National Heritage Bill [H.L.]

HL Deb 16 December 1982 vol 437 cc793-834

8.16 p.m.

House again in Committee.

[The EARL CATHCART in the Chair.]

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 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.

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 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 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 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- 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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—

1. (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;
2. (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 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 "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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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, 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.