]
Lord Strabolgi Lord Strabolgi had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 57:
Page 6, line 18, leave out from ("things") to ("as").
The noble Lord said: I apologise to the Committee; the proceedings went a bit faster than I expected. I do not propose to move this amendment because this is on the same question about admission charges which we discussed on Tuesday, but relating this time to the Science Museum. We had a full debate on it. Therefore, with your Lordships' permission, unless any noble Lord wishes to speak, I propose not to move the amendment.
[Amendment No. 57 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 58 not moved.]
Clause 9 agreed to.
Clauses 10 and 11 agreed to.
Clause 12 [Acquisition and disposal of objects]:
Lord Strabolgi Lord Strabolgi had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 59:
Page 8, line 9, leave out subsection (3).
The noble Lord said: This is also a duplicate of a previous amendment relating to the Science Museum and unless any noble Lord wishes to speak I propose not to move it.
[Amendment No. 59 not moved.]
Clause 12 agreed to.
Schedule 1: Part III [Armouries]:
4.51 p.m.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu Lord Montagu of Beaulieu moved Amendment No. 60:
Page 25, line 5, leave out ("Secretary of State") and insert ("Prime Minister, who shall have due regard to the desirability of the person's having knowledge or experience of one or more of the following, namely, arms and armour, military history, museums, design, commerce, industry and finance.")
The noble Lord said: Here again, this is an attempt to define the sort of persons required to be trustees in the new Armouries Museum; but again, in view of the
742
understanding which I have with regard to the desire of the Government to have a similar description for the Science Museum and the Victoria and Albert, I shall be happy to leave this to the Government to bring forward an amendment at the right stage. I beg to move.
Baroness Birk: I speak only to support the noble Lord's amendment because it will, as he said, bring consistency into the Bill with the other museums.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: I find myself in favour of this proposal and at this stage I need not interrupt the noble Earl, but we shall see what he has to say about it first.
The Earl of Avon: I was only pausing for a moment to see whether there were any further suggestions for amendments to the terminology. So far as the Government are concerned, we share my noble friend's feelings and are happy to accept the principle of the amendment. However, it is not clear that all the areas listed in the amendment are relevant to the responsibilities of the Armouries trustees. I am thinking in particular of "commerce" and "industry". We should like to consider this carefully with a view to bringing forward an amendment at a later stage. We would, of course, take into account what was discussed on Amendment No. 4. If your Lordships have any other suggestions regarding deletions or additions, I shall be happy to hear them.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu: I thank my noble friend. In view of that satisfactory statement we look forward to the Government amendment. I am therefore happy to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu Lord Montagu of Beaulieu moved Amendment No. 61:
Page 25, line 5, leave out ("Secretary of State") and insert ("Prime Minister").
The noble Lord said: This amendment is designed to remove inconsistencies in the arrangements for the appointment of trustees in the various museums cited in the Bill. There seems no good reason why all the museums cited in the Bill should not have trustees appointed in the same way. Those national museums which at present enjoy trustee status have their trustees appointed by the Prime Minister. The Bill seeks to extend this method of appointing trustees to cover the V and A and the Science Museum.
It is puzzling that a different arrangement is made for the appointment of trustees for the Armouries; namely, that they should be appointed by the Secretary of State for the Environment. There is nothing personal in this, as I am sure his appointments will be very good; but on the other hand, in some way it demotes the Armouries' status compared with the other museums. I do not think that it can be argued that the different method of appointing trustees is because of the small size of the Armouries. After all, the trustees of the Wallace Collection are appointed by the Prime Minister. My main point, therefore, is that the museums cited in the Bill should be treated in the same way. The trustees should be appointed by the

743
Prime Minister, which has proved so successful for the other national museums. I beg to move.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: I think it might perhaps be appropriate on this amendment to say a word about the question of appointments.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: May I interrupt the noble Lord because I am completely out of order? I apologise to the Committee. After Clause 12 stand part I should have put to the Committee that Clauses 13 to 15 stand part of the Bill. Therefore, I shall do so now.
Clauses 13 to 15 agreed to.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: I again apologise. We can now continue with Amendment No. 61.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: I was referring to the question of appointments and whether they should be made by the Secretary of State or by the Prime Minister. I expressed myself in favour of Amendment No. 60. In doing so. I was talking about the general sense of the amendment—that is. the appointment of a person having knowledge and experience of arms, armour, military history, and so on. It is generally-agreed that that would be a sensible thing to do. In that I did not mean to express approval of the proposal, which is part of that amendment, to substitute the Prime Minister for the Secretary of State.
This raises the whole question of appointments in this country. We are a much over-appointed country and a much under-elected country compared with the United States of America. It may be thought that the Americans go rather too far electing, as they do sometimes by pulling a handle, almost everybody down to the town hall janitor. It seems to me that we do not go far enough. We have established in this country a general proposition of lists of the great and the good from whom leading civil servants draw persons to fill all the positions of influence in the state. This general proposition seems to me to be fallacious, and I do not think it is cured by making the Prime Minister responsible for everything. The procedure which actually goes on, whether the person who technically makes the appointment is the Prime Minister or the Secretary of State, is somewhat similar. As everyone knows there is a sort of trawl. Names are put up at various stages, sifted out and arise, in this case, for the Minister of the Arts. He looks through them and passes on to his own Secretary of State a reduced list, which finally goes on to the Prime Minister who makes the choice. Of course, he or she can choose not to have any of the people and appoint someone else instead.
The whole procedure which goes on throughout the whole appointment business is one about which many of us have grave doubts. I am not sure that it is appropriate on this Bill to raise this general question, but it seems to be a question which ought to be dealt with because the notion that practically everyone in the country holding this type of position over the whole range of appointments is ultimately appointed by the Prime Minister is a thoroughly bad one. The difficulty is that once one gets into the habit of believ-
744
ing that prime ministerial appointment is the only really important thing, then everyone wants to have prime ministerial appointment or they feel rather under-graded. Therefore, if the Bill stipulates the Secretary of State, some people will say, "No, no, others are appointed by the Prime Minister, so this appointment must also be by the Prime Minister". So the whole thing turns on the Prime Minister who, in the vast majority of cases can, in fact, know very little about the people whom he or she technically appoints. The whole system is undesirable and should be changed. I am equally sure that this Bill is not the appropriate occasion to change it. although it is possibly the appropriate occasion on which to air it.
Having said that, my view is that we ought to go a little further down the scale. If I were to amend an amendment—a process which I am not much in favour of—I would substitute the words "Minister for the Arts" for "Secretary of State" in this case. He is the chap who will do the initial solving of lists, and I should prefer that he had not only the actual duty of looking through the names, but was actually responsible for making the appointment rather than pushing everything up to the top stage. Having aired the problem, I do not propose to vote against the amendment.
Lord Geoffrey-Lloyd: I support my noble friend Lord Montagu. The arrangement in the Bill does seem, probably unintentionally, to discriminate against this fine museum and I feel that the Committee would like to avoid that if possible. Can the noble Earl tell us whether he can do anything to meet these views?
The Earl of Avon: I should just like to put the Government's point of view and to say why we have done this, and then I should like to listen to the views of the Committee. Let me say right at the outset that it is not our intention in any way to demote the Armouries or to say that they are of lesser importance than anything else. I repeat: that is not the intention.
The Secretary of State for the Environment is now responsible for the Armouries as an integral part of the work of his department—this is the next point—as he is for the Tower within which the Armouries are and will be largely located. He will, therefore, be well placed to appoint the members of the board of trustees and to approve their choice of Master of the Armouries. Perhaps that does to a certain extent answer the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, when he suggested the Minister for the Arts. The reason why we are suggesting the Secretary of State for the Environment is that he has had control over the Armouries and he is the Minister responsible for the Tower.
The precedents on this are slightly diverse but the position of the Victoria and Albert and the Science Museums have been quoted, and they are somewhat different, not least because the Prime Minister herself expressed the wish to be involved in the appointment of their trustees. As they are large institutions with wide-ranging interests, it is considered absolutely appropriate to follow the practice in respect of, for example, the British Museum. The Government put forward their proposal because they did not think that the Armouries fell into the same category. However, if

745
the Committee wishes to support my noble friend then of course we would be totally willing to consider the matter.
Baroness Birk: I see a great deal of merit in, and have considerable sympathy for, what my noble friend Lord Jenkins of Putney has said. Indeed, I had the same feeling when we dealt with the National Heritage Memorial Fund, although we did not seem to get very far and in the end, because in that case two Ministers were involved, we all felt that we would only go forward if there were a prime ministerial appointment. I also feel that there are a great many advantages in having a Secretary of State involved especially if he is interested in the particular subject, museum or gallery.
However, we are in a difficult position as regards this matter. The Master of the Armouries and his staff feel that theirs will be a rather second-class museum in this context if it is not followed through so that, at the same time as the other museums are being devolved, they also are being devolved. As the Minister seems to be open-minded about this matter; as those people feel very strongly about it and will feel extremely aggrieved; and as they are covered in the same Bill, I think it would be better if they came under the same type of selection appointment umbrella.
Lord Craigton: Having listened to the arguments, I am satisfied with the Bill as it is.
Baroness Phillips: I should only like to enter the general argument, but not unfortunately to support my noble friend. There has constantly been propagated the great virtue of election as opposed to appointment. That comes rather oddly from a House whose Members are, by nature, either appointed or are there by the hereditary principle. My noble friend says that it should be elected; at the moment it is not elected. I can only say that, like many other people, I have been elected and I have been appointed and I know which is the better position. If you are appointed you are your own man—you are able to say exactly what you feel without any kind of intimidation or threat. If you are elected there is always the implied idea by the people who have elected you that, if you do not follow their ideas, they will not elect you again.
Our great institutions have always been run very satisfactorily by people who are appointed because of their knowledge or because of their feeling for the particular group to which they have been appointed. It would be rather unfortunate to go into the whole realm of everybody being elected whether it be boards of governors or appointees to boards of trustees, because in the end we shall get somebody for a transitory period, perhaps three years, and not someone who will be there for a lifetime and dedicated to the subject.
Lord Reigate: I should like strongly to support my noble friend Lord Montagu. It seemed to me at first that the argument for having the same status as the others was unanswerable. The noble Baroness, Lady Birk, mentioned the National Heritage Memorial Fund, in which I took some interest. She will remember that the real reason was not that we had two Ministers who might squabble about everything, but simply and solely to raise the status of the National Heritage Memorial Fund. I do not think that the
746
extent of the patronage in this field is such to overburden the Prime Minister. It is extremely important that we should keep the same kind of status for all these authorities.
There is in my view another argument. Frankly, I find armour a very boring subject, but I should have thought that it had much more to do with the Office of Arts and Libraries than it has to do with the Department of the Environment, and on that ground alone I am sure that the Prime Minister is the right person to make the appointment.
Lord Beloff: I should like to support my noble friend's amendment on two grounds. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, spoke about appointment and election. I should have thought that the only bodies of importance in the United States which are not elected are the trustees of the great museums—and the museums are the best run institutions in the United States. As far as appointment-by-whom? is concerned, 50 years ago there was no Secretary of State for the Environment and I would not, as a student of the machinery of government, be certain that in 50 years' time there will be a Secretary of State for the Environment. We may want to alter the situation in that department long before then. We are told that we are legislating for the future. There will, I think, be a Prime Minister, and therefore I support the amendment.
Lord Mowbray and Stourton: I should like to support the Government's view on this matter having twice been in the Department of the Environment, the machinery of which the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, knows so well. The interest shown in the Tower and the Armouries by the Department of the Environment is enormous. There is no question or doubt in my mind that the Secretary of State for the Environment has far more intimate knowledge. If the Prime Minister had to be involved in this matter she, or he, as the case may be, would only have to go to the Secretary of State for the Department of the Environment to get the information concerned. Why not leave it as it is, with the Prime Minister in the end getting advice? The Secretary of State is actually, day to day, responsible for all the functions of that wonderful place, the Tower of London, through the various offices involved. I do not think that one need be worried about this point. I have twice been in the Department of the Environment in a very junior, bottle-washer capacity, but I have seen that it works and I would strongly suggest that we leave it as the Government have put it.
Viscount Eccles: Is there an amendment to bring the Tower of London within the purview of the commission? I do not think that there is, but I thought that some people wanted it. In that case, I support the Government because the department's knowledge of the Tower is tremendous and if it is to remain with the department then we must remember that the Armouries are part of it. It seems rather difficult to say to the Secretary of State, "You are responsible for the whole of the fabric of all these buildings but not for appointing the museum trustees". I do not feel very strongly about this. As regards all the appointments with which I have been concerned, which were finally in the gift of the Prime Minister, the Prime Minister

747
consulted me as the junior Minister. I have some very interesting examples. I appointed someone as the director of one of our national museums and the Prime Minister of the day, who was the noble Earl's father, sent for me and said, "You cannot have that man". I said, "Prime Minister why not?" He said, "I do not think that you should do so". I told him, "He is an old Etonian". He said, "You can have him".
Lord Geoffrey-Lloyd: I hate to disagree even in the slightest extent with my noble friend Lord Eccles, but he has based his argument largely on the idea that the Tower was not going to be moved to the commission. Maybe the Tower will not be moved to the commission, but many of us feel that as regards the tourist management of the Tower, it would be much better if the commission took over that side of the work. Indeed, I think that the Government in their consultation paper suggested that that might be possible, in which case I suggest that the argument of my noble friend rather falls to the ground.
Baroness Birk: Before any decision is taken and in answer to what the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, said, the fact remains that, though part of the collection is still in the Tower of London—and later on we have an amendment to keep the greater part of the collection in the Tower—nevertheless under the Bill the Armouries have been devolved as a museum on their own. Therefore, as they are a museum, the fact that they are located in the Tower of London and have a connection with it I would suggest, with respect, is irrelevant to the point that we are now discussing as to who should make the appointment. I believe that the method should be consistent with the way in which appointments are made to the other devolved museums.
As regards the Tower itself, as it is a Royal Palace nothing is said in the Bill about it. There are some amendments down to make an enabling clause for Royal Palaces, but I honestly do not think that that is quite relevant to the discussion which we are now having.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu: We have had quite an interesting discussion on this point. I moved this amendment in order to bring consistency into the whole matter. Regardless of what the Department of the Environment thinks, I know that the staff of the Armouries feel very strongly that they would like the trustees to be appointed by the Prime Minister. They believe—they may wrongly believe—that they are in some way being slighted and demoted as a result. I hope that the Government will be able to accept this amendment, but, if not, one could perhaps think of a compromise at the Report stage whereby the chairman is appointed by the Prime Minister and the other trustees are appointed by the Secretary of State. I just make that suggestion, which might appeal to the Government. I think that there is considerable support in the Committee for this point, and I hope that my noble friend may be able to meet me on it.
The Earl of Avon: We have not so far had a Division and, as this is a non-controversial matter, I think we ought to see which way the Committee wants to vote
748
on it. By going backwards and forwards I find it hard to make a decision myself. I could consult and come back next time, but why do we not make up our minds now?
5.12 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 61) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships Divided: Contents, 69; Not-Contents, 83.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Adeane, L.

Jacques, L.

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Jeger, B.

Ampthill, l.

John-Mackie, L.

Annan, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Ardwiek, L.

Loudoun, C.

Beloff, L.

McCarthy, L.

Birk, B.

Mishcon, L.

Bishopston, L.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L. [Teller.]

Boston of Faversham, L.

Briginshaw, L.

Oram, L.

Brockway, L.

Peart, L.

Caccia, L.

Perth, E.

Chelwood, L.

Phillips, B.

Collison, L.

Rea, L.

Congleton, L.

Reigate, L. [Teller.]

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

Richardson, L.

Cork and Orrery, L.

Rugby, L.

Cottesloe, L.

St. Davids, V.

Craigavon, V.

Scanlon, L.

Crathorne, L.

Shackleton, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Shinwell, L.

David, B.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Somers, L.

Derwent, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Stone, L.

Geoffrey-Lloyd, L.

Strabolgi, L.

George-Brown, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Gormley, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Gregson, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Hertford, M.

Terrington, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Underhill, L.

Ilchester, E.

Vickers, B.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Jacobson, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Avon, E.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Aylestone, L.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Hanworth, V.

Bessborough, E.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Cathcart, E.

Henley, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Hives, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Craigton, L.

Hunt, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Daventry, V.

Ironside, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Kilmany, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Lane-Fox, B.

Eccles, V.

Long, V.

Elton, L.

Luke, L.

Ferrers, E.

Lyell, L.

Fortescue, E.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Gain ford, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Margadale, L.

Gibson, L.

Marley, L.

Gisborough, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Glanusk, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Glenarthur, L.

Merrivale, L.

Greenway, L.

Morris, L.

Gridley, L.

Mottistone, L.

749

Mountevans, L.

Selkirk, E.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Shaughnessy, L.

Moyne, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Newall, L.

Soames, L.

Northchurch, B.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Swansea, L.

Orkney, E.

Swinfen, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Swinton, E. [Teller]

Portland, D.

Thorneycroft, L.

Renton, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Ridley, V.

Trumpington, B.

Rochdale, V.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Vivian, L.

St. Just, L.

Wakefield of Kendal, L.

Saint Oswald, L.

Westbury, L.

Sandford, L.

Wynford, L.

Savile, L.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
[Amendments Nos. 62 to 71 not moved.]
5.22 p.m.
Baroness Birk Baroness Birk moved Amendment No. 72:
Page 27, line 2, leave out ("9") and insert ("10").
The noble Baroness said: As I have my name to it, may I move Amendment No. 72, which goes with 71 and also with 75?
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: Is the noble Baroness going to move Amendment No. 71?
Baroness Birk: May I move Amendment No. 71?
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: No, not really. The noble Lord, Lord Montagu has not moved it. Amendment No. 72 may be moved.
The Earl of Avon: May I intervene? I should be perfectly happy to have the arguments on Amendment No. 72, if it is the will of the Committee.
Baroness Birk: I am grateful to the Minister. This is again a question of inconsistency so far as the Armouries Museum is concerned. These amendments are concerned with bringing its funding into line with the funding of the other museums. Amendments Nos. 71 and 72 are paving amendments to No. 75. There does not seem to be any good reason why all the museums cited in this Bill should not be given the same financial provisions. Those national museums which at present enjoy trustee status are funded directly by money provided by Parliament. This method of funding has always worked well with these museums.
The present Bill seeks to extend this method of funding to cover the Victoria and Albert Museum and the Science Museum, but it provides a different financial arrangement for the Armouries and for the armed forces museums; namely, that they may be funded from money provided by their respective Secretaries of State. There may be a good reason for this arrangement so far as the armed forces museums are concerned. That I am not sure about. If not, that could be amended in the same way. But it cannot be argued that the reason for this different method of funding is because of the small size of the Armouries and the armed forces museums, when none is smaller
750
than the Wallace Collection, which is funded directly by money provided by Parliament.
Therefore, I feel that there is no reason why all the museums cited in this Bill should not be treated in the same way. It surely makes sense to give them all the same financial provisions as have proved to be the basis for the present structure and running of our other national museums. If this were done, all the museums cited in the Bill would be required to present their reports in the same way to their respective Secretaries of State, who should be required in turn to present a copy of each report to each House of Parliament. For those reasons, unless the Minister has something that we have overlooked, I cannot see that there is any reason why these amendments should not be accepted. I beg to move.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu: I must apologise for not having moved the amendment which was consequential on this amendment, but I should like to support the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, and say again that I think that the inconsistency is unfortunate. It would be much better if the Armouries were funded directly from Parliament and not from the Secretary of State.
The Earl of Avon: Of course I appreciate the reasoning behind these amendments which the noble Baroness has explained. They are designed to give the Armouries the same Vote status as is proposed for the V and A and the Science Museum. The provision of a different régime for the Armouries and a grant in aid paid by the Secretary of State rather than supply granted directly by Parliament, I hope your Lordships will not in any way think of as belittling the status of the Armouries. That is far from our intention. The inclusion of the Armouries in this Bill is indication enough of the Government's view of their status.
The proposed finance régime does not reflect on that. However, there are differences between the Armouries and, for example, the V and A. The latter is considerably larger and wider ranging than the Armouries and thus has much greater administrative requirements and resources. The Armouries also have a rather different background in the sense that they are currently part of, and will be sponsored in the future by, the Department of the Environment. In providing vote status for the V and A and the Science Museum we are simply following the precedent set by existing trustee bodies such as the British Museum.
The DoE of course has a large number of sponsored bodies, including the Nature Conservancy Council. All of these bodies, without exception, are funded by way of a grant in aid from the Secretary of State. I doubt whether that is to be held as a reflection on their status or importance. Thus the Department of the Environment's experience is of grant in aid bodies, and given that, and the size and the specialised nature of the Armouries, it is considered entirely appropriate that such a system should be applied.
This is an area in which again there is no right or wrong. It is a question of what is most appropriate in all the circumstances. With this close relationship with the Department of the Environment, and the fact that their experience is grant in aid, I hope that the Committee might feel able to accept what we have.

751
However, I shall listen to the rest of the debate with interest.
Baroness Birk: There does not seem to be any expression of opinion about this matter. In these circumstances—and I take it that the noble Lord, Lord Montagu, takes the same view, otherwise he would have spoken—we ought to withdraw the amendment at this stage, read carefully what the Minister has said—because I should like to read it as well as having listened intently to it—and then see how we feel about it and, if necessary, come back on Report.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 16 [The Board's general functions]:
5.28 p.m.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu Lord Montagu of Beaulieu moved Amendment No. 73:
Page 9, line 43, at end insert—

("( ) display a major part of their collection within the Tower of London").

The noble Lord said: The noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, has already mentioned the close association of the Armouries with the Tower of London. The Armouries is by far the oldest museum in Great Britain, and indeed one of the oldest in the world. Its history and development are inextricably linked with the history and development of the Tower. The Armouries is today a modern comparative museum, which is regarded as the national museum of arms and armour, and which enjoys considerable and increasing international reputation.
However, much of the interest and uniqueness stems from the fact that the basis of its collection is its large holding of arms, armour and related objects, which have for many centuries been stored, preserved, and exhibited in the Tower of London. Some of them were even made within the walls of the Tower of London. Possibly no other collection in the world still preserves such a long and close connection with an historic building. It is surely sensible to ensure that this collection is preserved. The Armouries certainly would be poorer if it was ever entirely divorced from the Tower of London. Indeed, the Tower would be much poorer if it were to lose the Armouries.
These collections are preserved as a very important part of our history, as much so as the Crown Jewels, the yeomen Warders and the ravens, none of which we wish to see leave the Tower. The amendment seeks to ensure, by a provision in the Bill, that the historic connection between the Tower and its Armouries are preserved for future generations to enjoy, while allowing the trustees considerable flexibility to exhibit part of the collections outside the Tower of London should they so wish. I beg to move.
Baroness Birk: I support the amendment, to which I have put my name. It was probably considered implicit in the Bill that what is proposed would happen, but I suggest it is necessary to include a provision of this type because, as we have said on many occasions when debating the Bill, we are talking not just about now or the near future but the very
752
long-term future. We are anxious to enshrine in the Bill the connection between the Tower and the Armouries, because they are so intertwined, and to ensure that the major part of the collection remains there. The amendment would leave sufficient flexibility for other exhibitions to take place and, therefore, for part of the collection not always to be in the Tower.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I have a question, of which I gave the noble Earl notice, that I have been seeking to ask about the Armouries, and this seems the least inappropriate amendment on which to ask it. What is to be the relationship between the Armoury in the Tower of London and the collection at the Wallace Collection? At one time the director of the Wallace Collection was the Keeper of the Armoury of the Tower. It may be that was because he was the preeminent expert in the field in this country. It meant that acquisitions and bequests were co-related. I should be grateful if the Minister would help me on that, and excuse me if I have asked it at the wrong time.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: I hope the Government will accept the sense of the amendment, although they may not wish to accept the actual words. They may have to make some qualification: in the event of war occurring, they must have special arrangements—especially in the event of nuclear war—for art objects to be removed from London into a bunker in Wales. I suspect—perhaps the Minister will tell us—that the Crown Jewels are among those objects. Although the population itself is not to be evacuated, art objects are. What sort of judgment one makes of that is a matter for the Government—I think it is the case—and the question is whether the Crown Jewels are among those objects. If they are, then, in accepting the amendment, the Government would have to include words to provide for the eventuality of their movement to Wales in the event of war.
Lord Cottesloe: The Committee was at pains in earlier discussions of the National Heritage Fund to ensure that it was possible—and your Lordships considered it very desirable—that objects of special importance to the heritage, when accepted for the nation, are enabled to remain in the houses to which they belong and in which they have been accumulated. Surely the same applies, in much greater degree, to the objects in the Armouries of the Tower of London.
The Earl of Perth: I hope the Government will find it possible to accept the amendment because, in a sense, the Armouries have had two blows this afternoon. One was on the question of who should appoint the trustees and the other was on the source of funds. Many of your Lordships know that this is a matter about which they are anxious, not immediately but in the future, and that being so, and because I feel one should pay attention to the views of those directly concerned, I hope the Government will accept the amendment.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: I support the amendment. Historically and visually one could not have a better place than the Tower of London in which to deposit the finest Armouries in the country.
The Earl of Avon: I say at once to the noble Earl, Lord Perth, that these are not intended as blows. As I have been at pains to say throughout our debates on these amendments, the Government fully appreciate the Armouries for the excellent collections they are: it is purely a question of administration so far as we are concerned. The noble Baroness was right to say that it is our intention to keep the Armouries where they are; there is absolutely no question about that.
However admirable and understandable the amendment is, there are difficulties, as several noble Lords have said, about including such a requirement in the Bill. For instance, if it were accepted, it would be necessary to provide the trustees with some means of fulfilling the obligation it would impose in them. There would have to be in the Bill the express right for them to occupy accommodation in the Tower. That, obviously, they will do, but at present it is not, as it were, enshrined in the Bill.
I would, however, assure noble Lords that it is our full intention to enter into an administrative agreement for the trustees to occupy part of the Tower, and we fully expect the trustees to observe the tradition of displaying the greater part of their collection there. While the amendment is not acceptable as it is, I now know, having listened to the debate, the aim of my noble friend Lord Montagu, and I will go back to see whether it is possible for the draftsman to incorporate the spirit of what he wants in the Bill.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, raised the point of the relationship between the Wallace Collection and the Armouries. I understand that the Master of the Armouries at present unofficially acts as adviser to the Wallace Collection on the care of the Wallace Armoury Collection. There is nothing formal to put into the Bill, and one hopes that the same sort of relationship, which is really a personalities one, will continue. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, mentioned the collection of jewels and asked whether they would be transported. I have no knowledge of that and I have a slight suspicion that if I had, I should not be allowed to tell him, though I may be wrong. In any event, I shall look into that point as well. I agree with my noble friend on the spirit of the amendment, as the Committee obviously does, and I hope it will be possible to incorporate in the Bill something along the lines proposed in it.
Baroness Birk: I thank the Minister for those remarks. There is one matter on which I should like to feel clear; perhaps I have misunderstood the position. He referred to the trustees having to ccupy a part of the Tower. The amendment simply says that the major part of the collection should be within the Tower of London. Does the noble Earl mean that the words "within the Armouries" should be added? In that case, I would understand what he was saying, but surely one need not say that the trustees must occupy, say, a part of the Victoria and Albert or part of the Science Museum. I am probably being rather obtuse, but I am not clear on the point.
The Earl of Avon: The difficulty is that the Tower of London remains a Royal Palace in which the Armouries are, so there must be an arrangement with the Tower for the occupation, as it were, of the
754
Armouries, and incorporated with that would be something very much on the lines about which we have been talking. I said that we would see if we could get something in the Bill along the lines of the amendment.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu: In view of that very satisfactory reply by the noble Earl, I am very happy to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.40 p.m.
Lord Reigate Lord Reigate moved Amendment No. 74:
Page 10, line 36, leave out from ("them") to end of line 37.
The noble Lord said: This is a probing amendment, but the need to probe into the matter has to some extent been answered by the discussion that we had on the last amendment but one. There is an anomaly in the Bill in that the Victoria and Albert Museum and the Science Museum are given power to levy admission charges. That power is not given to the Armouries, for the obvious reason that one already has to pay a great deal of money to get into the Tower in the first place, and then one has to pay even more to see the Crown Jewels. But having got inside, one does not have to pay anything to see the Armouries.
I felt that if the Armouries were to be deprived of the kind of income that would go to the other institutions if they were allowed to charge for admission, there should be some recognition that the Armouries should have their fair share of what I might describe as the "lolly" of the entrance money to spend on their own objects and to satisfy their own needs, so to speak. I should like to ask my noble friend whether he can say what provision there is for the Armouries to have their fair share of the admission monies. I beg to move.
The Earl of Avon: My noble friend is quite right, because it would be going around in circles if there were to be a power for the Armouries to charge for admission within the Tower. If we leave the financial arrangements as they are at the moment, the grant in aid will come from the Department of the Environment, which will of course be collecting the money outside the Tower. So if one were to take a separate kitty for the Armouries within the Tower, that would be taken into account in regard to any grant in aid. So, as my noble friend was anticipating, it would be going around in circles if there were such a power.
My noble friend might be comforted by one thing that I should like to say. I understand that the Armouries can charge for any activities in which they are involved outside; such as if they loan objects, or do anything of that kind. They are enabled to charge on those occasions. I hope that that is the assurance that my noble friend was seeking.
Lord Reigate: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 16 shall stand part of the Bill?
Baroness Lane-Fox: I should like to ask my noble friend that consideration be given to the inclusion in

755
each report of a statement of action taken by the board to promote the use of such places by disabled people, as well as to a similar provision in other appropriate parts of the Bill.
The Earl of Avon: I fully appreciate my noble friend's point. I shall look into it and see exactly what should be done.
Clause 16 agreed to.
Clauses 17 to 19 agreed to.
Clause 20 [Finance]:
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu Lord Montagu of Beaulieu had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 75:
Page 12, line 38, leave out subsection (1) and insert—
("(1) Any expenditure incurred by the Board shall, except so far as defrayed out of other sources, be defrayed out of money provided by Parliament.")
The noble Lord said: I think that we have had a full discussion on this point, and therefore I do not believe that it is necessary to move the amendment.
[Amendment No. 75 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 76 not moved.]
Clause 20 agreed to.
Clause 21 [Establishment of Board of Trustees]:
Lord Strabolgi Lord Strabolgi moved Amendment No. 77:
Page 13, line 3, at end insert (", Kew").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 77, and with your Lordships' permission, I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 125, which seeks to amend the Long Title in a similar way. As drafted, the Bill seems to me to imply that the Royal Botanic Gardens are the only botanic gardens in the United Kingdom. I believe that some concern has been shown in Scotland about this point because, as your Lordships are aware, there are Royal Botanic Gardens in Edinburgh. I submit that an amendment is necessary to make clear that the Bill refers to Kew, and also perhaps to Wakehurst Place, if that is necessary—and here I should be glad to have the advice of the Government.
Of course, I realise that the Bill does not extend to Scotland, except in very minor provisions; and that is made clear in Clause 35. Nevertheless, I submit that the correct description should be given. I have not proposed inserting the word "Kew" throughout the Bill, but that could certainly be done by way of drafting amendments at the Report stage, if the amendments now before the Committee were acceptable. I beg to move.
Lord Craigton: The botanic gardens are world known. There has never been any confusion, but I think that confusion would be created by the addition of the word "Kew", as though it referred to something new, I cannot agree with the noble Lord.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Earl Ferrers): I am bound to say that my feelings go along with those of my noble friend
756
Lord Craigton. The noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, made a perfectly good and reasoned case for inserting the word "Kew", but the Government feel that the right title of the institution is "Royal Botanic Gardens", as stated in the Bill, and we do not see any need to include as well the address, as it were. Indeed, confusion could flow from that because of the fact that the institution is already present at another location—the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, mentioned Wakehurst Place, in Sussex—and it may in the future take on further locations; it certainly has powers to do that. If the formal title became "Royal Botanic Gardens. Kew", it would be a little difficult to explain to the uninitiated why an institution that is stated by Parliament to reside at one location was also present at one or more other locations.
If I may put it another way, I would say that by the Bill we are creating a legal entity that in the future may operate at a number of different locations, only two of which, Kew and Wakehurst Place, are at present known. It is not necessary, and indeed it could be confusing, to include the name of one of the locations in the formal title of this legal entity. I hope that in view of what I have said, the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, will consider withdrawing the amendment.
The Earl of Perth: I have understood what the noble Earl has said in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, but would it not perhaps be better if it were made clear that what we are talking about are the Royal Botanic Gardens of England? After all, I am not sure whether the Royal Botanic Gardens of Scotland—in Edinburgh—did not come first. If they did not come first, they are certainly equally eminent. I think that it would be a great pity if there arose a situation in which, when one was talking about the "Royal Botanic Gardens", everyone thought that somehow Edinburgh did not count. So if the Government cannot accept the amendment as it is written, I hope that they will think about changing the title to the extent of adding, "of England". Then it would be possible to go anywhere in England to set up a new location, whether it be at Wakehurst Place, or anywhere else that is suitable.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: I, too, rather hope that the Government will find a way of avoiding unnecessarily offending the Scots. The Scots are fairly easily offended, and to go out of our way possibly to offend them on this occasion would perhaps be misguided. Therefore, whether or not my noble friend presses his amendment, it is my hope that the Government will be able to say a few words indicating that they take the sense of what he is seeking to express in the amendment.
While I am talking about Kew, I should like also to express the hope that nothing will be done to change the policy under which the gardens are at present conducted. That policy is admirable in every respect, not only in the way that the gardens are run but in every conceivable way; but also through the fact that it only costs 10 pence to go in. That price has been held at that level for a very long time and I think it would be a very sad thing if the consequence of what we are doing this evening were to be that that price, which has resisted inflation all along, were to take off with

757
everything else. Let us hope that the Government will be able perhaps to give us an assurance on that as well.
Lord Cottesloe: May I suggest that the Government might consider another variant and describe the Royal Botanic Gardens as the "Royal Botanic Gardens at Kew"? The words "at Kew" would be exlanatory and not part of their title—to which some exception might be taken.
Earl Ferrers: With regard to the latter point, I think we should still be in the same confusion if the title was to be the "Royal Botanic Gardens at Kew" which would be the legal entity, whereas in fact the Royal Botanic Gardens at Kew would also be operating in Wakehurst Place. I think that to avoid confusion the title would have to be kept as it is. I understand the predicament of the noble Earl, Lord Perth, when he reminds us that there is a Scottish Royal Botanic Garden—a very eminent one, too. Following the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, I would not wish to do anything to offend Scotland. I am sure that nothing in this Bill would do that; because one must remember that the Bill makes it clear that its provisions do not extend to Scotland or to Northern Ireland and the Royal Botanic Gardens in Edinburgh are the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Scotland. At present there is no reason to think that there should be any change in that respect.
When the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, says that he hopes the policy will continue to be the same, I think that we shall probably come to this a little later on, for, of course, the policy inevitably will become the responsibility of the trustees. There is no particular reason to think that it will change. Clearly one cannot give an overriding assurance that it will never change, but it will be the responsibility of the trustees.
The Earl of Perth: I am not entirely happy about this. Do I understand it now that there are two Royal Botanic Gardens of equal status? Or is the noble Earl saying that the Royal Botanic Gardens in Scotland is not really a Royal Botanic Gardens or that we have got to qualify it in some way? This is a Bill which is dealing with England. Why cannot we make it the "Royal Botanic Gardens of England"?
Earl Ferrers: I certainly do not hold any overridingly strong views on it. All that I was trying to explain is that the Bill makes it perfectly clear that it refers only to England and that the Royal Botanic Garden at Edinburgh will still remain the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Scotland. Certainly I will look at the point which the noble Earl has put forward. If there are overriding reasons to alter it, we shall certainly take the point into account.
Lord Strabolgi: I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Perth, and to my noble friend Lord Jenkins for their support. I think that the suggestions that have been made by the noble Earl merit consideration by the Government. The Government should get this right because it is causing concern in Scotland, and I think they ought to be sensitive about it and not assume, as the noble Earl has said, that these are the only Royal Botanic Gardens in the United Kingdom. Therefore, I
758
hope that the noble Earl will consult with his right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and see whether something to define that these gardens are in England should be put in the Bill. I am glad to note the noble Earl's undertaking and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 21 agreed to.
Schedule 1: Part IV [Royal Botanic Gardens]:
5.55 p.m.
Lord Craigton Lord Craigton moved Amendment No. 78:
Page 27, line 31, at end insert—
(" . In appointing any member the Secretary of State shall have regard to the desirability of the person's having knowledge or experience of one or more of the responsibilities of the Royal Botanic Gardens.")
The noble Lord said: The Committee have already agreed to the principle of prior consultation before appointment and knowledge of itemised subjects that are covered by the institution concerned. In my amendment I have used exactly the same words to begin with:
"In appointing any member the Secretary of State shall have regard to the desirability of the person's having knowledge or experience"—
but I have not itemised anything. I have simply said:
"of one or more of the responsibilities of the Royal Botanic Gardens".
The reason for that is really quite simple. Kew covers the whole worldwide field of a very vital world resource: food for man, animals, fuel, oil, insecticides, poisons, chemicals, plants, buildings, furniture—the list of what comes from plants is endless. The items in it become important or less important, and new ones are added as each day passes.
Clause 22 of the Bill, which lays down the board's general functions, some of which I have listed, covers even more. There are functions such as education, quarantine, caring for live plants and relevant libraries and museums, the keeping and using of collections (which include 5 million actual specimens) and, last but by no means least, catering for the enjoyment and education of the public. Such a long list cannot, and should not, be itemised in legislation, as in years to come it might prevent the appointment of an expert in some botanical science, the importance of which or even the existence of which we are not now aware of. So long as there is a changeable list, it is asking too much to expect those in his Ministry who advise the Minister to take on themselves, and to put the Minister in the position of, making appointments without any qualification. I have therefore added this very minor and imprecise statutory obligation which will be not only a protection for the Minister himself but an added assurance over those technical and conservation interests in the furtherance of whose concern Kew plays such an important part. I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers: The concern which my noble friend Lord Craigton has reflected is a very proper one. It is that those appointed as trustees should be fully equipped with the knowledge and experience to

759
participate in the running of the Royal Botanic Gardens. He said that the phraseology of his amendment was deliberately imprecise. In fact, it may be a little too precise. I would tell him that I would be prepared to accept this amendment in principle, but that I should like to have an opportunity to reflect on the exact wording of the amendment to ensure that it is technically correct and that it is drafted so as to cover all the types of knowledge and experience which we shall need, and at the same time is not inadvertently restrictive.
I think that the reference will need to be to the Minister of Agriculture and not to the Secretary of State. I am also a trifle worried about the word "responsibilities"; because if this is taken to refer back only to the list of functions which are at Clause 22(1) it could be too curtailing. For example, experience in finance or management or in industrial relations could all be very useful attributes in trustees and any amendment which is put into the Bill, I would suggest, should not imply an exclusion. It may be that the Minister should have regard to the desirability of the person having knowledge or experience which is relevant to the functions and management of the Royal Botanic Gardens. I think the wording needs to be carefully considered. If my noble friend Lord Craigton would be prepared to withdraw his amendment, I will give this matter more thought and come up with an appropriate Government amendment at a later stage.
Lord Craigton: The Minister has rehearsed all the arguments and difficulties that I had in preparing this amendment. In view of what he has said, I have much pleasure in asking the Committee to allow me to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Jenkins of Putney Lord Jenkins of Putney had given notice of his intention to move Amendments Nos. 79 to 83:
Page 28, line 12, 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.")

line 15, leave out ("or (5)")

line 22, 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—

(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;

(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.")

leave out lines 32 to 36.

Page 29, line 5, leave out ("industrial tribunal") and insert ("arbitration machinery' agreed with the recognised trade unions").
The noble Lord said: My noble friend Lady Birk has asked me in her temporary absence to say that, as the
760
subject of these amendments was fully discussed on a previous occasion, and as the Government gave a number of undertakings in relation to that, the assumption that we make is that it is unnecessary to move these amendments or, alternatively, if it is preferable that they should be moved, one will have the intention of withdrawing them. I am therefore in the hands of the Committee as to whether I should move them and then withdraw them or simply not move them.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Wootton of Abinger): Is it the noble Lord's intention that Amendments Nos. 79 to 83 should not be moved?
Lord Jenkins of Putney: That is right.
[Amendments Nos. 79 to 83 not moved.]
Lord Craigton Lord Craigton moved Amendment No. 84:
Page 29, line 8, after ("functions") insert ("and the current world situation related to them").
The noble Lord said: I have just described some of the functions of the Royal Botanic Gardens. In this amendment—which I believe is, from the world's point of view, a very important one—I want to ensure that this statutory report is wider than a report on the exercise of the board's functions, wide and varied though they are. I want the report to include for the benefit of the whole world what Kew knows and forecasts about the world situation in relation to its functions. There is good reason for this. There is no single authority that knows better than Kew at any time what exactly the world situation is. The IUCN's Threatened Plants Committee is located at Kew with a Wang computer already recording in great detail a quarter of a million plants, 10 per cent. of which are in danger of extinction. At Kew is prepared the red data book which lists endangered species. At Kew is the secretariat of the co-ordinating body of the world's botanic gardens. At Kew is produced the Threatened Plants Committee Newsletter which links the gardens and some 500 world corresponding botanists.
Everything is centralised in Kew Gardens, so it is really the centre of world botanical affairs. If any place has its finger on the pulse, it is Kew. Warnings, encouragement and information coming from Kew carry far more weight than from any other source in the rest of the world. Therefore Kew has, to my mind, an obligation and a duty to mankind that it can fulfil better than anyone else. This amendment will ensure that this obligation, this duty, is discharged. I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers: My noble friend is quite right when he says that Kew has its finger on the pulse of what is happening throughout the world. He stressed during his speech on Second Reading the international importance of the gardens in the study of the world plant situation. I would certainly accept that this international role is an important facet of the activities, and must remain so. I remind the Committee that the Bill states in Clause 22(1)—in some detail—the functions of the gardens, and that Schedule 1, paragraph 29, as it stands obliges the board to report regularly on the exercise of these functions. This will inevitably require information on

761
the situation on plants in other parts of the world. I am sure the board will be fully aware of the need to make its account of these matters in the report as comprehensive as it can.
If my noble friend's amendment was adopted, the report would need to go further than this. The board would be obliged to give comprehensive statements of the world's situation in relation to any function which it might have carried out. That in turn might involve them in considerable extra work in assessing and reporting on the world situation. I do not think that that is the intention which my noble friend has in mind, but that would be the result.
The trustees under the Bill as it is at the moment would not be excluded from describing the world situation where they consider it appropriate; but it would be imprudent to place on them a statutory imposition to do this in each of their reports. I hope that my noble friend will think that, in view of what I have said, the Bill would be best left as it is with the obligation not placed upon them to do this in every report but leaving it to the judgment of the trustees whose knowledge and conscientiousness I have no doubt will enable them to do this at every moment where they think it appropriate.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: I think that I find myself on the side of the Government in this matter. It appears to me that the purpose of the subsection is to make sure that any question of increasing the fees charged would be subject to very careful attention. I should have thought that, if this subsection were left out, it would leave the trustees a freer hand in the matter. This is one point on which I feel they should not have that free hand. If that is the purpose of the amendment, I would be on the Government's side rather than on that of the amendment.
Lord Craigton: I do not think the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, was speaking to this amendment. However, I am afraid that I am not entirely satisfied with my noble friend's answer. I know that what is said on the Front Bench is going to be done. If it is all done—and so many of us have heard this so often—that is fine and grand. But if at the gardens anybody with a narrow, restricted view were to read exactly what the Bill as drafted now says, then I really believe that he could restrict that information which is so vital to the rest of the world. We are not talking about Britain; we are talking about world functions. We are talking about the destruction of the forests, and all sorts of things which may not be a function of Kew Gardens but are a function of the connections that they have with Kew Gardens, and it is up to them. They are better able than anyone else to report to the world how things are going on, what is the tendency, what are the trends. I am not satisfied with this situation.
I should like the Minister to take this away and to draft this amendment in a way which makes it absolutely certain that, within reason, the exercise of their functions is in a world context and not in the context of Britain. The way that the Bill is now drafted, that is how it could be read by somebody who wanted to read it that way.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: The noble Lord is quite right. What I said earlier related to the next amendment and not to this one. Therefore may I withdraw what I said and regard it as being said next time?
Earl Ferrers: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, for explaining his difficulty. I hope that it will not prevent him from saying what he said again, otherwise I may forget what he said. My noble friend Lord Craigton is always persuasive. Of course, I shall take this amendment back and look at it to see whether there are any ways in which we can meet what he wishes. However, I remind him of this fact: if we put this imposition on the trustees in making their report, the amendment means that the Bill will read:
"The Board shall make to the Minister a report on the exercise of their functions and the current world situation related to them".
If we put that imposition on the trustees, they may well find themselves obliged to go to considerable extra work and expense in order to find out what the world situation is when they come to report on something which they have done which may have an impact or a part to play in the world situation. I would have the fear that my noble friend's words, if put into the Bill, would actually impose something on the trustees which they may not wish and which may prove to be considerably expensive. I should have thought that at present it would be better not to have those words in, but I will certainly consider what my noble friend has said.
Lord Craigton: If my noble friend is talking about extra expense, I must remind him that what we are talking about is saving the world. Man is destroying many of the living things of the world, and, if preventing that involves extra work and extra expense, of course we should be prepared to pay for it. But, in view of what he has said, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 1 agreed to
Clause 22 [The Board's general functions]:
[Amendment No. 85 not moved.]
On Question, whether Clause 22 shall stand part of the Bill?
6.11 p.m.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: In view of the fact that the noble Lord has not moved his amendment and the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, has already spoken to it although it has not been moved, perhaps I could raise a drafting query on this clause relating to subsection (8).
Under subsection (1)(f), the board is under a duty to afford for members of the public opportunities to enter. Under subsection (2)(c) the board may, subject to the provisions of this Act, require payment for certain things which do not include entry.
If one compares a similar provision for Clause 2, which is Section 3, one sees there that the board is given a specific power to charge for entry, and the change in terminology would certainly seem to have some legal significance; but when one turns to

763
subsection (8) it says that the Board shall not set without the Minister's consent and the Treasury's approval, the fees charged for such entry.
The noble Earl will tell me if I am wrong, but presumably that entry is the entry referred to in subsection (1)(f) and it presupposes that fees may be charged although, significantly, this clause, unlike similar earlier clauses, does not give power to charge for entry. I wonder whether the noble Earl could help me on that?
Earl Ferrers: I will do my best to help the noble and learned Lord, although if he finds a statute or a Bill difficult to comprehend I am sure I would find it more so. The object of Clause 22 is to permit fees to be charged for entry to any property which is occupied or managed by the board. In this instance, one might readily think of Kew Gardens, where an entry fee is at present charged. On the other hand, under subsection (8) the board cannot fix a fee either for entry into Kew Gardens or possibly into any additional place there. They cannot alter that fee, or make that fee. without having the permission of the Minister, in concert with the Treasury. This means that the Minister is directly answerable to Parliament for any particular alteration in fees that there might be.
One reason for this is that, particularly in the case of Kew, it is considered to be a public park to which the public should have access. If any fees were to be charged which might be so outrageous, if subsection (8) were not included, the board of trustees would have the power to fix those fees at any level they thought right, which would be very damaging to local interests. That is the reason for that subsection, and I hope I have answered the noble and learned Lord's point.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: It was really a drafting point, and I wonder whether the noble Earl would consider what I have said when he sees it in print to see whether the drafting ought to be adjusted?
Earl Ferrers: I shall be pleased to do that.
Viscount Simon: I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord has overlooked the last part of subsection (2)(c), which does authorise payment for entry.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: Perhaps I have overlooked a crucial provision in that case. Which one is that?
Lord Reigate: As there appears to be an interval during which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, will consider the point that has been made, perhaps I may raise the point as to whether subsection (7) and, to a certain extent, subsection (8) are really necessary. First of all, you bring forward a tremendous Bill to devolve powers to the boards. Can they really not be trusted to decide what shall be the hours of opening? Is it really something which the board of trustees are going to have to discuss with the Minister if they wish to close half an hour earlier? They are hardly likely to close the place for a whole day or anything like that. The Minister has sufficient powers not to renew their appointment, to put it mildly, if they did anything so foolish as that.
764
Also, regarding the hours of admission, is there not a differentiation with the other bodies we were discussing at an earlier stage, such as the Victoria and Albert and the Science Museum? The Prime Minister now has the power to appoint the trustees of the Victoria and Albert. I do not know what her views are of the closing of the museum on Friday instead of what would have been a more acceptable day to most people, such as Monday. I am really protesting, in a way. against the limitation of the trust placed in the trustees.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: It might be appropriate at this point if I were to repeat for the benefit of the Minister and to follow up what I said just now in an out-of-order way. The reason I think it necessary that subsection (8) should remain in the Bill is that, as I said just now, under the present control, the ministerial control, the entrance fee to Kew has remained for a very long time at 10 pence. I think that is still the case. That must have very considerable financial consequences, and if you lift the responsibility from the Minister and place it on the trustees the financial consequences of holding the level at 10 pence will fall upon the trustees. Therefore, since this is a ministerial action, and since it is one of the very few actions of the Minister which I approve of, I should be very sorry to see this beneficent ministerial action removed from the Minister—not through lack of confidence in the trustees, but since the financial consequences of holding the price down must necessarily fall upon the person who insists on such a holding down. It seems to me appropriate, therefore, that the power should remain in the hands of the Minister, and that one should not saddle the trustees with the consequences of a policy which one hopes they would carry out but which they may not have the financial means to carry out if the burden were shifted from the Minister and on to them.
Earl Ferrers: Perhaps I may make a few observations. I am so grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, for having repeated what he said earlier. I was so surprised to hear him in agreement with the Government that I wanted to give him an opportunity of repeating it, because that is a great rarity. My noble friend Lord Reigate said that he objected to this because it indicated the Government's lack of trust in the trustees. I do not think he should take that view at all. Kew Gardens, in particular, is a place which local residents and other Londoners value greatly. To them, Kew is a place of rest and recreation which is second to none, and they are deeply concerned that they should continue to be able to gain access to these lovely gardens at a reasonable price. It is not a question of not having confidence in the trustees.
My noble friend may have forgotten a fact which I am quite certain my noble friend Lord Eccles has not forgotten, that when admission charges were placed on museums there was a most unholy row, and there was an unholy row in Parliament. The reason why there was an unholy row in Parliament was that Parliament had a right to make a row. If the trustees raise unduly the entrance fee on these botanic gardens, if this provision remains in the Bill, it will give the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, who was one of those who made

765
the row over the museums, an opportunity of making another row over the increased charges to Kew Gardens. I am quite certain that the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, would be glad of the opportunity of doing that, should that misfortune come about. But that is the reason why we think it is correct to have that provision in the Bill. Therefore, I hope my noble friend Lord Reigate will agree that, on balance, it is a good thing.
Lord Strabolgi: As the noble Earl was trailing his coat, I must respond. As he said, I was very much against entrance charges to museums, but I am not against entrance charges at Kew and never have been. I think that they are essential for various reasons, because, although Kew Gardens is a public park, it is also a museum with very important and rare plants. It is also a place which has to be protected from carelessness and vandalism, and the charges are fully justified there. I also agree with my noble friend Lord Jenkins that it is better for these to be approved by the Minister, so that a balance can be held between the recreational aspect and the other side of Kew, which is so important.
Earl Ferrers: I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, kicked the ball into his own goal, because he said that he was against charges for museums, but he quite agrees with charges for Kew, because it is a museum. It is an interesting breadth of view.
Viscount Eccles: I cannot understand why the Minister has this faith in the Minister of Agriculture. I ask your Lordships to look at what happened to the charges at the Tower. There is no museum in the whole country where the charges have been increased more often and to a larger extent. The Labour Party increased them far more than the Conservative Government. I beg your Lordships: Put no faith in Ministers where charges are concerned.
Clause 22 agreed to.
Clauses 23 to 26 agreed to.
Clause 27 [Grants by Secretary of State]:
6.25 p.m.
Viscount Ridley Viscount Ridley moved Amendment No. 86:
Page 16, line 19, at end insert ("including the Reserve Forces")
The noble Viscount said: In this part of the Bill, the Government are taking powers to grant-aid armed forces museums. I know that this is bringing such museums into line with the rest of the Bill, and such matters as the conditions of service of Civil Service employees are dealt with in Schedule 2 and so on. But I suggest that the opportunity should be taken at this point to include all armed forces museums; not only those which happen to employ civil servants, but also those which are staffed by alternative, local authority employees. That is what Amendment No. 87 seeks to do and I hope it is convenient to my noble friend if we take that with No. 86, as they hang together.
There are in Great Britain over 140 army museums, regimental or corps museums, of varying sizes, and they attract between them some 4½ million visitors in any one year. We do not need to be reminded of their
766
value, both in the field of tourism and in maintaining the long and important magnificent military traditions of our country. About half of these museums are staffed by civil servants. No problem arises there, as they will be covered by the terms of this Bill, and the Secretary of State will have power to give them a grant if he wants to do so.
But about half of the remainder are not staffed by civil servants. They are staffed by local authority employees and are in the hands of the civic authority. I should explain that, for some time, the Ministry of Defence has given a great deal of encouragement to such museums to become part of the county council or district council museum service; to join forces and, as it were, to become part of the local authority or county museum. This is a very good thing. But, because there is no Civil Service involvement, they will, as the Bill stands today, be excluded from any possible grant from the Government.
About a quarter of the total are also to be found in territorial army centres. These are often staffed by retired officers, who, in some cases, are known to their friends as "retreads". Therefore, I am particularly anxious that the reserve forces should be written into the Bill, without any question of doubt, so that if there is to be grant aid it will not be possible to say: "We cannot make a grant to this museum, because it applies only to the armed forces." That is the purpose of Amendment No. 86. Knowing the noble Earl's distinguished Territorial Army past, I hope that he will at least feel able to support it.
Many of these museums are very small. They do not have many funds and the régiments which they commemorate may no longer exist. While they may not need immediate aid or grant for their collections, it is important that if, on some future occasion, a grant may be necessary, those museums should then be able to make an approach to the Government. This amendment would have the effect of allowing the Government to designate them and make the necessary arrangements.
It should be stressed that this is only an enabling provision. No duty of any kind will be placed on the Secretary of State to produce money. But it seems wrong that the important work which these museums do in preserving our past, particularly in regard to the material belongings of the armed forces, can be supported only if the museum employs civil servants.
I am not suggesting that the Government should start giving subsidies all over the place, but we heard the other night from the noble Lord, Lord Raglan, about the Duke of Wellington's cloak being attacked by moths. The Government should take powers to help in a matter of that kind. Therefore, I hope that the Government will look sympathetically at this problem. There is no effect on the financial provisions of the Bill. If I have spoken only about the army, it is because I know that a very distinguished ex-sailor is about to speak and, beyond him, we have amendments to deal with the air force. I beg to move.
6.29 p.m.
Lord Sandford: I rise to support my noble friend, who has spoken from a background in the army and in county councils, and to stress that the need for this

767
amendment is every bit as great in respect of the senior service and the district councils. One has only to visualise the kind of arrangements and the flexibility which have to be provided for in respect of the navy—the County of Devon, the City of Plymouth and Devonporr. Hampshire and the City of Portsmouth; Kent, Chatham and the Medway towns—to see that the kind of flexibility which my noble friend is urging is necessary. I am very glad to see that my noble friend Lord Montagu has amendments down which cater for the Royal Air Force.
Lord Margadale: I should also like to support the amendment moved by the noble Viscount. Lord Ridley. In many cases the small museums are a great source of pride to the régiments and greatly help in recruiting for the Territorial Army. The noble Earl, Lord Avon, who is to reply knows a great deal about this, for he is a distinguished London Territorial. I hope he will give it a sympathetic hearing.
The Earl of Avon: Having left my uniforms and various other items to régimental museums, I hope that they will be looked after in the way that noble Lords say. Equally, I should like to add my tribute to all the work they do in the various régimental headquarters. To deal with Amendment No. 86 which has been moved by the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, the term "armed forces" includes—and I emphasise this—the reserve forces. There is therefore no need to make separate mention of them. Should we do so we would have to think of mentioning all the other forces, such as the auxiliaries and the women's side of the services. By inference, incidentally, if one mentioned one force within the armed forces one would have to mention, as my noble friend will appreciate, others. May I therefore reiterate that "armed forces" does indeed include the reserve forces.
Turning to Amendment No. 87, the second amendment to which my noble friend has spoken, Clause 28 seeks to safeguard the position of the staff of armed forces museums who may transfer to direct employment with boards of trustees under the greater management autonomy envisaged in the Bill. In particular it is concerned with the position of those people working in the museums who are civil servants, of whom central Government are currently the employer and whose future position the Government, in their capacity as employer, naturally wish to protect. However, the Government have no such responsibility, and it would not be appropriate for them to assume such responsibility, for local authority employees. The Government therefore do not think it would be appropriate to include museums employing local authority staff in the ambit of this particular clause.
I have listened to what my noble friend Lord Ridley said and also to endorsement from the Navy side by my noble friend Lord Sandford. I should like to have a look at this point in order to see whether there is a solution, in the terms which my noble friend has suggested. However, I do not think that it is appropriate to this clause. I shall be in touch with the noble Lords who have spoken about this point.
Viscount Ridley: I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Avon, for his ecnouraging answer and for saying that he will look at the matter. I hope he has taken the points which I made. I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 86.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 27 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 87 not moved.]
Clause 28 agreed to.
6.34 p.m.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu Lord Montagu of Beaulieu moved Amendment No. 87A:
After Clause 28, insert the following new clause:
("Royal Air Force Museums.
.—(1) There shall be a body known as the Board of Trustees of the Royal Air Force Museums comprising the Museums presently known as The Royal Air Force Museum. The Cosford Aerospace Museum. The Battle of Britain Museum and The Bomber Command Museum.
(2) Part II of Schedule 1 to this Act shall (with appropriate modifications) have effect with respect to the Board as it applies to the Board of Trustees of the Science Museum.").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 87A and, with permission, to speak to Amendment No. 87B. These amendments are intended to probe the Government's intentions on the future of the Royal Air Force Museums now within the responsibility of the Ministry of Defence. With the rationalisation of the trustee status of the Victoria and Albert and Science Museums, it is hoped that a similar status can be evolved for the Royal Air Force Museums at Hendon. But it is not only Hendon; one also has the Cosford Aerospace Museum. In many ways, this now constitutes our National Museum of Aerospace, just as Greenwich is the National Maritime Museum.
May I remind noble Lords how these museums came into being? All the capital was raised from outside. There was no cost whatsoever to the Government. They stood free of debt when they were raised. The understanding was that they became a possession of the nation, to be run as a national museum, enjoying all the privileges and ranking pari passu with all the London-based national museums and galleries. But I have a feeling that this bargain has not been totally observed.
After the Royal Air Force Museum opened, an exhibition hall was opened with money raised from outside, and an admission charge was made. Then came the Battle of Britain Museum. Again money was raised from outside and an admission charge was made. Now a truly vast new Bomber Command Museum is rushing towards completion at Hendon. Again there will be an admission charge. So we are faced with the stupidity of having the vast main museum open free, any exhibition put on in the first extension open to the public being on a paying basis, with the income going to the Ministry, the Battle of Britain Museum charging and the Bomber Command Museum charging, all on the same site. One can imagine the legal, fiscal and administrative problems involved in having three charitable deeds of trust and three sets of trustees. It is tremendously time-wasting,

769
to put it mildly. Some kind of devolution and rationalisation surely must be sensible.
I realise that the amendment is defective since it makes the Bill hybrid. Obviously, therefore, one cannot proceed with it. Nevertheless, I hope that thought will be given to the matter. I know that all the trustees of the Royal Air Force Museum would like to be devolved to a trustee status, perhaps under the Department of Education and Science. Having lost their two museums recently, perhaps the Department of Education and Science would be prepared to accept a new one. It might be some compensation for them. Since we are introducing legislation on museums, I feel that we ought not to waste the opportunity to rationalise this very great museum. It is high time that the present extremely unsatisfactory situation was sorted out. I beg to move.
The Earl of Avon: I appreciate that in tabling these amendments my noble friend has at heart the best interests of the Royal Air Force Museum and the other museums which he mentioned. May I stress, first, that unlike the Science Museum which the noble Lord cited, the Royal Air Force museum, for which this Bill seeks to provide, already have their own boards. The Royal Air Force Museum already has a properly constituted board of trustees. Similarly the Battle of Britain and the Bomber Command Museums have their own boards of trustees. Only the Aerospace Museum at Cosford does not currently have its own board but is run by the board of trustees of the Royal Air Force Museum under a management agreement between the Secretary of State for Defence and the trustees. Although linked to the Royal Air Force Museum by this agreement, the Aerospace Museum is therefore separate. Thus, there are distinct differences in the identities, status and constitution of the four museums which it is proposed should be governed by a new board of trustees.
There are also differences in the way these museums are funded and the extent to which public money is committed to them. The staff of the Royal Air Force Museum are civil servants. I am sure that the Committee will remember that at Second Reading I said that this was one of the museums we were thinking of designating. These civil servants are employed by the Ministry of Defence, and under the provisions contained in the Bill were transferred to direct employment by the board of trustees. Additionally the museum receives a grant in aid from the Ministry of Defence for the purchase and upkeep of the exhibits. The Battle of Britain and Bomber Command Museums, on the other hand, are private trustee bodies and receive, as far as I know, no support from the Ministry of Defence.
Given the different nature of the museums in question and having regard to the fact that three of them have existing boards of trustees responsible for their operation, the Government believe that it would not be appropriate for this Bill to seek to impose upon them the amalgamation of their museums under a single board. I would suggest that it is up to the trustees themselves to negotiate these amalgams and to seek the approval of, probably, the Charity Commissioners.
770
My noble friend also mentioned the idea of the Department of Education and Science taking over the museum. The correct path would be for the trustees of the Royal Air Force Museum to approach the Ministry of Defence and then to see their way forward from there. I understand that in principle we can see no particular difficulty about it. With that reassurance, I hope my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu: The noble Earl's statement was very interesting and useful. I am sure that the trustees will read his remarks with great interest. However, the complication which he has described is a very good reason for doing something about it. Having heard what has been said, perhaps the trustees will now take some action to resolve the matter. There can be no doubt that it is a complicated and unsatisfactory situation for one of our really important museums. Otherwise, I withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 87B not moved.]
Schedule 2 [Armed forces museums]:
Baroness Birk Baroness Birk moved Amendment No. 88:
Page 29, line 37, at end insert—
("Staff
.—(1) There shall be a Director of each designated institution who shall be appointed by the governing body of that designated institution with the approval of the Prime Minister.
(2) The Director shall be responsible to the governing body for the general exercise of the governing body's functions.
(3) The governing body may appoint such other employees as the governing body think fit.
(4) The governing body shall pay to their employees such remuneration and allowances on such other terms and conditions as the governing body 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.
(5) A determination under sub-paragraph (4) is ineffective unless made with the approval of the Minister given with the Treasury's consent.
(6) Employment with the governing body of a designated institution will be included among the kinds of employment to which a scheme under section 1 of the Superannuation Act 1972 can apply, and accordingly Schedule 1 to that Act (in which those kinds of employment are listed) will be construed as if it included a reference to a designated institution.
(7) It shall be the duty of the governing body, 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 governing body and those organisations such agreements as appear to the parties to be desirable with respect to the establishment and maintenance of machinery for—

(a) the settlement by negotiation of terms and conditions of employment of employees of the governing body with provision for reference to arbitration in default of such a settlement in such cases as may be determined by or under the agreements;

(b) the promotion and encouragement of measures affecting the safety, health and welfare of employees of the governing body and the discussion of other matters of mutual interest to the governing body and its employees including efficiency in the performance of the governing body's functions.")

The noble Baroness said: This is a long amendment but the explanation is very short. The Bill does not make the same provisions for armed forces museums as for the V and A under Schedule 1, Part I, 4. We feel that there is no reason for a different approach and,

771
consequently, this amendment seeks to bring the provisions into line with those of other museums. I beg to move.
The Earl of Avon: As I said before, there is an essential difference between the armed forces museums which are likely to be affected by this Bill and the other museums to which it applies, in that the armed forces museums are already governed by properly constituted boards of trustees. It is necessary to consider to what extent the Bill should impose conditions on the way in which the trustees carry out their functions. Schedule 2 as it stands is intended to set out the safeguards which, quite rightly, should be provided for the staff of museums who are currently Ministry of Defence civil servants and who may in due course become employees of their respective boards of trustees. It is intended thereby to ensure that their position, particularly with regard to their pension arrangements, is not worsened by such a transfer.
Having said this, the Government realise that the staffs of museums are naturally concerned about the circumstances of their possible future employment. That is why discussions have begun between the Ministry of Defence and the appropriate Civil Service trade unions. It is hoped that these discussions will reasssure staff on these and other matters.
Perhaps I may now comment on specific parts of this amendment. Sub-paragraphs (1) and (2) of the amendment provide for the appointment of a director of the designated armed forces museums. It is the Government's view that this is a matter for the boards of trustees to decide according to the management needs of their particular institution and is not one that it would be appropriate to impose on trustees. With regard to sub-paragraph (3) the boards of trustees already have the power to employ or appoint staff. Sub-paragraphs (4) and (5) are also contained in amendments to earlier clauses which we have already discussed. Having regard to the fact that there are established boards of trustees, the Government consider that it would not be appropriate to impose such conditions on the terms of employment of their staff. I have pointed already to the safeguards which the Bill provides for existing staff during transition to direct employment by the museums.
Sub-paragraph (6) is already written into the Bill in paragraph 3 of Schedule 2. Sub-paragraph (7) is similar to provisions which the noble Baroness has proposed for the other museums and, as I have already indicated, discussions are being held with the appropriate trade unions on aspects of direct employment. Ultimately, it is for the board of trustees to determine how such matters should operate. I have given the noble Baroness a very full reply so that there will be on record the various points we have to make. With those assurances, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Birk: I would like to thank the noble Earl for that very full reply, which will be of great interest to me when I read it again and also to the civil servants involved. I am delighted to hear that consultations are continuing, and hope that something will be sorted out
772
before Report stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 89 and 90 not moved.]
Schedule 2 agreed to.
Clause 29 [Establishment of Commission]:
6.45 p.m.
Lord Craigton Lord Craigton moved Amendment No. 91:
Page 17, line 3, leave out ("Commission for Ancient Monuments and Historic Buildings for England") and insert ("Heritage Conservancy Council").
The noble Lord said: The CFAMAHBFE is really too long and it does not flow easily from the tongue. For notice boards, literature and cheques, el cetera, it would be a disaster. What is wanted is a statement to the public in which the commission's concern and interest in the heritage of Britain is conveyed as clearly as possible. If it is right to combine the old-established Ancient Monuments Board established in 1913 and the post-war Historic Buildings Council—established, I believe, in 1952—it is right to give the body a new name. I cannot believe that anyone wants to perpetuate the CFAMAHBFE.
I am attracted to the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, as my suggested title does not include the word "England". To that extent I prefer the suggestion of the noble Baroness for the "Heritage Commission for England"—the HCE. That is very good indeed. However, I do not like the active wording of her amendment, because it includes the words, "also known as". This means that in official documents, notices, et cetera, one may still find the CFAMAHBFE, to which would be added, "also known as". I hope that your Lordships will agree to call the body "The Heritage Commission for England" without qualification, and have done with it. If the noble Baroness will agree to that, I should have much pleasure in withdrawing my amendment.
Baroness Birk: I thank the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, for the opening he has given me for my amendment. The reason I did not entirely like his amendment was because it seemed to give a different nuance to the word "conservancy", and also we have the Nature Conservancy Council. I very much take his point about the clumsiness of the nomenclature at the moment, but it seemed to me that it did explain the nature of the Commission for Ancient Monuments and Historic Buildings for England—that it is, in fact, the merging together of these two bodies. I felt that ought to be extant for the time being—what happens in the future, I do not know.
It seemed correct to use that as the Long Title or official title, and then to insert wording to the effect that it may also be known as the Heritage Commission for England. I assumed that it would be immediately referred to as the HCE but, nevertheless, one would have on official documents, in the statute and in any explanatory notes and guidelines (and I believe we will need a great many of those before we get to the end of Schedule 4), a title that would make it clear of what the commission comprises. It does cover these two

773
commissions. I did not assume that the Long Title would be used in conversation or as a term of reference; but gradually, as the "Heritage Commission for England"—and I hope that will be acceptable to the Government as well—becomes known as the accepted title, the other title will become obsolete or lose its use.
Lord Craigton: Before the noble Baroness comes to a decision, does she realise that she will be retaining the longer name which we do not like—and that all documents, cheques and notices will not be legal unless they use the long name?
Baroness Birk: Perhaps someone could give some assistance in the drafting here so that we may find an alternative to the words "also known as". I consider that we should not at this stage wipe out the "Commission for Ancient Monuments and Historic Buildings for England", because it is in the Bill and is what the Bill is all about. Incidentally, in choosing the HCE, I was trying to find something that did not conflict with the National Memorial Trust, which is very important as well. I am sure other noble Lords, or perhaps the noble Earl, can come forward with other ideas which may solve this point.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu: There is no doubt that the present name in the Bill is a terrible mouthful, and I am sure something simpler is essential. It is unfortunate in some ways that we are using that rather overworked word "heritage", but I am afraid it is very difficult to find anything else and the public at large does begin to know what it means. I very much hope that the Government will consider some shorter title, and if the drafting is wrong perhaps it can be put right at Report stage. I do hope something simpler will be found than the title in the Bill at the moment.
Lord Reigate: My sympathy is entirely with my noble friend Lord Craigton on this. I have never seen or heard of such an appalling mouthful as originally proposed in the Bill. Think of a telephone operator answering the telephone. It is an appalling thought; the number would be permanently engaged. Nevertheless, I cannot say that I like either his solution or the noble Baroness's solution, which I think is slightly better than his. I do so agree with the noble Lord, Lord Montagu, that the word "heritage" has not been part of our vocabulary for very long. I think one day someone will write a very learned thesis for a doctorate on the origin of the word "heritage" and when it first came into use. I think I am right in saying that it first came into some use at the time of Mentmore, which was five years ago; up till then it had been used merely as an abstract metaphor, so to speak.
When I introduced a Bill to hand over the National Land Fund to trustees the word "heritage" was used in debate, but there was no question of putting it into the Bill. A year later, after the Select Committee in the Commons had reported in favour of it, and had introduced the term "Heritage Fund", it came into common currency. I feel it is extraordinary that the brains of the whole of your Lordships' House, let alone the public outside, cannot think of a name which is simple and yet does not repeat the cliche and cause the confusion that the title of the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, might cause.
Viscount Simon: I entirely agree that this very awkward name should be got rid of, but I have doubts about either of the other two names suggested. As the noble Lord, Lord Reigate, said, the heritage is a comparatively new idea; it certainly includes many things besides ancient monuments and historic buildings; it includes pictures and things which belong to the state or are associated with the state. I would have thought "heritage" is really too wide a term to use in the description of this body which is being set up.
The Earl of Avon: I am glad that the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, has finally underlined the difficulties of choosing a new name for this body. It is not an easy thing to decide and it always will give rise to a good deal of debate.
As noble Lords will be aware, the decision document on the proposed new agency specifically asked for ideas for a title. The number of suggestions was less than we expected and quite often it seemed easier to criticise new ideas than to think of ideas oneself. I think the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, has really underlined the difficulty, which is the need to keep most of these words there; as you cross them off you get into problems. It is a tricky business, especially when there are other bodies to take into account. Noble Lords have mentioned the National Heritage Memorial Fund. The latter is perhaps difficult, especially as this Bill also testifies that "heritage" covers a rather wider field than the new commission. It is for that reason that the Government have sought to avoid it, while recognising its merits as a well known short word which is descriptive of the field.
While the Government are not rigidly tied to the title of the commission as given in the Bill, they do not consider, with all due respect to my noble friend, and I believe the Council for British Archaeology, whom I seem to recall from his speech on Second Reading supported this title, that the alternative put forward in his amendment is all that much of an improvement. I feel that giving it the shorthand title the Heritage Commission for England is probably more helpful. I have listened with great attention to the ideas and points that have arisen in debate and I will take them back for consideration. Perhaps we can have another look at this at Report stage, along with other suggestions, when we see which way the Committee is feeling.
Baroness Birk: Before we withdraw our amendments, may I ask the Minister this question. This does not solve the problem of finding a different title. Could Clause 29(1) be along the lines: "There shall be a body comprising the Ancient Monuments Board and the Historic Buildings Council for England, known as …" then either the Heritage Commission for England or something different? I think we should all think about this, and perhaps the noble Earl would get the brains of his department to look at it again.
I must say in answer to the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, that if we are going to be particular to that extent, particularly over the word "heritage", we are never going to find a shorter title. The noble Lord, Lord Reigate, is absolutely right in saying that you cannot really answer the 'phone with those initials.

775
What will happen is that some bowdlerised shortening will arise and come to be used instead of something which we think fits. I do not think anything we decide will be perfect, but we have to find the best solution we can.
Lord Denham: It is always difficult to work out exactly the right place to stop. I think possibly we might stop here for the dinner adjournment rather than going on to the next amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: Is the amendment withdrawn?
Lord Craigton: I withdrew my amendment, but I will withdraw it again.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 91A not moved.]
Lord Denham: I was out of order and I do apologise to the Committee. As it is nearly seven o'clock, I think this is probably a suitable moment to take the dinner adjournment. Before I move that the House be resumed perhaps I might intimate to your Lordships that we will come back to the Committee stage of this Bill, if the intervening business is over, at 8 o'clock.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: The Question is. That the House be now resumed?
Moved, That the House be now resumed.—[Lord Denham.]
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: I am advised that it is in order for me to make a comment and a suggestion on this Motion. I do so because immediately after this Motion two items of business will be taken during the break for supper, and I raise particularly a matter on the first of those two, which is the Commonwealth Development Corporation Bill. It has been the practice in this House ever since I came here, and long before that, for non-contentious business to be taken as desired during the supper breaks in a long Committee stage of a Bill. But I think care has to be taken, if I may say so respectfully, not to include items to be taken under these conditions upon which noble Lords would otherwise wish to have a modest time for debate.
The Commonwealth Development Corporation Bill occupied another place for quite some time and although it deals mostly with finance and giving additional borrowing powers to the corporation, matters can be raised relating to the work of the corporation and the use of the moneys to be permitted to it. So there has been a little difficulty this evening about this Bill. I myself desired to take part in the debate upon it and other noble Lords wished to do so, but when we were reminded that the Bill would be taken, along with another item, during the supper break, naturally constraints weighed heavily upon us. I, at least, have not felt free to develop matters that I would otherwise have done.
May I plead with the noble Lord the Chief Whip to take special care to include only non-contentious business, really matters which the usual channels will
776
usually agree on as of minimal importance, and not include in this procedure matters upon which some noble Lords may feel rather strongly. I hope I may be permitted to make that suggestion and so avoid this particular difficulty in future.
Lord Denham: I should hate to be a constraint lying heavily on the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, but business is, of course, arranged through the usual channels, and the way it is done agreed. It has been a fairly longstanding custom during the Committee stage of a long Bill such as this to take business which is broadly non-contentious during the dinner hour. The fact that it has become a custom does not necessarily mean that we should always do it. Obviously we must look at our procedure from time to time and see whether we have it right.
I suggest this is a matter which ought to be discussed through the usual channels, and I will certainly discuss the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, through those channels; and if he has a word with his Whip's office, and any other noble Lord who may feel strongly has a word with theirs, we can discuss the best way to proceed.
I hope that with the assurance that we will look at this question, but without commitment, the noble Lord will feel that he has made his point.
Baroness David: I am very glad that the Chief Whip has spoken in this way and that he is willing to look at this question again, because we have a certain sympathy with my noble friend Lord Houghton of Sowerby. Obviously we shall leave the subject now, but it can be discussed further on another occasion.
On Question. Motion agreed to. and House resumed accordingly.

Commonwealth Development Corporation Bill
7.2 p.m.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. We now know, after the speeches we have just listened to, that we have been allotted only this dinner hour, a maximum of one hour, to discuss the Bill and another piece of business, and that by agreement through the usual channels we are to get this Bill through all its stages in that time. I hope I can rely on the co-operation of noble Lords to achieve this worthy objective.
I chose that phrase deliberately. That part of the Government's revenues which are given to overseas aid—around £1 billion—is, I believe, one of the most important and valuable parts of our contribution to international well-being, with, naturally, a spin-off to our own economy. Within this, the Commonwealth Development Corporation is, I submit, one of the most effective of all agencies anywhere in the world. Other noble Lords will no doubt wish to eulogise it, but, for my part, I will only say that it has been spectacularly successful in its statutory aim of assisting developing countries in the development of their economies through investment in projects which can

777
be either in the public or private sectors and which will increase the wealth of the territories concerned. These projects have to yield a reasonable return to the corporation because of its statutory duty to secure that its revenues are not less than sufficient to meet its costs. This it has done with such success that it has for many years made a profit on its investments which it has been able to plough back into further development projects.
The main objectives of the Bill are simple. They are to revise the corporation's temporary borrowing limits and replace them with a less rigid system and also to increase their overall borrowing limits to enable them to sustain the level of investment for which the demand exists and which both the Government and the corporation itself want to see met further. This will provide them with borrowing limits which should be adequate until the end of the decade.
Clause 1 amends Section 9 of the 1978 Act so as to enable the Commonwealth Development Corporation to borrow from the National Loans Fund. Similar provision now exists in legislation dealing with other public corporations. It would make available to the corporation an alternative source of funds should the Government at some future date prefer market borrowing to be undertaken from the National Loans Fund rather than, as at present, from the private sector. It does not mean that this Government envisage that the corporation should be required to borrow at market rates from the NLF instead of at concessionary rates from the aid programme.
Clause 2 increases the limits on the borrowing powers of the corporation. Section 9 of the Commonwealth Development Corporation Act 1978 sets the existing limits to the amounts the corporation may borrow temporarily and otherwise. The temporary borrowing limit has remained at £ 10 million since the corporation was established in 1948. It has hitherto needed to make little use of these borrowing powers because its internal liquidity has largely been sufficient to meet short-term financing needs. It has, however, sought an increase in the temporary borrowing limit, first, because the original limit is now much reduced in relation to the scale of its operations and, secondly, in order to give it greater freedom of manoeuvre in relation to the timing of the market borrowing. While there is not an immediate requirement for an increase in this temporary borrowing limit, the need for such a step may well arise in the near future. It is therefore proposed to bring the provision for temporary borrowing into line with that now commonly used for public sector bodies, by amending the 1978 Act to enable the Secretary of Sate, with the consent of the Treasury, to set a limit on temporary borrowing from time to time.
The limit in respect of sums borrowed otherwise than temporarily was set in 1948 at £100 million and was last raised in 1977 to £500 million, extendable by order to £570 million. Since the Government recently gave the corporation authority to borrow commercially as well as under the aid programme, the CDC'S estimated total borrowings could well approach the £500 million limit within three years or so. The Bill therefore raises the overall borrowing limit—including temporary borrowing and borrowing by subsidiaries or where the CDC has incurred a contingent liability—to £750 million, extendable by order by the
778
Secretary of State, with the consent of the Treasury, up to a maximum of £850 million. As I said, these should provide adequate borrowing powers until the end of this decade.
The rest of Clause 2 is consequential, as is Clause 3, which, within the new overall borrowing limit, increases the limits within which the corporation may borrow from the Secretary of State to £700 million, extendable by order to £800 million.
I should like to conclude by expressing the appreciation of the Government, and I am sure of this House, of the splendid way in which the Chairman of the CDC, the noble Lord, Lord Kindersley. the board and the staff are maintaining the very high standards set by their predecessors over more than 30 years. This Bill will assist the corporation to continue the very real contribution which it makes in the developing countries, and I trust that it will receive the approval of the whole House. I beg to move.
Moved. That the Bill be now read a second time.—[Lord Skelmersdale.]
7.9 p.m.
Lord Oram: My Lords, I am sure we are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, for the way in which he has introduced the Bill. He seemed to do so with rather more zest than did his colleague in another place because on that occasion Mr. Marten said:
"This is a horrible piece of legislation".
That at least struck me as unusual for a Minister when introducing a proposition to the House. But we know what he meant. He meant that it is a Bill which is largely technical, full of figures and dry-as-dust financial provisions. That is what he meant when using the word "horrible".
Those who are acquainted with the work of the Commonwealth Development Corporation, including myself, know very well that behind the technicalities and the statistics is a human story. Indeed, there are thousands of human stories in the many successful development projects which the CDC has sponsored throughout the third world. As the chairman of the corporation, the noble Lord, Lord Kindersley, said in the latest report of the corporation;
"CDC has a substantial balance sheet but its prime asset is people".
I have had a number of opportunities over the past 15 years or so to know that that is very much the case. I have been involved with the work of the CDC and I have viewed it in three different ways. Back in 1969, when I was a Minister at the Ministry of Overseas Development, it fell to me in another place to deal with a Bill very similar to that with which the House is now dealing. Secondly, during 1975 when I was in neither House of Parliament I had the valuable opportunity of serving on the board of the CDC for a short period and I found that to be a most enlightening experience. But perhaps most important of all from the point of view of first-hand knowledge was that during a visit to Malawi I saw a number of the CDC projects in that country and I met a number of members of the dedicated staff which the CDC is fortunate to employ. When one sees the type of project that the CDC is successfully operating one comes away full of praise for the work it is doing.
It was of interest to me that the Members of the sub-committee in another place which investigated the work of the Commonwealth Development Corporation also went to Malawi and apparently looked at the same projects as I had the pleasure of seeing. As I have mentioned the report which came from the sub-committee of the Foreign Affairs Committee in another place, I should like to ask the Minister whether he knows when we are likely to get the Government's reply to the many valuable recommendations which the Members of another place put forward in this report. It may be that they have already made their reply and I have missed it, but I think not. It would be valuable if the Minister could let us know either now or in some other way. because it might give your Lordships' House the opportunity for a short debate on the CDC which might compensate to a degree for the limited time that we are able to devote to this particular Bill at this particular time.
I have looked through the recommendations in the report of the sub-committee of the Foreign Affairs Committee and it seems to me at first reading that the long list of recommendations that they make could be implemented without any further legislation. If that is so, then I see no difficulty in agreeing—as we have agreed—to facilitate the quick passage of this particular Bill through the House. But it would be regrettable if, having done that, it meant that any of the recommendations of the sub-committee were held up for lack of further legislative opportunity. In particular—and I should like the Minister to comment on this either now or in some other form—the subcommittee put forward the following recommendation in terms of financial programmes. I am quoting from paragraph 135 of their report:
"We recommend that consideration be given to providing the CDC at least three years in advance with a formal rolling programme. This should state the minimum level of advances from the aid budget and authorised commercial borrowing which the CDC can expect, and should indicate the maximum level of funding on which it is likely to be able to draw from these two sources in those years".
That struck me as a very sensible proposition that was being put forward by the committee. I just wonder whether it will be possible—at first reading it seems to me that it would be possible—to implement that recommendation within the parameters of the financial provisions that are being made in this Bill. But, if not, then it is regrettable that there may be a delay because this Bill is going through in the way it is.
In general, I am clearly, from what I have said about the valuable work of the corporation, thoroughly convinced that the CDC deserves the backing of Parliament in the way in which this Bill proposes. Periodically since 1948, as the noble Minister pointed out, under Governments of both persuasions, the CDC's borrowing powers have been raised, and for two reasons. First to meet the demands of inflation which has been going on throughout that period; and secondly—a happier situation—because the CDC has had an expanding programme. My noble friends and I certainly support the present Bill on those grounds as a further step in financial provision for the CDC, and I suppose that I need say little more than that about the financial provisions.
However, it occurred to me when I recalled the 1969
780
Bill for which I had some responsibility, that the ceiling of borrowing at that time was £225 million and the figure proposed a little more than a decade later in the present Bill is £750 million. That struck me as a rather strong comment on the decline in the value of money in little over a decade. But equally I hope—indeed. I feel sure—that it reflects that the CDC has been pursuing an expansionist policy on progressive lines, and that of course is to be welcomed.
I should like to make a few general comments about the role of the CDC as I have seen it over the last 15 years or so. I recall that in the 1969 Act. to which I have referred, we gave the CDC power to operate in countries other than Commonwealth countries. Up to that point it had been limited to countries within the Commonwealth. I see from the latest report of the corporation a lengthening list of such countries which are outside the Commonwealth network. That is all to the good, although I notice that the House of Commons sub-committee seemed to have doubts about it. I personally certainly have no doubts. I think that it is one aspect of the way in which the CDC has adapted its operations over the years to meet the needs of a changing world.
Of course, the Commonwealth aspect is still of great importance—great psychological importance if nothing else—but from an economic and social point of view I suggest that the differentiation between Commonwealth and neighbouring non-Commonwealth countries is becoming less sharp. I am sure that it was right that the CDC should be given the extra freedom to which I have referred.
I remember also that during the short time that I was on the CDC board we were much exercised about the choice of priorities in the operations of the corporation. I recall that the Ministry of Overseas Development itself at that time was reshaping its policies to ensure that more should be done in the rural sectors of the economies of the developing countries; and also—and this was a matter which my right honourable friend Dame Judith Hart had very much at heart—that aid should be directed towards those countries most in need. I was, therefore, glad to read in the general manager's review in the latest report the following sentence:
"CDC will aim to place not less than half of its new commitments in the poorer developing countries and also not less than half in renewable natural resources projects.".
That reads very well and I hope that the CDC will indeed be able to fulfil that welcome intention. Indeed, I would be happy if they would increase it above the 50 per cent. mark.
The need for that kind of priority in development work has recently been underlined in a report by M. Pisani, who is the Development Commissioner in the European Communities Commission in Brussels. His report, in a document which I think has had too little notice taken of it either in Brussels or elsewhere, points out that the current world crisis is accentuating the differences between the different groups of developing countries. On the one hand, we have the oil exporting countries and those that are newly industrialised; and on the other, we have the poorest countries which have neither oil nor new industries, and the gap between those two groups of developing countries is becoming wider.
M. Pisani's paper says that aid is not going to those who need it most. He quotes that in 1979 middle-income countries were receiving bilateral aid to the tune of 12 dollars a head against only 5 dollars a head for the poorest countries. That is why, taking M. Pisani's analysis, I am glad to read that the CDC is putting emphasis on its work in the poorest countries, and that is why I hope it will increase that emphasis still further.
I conclude with a further reference to the speech with which the Minister for Overseas Development introduced the Bill in another place. He was full of praise, as we all can genuinely be, for the work of the CDC. But then he went on to bemoan the fact that he could not do as much as he would wish, or indeed as the CDC would wish, to help that work forward. And why? It was, he said, because of the many other claims on the aid programme. I have a simple suggestion to make which I hope the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, will perhaps pass on to his colleague in another place. I think that my suggestion might help him out of the dilemma which seems to be causing him some pain. The answer to his dilemma, I suggest, is simply that the Government should increase the aid programme.
7.24 p.m.
Lord Seebohm: My Lords, I shall be very brief. I find it very difficult to believe, in spite of comments that may have been made by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, or perhaps in the other place, that anyone who knows anything about the CDC could possibly object to this Bill. Over the years the CDC has acquired a unique expertise and experience in tropical agriculture and, what is even more important, has gained the confidence of the governments concerned. There have, I think, been many well-intentioned projects in the past which have failed to do any good for the particular reason that they do not have the confidence of governments.
There is also much talk in your Lordships' House about the volume of aid. I believe that the basic problem of development of the third world is not necessarily a financial one. Far too little talk has been on the actual needs of these countries, and I hope that we may have a debate on that in due course. It is only partly, and sometimes not at all, a financial problem.
For 20 years I was a director, and for many of those years chairman, of the Barclays Overseas Development Corporation. In all those 20 years we worked alongside the CDC. It was a very interesting experience. Both of us had to learn very much the hard way and we made mistakes, some of them very expensive ones. But we both learnt a lot and, as I have said, both the CDC and the Barclays Overseas Development Corporation gained experience and expertise which I do not believe any other similar agency in the world has.
I remember in the 1960s, when I was in Nigeria, meeting a very high-powered consultant from America who had been sent out by USAID to advise them on the direction in which they should place their aid. He told me, to my great disappointment, that he was not going to recommend any agricultural projects. He said "If we can get a manufacturing base in
782
Nigeria"—and he used the phrase that they used in those days—"we shall get a trickle-down which will bring prosperity to the rest of the country". This has proved completely false, and I am afraid that in many places they still use the phrase, "Let us work on a trickle-down basis", which I think is an enemy to all development. That is not the philosophy of the CDC. The CDC goes for the improvement and development of agriculture and tropical crops, without which I believe we may in a comparatively short time see the third world more or less coming to a complete halt, possibly with starvation and bankruptcy.
Recently there has been an initiative by the European Parliament over four African countries, which I believe the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, may mention later on. The initiative says that if they require help in food production, they can have it. I should be interested to know whether there has been any response to that from those countries. But if they do respond, I very much hope that the CDC will be allowed to enter into these projects, because nobody could do it better.
Finally, I find it cumbersome that we must have a Bill coming through two Houses to provide this sort of finance. I well remember being chairman of Barclays International—I wish I still was—and I believe that if the chairman and general manager came to see me even for £250 million the conversation need not have taken longer than about a quarter of an hour. Next day they would have had a one-paragraph letter, and that would be that. However, I think that there is some hope that the CDC may be able to get money from the private sector in due course, and if that is so, I very much welcome it. But tonight let us not quibble about the method; let us get the Bill passed.
7.28 p.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, first, I should like to add my voice to that of my noble friend Lord Houghton in protesting at the lack of time which has been given to all the stages of this Bill. I do not in any way criticise the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale; I know that it is not his responsibility. But it is a denigration of the importance of this Bill that it has to be passed through all its stages within 40 minutes. If that is put down to the responsibility of the usual channels, then it is time we had different usual channels.
During the last 30 years or so I have had the pleasure and privilege of visiting many CDC projects. I well remember almost 30 years ago being taken to see a great pine forest that was being grown in Swaziland, where you could see the pine trees from their very early growth through to their full maturity. I have no doubt at all that every Member of this House now—and I stress now—will be in favour of this Bill and a supporter of the CDC.
It was not always the case. After all, this is a public corporation. At its inception there was a great deal of cynicism and criticism from the Conservative Party. Indeed, even the present Government, despite the continued success of the CDC, as one of their first measures, made a cut in the funds of the CDC which in real terms amounted to 34 per cent. I should like to ask the noble Lord who is to wind up the debate: has

783
that 34 per cent. cut at the beginning of this Government's life yet been restored, or will it be restored when this Bill becomes an Act?
The CDC is, above all, a bridge between aid and investment. It should be considered as investment. In Questions I have asked in the House I have failed to get through to Members on the Front Bench opposite that this is not a hand-out; that the CDC has always made a surplus every year of its operations. In putting money into the CDC we are indeed investing not only in the development of the poorer countries and thus providing greater purchasing power for them to buy our goods, but also into our own industry. I hope that that lesson has now been learned, as I believe it probably has been by the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, who, as my noble friend Lord Oram said, opened this debate with so much more enthusiasm than his honourable friend the Minister in another place.
I should also like to take up the point that has just been made by the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm. It is, I agree entirely, of the utmost importance that agriculture, the development of agriculture, and agricultural renaissance should precede industrialisation; that industrialisation should be built, as it has been in every successful country, on the surplus provided by agriculture. The CDC is one of the major institutions in this country supporting and developing the agricultural strength of the poorer countries. The more we can do to facilitate and expand the activities of the CDC, the better will be the health of the economies of the developing countries.
I should like to say to the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, that although I would agree with him that this lesson has by no means been universally learnt by developing countries, it is being increasingly learnt, and there are more and more developing countries that are putting their emphasis upon food production and rural development. The other great benefit which the CDC is giving in its services to the developing countries is the work that it does in technical and managerial training. This is again of enormous importance, particularly in the agricultural world, to the developing countries.
On the other hand, I want to make one point to the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale. There have to be some political criteria at least in the field of human rights in both investment and in aid. I have not time tonight to go into the details of the criticisms which have been made of the CDC scheme in the Philippines, but I hope that the noble Lord who is to reply will spend some little time on at least assuaging our fears about the way in which the CDC has conducted itself in the Philippines, and the place that that project is taking so far as the people of the Philippines are concerned.
I should like to ask the noble Lord another question. The report of the Select Committee suggests that there are years in which the CDC pays more back to the Government than it receives from them. I believe that this is to reduce the debt of the CDC, but I should like to hear from him what happens when the CDC makes a surplus and pays it back to the Government. Would it not be better to increase the funds of the CDC from their trading surplus?
784
In short, it is not enough for us all to join together in unusual unanimity in support of-the Commonwealth Development Corporation. It is one of the major arms of what I again have been trying to get through to Members on the Front Bench opposite: the economic policies which can reverse both the British and the world recession by increasing the purchasing power and the wealth production of the poorer countries. We need to not just praise the CDC but to give it greater opportunities. It needs expansion, not to be judged simply on commercial standards.
Here I have one criticism to make of the Select Committee's Report. In paragraph 70 on page XXV of the report the Select Committee of the Foreign Affairs Committee states:
"To the extent that the CDC acts as a catalyst in promoting the activities of UK companies interested in investing overseas, we consider that it has a valuable role. We think, however, that there may be more scope for project identification to help UK industry to invest in some of the more developmentally important areas of the economics of developing countries, and we suggest that the CDC examine whether it would be possible to put more energy into this type of activity."
My Lords, it is not more energy that is needed. The CDC has plenty of potential energy. It is more money that is needed, and it is more money that is needed from the Government.
This brings me to the point made by the Minister of State in another place in the debate on this Bill on 7th December. The Minister, Mr. Marten, said, at column 780:
"Advances from the aid programme were £30 million in the financial year 1981–82 and are expected to be £34 million in 1982–83. I have informed the CDC that, subject to parliamentary approval. I hope to be able to increase that to £37 million in 1983–84."
I would ask the noble Lord who is to wind up one question: do those figures take into account inflation? If not, they are reductions at the present level of inflation. If they do not take into account inflation, they have already been reductions over the past year. They are reductions this year; they will be reductions next year. I should like to know from the noble Lord whether his honourable friend in another place is putting forward a proposition that the Government are going to increase in cash terms, but reduce in real terms, the funding of the CDC from the aid budget.
Finally, I wonder whether the noble Lord will have time in winding up to discuss the more philosophical question of whether the CDC is rightfully within the framework of the aid programme. Should it not be a part of the Department of Industry, where it would have the benefit of escaping from the constant aid cuts of this Government, and perhaps find a greater understanding of its contribution to the development of the economy of this country and of the developing world?
7.40 p.m.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I regret that the business of the House is precluding us from discussing the affairs of the Commonwealth Development Corporation more fully. However, without offering a debate on the subject, it is possible that the House may decide to debate the whole subject of overseas aid, of which the corporation, as has been said, is an important and successful part, and in my view—to

785
answer immediately a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hatch—should remain. On this occasion I can put my hand on my heart and, in all honesty, thank noble Lords for their concise speeches. I shall try to answer all the points in the short time available, but, if I leave any out, perhaps I may write to the noble Lords concerned.
The noble Lord, Lord Oram—how nice that it was he who spoke from the Opposition Front Bench tonight—asked, with his great authority as an ex-Minister at the ODA, whether we should be able to debate the report specifically and, if so, when. The report was printed, as he knows, only on 19th October and was embargoed, which means that the Government did not have it until 7th December. I must tell him, therefore, that although it might well provide an opportunity for a debate, like Pooh, the Government are still pondering the matter and will take a little time yet on it.
Several noble Lords mentioned the reasons for the Bill, especially the noble Lord, Lord Oram, and I would agree with him that they are inflation and a product of the CDC's own success. I am glad to see that the noble Lord agrees with the Government on the subject of inflation, at least so far as it affects the overseas aid budget, and is prepared, at least on this occasion, to condone what I can only describe as our valiant drive to reduce it. I am sure he is as happy as I am at what we have achieved so far, and I hope he agrees with me that with a bit of luck we shall continue with the steady decline in the inflation rate.
The noble Lord spoke yet again about Mr. Pisani. Some time ago he was kind enough to say that he and I would both profit from reading each other's speeches. During the time of this debate I have cast half an eye on the Official Report of this House for 6th December, col. 7 and following, when the noble Lord asked me a Question specifically about Mr. Pisani. I am glad to see, therefore, that he is carrying on his own PR work, but I am afraid I have nothing to add to the answers I gave on that occasion.
The noble Lord, Lord Oram, concluded with a suggestion that the Government should increase the aid budget and asked if I would relay that to my right honourable friend. I have said from this Box on several occasions since I have been lucky enough to be dealing with these matters that as soon as the country can afford it and we get into an equable state—which I am afraid is still some way off—we shall do precisely that. Thus, the point has already been taken, though I shall certainly add the noble Lord's voice to mine.
The noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, suggested that one reason for the success of the corporation was that it had had the confidence of successive Governments since 1948. I agree with him and I am grateful to him for having fleshed out my comments on its success in my opening speech.
The noble Lord, Lord Hatch, started with a complaint backing up a point made earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton. I must tell him that it is my feeling that the time spent on a subject is not necessarily a measure of its importance. I can think of many pieces of legislation and other things in this House which my right honourable friend currently in post at the ODA would almost certainly regard as trifling, and I do not normally use that expression.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: Yes, my Lords, but sometimes one measures importance by the degree of attention given to it. The point is that it is important, but it will be seen to be important if we give more attention to it than the opportunity given during supper time in this House by a virtually empty Chamber, while most noble Lords are busily occupied in refreshment elsewhere.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I take that point, as does my Chief Whip, but I still think that the time given to speeches does not necessarily reflect either the time spent on generating those speeches or the importance of a particular subject.
The noble Lord, Lord Hatch, asked in effect whether the limit should be increased or reduced, to which I would say, No; the proposed limit has been set with a view to allowing continuing contribution by the corporation to the development of poor countries and should be adequate for eight to 10 years. Parliament should then have the opportunity to consider again. One must give Parliament that sort of opportunity—to reconsider the budget from time to time—and an increase in the limit would not of itself mean an increase in the corporation's level of activity; it depends on advances to the corporation from the aid programme or the level of its other borrowing which the Government approve from year to year in the light of public expenditure and (I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, will agree with me) public sector borrowing requirement considerations.
The existing limit, as we have heard, was fixed at the time of the corporation's creation in 1948 and, as I said earlier, may soon become inadequate. It is now usual for a statutory corporation's limit to be fixed from time to time by the Secretary of State, with the approval of the Treasury, to provide the necessary flexibility to enable the corporation to manage its affairs and control its liquidity efficiently as circumstances require. That they are efficient, at it, I do not think any of us should be in doubt.
The noble Lord, Lord Oram, referred to the split, if you like, between the corporation's role in the Commonwealth and outside it and I must say that he is partly responsible for that, since the 1969 Act, to which he referred, gave authority to operate in foreign as well as Commonwealth countries. But at the end of 1981 84 per cent. of its investments were still in Commonwealth countries and, at the same date, 68 per cent. of its investments were in the poorer developing countries defined as those eligible for IDA funds.
Lord Oram: My Lords, the way the Minister has spoken in the last few sentences seemed to imply that I was critical of the possibility of the CDC operating in other than Commonwealth countries. I certainly was not and I said the opposite. I approve of it. I would not call it a split and I willingly accept responsibility for having introduced it.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, in no way did I think, or I hope suggest, that the noble Lord was critical. I thought he was eliciting information which I was glad to give, and I hope he will accept my reply in that light.

787
Before concluding I should refer to the matter raised at length in the Commons, and raised again this evening by the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, about the project at Mindanao. As my right honourable friend the Minister said in another place on 7th December, during the debate on Second Reading, he has seen reports recently on the situation in the project area by the Catholic Institute for International Relations, and the separate report by Amnesty International. He takes these reports very seriously indeed and sincerely respects the concern of those who have written to him. He is equally conscious of the valuable contribution which the corporation's participation could make to really worthwhile development in the area and the benefits which it could bring to some of the poorest inhabitants of Mindanao. On 30th November my right honourable friend met a group of concerned Members of Parliament and representatives of voluntary organisations, together with representatives of the corporation, to discuss the issue. It was a constructive and helpful meeting, in which those who have doubts about and criticism of the corporation participation in the project nevertheless expressed their appreciation of the openness with which the corporation had conducted this particular affair. Noble Lords will know that all projects with a capital sum involving more than half a million pounds are by convention referred to the ODA, and this will continue.
On the subject of surpluses, I would say that the corporation does not pay back to the Government surpluses earned on its revenue account. These are retained by the corporation, and add to its self-generated funds for further investment. So I think that the noble Lord was wrong on that point.
In my opening speech I referred briefly to my noble friend Lord Kindersley, the current chairman of the corporation, but since its inception many noble Lords have served it in their various ways, either directly by serving on the board, or indirectly in Parliament. They have all given the corporation devoted and enthusiastic service, which makes it in quality, if not in sheer volume, one of the most effective aid agencies, national or international, in promoting lasting and genuine development in the poorer countries of the world. I have no doubt that other noble Lords will fill their places in the future—not just yet, I hope, in the case of my noble friend—and, with the aid of this Bill, will ensure that the corporation continues its amazing track record. My Lords, I beg to commend the Bill.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, will he answer the point I raised as to whether the increase announced in another place in relation to aid funds, over the last two years and for next year, takes into account inflation? In other words, is it an increase, or is it a decrease?
Lord Skelmersdale: I am sorry, my Lords. My information is that the rise in cash to provide, for example, £37 million in 1983–84, represents an increase in the Commonwealth Development Corporation's share of the aid programme. I anticipate that the noble Lord will not be very happy with that answer and, if I may, I shall write to him.
On Question, Bill read a second time: Committee negatived.
Then, Standing Order No. 43 having been suspended, pursuant to Resolution, Bill read a third time.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, with my renewed thanks to the House, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Skelmersdale.)
On Question, Bill passed.

Company and Business Names (Amendment) Regulations 1982
7.54 p.m.
Lord Lyell Lord Lyell rose to move. That the regulations laid before the House on 24th November 1982 be approved.
The noble Lord said: My Lords. I beg to move the Motion in my name on the Order Paper. The purpose of the regulations is to make minor amendments to the Company and Business Names Regulations 1981. to give effect to a point that was raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, and the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, almost exactly a year ago. I am pleased to report that the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments has no comments to make on the regulations before us tonight.
Before the 1981 Companies Act was considered, the Secretary of State had wide discretion to reject any company name that was considered to be undesirable. The 1981 Act abolished that discretion, but included powers to prescribe, by regulations, a list of sensitive words and expressions which may not be used as part of a company or business name without the prior approval of the Secretary of State. The first list of such words was introduced by the 1981 regulations.
Your Lordships may recall that the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, and the noble Earl. Lord Halsbury, questioned the omission from the regulations of certain words, including "chemist", "chemistry", and related words. I am very grateful to the noble Lords for drawing attention to those omissions, and, after further consideration and consultation with the Royal Society of Chemistry and the Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain, the Government have agreed to the addition of the words "chemist" and "chemistry" to the list of words requiring approval by the Secretary of State.
I should at this stage answer the further query raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, about why such words as "pharmacy" and "pharmaceutical" were also omitted from the regulations. Use of those words in company and business names is covered by the Medicines Act 1968, and it is not appropriate to duplicate this control in legislation relating to companies. However, so far as the words "chemist" and "chemistry" are concerned, it has now been agreed that they are not fully covered by the Medicines Act, and the present regulations correct the omission.
The second amendment covered by the regulations

789
before us provides for inclusion of the words "university" and "polytechnic". That is at the request of the Secretary of State for Education and Science, and it will enable control to be exercised where use of the words might imply association with a recognised university or a designated polytechnic. But there may be cases in which the use of the words in company or business names may be unobjectionable, as, for example, if a hotel were to be called the "University Arms".
A further minor amendment is included to correct an error in the wording of the original regulations. The relevant body whose opinion is to be sought by persons intending to use the word "apothecary" was given as the "Worshipful Company of Apothecaries", but that should read the "Worshipful Society of Apothecaries of London".
My Lords, that said, I beg to move.
Moved. That the regulations laid before the House on 24th November 1982 be approved.—(Lord Lyell.)
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, we on this side of the House do not propose to dissent in any way from the content of the regulations that have been very adequately explained by the noble Lord. They add to the schedule of the regulations of last year certain words for the use of which companies or firms must obtain the consent of either the Minister of the appropriate department (the name of which appears in the second column of the schedule) or the designated body. I do not think that the addition to the list of the words "chemist", "chemistry", "polytechnic" and "university" will cause any particular tremors of anxiety on this side, or indeed anywhere else in the House.
However, since we are discussing business names, I must ask, what is the purpose and what is the end that is in mind in this connection? What would happen if instructions were disobeyed? Let us say that, notwithstanding the regulations, a firm or company decides to use certain words. What means are there of enforcement of the regulations? What inspections are there? What penalties are attached to a breach?
Your Lordships will recall that during the passage of the Companies Act 1981 some of us on all sides of the House ventured to look somewhat askance at all the provisions of the business names section of the Act. It will be recalled that there were objections from all parts of the House, in particular from those noble Lords on the Benches opposite who had any connection with, or responsibility in, business. Noble Lords simply did not see the sense of abolishing the old business names registry. If the noble Lord peruses once again the columns of the debates that took place in your Lordships' House on this particular section, he will immediately become aware of the miserable inadequacy of the replies that were received from the Government Benches on this subject. There really was no reason given ultimately at all.
The matter becomes of some importance because the business name, whether or not it is approved and whether or not it obtains the consent of the Minister or of the various other bodies listed in the second column of the original schedule, becomes the name that is used by the company—and the noble Lord sets great store
790
by this. But the noble Lord will recall that under Section 29 of the Companies Act firms or companies are required to disclose certain particulars to any-interested party who wants to obtain them. Your Lordships will recall that, under the old business names registry, it was always possible (although the Government said at the time that this was only 50 per cent. to 60 per cent. effective) to find out the particulars which one sought. On this side of the House we warned him at the time that, if the registry was abolished, things would become very difficult.
Now, what has happened since the passage of the Act? The fact of the matter is that the provisions of section 29, which require any firm or company to give a written response to inquiries from any interested party—in the case of a partnership, the names of the partners and so on, and the various other particulars with which the noble Lord is quite familiar—have been virtually disregarded; and I propose to offer the noble Lord proof of this. I should inform the House that I gave his noble friend the Minister of State notice, albeit unofficially, but again confirmed to his private secretary on Monday and Tuesday, that I was going to raise this particular question. I had no response from the noble Lord, possibly due to inadvertence, as to whether he was prepared to deal with if, and so I propose to read to the House, with your Lordships' indulgence, because it is a specific case—and the House loves specific cases as against generalities—exactly what has happened.
I read from a note that was sent to me by a firm called TS Association and Company Limited, who are very prominent management consultants from Oxford. They act on behalf of the following firms: Burmah-Castrol, Total Oil. Conoco, Avis Rent-a-Car and Securicor. among others. Acting on behalf of these clients, they sent inquiries in accordance with Section 29 of the Act, asking to be advised of the particulars that are required by the Act. This is what occurred. I quote from their letter.
"Since last February we advised our clients that they were empowered under the Act to ask for the full name(s) and addresses of the owners of firms seeking credit. Several clients authorised us to act for them in this matter. To date we have written 128 letters on the subject none of which have been answered. A broad poll amongst our clients shows that certainly several hundred similar letters have been sent out but the answer rate appears to have been less than 10 per cent."
My Lords, I quote the next part with diffidence and accept no particular responsibility for it; but it is an expression of view of this firm. They continue:
"The new man at the Department of Trade who replaced Reginald Eyre has not been able to comment and the Registrar of Companies is not interested. The question is where does industry and commerce go from here? Does the new Companies Act have teeth? If so. what remedies are there available against firms which do not comply with Section 29".
I am well apprised, having read the previous debates, of the Government's attitude on this matter. They will say immediately, "Of course, the old Register of Business Names was not more effective, anyway, so nothing has been lost".
That appears to be a little odd because, from further inquiries, it appears that the London Chamber of Commerce and Industry has set up a special business registry and search department in conjunction with

791
other chambers in Birmingham, Cardiff and Merseyside and that,
"this new body has taken possession of the files of the old Registry of Business Names covering all registrations from 1st January 1970 to 26th February 1982."
The letter continues:
"It would be interesting to know what fee was paid for these records but the main point is that the London Chamber of Commerce are offering a search service based on these old files at a charge of £10 or £5 for a no trace."
If it is the case that the old registry was no good and the thing did not work, it is a little surprising that firms are now prepared to pay £10 for the use of the records that were formerly in the charge of this department. So that that particular answer—"Well, the position is now no worse than it was before"—simply does not ride.
I have a straight question to ask the noble Lord and it will be asked increasingly by all business firms and industrialists that seek to obtain the particulars that they require for the purposes of their own businesses in accordance with Section 29 of the Companies Act 1981. The question I have to ask is this. Are the Government going to enforce it or not? If they are going to enforce it, by what means do they propose to enforce it? It is no answer for a responsible Government that is charged with the enforcement of the law—and law and order, I seem to remember, was a very loud cry from the party opposite—to say, "Well, it is no worse than it was before". Otherwise, that brings the law into disrepute. So I do have to ask—and I know the noble Lord has no personal responsibility for it—just what the Government are going to do about it. Industry and commerce will await with interest the answer that is given.
8.8 p.m.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, I apologise to the House for not being present when the noble Lord the Minister introduced this regulation. I was occupied some distance away from the House on intellectual property matters, somewhat associated with trade marks, and not very different from business names, and I am very sorry that I was late in arriving. As the noble Lord realises, I spoke at considerable length in the course of the debates on the Companies Act 1981 and I endeavoured to do my best to persuade the Government, with little success, that the business names registry should be kept on. I do not think that at this time of the night it will be proper for me to job backwards into the history of the way in which, as I still feel, the Government introduced something which is somewhat of a disaster for large numbers of business people who want to continue with that registry.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, but perhaps not quite so strenuously, that some branches of industry and some firms of lawyers have not quite settled down to the new régime which has been introduced by the Government. I should like to ask also, if it is relevant on this occasion, whether the Government are going to try to enforce Section 29, which is supposed to be a substitute for what I thought was to be a far more practical and useful business names registry.
792
I welcome these regulations and I think that they show a certain amount of progress. In particular, I should like to make reference to paragraph 3 of the regulations. That assists certain business firms in that it allows those firms which were in being prior to 1st January 1983 to continue as before. I do not propose to enter into any effort of jobbing backwards in this matter but I welcome these regulations, such as they are.
Viscount Hanworth: My Lords, obviously I am very grateful for this instrument. The problem which I can describe quite briefly is that the Royal Society of Chemistry, which is the chartered professional body for chemists, and the Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain, which is the chartered professional body for pharmacists, both wish to ensure that the confusion about the meaning of the word "chemist" is reduced and eventually eliminated. We are one of the very few countries where colloquially "chemist" means both the person working in chemistry and the person working in pharmacy. Anyone who goes abroad will know that in most countries there is this clear difference.
While welcoming what the Government have done as a step in this direction, I hope that they will consider what other steps may be taken. Not for one moment would one suggest tearing down the name "chemist" on shop fronts, but one might be able to do this gradually over 10 years, by possibly ensuring that on official correspondence the local chemist refers to himself as a pharmacist. Gradually this style may get adopted. I ask the Government to consider what else they can do to help.
8.12 p.m.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, we are very grateful for the interest that has been shown in these regulations this evening, and indeed for the robust comments of the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, and the helpful comments from the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, and the noble Viscount. Lord Hanworth. I am afraid that I am not able to answer the question which I think the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, asked me about four times. I could stress to him that the remedies are as set out in Section 29 of the Companies Act 1981. I stress to him that firms who do not reply to inquiries as detailed by the noble Lord about the names which concern them, or indeed the persons with whom they do business, are guilty of an offence. The fine, I am informed, is £200. I am also informed that anyone can prosecute. That is certainly an effective remedy.
Your Lordships will note from Section 28(7) that the fine is £200 on a summary conviction for using sensitive words without approval; that is, a breach of the regulations that are before us this evening. If there is any further breach, there is a daily fine for continued contravention. We believe in enforcing the regulations which back up Section 28. I am sure that your Lordships will agree—and the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, put his finger on it—that we simply cannot go backwards to the lengthy and complicated arguments that we had in discussing this problem when we were dealing with the Companies Act in 1981. I was interested in Lord Bruce's comments—I think I quote him accurately—when he said it was always possible to

793
find the particulars sought. Well, the noble Lord gave a percentage of success, and his comments may go some way towards proving whether or not the figures are accurate as to the success of finding out the relevant names that he found under the old system.
I am sure that he and those who were interested in the 1981 Companies Act when it was before your Lordships will agree that we argued this at great length and in great detail then. I believe that your Lordships will agree that tonight, when we are considering these simple amending regulations, is not the occasion to go into these lengthy arguments once again. I shall undertake to bring the comments of your Lordships on this matter—and indeed on the other matters raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth—to the notice of my noble friend. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, made one minor error: my noble friend is the Secretary of State and no longer the Minister of State. Nevertheless. I shall bring your Lordships' comments to his notice. I hope that your Lordships will agree that these regulations are useful, and for that reason I hope your Lordships will agree to this Motion.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

National Heritage Bill [H.L.]
8.16 p.m.
House again in Committee.
[The EARL CATHCART in the Chair.]
Lord Sandford Lord Sandford moved Amendment No. 92:
Page 17, line 4, at end insert—
("(1A) It shall be the duty of the Commission to develop an integrated approach to the recording, conservation, overall management and presentation to the public of the national heritage in England of ancient monuments, archaeological areas and buildings, and areas of special architectural or historical interest (either alone or jointly with any other person or body).").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 92 amends Clause 29 and introduces us to the CFAMAHBFE. That is not a title which will last very long, and it is something on which we must improve, if we can, while the Bill is before us, otherwise telephonists, cheque writers, and others, will do it for us. It introduces us to the commission and gives it a name of a sort. Then, to find out more about it, we have to look to Schedule 3 because there is nothing more in Clause 29. In Schedule 3 we find out about its status, membership, the staff, the way it conducts is proceedings, commitees, instruments, members' remuneration, accounts, information and the House of Commons disqualification. But nowhere in Schedule 3 or in Clause 29 do we find out what this commission is for. Nowhere is set out its aims or its objectives. As we heard over and over again yesterday in that very valuable debate on the quality of legislation, it is rather important in legislation to set out the purposes of the bodies which you are creating. That is what my amendment seeks to do.
It is quite easy to do it because the Secretary of State in his first consultation paper stated quite clearly what aims he had in mind for the commission. He set it out again even more clearly in a second consultation paper. He has set it out yet a third time, and very
794
succinctly and effectively, in the Notes on Clauses. But he has still failed to do so on the face of the Bill. Therefore my amendment seeks to do it for him. In the second line of my amendment I refer to the duty of the commission to develop an integrated approach in the whole matter of caring for the heritage. That is taken directly from subparagraph b. of the Notes on Clauses, where the Secretary of State says that one of the objects in setting up the commission is to obtain the advantages of the fusion of the existing dispersed and diffuse arrangements into a single and single-minded body. If that is so, then for heaven's sake! let us say so. I have put in the word "recording" because this is a function carried out at the moment by the Royal Commission for Historic Monuments and it seems to me it must be integrated with the main general purposes of the commission. I shall be enlarging on that point later when I move my Amendment No. 114.
I refer in this amendment to the presentation to the public of the national heritage, because the Secretary of State in his Notes on Clauses says that one of his aims is to create a commission which will apply "an imaginative approach" to the presentation and management of the heritage. I am advised that you cannot use words like "imaginative" in legislation. That may well be so, but "presentation" seems to me to be a very clear term. It has been used in all consultation documents and we ought to transfer it to the legislation.
I refer finally in the last line of my amendment to the fact that the commission can exercise its functions alone or jointly with any other person. I do that because the Secretary of State has said in subparagraph (d) of Notes on Clauses that he wants to tap the abundant good will in the heritage field through private donations and through voluntary assistance. I think we would all say "Hear, hear!" to that objective. That is the reason for this amendment. The purposes of the commission are admirably stated in two consultation documents and in the Notes on Clauses and we must put them into the Bill. I beg to move.
The Earl of Avon: The Government find this a most interesting amendment and one with which they have a good deal of sympathy. However, as it stands, I do not think it should be accepted but should form a very useful input for further thinking between now and the Report stage. There has been a lot of criticism of the Bill as introduced, on the grounds that Schedule 4 is difficult to understand and that there is no clear statement of the basic policy purposes for the commission. Of course, I fully understand that.
So far as this amendment is concerned, perhaps I might just point out four small matters. To begin with, we doubt whether a general statement is best expressed as a duty: "a purpose", for instance, might be more appropriate. My noble friend has explained why he has introduced the word "recording". However, we feel that the conservation function is a most important one and should take first place. While the concept of developing an integrated approach is important as regards the new commission's work, it is necessary to reflect the close relationship between the new body and the Secretary of State who will himself retain significant functions.

795
The precise drafting of what is needed here needs careful study. The concept of presentation which my noble friend mentioned also needs careful consideration, we believe. I hope that I have said enough to indicate that I am fully sympathetic with the idea behind this amendment. The Government feel that they would like to have another look at it. I hope my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment, with my assurance that the Government will be looking at it closely in the next few weeks and will put forward something which will reflect the concept behind it at the next stage.
Lord Sandford: I should be very glad to settle for that. The only other point I should like to make, in addition to the ones I have made already, is that another group of the bodies with whom the commission must be able to work effectively are the various branches of local government. Having said that, I should be very glad to withdraw my amendment on the understanding that the Government like the general approach and accept that it is necessary to have the aims, purposes, objectives or something of that sort set out at this point in the Bill. On that understanding, I shall be glad to seek to withdraw this amendment and return to the matter at Report stage, preferably on the basis of a Government amendment. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 29 agreed to.
Schedule 3 [The Commission]:
8.25 p.m.
Lord Stratheona and Mount Royal Lord Stratheona and Mount Royal moved Amendment No. 92A:
Page 30, line 43, leave out ("not").
The noble Lord said: As we embark on the consideration of Schedule 3, I have put down this short amendment to probe the Government's conception of the commission's tax status. I think most of your Lordships would agree that it is fundamental to the success of this legislation that the finances of the commission should be on a sound basis. I hope that the noble Earl will be able to explain to us exactly what status the Government envisage for the commission.
First of all, perhaps I might deal with a relatively detailed point. In sub-paragraph (3) it says that rates paid shall be those applicable had the commission occupied the premises concerned for or on behalf of the Crown for public purposes. Could the Minister explain what taxes the commission will have to pay and where the commission will get the money to pay these taxes? We fear that the commission could find itself in a position where it has new imposts to meet and new taxes to pay. In that way it will be diverting funds which were originally provided for the monuments or for the maintenance of historic buildings.
If I might widen the whole question, is the commission going to have to pay 15 per cent. value added tax on all the transactions into which it enters? If so, it is going to find a large number of people throughout the
796
country extremely unhappy at the situation we have created, and that could have a highly damaging effect on the heritage. My understanding of the Bill is that its object is to do precisely the opposite. I believe one could contend that we are trying to achieve exactly the opposite purpose and that the commission will need to be indemnified from taxes. It should be exempt from all taxes, levies, death duties, capital gains tax and capital transfer tax.
Once embarked on this. I could cite a whole lot of examples. I will not detain your Lordships by doing so; but let us think of one or two circumstances. Let us suppose the commission has investments which might have come from voluntary contributions which had been raised either specifically or generally. These investments will yield income, and if the commission has not organised its finances properly so that these investments are paid into a charitable fund which is exempt from taxes, is there not a danger under the provisions of this Bill that such income will be subject to tax? That cannot be the intention of the Government. If they want to encourage voluntary contributions to the commission—and the Secretary of State has said in general terms that that is his hope and his desire—surely they must satisfy those who are going to contribute that their contributions will be free of tax.
It is clear that the commission is hoping to receive gifts from individuals, and these may take the form of money, of buildings, monuments, pictures or objects of any kind, or indeed of cash. Clearly, the commission wants to encourage such gifts. My understanding of the legislation as it stands is that such gifts will be penalised by being subject to tax, and I hope the Minister will be able to confirm whether or not that would be the situation. So far as I can see, there is nothing anywhere in the Bill or in the consultative papers which suggests that gifts or contributions made to the commission will be exempt from capital transfer tax and indeed capital gains tax. Very much later—probably for consideration some time next Tuesday—I have down an amendment which is designed specifically to deal with at least part of the problem, and which concerns the various exemptions which the commission should receive in order to mitigate the damages that these taxes could create.
I have a slight difficulty in moving this amendment in that I do not want to go into a whole lot of detailed examples. I want to stick to the generality, in order to flush out some kind of reply from the Minister. But may I just finish by expressing some misgivings about paragraph 1, which states that the commission "shall be a body corporate". I am not certain what "a body corporate" means, but fear it may mean that they are subject to corporation tax and I sincerely hope that my noble friend will be able to tell me that I am wrong. I beg to move.
Baroness Birk: This is an amendment to which, due to an error on my part—it is not the fault of the Public Bill Office—my name was not added as I intended it to be. This is one of the amendments which is the nub of the whole Bill. There are others which are coming later on charitable trusts, and on the whole question of the capital amount which will be put into the commission in order to get them started. As I think emerged from

797
all sides of the House on Second Reading, the main point about this Bill is that this new commission, for which we do not yet have a familiar name, will depend entirely on the resources accorded to it by the Government. The amendment which the noble Lord has just moved is very important in that respect. If you set up a commission in this way and say that they will have to pay taxes, duties, levies or other charges, they are immediately put under a great handicap unless the amount of money put into the commission is enormous. With great respect, it seems to me that the Government have not thought this out very carefully, and that this Bill is being strangled at birth by the Treasury.
On Second Reading, I said—and others said the same—that, unless it could be shown that by setting up a commission of this sort both the historic buildings side and the ancient monuments side would benefit, and that they could attract private investment, contributions and gifts, which were mentioned in the consultation paper, it was very much better to leave the bodies where they were under the aegis of the DoE.
As I pointed out then—and I shall repeat it now. because it is extremely relevant—if you are part of a big department you are able to get a certain amount of financial perks, by way of crumbs, which you cannot get if you are an agency with a very much more limited amount of money, which is a drop in the ocean compared with the vote accorded to a large department.
All these financial amendments, of which this is the first, are of the utmost importance. I find it extremely depressing that, so early in this Part of the Bill—it seems like an entirely different Bill from the one we were discussing before dinner—we have this stranglehold by the Treasury, and this negative approach which will make it extremely difficult for the commission not only to get off the ground but to fulfil any of the tasks which they are meant to fulfil. I know that this applies to every Government, and that departments are always having to fight the Treasury while it puts its claws into them, and the departments very seldom win. But we have to know exactly what will happen and, as the noble Lord said, the whole thing has been left wide open in the Bill.
So it is up to us as a Committee to see that there are adequate resources for this commission to work. It would be quite wrong for your Lordships to accept the commission on these grounds. It will be dishonest, unfair and immoral, so far as the conservation of the heritage is concerned—whether on the ancient monuments side or the historic buildings side—unless we are absolutely convinced that the resources will be there. I know that one of the answers will be that this is what is generally put into this type of clause. But we are trying to set up a new sort of animal, so let us look at it differently and in a more generous way.
Finally, if the Government feel that they are not prepared to do that, they should abandon the whole idea and both bodies should remain where they belong, and they should try to get increases in their subvention. Questions such as the right name and the right functions pale into insignificance compared to the question of the resources that are necessary to enable this commission to work successfully.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: May I support the amendment moved so ably by the noble Lord, Lord Strathcona, and say how much I sympathise with the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Birk. What surprised me when I read this Bill was to find a subparagraph of this nature in a schedule saying that this commission should not be exempt from tax. As I have not intervened in this debate before, perhaps I ought to say that I do so on a personal basis, in that for the last 25 years I have been concerned; as the chairman of the Brantwood Trust on Lake Coniston in Cumbria, in maintaining and keeping open to the public the old home of John Ruskin. We have had a very considerable struggle in upholding the cultural heritage of the Lake District, as we say, in an old house which has a large number of Ruskin paintings, Ruskin drawings and Ruskin manuscripts.
It seems quite incredible that this commission, with their objects, are likely to be liable to corporation tax. As the noble Lord, Lord Strathcona, mentioned, they will be a body corporate. He said that he did not understand that term. It is a term that is well-known to lawyers like myself, and it means that they may be subject to corporation tax. It seems to me that that is quite wrong and contrary to the general theme of this Bill and its intention of looking after and helping historic buildings.
Lord Kennet: I do not want to burden the noble Earl with too many questions, but I think it would help the Committee to come to a conclusion about what it thinks about the amendment before it if he could answer one more which arises out of sub-paragraph (1) and sub-paragraph (3) of paragraph 2—that is, the two subsections on either side—and which is part of the question of the status of the commission. However, if the noble Earl thinks that the question would be better put on the later Motion, That this be Schedule 3 to the Bill, I will repeat it then. The question is this. How is one to reconcile the statement in sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 2 that,
"… the Commission's property shall not be regarded as property of. or held on behalf of. the Crown".
with the statement in sub-paragraph (3) that,
"any hereditament occupied by or on behalf of the Commission shall … be treated as if it were occupied by or on behalf of the Crown".
Which is the fact?
The Earl of Avon: This is an intricate subject. I am sorry that my noble friend Lord Cockfield is no longer a Minister at the Treasury, otherwise I might have had some nice, whispered comments from him. If I may answer the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, the aim of setting up the commission is intended to be progress. I assure the noble Baroness that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State would not have taken on such an idea had it not been with the aim of benefiting generations to come. In no way is it intended to be a stranglehold.
My noble friend's amendments raise some difficult questions in the nature of the commission's position in regard to taxation. These are issues which the Government are considering very carefully. Some are easier than others. For example, the question of relief from capital transfer tax has been agreed and the Govern-

799
ment propose to bring forward an appropriate amendment on Report. It would have been equally nice to have been able to accept my noble friend's amendment on this, but I am told that there is a technical problem. Many of the other issues are much more difficult and I am afraid that the Government have not finished their consideration of them. They are trying to reach a view on the best way to proceed quickly and to make their position clear at the next stage, including making necessary amendments, where appropriate.
There is to be a series of amendments on this question. I hope this evening to be able to listen to the various debates relating to money matters on the various amendments which will be helpful in reaching a solution. The noble Lord, Lord Rennet, asked me a specific question to which I shall return on a later amendment.
It is not a very satisfactory answer for my noble friend, except that he has drawn out of me the absolute assurance that all these matters are being given immediate consideration and that we shall be bringing forward an amendment on capital transfer tax. The noble Lord asked me a specific question about a corporate body, to which the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, gave him the answer. A corporate body does not, I understand, necessarily pay corporation tax, whereas a body does—and vice versa—to a degree. But it need not be corporation tax.
Baroness Birk: Before the noble Lord who moved the amendment replies, I want to put something straight. The Minister explained that the Secretary of State has no intention of putting a stranglehold on this. Let me make it clear that that is not what I meant. I believe entirely in the good faith of the Secretary of State on this Bill. On many other aspects of policy, like rate support grant and housing, I disagree with him very strongly. However, what he has done regarding the heritage is admirable and I am sure that he wants this agency to work properly. Unless, however, he can come to some arrangement with the Treasury about it and unless that door can be pushed back very hard, with all the goodwill in the world it is just not going to work. That will be the stranglehold upon it, not the one which the Minister wants to put upon it.
As the noble Earl was good enough to tell us that all these matters are still being worked out, one suspects that the Bill is being knitted as it goes along. In many ways this is an advantage because it means that from time to time we can all put in our stitches and knitting needles. One hopes that there will be a chance of flexibility and that some of the ideas being put forward will be taken on board and will not disappear. We hope that they will be in the Bill before it leaves this House. The amendments are, after all, coming from all parts of the Committee. There are no party dividing lines.
Lord Kennet: The answer given by the noble Earl, Lord Avon, shows that the commission is being launched upon the legislature without very much thought behind it. May I say with all modesty that I do not think many Governments, modest in my criticism though I intend to be, would think of launching a
800
powerful new quango of this nature which tears up 100 years of law and sets the whole business of the preservation of the heritage on a new tack without having decided whether or not it should be exempt from tax.
May I express the hope that the noble Lord, Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal, will persist in his amendment? In my individual judgment it would be better that until the Government can produce reasons why the quango should be taxed it should stand free of tax in its passage through the legislature. Let us therefore omit the word "not". If the Government had not made up their mind in the first place, why did they say "It shall not be exempt from any"—I repeat "any"—"tax, duty, rate, levy or other charge whatever, whether general or local"? I submit that it would be healthier for the future of the quango if at this stage this draft legislation—and it is draft legislation—were to read "The Commission shall be exempt from any tax, duty, rate, levy or other charge whatever, whether general or local", and if the Government were then to propose that it should be subject to this or that tax, levy, el cetera, when they have found the reasons for saying so.
Viscount Eccles: This is a very serious matter. Unless we settle where the money is to come from we shall not know whether the commission will be a success. The question of taxation might very much change the amount of money which the Government have to provide. Since I am told that the Report stage will be within a week of our return after the Christmas Recess, can my noble friend give us an assurance that we shall have the amendments relating to finance when we come back on 19th or 20 January, not a day or two before the Report stage?
The Earl of Avon: My noble friend has very much got my own thinking in mind. I was feeling very much embarrassed that we have not got further. It is absolutely my intention to convey his message to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State and say it is fundamental to the progress of the Bill that we should have that information.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: May I briefly support the suggestion which has been made by the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, as to the strategy which the noble Lord, Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal, might consider for dealing with the matter? In view of the frank indication by the Minister that these tax matters have not been fully considered, it seems to me that the cleanest thing to do would be to exempt the commission from all these taxes. The Government could later put in such taxes as they think are necessary. To leave in this clause seems to me to be the wrong way to proceed and I believe that to accept the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal, would be the cleanest way of dealing with the matter.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: May I venture to put the other view? The prima facie position should be—should it not?—that no body is exempt from taxation unless a case is made out for it, otherwise there is an economic distortion. From what the noble Earl has said, it seems to me that there is a good case

801
for exemption. In the meantime, I hope that the noble Lord in whose name the amendment stands will not press it.
Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal: First, I want to express my gratitude for the support I have received from all sides of the Committee. This is an extremely serious matter, and it puts me in a difficult position. I am very tempted by the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Kennet. There is no doubt that, when you are dealing with a Government, it concentrates their mind wonderfully if you move an amendment against them which they have then got to put right. I have to say to the noble Earl on the Front Bench that I find it rather extraordinary that in this Committee, quite late at night, we are being asked to consider a Bill while apparently the Government have not thought of something as fundamental as the tax status of the commission they are proposing to set up.
The Earl of Avon: I did not pick up the point which was made by the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran. We have of course thought about it very deeply. It is the difficulty of coming to a decision, which is slightly different, which is exercising the mind of the Government.
Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal: With the greatest respect to the noble Earl, it is not much good thinking about it. The Government have written all this verbiage which we are having to wade through tonight. We are wasting a great many people's time because adequate thought has not been given to it and because it has not been clarified.
I am not a combative person, and I want to keep the Treasury out of this matter because I have had enough experience of the Treasury, and I say that in all deference to my noble friend Lord Cockfield who is sitting there. For goodness sake let us keep the Treasury clear of this if we possibly can. I know that my noble friend is trying to be helpful. I feel that the statesmanlike thing for us to do is to withdraw the amendment now—but, by heaven! my noble friend had better watch out for the next round.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.52 p.m.
Baroness Birk Baroness Birk moved Amendment No. 92B:
Page 31, line 6, leave out ("13 members") and insert ("such extra number, not being less than 13, as the Secretary of State may. after consultation with the Commission, determine.")
The noble Baroness said: This amendment deals with the number of commissioners. While I am against overloading any commission or committee, I nevertheless believe there is a danger if one makes the whole thing too small. It is already evident that the functions of the commission will be wider than the Bill at present envisages. I see the Bill, even before it goes to another place, embracing a much wider field of responsibilities and work. There will be a need for more skills and that probably means a need for more commissioners with those skills.
I should point out that the Historic Buildings Council has 20 members, and I have never heard anyone say that that number was too large or unwieldy. One has to take into account that at
802
meetings of almost any commission or body, one or two people are usually unavoidably absent. The Ancient Monuments Board has about 18 members. There is also the problem that this commission is a merger of two bodies which cover a very large range of subjects. I shall be coming later to the question of committees, but we are now talking about the commission itself. The commissioners have to be able to cover historic houses, archaeology, ancient monuments and a number of other subjects.
This is more in the nature of a probing amendment, but I would like there to be no fewer than 13 and perhaps not more than 18 or even 20 members. I do not feel very strongly about any particualr number but having only 13 members is limiting it rather at this stage. When we come to the question of committees responsible to the commission, the work of the commissioners is going to be quite considerable. Also, when we come to the question of the remuneration of commissioners, they are certainly not going to be paid the equivalent of doing a full-time job, but it does mean that one must have people to parcel out work so that more aspects of the work of the commission are carried out thoroughly, I beg to move.
The Earl of Avon: I wonder whether I may intervene here, because I would like to hear the comments of other noble Lords once I have said what I have to say. The Government were not surprised to receive an amendment relating to the size of the commission. It is difficult to achieve a balance between the conflicting demands, and after some consideration the Government have decided that an upper limit of 13 members is a little too restrictive and propose to bring forward an amendment to increase the number.
The Government have in mind 17 members, although before making any final decision I am sure that the Secretary of State will wish to consider the views expressed here today. Although the Government have decided to increase the ceiling on members, they still hold firmly to the view that the upper limit should be fixed and not be variable at will, as the amendment suggests. There is a limit to the flexibility that should be provided in this respect, and the range from 8 to, say, 17 members provides ample flexibility. The constraints on size caused by the fact that the commission is a managerial body will not go away. Given the assurance that we will bring forward an amendment to increase the upper limit on the number of members to 17, I will be interested to hear how the Committee feels about this question of flexibility.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu: I should like to support the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, but after hearing my noble friend Lord Avon I believe that he has now moved more in our direction. Given the enormous scope of the new commission's activities in respect of the Historic Buildings Council and so on, it must not be forgotten that there will be enormous demands on the commission and the commissioners. There will also be new elements, particularly on the commercial side, tourism and education, and these must be satisfied within the commission. I think there must be a great advance on the figure of 13 members, and if my noble friend will bring forward an amendment for this number I will be delighted to support it.
Baroness Birk: In view of what the noble Earl has said, I am quite satisfied. We will see what the Government come forward with at the Report stage. Meanwhile. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Birk Baroness Birk moved Amendment No. 92C:
Page 31, line 13, leave out ("the history of architecture") and insert ('"history, planning").
The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment I will speak also to Amendment No. 92D because they are closely linked. The aim of these amendments is to broaden the present narrow references to include, in the first place, history and planning, and, in the second place, education. It is the question of history with which we are largely and widely concerned because from history itself stems archaeology, architecture and many other things. Therefore, by inserting history and planning in place of "the history of architecture" the schedule is made rather wider.
It is also important to add planning, which is far less restrictive than simply town planning, because planning in its widest sense very often comes into the working and plans of the commission. There is not only town planning but also country planning and rural planning—and all of those would be covered by this amendment.
The second amendment is to insert the word "education". This is something that is essential if interpretation is to be effective and to indicate how important education is in the type of conservation and work we are talking about. Unless adults and children are educated and helped to understand what this work is all about, the commission is not going to get the kind of support that will be necessary—not only now but in the medium and long term. These seem to me to be quite non-controversial amendments. They simply clarify matters and pin-point some important words. I hope that the noble Earl. Lord Avon, will be able to accept them. I beg to move.
Viscount Eccles: I would like to support the point about education because I agree entirely with what the noble Baroness has said. I also think that nowadays one should have somebody who knows something about the media and publications. It is clear to me from experience of the British Museum that someone who knows about publishing and who could advise not only on scholarly but also on popular publications as well, is a great advantage.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu: As my name is down to this amendment, which we welcome very much as a principle which was not included in respect of the museums we discussed earlier, perhaps I may say that, while the list is not correct, with a little more thought it could be made excellent, and it is to be hoped that the ideas contained in these amendments can be incorporated.
Viscount Ridley: Before the Minister replies, I wonder whether I could add a word in support of the amendment, partly because I am about to move an amendment on a very tedious matter of local government. Two of its most important functions are
804
planning and education. Therefore, I am not so far as I usually am from the noble Baroness's views. If she in turn will support my amendments. I will be happy to support hers.
Lord Kennet: We support the noble Baroness's amendment.
The Earl of Avon: These two amendments are designed to widen the scope of expertise and knowledge to which the Secretary of State will need to have regard in selecting persons for appointment as members of the commission. I think I should emphasise that the list must not be read as closing the door on expertise that is not listed. While I can see the attraction of making the amendments proposed, I would like to make one or two points about them. The existing list of items seeks to include only those kinds of knowledge or experience which, taken as a whole, are relevant to the matters with which the commission will be concerned.
If I may take first history, the relevance of history is uncertain, and to this degree when I come to planning I am going to argue the other way. Few people are likely to be expert in the whole field, and even those who are expert on a particular period may know little or nothing about its monuments or buildings. So we feel that history is a little bit too wide. However, the word "planning" is not qualified. There could. I suspect, be many types of planning which have nothing to do with monuments and buildings. I think this will please my noble friend Lord Ridley; we were thinking of putting in "town and country planning" rather than just "planning".
Then we come to education. While the commission will certainly be concerned with education, we were wondering whether the topic deserves a specific mention in connection with the appointment of members of the commission. I have now had the added endorsement from my noble friend Lord Eccles that it does, so I think we will have to take that very much to heart. I have listened with great interest to the comments of the Committee and I recognise there is a case for us to look again at the list. I shall be interested to hear the noble Baroness's comments on the suggestion of "town and country planning", and on trying to find some form of limitation on "history".
Baroness Birk: I thank the noble Earl very much for his sympathetic explanation with regard to the Government's thinking on this matter. I will take the other side of the coin now in pressing for consideration of including the word "history". One thing that has bothered me slightly about this shopping list—and I entirely agree with the noble Earl—is that if we go on and on putting everything in, there is a danger that we might get a commission of a great many people with very narrow fields of expertise, and that anybody who is a generalist, with a creative type of mind with something to add, who does not fit into a particular slot, will not be able to be on the commission. I think the door must be left open.
The noble Earl said that there are many types of history; so there are. I am referring to somebody who, whatever period they may be dealing with, has a particular approach; the fact that he or she is an

805
historian means that they have a particular approach and type of mind, which I think is very important on this sort of commission. In other words, they would, perhaps, take an even broader view than somebody concerned only with the history of architecture, or concerned with ancient monuments and so on. It seems to me that history is something which is totally and absolutely relevant to the whole set-up of this commission and the things with which it is going to deal. I would like the noble Earl to take that back and consider it. The list in the Bill, the Government are saying, is not a complete list, it is not a completely inclusive list; you can go wider afield and you will be able to get the person who is not a completely committed specialist.
On the planning side, I think "town and country planning" would probably cover the point. I do not know whether it would cover all sorts of other visual things with which one may be concerned. In the future, when aviation is even more important, when we have helicopters jumping all over the place to a greater extent than today, perhaps the word "planning" might be better in a Bill which is going to have to last well into the future before we get any changes in it. On balance, I feel that the more comprehensive word "planning" is probably preferable to "town and country planning".
The noble Earl has said that he will take in education. I entirely agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, on his point about the media and publication. I do not think one need always put that in, if it is something that is taken into account. That is why I do not want a completely exclusive list. I would like to know that the Government would not be asking for names, asking civil servants, for instance, to put up names just on special areas. I think that might be a mistake in the end.
The Earl of Avon: As I expressed our view on the museum side, we are very much against that. That is what we want to steer clear of. Of course, I am very happy with history because that would qualify me. I hope I can say that with my tutor, the noble Lord, Lord Dacre, sitting behind me.
Baroness Birk: I take it that the Minister is now going to take all this back and look at it again; that nothing that has been suggested this evening will be ruled out. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 92D not moved.]
Viscount Ridley Viscount Ridley moved Amendment No. 92E:
Page 31, line 14, after ("tourism,") insert ("local government.").
The noble Viscount said: On behalf of my noble friend Lord Sandford I beg to move Amendment No. 92E and, if I may, I will take with it—I hope this will be popular with the Committee—Nos. 96C, 96G and 103F, because I think they are all related to the same point. That is the involvement of local government in the membership and the activities of the new commission.
I think it must be acknowledged that local authorities have a wide involvement in the preservation of our heritage and, indeed, a very good record in
806
the achievement of that. But I believe that, to secure the optimum utilisation of all the available expertise and the contribution which local authorities can, and will, make to the commission, it is necessary to include a person with knowledge of local government in the membership of that commission. While such a representative may also have experience of all the other fields that we have already debated and, I am glad to say, are being taken back for further thought, I am concerned that direct and relevant experience of local government should, if possible, be brought into the commission. This group of amendments is designed purely to secure that.
We have already discussed planning and education and I shall not repeat what I have already said. I merely add that, as far as I can make out, town and country planning, or planning, is an art and not a science. All 56 million people in this country believe themselves to be expert planners, or so one would think from discussions on the subject, and if one includes planning one must include almost anyone who wishes to belong.
The other amendments provide the commission with the opportunity to use this expertise, to which I have already referred, on a statutory basis. I am sure that the Government will argue that there is nothing to stop the commission from doing this anyway, but the statutory powers of local authorities over museums and ancient monuments should be formally linked to an effective partnership between the commission and local authorities. There can be no doubt that this should be so in the future and have a proper statutory base.
The extensive responsibilities of local authorities for archaeology and the conservation of buildings and museums put them in a very good position to administer these matters, whether or not on an agency basis, and the commission would be able to give the necessary assistance where it wanted to. There is no time to go into detail but I shall just give one small example of this. In my county of Northumberland there are a great many bridges in active use as part of the highways system. No fewer than 19 of these are ancient momuments, and scheduled as such, and in addition 48 are listed buildings. That shows the type of involvement that the highways authority has with the heritage. The aim of the amendments is purely to reinforce the Government's very good concern to secure the effective execution of heritage functions and to obtain the advantages of all the existing sources which we have for the conservation of our heritage. These amendments are meant to be constructive. I hope that, the previous amendments having been withdrawn, my noble friend will agree that there is scope here for discussions and perhaps further thought. I beg to move.
Lord Sandford: I support my noble friend in his plea that there should be adequate scope in the relevant parts of the Bill for the full involvement of local government. One need only ask where we would be with the conservation of the City of York if it were not for the city council. How could the City of Chester be conserved if it were not for the city council, or the City of Bath? What about the conservation of the villages of the Cotswolds if it were not for the involvement of the

807
county council of Gloucestershire; the field monuments of Wiltshire if it were not for the county council, or the stone circles of Devon if it were not for the county council?
It is not, of course, that there has to be someone on the commission specifically representing local government and nothing else. Fortunately there are plenty of historians in local government, plenty of architects in local government and plenty of conservationists in local government. Therefore, someone can be appointed to the commission who is in local government and has other interests too. But it would be fatal to the working of the commission if there was not a single member on it who did not have active experience of local government in some shape or form. In order to secure that it seems to me that we must have the proposed words in this part of the Bill.
Baroness Birk: Plea bargaining has paid off. In supporting the noble Viscount and Lord Sandford in this amendment. I would add that it is extremely important—when we are all the time asking local government to fork out both resources and personnel, in intention and activity, in a whole variety of aspects right across the field of the heritage, whether archaeology, buildings, town planning, conservation areas, or whatever it is—that if local government is asked to participate it must not only feel involved but be involved at the highest level. It would be a grave mistake to leave it out. The Minister may say that there is no doubt that local government would be included and that someone would be on the commission who perhaps had some of the other talents that were needed as well as local government experience, a local government posting at the time or a position on local government. But I do not think that that would be good enough for the statute.
In my view, the words must be spelled out so that the people in local government can both understand and see that they are part of this commission, otherwise it will be extremely difficult not only to get the co-operation which we have had up to now. but to increase it, which is what everybody wants to see done. It is in areas of local government that one can often get the co-operation and increase the interest of local people in a way that central Government or central agencies cannot do. Therefore, I strongly support the amendment.
Lord Kennet: We, too, obviously support this amendment. It stands on its own feet as good reasoning. I would not go quite as far as the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, in his uncritical enthusiasm for the role of local government in the preservation of our heritage. He asked many pertinent questions about where should we be if it had not been for the city council and the county council in York. One might equally ask what would the coast of Cornwall have looked like had it not been for the Cornish County Council? What, for instance, would the future of Beverley have been if there had never been such a thing as the Beverley District Council? What would the centres of, for example, Worcester, Poole or Peterborough look like now if it had not been for the interventions of the relevant local government units in the past?
The Earl of Avon: Of course, I well understand the desire to involve local authorities in the work of the commission, and to establish good relations between them from the start. Local authorities will continue to have a vital role to play in the presentation of the heritage, a role which we all value.
However, the Government are doubtful that this amendment is the right way in which to achieve this co-operation. Members of the commission should be appointed for their individual skills and knowledge, for the expertise they can bring to the work of the commission. The paragraph in Schedule 3 which this would amend points up the main areas we have been discussing, both academic and other, which should ideally be represented on the commission. It does not prescribe that certain groups or institutions should be represented in their own right. Indeed. I firmly believe that that would be wrong. We have. I think, got a moderately good consensus going through the Committee that we should not make nominations. Although this is not exactly a nomination. I feel that, if this were in. it would be virtually impossible not to have a member of local government on the commission. The commission's job is not to satisfy outside interests, but to preserve the heritage, and its members should be chosen with this in mind. Of course we appreciate the work done by the county councils.
This amendment would mean that someone should be appointed simply to represent local government, without reference to the heritage. I do not believe that that would be right. By all means let someone from local government who has relevant experience or knowledge be appointed. But I cannot agree that experience or knowledge of local government in itself should be a suitable basis for appointment as a member of the commission.
I should now like to deal with Amendment No. 96C, to which my noble friend also spoke. This amendment would enable the committees which the commission is empowered to set up to discharge any functions which the commission cared to delegate to them. This would change the character of the committees. I should like to explain.
We have always recognised that the need for the commission to be an efficient management body, able to organise its work effectively, would inevitably mean a smaller board than could cover all the experience and skills which are now available through the Historic Buildings Council and the Ancient Monuments Board and which the commission would undoubtedly wish to tap. Hence the power of the commission to set up committees to advise them on any of their functions.
However, it is a different matter entirely to suggest that the commission ought to be able to delegate its functions to these committees. This would run counter to one of the principal reasons for setting up the commission, which is to bring the presently dispersed bodies involved in this part of the heritage together into one body. The advantages of providing a coherent public sector focus in this way are clear and it would run counter to that concept if the commission were allowed to delegate their functions to committees of their own appointing.
My noble friend then went on to deal with

809
Amendment No. 96G, upon which I should like to comment. This amendment which is taken with Amendment No. 103F seeks to enable the commission to arrange for a local authority to discharge any of the commission's functions in the same way as a local authority can do now with another local authority under Section 101 of the Local Government Act 1972.
This general issue is not a new one and in principle the Government have no objection to entering into management agreements with local authorities or transferring to them monuments currently in the nation's care, provided that it is sensible and appropriate so to do. This approach, under which there have been a number of negotiations recently, will not be invalidated with the advent of the commission. Indeed, the commission will have powers to enable them to enter into agreements with local authorities without the benefit of these amendments.
We feel that the first amendment is unacceptable, as it provides that the commission should be given unlimited powers which would enable them to abrogate their responsibilities or to delegate functions which they will exercise only on behalf of the Secretary of State. There is a very distinct difference between entering into agreements to "contract out" tasks, while still retaining responsibility, and passing over functions in their entirety, and, in the case of functions being exercised on the Secretary of State's behalf, it would of course be the Secretary of State who would have to decide on any different delegation arrangements. Thus, leaving aside any question of whether the local authorities would have powers to undertake any of these functions, the amendment is in this sense unsatisfactory.
But the real reason for asking my noble friend to withdraw these two amendments is simply that they are unnecessary. It is intended that the commission will have power to enter into agreements and, in respect of the second amendment, to make such arrangements as they see fit as to the management and custody of property they acquire. Nothing which it might be proper for the commission to delegate or transfer or enter into management agreements about appears to be excluded, and I would certainly hope that any local authority which was interested would discuss that interest with the commission. The Government have made clear throughout the consultation and discussion on this issue their acknowledgement of the importance of the role played by local authorities in preserving our heritage.
We come back, therefore, to the original amendment and the question whether the words "local government" shall be included or not. I really rest on what we spoke about throughout the first day of the Committee stage, which is that we do not want to be quite so precise nor to set a precedent for nomination.
Lord Kennet: Before the movers of this amendment make up their minds what to do, may I urge upon them that they should lean in whatever way they think best? We have here a very detailed list of the qualities which are to be represented on the commission; namely, archaeology, architecture, the history of architecture, the preservation or conservation of monuments or buildings, tourism, commerce and
810
finance. If we are going into that degree of detail, I cannot see the slightest justification for excluding local government. Indeed, I think that its exclusion would be a glaring error. Therefore, I think that it would be more becoming if the Government could accept this obvious addition to the list. If they cannot, I hope that the noble Lords who tabled the amendment will come back to it at a later stage, if they do not indeed insist on it now.
Viscount Ridley: The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, said exactly what I wanted to say. I do not think that my noble friend Lord Avon has hit any of my arguments on the head at all. If we are to write tourism into this part of the Bill, why not write in local government? If we are to write in archaeology, why not write in something else? If we are to define the experience of members of this commission, we have to do it much more carefully than has been done. We have taken just a few examples at random. I very much hope that, bearing in mind the amendments which the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, withdrew, my amendments can also be considered. If not, I shall certainly be prepared to come back to this in a much more savage frame of mind on Report. I cannot speak for my noble friend Lord Sandford. I hope that he will withdraw the amendment, but not for ever.
Lord Sandford: I shall gladly come back savagely. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.23 p.m.
Lord Dacre of Glanton Lord Dacre of Glanton moved Amendment No. 92F:
Page 31, line 15, leave out sub-paragraph (4) and insert—
("(4) Subject to the following provisions of this paragraph, the first appointments to the Commission as Chairman. Deputy Chairman or other member, shall be for not less than four or more than six years; and all subsequent appointments shall be for five years.")
The noble Lord said: There are several amendments in the names of my noble friends Lord Beloff and Lord Blake and myself. These are amendments discussed and agreed in the British Academy, which supports archaeological works throughout the country as well as abroad through its archaeological institutions, and ' which also funds the Council for British Archaeology.
The amendments emanate in general from a fear, which is widely shared and which has been expressed by some noble Lords, that the gap caused by the dissolution of the Historic Buildings Council and the Ancient Monuments Board may not be adequately filled by the new commission unless it is both strong and independent. This particular amendment appears to raise a small point, but it has relevance to the terms of the appointment of the members of the commission and to their security during their period of office.
The amendment is designed simply to allow the institution of a rotation of members and to prevent, as it were, the whole army coming in at the same time and going out at the same time and requiring to be replaced at the same time. I beg to move.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu: I should like to support this amendment. It has been the experience, particularly of new bodies set up, that this has always been a

811
problem that has had to be put right later. It is much better to put it right at the beginning. It is important that all the commissioners do not retire at the same time, to be replaced by a completely new team. One has to have an overlap for continuity, so that the commission can do its work properly.
The Earl of Avon: May I come in here? Perhaps I might state the intention at the moment, because I think this will make a little difference to our considerations. What is written at the moment is "up to five years". The "up to" provision was made with it in mind that all the terms need not be the same. What we are looking at in this amendment is a period of four to six years rather than "up to five years". In point of fact we are restricting the lower limit and adding one year to the top limit.
Flexibility of appointment is important and we want to ensure initially that the chairman and members of the commission would be able to serve for a reasonable length of time, to ensure some stability in the early days. But we also want the commission to be able to make use of the knowledge and expertise of those who, for one reason or another, are not able to serve for a fixed and unvariable period. There may be perfectly good reasons for this—future commitments, for example, which will mean that in two years, say. the person concerned would be unable to devote sufficient time to the commission. It really would not be sensible if the commission were unable to make use of the services of people in this position, if they are the right people for the job, just because they cannot do it for five years. And it is not satisfactory to depend in such circumstances on the person resigning.
I believe, as I said in our discussions on the museums, that the Secretary of State needs flexibility, and he needs more flexibility than this amendment would allow. As it stands, the amendment does not make a stipulation, as the existing provision does, that chairman, deputy chairmen or members shall hold and vacate office in accordance with the terms of their appointments. That of course would have to be added. What I should like my noble friend to consider is whether the four to six year period is better than the up to five years, which would allow a margin of more flexibility.
Baroness Birk: I am not sure that the amendment achieves what the noble Earl wants it to achieve, which is that we should have differing periods so that everyone is not in together and out together. If it shall be for not less than four or more than six years, there is nothing to stop appointments being made for five years. The noble Lord needs to add something more to it to make it clear that there should be differing periods of time so that, as he rightly says, it would not be all in and all out at the same time.
I do not think that the amendment fulfils what the noble Lord requires. Nor does the Government idea of up to five years. That suffers from exactly the same fault. Again you can make it all for four years, or all for five years. If we are going to—and this seems to be the general feeling; certainly the noble Lord, Lord Montagu, seemed to take the same view as I do about
812
it—aim for differing periods of starting so that everybody does not come out or go in together, then that has to be made clearer than in either what the Government are saying or what is in this amendment.
Viscount Eccles: I want to ask only one question of my noble friend. Can a member be reappointed after five years?
The Earl of Avon: Yes, he can.
Lord Dacre of Glanton: I think that the main point of flexibility is agreed by all speakers. The noble Earl has said that this will be taken into account, and therefore I would ask leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.30 p.m.
Baroness Birk Baroness Birk moved Amendment No. 93:
Page 32, line 2, leave out from ("Commission") to end of line 3 and insert ("think fit").
The noble Baroness said: To save time, I will, with permission, speak also to Amendment No. 94A; although my name does not appear to that amendment. I would willingly have put my name to it because it deals entirely with the same point, which is the question of pensions.
The purpose of Amendments Nos. 93 and 94 is to bring the arrangements for dealing with the staff of the new commission into line with the provisions for the museums. In particular, the amendments would allow the staff of the commission to retain their current pension arrangements and remain members of the principal Civil Service pension scheme. That, not unnaturally, is a major point of concern to the staff.
It would be wrong if the Bill made different arrangements for members of staff transferred out of the Civil Service as part of the same Bill: that is, between those who go to the devolved museums and those who go to the commission. As the Bill currently stands, staff moved out of the Civil Service with the museums—the Armouries and Royal Botanic Gardens—will remain in the principal Civil Service pension scheme, whereas stafftransferring to the commission will not be allowed to do so. The amendments seek to remove that anomaly.
A major question is the cost of setting up a pension fund for 1,000 staff, which I believe is the number at present thought to go to the commission. The staff in the commission, currently DoE employees, will then be able to stay with their own pension fund. However, that will not be so for staff, also DoE employees, transferring to the new commission.
Amendment No. 94A, which is crisper and shorter. I think I am right in saying provides more or less for the same thing, but in addition it makes it clear that for the commission to have set up a full-blown pension scheme would imply the establishment of a department with special skills, and probably also the appointment of a commissioner with specialised knowledge of this field, if the board is not to have to rely entirely on its staff for advice. This, again, comes back to the point of the pattern set up for the museums under the Bill. The commision will have quite enough

813
on its plate without taking on the tremendous task of dealing with its own pension fund, which would require millions of pounds to be installed in it at the outset.
Viscount Hanworth: I find it extraordinary that a difference should be made between the museums and the commission. So far as I can gather, the best that the Government can do to justify it is to say that the functions of the commission are not the same as those of the museums—that it will be much more executive and managerial, with a strong public voice—and that Ministers have been at pains to ensure that it has an adequate degree of independence. I should have thought that the whole of that was almost irrelevant; it is certainly no justification for it.
Apart from that, let us think a little about the civil servants who are being transferred to the commission. No doubt one of the reasons they joined the Civil Service when they decided what they wished to do was the fact of an indexed pension at the end of their career; security was important to them. What are we doing? It is very difficult indeed to sack a civil servant, especially one who has been employed for a long time; but the Government, by this Bill, are simply selling them down the river.
The Earl of Avon: Nonsense!
Viscount Hanworth: That is what they are doing, and I feel that, in fairness to those people, the amendment should be agreed to. I know what the Government are going to say. They are going to say that the terms of the offer of pay should be, taken as a whole, not less favourable to the person to whom the offer is made than the terms on which he is employed on the date on which the offer is made. Well, that sounds all right. What price an indexed pension?—something which one might have relied upon throughout almost the whole of one's service career.
Then we get another charming little paragraph:
"In determining whether the terms of the offer are more or less favourable to that person than those enjoyed by him on the date of the offer no account shall be taken of the fact that employment with the Commission is not employment in the service of the Crown".
I suspect—and I may of course be wrong—that that is one effort to start to get rid of indexed pensions.
Lord Gibson: I should like to support the concept of following the pattern of the museums. If in fact it was proposed to give the new commission the power to determine the pay and the grading of its own staff, with the freedom that I should like to see it given, then I should be much more inclined to support the proposal that the staff's pensions should be funded separately, But since they are tied in with the rest of the Civil Service, because of the Treasury consent that is necessary for the determining of their pay and emoluments, it seems to me only logical that they should be tied in as regards their pensions as well.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu: Somewhere in the Bill there is a note that there will be 3,000 fewer civil servants around when the Bill comes into force. I think that the civil servants who are now being discussed are
814
those whom noble Lords might feel are at the moment in London, and are senior civil servants. But I would ask the Committee please to remember that many of the staff covered in this connection are very modest people, who are perhaps custodians of ruins, gardeners, and so on, and who at the moment are civil servants. I would plead that the commission must have some flexibility in employment of that kind of labour in the future; otherwise the costs of the commission will be far greater than they should be.
The Earl of Avon: I am most disappointed in the noble Baroness, Lady Birk. I had hoped that she would speak to Amendment No. 93 alone, because I am happy to say that I accept it. But if we may now move forward to Amendment No. 94, I shall go into more detail.
These amendments arise from an understandable concern about the pay, terms and conditions of service of the commission's staff. Broadly similar amendments were put down in relation to the four trustee bodies, and noble Lords will recall that many of the issues involved were given a thorough airing at the time. The position of the commission and its staff is of course slightly different from that of the trustee bodies, and I shall briefly explain why here, too, we do not like these amendments, before I turn to that part of the amendment which is specific to the commission and which seeks to bring it within the Principal Civil Service Pension Scheme.
The amendment tries to ensure that future staff will be employed on terms not less favourable than those applying to the Civil Service at the time. This "no worsening" condition will of course be applied to those staff who transfer to the commission when it is first established, and we have made that clear all along.
What we do not think we can do, though, is to bind the commission for ever to the Civil Service on matters of pay and conditions of service. It is essential to the efficient management of the commission that it should have some flexibility in the establishing of grades and pay scales. The commission will employ many specialist staff, and the members of the commission will be the best people to decide, subject to the normal central control, how such staff should be remunerated. Of course, the commission would, as a good employer, have regard to the going rates of pay for similar jobs, which in some cases may well include comparisons with the Civil Service. It will be as anxious as are noble Lords to offer a package of pay and conditions which will attract and keep qualified, high calibre staff.
On the question of consultations with trade unions representing the staff, I do not think that I can add anything to what I have said. It is important, of course, for the commission to establish suitable arrangements for negotiations with the unions representing its staff, indeed it is in its own interest to do so, for the commission will need the wholehearted support of all its staff, particularly in the difficult, early days when it is first established. While therefore I recognise the desirability of the substance of this part of the amendment, I think that it is not right to include it in the Bill. In part it is also unnecessary, since the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 lays down the procedures for establishing safety committees involving the staff and unions.
I turn now to the sub-paragraph in the first

815
amendment and the identical second amendment which provide that the staff of the commission continue in the principal Civil Service pension scheme rather than empowering the commission to make its own pension arrangements. The Government have given careful thought to the pension arrangements of all the bodies in the Bill. For the trustee museums there is the clear and decisive link with existing trustee museums which make it appropriate that their staff continue in the Civil Service pension scheme. The commission's case, however, is rather different. Setting up this new body will create a new public sector focus for the heritage whose central tasks will be the better preservation and presentation of the heritage. The advantages of a single specialist agency include greater freedom to operate in a way which combines the best of the public and private sectors. If this is to be achieved, it is clear that the commission will need some flexibility in its staffing arrangements. It needs the flexibility to adapt to changing conditions and changes in the approach it takes to its responsibilities. This is not necessarily a question of short-term flexibility but rather a longer-term ability to change if that proves to be necessary. Staying with the principal Civil Service pension scheme would not provide that flexibility.
The Government have not, however, lost sight of the need to protect the interests of staff, particularly those who will transfer from the Civil Service. The express provision that the terms that the commission offer should be not less favourable than those existing on the date of the offer demonstrates that. Indeed, it is probably unlikely that the commission could depart significantly from the principles of the Civil Service scheme and still ensure that terms of service on transfer were no worse. The Government intend, therefore, to recommend to the new commission that it adopt a pension scheme analogous to but separate from the Civil Service scheme. By adopting a "by analogy" scheme, the commission would get a ready-made pension scheme incorporating all the important features of the Civil Service scheme, including index linking, and one which will allow for the transfer of benefits from the Civil Service. The scheme will, however, be the Commission's own and will be able to accommodate whatever pay and grade structures it eventually decides, with agreement, will be most appropriate. The "by analogy" pension scheme is not a new idea. It operates very successfully at present in bodies such as the Natural Environment Research Council and the Nature Conservancy Council. In the light of these explanations and, I hope, my assurances, I hope that amendment No. 94A will not be pressed.
Baroness Birk: In order to clarify matters and to get this out of the way, the only amendment that I have moved—although I did speak to the others to save time, which, obviously, was a mistake—is Amendment No. 93.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Birk Baroness Birk moved Amendment No. 94:
Page 32, leave out lines 4 to 21 and insert—
("(4) The Commission shall pay to their employees such remuneration and allowances on such other terms and conditions
816
as the Commission 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.
(5) A determination under sub-paragraph (4) is ineffective unless made with the approval of the Minister given with the Treasury's consent.
(6) Employment with the Commission will be included among the kinds of employment to which a scheme under section 1 of the Superannuation Act 1972 can apply and accordingly in Schedule 1 to that Act (in which those kinds of employment are listed) "Commission of Ancient Monument and Historic Buildings for England" shall be inserted after "British Museum".
(7) It shall be the duty of the Commission, except so far as it is satisfied that adequate machinery exists for achieving the purpose of this paragraph to seek consultation withthe recognised trade unions representing the staff with a view to the conclusion between the Commission and those oganisations such agreements as appear to the parties to be desirable with respect to the establishment and maintenance of machinery for—

(a) the settlement by negotiation of terms and conditions of employment of employees of the Commission with provision for reference to arbitration in default of such a settlement in such cases as may be determined by or under the agreements;

(b) the promotion and encouragement of measures affecting the safety, health and welfare of employees of the Commission and the discussion of other matters of mutual interest to the Commission and its employees including efficiency in the performance of the Commission's functions.").

The noble Baroness said: I beg to move Amendment No. 94 formally.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Viscount Simon): I have to point out that if this amendment. No. 94. is agreed to, I shall not be able to call Amendment No. 94A.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: I think that my noble friend may want to put one or two further points of clarification to the noble Earl before she makes up her mind whether or not to press this amendment. One thing that occurs to me is what will be the nature of the proposed pension scheme. It is the case that Civil Service pension schemes are unfunded. There is no collection of monies which are built up in order to meet requirements of a current nature. Civil Service pension schemes are met out of current revenue by means of Government guarantee. One of the great difficulties we are running into all over the place as a result of the creation of various quangos and public service corporations is the collection of vast sums of public money which are washing all over the place because all these pension schemes are. in fact, unfunded pension schemes, and in my view this is undesirable.
I would de-fund all the public corporation pension schemes and make them payable from current revenue in exactly the same way as Civil Service pension schemes are funded. They do not have any of this absurd collection of funds against future contingencies. It is important to know whether the proposal of handing over the pension schemes to the trustees means that the trustees, like every other public corporation, will have to collect money which they will have to invest, and so on. This creates a frightful economic and financial problem because the money has to be invested all over the place and that creates problems all over the place.
Trustees all over the country are busy investing or disinvesting, and the consequence for the economy of the country is becoming quite disastrous. The Government are completely out of control, because they are in

817
effect out of control of these various pension funds. If as a result of this Bill we are going to create yet another separate pension fund, the real question I put to the noble Earl is this. Is this going to be yet another funded pension fund with an accumulation of monies which the trustees are going to have to invest, or is it going to be analogous to the Civil Service pension fund which at the moment is totally unfunded?
The Earl of Avon: If I may respond to that point very quickly, it is going to be an unfunded scheme and the costs, if there are any, as it were, will be taken out of grant in aid and will be taken account of.
9.47 p.m.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: The Committee have been discussing questions of substance and importance. The point that I am going to raise is a minor drafting one but cumulatively of great significance. I do not generally like to raise a drafting point unless the matter is already before the Committee's consideration. But the words to which I should like to refer are the words at the end of subsection (5) of the amendment:
"given with the Treasury's consent".
I do that in the light of the consensus of opinion expressed in the debate yesterday in your Lordships' House that there should be economy in legislative enactments.
The noble Baroness is quite right that that is a phrase that one can say is time-honoured. It is certainly a phrase to which the Treasury is deeply attached and occurs already in the Bill and in countless Acts. If one could get rid of it, I think one could save several pages of the statutes in each Session. It ought never really to be necessary to have it in an Act of Parliament. It is a matter of internal Government machinery and it ought to be and is in fact automatic for a spending department faced with the preceding words, to consult the Treasury. The Treasury are deeply attached to the phrase because they think it concentrates the mind of the spending department. Of course, the normal machinery of Government should do that. This adds nothing to it. As I said, the noble Baroness, in framing the amendment in this way, is framing it in the normal way, but I would ask the noble Earl if the matter could be considered again by the legislation committee, by the draftsman and by the Treasury.
The Earl of Avon: I shall certainly undertake to bring that point to the attention of the parliamentary draftsman.
Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal: We are discussing Amendments Nos. 94 and 94A simultaneously in our consideration of Amendment No. 94. Having listened to the noble Lord and the noble Baroness who moved the amendment, there are a couple of questions which have occurred to me.
First, are we not in a situation where we are trying to legislate for two rather different groups of people? On the one hand we have those who are at present civil servants who are going to be transferred into the commission. Clearly, they need to have conditions which are at least no worse than they have at the present time. Then we get the dreaded word
818
"flexibility", which any ordinary person is thoroughly in favour of; but anybody who has spent any time in this House is inherently suspicious when that word is used by the Government, because it usually means the Government want to be free to do whatever they want to do at a given time. I would wish to see the commission being able to be flexible about the pension arrangements they make in the future, but are we not trying to protect those who are transferred from an existing pension scheme? That is my first question.
My second question, which goes along with that, is this. The noble Lord said that there are various analogous schemes which are satisfactory. I do not know what his definition of "satisfactory" would be, but can he give the Committee any indication of how many people are needed to administer those analagous pension schemes? One of the worries that a number of us have about setting up a separate scheme here is the amount of plain, old-fashioned donkey-work that necessarily will be involved in running the thing as a separate affair, even if it is run on the same basic lines. I believe that, if the noble Earl could give us some help on those two issues, we might find it easier to go along with his suggestions.
The Earl of Avon: On the question that my noble friend first raised, I was following what he said and agreeing completely, but I am afraid I rather missed the actual point of the question. The basic concept here is that it is not a worsening proposition and he is quite right to say that we should look to the future as well as where one wants to offer the commission a little more freedom. I understand that, so far as the Natural Environment Research Council and the Nature Conservancy Council are concerned, these are going very successfully at the moment, and my understanding is that they take about three people to look after them.
Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal: I think that I had perhaps better just come back to make the position quite clear. The point is that we are trying to protect those staff' who are being transferred. That is understood, but do we not probably need a separate régime for any new staff that the commission takes on subsequently, and one that would give them the flexibility that perhaps they need? Would the noble Earl be receptive if we were able to devise an amendment at a later stage which would make that possible?
The Earl of Avon: Yes, I should certainly like to see what the noble Lord has in mind. Perhaps I may just say again that the Government intend to recommend to the commission that it should adopt a pension scheme analogous to, but separate from, the Civil Service scheme. By adopting an analogous scheme, the commission would get a ready-made pension scheme, incorporating all the important features of a Civil Service scheme. I should like to read carefully what he has said, and perhaps he will be good enough to do the same: then we shall see what situation we can reach.
Baroness Birk: We have had a very long and, I hope, fruitful debate on this subject. There is a great deal for us all to read, and particularly as regards what the Minister has said. We are concerned, when we come

819
back on Report, that this should be spelled out in rather more detail, taking into account what has been said tonight, so that we know exactly what type of pension scheme is envisaged for the commission, what will be the financial responsibility of the commission and what benefits will accrue to those concerned. I personally do not feel that we can take it any further tonight and I therefore beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 94 A not moved.]
Baroness Birk Baroness Birk moved Amendment No. 94B:
Page 32, line 21, at end insert—

("(9) Staff may be seconded from departmental duties for temporary employment on urgent work for the Commission and as such shall not be regarded as employees of the Commission.").

The noble Baroness said: The principle involved, that staff may be seconded for temporary employment, seems important and, again, makes for flexibility in regard to the commission, as well as reducing the need to have a larger permanent staff than is absolutely necessary. As an example of what secondment could do. it could ensure the completion of the re-survey of listed buildings of special architectural and historic interest, which has been going on for a very long time. I remember supervising it in the department. It is being done over the whole country, with help from elected local authorities and other bodies. The original survey started in 1947 and was completed in the 1960s, the first time round, and the re-survey should not take too long to finish. As these lists are the essential tools on which almost everything in the conservation field depends, it seems right to do this.
At the moment, the department is supposed to be completing this re-survey and is not handing it to the commission. It has taken a long, slow journey through the department, and I should have thought it was something which could be entrusted almost immediately to be completed by the commission, with the necessary staff seconded. This is a very important and urgent example of how secondment would work, but it also has wider possibilities for the future. I beg to move.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu: I should like to support this amendment, it is very important that the commission should get the experience of listing as soon as possible, because, in the long run, it is a job which they should do in order to take them out of the political arena. But it is very important not to interrupt the listing which is going on at the moment and which has been speeded up, thanks to more staff being put on to the job by the Secretary of State, as he announced 18 months ago. It is important that the commission should take the listing under their wing as soon as possible and, if it can be done through delegation, so much the better.
The Earl of Avon: I very much take the point about the listing and will ensure that the word of the noble Baroness and my noble friend are taken into account. If I may be more specific about the amendment, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for explaining it, as I was not very clear at the beginning as to its intention. I am
820
happy to say that we already have the power to second people to the commission, and it is quite clear that such people continue to be civil servants while on secondment. I hope she will find that this makes the amendment unnecessary.
Indeed, we are able to go further than the amendment suggests, and might well wish to. and second staff not only for urgent work, but also because they have some special skill which would be of use to the commission for a short time. But. as I said, this is provided for. It happens already, and very successfully, between Government departments and other public sector bodies, and I should not like to suggest, by including a provision on the lines of the amendment, that existing practice may not be within existing powers. I hope that the noble Baroness will be happy with that answer, and I promise to look into the listing for her.
Baroness Birk: I thank the Minister for that reply. If he can direct me to the point in the Bill where this is covered. I shall probably quite happily withdraw the amendment.
The Earl of Avon: I do not think it has to be in the Bill, because the civil servants can do it, anyway. This is something which is done with public bodies, anyway, so it does not have to be in the Bill.
Baroness Birk: Is the Minister giving an undertaking that this opportunity for secondment will be open to the commission? We are dealing with an entirely new animal, so one naturally wants to see that things that are not in the Bill will be written in.
The Earl of Avon: Indeed. I can do so. This is part of the Secretary of State's general powers. If I may repeat what I said, it happens already, and very successfully, between Government departments and other public sector bodies, and it is our intention that it should happen with the commission.
Baroness Birk: Due to the speed of the runner, I think that that answer is satisfactory. Certainly, for the time being. I am happy to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 95 and 96 not moved.]
10 p.m.
Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal moved Amendment No. 96A:
Page 32, line 48, at end insert—
("(7) If any employee of the Commission is made redundant and that employee has been a Civil Servant the Secretary of State shall bear directly that portion of any redundancy payment appropriate to the length of his employment in the Civil Service pro rata with the length of his employment as an employee of the Commission.").
The noble Lord said: I hope that, as with Amendment No. 94B, the noble Earl will be able to tell us that this amendment is unnecessary. All we are aiming to do is to make sure that the commission is not lumbered with a potentially onerous obligation in respect of redundancy pay for people who have been working for another department before the commission took them on. I beg to move.
The Earl of Avon: I can understand my noble friend's concern to avoid reducing the amount of money which would be available for the commission to spend directly on the heritage, but it would be wrong

821
to alter the general arrangements under which staff costs should be borne. I can, however, assure my noble friend that any costs of this nature, and staff costs generally, will be a factor which we take into account in determining the level of the grant in aid. As I assured the House during our Second Reading debate, the Government are not embarking on a cost-cutting exercise. We shall have regard to all the commitments and liabilities of the commission. We do not consider that there is any risk of the commission's activities being significantly affected by any obligations to pay redundancy compensation.
I hope that reply will please my noble friend and that he will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal: As I understand if, the noble Earl is saying that if the commission had to meet redundancy payments it would be funded by the Government in respect of that part of the redundancy payments which referred to the previous employment of a particular employee. If that is what he is saying. I am grateful to him and am happy to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Kennet: Before the amendment is formally withdrawn, may I ask the noble Earl whether that is what he is saying?
The Earl of Avon: Yes.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Dacre of Glanton Lord Dacre of Glanton moved Amendment No. 96B:
Page 33, line 34, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").
The noble Lord said: This clause as drafted, being permissive, not mandatory, seems superfluous. I suggest it is essential that such a commission as this, which in its own membership is a good deal smaller than the bodies which it replaces, should be supported by expert committees, and that the text of the clause should insist upon this; in other words, the clause should be mandatory. Therefore I beg to move that the word "may" should be replaced by the word "shall".
Baroness Birk: I very strongly support the amendment. If this amendment had not been put down by the noble Lord and his friends—I do not mean to co-opt myself on to the board of the British Academy—I should have put one down myself. This is an extremely important matter. The people concerned, particularly those on the Ancient Monuments Board, are worried that they will be swallowed up by the commission and will disappear. For high quality people to be involved, over and above the small number who will be on the commission, it is absolutely essential that there should be mandatory committees on which there will be scholars who at the moment are involved with the Ancient Monuments Board and with other bodies connected with archaeology, scholarship, architecture and everything else.
A great many other areas have already shown themselves in the "shopping list" which we discussed earlier. This indicates how important it is that there should be committees at work. It should be laid down in the Bill that the committees should be there. This should not just be left to what may appear to be the whim of the commission. It makes the committees
822
appear to be (although they may not be) of not such a prestigious or high a level as they would if it were laid down in the Bill that committees should be set up.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu: I, too, strongly support the amendment. Needless to say, there is a certain amount of apprehension among those who are concerned with the heritage about the form that this new commission will take. One way in which we could allay their fears is to use the word "shall" rather than "may", because during this transitional period, while the commission is finding its feet, the best possible way in which it can step into the future with the confidence of all concerned, and carry on the good work of this Historic Buildings Council and the Ancient Monuments Board, is for it to feel that such committees will exist. Although I am sure it is the clear intention of the Secretary of State that these committees will be set up it would be much better, so far as the Bill is concerned, if this were to be mandatory rather than permissive.
Lord Kennet: I would like to enter a word of caution. Here we come to the beginning of a series of amendments, which continue with increasing tempo through the rest of the schedules, and which tell the commission how to run its own business. It seems to me that the sole advantage of this commission is that it will be conducting its own affairs free of the Whitehall undergrowth and free of the sometimes deadening hand of ministerial and Treasury control. It seems inconceivable that the commission would not want to have outside committees to advise it. If the Secretary of State puts the right people on the commission—and if we cannot trust him to do that we should not have a commission at all—then they should be trusted to decide what committees they want.
One further point. A moment ago. the noble Lord, Lord Montagu of Beaulieu, said that while the commission is finding its feet, it will need these committees. We can all agree on that, but one day it will find its feet and the statute will still be there—saying that it "shall" have committees even if after a year or two the commission finds that it does not need them. I would be for leaving matters as they stand.
Lord Gibson: I said at Second Reading how much we on the National Trust hope that the Historic Buildings Council will be continued under another name and that as little change as possible will take place, because the council has worked so well and we have so much for which to be grateful. While that certainly is our hope, nevertheless in pursuance of, to me, the much more fundamental matter which the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, has put forward, I feel strongly that the commission ought to be left alone as much as possible to make its own arrangements. I hope that we shall bear that in mind as we go along at every stage.
The Earl of Avon: I was interested by the comments of the last two noble Lords because they were very much similar to the start of my own remarks. This amendment seeks to remove from the commission its powers to decide how best to arrange its affairs in respect of obtaining the best and most appropriate range of expert advice. I question the right to make

823
such an imposition. The responsibility for carrying out the function of the commission has been firmly placed, rightly, on the commission in the shape of its members. The members of the commission will themselves represent a wide range of talents and expertise. We consider that it does not make sense to impose on the members a flat requirement that they should establish advisory committees.
The slight problem we have anyway with this amendment is that it may indeed have the effect of requiring the commission to establish a committee to cover each of the commission's functions. I am sure that is not what my noble friend intends, and we can get around that. Even though the Bill gives the commission a discretionary power to establish advisory committees, the advisory function will be one of the most important aspects of the commission's work. I am sure that, like noble Lords, the commission will feel the need to make use of the best expert advice available in the many fields in which it will be operating. Surely it should be for the commission to decide to establish committees in the same way as does the Nature Conservancy Council, which has discretionary powers to establish advisory committees in respect of its specific functions. I do not know what my noble friend will do, because we seem to be slightly split in the Committee. Should he want to press ahead, I would ask him to change his amendment from "shall" to "one or more committees", which would avoid the other point I have mentioned. But perhaps, in the light of what other noble Lords have said, my noble friend may feel that it is not necessary to press his amendment.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: The noble Earl did not answer the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Kennef, how far is this sort of provision really necessary? Even if sub-paragraphs (1), (2), and (4) might be considered necessary, what about subparagraph (3)? Surely that goes without saying if the rest is enacted?
The Earl of Avon: I think I did answer the noble Lord, Lord Kennet; he nodded at me when Lord Simon was speaking. We agree that this particular amendment is going too far. How far on the others, we shall come to as we go along.
Lord Dacre of Glanton: I am sure the commission will set up specialist committees; I cannot see how it would function properly if it did not. Perhaps it is true that we are being unnecessarily restrictive. I must admit I would prefer to see in the Bill a mandatory clause requiring that committees be set up. I am not prepared for my own part to press this. Compromise has been suggested; I wish I could think of some compromise. If I may leave it with the noble Earl to consider, we can think about it again at Report stage. For my part, I would be willing to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 96C not moved.]
Lord Dacre of Glanton Lord Dacre of Glanton moved Amendment No. 96D:
Page 33, line 41, leave out ('"such").
The noble Lord said: Amendments Nos. 96D and 96E are in effect the same; they go together. As it stands, this clause seems too restrictive and seems indeed to imply distrust of the commission, whose authority on this occasion seems to be unnecessarily limited. If the commission can determine salaries—Schedule 3, paragraph 4(4) says,
"The Commision shall pay to their employees such remuneration and allowances as the Commission may determine"—
why may it not equally determine expenses? This seems to me eccentric. I would like to move this amendment merely as a tidying amendment.
The Earl of Avon: This amendment would enable the commission to pay the members of any advisory committees it sets up whatever expense allowances it wished. There are many matters which we think it right to leave to the commission to decide as it thinks fit, but this and the level of remuneration generally. I am afraid are not among them. The commission must get the Secretary of State's approval, given with Treasury consent, which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, dislikes so much, to rates of pay it proposes for its staff and the remuneration it proposes for its own members.
In the case of expense allowances payable to Committee members, it is the usual practice for them to be set by central Government to ensure that they are more or less the same for all similar public bodies and committees. This is really the point. I do not believe it would be right that there should be different rates of expenses for undertaking very similar functions, or that a body should be able to pay particularly high rates. I believe this is sensible control and not the Government being difficult. I hope that, with that explanation, my noble friend will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Dacre of Glanton: In view of that explanation. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Birk Baroness Birk moved Amendment No. 96E:
Page 33, line 41, after ("expenses") insert ("or loss of earnings").
The noble Baroness said: I am in a little difficulty here. I have a feeling that the amendment is incorrect: that expenses are not an alternative to loss of earnings; that loss of earnings are an alternative to remuneration. Perhaps the Minister can answer the amendment as it is and then I can see whether I am right or wrong. If I have made a mistake I will withdraw the amendment. I have a feeling that it should be "expenses" and "loss of earnings". I think the alternative to "loss of earnings" is "remuneration."
The Earl of Avon: I have no such fears as the noble Baroness raises, so perhaps I could tell her what I feel about this anyway, and she can come back. The whole question of remuneration and honoraria has been very thoroughly aired in relation to the trustee museums in the Bill and I promised then to consider what might be done in the light of the views expressed. The concept of reimbursement for loss of earnings, in the case of

825
members of advisory committees, is one for which I have some sympathy with the noble Baroness. But there are fairly wide ramifications and I hope she will agree that I should include it in the general further consideration we are giving to remunerations.
However, the similar Amendment No. 96H which seeks to extend reimbursement in respect of loss of earnings to members of the commission is not in our view appropriate. Paragraph 11 of Schedule 3 provides that 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. Remuneration is in the Government's view entirely appropriate for members of the commission who will be responsible for a large executive management operation. But where a person is being paid for services it clearly cannot be right for him to be compensated also for loss of earnings elsewhere. I would not propose to include such a proposition, if the noble Baroness agrees, in the further studies we shall be making. I hope that I have satisfied the noble Baroness on this amendment and also on Amendment No. 96H.
Baroness Birk: I thank the Minister very much and I shall be happy if this can be taken into, as it were, the global review that he is to make of honoraria; and when we come to it I shall not move Amendment No. 96H. I therefore withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 96F, 96G and 96H not moved.]
Lord Dacre of Glanton Lord Dacre of Glanton moved Amendment No. 96J:
Page 34, line 41, leave out ("Secretary of State") and insert ("Commission").
The noble Lord said: This is in the nature of a question. The amendment has been tabled because we do not understand why the auditors should be appointed by the Secretary of State when they in fact report to the commission. If they report to the commission can they not be appointed by the commission? Is this not showing distrust of the commission and restricting its powers again?
The Earl of Avon: A common theme running through many of our debates is the need for the commission to have a certain degree of financial freedom. The Government have a good deal of sympathy with this view, but only to the extent that it is compatible with the necessary proper degree of central supervision. Where, like the commission, a body is substantially funded by Government it is essential that there should be systems in place to enable a proper account of the expenditure of that public money to be given. One of the most important checks on expenditure is that provided by the auditors. In these circumstances it is standard practice that the Government should appoint auditors for a body which is not subject to full audit by the Comptroller and Auditor General. It provides a very proper degree of central supervision where taxpayers' money is concerned. I can see no reason in this case to depart from this practice and I hope that my noble friend will be satisfied with that explanation.
Baroness Birk: We are not really talking about whether the accounts are approved by the commission or the Secretary of State; it is that the commission, as I understand it, should appoint its own auditors. I cannot see why the commission should not appoint its own auditors. It should be given that independence. Whether the accounts are then seen by the Secretary of State is another point.
The Earl of Avon: All I can do is reiterate what I have already said; namely, that this is the normal practice for bodies of this type.
Lord Dacre of Glanton: With that I suppose we have to be content. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 3, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 30 [The Commission's functions.]:
[Amendment No. 96K not moved.]
10.20 p.m.
Baroness Birk Baroness Birk moved Amendment No. 96L:
Page 17, line 8, after ("conservation") insert ("and in cases where that is not possible the investigation and recording").
The noble Baroness said: I beg to move Amendment No. 96L. Amendment No. 96L, together with Amendment No. 96M and a later amendment, are all concerned with rescue archaeology. Their purpose is to make explicit that the functions of the commission cover, so far as is practicable, archaeological sites as a whole and not solely those with existing statutory protection such as scheduled ancient monuments and designated archaeological areas. Scheduled ancient monuments—there are about 12,000 or 13,000 at present, with a possible eventual total of perhaps 18,000 according to stated policy—and designated archaeological areas (there are none at present or perhaps 10 initially all in towns, and apparently to be mainly in black spots) account for only a tiny part of the archaeological heritage. Present practice is to support the rescue archaeology of unscheduled and undesignated sites as far as is practicable. The Government's intentions regarding archaeological sites as a whole are unclear and should be clarified.
Whatever the outcome, it is essential that the functions of the commission with regard to such sites should be defined. It may be argued that scheduled ancient monuments are, by definition, of national importance and as such constitute a sufficient reservoir. This is not a contention which would be accepted by any professional archaeologist. The existing list goes back a century; many of the sites on it have been destroyed or seriously damaged despite being scheduled; many of the sites are patently not of national importance and, most important, the list is unrepresentative and omits great numbers of sites of outstanding importance. No one in fact knows how many archaeological sites there are in England. A figure of 250,000 is certainly an underestimate; 500,000 may be an exaggeration, It is clear that existing legislation gives virtually no protection to this heritage as a whole. It is therefore vital that the commission should be empowered to react as far as practicable to the needs of the archaeological heritage. I beg to move.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu: The noble Earl must surely know that there is considerable disquiet in archaeological circles about the problem of rescue archaeology. Although the Government and previous Governments have sometimes quite generously given money for rescue archaeology when new motorways and so on have been built, one of the chronic problems has been that no money has ever been provided to display those objects once the rescue archaeology has taken place. So it is important that the archaeologists are now looking towards the commission as being a strong and responsible body through whom rescue archaeology can be carried out and recorded.
The Earl of Avon: I take to heart the points made by the noble Baroness and my noble friend. The Government have a good deal of sympathy with the aim of these amendments and would have no quarrel in principle with the concept that the commission's functions should in part be exercised for the purpose of conservation through investigation and recording, or for the purpose of conservation of archaeological sites. However, as the noble Baroness will have noticed, there are a large number of amendments down in respect of Clause 30. including a complete new version of the clause. I will, of course, deal with each amendment as it arises, but it is clear from both the quantity and quality of the amendments that we shall have to study them carefully to see how we might improve our drafting. It will, I hope, be agreeable to the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment at the moment knowing that we shall take her remarks completely to heart. I should also like to say to my noble friend Lord Dacre that we will take into account Amendment No. 96K. which in fact he did not move.
Baroness Birk: With that in mind, in moving Amendment No. 96L, I did, in fact, speak to Amendment No. 96M; they are very' much intertwined, as the Minister probably noticed. Amendment No. 96L is concerned with investigation and recording where conservation is for any reason impossible. Amendment No. 96M deals with archaeological areas and sites. But in view of what the Minister has said, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 96M not moved.]
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu Lord Montagu of Beaulieu moved Amendment No. 96N:
Page 17, line 10, after ("areas") insert ("and designed landscapes").
The noble Lord said: I think that it is very desirable at this stage in the Bill at Clause 30 on the commission's functions to draw attention to "designed landscapes", for their care must surely be one of the functions of the commission. I know that my noble friend Lord Strathcona has tabled other amendments later on this subject and, indeed, "'designed landscapes" is really a shorthand for "gardens, parks, designed landscape or other land with special architectural, historic, artistic, arboricultural, silvicultural or horticultural interests". So that is what it is trying to cover.
It is perhaps too easy to shove off all these allied interests and to say that they are the preserve of the Royal Botanic Gardens at Kew. But the point is that the commission must pull together all the different interests that affect the landscape; a particular example is those landscapes adjacent to historic buildings, sometimes when historic buildings are no longer there. I believe that responsibility for landscape should definitely be one of the functions of the commission. I beg to move.
Lord Sandford: As a fellow of the Landscape Institute, I should certainly like to support this amendment.
Lord Gibson: I also should like to support this amendment. I have nothing to add to what the noble Lord has said, but I think that it is extremely important.
The Earl of Avon: I share the view of its importance and I am delighted that my noble friend described to me "designed landscapes", because I was not absolutely sure of the definition of what he calls his shorthand. We have some slight reservations about widening the commission's remit, but. with the support that the noble Lord obviously has for this, we shall look into it very carefully and see how it can be included.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu: I thank the noble Earl very much indeed. In view of his confirmation that he will look at this again, I shall be happy to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu Lord Montagu of Beaulieu moved Amendment No. 96P:
Page 17, line 10, at end insert ("and objects in any museum in its care.").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, perhaps I may explain to the noble Earl what I have in mind. There are many Department of the Environment properties which at the moment have small museums attached to them. I refer to places like Hadrian's Wall; and many site museums are attached to the ruins of abbeys, and so on. I believe that perhaps if it is not the provision to widen too much—or perhaps it goes without saying that it is already covered—it is important that objects rather than just buildings, landscapes and everything else we have been discussing shall be part of the commission's responsibilities. I beg to move.
The Earl of Avon: I am grateful, again, to my noble friend for his explanation. I believe that it is already covered, but I shall, of course, check on it and again take it into consideration if it is not listed for our further consideration.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu: I thank the noble Earl very much. I am happy to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu Lord Montagu of Beaulieu moved Amendment No. 96Q:
Page 17, line 12, leave out ("education and instruction") and insert ("educational facilities for both children and adults and interpretation").
The noble Lord said: Noble Lords will, of course, have heard with great pleasure the emphasis which this Bill has put on education in all ways, but I believe it is important that educational facilities are provided at all necessary levels and, indeed, that interpretation is also provided. Interpretation may be new jargon in the world of heritage, but it is a very important point. It concerns explaining, in particular to children, how things worked in the past. Interpretation of a building often has to be tailored to the nature of the monument concerned. So I believe it is very important that "educational facilities" goes in and also that interpretation for both adults and children is mentioned. I beg to move.
Lord Sandford: Once again, I should like to support my noble friend. Everybody welcomes the emphasis on the presentation of the heritage. That falls into two parts, education and interpretation. They both need to be mentioned. It is also important to get the formulation right. Just the bare phrase "education and instruction" is not correct. It is not part of the job of the commission to provide education. That is a job for the education authorities. "Educational facilities and educational services" is better. I think that the formulation in my own Amendment No. 99 is even better, but the great thing is to make the point.
Baroness Birk: I should like to support this amendment. I particularly like the words, "for both children and adults and interpretation". The phrase covers the point succinctly, and I support the amendment.
The Earl of Avon: This is an important aspect of the commission's role and we have already been speaking around it. It is right that it should receive attention. This amendment is generally in tune with the Government's thinking. I think particularly that the commission's role should be clarified in respect of the provision of facilities. Indeed, we shall keep this very much in mind in any redrafting.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu: I am delighted to hear that response from the noble Earl, and I have great pleasure in withdrawing the amendment at this stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Birk Baroness Birk moved Amendment No. 96R:
Page 17, line 13, after ("monuments") insert (", archaeological areas and sites").
The noble Baroness said: This is another amendment to do with archaeological areas and sites. The reason for the amendment is that in Clause 30(1) there is a reference to archaeological areas, but the omission of "archaeological areas" from the second paragraph needs correction. It is felt especially by the archaeologists that, since the public at large and local authorities and developers in particular need education and instruction, or perhaps we should now say "educational facilities", with regard to the
830
meaning and significance of archaeological areas, this should be put in now.
More broadly the intent of subsection (2) ought to be warmly welcomed for such a duty to educate and instruct has long been needed. In this context there is a special need to include both "archaeological areas", a new concept to the public, and "sites" which is a concept of great richness and a true indication of the extraordinary wealth of the archaeological heritage in England. I hope that the Government will accept these amendments because there really is less knowledge about the archaeological side of our heritage, and particularly when we get outside the well-known scheduled monuments and areas, than there is on any of the other sites. I beg to move.
Lord Kennet: I should like to support this amendment for the reasons given by the noble Baroness.
The Earl of Avon: I thought that the noble Baroness said "amendments", but is she speaking only to 96R?
Baroness Birk: Yes; I am sorry.
The Earl of Avon: I was rather nervous that she might have been taking one or two others. I agree with the noble Baroness that this seeks to make the list of subjects in the subsection consistent with that in subsection (1) as amended, and of course we would agree to that.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu Lord Montagu of Beaulieu moved Amendment No. 96S:
Page 17, line 14, at end insert—
("( ) The commission shall be responsible for the overall management and presentation to the public of the national heritage in England of ancient monuments, archaeological areas, and buildings, areas and designed landscapes of special historical or architectural interest either alone or together with the Secretary of State or any other appropriate body.")
The noble Lord said: This amendment borrows some of the excellent wording in Amendment 92 moved by the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, and the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, with some minor modifications. In view of the answer to that amendment by the noble Earl, that he would be designing a new amendment to set up the aims and objects of the commission, it is perhaps not necessary, with the agreement of the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, to discuss this very much longer. We feel strongly that it is necessary for something to be in the Bill to direct the commission on its duties to pull everything together on the heritage front, and make sure that all the appropriate bodies are working together. In view of the answer that was given on Amendment No. 92, there is, perhaps, no need to discuss the matter further.
Baroness Birk: I am sorry to disagree with the noble Lord, but is he not referring to Amendment No. 99, which has not yet been reached?
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu: No; I was referring to No. 92.
Baroness Birk: Yes, in relation to management and presentation. I apologise to the noble Lord, and I support the line he has proposed.
The Earl of Avon: Nevertheless, I feel I should put on record in regard to this amendment that it is clear that an important function of the commission will be to manage and present the monuments in its direct care. The amendment goes considerably further than that; it would impose on the commission a duty to manage and present to the public many aspects of the national heritage in England for which it has no formal responsibility and over which it will have no control. The amendment does not limit the commission's task to monuments, buildings or areas under its ownership, guardianship or management. It extends to all aspects of the heritage, regardless of ownership, status or importance. Having said that, I will go carefully into what my noble friend said, but I thought I should utter those cautionary words.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
10.37 p.m.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu Lord Montagu of Beaulieu moved Amendment No. 96T:
Page 17, line 16, leave out from ("determine") to the end of line 17.
The noble Lord said: I may be wrong, but it seems to me that the clause is very restrictive, as it would appear that the commission is able to make charges only in respect of the education and instruction of the public. That may not be the intention, but I suggest it is important that the commission is able to make charges for all sorts of matters which come under its control, for services, advice, consultation and so on. The provision seems only to cover the education and instruction of the public, as mentioned in subsection (2), and perhaps some explanation could be given of that. I suggest that the commission should be able to charge for anything it sees fit.
The Earl of Avon: I take my noble friend's point, and perhaps I might explain the position a little. He is right to say that subsection (2) provides a facility to charge for education and instruction given to the public. But under the provisions of Schedule 4, the commission will have the power to charge for admission to monuments (paragraph 37) and to charge for any facilities or services provided for the public at any monument (paragraph 38). There is some advantage in having the power to charge explicitly linked to certain powers or duties. In the case of the educational and instructional facilities which they may provide for the public, I think it right that they should be able to charge if they wish. Hence the charging provision in subsection (3). But to make this power all-embracing is more difficult to take. It might also create difficulties, as it duplicates the specific powers set out in Schedule 4. This may seem a rather complicated reply, and probably we should look at the matter again.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu: I thank my noble friend for that reply. I think the difficulty of understanding Schedule 4, particularly paragraphs 37 and 38, has caused problems, but if the position is made clearer at a later stage of the Bill, we shall all be satisfied.
Lord Kennet: I strongly endorse what the noble Lord, Lord Montagu, said. It is because of the impenetrability of Schedule 4 that obviously it was necessary to table the amendment; if we had been able to understand the schedule, the amendment would never have arisen. And as what is incomprehensible to your Lordships is probably incomprehensible to everybody, would it not be wise to let the amendment stand, or for the Government to give an indication that they view it favourably as a possible improvement on the clause, which will then be readily comprehensible to everyone?
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu Lord Montagu of Beaulieu moved Amendment No. 96U:
Page 17, line 17, at end insert—
("( ) So far as practicable, the Commission shall promote the recruitment and training of craftsmen in the use of traditional materials for conservation purposes.").
The noble Lord said: I am sure that we all recognise how important it is to encourage craftsmen of all kinds to continue to be trained. I cannot think of any better body than the commission to be responsible for recruiting and training craftsmen in the use of traditional materials. I must confess that I am a member of the Development Commission, under the delegation of which COSIRA operates. It runs a tremendous number of courses for craftsmen. It is absolutely essential to the conservation of our historic buildings in the future that the craftsmen continue to exist, that apprentices are recruited, and so on. I feel that it is essential that the importance of this matter is underlined in the Bill in some way, so that the commission takes it on board as one of its highest priorities. I beg to move.
Baroness Birk: I wish to support the amendment.
The Earl of Avon: Before responding to my noble friend, I should like to say a few words to the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, in regard to the previous amendment. I take the noble Lord's point, but I should like to look at the matter more closely, since the noble Lord, Lord Montagu, has stimulated a new train of thought that I should like to follow up.
With regard to Amendment No. 96U, I would say that the commission will be the employers of a considerable number of staff, including craftsmen, and to the extent that it decides that is necessary for the purpose of its functions, it will be able to recruit others, and provide appropriate training. It will also be able, if it so wishes, to advise others in the field on such matters. This kind of activity is, in a very real sense, that which is subsumed within the general role of the commission, and while it has its own importance, it is

833
in relation to the main functions of the commission, rather than in its own right. Having said that, I would add that when looking again at the clause we shall of course bear in mind what has been said.
Lord Kennet: Will the noble Earl also bear in mind one other point that I think he did not mention just now? It is the possibility that the commission itself might train craftsmen, or finance their training where they are to be employed other than by the commission. They might be employed by a local authority, county trust, or other body.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu: In view of the confirmation from the noble Earl that he will look at this point, I shall be happy to withdraw the amendment. I believe that many people in this country feel very strongly about the question of craftsmen, and indeed the use of traditional materials on which conservation relies. The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, says that it would be splendid if the commission could take the initiative and itself start training courses. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Birk Baroness Birk moved Amendment No. 96V:
Page 17, line 17, at end insert—
("( ) The Commission may undertake or sponsor research in furtherance of its functions.").
The noble Baroness said: If the commission is to do its job properly, it is essential that it has at its disposal experienced staff expert in all branches of research work. In the archaeological field it must have archaeologists; with monuments it must have the equivalent of the inspectorate of ancient monuments, and with buildings it needs to have architectural historians. All of these kind of people are needed to study and advise on research into the past, so that mistakes are not made in the care of archaeological areas and monuments, nor in identifying buildings that are genuinely outstanding for their historic or architectural interest. On the other hand, advice will also be needed, involving some research, with respect to applications for conditional exemption from capital transfer tax.
Then, at the other end of the scale, research is essential into how best, and most economically, to bring new life back into old towns. The seminal studies of Bath, Chester, Chichester and York, published in 1968, were the starting point for the remarkable progress made in those towns in repairing, and finding new uses for, historic buildings, in improving the environment of run-down areas, and in attracting developers, who built suitable new buildings on empty sites. This has a very important impact on what we are doing currently in both the economic and social fields, and also for the future.
A limited feasibility study into the market area of Chesterfield demonstrated how combined rehabilitation and commercial development could be carried out and financed. Efforts pioneered in these towns have been widely followed elsewhere. It is true that some, but by no means all, of these activities might be done with the help of, and by reference to, the records of the Royal Commission on Historical Monuments,
834
and in particular its photographic library, the National Monuments Records.
I realise that in putting this into the Bill, it is again putting another function on the commission, but I think that this is one of great importance. I see that further on, at Amendment No. 102E, the noble Lord, Lord Dacre, and his colleagues have an amendment similar to this. I think it is essential that research is brought into the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Kennet: In order that the commission have the power to do and to sponsor research, I think it is essential that we should have the amendment.
The Earl of Avon: The main thrust of this amendment is one that the Government entirely accept. We intend to bring forward at a later stage an appropriate Government amendment to empower the commission to undertake and sponsor research. The noble Baroness referred to the other amendment. I should say in an anticipatory warning to my noble friend that we think that that one goes a little too far, but we are happy to give an undertaking to put down an amendment in this way.
Baroness Birk: In view of that helpful reply from the Minister, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Denham: I think that we have probably got as far as we usefully can tonight. I think I detect a note of tiredness, possibly, in noble Lords who have been working so hard over the course of the day. I think that we have probably now reached the stage where we can satisfactorily finish the Bill on the next day.
House resumed.
House adjourned at thirteen minutes before eleven o'clock.