Lords Sitting of 21 December 1982

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Portsmouth.
The Lord Kirkwood—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

DHSS Frauds: Oxford Prosecutions
The Lord Bishop of Oxford: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what positive benefits resulted from the recent DHSS prosecutions for fraud in Oxford, when set against the large number of persons detained of whom only 53 per cent. were subsequently charged, and the cost of the operation.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Lord Trefgarne): My Lords, the operation referred to was conducted jointly by the DHSS and the police and resulted in 179 people—63 per cent. of those arrested—being charged, 159 of whom have since been convicted. Its purpose was to stop the claimants concerned from receiving benefit to which they were not entitled and to deter others from claiming fraudulently. The cost was about £36,000, against which must be set about £450,000 of wrongful payments that would otherwise have been made in a full year. I am sure that taxpayers and the vast majority of people receiving benefit who are honest in hteir dealings with the department wish for effective counter-measures to be taken against fraud, particularly, as was the case in Oxford, where there is large-scale abuse of the system.
The Lord Bishop of Oxford: My Lords, while thanking the Minister for that reply, may I ask him to comment in this connection on the lack of adequate provision made for the single homeless in the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977?
Lord Trefgarne: With respect to the right reverend Prelate, my Lords, that is another question.
Lord Wells-Pestell: My Lords, how many of those convicted were subsequently found to be entitled to far larger benefit than they were in fact receiving?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, so far as I know, none. These people were, in general, convicted because they were receiving benefit far more than that to which they were entitled.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, what percentage of the sample under review is represented by the 179 convictions the noble Lord mentioned?
Lord Trefgarne: As I said in the Answer, my Lords, 63 per cent. of those arrested were charged. Virtually all of those charged, but not quite all, have since been convicted, but a small number of cases remain to be dealt with.
Lord Wallace of Coslany: My Lords, apart from the percentage of people found guilty, may I ask the noble Lord to say how many people were detained? Would he agree that a better system should be found to check on these matters, rather than the spectacular type of mass raid, which can also inflict a great deal of anxiety on innocent people who would like to claim but who might be deterred from so doing in case they should become involved in a similar incident?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the total initially arrested I think numbered 283, of whom, as I said, 179 were subsequently charged. The other hundred or so were not charged because the evidence available was not thought to be sufficient to justify prosecution.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: For how long were they detained in custody, my Lords—that is, those who were innocent and not charged in due course?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, none was detained for longer than 24 hours.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, while this exercise on behalf of the DHSS was, no doubt, designed to try to reduce the cheating which goes on and which amounts to some £4 million a year, may I ask the noble Lord to explain the sense of carrying on in this way to recover £4 million while at the same time reducing the Inland Revenue's staff who are working on the black economy, which is now running at £9 billion?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I think, if I may say so, that the noble Lord plucks figures out of the air in this matter. The extent of alleged fraud in regard to social security, for example, is very much greater than the figure he mentioned.
Lord Molloy: Tell us what it is.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, can my noble friend say how many of those charged and found guilty were Oxford people? Secondly, in support of the right reverend Prelate, may I ask my noble friend to say whether, if there were a network of accommodation throughout the country for homeless people, the Government would save a great deal of money?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the basis of the complaint against all those who were charged (I think I am right in saying all those who were charged) was that they were not living at the address in Oxford at which they were claiming to live, and they were subsequently convicted in that sense. Regarding the second part of my noble friend's supplementary, I am afraid I must answer her in the same sense in which I answered the right reverend Prelate: that is another question.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, further to the question asked by my noble friend Lord Molloy, is it

921
not the case that the Government have recently refused to appoint more inspectors with a view to collecting more money from the wealthy sections of the community? Why are the Government so hard on the poor and so soft on the rich?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am not sure that is a question I really need answer because the assertion inherent in it does not bear examination. However, it might be of interest to know that for the year ended April 1982 the department's investigators achieved benefit savings of £96·1 million through the detection of fraud, at a cost of some £33 million.

Microlights: Accidents
2.43 p.m.
The Earl of Kinnoull: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government how many flying accidents have occurred to microlights so far this year, what safety standards are now enforced both for pilots and machines, and what have been in general the causes of seemingiy so many accidents.
The Secretary of State for Trade (Lord Cockfield): My Lords, there have been 29 accidents, including six fatal accidents, in which eight people have been killed. Two-thirds of the accidents have been attributed to pilot error, and the rest to engine or structural failure. All microlights now have to be registered with the Civil Aviation Authority, and all pilots are required to be licensed. A first draft of the airworthiness requirements has been drawn up by the CAA and circulated to interested parties. The authority expects to publish airworthiness requirements early next year.
The Earl of Kinnoull: My Lords, in thanking my noble friend for that very detailed and helpful reply, may I ask whether he can confirm that he is satisfied that all reasonable measures have been taken to reduce the risk of serious accidents? Secondly, will he consider whether flying clubs, rather than the CAA, could perhaps monitor the safety aspects of flying?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, so far as the first point made by my noble friend is concerned, this is a hazardous sport. Young men will always participate in hazardous activities, and, tragically, from time to time fatal accidents occur. One must draw a very careful line between overregulating an activity and making it impossible to carry on, while at the same time ensuring that all reasonable safety precautions are taken. As I indicated in my reply, the CAA has in fact already made very considerable progress in this field. I am glad also to say that the two associations active in the field—the British Hang-gliding Association, and the British Microlight Aircraft Association—are joining in consultations with the CAA, with a view further to improving safety.
Lord Bishopston: My Lords, although we appreciate the fact that the Government may not want to have undue restrictions, we welcome both the bringing of these activities under air safety regulations, and pilot licensing. But surely the main object in the long run is to see that monitoring takes place and that the controls, such as they are, are enforced. Can the Minister also briefly say something about the noise aspect, which also has been causing concern?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, I note what the noble Lord has said. The points that he makes are entirely valid. So far as noise is concerned, two studies are at present in hand, and we shall consider what can be done in the light of the results of those studies.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, according to the radio this morning, hunting is the most dangerous sport that there is. Is there any suggestion of registering each horse?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, there are very few horses which would be encompassed within the term "microlights".

Unemployment Benefit
2.46 p.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are aware that the retention of the 5 per cent. cut in unemployment benefit since that benefit has been subject to taxation represents double taxation on the unemployed, and when they intend to bring it to an end.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, as I told the noble Lord on 24th November in the debate on the welfare state, we accept the case for making good this abatement, and will do so as soon as the necessary resources can be made available.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, is the noble Lord the Minister aware that the unemployed are not concerned about whether the Government accept the principle? They are concerned about when they will get their money. How is the noble Lord's Answer consistent with the statement of his right honourable friend the then Secretary of State, who, on 30th April 1980, said that the rationale for the 5 per cent. abatement would cease at the time that unemployment benefit came under tax? Has it not been under tax since July of this year?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, obviously the noble Lord read only one paragraph of the debate to which he referred, because my right honourable friend also said that one of the other reasons for making the abatement was as a necessary economy in public expenditure. The rationale for that move still exists.
Lord Blyton: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the Government's attitude to the unemployed and the working class generally is the worst that I have seen since Baldwin and Ramsay MacDonald were in government, in 1926 and 1931? Is it not time that the Government stopped looking after their own class, and gave a little back to the working class?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, if I may say so, the noble Lord seems to have a very short memory. We have treated the working classes, as he calls them, a good deal better than did the Government who preceded us.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, while totally rejecting that assertion, may I put to the noble Lord a question of fact? Can he confirm whether the cost of the reinstatement would be in the region of £60 million, whereas the revenue gained from bringing the benefit into the taxable income bracket would be in the order of £650 million? Therefore, would not the noble Lord agree that, if those figures are correct, the failure of the Government to review the 5 per cent. reduction is financially totally unjustifiable?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the noble Lord is right in that the cost of restoring the abatement would be of the order of £50 million or £60 million, as he said. But the question of the revenue from taxation is irrelevant because it has never been the case that tax from a particular source is hypothecated for any purpose.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, would not the noble Lord agree that involved here is a question of the morale of our country? Many people are greatly concerned; they have seen all of this before. As my noble friend Lord Blyton said, the Government first of all created the unemployed, and now they are whipping them.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, that may be the noble Lord's view, but it is not mine.
Lord Monson: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that to my certain knowledge there are unemployed people, responsible family men, who have applied for jobs at less than two-thirds of their previous wage on salary without success? Is it not unfair that such people should be deprived of 5 per cent. of the benefit which would otherwise accrue to them?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the Government have to determine the order of priorities in these matters and, as we said at the time, the priorities meant that we had to make this modest abatement to unemployment benefit. I might perhaps add to those who complain about unemployment benefit coming into tax, that the fact is that most married people, for example, living on unemployment benefit, or essentially so, do not pay tax at all.
Lord Paget of Northampton: My Lords, are not the Government, in defence, really saying, as a pickpocket might say in the dock, "I am very sorry that I misappropriated this money. I shall seriously consider returning it in due course; but I must consider other priorities first"?
Lord Trefgarne: No, my Lords. We had to establish, as I have said to the noble Lord, Lord Monson, the order of priorities in this matter and we had to decide that there were other things on which we needed to spend the scarce resources that we have for these purposes at the time, and, as I say, we will make good this abatement as soon as we can.
Lord Paget of Northampton: My Lords, surely the priority is that it was not your money.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I suppose that that applies to every penny that the Government dispose of.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, will the noble Lord answer the Question on the Order Paper? Is this not a form of double taxation? Is he really telling the House that the Government, after its 3½ years of professedly successful economic pruning, cannot afford the £60 million which they have virtually promised to return from July this year?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, we did not promise to return this money from July this year, as the noble Lord suggests. As I said in answer to the noble Lord a moment ago, the rationale lay in two parts in this matter. First of all, there was the question of the benefit coming into tax and, secondly, the question of containing public expenditure. The question of containing public expenditure continues to be of the greatest importance, but we shall make good this abatement just as soon as we can.

The Ida Hospital, Leeds
2.54 p.m.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the Secretary of State will refuse permission for the closure of the Ida Hospital for geriatrics and patients requiring rehabilitation at Cookridge, Leeds.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, as the Leeds Western Health Authority has taken no closure decision in relation to the Ida Hospital, the question is hypothetical. In any event, before an opposed hospital closure in the Yorkshire region can be referred to Ministers, the issue must first be considered by the regional health authority, of which the noble Baroness is a distinguished member.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, while thanking the Minister for that reply, may I wish him a very happy Christmas? Is he aware that the Ida Hospital was designated by his own department as a centre of excellence for rehabilitation, and that many of the excellent and most dedicated staff working there are very worried because there is a rumour that the hospital will close and that the patients will be moved to another hospital?
Lord Trefgarne: Yes, my Lords, I agree that, as the noble Baroness has said, the hospital was designated as a demonstration centre in medical rehabilitation. I would certainly also agree that the service provided is an important one for the district concerned. But that does not necessarily mean that these important functions ought to go on for ever in the same building.
Lord Davies of Leek: My Lords, whether or not permission has been sought at the present time, the nub of the question is this: Will the Minister of State refuse permission? Before he considers it, will he take into account the viability, the excellent work in this hospital—which is not in debt—the assiduousness of the staff and its importance to the old, the lonely and the sick in this area, who look on this place as a home because many of them have nowhere else to go?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, if this matter comes before Ministers, these points will certainly be taken into account as, doubtless, they will be by the regional health authority, upon which, as I say, the noble Baroness sits, if the matter should ever come before it.
Lords Amulree: My Lords, does not the Minister think that the time has come when we want to encourage hospitals or hostels for these aged and infirm people who do not need to be in an acute general hospital but who do need to be taken care of in the way that has been spoken about now?
Lord Trefgarne: Yes, my Lords, geriatric provision generally is a matter of considerable importance. I should say that that is not the specific purpose of this hospital, which is dealing in the main with those who are, hopefully, to return to a normal life sooner or later but who have suffered some particularly grievous illness in the meantime.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, may I enlighten the Minister by asking him whether he is aware that the patients at that hospital are mainly geriatric patients, some of whom will not be returning home? Is he further aware that, if the patients are moved, then, to get other rehabilitation facilities as good as those in that hospital, a great deal of expense may be involved. Furthermore, is he aware that the buildings of the Ida Hospital are in excellent condition and are flat, that it is only a small hospital of 120 beds and that it is the ideal hospital for that kind of patient? Is he also aware that the hospital has kept within its budget, and has not been subject to industrial dispute? Should not that sort of hospital be patted on the back rather than closed?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, these are all matters which will certainly be considered by the district and the region in due course. May I correct one point which the noble Baroness made? The hospital, as she says, has just over 100 beds but only about 20 of them, in fact, are used for the rehabilitation role.

Business
Lord Denham: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 this afternoon my noble friend Lord
926
Cockfield will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement which is to be made in another place on the European Community United Kingdom Budget Refund 1982.
It may be for the convenience of the House if I announce that dinner will be available at the usual time this evening. The Committee stage of the National Heritage Bill will be adjourned at approximately 7 p.m. for approximately one hour. During this adjournment the Second Reading and remaining stages of the Electricity (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Bill and the Second Reading and remaining stages of the Lands Valuation Amendment (Scotland) Bill will be taken.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, on a business matter, may I ask the noble Lord the Chief Whip whether the Government have any intention, before the Recess, of making a Statement on the security risks based on and emanating from the South African Embassy which were revealed in our courts last week?
Lord Denham: My Lords, I think that hardly comes under the heading of business as such. I have no knowledge of such a Statement to be made, but if there were to be one I would inform the House.

Data Protection Bill [H.L.]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Elton): My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to regulate the use of automatically processed information relating to individuals and the provision of services in respect of such information. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Lord Elton.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Agricultural Marketing Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

Lerwick Harbour Order Confirmation Bill
3 p.m.
Considered on report.
Then, Standing Order No. 43 having been suspended, (pursuant to Resolution of 16th December):
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Billl be now read a third time.—(Lord Lyell.)
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, before we give a Third Reading to this Bill, may we be told something about it? I have a very special reason for speaking now, and that is because I have a very sentimental attachment to the area. During the war I used to parade with

927
my platoon of the HLI along this part, usually on the wildest of nights—and the darkest of nights, too. I want to know what is going to be done with this area that is so dear to my heart. I see that they are going to spend about £500,000. I am sure that the Secretary of State must know something about it. After all, he has given leave for this Bill to come forward.
Something else I have noticed is that, although it is going to cost £500,000, about one-third of that is for the cost of the land. It seems to me that the further north one gets in Scotland the dearer becomes the most useless piece of land. Perhaps we can be told something about this. It is not a very big piece of land. It is right on the foreshore, and skirts the foreshore. So far as I can see, all that is going to be done is that they are going to reconstruct an embankment here. I should be very grateful if the information that the Government have available could be unveiled to us.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, the noble Lord and, indeed, the House will be fascinated to hear that I, too, have an attachment to the Orkneys and Shetlands, since my great-grandfather was the Liberal Member of Parliament for that constituency for 15 years. I am sure that information is new to the noble Lord, Lord Ross. I agree with the noble Lord that the power to reclaim lands is set out in paragraph 5. Indeed, as the noble Lord will have noted, Part II of the schedule gives the trustees of the port and harbour of Lerwick powers which I am sure are familiar in such a case. It allows them to construct a stone embankment, which is set out in considerable detail in paragraph 4 of the schedule on pages 3 and 4.
The noble Lord will see that this is an estimated cost of £389,000 or so. This is preparatory to reclaiming land which is required to improve the port and the harbour at Lerwick. I am informed that the land reclamation work will be adjacent to the existing Shell oil base and will also have the purpose of relieving considerable congestion at the base. I hope that that will go the major part of the way to satisfying the thirst for knowledge of the noble Lord, Lord Ross. If there is any further detailed point on which I can help him, perhaps I may write to him.
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, there is only one other point that I should like to ask. I should like to know whether or not he has had protests about this. After all, we are reclaiming land. This House is experiencing strange times, dealing with the Western Islands and the isles of Scotland. Lots of people are concerned. The concern is not so much about the crofters but about birds. If one is going to reclaim land, it is going to affect the habitats of many of the waders, which are dear to the hearts of many people in this House. Have there been any protests from people about this matter?
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I have a fairly detailed map of the port, harbour and town of Lerwick. I am not aware of any waders or wildlife which might have been affected in this particular area. Neither am I aware of any human protest which has not been considered and, if I may suggest, dealt with in the usual way. If I
928
am wrong, and if there has been any protest, then perhaps I may ascertain the answer and write to the noble Lord.
On Question, Bill read a third time, and passed.

Western Isles Islands Council (Omnibus Services) Order Confirmation Bill
Considered on Report.
Then, Standing Order No. 43 having been suspended, (pursuant to Resolution of 16th December):
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a third time.—(Lord Lyell.)
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, I think that there are certain fascinations about this particular Bill which will not have escaped your Lordships' notice. In days when we hear much of privatisation and of the curse of public ownership, it comes strange that the Secretary of State should set forth this Bill for our consideration. It actually gives powers to a local authority to run a bus service. Why are this Government forced to do this? It is something which they abhor. The simple reason is that the private individuals do not want to do it. There is no money in it. There is very little money in the Western Isles anyway; but I would have thought that all the proponents of this great principle would have been there opposing this Bill and demanding that something be done in respect of the privatisation of the bus services in the Western Isles.
The second point is this. Why should this be a private Bill? I am perfectly sure that your Lordships will have been tired of hearing my voice on local authority Bill after local authority Bill brought forward by this Government. We have had the Civic Government Bill. How many hundereds of clauses did we have? We had the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill. We have had at least three or four of those Bills.
It is my considered opinion that the Western Isles authority asked the Government to give them this power within a Government measure. But it did not suit the Government because it might have been proclaiming the failures of private enterprise in a part of the world which many people hold very highly indeed. So the Government said, No. I have read the correspondence that passed between the authority and the Scottish Office asking for a simple amendment. It would have taken no time at all, and would have cost nothing to the islanders. Had that been accepted in a Government measure, they would have had this power with the blessings of both sides of the House, I am sure.
However, it has to be done this way. Here you have the position in which a local authority, which is not one of the most wealthy, now has to spend thousands of pounds on getting this very necessary power, and they are advised to do so by the Government. It will be seen on page 2 of the Bill that it says:
"it is apprehended that certain existing omnibus services might be discontinued by those undertakers who now operate them and

929
accordingly it is expedient, and considered to be of public and local advantage, that the council should be empowered themselves"
to run the bus service. That is a change in the attitude of the Government.
I would ask, thirdly, who is going to pay for this? What grants will be available to the local authority when they start running this service? First of all, they have to get the buses and then they have to operate and maintain the service. How is this going to be paid for? Perhaps the Government will tell us that they will get something out of the rate support grant, but that grant in Scotland has just been reduced to the lowest in a decade—about 61 per cent. of the reckonable expenditure for the whole of Scotland. Certainly, the percentage they will get in the Western Isles will be very much higher. But then there are very few people left to pay the residue which will be left to be paid by the ratepayers there. What grants will be available in respect of capital costs? Surely we are not going to leave it entirely to what I think is the most endangered species—not the redshank or the greylag goose, but the crofter. Are we to leave it to them entirely to make provision for this? What have the Government agreed in respect of grants (a) in respect of capital, and (b) in respect of maintaining these particular services? I think the House needs to have this information.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, the noble Lord has raised three points. I should like first to tell him and your Lordships that the Government are happy to give their blessing to this Bill. We, of all people, recognise the difficulties which are faced in the Western Isles, where the future of some bus services, and especially those which are essential to the inhabitants, is in jeopardy, and above all where it may not be easy to find alternative operators. I am sure the noble Lord, and your Lordships in total, would agree that it is clearly desirable that the local authority should have the capability to stand in and to provide the services when no other service is available. That is the main purpose of this Bill.
Regarding the noble Lord's point on privatisation, we hope that services will be provided, but the Bill in essence is setting forth a "long stop", if one can call it that, so that, should a private operator not be willing or find it possible to provide essential bus services within the Western Isles, then the Western Isles Council will be able to provide such essential services. The noble Lord has no monopoly in holding the Western Isles dear; nor indeed have your Lordships, since we have had many discussions on the flora, the fauna and the activities which are carried on by the inhabitants.
On the specific question regarding the grants which would be available, the noble Lord, with his usual clarity of mind, split the grant into capital and maintenance. I regret that I do not have the figures, even to the nearest £1,000; but I will ascertain them and I will write with the utmost speed to the noble Lord.
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, surely at the present time the private organisations are being paid by the local authority under the Scottish Office and there is already something in the rate support grant for that purpose. Could we not have these
930
figures?—because I want to find out whether it is going to cost more and, if so, how that is going to be met.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, we do not have these figures since we are merely seeking powers to provide bus services should the need arise. I will attempt to find out the answer to the first two points raised by the noble Lord and I will also try to find the answer to his second supplementary question. I will also ascertain the answers to the questions of detail, but I cannot give specific details today nor can I go further into details of the rate support grant for the rest of Scotland.
On Question, Bill read a third time, and passed.

National Heritage Bill [H.L.]
3.15 p.m.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(The Earl of Avon.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD ABERDARE in the Chair.]
Clause 30 [The Commission's functions]:
Lord Kennet Lord Kennet moved Amendment No. 97:
Page 17, line 19, leave out subsection (4).
The noble Lord said: The Committee will remember that this Bill has two main purposes: the first of them is to change the governance of a large number of museums, and the second is to set up a new commission at present enjoying the cumbrous title of "The Commission for Historic Buildings and Ancient Monuments for England". At its last two sittings, the Committee concluded those parts of the Bill dealing with the museums. They are now behind us and we have begun on the second section, setting out the new commission. The proposed commission tears up a hundred years of English law in this matter and transfers many governmental functions and duties out of Whitehall to the new quango, to be known as "the commission". My amendment seeks to leave out the subsection before the Committee which gives that commission its powers and functions. It paves the way to a later amendment which seeks to leave out the whole of Schedule 4, setting out the powers and functions of the new commission.
May I say by way of preface that this is not a party matter in any way; the Bill itself is not a party matter and this amendment is not a party matter. May I say also that I am moving this amendment to test the will of the Committee not because I or, so far as I know, any noble Lord is against the commission or because we are against the commission having the powers and functions which, so far as we can make out, it is proposed to give it. My purpose in this amendment resides in the words,
"so far as we can make out".
Last week we had a debate on the need for less and clearer legislation. I think many of your Lordships will

931
remember the speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, during that debate—one of the clearest, shortest and most passionate pleas for clarity of legislation one could wish to hear anywhere. They will remember also the speech on Second Reading of the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, regarding Schedule 4, when she claimed it was incomprehensible and asked that it be dealt with by the device of a Keeling schedule. Your Lordships may remember also the speech of my noble friend Lord Hutchinson on Second Reading, when he stated that the schedule was incomprehensible and asked what the Government proposed to do about it.
Earlier during the Committee stage an amendment had been moved by the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, who sought to carry into the Bill a very short, modest and clear clause which set out the general purposes of the new commission in positive terms. The Committee did not divide and the amendment was not accepted; but the Government promised that they would look at that proposal sympathetically and they did not by any means come down against having a short clause setting forth the purposes.
My purpose now, in trying to get rid of the subsection and the entire schedule, is to make room for a clear and positive statement of the powers, duties and functions of the commission. Besides general purposes, they will, of course, have legally defined powers, duties and functions, and it is my contention that in the schedule, as it stands, they are not comprehensibly defined. The positive part of the Bill which deals with the new commission is one and a half pages of large print, and it says: Let there be a new commission; let it be called this, that and the other; let it be composed of 13 members and so on—various useful and general things. Then, when you come to subsection (4) which I seek to delete, it says in effect: "For a definition of their powers, duties and functions turn to Schedule 4." Schedule 4 is 20 pages of small print, compared with one and half pages of large print. It has already attracted, at the last count, 85 amendments to the one schedule; there may be more by now.
My complaint is that the schedule is nowhere positive and direct in its statements. It endows the new commission with their functions, duties and powers solely by reference to the repeal of portions of earlier enactments, and the substitution of those portions by new little bits of text which are set out in the schedule. It will be enough if those of your Lordships who are interested simply turn to Schedule 4 and dip in anywhere. You will see that certain words are left out of an Act of 1971, an Act of 1968 and so on and replaced by other words, and there is no rhyme nor reason in a direct reading of that schedule. It is no more or less than a cat's cradle of repeal provisions. It would serve very well as a repeal schedule to a Bill, if there were a positive statement of the powers and duties of the new body elsewhere in large type. It is, in fact, a repeal schedule, and that is the role to which it should be relegated.
If I may change the image, it is a black blob of stuff which makes no sense. It is like looking at the outside of a founder's mould before the metal is poured in. We know that on the inside there is a hole precisely shaped
932
to a negative version of the statue which is desired to be cast, but from outside one cannot see it. The parliamentary draftsman can see the inside of that negative cast in the schedule, but it is quite beyond the wit of man to see it. In my submission, it is bad legislation and bad practice for Parliament to send forth to the people a bit of law which it does not understand itself, and I do not believe that there is one noble Lord here present who could get up and give a coherent and positive account of the powers and functions of the new commission.
These points were made on Second Reading and they did not fall on deaf ears. Various remedies have been canvassed and the Government have been helpful as regards the passage of the legislation itself. On Second Reading, the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, asked for a Keeling schedule to be prepared. As noble Lords will know, a Keeling schedule is a straightforward reading of the Acts which are being altered, with the new bits that are moved in printed in a different way, in heavy type or underlined or something like that, so that you can see at a glance what change is being made to the old Acts. It would be useful to have that before us during the passage of the Bill through both Houses of Parliament. But it would not in any way be a substitute for the clear, forthright and positive clause which I seek to get the Government to produce.
Unfortunately, the Government did not see their way to go even that far. They said that there would be too much work, that the resulting text would be too long and so on. What they have done—they have not done nothing and we must give them credit for that—is to provide a document called A Guide to Schedule 4. This is what I might call a kind of kippered Keeling. It is split open like a kipper and laid out on two pages, so that down the right-hand side you see all the bits of the old enactments which are to be altered, and down the left-hand side you see the alterations, and by following the ribs of the kipper across you can see where each bit goes into the other side. It is very arduous to read, and I will only say that it is a little less arduous to read than the original schedule itself.
It has already been of help to many people in understanding this schedule. Indeed, without it, it would have been impossible for people to formulate amendments to the schedule. But I repeat that this will not do for the layman outside. How are trustees to understand their duties when faced with a negative schedule? How are local authorities to understand their duties? How are all those who exercise ordinary functions in the business of planning and preservation to understand their duties under the new law, without a positive statement of the powers and functions of the proposed new commission?
This is my argument. I hope the Committee will agree with me that it is unacceptable to create a powerful new quango which, as I said, tears up 100 years of law and practice, without a clear, positive statement of their powers and functions; and that the best way to make sure that the Government provide this positive statement at a later stage of the Bill is, at this moment, to leave out subsection (4) of the clause, and later on to leave out the whole of the schedule, the way to which is paved by subsection (4). I beg to move.
Baroness Birk: As the noble Lord, Lord Rennet, referred to the efforts that I made to try to get clarification, I feel I ought to say a word. It is perfectly true that on Second Reading I asked for a Reeling schedule, as that appeared to be the best way to deal with a problem like this. Unfortunately, the problem that has arisen is far greater than could be dealt with even by a Reeling schedule, as I think has become apparent as the Bill has progressed.
The noble Lord, Lord Rennet, was absolutely right when he said that the relevant part of the Bill is one and a half pages long and the schedule is 20 pages long; in other words, the tail that wags the dog has knocked the dog right out of the ring and quite unconscious. When we talk about two Bills, we are absolutely right, because what we have before us is a composite thing. We have two separate Bills, one dealing with the devolution of museums, and the other dealing with the setting up of this commission. So they are completely separate Bills which are gathered together, presumably, to save parliamentary time and so as to put as much legislation in one package as one can.
With the help of the guide, I have tried to go through the amendments with which we shall be dealing later this evening. Considering that it was done very much at the last moment, the amount of work that was put into it by the Minister and by the officials is very much appreciated. Nevertheless, I am already in difficulties. It is extremely difficult to follow and I am completely lost on some of the amendments. Without any doubt, it will have to be "refreshed" between each stage of the Bill. As amendments are either passed or accepted, the whole thing will change. The only answer is that, almost simultaneously with this legislation, there will have to be a complete consolidation: not just a consolidation of Schedule 4, but a consolidation of all the heritage legislation up to date. That is the only answer. We have now reached the stage where we need a promise from the Government that consolidation will take place.
We have support for this point of view. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, raised this matter. He told me that if he could have been here today he would have supported this point of view. The Government have agreed to publish this guide. I do not know, however, whether they realise that this means that the guide will have to be completely updated at each stage. It will have to be updated when it leaves this House; it will have to be updated when it reaches the other place; and it will finally have to be updated when it becomes legislation. It means that, hanging on to this very unsatisfactory arrangement there will be another document which will be separate from the statute itself but which will explain it.
More and more do I feel that this is a very bad second best. I believe that we must get the Government to agree to consolidation. If the Bill is to make sense this is the only answer. This must happen if people are to understand the Bill and if the duties and powers which are to be vested in the new commission are not only to be understood but carried out. We have reached a very serious stage. With all the goodwill in the world it will be extremely difficult to make the legislation work effectively and to put through legislation which is comprehensible and sensible.
3.32 p.m.
The Earl of Avon: This amendment would, if accepted, wreck this part of the Bill. I assure the Committee that we recognise the strength of opinion which lies behind the amendment, and which has made the noble Lord, Lord Rennet, bring it forward. I hope, however, that in the light of our discussions so far on the commission and the assurances I have been able to give, the noble Lord will feel able not to press his amendment. We have sought as much as possible to assist the Committee's discussions through the provision of explanatory material. We intend to give the most careful consideration to the points raised by noble Lords and to accommodate them where we feel this would help the running or the work of the commission.
I should like to draw the attention of the Committee to Amendment No. 99, standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Sandford, which lays down the functions of the commission in the body of the Bill. In particular, I hope that we shall be able to improve the overall concept of the commission set out in the Bill. Enabling the commission to do its job well and defining the job properly is the chief concern of us all. During the Second Reading debate, and afterwards, a number of noble Lords made representations about the complexities of Schedule 4 to the Bill and requested help to assist ready comprehension. Since then, Notes on Clauses—a term in itself—have been made available. We have also provided a special reference booklet setting out, side by side, the paragraphs of Schedule 4 and the relevant sections of existing legislation. But the schedule is amended. Both the noble Lord, Lord Rennet, and the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, made mention of this.
I have been asked whether this reference booklet can be made available, suitably updated, and when the Bill becomes law. The Government wish to be as helpful as they can about this. We therefore propose that the booklet should be made readily available as a departmental publication, and that this should be done before any of the provisions of Schedule 4 come into force. The format of the publication and any question of change will be decided nearer the time, but noble Lords can be assured that a suitable reference document will be made available and that, to answer the noble Baroness, it will be updated whenever we feel this to be necessary. That will obviously be between this stage and the next stage. If we had a Reeling schedule it would be equally as voluminous and would equally have to be amended all the time, so the extra amount of work involved does not raise its head too much.
In the light of this two-pronged attack—the fact that we are doing all we can to produce a reference document, to have it readily available and to keep it updated, and the fact that we are also looking as sympathetically as we can at my noble friend's amendment which is to be dealt with later—I hope the Committee will join me in hoping that this amendment will not be pressed.
Baroness Birk: I wonder whether the noble Earl would comment on a point about which I feel very strongly; namely, the consolidation of all this legislation. This is a most important and vital point.

935
We should like the Government to agree to consolidation; otherwise, years and years will go by. The updating of the schedule will not make the legislation all that more comprehensible. Nothing will be done, and the heritage legislation will be left in this very awkward, complicated and difficult state. Consolidation of the legislation is essential. Unless we can obtain a promise during the passage of this Bill that consolidation will take place, I feel it will be pushed into the background and that nothing will emerge for generations.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: I should like to support the arguments which have been produced by the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, and the noble Baroness, Lady Birk. The noble Earl, Lord Avon, has, as usual, been extremely helpful to the Committee. However, this is long-term legislation and the noble Earl has not yet succeeded in dealing with the objections we have to passing the Bill in this particular form. By the time we reach the Report stage I hope that the Government will be able to come forward either with agreement to a consolidation Bill or with some equally constructive suggestion.
There is a widespread feeling in the Committee that a pamphlet to be produced by the department is not a suitable answer. The noble Earl and the Government will, of course, want to look carefully at this question of producing a consolidation Bill, and will possibly need a little time to consider the matter. Nevertheless, we ought to have something a little better than a pamphlet. Therefore, I hope the noble Earl will be able to give a commitment that the Government will have a look at this suggestion. It is an important point. We cannot just let it go by on the assurances which we have had so far.
The Earl of Perth: I, too, feel that despite all the help we have been given by the noble Earl, Lord Avon, who has tried to explain what the Bill is all about, the general public—and in the last analysis it is the general public who are going to count—will not know what is to replace the Historic Buildings Council for England and the Ancient Monuments Board for England. We are told that there is to be a commission, but as it stands the commission is such a hotch-potch, because of all the amendments, that people will not understand what it is all about and will not give it the proper help and respect which it ought to have.
Subsection (5) of Clause 30 says:
"The Commission may receive voluntary contributions towards the cost of any expenditure incurred by them.".
I do not think that there will be any voluntary contributions because people will not understand what the commission is all about. It will take years before the commission, if it is floated in the form in which it is now, is recognised as something worthwhile and as doing a worthwhile job. Therefore, I very much hope that the noble Earl the Minister will give a great deal of thought to what has been said by others, and will try, somehow, to make the commission understandable and something which the public as a whole will want to support.
The Earl of Avon: Before we go any further, may I reply to the point on consolidation? I understand that
936
this is a matter for the Law Commission, but I shall certainly take it back to my right, honourable friend and find out whether he is prepared to take into account the terms of this debate and approach the Law Commission.
Lord Kennet: Answering to this amendment the noble Earl, Lord Avon, laid a good deal of weight on the possibility of publishing a guide. He referred also to a forthcoming amendment, Amendment No. 99, to be moved by the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, which, it is true, would throw further light on the definitions of the purposes of the proposed commission. What it does not do is positively state the powers and duties of the commission. It does not say anywhere that the commission shall have the power to do certain things, or that it shall do certain things in certain circumstances. In common with the noble Lord's earlier amendment, which was an excellent one, Amendment No. 99 deals with the commission's general purposes, and so it does not help.
The noble Baroness, Lady Birk, has spoken about consolidation. So did the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, and the noble Earl, Lord Avon. We did not secure any pledge on consolidation. The noble Earl said that he would draw the attention of his right honourable friend to the desirability of consolidation, but in ordinary parliamentary Committee language, that is no sort of pledge and is nothing upon which this Committee should base its future actions. All that leaves us with the question, will the reference booklet, or kippered Keeling, save us? I am very willing to agree that it will help Parliament a good deal in its work—it has done so already. But can we imagine that the public—and particularly trustees in the situation mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord Perth, who are thinking of giving something to the commission—will find the reference booklet sufficient? It is extraordinarily complicated to read and I believe that people will not find it to be a sufficiently good guide. We shall not be doing our duty if we permit legislation to go forward with only that booklet as a guide.
Let us consider what will happen if this amendment were accepted by the Committee now. The Bill would be without a subsection of one clause and it would be without a schedule until the next stage. The next stage cannot be until after the Recess. I do not know whether the Government have any date in mind but it has not yet appeared in the details of future business. We are now nearly at the end of December and it will be six weeks before we could possibly come back to it at Report stage; five weeks if one deducts one week for holidays.
We could give the Government five weeks in which to draft a positive clause, and I believe all noble Lords know in their hearts that a positive clause is what this Bill ought to have; a positive clause laying down the powers and duties of the proposed new commission. That would not be so terrible because such a clause need not be more than one page long. If I am right, the schedule is already a perfectly good repeal schedule which could be moved back into the Bill as a straightforward repeal schedule in the ordinary way.
On the strength of what the noble Earl, Lord Avon, has said so far (and I observe and welcome the fact that he has plunged into discussion with his noble friends)

937
I am not sure that it would be right to withdraw this amendment. I shall welcome any further expressions of opinion from members of the Committee and, above all, will welcome anything more that the noble Earl can say beyond what he has already said—which was that the Government will give careful consideration and will ensure that the reference booklet will be "readily available as a departmental publication". I do not know quite what that means. What does "readily available" mean? Does it mean, on sale everywhere and obtainable as readily as and at the same time as the Act of Parliament which it seeks to clarify? Unless it does mean that, it is of no interest to the people for whom we are legislating.
Viscount Eccles: Before the noble Lord sits down, would it not be wise to hear discussion on Amendment No. 99 rather than to divide the Committee on this amendment?
Baroness Birk: There is a great deal in what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Kennet. He has done a service to the Committee by initiating this very important discussion. However, in view of what the noble Earl has said, I feel that he has gone as far as he can at this stage. I did not expect the noble Earl to say, "I will bring forward legislation to consolidate all heritage legislation at this point". Yet, if he had left it that it was purely the business of the Law Commission, I would have been very doubtful and unhappy and I would have supported the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, if he were pressing his amendment to a Division. But as the noble Earl has undertaken also to speak to his right honourable friend, and as he is aware of the expressions of opinion from all parts of the Committee—that the Committee feels very seriously and strongly about this matter—I feel that we ought to give the noble Earl that opportunity.
It is for that reason that, at this stage, we cannot support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Kennet. I hope that he will reconsider this because the amendments we are going to discuss today are not irrelevant to any part of the Bill. In fact, most of them deal with matters of finance, conservation and principle which will have to be dealt with whatever form the Bill takes. So long as we make it our business—as I am sure the Committee will—to keep the noble Earl and his right honourable friend on the ball so far as this question of consolidation is concerned, that is the most important point.
As I and many others have said already, this Bill falls into two parts and could quite naturally and easily be divided into two Bills. The first part could still go ahead even if it happens that this matter has to be held up because of consolidation; it would not affect the devolution of museums covered in the first part of the Bill. There is a great deal of ease of manoeuvering and I hope that we shall see some results a long time before we reach the next stage.
The Earl of Avon: If I may respond very briefly to the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, so far as publication of the guide is concerned, it is our intention to follow the will of your Lordships. If it is at all practicable, we will do exactly what the Committee wishes. There is no question of hiding anything and we will do this in the
938
best way that we can with the agreement of the House; this is on the question of publishing the added guide. So far as timing is concerned, I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, will not need me to remind him that this Parliament need not go on for all that length of time. Therefore, while I am not trying to push the Committee in any way, we do not quite know when the next general election might be.
I feel that the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, slightly forgot what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, when he spoke to his amendment to Clause 29. It is his intention in that amendment to put the aims and functions of the commission in Clause 30—and as my noble friend Viscount Eccles said, we can discuss that when we come to Amendment No. 99.
Lord Kennet: I am grateful to the noble Earl for giving us a foretaste of possibilities to come, if not of certainties. Can the noble Earl say anything about the possibility of even now drafting a short clause giving the powers and duties of the commission, because neither of the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, do that? They simply set out the commission's general purposes. It seems to me that it should not be beyond the wit of man to do what I ask. If the noble Earl will say that he will take a look at the possibility of drafting a positive clause between now and Report stage, then our present delays may disappear.
The Earl of Avon: We are pre-empting Amendment No. 99 a trifle. We have already discussed this a little when debating Clause 29, and I believe that this is what we are going to do on Amendment No. 99.
Lord Kennet: I shall read those cloudy words with great care in Hansard tomorrow. Subject to due warning to the Committee that we may have to come back on this matter at Report stage if we do not find that Hansard is clear on this point of publication of the guide and the desirability of a positive clause, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Denham: I believe that this would be a convenient moment to resume the House for the Statement. I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

European Community: UK Budget Refund 1982
3.50 p.m.
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, I will, with permission, repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable and learned friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, I would like to make a statement on the outcome of the Finance

939
Council meeting in Brussels which I attended on 17th December.
"The Council discussed and adopted the Annual Economic Report for 1983, and budgetary guidelines for member states. It briefly considered the Commission paper on budget discipline which it had first looked at in July. The Council also reviewed international monetary questions.
"But the main business concerned the United Kingdom's refunds in respect of the 1982 Community Budget. The House will know that on Thursday of last week the European Parliament rejected the 1982 draft Supplementary and Amending Budget, which made provision for our basic Budget refund in respect of 1982, and for certain parallel arrangements for Germany. This decision resulted from a conflict between the Community's institutions. The Parliament believes that a lasting solution to the problem of budgetary imbalances in the Community should be found and implemented as soon as possible. So do we. But this has not so far been the Council's unanimous view. We share the Parliament's concern at the unsatisfactory nature of current ad hoc arrangements.
"But the fact is that it was clear as long ago as last May that there was no realistic prospect of reaching a long-term solution which could take effect in this calendar year. Instead, the Council agreed last May, and in detail on 26th October, on a method of ensuring a settlement for 1982 satisfactory to the United Kingdom. The immediate result of last week's action by the Parliament was to put that settlement in jeopardy.
"However, on Friday 17th December the Council was unanimous in confirming that the commitments contained in the October Agreement must be fully honoured. The Council noted an undertaking from the Commission to take steps to ensure that the United Kingdom will not be put in a worse position than had been intended under that agreement. They will take early action to this end, and will also draw up a work programme for the development of the Community's policies.
"It is thus now for the Commission and the Council to take the practical steps needed to give effect to the assurances which we have been given, and to prepare for new discussions with the Parliament.
"I am arranging for copies of the Council's conclusions on this subject to be placed in the Library."
That, my Lords, is the end of the Statement.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, may I first thank the noble Lord for repeating the Statement. Would he not agree that the European Parliament's rejection of the supplement to the Budget—that is, the repayment to the United Kingdom—was another disturbing development? Would he not also agree that it shows that there is a growing dissatisfaction with the imbalance in EEC spending policies? We note that the Chancellor has now decided not to withhold some British payments to the EEC and to accept a
940
commitment to settle by the end of March. Is the noble Lord reasonably satisfied that the repayment will be made within this period, and, if there is a further hold-up, what steps would the Government then contemplate?
It does seem that the European Parliament believes that the United Kingdom budgetary arrangements must be resolved by structural reform and not by emergency adjustments. I was glad to hear the noble Lord confirming—or, at least, so I understood—that that is the Government's view also. Again, does not this development provide a good reason and opportunity for both the Commission and the Council to sit down and deal with this recurring problem once and for all? I assume—I shall be grateful if the noble Lord will confirm this—that this is the Government's strong opinion as well.
Reverting to the date of payment, may I ask the noble Lord to comment on the legality of the Parliament's action in this matter? While there is no time this year for a fresh Supplementary Budget, which could again be rejected by the Parliament, could not a transfer within the 1982 Budget be made, as there are still unexpended amounts allocated to the agricultural fund which might be used for this purpose? If the Council could transfer the necessary appropriations without parliamentary intervention, it would be fair to this country and avoid the tensions and the suspicions which further delay will inevitably cause.
Lord Gladwyn: My Lords, we too thank the Minister for repeating this important Statement. We on these Benches note with satisfaction the apparent belief of the Government that on the whole it was a good thing that the European Parliament precipitated this issue of the Community Budget. Would the noble Lord and the Government not agree that this was in no sense, and could not possibly be interpreted as, a move directed against the United Kingdom, as has been—I think unfortunately—suggested recently by certain newspapers and indeed by certain politicians? Is it not high time that the necessity for some reform of the common agricultural policy was squarely faced, together with the question of the proportion of the Community's expenditure that should be fairly attributed to the United Kingdom?
Finally, would not the Government agree that all these difficult and urgent problems would be much easier to solve if by any chance the members of the Community now agreed to increase the Budget to a considerable extent, possibly by raising the allocation of VAT to the Budget from 1 per cent. to 2 per cent.?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, I am grateful to both the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, and the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, for their response to the Statement. The action of the Parliament has, of course, highlighted the issue. We do indeed fully understand the sense of exasperation in the Parliament that a proper solution to this problem has not been reached. I entirely agree that what we need is a proper long-term solution and not a series of ad hoc solutions, every one of which gives rise to argument, dispute and misunderstanding. On the other hand, we do feel that the action by the Parliament has created a serious

941
situation. It is to the great credit of the Community that the Council has unanimously decided that the agreement of 26th October must be honoured, and they are fully supported by the Commission in that determination.
Perhaps I may say, on the specific point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, that the Treaty of Rome does provide for the Parliament to have the power to reject the Budget where there are substantial reasons for so doing. On this occasion the action of the Parliament was not unlawful, but it was certainly unwise.
So far as the actual steps to be taken are concerned, this is a matter which has now been remitted to the Commission. We are determined to ensure, and indeed the Council of Ministers and the Commission have committed themselves to ensuring, a solution which will not only enable the money to be paid over by 31st March, but will ensure at the same time that the United Kingdom is not prejudiced as a result of that delay. We must now await the detailed proposals and proceed forward on that basis.
So far as the final point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, is concerned, he asked whether this did not indicate the need for an increase, among other things, in the "own resources". We would certainly not agree that any increase in our own resources ought to be made, and certainly not before these major issues have been fully settled to our satisfaction.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, is not the Council of Ministers in the position of any Cabinet which has submitted its budget to the duly elected legislature and has seen its budget rejected? Must it not, therefore, take the step that any ordinary Cabinet would take, namely to devise another budget and resubmit it? If it cannot agree on what should be in the second Budget, the Government may remember that quite recently the rule of majority voting in the Council of Ministers was revived—when it was revived, it was done at our expense—and it is surely not beyond the wit of man to imagine a coalition of members of the Council who could simply vote down, using the Treaty of Rome, the minority which would oppose a sensible Budget which the Parliament desires, which the Government desire and which we on this Bench desire.
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, raises a number of very broad issues. The constitutional position of the Parliament and the Council of Ministers in the European Community is very different indeed from that in the United Kingdom. I do not think one could usefully draw analogies between the situation here and the situation in Europe. As far as provision for the refund is concerned, what is in mind now, and is inevitably in mind because of the dates, is that provision should actually be made in the 1983 Budget or, rather, by way of an amending and supplementary budget for 1983, the original Budget having already been agreed. As regards the funds, they will not have been spent and it is simply a matter of carrying them forward from one year to the next.
Baroness Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe: My Lords, will the noble Lord expand a little on his answer to my
942
noble friend Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos? Do I understand correctly that this particular problem of the refunds comes under obligatory expenditure and that, therefore, the Commission could still propose a transfer which would enable the refund to be made within the 1982 Budget?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, the noble Baroness raises an important point. My information is that it could not be done under the terms of the 1982 Budget, the supplementary budget having been rejected. The precise mechanism to be adopted is now under consideration by the Commission.

National Heritage Bill [H.L.]
4.2 p.m.
House again in Committee on Clause 30.
Baroness Birk Baroness Birk moved Amendment No. 97A:
Page 17, line 22, leave out ("towards the cost of) and insert ("and the Commission shall set up a charitable fund to receive such voluntary contributions and such other moneys (including profits arising from commercial operations) and endowments received under section 8A of the Ancient Monuments and Historic Buildings Act 1953 as the Commission may decide and the income or capital of the fund may be expended to meet").
The noble Baroness said: My name should have been down to this amendment, but, in the absence of the noble Lord, Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal, I propose to move it. This is another of the several amendments to the Bill which touches on its financial aspects. I believe it was said many times on Second Reading, and has been said during this Committee stage, that the viability of the new commission depends entirely on the financial resources that it will have at its disposal. Unless the public can be confident that all voluntary contributions that it may make are safe from clawback into the Treasury hands, it will not make them. We want to be quite realistic and practical about this. Money will not be forthcoming if people feel that it is going into either a Government department or an agency of the Government, or into a quango. The best vehicle would be a charitable trust and the amendment makes provision for such a trust. There are many precedents for this arrangement, but the one that is possibly closest can be found in the charitable trust administered by the trustees of the British Museum. That is the repository used for donations to the museum. The system works, and it works very well. I can see no reason why it should not work equally well for the Commission. I beg to move.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu: I support the amendment. I feel that there will be tremendous opportunities in the future for people to leave property, money and even objects to the commission for its care as an alternative, or complementary to, those who have left such things to the National Trust, and so on. There may be other ways of using such charitable trust funds, but it is certainly a situation where one wants to give confidence to the general public to take the heritage seriously and to feel that the commission will be the right repository for anything they wish to provide.
The Earl of Avon: May I also speak to Amendment No. 118A, which has a bearing on this question. The amendment moved by the noble Baroness would require the commission to set up a charitable fund to receive voluntary contributions and profits arising from commercial operations, and also to receive endowments. Amendment No. 118A would include the commission in the list of bodies in the Charities Act 1960 which, so far as they are charities, are exempt charities—that is, they are exempt from many of the controls exercised by the Charity Commission.
The amendments represent two different ways in which the tax advantages that have accrued from charitable status might be obtained for the commission. Let me straightaway say that the Government set great store by the role of the commission in obtaining voluntary assistance and in trading commercially and profitably. The Government would like to see the commission benefit from whatever advantages, in tax terms, can be obtained. But in exploring this issue the Government have noted that a number of organisations, such as the National Trust, which are charities and which engage in trading, have established trading subsidiaries which covenant their profits to the overall organisation. If the overall body were not itself a charity, the alternative approach is the creation of a charitable fund.
Let me take the question of exempt charity status first. This the Bill provides for the trustee bodies. It is important to note that the provision of such status must be regarded as carrying with it at least an implication that the body concerned will be granted charitable status if it applied for registration. There is no doubt about that in the case of the trustee bodies. But the situation in respect of the commission is more complex because it is a different kind of body. I cannot be definite about whether or not the commission would qualify for charitable status. That is a matter which could possibly be ultimately decided only by the courts. There are complications. For example, the commission's role in making grants to private owners for the maintenance of their houses may not be regarded as entirely of public benefit. Because of these complications consideration is also being given to the possibility of the commission establishing a charitable fund in order to fulfil the role of a recipient of trading profits and voluntary contributions. Again, however, there are complications. The relationship of such a fund to the parent body, the drafting of the rules governing the fund and the safeguarding of money held by the fund all require careful thought.
The Government have been exploring these different possibilities. The overall question of tax exemptions which we have already discussed is also relevant. This is a difficult area and I hope that the Committee will be prepared to allow us to reach considered conclusions and put forward whatever amendments we ourselves think to be appropriate. In principle we have nothing at all against the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, and in Committee terms I should like to agree to consider it.
Baroness Birk: I thank the Minister for that reply. This appears to be another example of where the Committee is happily knitting up the Bill for the Government, but we are happy to do that as long as
944
the stitching that we put in is the stitching that the Government agree to.
The Minister made a distinction between the museums and the commission. He must pay considerable attention to what it is that we want. We are not saying that the commission itself should qualify as a charity, but that it should be able to set up a charitable fund which can be worked out quite separate from the rest of the work of the commission. In no way should the two things be confused. Giving out money to houses for repair should not be entangled with the charitable side. The charitable side must be entirely separate and it may well be that there would need to be a different composition or that some of the trustees may need to be different trustees for a charitable trust. Instead of a fund a charitable trust could be set up with certain purposes quite separate from the other purposes. I do not see any difficulty in this.
However, if the Minister is to reconsider the position and also a number of other sensible amendments which have been tabled, we hope there will be a constructive response and that he will come back with an entirely different Bill. I withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.10 p.m.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu Lord Montagu of Beaulieu moved Amendment No. 97B:
Page 17, line 23, at end insert—
("( ) The Commission may make use of voluntary services where it thinks it appropriate to do so.").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 97B. I raised this matter on Second Reading. We are all delighted to see that the Bill makes it clear that voluntary contributions can be received by the commission, but, unfortunately, nowhere does it actually talk about the great benefits that can be derived from the voluntary services of which use can possibly be made. I believe that that should be on the face of the Bill in case anyone in the future might say that it was improper to allow people to do work for nothing rather than for payment.
Obviously, I recognise that it would not be appropriate for voluntary services to be used as regards a major monument where they would really displace those guardians who have been there for years and who certainly should continue to have secure jobs. But there are many places where volunteers can play a tremendous part. In America one knows that the word "docent" is used a tremendous amount in many places, particularly in education, where perhaps retired or part-time teachers can help in showing children around a particular monument.
In this country there are an enormous number of amenity societies whose efforts can certainly be tapped a great deal more than they are at present. I should like particularly to refer the Committee to that rather isolated ruin, examples of which exist all over the country, which at the moment cannot possibly receive all the love and attention it requires from one dedicated custodian, whereas it could easily be almost adopted by a local society. In such a way it could perhaps be kept cleaner and perhaps certain events could take place there. The whole thing could become very much more alive. I hope that the principle of the

945
use of voluntary services will be accepted if it is not already inherent in the Bill. I beg to move.
The Earl of Avon: The Government have every sympathy with the purpose of this amendment. It has always been our intention that the commission should be able to make use of voluntary services and indeed would be better placed to tap the private goodwill which clearly exists. However, as with all the helpful points on Clause 30, I should like, if I may, to consider the matter further with a view to bringing it forward at a later stage in the revised version of this clause.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu: The noble Earl has already given the Committee quite a number of assurances about Clause 30. In view of that, I am happy to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Birk Baroness Birk moved Amendment No. 97C:
Page 17, line 25, leave out ("temporarily by way of overdraft").
The noble Baroness said: I beg to move Amendment No. 97C. This is another of the financial amendments and it is to remove some of the limitations on borrowing powers. We believe that this amendment removes an unnecessary restriction. The commission may well wish to borrow money on the security of property it is engaged in repairing—for example, listed buildings which are in the process of repair for resale on the rotating fund principle. However, there may even be a need to buy a monument, to research and conserve it and then to sell it under appropriate controls—even covenants such as the National Trust can hold. Indeed, will the commission be able to enforce covenants in the way the National Trust can under its Act of Parliament? That is not clear.
The commission may even need to borrow to set itself up properly with equipment and premises if the Government are too niggardly about it—we hope that, after all the pressure that we are putting on them from this side of the Committee, they will not be—or if they do not provide a capital sum to enable that to be done. Therefore, we believe that to leave out the words, "temporarily by way of overdraft", will remove a completely unnecessary restriction and an inhibition on the commission's work which ties it down far too stringently. Again I repeat: one of the reasons—as we are told—for setting up the commission is to have an independent body which can be more flexible and which has a different set of powers from a Government department. I beg to move.
The Earl of Avon: If the effect of this amendment would be to remove any restrictions on the commission's power to borrow, then the Government obviously do not see such a wide power as very appropriate. The commission will be funded largely out of its grant-in-aid and is unlikely to be in a position to service any long-term loan debt. In any case, such borrowing would count against the overall resources made available to the commission by way of public expenditure. Therefore, the grant would be reduced accordingly and no net benefit achieved.
The Government think it best to keep the financial arrangements for the commission as simple as possible and restrict borrowing powers to those temporary
946
facilities required to even out its cash flow pending receipt of grant-in-aid. The commission should be a managerial operation, not a source of capital.
I hope that with that explanation and on that basis the noble Baroness may feel that she does not have to press this particular amendment.
Baroness Birk: I did not like that answer one little bit; I did not find it at all co-operative, but I am certainly not going to press the amendment now. I shall read what the Minister has said very carefully and then come back to the crux of the problem either in the same way or perhaps by a different route. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 98:
Page 17, line 27, at end insert—
("(7) For the purpose of exercising their functions the Commission may—

(a) enter into contracts and other agreements;

(b) acquire and dispose of property other than land;

(c) with the consent of the Secretary of State, acquire land for providing the Commission with office or other accommodation and dispose of the land when no longer required for such accommodation.").

The noble Earl said: I beg to move Amendment No. 98. This amendment confers on the commission powers which are essential for the arrangement and management of its affairs. This amendment will give the commission the necessary powers to enable it to enter into contracts and other agreements. It will be able with the Secretary of State's consent to acquire land to provide itself with accommodation in the form of offices, stores or whatever is required. It will, therefore, have the choice of renting accommodation or buying it outright, which in point of fact covers one of the points just raised by the noble Baroness. It will also be able to dispose of it when it no longer needs it. These transactions require the Secretary of State's consent because of the substantial implications they will have for the commission's financial needs. I commend the amendment to the Committee.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): I shall now call Amendment No. 98A as an amendment to Amendment No. 98.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu Lord Montagu of Beaulieu moved, as an amendment to the amendment, Amendment No. 98A:
At end insert—
("(d) establish companies to engage in trade with respect to properties under its ownership or management.")
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 98A. In welcoming the amendment moved by the noble Earl, I feel that there is something that should be added to it. We all read with great interest in the Government's consultation paper, The Way Forward, how they attach great importance to the commission becoming more commercially minded—for example, private historic houses—and increasing its revenue from admission charges and the sale of souvenirs, et cetera. The paper in fact stated that this should assist the preservation of the heritage by providing increased revenue to be ploughed back and, therefore, in due course, a higher standard of care and maintenance.
However, I feel that, without specific provision for the ploughing back of revenue by the commission, there is a danger—and I know the Committee feel very strongly about this—that extra revenue so raised could be, and possibly would be, deducted from the annual Treasury grant. Thus any such practice, if it grew up, would not only reduce the available funds, but would also remove the incentive to efficient management and enterprise. I pay great attention to that incentive, which was emphasised in the Rayner Report on Museums and also by the English Tourist Board, who underlined that the retention of income would not only allow for a larger programme of work, but would also encourage management to go beyond just the simple task of conservation to that of attracting revenue from visitors, and other sources, to increase income—in other words, as I said on Second Reading, to take some risks, to live a little dangerously and be prepared for the commercial world.
So this amendment is designed to draw the attention of the Government to their own amendment but I feel that the commission should have the power to set up companies and to engage in trade and that that should be specifically put into the Bill. I beg to move.
Baroness Birk: I would very much like to support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Montagu of Beaulieu. It is extremely sensible and follows through the flavour of what we are trying to do for the commission on the financial side. As regards the Minister's amendment, paragraphs (a) and (b) are perfectly right and what he is trying to do there is extremely laudable. But I am not very happy about paragraph (c), which says:
"with the consent of the Secretary of State, acquire land for providing the Commission",
et cetera. Why, when the commission is to acquire land—it may be for office premises; it will certainly be for reasons connected with its work—should it keep having to refer back to the Secretary of State? Once again, the commission is being tied down and controlled even before it has set foot on what is supposed to be independent ground. This also applies to the disposal of the land. If the amendment goes through like this, it will mean that, once again, there will be more and more consultations', more and more civil servants will be brought into it; there will be delays and talks. I think that this is absolutely unnecessary.
If you set up a commission and have confidence in it (otherwise you should not set it up at all) and if you have confidence in the commissioners (otherwise you should not appoint them), they should be able to do these things on their own instead of being kept on leads like little dogs or on reins like small children. I hope that the Minister will take back that particular paragraph and look at it again.
The Earl of Avon: Perhaps I may just explain our thinking here. We are, of course, financing the commission by grant-in-aid. The commission may want to buy a house or rent a house: the capital sum may be £500,000 or it may be a small rental. Obviously, the commission does not have that kind of money, but we do not want to stop it having it.
948
Therefore, we think that the best way is that it should come to the Secretary of State with its proposition and, hopefully, the Secretary of State will agree.
My noble friend's amendment to the amendment covers very much what I said on Amendment No. 97A about the actual position of the commission and whether or not it is in itself a charity, or whether, as the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, said, we should have to set up a charitable trust within the commission. Until we know that, it is very hard for us to accept an amendment of this nature because we should not know how to link it into the main Bill. It is a complex matter and one to which we are giving attention. We entirely agree with my noble friend's thinking. I imagine that he wishes to connect both the trading and tax affairs and, as I said when I spoke to Amendment No. 97A, we shall be producing our own solution at the next stage.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu: I thank my noble friend for that reply. Do I understand that in principle the commission will, in fact, be able to engage in trade and that there will be a vehicle through which such trade can take place?
The Earl of Avon: That is our intention.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu: In view of that assurance, I shall be happy to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment to the amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Amendment No. 98 agreed to.
4.24 p.m.
Lord Beloff Lord Beloff moved Amendment No. 98B:
Page 17, line 27, at end insert—
("(7) The Commission shall, in accordance with directions of the Secretary of State given after consultation with it, constitute an Advisory Council with responsibility for providing advice to the Commission on such matters as the Secretary of State or the Commission may from time to time determine.").
The noble Lord said: In the absence of my noble friend Lord Dacre of Glanton, I am charged with moving a number of amendments today which, like those that he moved the last time this Bill was considered, derive from considerations by the British Academy. As I think my noble friend pointed out, the Academy is the body considered representative of both the historical and archaeological professions, the two branches of learning which this Bill specifically affects. From the beginning they have had very considerable reservations, some of which appear in their own amendments and the amendments which the Academy has recommended, and some of which appear in the amendments of other noble Lords.
In view of the professional interest that the Academy has, I think it is regrettable that the Secretary of State did not see fit to answer its suggestion that he might meet a deputation from the Academy, in which case some of these anxieties might have been eliminated before the Bill came before your Lordships. In any event, the present amendment is the one to which I believe the Academy attaches most importance.
I think it has been agreed in this House that the

949
commission itself should not necessarily be of a representative capacity; and no guidelines are laid down in the legislation as to who the members of the commission may be. It therefore appears to many of us even more important that there should be a mandatory requirement—not merely a facility—for appointing an advisory council, which itself could be broadly representative, on which not only the interests of scholarship but the interests of local authorities, of the tourist trade, and so on, could be represented through persons chosen in consultation with the appropriate organisations. It would also go some way to meet the point made earlier this afternoon by, I believe, the noble Earl, Lord Perth, about the disappearance of the Historic Buildings Council and the Ancient Monuments Board, because at least the policy aspects of their work could be subsumed in the advice which might be tendered from time to time by this new advisory council.
It was I think argued that the committees, through which it was suggested in an earlier amendment the commission might work, should not appear in the Bill as it was a part of the ordinary functioning of any such body to be able to appoint sub-committees and co-opt people on to them. However, it is not our opinion that this should apply to the advisory council. We believe this to be an essential part of the organisation which it is now proposed to set up. I think that no one is bound by every word, by every letter, of the amendment on the Marshalled List, but I would point out to your Lordships that, in fact, the language has very largely been taken from the British Library Act. I beg to move this amendment.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu: I do not really see the point of this amendment. It does not seem to take the commission any further. Surely the commission will have within its ranks, we hope, and also on its advisory committees, which it will be setting up, all the expertise that it will need. The Secretary of State has already made known that he wishes to consult with the commission whenever he has a problem. I do not see why one has to have yet another advisory council. It will make bureaucracy even worse. As someone has just said, let the commissioners get on with it and let them appoint the committees they need. I am sure that all the expertise will be there. But to have yet another advisory council will make bureaucracy far worse. I do not think there need be too much fear about this. I think we could leave it to the commission to run its own affairs and to give the right advice to the Secretary of State.
Baroness Birk: I have put my name to some of the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Dacre, and his colleagues in the British Academy. However, I am not very happy about this particular amendment because, like the noble Lord, Lord Montagu, I think it introduces a third tier, which we do not need. I think it makes even more important an amendment which was moved the other night by the noble Lord, Lord Dacre, and to which I also put my name, which was withdrawn after the Minister had explained why they did not like it. It was to the effect that the setting up of committees should not be a permissive function of the commission but should be mandatory.
At the next stage of the Bill I shall certainly be
950
prepared to table or support such an amendment, that the word "may" should be "shall", so that the commission would be under an obligation to set up committees which would encompass the sort of people the British Academy have in mind—scholars and other academics, many of whom at the moment are on the Ancient Monuments Board—and would also bring in other people of equal distinction. In that case I do not think there would be a need for this form of advisory council. Although I do not like this amendment, I hope we shall rethink this matter and press the Government harder on the question of making it mandatory on the commission to set up committees.
The Earl of Avon: May I first respond to my noble friend Lord Beloff about the invitation which the British Academy gave to the Secretary of State that they would offer to see him. I understand that my Secretary of State responded yesterday to this matter. Had he done so earlier, obviously we might not have had the amendments. One of the major benefits of setting up the commission is the amalgamation of the currently separate advisory and executive functions. Both these functions must, in the Government's view, be exercised by the commission. Setting up an advisory council would serve to continue a separation between the advisory and executive roles and, we believe, would create an unnecessary further layer of mandatory bureaucracy. I think that the latter point was made somewhat forcibly by the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, earlier in our discussions in respect of the British Library system.
I am sure that the commission will wish to set up advisory committees—and I noted what the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, said about making them mandatory—as they will be empowered to do, to draw in the widest range of expertise that is desirable. I believe that it is for the commission to decide on whether and how to do it, and I hope that the Committee will agree with this.
Lord Beloff: In the light of the lack of enthusiasm for this proposal, which I do not share since I think that a single advisory council would be better and less bureaucratic than a network of specialist committees, I am prepared, in the absence of my noble friends, to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.32 p.m.
Lord Sandford Lord Sandford moved Amendment No. 99:
Leave out Clause 30 and insert the following new clause—
("The Commission's functions
(.—(1) It shall be the function of the Commission to undertake the specific powers conferred on them by any enactment.
(2) In addition to the specific powers conferred on them, by or under the subsequent provision of this Act, the Commission shall have power to do anything for the purpose of discharging the functions conferred on it by this section, or which is incidental or conducive to the discharge of those functions and in particular (but without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provisions) for that purpose—

(a) to promote or undertake publicity in any form;

(b) To provide information and advisory services particularly with regard to the inspection of monuments, buildings and areas listed in section 29(1 A) above;

951

(c) to promote or undertake research;

(d) to establish committees, to advise them in the performance of their functions;

(e) to promote and provide for the presentation of such monuments, buildings and areas listed in section 29(1 A) above and in particular by way of interpretative facilities for the public and educational facilities and services for the use of students and pupils;

(f) to contribute to or reimburse expenditure incurred by any other person or organisation in carrying on any activity which the Commission has power to carry on under the preceding paragraph of this subsection.

(3) The Commission may make such charges as they may from time to time determine in respect of anything provided under subsections (1) and (2).
(4) Schedule 4 shall have effect to amend the enactments there mentioned for the purpose of conferring functions on the Commission and for connected purposes.
(5) The Commission may receive voluntary contributions in money or money's worth towards the cost of discharging any of their functions.
(6) With the consent of the Secretary of State, the Commission may borrow temporarily, by way of overdraft, such sums as they may require for meeting their obligations and discharging their functions.").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 99. I commend it to the Committee with some confidence, first, because it has had a good trailer from my noble friend Lord Avon in the course of our debate on Amendment No. 97, and, secondly and chiefly, because of what was said in the course of our debate in this House last Wednesday. That was a debate about the quality of legislation. In the course of that debate there was a good deal of criticism of the vices that we see in so much legislation, which is composed of a network—or a cat's cradle, as the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, said at Second Reading—something that is a characteristic of much of this part of the Bill and particularly Schedule 4. Whereas I should like to claim, if it is not too immodest to do so, that my amendment partakes of many of the virtues which that debate was seeking, in setting out on the face of the Bill the broad purposes and the main functions of the body we are trying to create.
I should like to commend both to the Committee and to the Government a new clause broadly along these lines. Were the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, here, I would point out to him that my amendment contains the same rubric as the clause it seeks to replace. It is a reference to "The Commission's functions", as distinct from the Commission's aims and objectives, which were the subject of my Amendment 92. This is only a probing, tentative amendment indicating the general idea, shape, appearance of a clause which would have that purpose. I would not claim that this particular form and this particular catalogue are the best we can end up with. That is the general idea.
I need not refer to all the particular points in this proposed new clause because many of them have already been dealt with by other specific amendments to this clause, or they will be dealt with by subsequent amendments to Schedule 4. A clause of this sort would enable those using this Bill to ascertain from it the general purposes and functions of the commission, to find them here and not to have to rely so exclusively on the cat's cradle of Schedule 4.
I turn to the particular matters referred to in this amendment. Subsection (2)(a), covering the function of promoting or undertaking publicity in any form,
952
needs to be mentioned. That was, I think, brought up for the first time at Second Reading by my noble friend Lord Montagu and by myself and others, but it is not the subject of any other amendment to this part of the Bill. I would submit to the Committee that it is the area which stands in most need of improvement in respect of the properties currently managed by the Department of the Environment. I have an analysis here from the English Tourist Board which shows just how badly these properties have fared by comparison with other segments of what we might describe as the heritage over the past two or three years.
Nobody has done particularly well in the last two or three years. After a long period when the number of visitors was on a steady climb, there have been falls, but the falls in numbers of visits being made to ancient monuments are much greater than to other properties. The department has put up its charges to a far greater extent than the owners of other parts of the heritage, but its marketing budget has been totally inadequate. I mentioned this at Second Reading. It was an amount corresponding to the promotional budget of the City of Bristol in respect of its zoo alone. This is quite inadequate for the purpose, and has led to these rather depressing results, which must be corrected by much more imaginative marketing and promotion by the new commission. I need not say any more about that except to stress that it is such an important part of the function of the commission that, if nothing else is mentioned in this clause, this must be.
I turn now to subsection (2)(b), the inspection of monuments, buildings and conservation areas. This is also the subject of Amendment 104D in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, but that is only in respect of buildings owned by the Property Services Agency. I think that it must go much wider than that. The largest single sector of the national heritage—namely, the churches and cathedrals of the Church of England, which form a group two or three times the size of all the rest put together—have benefited from a systematic scheme of quinquennial inspections for the last 35 years. The benefit of this scheme is now so obvious and so substantial, and saves such an enormous expenditure of money, that it must not only be commended to those who are not at the moment subject to it but it must be a positive function of the new commission, having taken all the necessary advice, to set about introducing an inspection for all of the buildings that make up the national heritage which are not so subject to such inspection. That again is sufficiently important to demand a place in the clause itself.
I do not need to say anything more about promoting and undertaking research. This was the subject of Amendments Nos. 98B and 96V, and I think everybody recognises it as important. It raises the matter of the relationship between this commission and the Royal Commission on Historic Monuments, but we shall come to that on a later amendment. Subsections (2)(d) and (e) have been canvassed already, particularly by my noble friend Lord Montagu in his Amendment No. 96Q in respect of educational facilities. I said then, and I say again, how much I agree with him about that.
I want to say a word about (2)(f), which allows the commission "to contribute to or reimburse

953
expenditure". It must be a function of the commission to be able to do this if it is to be able to establish, as I hope it will, a number of managing agents to help it execute its functions. This commission does not want to sit at the centre, as the department has done up till now, and manage all these properties directly itself. It wants to establish a whole network of management agreements whereby this management can be executed by local authorities, voluntary bodies and other bodies with expertise and ability in the care of the heritage, functioning on its behalf and working as its agents. For that to be done, it must be possible for the commission to make a contribution to their expenditure, and therefore that, too, needs to be mentioned specifically.
I need say no more about paragraph (f), which was covered by Amendment No. 97B in the name of my noble friend Lord Montagu; and we have discussed subsection (6) under Amendment 97C. With those remarks on the specific points but, more important, my remarks on the general idea of an amendment of this sort, I beg to move.
Lord Kennet: In supporting the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, I would ask a minor question about the amendment. It states many good things that the commission should do, but the one thing it does not state it should do is to conserve listed buildings and ancient monuments in England, whereas the original clause stated exactly that. I do not think I have overlooked anything, but the single use of the word "conservation" seems to have gone out with the bath water.
Lord Sandford: I do not think so, because my Amendment No. 99 complements and must be read in conjunction with my Amendment No. 92, and "conservation" appears there. Indeed, I would say that conservation is so important as to be stated as a broad aim and objective; whereas the functions are all set out in No. 99 as tasks the commission must discharge to achieve that aim. However, the noble Lord has raised a matter which could be looked at again between now and Report.
The Earl of Avon: Some of what I have said already, particularly in respect of amendments to the previous clause, also applies here. The Government have much sympathy with my noble friend and wish to see some simple and comprehensible statement of the commission's functions in the main clauses to illuminate the difficult text of Schedule 4, and we have already discussed that. However there are problems from a drafting point of view in framing a provision which duplicates what is already provided for elsewhere in the Bill, and the question of what to say in the body of the Bill needs careful thought.
The Government feel that, as drafted, the amendment is not quite satisfactory. We feel, for instance, that subsection (1) may to be too positive, whereas in subsection (2) the drafting in terms of the commission having power to do "anything" seems rather wide, as does the power to undertake publicity "in any form"; and we have already discussed the question of committees and whether the power is needed in paragraph (d) to establish committees when that provision is aleady made.
954
On policy grounds, the Government are doubtful whether it is proper that the commission should have such wide grant powers as are proposed. In relation to subsection (5), the Government would want to look at the phrase "money's worth". But we are clear that the commission would be able to make use of voluntary services, other than money, without specific provision. I suggest that, as with the other amendments to Clause 30, the Government take this amendment away and use it as a basis for further thought, with all the other suggestions, with the idea of bringing forward their own amendment.
Baroness Birk: Having listened to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, on this interesting amendment, I think we could go along with it so long as when the Government are looking at the matter again they take into account the points that have been raised on this topic on other detailed amendments, both those previously discussed and those yet to be debated by the Committee. I also support the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Kennet—and I was struck in exactly the same way by the wording. As the functions of the commission are primarily those of conservation and preservation, I agree that those words should appear in the clause dealing with functions; it could be lopsided and ill-balanced to leave the emphasis entirely in the provision dealing with presentation and interpretation.
I appreciate what Lord Sandford said in reply to Lord Kennet, but I do not think we should leave out all reference to conservation and preservation, as the most important of the commission's functions, when talking about functions. We must also be a little wary about doing so much by way of tourism and various other means of exploiting monuments and buildings that we almost wear them out. Those of us who have been connected with this matter in the department have seen that problem, and therefore the right balance must be struck.
Lord Sandford: I am grateful to noble Lords who have taken part in this short debate and for the assurance given to me by my noble friend. The noble Baroness, Lady Birk, is right to say that any redrafting of the amendment must take fully into account everything else that has been said in our debates on Clause 30. Indeed, nobody would have been more surprised than I if the Government had immediately accepted my amendment as drafted, and accordingly I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 30, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 4 [The Commission: amendments.]:
4.47 p.m.
The Earl of Perth The Earl of Perth moved Amendment No. 100:
Page 36, line 10, after ("chairman") insert ("and members")
The noble Earl said: I will, with permission, speak at the same time to Amendment No. 101. I appreciate that in a sense this amendment is out of order, in that it deals with a Scottish matter in an English Bill. The noble Earl, Lord Avon, has kindly pointed that out to me in a letter. All the same, I think it would be worth

955
spending a few minutes looking at what happens in the Bill as it applies to England and in relation to the Scottish position. Sometimes what is good for England is good for Scotland, and vice versa.
In the Bill as it stands, the members of the commission for England shall be paid such remuneration as is thought fit by the Secretary of State; but in Scotland, as the Bill stands—this does not change what exists already—only the chairman may be paid; the others get just their expenses. My amendments would not make it obligatory, in the way that the Bill says "shall" in the case of England, but simply say "may".
I hope thought will be given to accepting an amendment now, although it is not a Scottish Bill, or that the attention of the Secretary of Stae will be drawn to the purpose of the amendment so that at a later date a similar provision may prevail for the Scottish Historic Buildings Council. In this day and age it is important that such members should be paid, not just the chairman but any of those who do what often is very onerous work. I am not suggesting they should all be paid; it is left to the Secretary of State's discretion. I therefore ask that this permissive amendment be allowed.
The Earl of Avon: As the noble Earl, Lord Perth, said, taken together these amendments would mean that the members of the Historic Buildings Council for Scotland, like the chairman, could in future be paid, rather than just receive their expenses. The paragraph in Schedule 4 which provides, among other things, that the members shall receive only their expenses is needed for technical reasons, to re-enact provisions which now apply. We are not making any changes. The Historic Buildings Council for Scotland and the Historic Buildings Council for Wales are being left in precisely the same position as they now are. It is perhaps worth noting that the position is the same as that which now applies to the equivalent English body, the Historic Buildings Council for England.
As noble Lords are aware, the Secretaries of State for Scotland and for Wales decided that at the present time there should be no change in the arrangements for looking after the ancient monuments and historic buildings which are their responsibility. The retention of their separate advisory—and may I stress the word "advisory"—bodies in their present form is part of that decision. I hope that in the light of that explanation, my noble friend, unless he can find someone who is actually wanting to be paid, will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
The Earl of Perth: I am quite ready to withdraw the amendment. As I said, I merely wanted to make a point. I hope that the noble Earl will draw the attention of the Secretary of State for Scotland to the fact that, anyhow, one Member of your Lordships' House believes that in this case Scotland should be treated on a permissive basis in the same way as the English members of the new commission. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 101 not moved.]
4.52 p.m.
Baroness Airey of Abingdon Baroness Airey of Abingdon moved Amendment No. 101A:
Page 37, line 6, leave out ("outstanding") and insert ("special").
The noble Baroness said: I beg to move Amendment No. 101 A, and to speak to Amendments Nos. 102B and 102D, standing in my name. In each case in the amendments I would seek to leave out the word "outstanding" and insert the word "special". I believe that that would embrace a slightly different category of house as eligible for a grant. The family who occupy, or who have occupied, the house can contribute to its value to the heritage. For example, the house of Karl Marx has been listed, although it, and the houses adjacent to it, are totally undistinguished and drab in architectural terms. But as a historic shrine, as it has been described, it has been the subject of a grant. Opinion about Karl Marx may differ among your Lordships, but what has happened regarding his house is a fact; a grant has been given.
As an example I should like to take a house that is far more important in terms of architectural interest. It is Lyford Grange, in Oxfordshire. It was once a large house, with a moat, and a tower. It is now a much smaller house. In fact, it is a farmhouse. It has been considerably altered, and so perhaps may not be eligible for a grant on grounds of architecture alone. But its importance to the heritage lies in the fact that it was the famous centre of Roman Catholicism in the days when Mass was said in peril of death. It was the place where Edmund Campion, who was later to suffer torture and a cruel death in London, was apprehended.
My point is that throughout England, there are many good listed buildings which might not quite "make the grade" from an architectural standpoint alone. But the families who live in them, or who have lived in them, in many cases, over centuries, have faithfully served this country, often during very important periods, and such facts should surely be taken into account. I hope that this suggestion will find favour. I appreciate that my amendment was not put down very early, and I should apologise for that, but I hope that none the less it will be taken into consideration, and that my noble friend the Minister will be able to make a favourable reply.
Baroness Birk: My name is joined with that of the noble Baroness, Lady Airey of Abingdon, in the amendment and the other amendments to which she has referred. I wonder whether I might add to those amendments Amendment No. 102EA, which is on exactly the same point, though it is spelt out rather more. Amendment No. 102EA is starred because I fear that it was put down only yesterday. I have just discovered that it is not on the grouping list and perhaps I may give the Minister a moment to find it. Subsection (3) of the amendment, on page 5 of the Marshalled List, deals with exactly the same point about which the noble Baroness has just been speaking; namely, that of the house which is "special" or "outstanding" for a reason that is not to do with the architecture. There are several other aspects of the matter.
This is the first time in the Bill where in course of amending the 1953 Act the word "outstanding" is to

957
be re-enacted, and the amendment proposes that it be replaced by the word "special". In addition to what the noble Baroness has said, which dealt with a particular type of application of the word "special" in relation to a house, I would say that,
"a building of outstanding historic or architectural interest",
is a vital catch phrase. For 29 years it has been the aspiration of many owners—for many of them their only hope of salvation—that their houses would be judged to be "outstanding" in order to make them eligible, other things permitting, for a Historic Buildings Council grant. Of late it has come to mean even more than that, since an outstanding building now qualifies for conditional exemption from capital transfer tax.
The amendment, like all the others similar to it, is a probing one. I should stress that there is no intention to destroy the careful structure of HBC grants, since only in exceptional circumstances is it suggested that grant giving might go wider, to include the more ordinary listed building—all such being,
"buildings of special historic or architectural interest",
for on the face of it inserting the word "special", as proposed in the amendment, means that grant could go that wide. But there are exceptional circumstances, and there is some justice in giving grants to ordinary listed buildings that are now disadvantaged. If such buildings stand in a conservation area, for example, ordinary listed buildings are already eligible for the HBC grant under town schemes. Section 10B of the 1972 Act sees to that.
Indeed, grants, including grants for improvement, can also be made, in respect of work in a conservation area, for the purposes of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the area, and ordinary listed buildings frequently qualify for assistance under the section under which such grants are made; that, again, is Section 10 of the 1972 Act.
But in rural areas, where there might be only a very few listed buildings in a small group, or even one such building standing alone, nobody will designate a conservation area, and nobody will set up a town scheme. Therefore there are now no grants available in circumstances such as that. Hence, if for no other reason than to be fair to these houses in rural areas, some way must be found of stepping outside the "outstanding" boundary to help ordinary listed buildings when they do not qualify for Section 10B town schemes or Section 10 conservation area grants.
Amendment No. 102EA—I must again apologise for the fact that it might have taken the Minister by surprise—may help. It is a first shot at a special procedure to be used only with care and caution by the commission. Doubtless the commission would be careful; I imagine that it would hardly be able to afford to be otherwise. The situation in Scotland, and in Wales, is just the same. So though the commission does not yet cover either of those areas, the amendment makes an attempt to cover them, since the point is important. There seems to be a need to bring in the Province of Northern Ireland as well, but fortunately that is not attempted in the amendment.
If Amendment No. 102EA, or something like it, finds favour, then the "outstandings" can stay unamended, as can some other uses of the term, in
958
regard to which amendments have not been tabled. The amendments help in that they make the whole of the area of "outstanding" and "special" rather more flexible. That, I think, together with the points that have been made by the noble Baroness on designating houses as "special" for the reasons she outlined, makes a very strong case for it to be considered.
The Earl of Avon: As the noble Baronesses have said, these amendments attempt to widen the definition of historic buildings for which the commission may themselves make grants, and towards whose acquisition by the National Trust they may also grant aid. At present, they may exercise these powers only in relation to buildings of outstanding architectural or historic interest. This is a policy which was set in the Historic Buildings and Ancient Monuments Act 1953 which deals with the Secretary of State's powers, and we have deliberately followed them here for the commission. Substituting the world "special" would widen considerably the scope for making grants and, as the noble Baroness has said, that is the intention although they have both been at pains to say it would be in exceptional cases.
However, it is the reason that the Government are loath to take these amendments on board. The word "special" is to be found in the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 where it deals with the compilation by the Secretary of State or others of lists of buildings of special architectural or historic interest. I take it, therefore, that it is intended here to refer to all listed buildings. There are at present about 280,000 listed buildings in England. There will be very considerably more when the listing re-survey, now under way, is completed—perhaps as many as 600,000. Of the 280,000 now listed only about 5,400 (fewer than 2 per cent.) are Grade 1. This gives some indication of the extent of the difference in numbers between the outstanding buildings and the special buildings; although I must add, not all Grade 1 buildings are necessarily outstanding while others of a lower grading may be so.
The change of this one word could make an enormous difference to the number of grant claims made. There are not the resources available now to cope with this and the commission would not have them either. Although the commission will have grant-making powers and funds will be allocated for that purpose, we have to recognise that resources will always be to some degree, limited. That is why the Secretary of State's present role and the commissioners' role in the future is to preserve the most important historic buildings. There must be priorities for preservation and the vital thing is to preserve what is best for the heritage, in this case buildings of outstanding architectural or historic interest. Even with this restriction, the demands placed on the available funds would exceed the supply. We must consider that if greater demands are made, the resources available could only be spread more thinly and, given the pressures, probably to the detriment of those parts of the heritage which can at present be adequately preserved.
The noble Baroness went on to talk to her Amendment No. 102EA. This amendment would allow the commission to extend the scope of their own

959
powers if they decided it would be appropriate. The Secretary of State will be able to do so on the advice of the Historic Buildings Council for Scotland or for Wales, as appropriate. The arguments I have been talking about apply here also.
As my noble friend was kind enough to say in her opening remarks, these amendments have been put down fairly recently and we have not had the opportunity to know what my noble friend had in mind or what the noble Baroness had in mind. I should like to read what they have said in some detail and perhaps my noble friend will consider my response and see if it has in any way changed her mind.
Lord Somers: Would the noble Earl tell me whether it would be possible to divide the listed buildings into two classes, a Class A and a Class B, Class A being those which would be worthy of aid and Class B not?
The Earl of Avon: They are already graded.
Baroness Birk: Speaking for myself, I thank the Minister for his reply and also for saying that he will read and look into the matter again. I will point out two things. One is that it is made clear in Amendment No. 102EA that exceptional circumstances make it appropriate in a particular case, so I do not think there are going to be a great many of those. Secondly, if, finally, they cannot see that this is the right way to deal with it, then, if we can find a way so that the houses that I cited which are in rural areas and may be single houses or houses that missed the net of either a conservation area or a town scheme, would be eligible for grant, because that was part of the purpose of these amendments, they could pick them up in that way. Otherwise, as far as I, personally, am concerned, I await to hear what the noble Earl has to say and come back on the next stage or see whether, perhaps, if we all met together between now and the next stage, we might be able to find some way of solving what has now turned out to be several problems rolled up into what look like identical amendments—but they are not so.
Baroness Airey of Abingdon: If I may speak for a moment, when I cited the case of Lyford Grange, I may say that it is an extremely isolated building but attached to it, and about half a mile away are some ancient almshouses, so that although it is isolated it is an enclave (as one might say) quite apart from its historical context which is the important point I am making. It is, as the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, was saying, very much in the country and could not possibly have been a conservation area, but it has very particular historical associations. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 102:
Page 37, line 8, leave out ("comprising, or") and insert ("which is situated in England and which comprises, or is").
The noble Earl said: This is a minor amendment of revision conferring on the commission the power to make grants for the preservation of buildings of
960
historic or architectural interest. The commission's power to make such grants is restricted to buildings situated in England. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
5.9 p.m.
Lord Digby Lord Digby moved Amendment No. 102A:
Page 37, line 11, after ("garden") insert (", park, designed landscape").
The noble Lord said: My noble friend Lord Strath-cona has asked me to apologise for his unavoidable absence and to move the series of amendments standing in his name which all relate to the widening of the commission's powers with regard to parks, gardens and designed landscapes which are all of artistic value to our heritage. It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I speak to the following amendments: Amendments Nos. 102A, 102CA, 103C, 103L, 103P and 104A. I need not remind your Lordships of the intense public interest in conservation of the countryside at present. I should like to point out that, except for mountains and moors, the natural beauty of our countryside is entirely man-made. It is a tribute to the genius of our forebears that they have created today's natural beauty. That beauty is a living thing and will die if it is not properly maintained. That is our duty both to our ancestors who made it and to future generations who will enjoy it.
I was most encouraged last Thursday that the noble Earl, Lord Avon, said that he had slight reservations about widening the commission's remit but that he would look into it carefully to see how it could be included. If a Minister has only slight reservations, it must mean that he entirely agrees and will do battle with his department, so I am very hopeful as to the outcome.
With regard to this particular Amendment No. 102A, it enables the commission to make grants and loans for the upkeep of parks and designed landscapes. The Bill as it stands provides for the upkeep of a garden or other land and it may be argued that "other land" includes parks and designed landscapes. However, I hope that the noble Earl will accept that the effects of our great landscape architects of the 18th century deserve more than being classed as just "other land".
To pass on to Amendment No. 102CA, until now the only acknowledged interest has been historical but, in truth, there are many more interests which are of value. Parks, designed landscapes and gardens can be architectural in the way that they are laid out in geometric form like the plan of a building; and nowadays they are very often laid out by landscape architects. They are often designed as settings for pieces of architecture. So the word "architectural" should be added. The really important point is that they are often works of art in the highest sense. It is for the commission to appreciate their qualities and to weigh them when it comes to judging their eligibility for grant. I think that the word "artistic" should be in the amendment.
The other amendments to which I am speaking are on the basis that, if it is right for the commission to be able to give grants towards gardens and landscapes under Section 3A of the 1953 Act, as the Bill provides,

961
it is right that in each of the other amendments a reference to "gardens" should be made. There is another thread running through the further four amendments: the words "special" and "outstanding." We have been debating this matter, and I feel that in this context the word "special" gives more scope than the word "outstanding". I am sure that the noble Earl is sympathetic to the basis of all these amendments. I hope that he will undertake to bring in amendments at Report stage to ensure the future of designed landscapes, particularly because of their artistic interest. I beg to move.
The Earl of Avon: I am indeed sympathetic to what my noble friend is saying, although I must be careful of how I choose my words or he will be twisting my arm again. We had an interesting discussion about designed landscapes when my noble friend Lord Montagu was kind enough to define them for me. With the added words we have, I must say that I am in a muddle as to whether a garden or a park is a designed landscape or what the definition is. I also was rather sorry that my noble friend did not go on to refer to "arboricultural" and "silvicultural" because I was interested to know what exactly the commission were going to let themselves in for if they took on this apect. There is a clear danger here of spreading the commission's functions wider than their resources can support. The Committee should consider this when thinking of giving these added responsibilities to them.
These amendments would allow the commission to make grants to the National Trust for the acquisition by them of land of special silvicultural or horticultural interest. But this is not what we are establishing the commission to do; it is the Countryside Commission which is responsible for these wider aspects of landscape management, including historic parks. It does not seem sensible to duplicate functions in this way.
We have had some interesting discussions and I should like to have a careful look at the Countryside Commission's remit. I should like to consider exactly how far we can go with gardens, monuments and landscapes at the moment, and see whether there is any loophole between the two. If there is, I shall certainly think about taking up an amendment on the lines which my noble friend has suggested.
Lord Digby: I thank the Minister for that reply. I deliberately left out references to "arboricultural" and "silvicultural" because, had we known the position, we should not have tabled those particular words. I think that they have a basis but it may be said that they are more scientific aspects. That is why I emphasised the artistic side. In view of the reply of the Minister, I hope that we can look at the matter again, perhaps at Report stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 102B not moved.]
[Amendment No. 102C had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
[Amendments Nos. 102CA and 102D not moved.]
Lord Beloff Lord Beloff moved Amendment No. 102E:
Page 37, line 38, at end insert—
("(6) It shall be within the functions of the Commission, so far as they think it expedient for achieving the objects of this Act, and generally for contributing to the efficient management of monuments and historic buildings to carry out and sponsor research, and contribute to the expenses of public or local authorities having the care of monuments or historic buildings.")
The noble Lord said: This amendment has been covered to some extent by Amendment No. 99, which the noble Earl has agreed to consider. There is one point of clarification for which I would be obliged. In his remarks on Amendment No. 96 (which also dealt with research), the noble Earl said that he thought Amendment No. 102E went too far. I should be grateful if he would explain, without any commitment to a particular alternative, in what respect he thinks the amendment goes too far. I beg to move.
The Earl of Avon: I am afraid my noble friend is slightly ahead of me, because I do not have my copy of Hansard containing what I said last time. If my recollection is correct, we were talking about Amendment No. 96V, which I said was acceptable. I felt this amendment broadened the aspect. I think that was the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, and I think I said we would prefer something on the lines of Amendment No. 96V rather than this one, which went that bit further. As I say, I do not have my brief on Amendment No. 96 V, so the noble Lord has me slightly in the air on that point.
Baroness Birk: I do not know whether I can be of any help. The basis was the same, that the commission should undertake research. Amendment No. 96V, which I moved, was simply saying that the commission may undertake or sponsor research in furtherance of its functions. I do not know that there is all that much difference between that amendment and Amendment No. 102E, except that the tail-end is spelt out rather more elegantly. It finishes up by saying:
"and contribute to the expenses of public or local authorities having the care of monuments or historic buildings".
I would have thought that it was part of the commission's powers and duties, if they wished to do so, to do it that way or any other way. Maybe the earlier amendment was shorter, and that is why the Minister preferred it.
The Earl of Avon: May I quickly come back? I apologise to the Committee for not having at my fingertips what I said last time. This amendment goes further than the question of research. It seeks to empower the commission to make grants to any public authority which has care of monuments or historic buildings. The grant-making powers that it suggests are far too widely drawn to the extent that every public authority would be eligible for grant; and, indeed, that grant could, as the amendment is drafted, cover any expenditure of the public authority, not just that on monuments or historic buildings. The commission will have wide powers to make grants in relation to this main purpose. It is for this reason that we preferred the earlier amendment to the latter one.
Lord Beloff: In the light of that explanation, for which I thank the noble Earl, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 102EA not moved.]
The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 103:
Page 38, line 6, leave out from beginning to ("after") in line 7 and insert—
("(1) Section 5 of the 1953 Act (acquisition by Secretary of State of historic buildings etc.) shall be amended as follows.
(2) After subsection (3) there shall be inserted—
(3) The Commission may be a party to such arrangements as are mentioned in subsection (3) of this section."
(3) In subsection (4)").
The noble Earl said: The amendment I propose is to paragraph 7 of Schedule 4 and will empower the commission to enter into arrangements with the Secretary of State,
"as to the management or custody of use",
of any property acquired by him and to take over the day-to-day-management of historic buildings owned by the Secretary of State. It has always been the intention that one of the commission's tasks would be to take over the executive responsibilities. The Secretary of State, under Section 5 of the 1953 Act, is able to acquire by agreement or to accept as a gift buildings of outstanding historic or architectural interest and their adjoining land and to make arrangements as he thinks fit for their management and use. The commission will have all the relevant expertise to manage them for him. The amendment also establishes that the commission will also have the power to agree to any such request and to enter into arrangements to manage such historic buildings. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 103A, 103B and J03C, not moved.]
Baroness Birk Baroness Birk moved Amendment No. 103D:
Page 38, line 22, after ("are") insert (", or are historically appropriate to,").
The noble Baroness said: Under subsection (2) of the new Section A which is to be inserted in the 1953 Act, which we will find in our guide to Schedule 4, the commission may only purchase or accept gifts of objects, for example, furniture, which will have been ordinarily kept in a building which it itself owns, controls or manages, or alternatively with respect to a building in the ownership of the National Trust. We then come on to Amendment No. 103E. If the commission is restricted like this, it may well find that it cannot even furnish a building it is given or has acquired from which the contents have been dispersed. I am sure the Government would agree that would be a ridiculous situation. The amendment puts things right by allowing the commission to acquire or to be given historically appropriate objects.
It seems strange, for that matter, to impose any restriction even of "historically appropriate" on the things the commission can be given, as distinct from "purpose". Surely this is something to be left to the good sense of the commission. I think what we want to avoid is having the commission buy buildings because
964
it feels they really have to be conserved and therefore ought to be bought, and then having nothing to put into them—we would then, unfortunately, have the situation that one sees in so many chateaux on the Loire—or being restricted by not being able perhaps to add to any collection or add to things that are in a house, where it is possible to do so. This amendment is quite a small one and I think it is something which perhaps the Government will find they can accept.
Lord Digby: I hope that the Committee can accept this, because there are many instances, such as Sir Winston Churchill's memorabilia, and so on, which would never have been at Chartwell, for example, and might have been in No. 10 during the war. These are things which it should be possible to acquire under these terms.
The Earl of Avon: As the noble Baroness says, this amendment seeks to widen a rather narrow category of objects which may be acquired by the commission to improve the historical completeness and presentation of buildings in their ownership or under their control or management. The Government agree that historically appropriate objects are highly relevant to the overall conservation of the building and we are happy to accept the amendment in principle. However, I should prefer not to commit myself to this precise form of words because it may be necessary to make some small word changes to improve the construction of a subsection. Therefore, I would ask the noble Baroness if she would withdraw the amendment on the basis that we will incorporate this principle in an amendment put forward at a later stage.
Baroness Birk: I have to thank the Minister very much for accepting the principle. Of course, I will leave it to him to find a better form of words, and therefore I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Birk Baroness Birk moved Amendment No. 103E:
Page 38, line 32, at end insert (", body listed in paragraph 12 of Schedule 6 to the Finance Act 1975 or body exempt under paragraph 13 of that Schedule.").
The noble Baroness said: This is another of the financial amendments. As I seem to have lost my notes on this, I will leave the amendment to speak for itself.
The Earl of Avon: Perhaps I may respond and that may help the noble Baroness: she can read it on another occasion. This amendment seeks to widen the categories of buildings for which the commission would be empowered to acquire objects from their own buildings or those of the National Trust to any buildings owned by a wide variety of bodies, including local authorities and the national museums and galleries.
The commission are being established to provide a more cohesive central focus for the heritage, but their first priority will be preservation. As I am sure the Committee will agree, the commission will wish, and will be expected, to apply their resources first and foremost to that priority. Where the commission have buildings which they are preserving and presenting to the public then it is quite appropriate that they should

965
be able to acquire objects, as we have just decided. But the Government do not believe that the commission should be applying any of their resources to the purchase of objects for buildings owned by a wide range of other bodies. If those bodies have the responsibility for their buildings then it is entirely appropriate that they should meet the costs of doing so. Help is, of course, available in appropriate circumstances from other sources such as the National Heritage Memorial Fund. I would prefer to leave it that way.
Baroness Birk: I think that in the circumstances I had better leave it that way and perhaps come back to this on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Sandford Lord Sandford had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 103F:
Page 38, line 38, at end insert—
("Such arrangements as to management or custody or property may include arrangements as to the discharge of those functions on behalf of the Commission by a local authority.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment is an important one, but my noble friend Lord Ridley has already spoken to the matter and I do not propose to move this amendment.
[Amendment No. 103F not moved.]
Baroness Birk Baroness Birk moved Amendment No. 103G:
Page 38, leave out lines 39 to 42.
The noble Baroness said: This amendment removes from the Bill, by leaving out the relevant lines, a control on the acquisition of historical buildings and objects; even their acceptance of gifts. Under the control, the Secretary of State must first approve acquisitions or acceptances. I believe it should not even be necessary for formal consultation to take place. Doubtless the commission will go to the Secretary of State rather even than to his officers for advice with anything of importance. That should be enough; and that is what has happened in the past with the HBC or the Ancient Monuments Board.
To put in this control on the activities of the commission is pettyfogging in the extreme. There has to be some ultimate power of control given to the Secretary of State—a power to intervene and say, no. That really is the most that should be left to the Secretary of State in this arena. But, in practice, the Secretary of State has all the controls he needs, because in the last resort he controls the purse strings. So I hope that the Minister will accept this amendment, because this is another of those small amendments which are trying to get rid of this terrible stranglehold of controls on very small things, which runs through the Bill every now and then. I beg to move.
The Earl of Avon: As the noble Baroness said, this amendment is addressed to a fundamental aspect of the relationship between the commission and central Government. It seeks to give the commission complete freedom to acquire historic buildings and their contents as they see fit, without reference to the Secretary of State.
966
I am sure the Committee agree that the commission must have the freedom to operate successfully, but there are varying degrees of independence. In this case, I do not believe we can give the commission a free hand. Any acquisition by them will have substantial financial implications, not just at the time when the purchase price must be found, but for any number of years in future, when money must be found for maintenance, repair and, perhaps, custody. This will significantly affect the resources which the commission require—particularly when one considers that acquisition of buildings by the commission will take place only if there is no alternative way to preserve them. Almost inevitably, such acquisitions carry with them the highest repair and maintenance costs. Since the commission will be very largely funded by central Government, the Government must be able to exercise some control over the extent of the commission's activities and future liabilities.
It is not sufficient to say, "Well, give the commission their money and let them do with it as they wish". The sum which the commission will receive each year from the Government is not fixed at random, but will be related to their needs. It is only right, therefore, that the Government should be involved in decisions which affect the extent of these needs. This is an essential part of the Government's continuing overall responsibility for the heritage. I do not think that that will satisfy the noble Baroness very much, but I hope that she will be persuaded to some degree.
Baroness White: Could the Minister enlighten me? As I understand it, this subsection refers to subsection (2), as well as to subsection (1). I can appreciate the noble Earl's arguments on subsection (1), which refers to property, but the reference to subsection (2) covers objects as well, and in that I would have very considerable sympathy with my noble friend.
Baroness Birk: I am grateful to my noble friend Lady White for intervening. I was about to get up and point that out to the Minister. I still think that the principle should operate so far as subsection (1) is concerned. My noble friend is absolutely right. Subsection (2) states that,
" the Commission shall have power to purchase by agreement, or to accept a gift of, any objects which are or have been ordinarily kept",
and so on. The lines which I want to delete state,
"The Commission shall not acquire or accept any property under subsection (1) or (2) of this section",
and so on. I do not think that that can be what the Minister meant, because his reply did not deal with that side at all. He was saying that the commission should not be allowed to spend money without the Secretary of State's control; in other words, they should not be allowed to go wild. But this also has to do with accepting gifts, and for a grown-up adult commission to have to go to the Secretary of State and ask "Can we accept this gift?" seems absolutely ludicrous. So I think that this ought to be looked at again.
The Earl of Avon: I fully accept the noble Baroness's second point, and I will have a look at it. As she rightly appreciated, I was talking entirely about the financial implications in paying the purchase price of a house.

967
But, as I said, I will look into what the noble Baroness has said.
Baroness Birk: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.34 p.m.
Baroness Birk Baroness Birk moved Amendment No. 103H:
Page 38, line 42, at end insert-
(" (5) The Commission shall have power to acquire any such building, or land as is mentioned in subsection (1) above for repair, restoration or improvement and to hold it for disposal by sale or otherwise.")
The noble Baroness said: This amendment is concerned with the commission being able to have a rolling conservation fund. If the commission are to do their job properly, they will have to be able to get involved in rolling conservation fund activities. This is not the same as major conservation schemes, which are envisaged on a much larger and more intensive scale. This provision is intended to make it possible for the commission to step in and carry out rolling conservation schemes, when others are not available to carry them out. Again, this is one of the many financial amendments which we have been discussing, and I hope it will get support from other noble Lords. It is a way of enabling the commission to extend their activities, because without this sort of provision they will be very curtailed indeed. I beg to move.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu: I should like to support this amendment. This matter was raised during the Second Reading debate. This scheme was very successfully evolved by the National Trust for Scotland some years ago. There they call it a revolving fund, but it is the same idea. There is no doubt that, on many occasions, the commission will be able to act as a wonderful catalyst to bring together a lot of interested parties, so that this sort of conservation work can be done. If the commission do not have these powers in the Bill, I hope that they will be given them.
The Earl of Avon: As I understand it, this amendment is designed to give the commission a specific power to rescue historic houses, repair or improve them, or do whatever is necessary, and then sell them again. However, with one small difference, these activities are already provided for under subsections (1) and (3) of the new clause to which this amendment would be an addition.
The important difference, from the Government's point of view, is the need to obtain the Secretary of State's consent to acquisitions. I do not think that I need to rehearse the arguments I have already given; but with the assurance that this is in subsections (1) and (3) of the new clause, and with the idea that I am going to look again at the Secretary of State's consent to acquisitions I hope that the noble Baronesss may be satisfied.
Baroness Birk: In view of what the Minister has said, and as he is going to look at this again, together with the other acquisitions, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Nugent of Guilford): I should explain, before calling Amendment No. 103J, that if it is agreed to I shall not be able to call the next amendment, No. 103K.
Baroness Birk Baroness Birk moved Amendment No. 103J:
Page 38, line 46, leave out from ("of) to the end of line 50 and insert ("any listed building in England together with land which is contiguous or adjacent thereto.").
The noble Baroness said: This amendment deals with grants to local authorities for the acquisition of historic buildings. The Bill allows the commission to make grants to local authorities where they use Section 114 powers of compulsory acquisition after the service of a Section 115 repairs notice. But local authorities may well wish to acquire historic buildings by agreement in order to repair them, and without the rigmarole and delay of serving Section 115 repairs notices and going through the Section 114 compulsory purchase procedures, all of which are extremely tedious and mean a great deal of delay, trouble and bureaucracy on the part of local authorities. This amendment makes that possible.
Obviously, the commission will not use wider powers, if they are given them, except where a purchase is for the primary purpose of repair and conservation. As always, finance will be the limitation. It is important to have this amendment or something very similar in the Bill, because one of the tremendous problems for local authorities is using these powers of compulsory acquisition where that is more or less the last resort, and then not having the necessary funds or not knowing what they will do with a building once they have it. There are, also, the awful problems that arise when they issue a repairs notice but nothing is then done about it and they have to wait till the place is practically falling down. This is not so much a case of giving them power as a way by which we can save a number of buildings which now fall into complete decay. I beg to move.
The Earl of Avon: I accept entirely the purpose of this amendment. At the moment, the clause which this amendment seeks to amend will only allow the commission to grant-aid compulsory acquisitions by local authorities of historic buildings in need of repair. The Secretary of State's present powers enable him also to grant-aid local authority acquisitions made under Section 119 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971. This allows local authorities to acquire any building of special historic or architectural interest. Following the general policy of transferring to the commission existing grant-making powers, the Government intend to put down an amendment to make the commission's powers the same. With that assurance, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Birk: With that assurance, and subject to how it works out and looks in print, we will consider the matter again. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 103K, 103L and 103LA not moved.]
5.41 p.m.
Baroness Birk Baroness Birk moved Amendment No. 103M:
Page 39, line 11, at end insert—
("Commission conservation schemes
6A. The Commission may initiate and carry out, co-ordinate or participate in schemes for the conservation enhancement and improvement of groups of buildings listed as of special architectural or historic interest and other buildings and areas in conservation areas and otherwise including schemes in partnership with Local Authorities, charities, Housing Associations and any other bodies or persons with commercial or non-commercial interests therein as it think fit.")
The noble Baroness said: This amendment is designed to allow the commission to do jobs that nobody else may be able to tackle and, if need be, to do them alone or together with other diverse interests, so that the commission may initiate, carry out, coordinate and participate in schemes for conservation and so on. All this is carefully spelled out in the amendment. The closure of historic defence areas such as Chatham Dockyard and the Woolwich Arsenal, the decline of historic town centres or complexes, such as Penryn, and the predicament of groups of 18th century mills in Lancashire in the North present massive problems involving regeneration and new uses. On that large scale, revival can often only be achieved if one body takes the initiative and forms a partnership between Government—which, under the Bill, would be the commission—the local authority, the Civic Trust or a local amenity body, a developer, or several of them, and private owners. That this is possible has been successfully demonstrated at Penryn in Cornwall and at Wirksworth in Derbyshire. Where there is no such initiative, as at the Woolwich Arsenal, outstanding historic buildings may be lost as the whole area falls into dereliction. Problems on this scale and presenting such opportunities at present exist in the historic Chatham Dockyard. I hope the Minister will find that he can accept this amendment or, if the drafting is not as he wants it, that he is able to accept the main point: the commission to be able to work with others in this type of co-operation. It can only result in saving more buildings and, very important, putting them to productive use. I beg to move.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu: As the commission's work develops in the way in which we all hope that it will and grows in stature, more and more people, I am sure, will look towards it to carry out schemes which at the moment are not carried out at all. Chatham Dockyard is a good example, although a special trust may be set up there. It is important that powers should be given to the commission to have the widest possible area of responsibility for the heritage as a whole.
The Earl of Avon: The powers conferred by this amendment, which the noble Baroness explained to us, are wide ones, which would enable the commission to play a leading role in organising partnership schemes with a wide range of bodies or persons for the conservation of historic buildings and areas.
In so far as it is appropriate, the commission will be able to enter partnership schemes. It will have wide grant-making powers. In respect of any of these, it will be open to the commission to agree with another person or body appropriate ways in which they should use their grant money. There are specific legislative
970
powers for partnership with local authorities in relation to town scheme grants and these powers will transfer to the commission. Other grant-making powers do not have the same sort of provision because there is a limit to the delegation of grant administration which would be proper.
Nevertheless, there is nothing to prevent the commission from discussing with all appropriate bodies and persons ways in which their grant money might, within the normal rules, be co-ordinated. Indeed, there is everything to be said for doing so in many cases. Since they will have a full range of grant-making powers to enable them to fulfil their responsibilities, they will be able to make an equally wide range of such agreements. I hope the Committee will feel that this is sufficient and that we should not have a specific power which, in the view of the Government, goes too far. The commission will have many responsibilities. I think we ought to be careful about adding to them, or we shall make it difficult for the commission to perform its duties as well as we would wish.
After that discourse about what it can actually do, I do not think we are all that far from what the noble Baroness wishes. I hope, therefore, she will find that what I have suggested is acceptable.
Baroness Birk: I feel that I ought to be sure that there will be lively and positive encouragement for things to be done which have not always been done in the past. One way of trying to set about that was to put it in the Bill. The Minister has said that the powers are there for there to be guidelines which the commission could send out to other bodies in order to try to encourage very much more these types of partnership conservation. Although the powers may be there, if they are going to be the same powers as the HBC has, this work may not take place. To get it under way is the problem. It is not only a question of money but of having the staff and being able to find a way round it in order to set these things on the road. If nothing goes into the Bill about this it will cause me concern.
I do not know whether any other noble Lords have ideas as to the way this could come about without there necessarily being an amendment similar to the one which I have moved. If alternatives can be thought of I shall be prepared to consider them. The fact is that nothing is happening at the moment. With the setting up of the commission we are trying to find a way of encouraging it to happen.
5.49 p.m.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: I wonder whether the reply which the Minister gave to this amendment means that he intends to consider the position again. I believe he said that he is going to do so. However, the Minister referred also to the powers which the Government already have. At this stage I feel it is appropriate for me to air some of the anxieties of the President of the British Academy, the Master of Selwyn College and the Professor of Aerial Photography in Cambridge, who has done a great amount of work on ascertaining where old field monuments, which do not show above ground, are to be found. The anxiety is that the conservation areas to which this amendment refers, and to which the noble Earl the Minister referred

971
broadly in his reply, may not cover the tens of thousands of field monuments which, I am instructed by the President of the British Academy and his colleagues, have far greater potential for research and for the acquisition of new knowledge. Indeed, the two professors to whom I have referred wrote to me that, after reading Hansard, they wondered whether any noble Lords taking part in this debate realise that, while there are some 400 monuments in state care—comprising for the most part the ruins of great mediaeval buildings—and a large number of archaeological sites, there are also thousands and thousands of lesser field monuments which, they say, have far greater potential for research and for the acquisition of new knowledge.
I realise that the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, has written to the president of the British Academy to assist in this matter, and the noble Earl has replied very broadly to Amendment No. 99 which the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, has withdrawn. My intervention at this stage is merely to indicate the anxiety there is about the existence of field monuments which, I say for the third time, I am instructed by professors have far greater potential for research and for the acquisition of new knowledge than many of the monuments which are above the ground. I am sorry that I have not given notice of this question to the noble Earl, but perhaps he will consider this question of field monuments in the examination he is going to make.
The Earl of Avon: Of course I can give that undertaking to the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, and I will bear in mind what he has said. The noble Lord may have been in the Chamber when it was said that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has offered to iron out with the British Academy the various points it wishes to raise. In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, I thought she was really making a case for including this matter in Clause 30. Can we look at that point too?
Baroness Birk: Yes, certainly. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Birk Baroness Birk moved Amendment No. 103N:
Page 39, line 11, at end insert—
("9A. After section 6 of the 1953 Act there shall be inserted—
"Advice on capital transfer tax: buildings, land and objects.
6A. The Commission shall advise the Secretary of State on the eligibility of land in England to fall within paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of section 77 of the Finance Act 1976 with respect to its historic interest and buildings, land and objects in England to fall within paragraphs (c), (d) and (e) respectively of that subsection.".")
The noble Baroness said: This amendment takes us back to the financial area and deals with the question on the commission and capital transfer tax. The ancient Ancient Monuments Board and—much more frequently and more importantly—the Historic Buildings Council do give advice on the eligibility of buildings, the land adjoining them, and those of their contents which are claimed as being historically associated with the building, or for the purpose of condition exemption from capital transfer tax under legislation which I will not go into now because it is far too complex. This is an extremely important area, and
972
it has been of enormous help in the upkeep of houses and land in this country, as it was possible to claim exemption from CGT.
The first consultation paper put out by the department ignored this function, but in the last paper—The Way Forward—there was a paragraph on the subject, yet there is nothing in the Bill about it. Surely there is now a need to put something into the legislation to establish the commission's functions in this respect and to ensure that the commission can adequately perform them. Indeed, it must be hoped that the commission will be allowed to deal with claims in anticipation of transfer as the HBC once did before shortage of staff was said to be the reason for ceasing to provide such information, albeit on an informal basis. Such information is quite essential to the making of testamentary dispositions; that is to say, the writing of one's will. It is important that this aspect is carried forward in the legislation now before us because it is always fundamental to what happens in respect of the very many houses and areas of land which form such an enormous part of the heritage. I beg to move.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu: I support everything that has been said by the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, and should like to make one other point. In the struggle to keep up our great estates, which has been continuing for many years (and which involves many Members of this House), one of the most important things is the forward planning for those estates. In preparing a comprehensive conservation plan for the whole estate, it is very much better to know which land is to be exempt. There was a time when the Treasury made it possible to get advice of this kind, but, unfortunately, because of shortage of staff, such advice has not been so available recently, If such advice will be available from the commission in future, it should enhance the possibility of the countryside being conserved in a very much better way and of the owners co-operating in this.
The Earl of Avon: The Government fully intend that the commission should fulfil the role which this amendment would give it. The Government will need the expert advice of the commission on capital transfer tax matters, and specifically on whether buildings, land or objects fall within the scope of the exemptions given by the Finance Act 1976 to property of historic interest; we made this quite clear in The Way Forward, and this will be part of the commission's general advisory role. Their advisory powers are currently provided by paragraphs 1 and 40 of Schedule 4. However, the Government intend to bring forward at a later stage a revised advisory power which, while not being specific as to this or other detailed subjects, will fully cover what the noble Baroness has in mind. With this assurance, I hope that the noble Baroness will again be happy.
Baroness Birk; I thank the noble Earl for his reply, and on that basis I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 103P not moved.]
5.57 p.m.
The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 104:
Page 39, line 14, leave out from first ("the") to ("to") in line 16 and insert ("Commission are requested in pursuance of subsection (3) of this section").
The noble Earl said: This is a tiny technical amendment to the drafting of the provision in paragraph 10 of Schedule 4, which enables the commission to undertake the management of properties accepted by the Secretary of State as endowments of historic buildings. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 104A not moved.]
Baroness Birk Baroness Birk moved Amendment No. 104B:
Page 39, line 38, leave out (", with the consent of the Secretary of State,").
This amendment seeks to remove yet another control by the Secretary of State—this time on the acceptance by the commission of endowment property. It surely goes without saying that the commission itself would not be offered the endowment of a specific property if the commission did not own or manage that property. It is surprising in the light of this particular restriction that the Secretary of State does not take unto himself the power to reject voluntary contributions under Clause 30; maybe there will be an amendment moved to that effect. Surely it should be evident by now that if this commissison is to be established, it must be trusted. This control is a quibbling little matter. The phrase,
"with the consent of the Secretary of State"
has become such a regular one that people are beginning to write it in their sleep; perhaps it was written in someone's sleep on this occasion. I beg to move.
The Earl of Avon: We have taken the opportunity to reconsider this question and the noble Baroness will be pleased to hear that we can agree with her view.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Digby Lord Digby moved Amendment No. 104C:
Page 40, line 26, at end insert—
("Preparation of lists of gardens.
8B. The Commission and the appropriate Council shall prepare lists and plans of gardens, parks, designed landscapes and other lands which appear to them to be of special architectural, historic, artistic, silvicultural or horticultural interest and shall publish such lists and plans, with gradings, and may amend them from time to time for the purpose of identifying such gardens, parks, designed landscapes and other lands for the guidance of local authorities and other persons or bodies and their protection from damage by development in them or in their settings.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment is rather different from all those on gardens and parks which have been dealt with already; it refers to the listing of gardens. It must be evident that matters are not as they should be in this field. For example, there is much concern on the subject of the M40 motorway which is coming too close to Beckley Park and likewise to Farnborough Hall. Both are Grade I listed buildings, but that has not influenced the Departmment of Transport adequately. Had there been an effective system of listing for gardens, parks and designed landscapes, with due publicity, and plans to identify
974
the main features and the settings that also need due protection, the road engineers might have been more careful and much distress and trouble might have been saved. The Department of Transport itself would not have incurred so much expense in backing the wrong route. The route surely must be changed when the Secretary of State studies the inspector's report on the damage that will be done to these two properties. There are other cases to recall—Petworth, Chillingham—and there will be more unless gardens are listed.
Let us consider the practicalities for a moment. The Department have not smiled upon the idea that gardens should be listed. The difficulties, I suggest, are imagined rather than real. Already much work has been done with the Historic Buildings Council for Scotland in conjuction with the Countryside Commission for Scotland. Much work has been done on lists at the Institute of Advanced Architectural Studies at York; the Garden History Society has done work, and so have several local authorities. An actual list containing 200 gardens, parks and designed landscapes in this country has been prepared and published by the International Commission for Monuments and Sites. The preparation of this ICOMOS list was the last labour of love of the late Lord Rosse. All this work proves that the job can be done without undue difficulty.
I am anticipating remarks from my noble friend Lord Avon that we have put in again the question of arboricultural, silvicultural and horticultural interests. I can tell him that I had prepared another amendment, which I did not table because I felt your Lordships do not like manuscript amendments, but which would be available to him should he consider accepting it at a later stage. It differs from this one only in that the interests have been reduced to historic, architectural and artistic; that is the very important one, artistic. It also embraces Scotland and Wales, and to make it even more palatable I have put in "may" rather than "shall". I do feel that an attempt to list gardens and similar landscapes is of vital importance and I believe it can be done. I beg to move.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu: I should like to support this amendment. I remember some years ago discussing this matter with a senior civil servant from the Department of the Environment. He said it was impossible to do and there was no way of doing it. I thought at the time that this was a needlessly reactionary view to take. The fact is that it can be done. The noble Lord will be interested to know that his neighbouring county of Hampshire is doing this at the moment. In fact I was speaking only today to one of the planning officers, and 260 gardens are being listed at the moment in Hampshire. How they are doing it I do not know, but it can be done. If one county can do it, other people can do it.
It is very important, to my mind, that historic gardens are listed. They were mostly all man-made and made with the same skill and love and design as some of our great houses. We take great pride in our gardens in this country, and they are known worldwide. They have been disappearing at an alarming rate. I think it is essential that we should know what we have and that they should be listed in some way.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: I rise to support this amendment also. But I wonder whether it goes far enough. I wonder whether this proposed list would apply to those tens of thousands of field monuments to which I referred earlier, which have been discovered in particular by the professor of aerial photographic studies in Cambridge. I understand that these field monuments are considered to be of great historical importance and form the basis of research. This amendment refers to designed landscapes, and I should like to see it go a little wider to cover those field monuments which have nothing to show above the ground but which are, I am instructed by my professor friends at Cambridge, of such importance.
The Earl of Avon: The amendment which my noble friend described would require the commission and the Scottish and Welsh Historic Buildings Councils to prepare lists of gardens on an advisory basis. Such a procedure would potentially form a distraction to the new commission in its early years from what the Government see and I believe the Committee see as its major tasks. In particular the Government would not want to see anything slow up the programme of the accelerated listing re-survey which is now getting well into its stride.
I do not want to argue against the desirability of protecting historic landscapes. But the new commission will have to think carefully about its priorities and its use of resources and expertise. The Government see no reason why some work in the landscape field could not be done by the commission as part of its general advisory role. But the Government would hesitate to consider that such work, which would inevitably be partial and incomplete to begin with, needs specific legislative provision. If the new commission in time sees a pressing need for such provision, it will be able to ask for it, having been able to discuss and consider with other bodies in this field, such as the Countryside Commission, the extent of any remit that it might want.
What I really want to say to the Committee, while we are discussing these amendments, is that I do believe we should think very hard about how much we actually put into the Bill and tell the commission to do. I would consider this to be one of those things that they could certainly consider but which we need not legislate for. As my noble friend Lord Montagu told us, quite a lot of work is going on in an informal way. I understand that the HBC for England have been helping in this. I see no reason why it should not continue in an informal way. But I should hesitate to recommend the Committee to write this into the Bill.
Lord Digby: I thank my noble friend for that answer, but I am not entirely satisfied. I think I must ask him whether he would be prepared to accept this or some similar formula with the word "may", so that this will be available. I take his point that this commission is going to have a lot to do and it may not wish straight away to do anything about listing, but it would keep it in the mind and there is no reason why, if the word were "may", it should be implemented straight away. I hope my noble friend would consider something on those lines.
Lord Kennet: I should like to speak in favour of the word "may". It could be that the promoters of this amendment would also consider this. The point of listing in the case of buildings is that once a building is listed nobody is allowed to destroy or harm it without permission. I do not think there is anything in the Bill—I cannot be sure because I cannot understand the schedule—which suggests that the new commission will have any function in advising the Secretary of State on refusing or granting permission to demolish or harm historic gardens or landscapes. It may be that the actual listing should not be begun until it is proposed to give such a power to the commission or to the Secretary of State advised by the commission. I do think there is a case for putting in a "may" clause now, if only so that we do not have to come back and legislate all over again when it is judged that the time is ripe.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, about this. I think it is important to have something in, even if it is only purely permissive. The whole question of gardens, et cetera, is one which noble Lords may consider from some points of view even more urgent than the other extremely important matters which the noble Earl mentioned. It is still, thank God, fairly rare for major historical buildings to disappear without people noticing. It is not at all rare now for distinguished gardens and landscapes to be harmed, particularly the former. It is because they are the more ephemeral and the more worth noting—noting, that is, sometimes, in order that they may be restored. Some very important work has been done recently on the restoration of gardens, particularly, for instance, one or two of the gardens of the late Gertrude Jekyll.
In the whole of this area there is a necessity to keep this in the front of our attention so that we can watch what is going on, keep an eye on it, record what is there and not let this part of our heritage disappear or slip away in the way that it is only too easy for it to do. The noble Earl should look at this again, with the "mays" instead of the "shalls".
Baroness Birk: I add my support to this amendment. In view of what has been said by the Minister and the noble Lords who have just spoken it seems to me that it would be a very happy compromise all round if "may" is substituted for "shall". Certainly the most important place would be in the second line of the amendment. There is another "shall" further down which could also be changed to "may"—
"and may publish such lists and plans"—
and then there is,
"may amend them from time to time".
I agree with everything that has been said about the importance of gardens and keeping lists and plans because they, too, are not only a part of the heritage from the garden and landscape point of view, but are a part of history itself when they are recorded. It would be a pity to miss out on this altogether. I hope that now the amendment has been tempered with permissiveness the noble Lord will be able to give a happier answer.
The Earl of Avon: Speaking personally, I am very much in favour of what has been said because I am a great admirer of gardens, too. I will take this back to see whether I can obtain agreement to what the Committee so obviously wants to do. However, I must once again emphasise that the work we are considering now falls outside the basic remit in respect of ancient monuments and buildings. But having said that, and knowing the feelings of the Committee, particularly on design landscape as well as on gardens, I shall certainly have another look at this matter.
Lord Digby: I am most grateful to the Minister. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.14 p.m.
Baroness Birk Baroness Birk moved Amendment No. 104D:
Page 40, line 26, at end insert—
("Commission supervision of Property Services Agency.
8B.—(1) From time to time as it deems necessary the Commission shall cause all scheduled ancient monuments archaeological areas and buildings listed as being of special architectural or historic interest in the management or use of the Property Services Agency to be inspected.
(2) The Commission shall be consulted whenever necessary as it may decide and not less than annually by the Property Services Agency, at the cost of the Agency, as to the use and maintenance, proposed repair, restoration, alteration and extension of all such monuments, areas and buildings and on any proposal to demolish or damage them in whole or part and it shall advise the Agency as to their appropriate use and proper care and conservation.
(3) When, three years or more after the bringing into force of this Act, the Commission considers that any such monument, area or building is not being appropriately used and properly cared for and conserved it shall forthwith so notify the Secretary of State and refer to all such notifications in its annual report.
(4) This section shall also apply to all other Government Departments.".")
The noble Baroness said: This is quite a tricky but overdue amendment. I am quite aware that in talking about Government departments we are skating on thin ice, but I am afraid it has to be done. The amendment speaks for itself—quite eloquently, if I may say so. It is no secret to those who have anything to do with the Department of the Environment, with the Property Services Agency or with the historic buildings in the care of the department that to say that the PSA is not exactly renowned for its management of the many historic buildings in its care, in spite of notable exceptions, is rather an understatement.
The Earl of Avon: Oh!
Baroness Birk: It is no good the noble Earl saying, "Oh!"; I am afraid it is true. It is one of those unpleasant truths that have to be told occasionally, and the moment has come now, when we are talking of the transference of functions from the department to the commission. One can keep all this very much "in house" when one is working in a department and battering away on one's own, or with help, but now we are making this change the time has come to shake up the PSA a bit. It needs it.
I refer, for example, to the decayed and neglected state of many of the historic buildings in Chatham. The Ancient Monuments Board drew attention to this in its recent report. Visitors who have seen them have commented on this. I also refer to the state of the
978
historic buildings in Woolwich: and to the inept way in which architecturally and aesthetically the PSA sometimes treats buildings in its care. Unthinking alterations were made to the stable block at St. James's Palace. I am afraid—and I have seen this—repairs are sometimes effected at great cost with the wrong materials, so that yet more money has to be spent to put the damage right. Given good advice that damage could have been avoided and great economies made.
Often the advice that is given is very good, but the PSA do not take any notice of it. They are a very uncontrollable lot, and it is about time that somebody said so. If noble Lords do not believe it, they should go to Chatham and see the state of the roof there, and the alterations made to it. They should go to Woolwich; or to Chichester, to see where they have put up that Post' Office. I saw it, built and in use, but by then there was nothing I could do about it. I was Minister of the Department, and if it had been possible to kick it down I would have done so. It is absolutely appalling. There is no sensitivity to the surroundings. Your Lordships can see that this has been bubbling up for a long time, certainly in me. At the same time I must say that there are, on the other hand, because one must be fair, a great many successes. However, I am afraid the failures outnumber them, and the costs involved are astronomical.
I now refer to the amendment, having grasped the nettle very hard. Subsection (1) gives the commission the right to inspect. We can avoid any nonsense about security, because we can make sure that some of the commission's inspectors are positively vetted, although it does not necessarily follow that that will do any good. However, that is not the problem.
Subsection (2) places a requirement on the PSA to consult with the commission, at the PSA's own cost, which is quite right,
"as to the use and maintenance, proposed repair, restoration, alteration and extension"
of the buildings in its care, and on proposals to demolish any of them. All these aspects have to be taken into account if the great heritage of listed buildings in the PSA's control is to be looked after properly rather than allowed to decay, as is all too often now the case.
Subsection (3) gives the PSA time to set its house in order, with inspection by and consultation with the commission. It obviously cannot do that instantly. I am afraid the Augean Stables are far too large to be cleaned out in one fell swoop; time will be needed to sort everything out. Thereafter, the subsection requires reports to be made by the commission to the Secretary of State and to Parliament via the commission's own report. Frankly, this is a way in which the PSA can be not only controlled but harnessed, whereas a department is such a large section (and, as I have said before, a law unto itself) that that is extremely difficult.
Lest the PSA feels hard done by at being singled out—it probably does, and I do not blame it—subsection (4) applies to all other Government departments, because the PSA is not alone in neglecting and misusing the buildings in its care. The Home Office has some magnificent buildings in its care—mostly, unfortunately, attached to prisons—but they have been allowed to get into a parlous state.

979
The services do not have a particularly good record. They have many fine but neglected buildings in some of the restricted areas they control. The condition of these often pops up, and is reported in the press. One could also list the public utilities which always say that they do not have sufficient money. However, to be fair, the utilities are now taking a great interest in the environment and I know that many of the nationalised industries have appointed environmental directors. So there has been an improvement.
In Annex B to The Way Forward it says that it is essential that the commission be enabled to advise on the preservation and maintenance of historic buildings in the Government estate, and it proposes that it be given formal power to do so. The commission would, therefore, be concerned with matters concerning the fabric of these and other historic buildings and ancient monuments in the department's care and in the care of other Government departments. Therefore, for there to be buildings in the PSA's control or at least supervised by the commission is not a new thought. However, there is nothing yet in the Bill on that subject. Therefore, we need to ensure that not necessarily the exact words contained in this amendment but some words along these lines are contained in the Bill so that the buildings that are in the Government estate receive the care to which they are entitled because, God knows!, there is enough money spent on them as it is. I beg to move.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu: I should like to support the amendment in some degree. The noble Earl will remember that exactly two years ago I presented a report to the Secretary of State in my capacity as Chairman of the Working Group on the Alternative Use of Historic Buildings, and that report went into the subject of PSA buildings, railways and so on in some detail. One of our recommendations was that the PSA should start listing its own buildings. Therefore, I was delighted recently to see that the first volume of its publication has come out dealing with the buildings in its care in the North of England. It is a very fine publication which will, I gather, be followed by others covering the country.
The matter which I think is of importance is that the Government are going to look to the commission for advice on the historic buildings under its care. If they do not look to the commission, to whom will they look? If they are going to appoint a commission to be the expert on conservation of historic buildings, then they should use it to advise them.
Lord Sandford: I also would like to support this amendment, or the intentions behind it. There is a good deal in the architectural standards of the PSA which leave a good deal to be desired. I share very much with the noble Baroness a distaste for some of the modern buildings that it has put up—for example, post offices, telephone exchanges and so on—in highly sensitive central areas. But I do not think that that is something with which we can deal in this Bill, which is to do with heritage buildings. Nor do I think that we can deal with all the problems at once in this legislation.
What is required is that the commission should feel obliged, should feel under a duty, to advise the
980
Secretary of State on the more urgent matters that need to be looked into—and improved care by the PSA of its heritage buildings is certainly one of them. It ought also to advise the Secretary of State as to the scale and nature of the inspection that ought to be introduced, and gradually to put pressure on over the years and not try to seek to get a set framework in this Bill.
The Earl of Avon: The Government are aware, and I hope that they have been seen to be increasingly conscious, that many heritage interests express concern about the quality of conservation work carried out on the Government estate. Apart from the obvious point that resources are always limited, a good deal of this concern we believe is misplaced. So far as they are able, the PSA and other Government departments seek to take care of their historic property and much good work is done. I was rather hoping that perhaps the final curtain might be unveiled from our own frontage on our way in today so that we could see the superb work which they have done on that particular front.
It must be remembered that important as the care of the historic fabric is, it is the use of the buildings as hospitals, offices, et cetera which brings them within the responsibility of the PSA and Government departments, and that use—one could almost call them "working buildings"—will therefore inevitably have an edge in priority.
The Government think that the sweeping powers of inspection and statutory consultation envisaged by this amendment are inappropriate as between a ministerially appointed body and other Government departments. It is very unlikely that resources could be found to fund the necessary arrangements. And such rigorous oversight could well, at the end of the day, prove counter-productive.
The Government would prefer to see the commission proceed by advice and persuasion—and here I think I am at one with my noble friend Lord Sandford—being seen to be reasonable and responsible while still pressing the conservation case. The Bill already contains, in paragraphs 1 and 40 of Schedule 4, substantial advisory powers for the commission, and the Government have it in mind to widen those powers further. This has been particularly underlined by our discussion this evening. I feel that as attractive as the ideas of the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, may be, the way forward here is by advisory powers and that is the more likely way in which to make progress than the proposed amendment.
Baroness Birk: I thank the Minister for his reply. I mentioned the post office at Chichester merely as an example of what I consider to be architectural insensitivity. I did not consider that the putting up of modern buildings necessarily had anything to do with this Bill, although in that case it was put up in a conservation area. Therefore, it is in fact still relevant to the Bill.
The Minister brought in the question of finance and costs. I am absolutely convinced that if there were a tighter control from a commission which was specialist in the field in which it would be operating, then enough money could be saved and the work would be

981
so much improved that we would not have to worry about it costing more. In fact, there would be a saving which could perhaps be handed over to the commission to be used for conservation or to the conservation fund donated by the PSA.
I take the point about advice and consultation. But I would not like to feel that the matter was left quite as open as that. Somewhere in the Bill it should be laid down that some advisory routes should be worked out between the commission and the PSA, otherwise matters will just go on in the way in which they have up to now.
There is no doubt that there is everywhere both a feeling of disenchantment and grumbling. It is far better to have the PSA because when it is right it has the ways and means of showing that it is right. There are umpteen other examples, one of which is Richmond Terrace. It is practically finished—it has gone. It is an absolute disaster.
Therefore, there must be some mention of it in the Bill; it must not be so sotto voce that nothing is said to make it clear that the commission has a right to be consulted by the PSA and also to state its view. Here we move away from the question of whether it is part of a Government department. The commission, after all, has been set up by the Government; it is appointed by the Prime Minister. Unless this provision is included I can assure the Minister, with all the good wishes and hopes in the world, that nothing will be done. Somewhere in the Bill this must be stated.
On Question, amendment negatived.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Kennet Lord Kennet moved Amendment No. 104E:
Page 41, leave out lines 4 to 8.
The noble Lord said: With the leave of the Committee, I shall speak to Amendment Nos. 104E and 104F together. These amendments concern the conditions under which redundant churches may be transferred to the new commission, and Amendment No. 104F is concerned with land attached to redundant churches. I shall tell the Committee what I think the effects of the amendments would be. If I am wrong—because I cannot pretend to understand the effects of the schedule as it stands—then no doubt the noble Earl, Lord Avon, will correct me.
At present the law says that, when a church becomes redundant, the diocesan board of finance, which is its owner for this purpose, may produce a scheme for it to be acquired by the Secretary of State for the Environment on the Ancient Monuments Commission side, or may give it—and this is the more usual course—to the Redundant Churches Fund. The same applies to the land. The churches which have fetched up in direct Government ownership so far have, in fact, mainly been parts of churches or ruins of some distinction, though that is not invariably the case.
It is now, quite naturally, proposed under the Bill that instead of making over these churches to the Secretary of State, the diocesan boards of finance should make them over to the commission. At present the scheme between the diocesan board of finance and the Secretary of State as future owner is, naturally, not
982
subject to the approval of the Secretary of State because he himself is taking ownership. At present when the churches are passed to the ownership of the Redundant Churches Fund the approval of the Secretary of State is not required either.
The schedule to the Bill says that in the case of those churches that will now be given to the new commission, the approval of the Secretary of State shall be required, and in the case of those churches which continue to be given to the Redundant Churches Fund, it says nothing—namely, the approval of the Secretary of State will not be required in that case. The effect of the amendment, if I have it all right, is to remove the requirement for the Seceretary of State's approval in the case of those churches which are handed by the diocesan boards of finance to the new commission.
I move this amendment because I do not see why we should institute Secretary of State control over those churches without also instituting it over the churches which go to the Redundant Churches Fund, and I do not really see why either of them should be subject to the Secretary of State's approval. Things have continued quite well with the Redundant Churches Fund for 15 years or so now without that, and I should have thought that the new commission would fit into the same pattern without any trouble at all.
I expect the Minister may tell us that the Secretary of State wants to have that control in order that the commission should not take too many churches and thereby exhaust its funds or do anything rash in the way of acquisition from the diocesan boards of finance. To that, the answer is that the Redundant Churches Fund—of which I had the honour to be a member for some years—although always sorely tempted to take too many churches and so exhaust its funds early, has never in fact done so, even without the control of the Secretary of State to prevent it. In short, I submit that the new commission may be expected to be as responsible as the Redundant Churches Fund and that this nannying provision should be deleted. I beg to move.
The Earl of Avon: The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, is entirely right; the two amendments are both designed to remove the requirement for the commission to seek the Secretary of State's consent when entering into an agreement with the appropriate Church authorities to acquire and preserve a redundant church or land previously annexed or belonging to it.
Even though the specific aim of these two amendments is to remove that requirement, I think that these arguments follow the arguments that we had on Amendment No. 103G and Amendment No. 103M. If I may say so to the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, there is absolutely nothing sinister about churches requiring this permission by the Secretary of State. When there is any question of money going out, this is just something that runs throughout the Bill. That is all this particular requirement is.
I did not quite follow the noble Lord in his argument as to whether or not there is money involved when a redundant church is handed over. The theme throughout the Bill is that wherever the commission is taking on a capital expenditure, as it were, that is by the

983
Secretary of State's consent; but there is nothing sinister for churches. If the noble Lord can assure me that no money is involved in some of these transactions, I can look at that part again.
Lord Kennet: The Redundant Churches Fund receives a block grant to cover it for, I think, five years; then it is left to get on with its work and it spends the money over the five years as it thinks fit—not, indeed, on the acquisition of buildings, but on their maintenance once acquired. They come free to it and I imagine that, in this case equally the buildings will come free to the commission. No doubt their maintenance will cost some money, but I do not think that the Secretary of State would wish to have control over this or that little expenditure of £10,000 to maintain historic buildings, whether church or lay. Perhaps the noble Earl will be so good as to look at that again in the light of this information.
Lord Sandford: Although I am chairman of the Redundant Churches Committee of the Church Commissioners, I do not want to get involved in this discussion, but before we leave this paragraph I wonder whether my noble friend can answer me this question, not now but in writing. He will be aware that the Pastoral Measure, to which paragraph 13 refers, is dated 1968 and that last year we passed the Pastoral (Amendment) Measure. The amendment measure and this measure are now in the process of being consolidated by the Church authorities, and when that has been achieved they will come before the Ecclesiastical Committee, and so on. So we shall then be left with the business of the Church measure referred to being consolidated with its amendment measure, but the consolidation of the rest of this legislation pertaining to Schedule 4 not having been started but being urgently required, as the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, mentioned in connection with his first amendment this afternoon.
What I think we need to know is by what process these two sets of ecclesiastical legislation and secular legislation are to be kept in step. That is too difficult a question for my noble friend to answer now, but I should be grateful if he would write to me about it.
The Earl of Avon: With tremendous efficiency, I have a little note here but I cannot read it, so I shall write to my noble friend.
Lord Kennet: Am I correct in thinking that, in the light of the extra information that I was able to give him, the noble Earl is prepared to look at the possibility of deleting the Secretary of State's control in this respect, if not in others?
The Earl of Avon: Yes, I shall certainly look at it, but, as I think I have made clear, there is capital involved. That is the theme throughout the Bill, where the consent of the Secretary of State is included.
Lord Kennet: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 104F not moved.]
6.38 p.m.
Lord Kennet Lord Kennet moved Amendment No. 104G:
Page 43, line 9, at end insert—
(" (1A) In paragraph (aa) of subsection (1) after "of a" there shall be inserted "scheduled ancient monument or".
(1B) After subsection (1) there shall be inserted—
"(1A) For the purposes of subsection (1) above the setting of a scheduled ancient monument or listed building which is graded as "Grade I" or "Grade A" shall be taken as extending to not less than 500 metres radius from the boundaries of the curtilage of the monument or building and a planning application shall be regarded as affecting it if, without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) above, any part of the land or of the curtilage of any building to which the application relates falls within the setting so described.".)
The noble Lord said: This amendment does two things. First, it says that what ought to be done about informing the public and, indeed, the commission about planning applications within the setting of a historic building ought also to be done within the setting of an ancient monument. That is the first part of the amendment that I have tabled. Once again, I think that the effect of the present Bill as it comes before us is that people have to give notice of planning applications and all the rest of it and to take certain measures about publicity—and local authorities also have to take measures about publicity—within the setting of ancient monuments and historic buildings, but the word "setting" is nowhere defined.
It is my submission that it ought to be defined, and, in proposing the wording before the Committee, I have in mind—and this is perhaps something rather of a general principle which it may not be right to raise in the Committee stage of a Bill—that it would be a good idea to import a sort of flavour, if you like, of the French legislation into British law. All those Members of the Committee who follow historic buildings' systems in other countries and ours know that the old towns and cities of France are as well preserved as they are, not because they have a very tight control over this building or that or even over this conservation area or that: it is done by a simple rule of thumb method, which is to take the cathedral, or parish church, which is always a highly protected building in itself corresponding to a Grade I listed building in our country, and say that within a radius of 500 metres of that nothing shall be touched or changed without express planning permission. This it is that keeps the French townscape so marvellous. I say nothing of the countryside in France and of those bits of French towns and cities which do not have the benefit of standing within 500 metres of a monument classé, which is the French for Grade 1 listed building.
It would be beneficial if we could say that what we mean by the area within which full publicity must be given for planning permission is that very same 500 metre radius circle. Its chief advantage is that it is easy to administer. There are no questions asked; no arguments about it. You just put a compass on the cathedral, or whatever it is, and draw your circle and that is the publicity zone for applications, as we might call it. It does not say anything about whether or not permission should be granted or not granted within that circle, only that more people shall know about it than if the premises in question did not stand within that circle.
The catastrophic history of Beverley in recent years would probably have not been the same if Beverley Minster had been used as the centre of a circle around which everybody was to be apprised before any planning permissions were allowed to go forward. I am not sure that I have the wording right about Grade I and Grade A. I have vague knowledge—and I apologise for not having been able to look it up—that church buildings in use as churches, although they are listed, are listed according to a categorisation which differs somewhat from that used for lay buildings. If so, I apologise. If the Government accept the principle of the 500 metre radius circle, I should be happy to withdraw the amendment in the hope that we can get the right wording at the next stage. I beg to move.
The Earl of Avon: As the noble Lord, Lord Rennet, said, this amendment seeks to define the term "the setting of a listed building" in relation to the requirements on local authorities to publicise applications for planning permission which they consider would affect the setting of a listed building. The amendment restricts the new definition to Grade I listed buildings, but as a totally new departure extends the publicity requirements to all scheduled ancient monuments. I am not sure that that is what the noble Lord intended.
The problem here is that this is a major alteration to existing planning legislation, and I do not believe that it is appropriate to make such an amendment in this Bill. Nevertheless, the Committee might find it helpful if I comment on the terms of the amendment. The present arrangements for publicity set out in Section 28 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 are amplified in respect of the setting of buildings by paragraph 26 of Department of Environment Circular 23/77. This advises local authorities to be flexible in their interpretation of "setting" and recommends that where there is doubt the local authority should publicise. I believe it is better to allow for flexibility rather than to enshrine in statute a limit which often, however worded, gets treated as both a minimum and maximum. From that point of view I do not believe the amendment would help. There is also the question of applying these povisions to scheduled ancient monuments, many of which are only mounds in the ground. Publicity for these would seem to be difficult. I gather from the noble Lord that this is a probing amendment. I do not think I may have fully answered all his points, but I shall read what he has said.
Baroness Birk: I should like to support the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, in his amendment. Whether or not the amendment is slightly defective from the Government's point of view, the principle it enshrines is important. The noble Lord initiated a debate on Beverley, and I remember trying with him to see whether we could do something about it. It was thought that it was quite impossible. Unless one does lay down something like this it is difficult.
I see the Minister's problem. The amendment goes rather wide. It is possible that one might be able to build in a limitation of visibility, so that if you can see the building from across the street, or within a visual purlieu, then it would have to be referred to the commission. I am thinking of the point made by the Minister about the number of referred applications.
986
Whichever way it is done, or not done, something must be done about this particular problem, otherwise we are going to lose so much of, if you like to call it that, our referred heritage. The curtilage of a building is as important because it is part of a building. Can the Minister take this back and undertake to come forward with something which would deal with this sort of case? Beverley is a first-class example of where there was no way of saving something although any civilised person would realise that something should be done about it.
Lord Sandford: The system in the noble Lord's amendment has some merit, but I think mainly in France and not in England. In France, where their secteurs sauvegarde's—the equivalent of our conservation areas—can be numbered in scores, 100 or perhaps 200, there is certainly some merit in having this protective circle round Grade I buildings. However I submit to the Committee that in this country, where conservation areas are numbered in thousands, we need a different form of protection, and in the great majority of cases that would be more effective than what is proposed.
Lord Kennet: May I disagree with what the noble Earl, Lord Avon, said about this being a major change in planning legislation. I think that that is an exaggeration. It is a minor change in planning legislation. It does not affect who may give permission for what, or when, or on what grounds. That is what I would call a major change. It simply changes the area in respect of which certain people have to be informed about planning applications. I would call it a minor change.
I still think that it is a good idea on the belt and braces principle, but I take into account what the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, said about the conservation areas. I also take note of what the noble Earl, Lord Avon, said for the Government about ancient monuments being often mounds in the ground miles from anywhere, and you do not want a 500-metre zone round all of those, I agree. Can the noble Earl go so far as to say that he would look sympathetically at the motion if we came up with another amendment on Report after discussion, taking into account everything that has been said?
The Earl of Avon: I shall certainly be prepared to look at anything that the noble Lord puts up again, and consult in the meantime.
Lord Kennet: I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Kennet Lord Kennet had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 104GA:
Page 43, line 9, at end insert—
("(1A) In paragraph (aa) to subsection (1) after "of a" insert "scheduled ancient monument or".
(1B) After subsection (1) there shall be inserted—
"(1A) For the purposes of subsection (1) above the setting of a scheduled ancient monument or listed building which is graded as "grade I" shall be taken as extending to not less than 500 metres radius from the boundaries of the curtilage of the monument or building and a planning application shall be regarded as affecting it if, without prejudice to the generality of

987
subsection (1) above, any part of the land to be developed by the raising of a building thereon or of a building to be externally altered falls within the setting so described and—

(a) is in direct sight as between any part of the scheduled monument or listed building and any part of any building to be raised or altered; or

(b) can be seen at the same time by an observer at ground level as the scheduled monument or listed building.".").

The noble Lord said: I must apologise to the Committee. In the heat of the moment I have lost my Marshalled List of Amendments. The amendment is not moved. Perhaps I can come back to it at a later stage.
[Amendment No. 104GA not moved.]
6.49 p.m.
Lord Kennet Lord Kennet moved Amendment No. 104H:
Page 43, line 14, at end insert ("and copies of the application and of all plans and documents submitted with it shall be sent to the said Commission forthwith on its request or general direction.").
The noble Lord said: A friend has come to my rescue. This is an amendment which seeks to improve the documentation submitted by local authorities and applicants in the case of an application for planning permission in this sort of area, however defined. The Bill simply says that they have to send copies of the application to the commission. This amendment would provide that they also had to send copies of the supporting documentation and plans, and so on. It seems no more than a courtesy move, or an efficiency move, towards the commission that they should be in possession of the full facts instead of just a resume of them. I beg to move.
The Earl of Avon: Was the noble Lord speaking at the same time to Amendment No. 104J?
Lord Kennet: They are really dealing with separate points, and, therefore, I should prefer to deal with them separately.
The Earl of Avon: Amendment No. 104H would place a burden on local authorities by requiring them to send to the commission copies of plans and documents relating to planning applications affecting conservation areas, which have to be publicised, and then to allow the commission a period of 28 days in which to consider them. The commission would, furthermore, be able to extend this period, at its own direction, up to three months.
Perhaps I may be permitted to trespass a little outside the noble Lord's remarks and, in so doing, explain my point of view, and then he can, if he wishes, come back on it to me. Of course, the commission should be kept informed of such applications. That is why we have provided in the Bill for copies of notices to be sent to them. But what is suggested here is the sort of burden on local authorities that the Government wish to avoid. If, on receiving notification of a planning application from a local authority, the commission decide they would like copies of the relevant documents, they may of course obtain them, as may others. This should surely be their decision, taken in the light of the circumstances of the individual application.
988
They will then be able, if they wish, to study the papers and form a view, and I have no doubt they will be in touch with the local authority very swiftly if they consider there are important issues involved on which their voice needs to be heard. That voice and their influence on local authorities in these cases will depend greatly on the relationship that develops between them. We believe that that relationship will not be helped by a statutory imposition such as is proposed. Having explained our feeling on the matter, I hope I have gone some way to answer the point the noble Lord raised.
Lord Kennet: It is true that it would place a burden on local authorities if the amendment were adopted. But if it is not adopted, a burden is placed on the commission, and that burden is the burden of looking at the roughest headline of an application and trying to guess whether it is about something on which they should have a view, and then, on the basis of that guess, writing to the local authority asking for the authority to send them material which will enable them to decide whether they should have a view about it.
I agree it is a trade-off between inconvenience for local authorities and inconvenience for the commission. I do not think the Bill as drafted has it quite right, and I hope it might be possible to find a halfway house whereby the local authority should automatically send to the commission a little more information than the sort of bald notice which we see stuck up on gates, nailed to trees around the streets. That is all they are bound to send at the moment.
The Minister also went over some of the area covered by the next amendment, No. 104J, and I agree that he was right to do so because it would give the commission more than the time allotted in the Bill within which to answer, or be deemed to have no interest. This is a familiar problem in the conservation world. If you are not allowed to do something until somebody says you can do it, that is clear and the law usually provides that, if you have not been told that you may do it within a certain number of months—it is usually in terms of months—then you may appeal against deemed refusal. That is what happens with listed buildings at present.
The applications with which we are dealing here, as the Bill is framed, will leave the commission in the position that if it does not answer within three weeks, or whatever the period is, then it will be supposed to have no interest in the matter. Consider what that involves. It means that if the notification goes astray the commission has no interest in the matter; if the person who should be forming an opinion in the commission is away sick and they do not get the answer back in time, then the commission has no interest in the matter; if the typist who types the letters for the person who is supposed to have an opinion is away sick, then the commission has no interest in the matter. That is exactly the situation we had before the Planning Act 1968 about listed buildings themselves, and through that (as I used to call it) sick typist loophole we were losing hundreds of listed buildings; but that was stopped when it became necessary for local authorities to give express permission for demolition or change.

989
I should like to see the same sort of provisions adopted for the commission. It is quite a simple matter: if the commission has not answered within a reasonable period, then it is deemed to have returned an unfavourable opinion and must be persuaded to change its mind if the development is to go ahead. I think that is the right way to proceed. We cannot, in matters of this importance, risk a postal accident, illness or sheer mistake, to the extent that the Bill does, allowing things to slip through the net.
The Earl of Avon: I rest on what I said originally; namely, that we do not like the idea that the commission itself would, under Amendment No. 104J, require local authorities to allow them a period of 28 days in which to consider an application, with the period then being able to be extended, at the commission's own direction, up to three months. I think that would be a difficult one. We think the balance in the Bill is the honest answer: that the commission should be kept informed of such applications—and that is why, in the Bill, we have provided for notices to be sent to them. As the noble Lord himself said, he would be going a step further, and on the whole the Government would seek not to do that.
Lord Kennet: Those are hard words, and will cause disappointment among those who expect great things of the commission. I shall withdraw the amendment in the hope that we may have some contact with the noble Earl between now and the next stage, when perhaps a middle course can be drawn.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 104J not moved.]
[Amendment No. 104K had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
6.58 p.m.
Baroness Birk Baroness Birk moved Amendment No. 104KA:
Page 43, line 14, at end insert—
(" 16A. After section 34 of the 1971 Act there shall be inserted—
"Commission to receive copies of local authority planning applications re listed buildings
34A.—(1) In England a local authority shall as soon as may be and in any case within seven days send the Commission for Ancient Monuments and Historic Buildings for England a copy of any application for planning consent that it makes with respect to any listed building (or part thereof) or building (or part thereof) in a conservation area or Scheduled Ancient Monument in its ownership, control or management or with respect to which it is a prospective purchaser.
(2) Any such copy of an application shall be sent complete with copies of all plans and documents submitted with it on the making of the application.
(3) This section also applies to any application for planning consent made by any body or person with respect to such a building or monument in such ownership, control or management.
(4) The Commission shall advise the Secretary of State, or the local planning authority as appropriate in the circumstances of the case, on the merits of the application and he, or they, as the case may be, shall not determine it until he, or they, have received that advice.".").
The noble Baroness said: This amendment, dealing with planning applications and local authority property, is tabled to draw attention to the need for the commission to know about planning applications that
990
are made to cover listed buildings which are themselves in the ownership or control of local authorities. Such applications might be made either by a local authority itself or by someone else with respect to a building owned by the local authority.
It would be naive to suggest that there are no occasions when local authorities allow their judgment to be swayed by local political considerations, even though they might feel that that was for the welfare of the community. However, listed buildings are really outside the political arena—apart from the fact that they do not have any voting value—and whatever happens to them cannot easily be repaired, and certainly the result of their demolition cannot be made good. The commission should, one hopes, be above political influences, but since decisions on planning applications can greatly influence the fate of a listed building, it is right that the commission should be allowed to keep an eye on, and advise about, such applications.
The amendment simply seeks to ensure that the commission is fully informed of such applications; it needs to see plans and documents rather than be fobbed off with a mere notice. Neither the local authority nor the Secretary of Stale, for that matter, should determine such an application until the commission has given its views. The commission should not make the final decision, but at least it should have the opportunity to state its views. In practice alterations to Grade I and Grade II buildings will be known about by the commission through listed buildings consent control. However, the commission will not know about alterations to Grade II buildings, either with respect to the necessary listed building consents or the planning applications, unless something is done about it. All we are asking for is that the commission should have the relevant information. I beg to move.
The Earl of Avon: Paragraph 16 of Schedule 4 requires that where a local planning authority, under Section 28 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971, has to advertise a planning application which, in its opinion, would affect the character or appearance of a conservation area, or the setting of a listed building, it shall send a copy of the advertisement to the commission. That will then enable the commission, if it so desires, to make representations, but it does not interfere with the duty of the authority to determine the application in the light of the representations received from the commission, or from other bodies. In other words, the commission is enabled to make its views known without any interference with the planning authorities' duty to determine the application within eight weeks, or such longer period as may be agreed with the applicant.
The new clause goes much further, in that it seeks to cover a wider range of development proposals, and requires the local planning authority to send to the commission not a copy of any advertisement of the proposals, but a copy of the proposal itself, together with copies of plans and documents accompanying the application. Paragraph 4 seeks to prevent the Secretary of State from determining the application until the commission's advice is received, although responsibility for determination will rest with the local

991
planning authority unless, exceptionally, the Secretary of State has exercised his powers of calling in the application for his own determination.
Where the local authority proposes to carry out development of a class to which Section 26 would apply if it were the subject of a normal planning application, then the local authority is obliged, under the general regulations, to advertise it. It is right that the advertisement, in this case, should be copied to the commission, and we shall examine the regulations to see whether an amendment is necessary to meet this point. But the amendment goes much wider than that; it requires the commission to advise on each case brought to its attention, whether or not it thinks that such advice is necessary, and it gives it effective control over the period in which the application will be determined.
We have all along thought that it would not be right for the commission, a body appointed by the Secretary of State, to intervene in the decision-making process of democratically elected bodies or persons. The commission will be able to advise local authorities or the Secretary of State if it sees fit, but, as with so many aspects of its work, the influence that it is able to exert will, and should, depend on the good relations that it is able to build up with local authorities. This is not an area in which we believe that legislation is necessarily very helpful, and indeed the Government do not consider that it would be right to make this substantial amendment to the planning system in the Bill. I hope that, with that explanation, the noble Baroness will feel that she does not have to press the amendment.
Baroness Birk: I certainly do not intend to press the amendment, though I do not think that the position is quite satisfactory. Perhaps the amendment is rather too sweeping, but I should like to find a way in which the commission would have a proper sight of planning applications that relate to listed buildings. Perhaps the Minister will have consultations and consider coming back with a proposal that does not take in quite so large an area, but deals with the kernel of the point. I think that that might be satisfactory.
Lord Sandford: Before my noble friend responds to the noble Baroness, I should like to say that I believe the view of the planning authorities would certainly be that they do not want to be delayed in coming to decisions on applications with all due despatch. There is, very properly, tremendous pressure on planning authorities to handle planning matters expeditiously. Certainly it is entirely appropriate for the commission, if it is created, to be given an opportunity to exercise its advisory role in relation to both the Secretary of State and the local authorities. The safeguard for those who feel that there are important heritage issues which must be protected is that the Secretary of State can intervene, either on his own initiative or after having heard the advice of the commission, and call in the application. There is a distinction between that and the executive actions of the planning authorities, or the Secretary of State, if he calls in an application, which must not be unduly delayed or interrupted. I believe that the balance in the Bill provides for the commission to exercise its advisory functions, and to do so in
992
a way that does not impede the settling of planning applications with proper despatch.
The Earl of Avon: I thought that in her remarks the noble Baroness covered much that was covered earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Kennet. I said that I would see what I could do for the noble Lord, and so of course I can keep the noble Baroness informed. As I said to the noble Lord, the Government have proposed the approach that is set out, and, as can be seen from the remarks of my noble friend Lord Sandford, there is quite a lot of backing for it.
Baroness Birk: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Skelmersdale: On that happy note of amity, perhaps I may now move that we break for the dinner recess and resume the House. The Committee stage of the National Heritage Bill will not be resumed until five minutes past eight at the earliest. I beg to move.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Electricity (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Bill
7.7 p.m.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (The Earl of Mansfield): My Lords, this Bill makes provision for the statutory limit on the borrowing of the Scottish electricity boards to be increased from £1,950 million to £2,700 million. The boards operate a joint generating agreement to enable them to run the most efficient power stations in Scotland at any one time to meet demand throughout Scotland, and it is therefore appropriate that, as has been the case since 1963, there should be a joint statutory limit on the borrowing required by both boards to finance the programme. Also, in accordance with established practice, the Bill makes provision for an interim borrowing limit of £2,300 million, which may be exceeded only once an order to extend the limit has been made. Such orders are subject to affirmative resolution procedure in another place. The interim limit which is likely to be reached during 1986 may either be increased directly to the final limit of £2,700 million, or increased by a smaller amount, leaving the move to the final limit to be made by order at a later stage. The opportunity is therefore provided at these times to review the boards' performance in relation to the borrowing limits.
Borrowings against the existing limit of £1,950 million amounted to almost £1,544 million at the end of November, and it is expected that the current limit will be reached some time during 1983–84. The order bringing into operation the existing upper limit was made earlier this year. Noble Lords might then wonder at the reasons for proposing a further increase in such a short space of time.
The boards' borrowing requirements are determined mainly by the level of their capital expenditure and the extent to which this can be financed from internal resources. The South of Scotland Electricity Board is currently building a new

993
nuclear power station at Torness, and because power stations are very expensive to build, it would be unreasonable to assume that the board could find the necessary internal resources without having recourse to borrowing. Although this Bill is needed to finance these borrowing requirements for this undertaking, there are also other capital projects carried out by the boards. Existing power stations require refurbishment, while the maintenance and upgrading of their extensive transmission and distribution lines are other major areas which require outlay of capital by the boards. The North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board may not have any large construction programme under way but, if it is to be encouraged in its research and development of renewable sources of energy and other worthy schemes including distant islands connections, then it must have the necessary funds available for such projects.
The boards are to be congratulated on their good record in the efficiency of their operations particularly when one considers that many of their costs, particularly the fuel element, are outwith their control. Following the conclusions of the review of the bulk supply tariff in England and Wales, the Scottish boards, in line with those South of the Border, have agreed not to increase the average level of their prices in 1983. The boards have also been active in seeking to help intensive users of electricity within their area by introducing a special load management scheme and a number of companies are now enjoying lower fuel bills as a direct result of their participation.
The boards have been criticised for their record in disconnecting consumers who have failed to pay their electricity bills. However, noble Lords will realise that, like any commercial organisation, a high level of debt causes increased charges to those consumers who do pay their bills on time. The boards operate their disconnection policy within the terms of the code of practice; and independent surveys by the Policy Studies Institute and the Electricity Consultative Councils in Scotland have confirmed that they obey both the letter and the spirit of the code. As matters of fact, the total number of disconnections in Scotland have fallen from 17,881 in the year ending November 1981 to 14,903 in the year ending November 1982 and the number of consumers being assisted by the DHSS scheme for direct payment of fuel bills by those on supplementary benefits has risen from 23,332 in 1981 to 33,652 in 1982. This Bill will enable the boards to borrow the sums necessary to permit their required investment to be undertaken and I therefore commend it to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(The Earl of Mansfield.)
7.12 p.m.
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, I would not dream of opposing this Bill. In fact, I am surprised that we are having a debate at all on it. I should have thought that this would have been ruled as a Money Bill, but I gather that it has not been so ruled. Certainly in another place there was quite a lot of discussion which, to my purist mind, would have been well outside the rules of order normally in relation to
994
Money Bills. But it gives the Government an opportunity of explaining it. I think that it is easy to explain when you are building a nuclear station at Torness, whether people like it or not, that it is going to cost a lot of money. I think that that is the more important part rather than the research and development for the North Border zone.
One or two interesting things are certainly happening there and I should not like to see them being discontinued for lack of money. On the point of disconnections, there have been some complaints in some areas about the code of practice not being properly followed. I remember that it was very troublesome a few years ago, but I am glad to have the assurance of the Minister that we are looking into this and watching it carefully. It is rather shattering to find that there are 33,000 people dependent on the DHSS for payment of their electricity bills. It is an indication of the increased poverty and of the spread of unemployment.
A very important statement was made by the Electricity Council in England the other day about standing charges. We have not heard anything at all about any relief being given in Scotland. If the Minister or the Secretary of State have not had any queries about it, I should be very surprised because it is the kind of situation where if you give some relief in England and Wales and do not give it in Scotland, then, once certain people have stopped rowing among themselves, they might appreciate that here is another insult, or something like that, to Scotland. Perhaps the Minister could say a word about that; but, generally speaking, I support the Bill.
The Earl of Mansfield: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord for his welcome to this Bill. There is only one matter which I need take up and that is the matter of the standing charges. As the House will know, in England and Wales the effect of the new pronouncement will be that standing charges will be limited to 50 per cent. of one bill. In Scotland we have a rather different system. The South of Scotland Electricity Board do not have a standing charge but they operate a two-part tariff which is rather more favourable—I was going to say "to the poor consumer"; but I am not sure that that is right—to the consumer of low quantities of electricity than is the standing charge. The North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board have a standing charge, but I understand that both Scottish electricity boards will be considering the implications of the Electricity Councils request to area boards in England and Wales to implement this proposal. I am advised that they will complete their deliberations before very long.
On Question, Bill read a second time; Committee negatived.
Then, Standing order No. 43 having been suspended (pursuant to Resolution of 16th December) Bill read a third time, and passed.

Lands Valuation Amendment (Scotland) Bill
7.18 p.m.
The Earl of Mansfield: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. This is a short

995
measure which I anticipate will be welcomed in all parts of the House. We are seeking through it to nullify the unintended consequences of a repeal made by the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1975. The Bill itself is a rather technical measure and perhaps I may proceed to its important consequences by way of its technical complexitites, over which I will try to pass quickly.
The Local Government (Scotland) Act 1975 repealed the four words "save as herein provided" from Section 42 of the Lands Valuation (Scotland) Act 1854. Section 42 is an important provision in Scottish valuation statutes because the principal definition of "lands and heritages" subject to valuation is enshrined in it. For our purposes today, Section 42 still defines "plant or machinery fixed or attached to lands or heritages", particularly in a building occupied by any trade, business or manufacturing process.
Now, the four words in question, "save as herein provided" constituted a barrier between the definition of plant that was always to be in valuation and that of plant that was never to be in valuation. The removal of the barrier in 1975 meant that the definition of plant always in valuation——
"plant for producing or transmitting first motive power or for heating or lighting such a building"——
became coloured by the definition of plant that was never to be in valuation; that is, movable plant or, in the words of the Act.
"machines tools or appliances which are only so fixed that they can be removed from their place without necessitating the removal of any part of the building".
A possible consequence of the 1975 repeal was therefore that some internal plant for the production or transmission of first motive power or for heating or lighting a building, plant that was movable, might be brought out of valuation.
The first indication of this effect of the 1975 Act came only in April of this year when the Lands Valuation Appeal Court found that certain Post Office generators in wireless stations in Orkney, being movable in terms of the 1854 Act, ought not to be in valuation. Scottish assessors were quick to appreciate that this decision could have a wide application and would, without intervention, ignite a whole series of appeals, as manufacturing companies sought to take plant out of valuation. Later on the decision would require assessors to carry out a survey of such plant all over the country in preparation for the revaluation planned for 1985. Our local authorities became concerned about the potential loss of rate income from all these appeals. Two regions prepared their own estimates for loss of valuation; their estimates agreed, and when we applied them to Scotland we estimated a loss of rateable value of the order of £31 million and a consequent loss of rate income amounting to almost £40 million.
The local authorities made representations to have the previous position restored as quickly as possible. In fact, they asked to have it done retrospectively to avoid the other appeals that might have been made for the period prior to the court's decision in April of this year and going back at least as far as the beginning of the present valuation roll in April 1978.
996
Noble Lords will see from Section 1(1) that the four words in question are deemed never to have been repealed. The provision will have effect for the whole of the current valuation period and so avoid the uncertainty, the abortive work for assessors' departments and the serious loss of rate income for local authorities that would otherwise have ensued.
Its retrospection is only one of the Bill's interesting features; there are two others. First, the electric motors taken out of valuation by the 1975 Act are protected against any consequence of restoring the four words; and, secondly, Section 1 (2) ensures that any successful appellant will enjoy the benefits of his court action up to the time the Bill is enacted. After its enactment he will be on the same footing as other ratepayers. Our primary aim has been to limit the spread of the damage through a series of appeals based on the April judgment. We have tried to do this without cancelling the judgment itself or removing its basis at the time.
Finally, let me say that the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities supports the Bill strongly in its present retrospective form; and the CBI, whose members will have to give up a prospective, if uncovenanted, advantage, has shown understanding and is not opposing the Bill. Accordingly, I commend this short but useful measure to the House. It has already had a fair wind and a speedy passage in another place. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(The Earl of Mansfield.)
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords. I suppose I should come to the penitence stool, because I was Secretary of State when the 1975 Bill went through. Confession is always good for the soul—and probably even more good at Christmas. I commend it, therefore, to the Minister himself. There is no doubt at all about it: this machinery causes, potentially, a substantial loss to local authorities in Scotland in rateable revenue. It is because of the aspect of the removable plant and machinery for heating and lighting in buildings used for trade, business and manufacturing. The result of the dropping of that particular phrase meant that they were no longer subject to valuation.
Coming to the Bill, the Minister said that everyone would welcome it. I wonder how many people understood it. I have come across only one Scottish peer who took any interest in it, and he regrets that he is not here tonight. However, he asked me to draw attention to that wonderful sentence on page 1, which begins at line 5 and wanders right through to line 14. It does not end at line 14, by the way. There is not a single comma or anything else. I do not know whether the Minister was here last week, but I am sure he will be interested in a debate that we had on making the law understood. I think it was the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, who read us part of some DHSS legislative literature. I reckon that this one is even better, because here we have 10 lines, taking from line 5 to line 14, in which we cover a century and a quarter of valuation history.
We start in 1854; we pause in 1902; and then we have a deliberate look at the 1975 Act. Then we decide that changes have to be made—and what delightful

997
changes they are! The draftsmen ought to be commended on what they have said here. Having looked at the Act of 1975, they say in the Bill that the words
"are hereby revived and shall … be deemed for all purposes never to have been so repealed".
This is changing history indeed.
Of course, it will be appreciated that there has been a court case and a decision, and we must not fall foul of the courts. Even the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, is inclined to say a word or two about Parliament taking action on this. So they cover the point about someone having received a favourable decision and getting the benefit of that until the Act is passed. Then they do not miss out what is going to happen thereafter. I think I am right in saying that the important provision is Clause 1(4), which again goes back to the 1975 Act—I think Section 2(1)(d), which gave the assessor power, on a material change of circumstance, not to wait until there is a revaluation but forthwith to alter the valuation roll. This is why the Minister can say, "You will get your benefit until this Act is passed and thereafter until the decision is made by the assessor".
Very considerable sums are involved. I do not wonder at the local authorities being concerned. Mind you, it would have been helpful to industry. It would not have been all that helpful to the Treasury, because if industry are being relieved of their valuation it means that the Treasury will not be relieved to the same extent. Remember that in Scotland manufacturing industry pay only 50 per cent. rates. They are still de-rating. It is a divided benefit for the Treasury; but there is no doubt at all of the very considerable benefit and the easing of a headache for local authorities, which are looking for everything that they can get.
Many people in Scotland were thrilled at the title of this Bill: Lands Valuation Amendment (Scotland) Bill. Take, for instance, the racecourses. They have been howling for years about the need to get a valuation amendment Bill because they think that they are unfairly judged in respect to how they are assessed. I happen to live in Ayr, and I know the racecourse very well. I know the problems that Mr. McHarg has with the finances of keeping that going. They have been howling for quite a long time about the burden of rates.
I do not know whether the Minister of State noticed it, but there was a very important gentleman representing Scottish football in the Palace of Westminster last week. He was Mr. Desmond White, the chairman of Celtic Football Club. He was speaking not only for Celtic but for many other clubs as well which feel very considerably the burden of rates on football grounds. They have been urged by the police and the Government—and instructed by the Government, of course—to improve the safety aspects of their football terraces. They do so, and then along comes the assessor and up goes the burden of their rates. They are appealing and they are hoping for a Lands Valuation Amendment (Scotland) Bill. I think it would have been fair, since on the one hand we are giving this £40 million that was in danger to the local authorities. The Government might have spared a
998
thought for some of these very important sports which are very hard-pressed in terms of rates. It can be done here by amendment.
Once again we have to express our appreciation of the efficiency of the draftsman in ensuring that all that is done in the Title of the Bill is to amend the definition expressed—an expression of the machinery, fixed or attached. Beyond that we cannot go and I would not dream of going, but I draw the point to the attention of those who are interested in valuation—and let us remember that we are, I trust, considering the future of the whole valuation system. At one time we were to have in Scotland in the next few years a revaluation covering only the non-domestic side. Now we are to have no revaluation at all, and so the Government make up their minds by leaps and bounds.
The reason why we are not having a revaluation is because the Government are seriously considering their manifesto commitments about wiping out domestic rates altogether. I do not think they have been able to simplify that to the extent of saying exactly how the burden is going to fall on industrial ratepayers and others concerned. It is not a simple thing, but they made the pledge, and of course it is simpler to make pledges than to carry them out. I think they are probably discovering that now, and they will be lucky if they have formulated their thoughts about future valuation and rates, be it in England, Scotland or Wales or anywhere else, before they get to writing their next manifesto. I hope they will be a little more careful in respect of that one.
There is no doubt that this has been welcomed mainly by the local authorities and accepted, if not welcomed, by the CBI. I do not think all their members appreciated what the possibility of advantage was going to be as a result of court rulings; but I think the Government have done the right thing in respect of this. I wonder why these words were dropped in 1975. I remember that a change was made in valuation referring to heating of homes, and that is one of the things which I am very much concerned about. If a person puts in the normal type of central heating in any house in Scotland he immediately finds that his valuation is put up by the assessor. But at one time we made a change in respect of space heaters that could be removed without any damage to the house. Whether it was the removal of that which led to the business of the change, I do not know. It may have been the judgment that the words just were not necessary and the law was clear as it was. Whatever the change was, with the decision of the courts and the danger of this loss of £31 million in rateable value and a possible £40 million in revenue, I am very glad indeed that the Government have given us this. Somebody must have been working in the Scottish Office. I am very glad to see that because in the Explanatory Memorandum it says:
"Precise quantification of such loss is not possible",
so somebody has been working overtime in the Scottish Office on this and I am very glad to give full marks to them. I certainly do not oppose the Bill.
Lord Mancroft: My Lords, I apologise for intervening in this debate without having put down my name to speak. I am tempted to do so by the remarks with which the noble Lord, Lord Ross, opened his

999
speech. They concerned the debate that we had in the House a few days ago on the Motion by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, about the need for simplification of legislation, and the powerful speech made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning. He read out a passage from, I think, the Criminal Justice Bill 1982 and gave it as a perfect example of legislative gobbledygook. I wish he were here today to look at Clause 1. It is a far more perfect example and it is a wonderful Christmas present that the Scottish draftsman has given us to send us on our way rejoicing on the penultimate day of Parliament. I hope it will go into all the encyclopaedias and all the anthologies of wholly unintelligible and incomprehensible Scottish—or English, as I was going to say. However, I do not want to be unkind to my noble friend Lord Mansfield. I should like to congratulate him very warmly on the careful way he explained this gobbledygook to your Lordships. When he first did it I was confused. I am still confused but, of course, now on a much higher plane.
The Earl of Mansfield: My Lords, I am mildly astonished that this two-clause Bill should have occupied the attention of the House for so long. When we were discussing the Electricity (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Bill a few moments ago, the noble Lord, Lord Ross, was moved to say that in another place they had been fairly discursive in their consideration of the Bill. But, my goodness me! in a speech of eleven minutes on this particular Bill he fairly showed them how—even going so far as to talk about election manifestos. However, it all goes to show what a good "puff' can do.
So far as the drafting is concerned, I was in fact minded to be—I will not say rude to the noble Lord, Lord Ross, but to chide him gently for attacking the drafting. I was brought up short by the verbal Exocet fired by my noble friend Lord Mancroft because if he, as a member of the Bar, says that Clause 1 is unintelligible I, who had thought it really read quite nicely, am not moved to argue with him.
The point is that I do not think that a highly technical amending clause such as this, amending rate provisions, is ever going to be bedside reading for the great mass of the British public. In a previous existence, before coming into my present job in government, the insurance company for whom I worked tried very hard—I think successfully—to make their policies more intelligible to the sort of people who were going to read them. As I say, they have been relatively successful, but it is never easy to explain things in any legal document in a way which is comprehensible to people who may not have been terribly well educated and at the same time achieve legal finality and also—dare I say?—an absence of future litigation, which no insurance company wants. I think the same thing applies to what has been put into this Bill.
The other matter raised by the noble Lord, Lord Ross, was the rating of racecourses and football grounds. As he will know, we also have had representations from other organisations, for instance, those representing caravan sites. I think one has to remember that a number of factors contribute to the
1000
difference in rate burden between Scotland and England. We have relatively high Scottish rate poundages. We have different years for revaluation and we have different approaches to revaluation, which is not altogether surprising when you consider that in fact we have separate legal systems. As the noble Lord knows very well, we have had representations from Ayr Racecourse among others—and I must be careful because I own a racecourse myself. I can assure the noble Lord, therefore, that these representations are being considered by the Government. If we do decide—and I emphasise "if—that these subjects deserve relief, then, as the noble Lord knows, we shall have to take legislative action to try to do what we want in an effective and fair manner. I am very grateful that the Bill has apparently received approval from your Lordships, and I commend it to the House.
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, I think I should apologise to the House for the absence of the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, because he it was who was perplexed, worried and concerned about the clause, as was the noble Lord opposite who spoke so well.
On Question, Bill read a second time: Committee negatived.
Then, Standing Order No. 43 having been suspended (pursuant to Resolution of 16th December) Bill read a third time, and passed.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I beg to move that this House be now adjourned during pleasure until five minutes past eight.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The sitting was suspended from 7.41 to 8.5 p.m.]

National Heritage Bill [H.L.]
House again in Committee on Schedule 4.
[Amendments Nos. 104L, 104M, 104NA, 104PA, 104Q, 104R, and 104S not moved.]
The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 105:
Page 45, line 12, at end insert—
("20A.—(1) Section 10B of the 1972 Act (grants for repair of buildings in town schemes) shall be amended as follows.
(2) At the beginning of subsection (1) there shall be inserted "Subject to subsection (1A) below".
(3) After subsection (1) there shall be inserted—
"(1A) Subsection (1) above does not apply in relation to a building situated in England, but the Commission may make grants for the purpose of defraying in whole or in part any expenditure incurred or to be incurred in the repair of a building which is so situated and which—

(a) is comprised in a town scheme; and

(b) appears to the Commission to be of architectural or historic interest.".

(4) For subsection (3) there shall be substituted—
"(3) In subsection (2) above—
"town scheme list" means a list, containing buildings which are to be the subject of a repair grant agreement and compiled (in the case of buildings situated in England) by the Commission and one or more English local authorities or (in the case of buildings situated in Wales) by the Secretary of State and one or more Welsh local authorities after consultation with the Historic Buildings Council for Wales;
"town scheme map" means a map, showing buildings

1001
which are to be the subject of such an agreement and prepared (in the case of buildings situated in England) by the Commission and one or more English local authorities or (in the case of buildings situated in Wales) by the Secretary of State and one or more Welsh local authorities after such consultation."
(5) In subsection (4) after "the Secretary of State" (in both places) there shall be inserted "(or, as the case may be, the Commission)".
(6) In subsection (5) after "the Secretary of State" there shall be inserted "or (as the case may be) the Commission" and after "he" there shall be inserted "(or they)".
(7) In subsection (6) for "the appropriate advisory Council" there shall be substituted "the Historic Buildings Council for Wales".
(8) In subsection (8) after "Secretary of State" there shall be inserted "or the Commission".
(9) In subsection (9) after "Secretary of State" there shall be inserted "(or the Commission)".
(10) In subsection (10) after "Secretary of State" (in the first place) there shall be inserted "or the Commission" and after "Secretary of State" (in the second place) there shall be inserted "or (as the case may be) the Commission".
(11) In subsection (11) the definition of "the appropriate advisory Council" shall be omitted.
(12) At the end there shall be inserted—
"(12) In this section "the Commission" means the Commission for Ancient Monuments and Historic Buildings for England."
(13) Nothing in this paragraph affects a grant made before the appointed day.").
The noble Earl said: This amendment will confer on the commission the power to make grants for the repair of buildings in town schemes in England. When a town scheme is drawn up, the Secretary of State and the local authority or authorities agree to set aside a sum of money each year for a specified number of years, for grant-aiding repairs to the buildings in the scheme. A specific area of the town is agreed for action, and the money is thus committed to grants for buildings in this one area. It is appropriate that the commission should take over from the Secretary of State the power to make these grants in England. It has always been the intention, as was made clear in The Way Forward, that the commission should assume responsibility for making grants. This amendment will complete the provisions in the Bill for transfer of existing grant powers to them. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 105A and 105B not moved.]
The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 105C:
Page 47, line 39, at end insert—
("26A. At the end of section 6(5) of the 1979 Act (power of entry to preserve monument from damage) there shall be inserted—
"This subsection does not apply to land in England."
26B. After section 6 of the 1979 Act there shall be inserted—

"Commission's powers of entry in relation to sheduled monuments.

>6A.—(1) Any person duly authorised in writing by the Commission may at any reasonable time enter any land in England for the purpose of inspecting any scheduled monument in, on or under the land with a view to ascertaining whether any works affecting the monument are being carried out in contravention of section 2(1) of this Act and so to enabling the Commision to decide whether to institute proceedings in England for an offence under sectiion 2(1).

(2) Any person duly authorised in writing by the Commission may at any reasonable time enter any land in England for the purpose of—

(a) observing the execution on the land of any works to which a scheduled monument consent relates: and

1002

(b) inspecting the condition of the land and the scheduled monument in question after the completion of any such works,

with a view to ascertaining whether the works in question are or have been executed in accordance with the terms of the consent and of any conditions attached to the consent, and so to enabling the Commission to decide whether to institute proceedings in England for an offence under section 2(1) or (6) of this Act.
(3) Any person duly authorised in writing by the Commission may at any reasonable time enter any land in England for the purpose of inspecting any scheduled monument in, on or under the land in connection with any consultation made in respect of the monument under section 4(3) of this Act or paragraph 3(3)(c) of Schedule 1 to this Act.
(4) Any person duly authorised in writing by the Commission may enter any land which is in England and in, on or under which a scheduled monument is situated, with the consent of the owner and (if the owner is not the occupier) of the occupier of the land, for the purpose of erecting and maintaining on or near the site of the monument such notice boards and marker posts as appear to the Commission to be desirable with a view to preserving the monument from accidental or deliberate damage.
(5) References in this section to scheduled monument consent include references to consent granted by order under section 3 of this Act.".")
The noble Earl said: This amendment will give the commission certain powers of entry on to land where a scheduled monument is situated, to enable them to investigate possible contraventions of the scheduled monument consent procedure, and, where necessary, institute proceedings. They will also have powers of entry for other purposes and will take over from the Secretary of State the power to enter land in England to put up notice boards or marker posts to help protect a scheduled monument situated there.
The Secretary of State has various other powers of entry. It is right that he should for the most part retain his existing powers of entry. The exception to this is the power given for the purpose of erecting such notice boards and marker posts as seem necessary. This power can be exercised only with the consent of the owner and occupier of the land and is just the sort of task that the commission, as the experts, should have transferred to them. I beg to move.
Baroness Birk: I am delighted that the commission is to be trusted and that it may authorise its own inspectors to look at other people's monuments in England, but does the Secretary of State really need to retain the power to authorise inspectors to look at them, too? Can he not leave that to the commission? Who is going to advise the Secretary of State on those buildings? Surely it will be the commission. This will result in duplication of staff, which is quite unnecessary. This seems to be another odd thing which has crept into the Bill, whereby the Secretary of State retains unnecessary concurrent powers, because the commission could take over.
I do not know whether the noble Earl could say a little more about this matter. Although we welcome the amendment, would the noble Earl consider leaving it to the commission to make its own decisions?
The Earl of Avon: I take the points made by the noble Baroness, and I shall certainly look into the matter. In this particular case I do not think that it has

1003
that effect. Besides taking over this power, the commission will have powers of entry to inspect monuments to see if works are beng carried out without consent, or if there is failure to comply with the terms or conditions of a grant. This is similar to the Secretary of State's powers, but the commission needs to be granted this power to enable it to decide whether to institute proceedings if an offence is being committed. It will also be able to observe the execution of works which are covered by consent, and to inspect the condition of the land and monuments afterwards to check whether the works have been carried out in accordance with the terms. This does not sound to me like duplication, but I shall certainly look into the noble Baroness's point.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: I have listened with interest to the debate on a number of amendments. It appears to me that what is happening is that the Secretary of State is rather in the position of a stand-up comedian who has decided that his act is getting a bit tired and frayed and that the best thing he can do is to go in for a ventriloquial act. He has created the dummy, which is the commission, and is undecided to what extent his dummy is to be allowed to have a real life of its own. In some circumstances he is uncertain to what extent the quango which he has created (against the Government's stated disbelief in quangos, but none the less they create them) should be allowed to spring to life. Every now and then the Secretary of State says that the dummy must speak with his voice and with his voice only.
In this particular case it seems to me that the Minister is once again uncertain as to whether the voice is to be his own or whether the dummy is to have freedom to speak. In the case of this amendment, it seems to me that the uncertainty remains. Perhaps I have not followed the argument closely enough, but I am not clear as to whether in this instance the commission is on its own or whether the Secretary of State is retaining the reserve power in his own hands.
The Earl of Avon: As I understand it, the Secretary of State needs to reserve the power because there are some third parties involved in this case. The Secretary of State needs to keep his current powers because he is responsible for deciding scheduled monument consent applications. In those circumstances, it would be wrong to transfer these powers. I always hesitate to involve myself in quango arguments, but we hope that we are setting up one in the place of two. That does not altogether not follow our policy.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
8.14 p.m.
The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 106:
Page 50, line 10, at end insert—
("34A.—(1) Section 15 of the 1979 Act (acquisition and guardianship of land in vicinity of ancient monument) shall be amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1) after "Secretary of State" there shall be inserted "or the Commission" and at the end of that subsection there shall be inserted—
"Land may be acquired, or taken into guardianship, by the' Commission by virtue of this section only if the land is situated in England."
(3) In subsections (3) and (4) after "Secretary of State" there
1004
shall be inserted "and the Commission".
(4) In subsection (6) after "Secretary of State" there shall be inserted "or the Commission".
34B.—Section 16 of the 1979 Act (acquisition of easements etc. over land in vicinity of ancient monument) shall be amended as follows.
(2) At the end of subsection (1) there shall be inserted—
"Where the land in question is situated in England, the Secretary of State shall consult with the Commission before entering into the agreement or making the compulsory purchase order (as the case may be)."
(3) After subsection (1) there shall be inserted—
"(1A) The Commission may by agreement acquire over land which is situated in England, and which adjoins or is in the vicinity of any monument under their ownership by virtue of this Act, any such easement as the Secretary of State may acquire by virtue of subsection (1) above."
(4) In subsection (3) after "(1)" there shall be inserted "or (1A)".
(5) In subsection (4) after "Secretary of State" there shall be inserted "or the Commission".").
The noble Earl said: This amendment will enable the commission to acquire land, or guardianship or rights over land, adjoining or near an ancient monument under its ownership or guardianship where this land or right is needed for the proper management of, or access to, the monument. The commission's powers of acquisition and power to take monuments into guardianship, covered in paragraphs 31 and 32 of Schedule 4, are extended by the first of these two new paragraphs to include any land adjoining or in the vicinity of an ancient monument which appears to it to be reasonably necessary for the management or maintenance of the monument, for access to it, or for providing facilities and services to visitors. It may acquire the land at the same time as the monument, or later, and it will have full control of management over it and may enter it at any reasonable time to exercise these powers. I recommend this amendment to the Committee, and beg to move.
Baroness Birk: Again we find ourselves in the same position. Am I right in saying that the Secretary of State is to retain concurrent powers to acquire and take into guardianship monuments and land in their vicinity in England? There are no Notes on Clauses to help on this particular point, and Section 15 of the 1979 Act, which is being amended, I cannot find in this guide to Schedule 4.1 should have thought that it would be enough for the commission and the local authority to have concurrent powers as to guardianship. Would not the Minister agree with that?
As to the new paragraph 34B, it seems to me that there are to be yet more concurrent powers regarding the acquisition of easements, et cetera, over land in the vicinity of ancient monuments. Should not the Secretary of State divest himself of the powers in England, as the commission is to have them, anyway? When so many concurrent powers are to be left with the Secretary of State, this is almost to make a laughing stock of the commission. It is not going to help anybody.
In answer to an earlier amendment the Minister said we have to remember that a new quango is to take the place of two bodies and is to act as one. But that seems to be offset by giving as many powers, or even more powers, to the Secretary of State. I thought the idea was that all this should be given to an independent commission, but it does not seem to be working out that way.
The Earl of Avon: I believe that the noble Baroness is laying stress in the wrong place. Under the second of the two new paragraphs the commission may acquire by agreement such easements or other rights as appear to it to be necessary for managing, maintaining or gaining access to any monument under its ownership or guardianship. These may be existing or new easements. The amendment does not give the commission power to acquire easements or other rights compulsorily. This is a right which remains the prerogative of the Secretary of State although, as with any proposed acquisition by him, he is required by the amendment to consult his experts in the commission.
Paragraph 34A extends the commission's power to acquire or take into guardianship any ancient monument, and to include any land situated in England in the vicinity of an ancient monument. Subparagraph (2) provides that the references in Sections 10 to 12 of the 1979 Act to an ancient monument shall include land adjoining or in the vicinity of a monument which appears to the commission, the Secretary of State or a local authority, as appropriate, to be reasonably required for various purposes. These purposes include the maintenance of a monument or its amenities, providing or facilitating access, the exercise of proper control, the storage of equipment, et cetera. Sections 10 to 12 cover compulsory acquisition.
Sub-paragraph (3) provides that, like the Secretary of State and any local authority, the commission shall have full control and management of any land acquired by them or taken into their guardianship in this way. Sub-paragraph (4) provides that references in the 1979 Act to the land associated with a monument under the ownership or guardianship of the commission are references to land acquired or taken into guardianship under Section 15.
Paragraph 34B empowers the commission, under Section 16 of the 1979 Act, to acquire by agreement easements and other rights over land in the vicinity. I am sorry that this was not included in the Notes on Clauses, and I will ensure that it is sent to the noble Baroness.
Baroness Birk: I will just have to let this amendment go for the time being but, quite frankly, these matters are of considerable complexity—particularly as they are situated where they are, in Schedule 4—and if the noble Earl will let me have the Notes on Clauses and an up-to-date refresher on the guide to Schedule 4, I can look at these and consider what to do before Report stage.
Lord Kennet: Is this not precisely the sort of place where the insecurity of the schedule comes out? I understood from what the noble Earl read out from the Notes on Clauses—for the first time, with colossal effort—that under this provision there will be three parties; the local authority, the commission, and the Secretary of State or their representatives. It seems that they will be charging around in a given piece of countryside near an ancient monument saying to each other, "Does it appear to you to be reasonable that this bit should come into our ownership because it does not appear to me to be reasonable that it should? Does it appear more reasonable to you that it should come
1006
into your ownership than it appears reasonable to me that it should come into your ownership; or reasonable to him that it should come into your ownership, or into my ownership?" And so on, and so forth, with nine permutations. This, because it is clear, is absurd. If its clarity had been apparent earlier, I believe that the schedule would not have been drafted as it has. Is not the mere reading out of that clarification sufficient justification for the case I was making earlier for a short, clear and positive statement of the legal powers and duties of the commission somewhere in the Bill?
The Earl of Avon: As the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, will be aware, the whole problem with Schedule 4 is the amending of present legislation and not the forming of new legislation. That is a problem and it is a very difficult one to get over. I was rather hoping that when the noble Lord heard about the "vicinity" of ancient monuments, and knowing his predilection for Beverley, he might have come back and said that he liked the idea of "vicinity" in this particular case. However, I take the noble Lord's point and hope that what I have said has clarified the matter. Had I realised that there was not a note on the clause, I should have read out the full amendment earlier.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
8.23 p.m.
The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 107:
Page 50, line 25, at end insert—
("(3) In subsection (2) after "Secretary of State" there shall be inserted "or the Commision".").
The noble Earl said: This amendment enables limited owners of land to grant certain rights over land to the commission. Section 18 of the 1979 Act enables landowners whose capacity is limited to do certain things which they would be otherwise precluded from doing. This amendment would enable such an owner to grant an easement, servitude or other right over land which the commission is authorised to acquire under Section 16 of the 1979 Act. Section 16 is concerned with the requisition of easements and similar rights. I beg to move.
Baroness Birk: So far as I can make out, although this is very difficult territory which I find very hard going at the moment, the amendment seems to stop the commission from making regulations. It also forces the Secretary of State to consult the commission before he makes the regulations. Incidentally, as the noble Earl must know, local authorities can make regulations without consulting anybody. Are we now in an area of piffling detail? Why does the Secretary of State not give the power for making regulations to the commission in respect of monuments in England and again save duplication of staff? Is it really so fundamental that this respectable, high-grade new body should not be given powers of direction? Again we seem to be doubling up. These matters all seem to run together, but we are dealing with them on a piecemeal basis. Talk about a belt-and-braces job; this is the whole lot with safety pins!
The Earl of Avon: I believe that the noble Baroness is seeing things which do not exist. This amendment enables limited owners of land to grant certain rights

1007
over land to the commission. It is giving things to the commission and is in no way holding the commission back.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 108:
Page 50, line 30, after (" "Secretary of State" ") insert ("(in the first place)").
The noble Earl said: This amendment is designed to enable the Secretary of State to make on the commission's behalf regulations controlling certain aspects of public access to monuments under the ownership or guardianship of the commission.
Under the provisions of paragraph 37 of Schedule 4 to the Bill, the commission would be empowered to control the times of public access to its monuments and to fix admission charges and also to make regulations. Besides covering opening hours and charges, these could prohibit or regulate any act or thing which might damage the monument or disturb people's enjoyment of it, and could do anything else which the commission thought necessary for the preservation of the monument or its amenities or any other property of theirs. This would give them a wide-ranging power to regulate public access, activity and behaviour. This is not normal for a non-Crown statutory body and, after deliberation, we have concluded that it would not be right for the commission, a non-elected body, to have the power to create offences. Hence this amendment, which will give the Secretary of State the power to make regulations on the commission's behalf, but which requires him to consult them. Obviously the commission will be the experts on regulations necessary for the proper management of the monuments, and their views must be given full weight: nevertheless it is right that the Secretary of State should take the final decision. I beg to move.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: I hope that I am not being obtuse but I cannot see how the insertion of the words, "in the first place", shown in the Marshalled List, achieves all the beneficial effects which the noble Earl has described. Is it really the case that this minor-sounding amendment removing these powers from the commission and placing them in the hands of the Secretary of State—or to use the analogy I employed earlier, removing the powers from the hands of the dummy and placing them in those of the ventriloquist—has these consequences?
The Earl of Avon: Yes—shall I go through it? Paragraph 37 of Schedule 4 amends Section 19 of the 1979 Act, which deals with public access to monuments in public control. Sub-paragraph (4) provides that regulations made by the Secretary of State or a local authority to regulate public access to any or all of the monuments under their ownership or guardianship (or in the Secretary of State's case to monuments under his control or management for any other reason) may only be made under subsection (3) rather than under the section generally. The intention is to define more closely in this section which regulation-making power applies to which group of monuments, since the powers relating to the Secretary of State's own monuments are different from those
1008
introduced by sub-paragraph (5A) relating to the commission's monuments. Sub-paragraph (5) is a consequential amendment to Section 19(4), and thus provides that the particular powers conferred by subsection (4) relate only to regulations made under Section 19(3).
I have a slight suspicion that I am happily speaking ahead, to Amendment No. 109, and that, of course, the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, is perfectly right when he asks why Amendment No. 108 should have all that effect. May I therefore now speak to Amendment No. 108? This is a small drafting amendment to correct paragraph 37 of Schedule 4 to the Bill. I hope that, to some extent, I may take Amendment No. 109 as read.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: I am grateful to the noble Earl for clarifying that he was speaking to another amendment. As I myself did the same thing on one occasion, I understand how easily it can be done.
Baroness Birk: While we are in a confessional mood, I now realise that when speaking to Amendment No. 107, when I was quite happy, I was in fact talking about Amendment No. 109. I will not say it all again but this was the amendment which stopped the commission from making regulations and forcing the Secretary of State to consult the commission before making them. This is a whole series of amendments which are very confusing—and this again makes the point about the amount of confusion there is over these amendments. Anyway, I apologise.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 109:
Page 50, line 32, leave out sub-paragraphs (4) and (5) and insert—
(" "(4) In subsection (3) for "this section" there shall be substituted "this subsection".
(5) In subsection (4) for "this section" there shall be substituted "that subsection".
(5A) After subsection (4) there shall be inserted—
"(4A) The Secretary of State may by regulations under this subsection make such provision as appears to him necessary for prohibiting or regulating any act or thing which would tend to injure or disfigure any monument under the ownership or guardianship of the Commission by virtue of this Act or the monument's amenities or to disturb the public in their enjoyment of it.
(4B) The Secretary of State shall consult with the Commission before he makes any regulations under subsection (4A) above." ")
The noble Earl said: I have already spoken to this amendment at some length. I beg to move.
Baroness Birk: The Minister has already spoken to it and I have already objected to it, two amendments back, so I will leave it there.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Birk Baroness Birk moved Amendment No. 109A:
Page 51, line 5, at end insert—
("After section 20 of the 1979 Act insert—
"Guardianship of monuments in the ownership of the Secretary of State

Commission to be consitututed as guardian of monuments.

20A. The Secretary of State shall constitute the Commission guardian of all monuments in his ownership.".")

The noble Baroness said: This is a probing amendment and it can be taken together with No. 110A. It is not yet at all clear to what extent the

1009
Secretary of State intends to make the commission guardian of the monuments which he owns and now cares for, or with respect to which he is now the guardian, they being in other people's ownership. If he holds on to guardianship or continues to care for the monuments he owns he will have to duplicate the commission's activities in this field. I think we all agree duplication is confusing and wasteful. If the commission is to be a success it must be given the job in whole, not just in part. If there is not to be overlap and confusion the same is true, transfer all, not just a part. I would like to ask the Minister what is intended here. I beg to move.
The Earl of Avon: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her introduction and I too shall also address my remarks to Amendment No. 110A. These two amendments seek to make the commission guardian of all monuments currently in either the Secretary of State's ownership or his guardianship. We have taken a different approach. For the commission to be constituted guardian of monuments in the Secretary of State's ownership would mean that he had lost any real control over that monument. It would not be right that the Secretary of State should do so in respect of Crown Land. There are alternative methods of ensuring that the commission is made responsible for managing these monuments, such as that we are describing in Amendment No. 111. The Government will be bringing forward a suitable amendment at a later stage to cover owned monuments.
The transfer to the commission of all monuments in the Secretary of State's guardianship also raises difficult questions. The Bill as drafted provides, in paragraph 39 of Schedule 4, for the transfer of guardianship monuments between the Secretary of State and the commission by consent. In the Government's view this is the right approach. It would not make sense for there to be a wholesale renegotiation of all guardianship agreements. This could be a massive and time-consuming task and one which could prevent the commission from applying its efforts towards the real task of preserving the heritage. If owners of monuments wish to transfer guardianship, then I have no doubt that the Government and the commission would be very happy to consider it. We think a blanket transfer would be wrong. This is a complicated area. I hope my explanation will to some extent have answered the noble Baroness.
Lord Kennet: What are the Government's plans for the Tower of London?
The Earl of Avon: I think this is coming up in another amendment, so perhaps we can leave it until we reach that amendment.
Baroness Birk: This is again fairly complicated and it is difficult to take it all in from just hearing it. I shall have to leave it there for the moment and read what the Minister has said. I will also see how the amendment looks when he produces the new amendment. I gathered that he agrees that there is some sorting out to be done, that there are two specific problems and they have been joined together at the moment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 110:
Page 51, line 15, after (" "Secretary of State" ") insert ("(in the first place) ").
The noble Earl said: This is a minor drafting amendment to paragraph 39 of the schedule to correct an error in the drafting. The amendment which is being amended relates to Section 21(1) of the 1979 Act. There are two references to the Secretary of State and this is only intended to refer to the first. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 110A not moved.]
Baroness Birk Baroness Birk moved Amendment No. 110B:
Page 51, line 23, at end insert ("and at the end of the subsection there shall be inserted—
"Subject to those persons being known and consenting or if unknown or known but of unsound mind with the consent of the Court.".").
The noble Baroness said: This amendment is designed to clear an impasse, or at the very least to draw attention to it. I understood that problems have arisen with Section 21 of the 1979 Act. That is the one under which guardianship may be transferred, for example, from the Secretary of State to the commission, where it has simply not been possible to find out who should be consulted and who must agree before guardianship is transferred. The reference to the court consenting on behalf of the "unknown or known but of unsound mind" is intended to be no more than a trigger to thinking, so that if some such provision is needed it can go into the Bill; it enables one to build on something.
If the Secretary of State were compelled to transfer guardianship of a monument in someone else's ownership, as Amendment 110A says, then it would be essential to have a way of clearing that particular impasse, wherever reasonable, with due protection for individuals. I beg to move.
The Earl of Avon: When the Secretary of State or the commission or a local authority want to transfer the guardianship of a property between themselves, it is, of course, right that the people most concerned should have to give their consent. That is what is already provided; the people immediately affected by the operation of the guardianship deed would have to consent.
I can indeed see the reason behind the noble Baroness's amendment, that where the body concerned has made every effort to find the people involved but has failed, or where they are perhaps of unsound mind and cannot really give consent, some way round might be appropriate. But I have to say that I do not think the issues involved are sufficient to warrant this formal reference to the courts. Desirable though transfers may sometimes be, it is hard to imagine that they are ever that essential.
We should remember here we are talking about organisational transfers between different parts of the public sector. I do not believe that this is of such importance that we must give the courts an additional role in deciding cases where consent cannot be obtained in the usual way. The noble Baroness mentioned that she had some concern about Section 21 of the 1979 Act. If she has some examples which

1011
would add weight to what she has said, I would be glad to consider the problem again.
Baroness Birk: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 111:
Page 52, line 4, at end insert—
("Commission to exercise certain functions of Secretary of Slate.
23B.—(1) Subject to subsection (2) below, this section applies to—

(a) functions exercisable by the Secretary of state by virtue of section 13 of this Act in relation to any monument situated in England;

(b)) functions exercisable by him by virtue of section 15(3) or (4) of this Act in relation to any land situated in England:

(c) functions exercisable by him by virtue of sections 19 or 20 or this Act in relation to any monument situated in England and under his guardianship by virtue of this Act.

(2) This section does not apply to a function of making regulations.
(3) If the Secretary of State directs the Commission to exercise functions to which this section applies and which are specified in the direction, in relation to any monument or land so specified, the Commission shall exercise them on his behalf in such manner as he may from time to time direct.").
The noble Earl said: This amendment provides the mechanism by which the Secretary of State will be able to direct the commission to carry out functions on his behalf at monuments in his guardianship. It will be recalled that this is an important part of the commission's role as set out in The Way Forward. Sub-sections (4) and (5) of Clause 22, in respect of the Royal Botanic Gardens, provide for the Minister to direct the board to carry out specified functions on his behalf, thus enabling the new body to carry out management tasks without affecting the ultimate responsibility for the property concerned.
This amendment inserts an analogous provision to enable the Secretary of State, without surrendering his guardianship role, to direct the commission to carry out the functions relating to guardianship on his behalf. Those functions will include maintenance and examination of monuments, control and management of related land, provision of public access, guardianship of monuments and provision of facilities, information and other services. The Secretary of State will be able to direct the commission to carry out any or all of these functions in respect of specified monuments. However, the regulation-making powers in Section 19, which we have already spoken about, will be reserved to the Secretary of State. I beg to move.
Baroness Birk: I welcome this amendment in general terms. I am sorry if this sounds churlish, but in subsection (3) the commission is again being hedged down. The Secretary of State
"directs the Commission to exercise functions".
and so on.
"The Commission shall exercise them on his behalf in such manner as he may from time to time direct".
Again we have this direction, in one section after the other, from the Secretary of State. Once again I ask whether it is necessary to inhibit the commission so much by the Secretary of State.
The Earl of Avon: This applies to the guardianship monuments, and as I tried to explain earlier these are the ones which the Secretary of State does not feel he can let further out of his control and ownership. For that reason he offers to the commission the right of virtually running them, but not owning them.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
8.41 p.m.
Baroness Birk Baroness Birk moved Amendment No. 111 A:
Page 53, leave out lines 7 and 8.
The noble Baroness said: This is again dealing with control by the commission. The words I propose should be omitted seem to be unnecessary. Is the commission likely to dispose of any land of significance without consultation? It just would not do so. Again, it is a question of trusting the commission and saving duplication of staff and extra work. This is all so tied in and tied down, and there is just one example after another. I beg to move.
The Earl of Avon: The noble Baroness is indeed making her point. The effect of this amendment would be to enable the commission, unlike a local authority, to dispose of land containing an ancient monument without having to consult the Secretary of State.
I can understand the desire to make the commission as independent as possible. Since it will be the expert on historical matters it is proper that the Secretary of State should consult it before disposing of an ancient monument. But disposing of such land is not just a matter of professional judgement; it could also raise sensitive local issues. Local authorities, even though directly accountable to their electors, are required by the 1979 Act to consult the Secretary of State in these circumstances. We believe that the case for the commission, an appointed body, to do so seems at least as strong.
I suggest that the words affected by the amendment form a sensible safeguard, and are not seeking to tie down the commission as perhaps in some of the other instances pointed out by the noble Baroness.
Baroness Birk: I withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 112:
Page 54, line 17, at end insert—
("(1A) At the end of subsection (3) there shall be inserted "and
(c) where the site in question is situated in England, serves a copy of that notice on the Commission (unless the investigating authority is for the time being the Commission).".")
The noble Earl said: This amendment will ensure that the commission, which will be the repository of central expertise on rescue archaeology and responsible for advising the Secretary of State on the appointment of investigating authorities in archaeological areas, will be kept informed of any excavations an investigating authority may decide to undertake on a site where works are to take place. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 113:
Page 54, line 25, at end insert—
("50A. In section 39 of the 1979 Act (power of investigating

1013
authority to investigate in advance of operations notice any site which may be acquired compulsorily) after paragraph (c) of subsection (4) there shall be inserted "and
(d) where the site in question is situated in England, the Commission (if the investigating authority is not the Commission);".").
The noble Earl said: This amendment will ensure that the commission will be kept fully informed of any directions given by the Secretary of State to an investigating authority regarding their investigation of a site which may be acquired compulsorily. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Beloff Lord Beloff moved Amendment No. 113A:
Page 55, line 14, after ("land") insert ("or building").
The noble Lord said: I move this amendment in the absence of Lord Dacre of Glanton. On this occasion it is not the British Academy but the Society of Antiquaries which has asked that this matter should be called to your Lordships' attention. As it stands, the subsection says that the commission may contribute towards the cost of an archaeological investigation on any land in England. The Society of Antiquaries points out that a great deal of modern archaeology, or that relating to the medieval and early modern periods, may relate to the interior of building rather than to a piece of land—the discovery of frescoes, fireplaces or other things hidden behind the detritus of centuries. The society is anxious that an investigation of this kind should come within the ambit of this subsection.
It also occurred to me that when one talks about land one usually thinks of an open space. Of course, a great deal of archaeology in the ordinary sense, and rescue archaeology in particular, is carried out beneath existing buildings or while one existing building is being removed and before another is built on the same site. It therefore seemed to me that there would also be additional clarity and certainty if the words "or building" were added after the word "land". I beg to move.
Baroness Birk: I support this amendment. I think it may well be that it was considered that "land" encompassed "land and buildings" in the schedule. I do not know. Nevertheless, I think it should be made absolutely clear. It is true, as the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, said, that archaeology is carried out in buildings, within the remnants of buildings or under buildings.
The Earl of Avon: I can understand my noble friend's desire to ensure that the commission can undertake or pay for archaeological investigations in buildings as well as on land. I fully take the point he made on behalf of the Society of Antiquaries. I am happy to say that this is already provided for, because the paragraph of Schedule 4 which this amends itself amends Section 45 of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979. The definition of "land" which can be found in Section 61 of that Act specifically includes:
"a building or a monument".
It is therefore unnecessary to put in the word "building".
1014
The noble Baroness said she thought that it would be a good idea to include it anyway. Should my noble friend feel that way, then we should think about "or a monument", too. I can assure him that the definition of "land", to which we are referring, includes both a building and a monument. Perhaps my noble friend will consider that reply.
Lord Beloff: I have no doubt that the Minister is correct, but this is just another example of what happens when reasonably intelligent people like the council of the Society of Antiquaries do not know what is meant by a proposal in a Bill because they are not accustomed to legislation by reference. I should have thought that this very simple change could be made to reassure them, whether or not, in fact, it is legally absolutely essential.
The Earl of Avon: Would my noble friend like "monument" as well?
Lord Beloff: I have not been asked about "monument", but it might as well go in too.
Lord Kennet: I feel sure that the Committee will wish to congratulate the noble Lord on a piece of textual archaeology in which he unearthed the meaning of this amendment by reference to a text, which refers to a text, which refers to a text. Only he had the resources to burrow so deep as to unearth the meaning. With those comments I should like to support both "building" and "monument" being added to "land" in this amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 113B:
Page 55, line 20, at end insert—
("53A.—(1) Section 46 of the 1979 Act (compensation for certain damage) shall be amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1) after "Secretary of State" there shall be inserted "or the Commission".
(3) In subsection (2) for the words from "Secretary of State" to the end there shall be substituted "Commission (if the area in question is situated in England) or from the Secretary of State (if it is situated elsewhere).".
(4) In subsection (3) after "6" there shall be inserted "6A".
(5) Nothing in sub-paragraph (3) affects comensation in respect of damage caused before the appointed day.").
The noble Earl said: This amendment transfers to the commission the responsibility for paying compensation for damage caused in the exercise of certain powers granted by the 1979 Act. At present compensation can be recovered under Section 46 of the 1970 Act from the Secretary of State or any other authority who causes damage to land or property while exercising one of the specified powers of entry. Under this amendment the commission are required to pay compensation for damage caused by themselves or by anyone acting on their behalf. They will also be responsible for meeting claims for compensation arising from damage caused by an investigating authority for any area of archaeological importance in England. The Secretary of State will continue to pay compensation caused by investigating authorities in Scotland and Wales. The commission will be the experts in assessing and negotiating any payments for compensation, and as such it is sensible and efficient

1015
that they should take reponsibility for such payments. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
On Question, Whether Schedule 4, as amended, shall be agreed to?
Lord Kennet: I wonder how many noble Lords now regret that we did not get rid of the whole thing and insist upon a positive statement before we embarked upon this textual archaeology which we have been doing. However, we did not do so. I will only remind the Committee that we should consider once again whether it would not be better to do so at the next stage, unless the Government give us the clear, positive statement of the powers and duties of the commission which has been requested on so many occasions, before we reach the next stage. I do not wish to press the deletion of this schedule.
Baroness Birk: Earlier this afternoon the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, was leading up to the deletion of Schedule 4. I then said that we would wait to hear what the Minister said when he came back on the question of consolidation. We have obviously moved away from the idea of a guide and a Keeling schedule. It is now quite clear that consolidation is the only way in which this matter will be sorted out. Since early this afternoon we have unfortunately had example after example of the complexity of the Bill and the difficulties with which even those of us who have tried to accustom ourselves to it have found in dealing with it. I thought that the recent amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, epitomised exactly what was happening under the Bill. We were told that that refers back to something else and that that refers to buildings and land. In the end the Minister rightly, sensibly and co-operatively—as he has been throughout the Bill—decided to accept the amendment because it made sense and those people who read it could see what it meant without going back and back and back.
That is all very well. The Society of Antiquaries had the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, and his colleagues to put forward their amendment, but as regards anyone else who has to consider it, it is important to underline once again tonight the complete dissatisfaction, confusion and anxiety that is felt throughout the Committee about the wretched Schedule 4. It will haunt us all through the recess. I repeat what I said earlier: unless the Minister can come forward with definite plans and a promise of consolidation, which should be running—as several law Lords have already said to me—at the same time as the Bill is going through, we shall have to think very seriously again as to what we shall do as regards that schedule. It was laughable at first, but now it is becoming a type of comic tragedy.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: I should like to support what my noble friend has said. This Schedule is 21 pages long. There ought to be a law against long schedules. It will present those people who have to implement these provisions when the Bill becomes an Act with insoluble problems, unless the Government are subsequently to issue a series of clarifying pamphlets and leaflets. One would have thought that
1016
the Government could save themselves a great deal of trouble in the future by clarifying the law in the first instance. I hope that the noble Earl will discuss this matter with his colleagues.
Viscount Hanworth: I should like to support what has already been said. I cannot understand why the Government have proceeded in the way in which they have. Surely this Bill is not extremely urgent. It should have been possible either to produce consolidation, as has already been said, at the same time, or to cancel those passages in the previous Bill and reproduce the amended version in Schedule 4 so that everybody knew what was going on. Bearing in mind that I do not wish to be unkind, I point out that it is apparent that the Government have not given sufficient thought to this Bill before introducing it in this House, because time and again the Minister very kindly said that he would like to have another look at various points. I think the Government are to blame for the way they have brought forward this Bill.
The Earl of Avon: I do not think there is very much that I can add to what I said earlier today on this subject. I totally appreciate what the noble Lord and the noble Baroness have said because I also have to cope with Schedule 4. I can fully understand the problems. These things rather tend to land on one's desk too late for one to do very much about them. I have, in the backward direction, been trying to do as much as I can to get it right and I shall continue to do so.
Lord Kennet: We can all sympathise with the noble Earl's plight. But if, when it landed on his desk, instead of saying, "OK, I will do my best" he had said, "I am not going to move it; I am not going to present that to the House of Lords—I am just not going to do so", is it not possible that within three weeks his departmental lawyers and the parliamentary draftsmen would have produced a positive clause which the whole House desires? That is just a thought with which to leave the matter. I shall not press the deletion of the schedule.
Schedule 4, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 31 [Finance]:
8.59 p.m.
Baroness Birk Baroness Birk moved Amendment No. 113BA:
Page 17, line 28, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").
The noble Baroness said: This small starred amendment is brought forward to ensure that the Secretary of State makes grant-in-aid payments. The commission, quite apart from all its other obligations, may have compensation payments to make on behalf of the Secretary of State under Section 9 of the 1979 Act. The Bill makes it clear by way of amendment of that section—paragraph 29 of Schedule 4 on page 48, line 30; one sees how much work we have to do to trace all this blessed stuff—that the commission will be doing the paying out even though it is some action of the Secretary of State that provokes the payment of compensation.
The amendment also provides an opportunity to discover how the payments referred to are actually to

1017
be made. Will it be just one payment per annum, or monthly payments? How will the payments be made? Will there be supplementary payments for such items as the compensation payments referred to, or will the Secretary of State just indicate a budget within which the commission should work and thereafter meet the bills in some other fashion? I am afraid that I did not have a chance to tell the noble Earl about this amendment, so if he does not have the answers to hand perhaps he will write to me about it.
The Earl of Avon: As the noble Baroness says, this amendment would require the Secretary of State to pay to the commission the sums agreed by Parliament, whether or not, in the event, they needed them. This would to some extent go against the established procedures.
The level of grant-in-aid to the commission will be annually negotiated between the commission and the Secretary of State. It will then be put before Parliament in the normal way. The Secretary of State will then be able, under Clause 31(1), to make payments from that money as it becomes necessary.
The level of grant agreed is a ceiling. But it is not then simply issued, whether in a lump sum or in monthly instalments. As a custodian of public funds, the Secretary of State will need to know how much the commission have spent and how much they need, and to tailor his payments accordingly.
I can assure the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, that the use of the word "may" is not intended to imply that the Secretary of State will withhold money from the commission. Clearly, provided that the commission are fulfilling their functions properly and within the agreed policy framework, he will be anxious to provide financial support for them. What it means is that he may pay out money up to the limit approved by Parliament. I hope that this explanation will satisfy the noble Baroness. I do not think that I have answered all her questions, and if I have not, perhaps she will let me write to her.
Baroness Birk: It may be that when the noble Earl has read what I have said he will write to me in answer to some of the points that he has not covered. However, I shall not delay the Committee any longer. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Birk Baroness Birk moved Amendment No. 113C:
Page 17, line 30, at end insert—
("(1A) At the end of each financial year the Commission shall retain and carry forward the unexpended balances of such sums as may have been paid to it by the Secretary of State for the provision of grants, for research and for expenditure on ancient monuments archaeological areas and buildings and areas of special architectural or historic interest owned or managed by it from year to year.")
The noble Baroness said: This amendment is the first of several that deal with financial matters. We have already had an amendment on a charitable trust to receive voluntary contributions, and it is important that the Bill is right in financial terms because this is essential for the viability of the commission. The creation of the new agency is not a cheaper solution to the provision of resource for conservation through the department, as is the present situation. The new
1018
commission will be almost entirely dependent on grant aid, from which the existing staffing and overhead costs, which at present are not distinguished from the general running costs of the department, will need to be met.
It is essential that these inescapable costs— including, for example, index-linked pensions— should be clearly set out in advance, and that for grant aid purposes they should be accepted as additional to the funds available for the conservation of monuments, buildings and areas. Unless this distinction is clearly established, there is a danger that the funds made available to the agency for the repair of monuments and historic buildings will, in real terms, be less than those currently available, and that in the future administrative costs will swallow up a progressively larger share of the grant-in-aid. Any transitional costs involved in setting up the new agency should also be met by the department. This is really essential because at the moment there is not enough money for both the boards to do their real work; and if they have to pay a great deal more in administrative costs, then that money will be lost to conservation.
The National Trust, some local authorities and church authorities, as well as many private owners, have expressed concern lest the total sum now paid in grants to outside owners should be reduced. However, there are well-known dangers in making hypotheses, so it would be inappropriate to amend the Bill on the subject. Accordingly, there are no amendments on the Marshalled List; but we then get into that difficulty over finance. Will the Government give an assurance that the provisions of adequate sums for each of the commission's activities will be given high priority? Can the Minister give some indication of how it is intended to safeguard the risks envisaged?
However, the main point of this is the retention of unspent balances. This is a matter of very great importance. How do the Government intend to deal with the problem? Have they in mind some form of three-year controlling grant, at least, in order to get over some of the difficulties? There is a precedent for the carrying forward of unspent balances in the purchase grants for trustee galleries and museums, which may be carried forward to succeeding financial years.
One of the principal weaknesses in present arrangements for funding grants to owners of historic buildings and ancient monuments is that there is no provision for carrying forward unspent grants from one financial year to the next. This is a very complicated matter; it is also extremely important. But I am very well aware that time is going on and we still have quite a lot to do, so I shall cut short my remarks there, although this matter needs to be gone into in far greater depth.
I would simply conclude by saying that longer term planning and financial targets will be quite impossible to realise if expenditure is planned for only one financial year but unavoidably slips in time and is then cut from the following year's allocation. One needs to be able to carry forward unspent balances. Secondly, it should not be on an annual basis, which can be quite catastrophic for any sort of planning and, in fact, in itself leads to unspent balances. Preferably there

1019
should be a quinquennial period or at the very least a triennial period for grants and grant-in-aid. I beg to move.
Viscount Hanworth: On the one hand, the Government are saying that the commission should be as independent as it possibly can, but in many areas, of course, it is merely reproducing the Civil Service procedure and the Treasury procedure. I understand that the Government cannot accept this amendment as it is. But I think what must be realised is that, if they are to do their very best to make the enterprise as a whole profitable, and all that happens is that this goes in or is deducted from the grant that they will make next year, there will be no commercial incentive whatever. I hope that the Minister can take this point on board and see that some incentive at least remains.
Everybody knows the disadvantages of the inability to carry money forward from one year to another. This leads to the most appalling things; of people just spending their money wastefully at the end of the year and not taking into account what they could do taking a longer view. I hope once again that the Minister, without completely breaching the Civil Service procedure on this, can do something to ensure that this organisation—which once again I say is supposed to be so independent, which is the reason why it is not part of the Civil Service—has at least some of the commercial benefits of being independent.
The Earl of Avon: This group of amendments addresses the question of exactly how the commission's grant regime will operate. We are all agreed on the extreme importance of this issue, but I think I must say at the outset that the Government consider that in general it is an area in which it is difficult to legislate. The commission's financial needs will not be set in concrete, and to legislate on the detailed financial arrangements is to risk introducing an unwelcome element of rigidity which could bedevil the commission at a later stage.
That said, I am fully aware of the real concerns expressed by many speakers in the Second Reading debate and the two speakers this evening that the Government's proposals could not succeed unless the commission were funded in such a way as enabled it to meet its commitments. Rather than speak directly to the amendments of the noble Baroness, it may be more useful if I outline some of the principles of the financial regime that the Government propose to establish, and by so doing demonstrate the way in which the Government intend to meet the concerns which lie behind these amendments.
As has been recognised, the expenditure of the commission will fall into three categories; namely, administrative costs, grants and expenditure on the care of monuments owned or managed by the commission. Grant will be paid to the commission under each of these headings, and, to prevent the diversion of programme funds to meet administrative costs, the virement of funds into the administrative budget will not be permitted. It is, however, the intention that the commission should be able within limits to vire between the other categories, and also out of the administrative budget; this is normal practice. It
1020
is I think essential that they should have the flexibility to reassign a portion of their programme funds to meet changing needs and circumstances, and that they be allowed to invest any administrative savings in the heritage.
As regards the question of the carry-over of unspent grant from one year to the next, we recognise that not all of the commission's expenditure can be easily predicted. I have in mind here the grants which the commission will pay for the maintenance and repair of monuments and historic buildings, where the demand is difficult to predict. This is dependent on the climate, on the construction industry and, most unpredictable of all, the decision of individual owners of buildings and monuments.
The Government have considered this question very carefully and as a result I can assure the Committee that carry-over of unspent funds which have been committed but not spent on grants will form part of the financial regime. This will enable the commission to be certain that they will have the money to meet a grant offer they have made whenever the recipient takes up that offer. This is, I believe, a significant advance which provides clear evidence of the Government's recognition of the importance of both the heritage and the commission's place in helping to preserve it.
Flexibility is also important in considering the way in which the commission's income will be treated. One of the objectives of the commission will be to bring a fresh approach and new enthusiasm to the presentation of the heritage. They will be unlikely to be active in this area if the fruits of their labours are automatically clawed back by the Treasury in the form of reduced grant. Once again I am happy to be able to give the Committee an assurance. Any increases in income resulting from the presentation of heritage sites brought about by the commission will not automatically lead to reduction in their level of grant. However, the commission will be publicly funded and, if their receipts were in future to become substantially greater, it would be improper if that fact were not considered by the Government, who must retain their responsibility on overall public expenditure levels. The Government will, however, seek in so far as possible to ensure that income generated by the commission is available for reinvestment in the heritage. I should like also to make it clear here that, in so far as the commission manage to attract private donations or commercial sponsorship, the Government have decided that such income will not be taken into account in the negotiations on the level of grant-in-aid.
I have spoken for too long, but this subject is vital and I think that what I have said indicates clearly the Government's belief in that, and also their commitment to the new body, and expands on what I have been able to say on previous occasions about the financing.
Baroness Birk: I thank the Minister for that not only full but hopeful reply. As I understand it, he said that the unspent balances will be able to be kept. He also went into the next amendment, which I have not yet moved, on the question of profit arising. All I would ask on that is about the words "substantially greater". I think the noble Earl said that if the profits are

1021
"substantially greater", that has to be taken into account.
I should have thought that at this time, with the commission being set up and things being as they are, this should not even be operative or find a place in the Bill because that will immediately cast doubt and anxiety. In any event, it cannot possibly arise in the near or even medium-term future. I should be happier, therefore, if, when the Government have reconsidered the matter and perhaps returned with an amendment, that will be attended to.
I think the noble Earl referred to my Amendment No. 113E and said the commission would have powers of investment. I may be speaking somewhat out of order, and I comment on the matter simply because he covered the whole financial field. That relates to any control there may be over the powers of investment. As the Minister has made a general statement, I shall not ask him to go into detail on all the amendments on that aspect. I am simply anxious to know that all the amendments up to 113E are covered by the general approach he outlined in his speech relating to the financial side of this part of the Bill. Perhaps we can leave it like that, and the noble Earl can either return with suitable amendments, or perhaps those concerned could have a meeting with him to examine Government thinking on the matter in more detail and learn how far they are prepared to go following this stage of the Bill.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: Many of your Lordships must be extremely grateful for the progress we have made as a result of the noble Earl's recent speech. Flexibility, the retention of profits and sponsorship are the three important factors and if the moneys involved in each of those three are dealt with in the way the noble Earl outlined, we shall have made a considerable step forward, not only in the Bill but in the way the matter is treated by the Government and the Treasury. In a way we have made a bit of a breakthrough, and we are indeed grateful to the Minister—even, I would say, to the Government—for making the point he has made. We look forward, of course, with the usual suspicion of the Oppositon to what will actually emerge in the form of amendments at the next stage, but it appears extremely hopeful and I am sure we are all pleased for what the noble Earl said.
The Earl of Avon: I am wondering whether the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, intends to speak separately to Amendment No. 113F, dealing with capital sums, or whether she would like me to deal with that now.
Baroness Birk: I would prefer to deal with that when we come to it, after 113E.
The Earl of Avon: Very well; because I have some remarks to make about 113E and 113F. In the meantime, perhaps I might comment now on the use of the phrase "substantially greater". I feel that having, as it were, given quite a lot with one hand, it would be fair to give just a little with the other, and I think it would be difficult not to include that proviso. I am grateful for the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, and I hope that when people have been able to read my remarks, that will make a good focus for us, should there be any more points to raise on the issue, on Report.
Baroness Birk: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 113D not moved.]
Clause 31 agreed to.
9.19 p.m.
Baroness Birk Baroness Birk moved Amendment No. 113E:
After Clause 31, insert the following new clause:
Powers of investment.
(".— (1) Any sums paid to or recieved by the Commission which are not immediately required for any other purpose may be invested by the Commission in accordance with this section.
(2) Sums directly or indirectly representing money paid to the Commission uder section 31(1) above or section (Capital sums) below may be invested in any manner approved by the Treasury; and the Commission—

(a) shall not invest any amount available for investment which represents such money except with the consent of the Treasury; and

(b) shall, if the Treasury so require, invest any such amount specified by the Treasury' in such manner as the Treasury may direct.

(3) Any sums to which subsection (2) above does not apply may be invested in accordance with the Trustee Investments Act 1961; and sections 1, 2, 5, 6, 12 and 13 of that Act shall have effect in relation to such sums, and in relation to any investments for the time being representing such sums as if they constituted a trust fund and the Commissioners were the trusteees of that fund.")
The noble Baroness said: We have partly covered the ground of this amendment, which deals with the commissions powers of investment, but the Bill does not give any hint of any control there might be over such investments. It seems essential that there should be powers of investment and that whatever controls there are—and there obviously will be some—should be set out. The amendment is based on a section in the National Heritage Act 1980 covering the very similar situation of the National Heritage Memorial Fund. I beg to move.
The Earl of Avon: I fear that on this particular point I am not going to be as reasonable as perhaps the noble Baroness may wish. In the Governments's view, the commission's role is largely an executive management role, using the experience and expertise that it gains from that to advise others on the preservation and proper and sensitive presentation of the heritage. I have explained to the noble Baroness how the actual grant-in-aid will work during the year, and from that she will have realised that there will be little possibility of investing it, although of course the commission would be able to put it on deposit.
Therefore we come to the question of the capital fund, and, again as I have just said, we believe that the commission's role should be mainly an executive management role, and we are looking to the National Heritage Memorial Fund to be the capital arm (if that is the right way of putting it) of this body. At the moment we do not envisage the commission having a capital fund, and therfore there is no need to have such powers of investment.
Baroness Birk: I do not think that I can pursue the matter any further at this stage, and so I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Birk Baroness Birk moved Amendment No. 113F:
After Clause 31, insert the following new clause-—
("Capital sums
.—(1) The Secretary of State shall pay a capital sum of £10,000,000 to the Commission on the coming into force of this Act and the Commission shall invest it in accordance with section (Powers of investment) above and may expend it and income from it in whole or part at its discretion.
(2) The Secretary of State may pay such further capital sum or sums to the Commission from time to time as the Treasury may agree, to be invested and expended in like fashion.").
The noble Baroness said: I shall be brief on this amendment, but I really must move it because it involves the question of a capital sum for the new commission. The two consultation papers repeatedly emphasised that one of the main reasons for setting up an independent commission is to improve the presentation of Government-owned monuments and to manage the associated trade operations more commercially. But a change of the kind envisaged by the Government cannot be brought about without some significant capital investment, and this should in time yield increased revenue. However, it cannot be funded from the annual Treasury grant.
Despite what the Minister has just said on the previous amendment, I must get on record our thinking on this matter. Since I think that it is generally known, I shall not at this stage detail the expenditure, but it would involve such items as developing installations, improving maintenance of visitors' facilities, and so on. As the Minister himself said, there is in the National Heritage Memorial Fund a precedent for setting up a new commission with a capital sum. This has been an outstanding success. One reason for its success was that it started with a reasonably large capital sum, even before it received its subvention.
The tourist side of this matter is going to be extremely important. As we said both on Second Reading and earlier during the Committee stage, the department has probably fallen down very often, partly on presentation, and on the advertising and publicity material. But if the commission is to be able to do better, it will need more, not less, funds. The sum of £10 million has been proposed in the amendment as a figure to think about. It could well be that to cover this type of enterprise—and that is evidently what the Government want—the figure should be nearer £15 million, or £20 million. I beg to move.
The Earl of Avon: A central focus for the heritage and an important voice for conservation are other complementary roles of the commission, but, so far as I can see, none of the things that I have said, nor, I believe, those which the noble Baroness has just been suggesting, predicate any need for a capital fund. A fund surely is for major purchases of heritage property and, as I have already said, in this field there is the highly regarded National Heritage Memorial Fund.
I believe that it would be wrong to provide for duplication by giving the commission investment funds in this way, particularly when in setting up the new body the aim is to cut down on the diffuseness of existing heritage arrangements. I think it worth making the point that the commission will have its work cut out to discharge the executive and advisory responsibilities that it has been given, without seeking
1024
at its inception a much wider role. At the moment I cannot see the need for a capital fund. I thought that the noble Baroness was talking more about the running costs of publicity and that sort of thing rather than capital funds.
Baroness Birk: The capital fund is needed here not for buying buildings but in order to invest to increase the revenue it will need to be spending, to a far greater extent than the department is spending or that the two boards separately have been spending. This is tied up with a previous amendment on which the Minister (as he rightly said) was not very helpful. That dealt with the power of the commission to be able to invest. The capital sum is not meant for them to buy up property but to set themselves up and carry out all the duties they are supposed to carry out and to do so in this very much more creative and inspiring, innovative way. I think that it is getting rather late to pursue this. I wanted to make the point of the amendment and then to seek to return to it later. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Airedale): Immediately before Amendment No. 113G on the Marshalled List there appears to be a two-line amendment which is unmarked and unnumbered. It is about stamp duty. Does the noble Baroness move that amendment?
Baroness Birk Baroness Birk moved the following Amendment:
After Clause 31, insert the following new clause:
("Stamp duty.
All conveyances and transfers of property made to and from the Commission shall be exempt from stamp duty.").
The noble Baroness said: This amendment is much like an earlier one suggesting that the commission should not have to pay tax because, if the commission purchases or sells property in the course of its activities, stamp duty will fall to be paid if not by the commission then by those it deals with. I should like an assurance from the Minister that stamp duty will be exempted. If that provision is not possible in this Bill, because it is a financial matter, then perhaps it could be inserted into the next Finance Act.
The Earl of Avon: As the noble Baroness is aware, we are having a look at the taxes and I will take this into account at the same time.
Baroness Birk: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.28 p.m.
Baroness Birk Baroness Birk moved Amendment No. 113G:
After Clause 31, insert the following new clause:
("Transfer of functions: Royal Palaces and Parks.
(1) Her Majesty may by Order in Council provide for the transfer to the Commission of any functions exercisable by the Secretary of State with respect to any Royal Palace or Royal Park, or part thereof, not in the occupation of a member of the Royal Family.
(2) An Order under this Section may contain such incidental, consequential and supplementary provisions as may be necessary or expedient for the purpose of giving effect to the Order.
(3) No Order shall be made under this Section unless a draft of the Order has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.").
The noble Baroness said: This deals with a transfer of the functions of the Royal Palaces and Parks. I think it is very late now to deal fully with this. All I would say on this matter is that this should be done by Order-in-Council, as the amendment says. The whole question of how far they should be part of the commission, either to start with or later, needs more thought. At this stage the way we thought of dealing with it was that there would be an enabling clause, so to speak, on the table which could be brought in when necessary. The Palaces, which are uninhabited to start with, would be taken over to the commission at a time when it is thought likely—and, similarly so with the Royal Parks. Personally, I am not happy at the idea of the Royal Parks going—certainly in the foreseeable future—because it is not something that the Ancient Monuments Board or the Historic Buildings Council really have a great deal to do with, except in the case of the park at Hampton Court which is right by the palace itself.
I think that it is possible to let the Royal Parks lie fallow for the time being. This is really a probing amendment just to see what ideas the Government have or whether they are waiting to see again how we are going to respond and put this together. It seems to be something we shall have to come back to at the next stage. I do not think we should rush it through tonight. I beg to move.
The Earl of Avon: Perhaps this amendment will give me an opportunity to put the Government's side of this matter on record. We have considered carefully, in the course of discussions about the new commission, whether functions in respect of Royal Parks and Royal Palaces should be included in the commission's remit. However, the Government have concluded not to do so. All buildings with the status of a Royal Palace are in a very real sense Royal. People regard such places as Hampton Court Palace and the Tower of London as closely connected with our national history and with the Monarchy; it is indeed the Royal linkage with these places which makes them such attractions.
It could be argued that these buildings are so important in terms of their historic fabric that they should be able to have the benefit of the commission's expertise. The Government believe that such expertise in respect of archaeological and historical questions can be provided by the commission through their general advisory role. But to delegate to the commission the work of maintaining these buildings would, in the Government's view, be to divorce itself too far from the sensitivities surrounding them.
There are also major security issues at these places. The Tower of London contains, as the Committee knows, the Crown Jewels, and has been the subject of bomb attacks. The contents of Hampton Court Palace are priceless in value. The safety of the many inhabitants of both places has to be ensured. All these considerations seem to the Government to go beyond the role of the commission.
It has been argued that the commission will have tourist expertise in the presentation and commercial
1026
management of these properties. There is truth in this, but I am sure the Committee will agree that the commercial presentation of Royal Palaces ought not to be the first consideration. What is important about such properties is their history, their status, and their relationship to the Monarchy. Their tourist presentation is important but subsidiary. The Government have in mind to look to the new commission for advisory expertise in the presentation of such properties to the public, within the constraints of their Royal status, but the Government believe that the overall management of the palaces must be retained to the Secretary of State.
As to the Royal Parks, similar sensitivities to those I have described apply here. These are important open spaces in London with Royal connections. They form a vital part of the central London scene and provide recreation for both Londoners and visitors. Security considerations affect the Royal Parks very closely, as we have only too tragically been made aware in recent months. Like the palaces, the Government consider that they cannot devolve management responsibilities here. In any case, the Government see the management of the Royal Parks as an issue entirely separate from the basic functions of the new commission in respect of ancient monuments and historic buildings. The Government believe that it would be wrong to extend the commission's remit in this way. We have reached these decisions after long and careful thought and I hope that the Committee will consider them.
Baroness Birk: I thank the Minister for that explanation. I take it that this means that if on a future occasion the Royal Palaces come under the commission's mangement that would need legislation. Is that so?
The Earl of Avon: I imagine it would, yes.
Baroness Birk: As I understand what the noble Earl was saying, the Government have no intention at the moment of putting in any enabling clause. I raised this matter by means of an enabling clause to see whether they were going to do that. May I say I am delighted to hear that the Royal Parks are going to be kept outside this Bill. That is absolutely right because they are different from buildings and ancient monuments. If what are known as the money spinners, like the Tower of London and Hampton Court, are to be kept by the department away from the commission, then two matters arise. One is the lack of incentive to make money and inspire more enterprise in the running of these places. How are the commission going to show this entrepreneurial vigour on which the Secretary of State puts such emphasis?
Secondly, there is the question of the specialised staff. Will they be the staff employed by the commission who will then go back to the department? Will the department be having its own staff to look after the Royal palaces entirely on their own?—because at the moment this goes across a whole area in the department which requires conservation and so on. Those are some of the practical problems which will arise. How do the Government see that working?
The Earl of Avon: If we can just take the two different places, Hampton Court and the Tower, they are in themselves two different cases because, as we said when we discussed the Tower of London, the financing is rather difficult. The DoE, as it were, has a main door and therefore the Armouries would be funded from a grant-in-aid which would obviously have an effect on the main door. The Armouries would not have their own collection. We did touch on that with regard to the Armouries earlier.
As regards Hampton Court, I should like to say again that, as it is a Royal Palace and, as we have seen recently, it is used from time to time, one would not want the money consideration to be the prime point there. We would look to the palace going on as it is at the moment but getting advice from the commission in its advisory capacity.
Baroness Birk: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Birk Baroness Birk moved Amendment No. 113H:
After Clause 31, insert the following new clause—
("Royal Commission on Historical Monuments (England)
.—(1) The Secretary of State, the Commission and the Royal Commission on Historical Monuments (England) shall consult together as to the desirability, or otherwise, and how the responsibilities of the said Royal Commission can be assumed by the Commission.
(2) The Secretary' of State shall present a report to each House of Parliament on these consultations and, if the report so recommends. Her Majesty may by Order in Council provide for the Royal Commission on Historical Monuments to cease to exist and for the new body to be set up under any necessary statutory provisions.
(3) An Order under this section may contain such incidental, consequential and supplementary provisions as may be necessary or expedient for the purpose of giving effect to the Order.
(4) No Order shall be made under this section unless a draft of the Order has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.")
The noble Baroness said: Up till now this whole subject has been an extremely controversial one since the Bill was first mooted. The consultation papers left it rather wide open, and, as has happened with so many things, threw the ball to us here as to what should happen to the Royal Commission on Historical Monuments.
The Royal Commission itself has, by way of paper and discussion, expressed its concern about its future. There seems to be a lack of desire to be absorbed by the new commission. This new clause is an enabling clause but it requires the Royal Commission, the Secretary of State and the new commission to consult together as to the diesirability or otherwise and the best way of bringing the Royal Commission in with the new commission so that the major aim of bringing all the agencies together is achieved.
This amendment should be taken at this stage as a probing amendment and also as an earnest of goodwill towards the Royal Commission. Nobody wants to abolish the Royal Commission in the sense that its work ceases to be done. On the contrary, its work must continue to be done and done in the present spirit of great and dedicated scholarship and by the same people. Nonetheless, one has to look at the wider scene. The commission will need to engage in research and it needs to have all the knowledge and expertise of
1028
the Royal Commission at its disposal, because the Royal Commission has the information and the knowledge which the commission could not get anywhere else; yet it must not unduly disrupt the future research to be done by the men and women in the existing Royal Commission, whatever may become of it.
The commission also needs to have ready access to the photographic library of the National Monuments Record, which is now a section of the Royal Commission. This is a marvellous tool, containing half a million photographs; and recourse to it has to be very easy because time is often of the essence. The Royal Commission also has researchers who should be in free converse with the commission staff; and all that will be best achieved if the two are much more closely linked and more closely integrated than they are at the moment.
It is evident that the Government are looking for a lead. Both the first consultation paper and The Way Forward were deliberately neutral. I think that we have probably now reached the stage where, if it is considered necessary for there to be some form of integration, then the only way it can be done is at a time—and the Royal Commission is at the moment concerned with finishing its work on the Ordnance Survey—when the Royal Commission would be ready in, I understand, some months to discuss it. Also, there should be consultation as to whether integration is desirable, or whether there is some other means of preserving the close link which. I understand, is essential, without necessarily absorbing the Royal Commission into the commission. I beg to move.
9.40 p.m.
Lord Adeane: I am most grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, for her remarks about the Royal Commission and its work. In case it is not already absolutely clear, I should state that the Royal Commissioners have at present a decided and unanimous preference, in which they are supported by their staff, for doing their work outside the structure of the new agency, but in close co-operation with it. Perhaps I may explain why that is so. Perhaps it is also the view of the Government; otherwise, they might not have left the Royal Commission out of the Bill. I do not know the answer to this. But I do know—and here I must disclose my interest as chairman—that the Royal Commissioners themselves consider that their responsibilities and duties should not be absorbed into the new agency, but should continue to be performed independently.
I refer purposely to the responsibilities and duties being absorbed, because I doubt whether the Royal Commission itself is capable of absorption. If this were to be attempted, it would cease to be a Royal Commission and would become a committee of the new agency or something of the sort, which would be a very different affair altogether. But whatever is done, the duties and responsibilities will have to continue. Someone has to do this work, which I described at the Second Reading of the Bill and will not weary your Lordships with again, except to say that they are mainly those of recording and assessing our architectural and archaeological heritage and curating the results of their researches.

1029
Why should we consider that we can carry out these duties better, on behalf of the nation and the public—because it is them that we are concerned with—outside rather than inside the new agency? The answer, so far as we are concerned, is one of principle, though there are also practical aspects. The principle is that the nation's record of its heritage should be made and looked after as an important and independent function, the results of which are publicly and freely accessible.
At present, this function is vested in the Royal Commission, as your Lordships know, which, in accordance with its warrant, discharges it through scholarly and systematic investigation across the country, very often with local help. These investigations are published in a variety of ways and, as the noble Baroness has already mentioned, they are recorded in the National Monuments Record in London. This is open to the public daily. We think that it is of the first importance that these principles of independence in the collection and care of the record and of public accountability should be recognised and protected. The credibility and the very nature of the record depend upon its impartiality and independence from any restraint of current legislation, expediency or particular politics.
Finally, I should like to say a very brief word about the Royal Commissioners themselves. They are appointed by the Prime Minister, on the Prime Minister's recommendation. Not only do they meet as a body and in committees, but they do a great deal of work for the Royal Commission as individuals in the various fields in which they are recognised experts. These services are all given free, and willingly.
Having said all this—I hope not at too great length—I must point out that the last thing the Royal Commission wants to do is to try to build up any wall of opposition to the general purposes of the Bill. That is very far from being our business or our wish. We are anxious to help and to co-operate with the new agency after it is set up and when we know more exactly what it is going to do, but, as I have told your Lordships, we think that we can do so better from outside. In this connection, I should mention that we are already co-operating—not with the new agency but with the department—by undertaking to look after the archaeological work of the Ordnance Survey. Otherwise, this would presumably fall to the lot of the new agency. We are very busy getting it set up. The amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, recognises the possibility of consultations and procedures into which the Royal Commission could very readily enter. This is what we want, but we want to enter them from outside.
Lord Beswick: When I first read Amendment No. 113H and the following amendment which stands in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, I thought that there was some implied criticism of the Royal Commission on Historical Monuments. There is a threat of extinction in the first amendment and the promise of a probationary period in the second. I did not think that in either case this was merited by the record and the work of the Royal Commission, so I was delighted to hear what my noble friend Lady Birk
1030
said: that it is not a criticism of the Royal Commission but a desire that their undoubted expertise and scholarship should be made available to the new body.
I venture to offer one thought which supports what has just been said by the noble Lord, Lord Adeane. In these matters there can be over-organisation. I should have thought that the cult of rationalisation and merger had been overdone a little in recent years. There are some experiences which suggest that there is merit in an independent unit. The very quality to which my noble friend Lady Birk referred in the Royal Commission seems to have grown and been developed from its independence. Therefore, I hope that what has just been said will be taken very much to heart.
Indeed, I wonder whether any legislation at all is needed. In my experience, consultation and a proper working agreement can be reached over the lunch table. It does not need to be dealt with through Parliament. I would seriously suggest that there should be consultation between the various parties to see whether or not a proper working arrangement could be reached which would make available to the new commission the undoubted expertise and experience which the Royal Commission has amassed.
Lord Kennet: I am a romantic about the Royal Commission, and I believe I perceive that most members of the Committee will be romantics, too. It is a freestanding instrument of scholarship: very small, unprotected by any university, unprotected by any research council, unprotected by any firm, unprotected by any Government department. Yet the present Government have not abolished it. It is wonderful that, in the candle-ends atmosphere of the present day, it should still have survived. I remember, from 15 years ago when I was looking after these things in the Government, an excellent paper by Sir Nikolaus Pevsner outlining how he thought the Royal Commission could finish its allotted task within 300 years instead of the 500 years which, at the current rate of progress, it would take. I am glad to say that that paper was not adopted, either by the Royal Commission or by those in the Government who could have funded the Royal Commission to finish the job within a shorter period. Let us not legislate about it in any way which is not wholly welcome to the Royal Commission itself. As the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, has just said, there is still a role for the totally independent and the very small in matters of research of this kind.
Lord Sandford: I believe it might be for the convenience of the Committee, and may help expedite our business and my noble friend in making his reply, if I were to speak to my amendment, Amendment No. 114, while we are discussing this amendment. I would point out that as compared with Amendment No. 113H, my amendment is quite different and does not at all presuppose the abolition or extinction of the Royal Commission, although I have to say that if I were drafting my amendment now, in the light of the debates we have had so far, for the word "future" I would substitute
"future relationships between the Commission for Ancient Monuments and Historic Buildings for England and the Royal Commission".
which would give it a rather different sense. If we were starting from scratch——
Baroness Birk: We are.
Lord Sandford: ——and seeking to establish a body to adopt a single, integrated approach to the care of the heritage, I have little doubt that we would regard academic research into the heritage as being fundamental to the care of it and scholarly study of the heritage as needing to be integrated with the care of the heritage. Because of that, when I came to draft Amendment No. 92 on the aims of CFAMAHBFE I put "recording" before "conservation". I believe it is the absence of any reference to this academic dimension in the work of the CFAMAHBFE that is causing the concern which has been expressed by the noble Lords, Lord Beloff, Lord Baker and Lord Blake, in our debates and by the president of the British Academy in The Times a few days ago.
I have expressed my view to the president, the Master of Selwyn College, that it is the close involvement or even incorporation of the Royal Commission in the work of the CFAMAHBFE that will be the best way of dealing with this concern and setting it at rest. But we are not starting from scratch. Here we have an eminent Royal Commission with a distinguished track record going back 75 years, and we have a new and untried CFAMAHBFE in embryo form. It may well not be right to abolish the Royal Commission and incorporate it in this new commission at the present moment—or ever at all, as envisaged by Amendment No. 113H.
Even more, it cannot be right to enact this Bill without any clear indication of the Government's intentions about the role of the Royal Commission, on the one hand, and the new Heritage Commission, on the other. I have to quote in this regard from the letter which many of us have received from the Secretary of the Royal Commission, in which he says in paragraph 3:
"At no stage so far have the Royal Commission on Historical Monuments been asked by the DoE or anyone else to think about relations with the CFAMAHBFE.".
If that is the situation it is too late, now that the Bill is already before Parliament, to settle the matter of these relationships fully and finally. Perhaps it is best to let the CFAMAHBFE become established, build up ad hoc relationships with the RCHM and then make proper provision for appropriate relations—it could be
1032
full incorporation or some other relationship—at some other appropriate date, using an amendment much along the lines of that which I have proposed when that time comes about; but that may not be yet.
The Earl of Avon: With the leave of the Committee, I shall direct my remarks to both this amendment and Amendment No. 114. The position of the Royal Commission on Historical Monuments for England in relation to the new commission is a particularly difficult issue. The noble Baroness, Lady Birk, has said that the broad arguments for and against the inclusion of the Royal Commission have been set out in both the original consultation document and in The Way Forward. A large number of responses to both documents have included clear views on the issue but with no overwhelming majority for either inclusion or continued independence.
The Government have not yet taken any decision, and the views of the Committee this evening will be very valuable in the further consideration which must be given to the issue. I have it written here that I am only sorry it has come on so late, but in spite of the late hour we have had many interesting contributions on the subject. We will read carefully what the noble Lord, Lord Adeane, has said in what I found his very balanced and reasonable remarks. The Government will, of course, wish to make public their decision as soon as it has been reached. Meanwhile, I hope the Committee will be able to read the interesting contributions we have had tonight in a very valuable airing, and no doubt we shall be returning to it later.
Baroness Birk: When are we going to have the benefit of the Government's thinking? The noble Earl made a very elegant speech and thanked us all very nicely, but he said nothing at all about the future of the Royal Commission.
The Earl of Avon: I must have done very well. I was told to be neutral.
Baroness Birk: Perhaps the noble Earl will call a Division on it. In the absence of anything further, for the time being I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 32 [Dissolution of certain bodies]:
Lord Sandford Lord Sandford moved Amendment No. 114:
Page 17, line 37, at end insert—
(" ( ) The Secretary of State may by statutory' instrument subject to an affirmative resolution of both Houses make such arrangements for the future of the Royal Commission on Historical Monuments as may be necessary.").
The noble Lord said: Perhaps my noble friend could tell me why I should withdraw my amendment. It does not commit the Government to anything.
The Earl of Avon: I have not said my noble friend should withdraw it. I have just said that the Government have not made up their minds.
Lord Sandford: I beg to move Amendment No. 114.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Murton of Lindisfarne): The Question is, Whether the said amendment (No. 114) shall be agreed to? As many as are of that opinion will say, "Content"? To the contrary, "Not-Content"? Clear the Bar.
Tellers for the Contents and the Not-Contents have not been appointed pursuant to Standing Order No. 50. A Division therefore cannot take place, and in accordance with Standing Order No. 53, which provides that no proposal to amend the Bill in the form in which it is before the Committee should be agreed to unless there is a majority in favour of such an amendment, I declare the amendment disagreed to.
Clause 32 agreed to.
Clause 33 agreed to.
Schedule 5 [Minor and consequential amendments]:
10.2 p.m.
Lord Strabolgi Lord Strabolgi moved Amendment No. 115:
Page 56, leave out lines 39 and 40.
The noble Lord said: With your Lordships' permission, I should also like to speak to Amendment No. 119 to Schedule 6, which is consequential. These amendments are to paragraph 1 of Schedule 5, which is headed:
"Minor and consequential amendments".
In actual fact, they are quite far-reaching, as I shall attempt to show. I have put down this amendment in order to retain adequate parliamentary control over the Executive; control which will cease if Schedule 5, paragraph 1, is passed in its present form. Section 3 of the National Gallery and Tate Gallery Act 1954 was inserted to allow the state to accept gifts or bequests, the destination of which might be unspecified. Power was given to the Treasury to direct the vesting of such gifts and bequests in the National and Tate Galleries or in any of the national museums and institutions listed in the first schedule to the 1954 Act.
If the Treasury wish to add any institutions to this list—which, I may say, comprises most of the national
1034
museums and galleries in the United Kingdom—then an order must be laid before Parliament. I must stress that we are not dealing here with loans but with transfers—transfers that will vest works of art permanently in other institutions. It would be interesting to know from the noble Earl how many other institutions have been added since 1954 with, of course, parliamentary authority. The matter is particularly germane to this Bill, since Clause 5(4) of the Bill allows the Victoria and Albert Board to transfer objects to any of the institutions listed in the first schedule to the 1954 Act, plus the British Library, the Armouries, and the Natural History Museum. This is acceptable, I submit, but how many other institutions are to be added? If the first schedule to the 1954 Act is to be enlarged by the Treasury without any parliamentary control, the V and A board could be persuaded at some time in the future to transfer objects to various non-national institutions, and transfers would be permanent and irrevocable. We are not dealing here with loans but with transfers.
Some institutions, such as those owned by local authorities, universities or charitable bodies, that could be added in future years might not have the same safeguards about disposals. There have been cases recently in these hard-pressed times of institutions planning to sell some of the works of art in their possession to meet current expenses. For example, the Dulwich College Picture Gallery in 1971 sold a painting by Domenichino, which was fortunately acquired at auction by the National Gallery of Scotland. This incident caused an outcry before Scotland came to the rescue. The University of Glasgow proposed in 1980 to sell from the Hunterian Museum part of its celebrated collection of paintings by Whistler. This project was abandoned after an outcry. The London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham proposed last year to sell the notable collection of pre-Raphaelite paintings bequeathed to it by Cecil French. An outcry ensued, and the project was abandoned. The Herefordshire County Council recently proposed to sell a watercolour by Turner, to the acquisition of which the National Art-Collections Fund had contributed. Those are just a few examples.
If the Treasury want to add to Schedule 1 to the 1954 Act, I submit that Parliament should continue to be asked to approve by means of an order. Otherwise, Clause 5(4), taken in conjunction with Schedule 5, if unamended, will mean that the list of institutions to which the V and A can transfer objects can be enlarged at will by Treasury fiat without any parliamentary control at all.
If the Government are really anxious to add certain institutions to the first schedule to the 1954 Act, why cannot these, as an alternative, be specified in the present Bill? Then the list could be brought up to date in the normal parliamentary manner.
May I ask if it is proposed to add any of the bodies covered by paragraph 12 of Schedule 6 to the 1975 Finance Act which was discussed at an earlier stage of this Committee? Among these bodies we find the words, "any Government department", so that this extension of powers could mean the transfer—not the loan, but the transfer—permanently, without parliamentary control, of objects vested in the V and

1035
A trustees into the legal ownership of the Department of the Environment to use for furnishing purposes in publicly owned official residences and Government offices. The objects could then be transferred from there into the ownership of a non-national body, which had power to sell or otherwise to dispose of them. I think we need to know a little more about what the Government have in mind and what they are trying to do in conjunction with this amendment to Schedule 5, read in conjunction with Clause 5(4), and why they are attempting to by-pass parliamentary control, and are seeking such far-reaching powers. I beg to move.
The Earl of Avon: I should like to open by saying to the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, that the Government are not trying to do anything sinister in either this amendment or the next two amendments, to which I know he is going to speak. The object of the provision in the Bill is to simplify the procedures for adding to the list of national collections in which the Secretary of State may vest works of art left to the nation without any specific provision being made. At present the Secretary of State is required to seek Parliament's approval by means of an affirmative resolution of each House. The proposal would remove the requirement for the affirmative resolution and the noble Lord's amendment would have the effect of retaining that requirement.
The schedule contains the names of our major national institutions and only one institution has been added in this way since 1954. Some of our major institutions, which have been the subject of legislation since then, are treated as if they are in the schedule by virtue of their own Acts. The procedure is, therefore, rarely used, and, more important, rarely needed. I am informed that the present situation of the Victoria and Albert Museum would in no way be changed by this legislation. I have also been spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, who said that although he is not pressing for this legislation, it would be convenient to have it. I assure the noble Lord that there is nothing sinister about this. If he remains unconvinced, then, of course, we shall not bother to do this amall, simplifying procedure.
Lord Strabolgi: I am somewhat reassured by the noble Earl's explanation. I am not too concerned about adding to the first schedule of the 1954 Act. What concerns me is the additional powers that the Government are taking in this Bill, in Clause 5(4), to add to that schedule whenever they wish, in conjunction with the list given in the Finance Act 1975, where they can add any local authority institution, any Government department, or almost anybody you can think of. It is this about which I am concerned. However, in view of the noble Earl's assurance, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 116 not moved.]
Lord Strabolgi Lord Strabolgi moved Amendment No. 117:
Page 57, leave out lines I to 3.
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 117 and I should also like to speak to Amendment No. 121, which is to delete the consequential repeal to the relevant section of the National Gallery and Tate Gallery Act 1954, and appears in Schedule 6.
Amendment No. 117 seeks to retain certain wording in Section 4(3) of the 1954 Act, which requires the Treasury to lay a draft order before Parliament if the Government decide to increase the proportion of works loaned for display in public buildings or official residences in the United Kingdom or elsewhere. Of course, "elsewhere" means our embassies abroad.
At present the proportions of the total holdings that may be lent in this way are fixed at 5 per cent. of the National Gallery's holding and 10 per cent. of the Tate's. The subsection was inserted in the 1954 Act—as I remember well—as an impediment to disproportionate increases in the number of paintings to be removed from ready public access by being lent for furnishing purposes to official buildings. These are, of course, paintings that belong to the nation and are supposed to be on view and to be seen by the nation. It was thought right that only a small proportion of them should be available for lending to official residencies.
These proportions seem rather generous to me, and if the Treasury wish to increase them, then at present parliamentary sanction must be obtained. That seems to be right. If you want to take more than 10 per cent. of the National Gallery's holding and increase that to 30 per cent., you have at present to come to Parliament and explain why you wish to do so. This sanction is obtained by means of an order setting out the reasons and an explanation why the Government want the proportion of works of art being removed on loan from the public view in the National and Tate Galleries to be increased.
The present Bill would remove the requirement to lay an order. Proportions could be increased, and increased substantially, by mere Treasury fiat without any parliamentary control at all. I submit that this is wrong. I hope that the noble Earl, Lord Avon, will provide an explanation of the reason behind this attempt to bypass Parliament. Do they want to take a lot more pictures from the National Gallery and the Tate Gallery and not come to Parliament and explain why? Why are they trying to do this? I see no reason why they should not have to lay an order and get parliamentary permission to take pictures out of the public domain, pictures that belong to the nation. I beg to move.
The Earl of Avon: The noble Lord is concerned that lifting the requirements for the affirmative resolution procedure in relation to the proportion of works of art that may be on loan from the National Gallery and the Tate Gallery collections at any one time in official residences and public buildings may lead to an undesirable increase in the number of such loans. I hope, if I can, to reassure him in two ways. First, since the passage of the 1954 Act no requests have been received from the two galleries to exceed the existing

1037
limits. Nor have any proposals to do so in the foreseeable future come to our attention. The present proportions are therefore clearly about right as things stand at the moment, and allow the trustees of the galleries the due amount of flexibility.
Secondly, should the trustees feel that particular circumstances warrant an increase in the number of pictures on loan in this way, they will still have to seek the Secretary of State's approval to a change in the proportion, which approval will be expressed in an order. All the Bill does is to remove the need to lay an order in draft in the event that a variation in the proportion was proposed, and to remove the need for approval by affirmative resolution where the proportion of objects on loan would be increased. Once again I assure the noble Lord that I can find nothing sinister in this. It is purely someone trying to tidy up in this particular amendment. Once again, if the noble Lord feels like pressing me, of course I will give way.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: The noble Earl seems in his reply to have effectively stated that there is in fact no need for this part of the Bill at all because no one is envisaging changing the proportion. It seems to take away most of the reason for having these lines in the Bill. The only reason that the noble Earl put forward is that it seems to be administratively easier to remove the control of the proportion from Parliament to the Secretary of State. I think I speak for these Benches when I say that that is a thesis that we will always resist in principle, unless a case was seriously made out. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, will stick to his point.
The Earl of Avon: May I say one thing to the noble Lord, Lord Beaumount? I ought to get this correct. It is proposed to retain the Secretary of State's power to vary these proportions by means of an order. So the Secretary of State would do it by means of an order.
Lord Kennet: It seems to me that no case has been made out for decreasing the power of Parliament in this matter. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, will persevere with his amendment, especially since we know that the Government will accept it.
Lord Strabolgi: I am grateful for the support from the noble Lords, Lord Beaumont and Lord Kennet. I was rather surprised when the noble Earl, Lord Avon, seemed to give the impression that the Government thought that it was the trustees who were falling over themselves to lend paintings all over the place to official residences. It is not the trustees at all. They are trying to combat this. What happens is that the Department of the Environment come to them and say, "We want this, that and the other for our embassies abroad and official residences here", and then they have to come to Parliament and get permission if the amount is to be increased. I do not think that the Government's reply is satisfactory. The noble Earl implied that he might accept the amendment. If he will, I shall be very happy.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
10.19 p.m.
The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 118:
Page 57, line 9, at end insert ("for England")
The noble Earl said: This is a small drafting amendment to correct a slip in paragraph 2 of Schedule 5. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Birk Baroness Birk moved Amendment No. 118A:
Page 57, line 20, at end insert—
("(n) The Commission for Ancient Monuments and Historic Buildings in England.")
The noble Baroness said: The Bill provides in Schedule 5(3) for the four major museums covered by the measure to be entered in Schedule 2 to the Charities Act 1960 with the effect—this is according to the Notes on Clauses—that they will be exempt charities within the meaning of the Act and, accordingly, not subject to registration under the Act and the supervisory powers of the Charity Commission, irrespective of what form of fund or trusting the charity——
Lord Mottistone: If I may interrupt the noble Baroness, my understanding was that when Amendment No. 97A was moved, 118A was moved with it; 97A was withdrawn and I am wondering why she is now talking to 118A.
Baroness Birk: I do not think I spoke to them together. So far as I remember, I did not speak to 118A.
Lord Mottistone: I think Hansard will back me up on that.
Baroness Birk: I certainly did not speak to the point with which I am now dealing. I was concerned with the form of the charity trust or charity fund which would be part of the Commission for Ancient Monuments and Historic Buildings. What I am now discussing applies to a different part of the Bill, and this amendment is designed to have the Commission for Ancient Monuments and Historic Buildings in England added to the list of museums so that it will not be subject to registration under the Act nor to the supervisory powers of the Charity Commission. That is all I am seeking to do, and I beg to move.
The Earl of Avon: We have already talked about amendments in respect of a trading subsidiary and charitable trust, and in this amendment the noble Baroness is suggesting that we should give the commission exempt charity status, in so far as it is a charity. This would mean that the commission, in so far as it operated or was able to operate as a charity, was not subject to Charity Commission supervision. It would thus be on all fours with the other trustee bodies in the Bill.
When I spoke to Amendment No. 97A, to which my noble friend Lord Mottistone referred, I said that the Government were looking urgently into the issue of the treatment of the commission's trading voluntary

1039
income. The commision will be a rather different body from the trustee bodies set up by the Bill, and the same treatment would not necessarily be appropriate. For instance, for that reason, consideration is being given to the establishment of a separate charitable subsidiary within the commission in order to fulfil the role of a recipient of trading profits and voluntary contributions. As I said earlier, these are complex issues and we are fully seized of the arguments. I hope that with that assurance, the noble Baroness will, for the moment, be prepared to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Birk: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Birk Baroness Birk moved Amendment No. 118B:
Page 57, line 20, at end insert—
("Finance Act 1975 (c. 7)
4. In paragraph 12(1) of Schedule 6 to the Finance Act 1975 (capital transfer tax exemptions) before the entry relating to the National Gallery there shall be inserted "the Commission for Ancient Monuments and Historic Buildings for England".").
The noble Baroness said: On a previous occasion, a similar amendment to that which I am now moving—it was then No. 92A—was moved and the noble Earl, Lord Avon, said that the Government proposed to bring forward an appropriate amendment on Report. He said at that time that it would have been nice if he could have accepted the amendment then tabled, but he had been told there was a technical problem with it; the remarks he made then are to be found in Hansard for 16th December.
The technical problem to which the noble Earl then referred may now have been put right in the amendment I am moving, in view of the fact that it begins:
"In paragraph 12(1) of Schedule 6 to the",
and so on, which the previous amendment did not state. I thought that if we could get this small amendment right now, that would save the Government taking the matter back, with so much else of what they have promised to reconsider, and the matter could be settled now, instead of having to be raised on Report. Thus, if the amendment is now technically correct, perhaps the noble Earl can accept it. I beg to move.
The Earl of Avon: I appreciate the concern of the noble Baroness on this issue, and I confess that it is concerning me too. The amendment raises some difficult questions in terms of the nature of the commission's position in regard to taxation issues, which, as the noble Baroness knows, we are taking under our wing. Some such matters are easier than others—for example, the question of relief from capital transfer tax.
It would have been nice if I could have accepted the amendment, but there is, I understand, a technical point in relation to its place in the schedule, and that is what is exercising us at the moment. So perhaps the noble Baroness can leave it with me, and I am afraid that we shall have to have another look at it.
Baroness Birk: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 5, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 6 [Repeals]:
[Amendments Nos. 119 and 120 not moved.]
Lord Strabolgi Lord Strabolgi moved Amendment No. 121:
Page 57, line 31, column 3, leave out ("and in subsection (3) the words from "a draft" to the end").
The noble Lord said: This amendment is consequential on Amendment No. 117, which the noble Earl accepted. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 122:
Page 57, line 42, column 3, at end insert—
("In section 10B(11), the definition of "the appropriate advisory Council".").
The noble Earl said: I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 105. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 6, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 34 and 35 agreed to.
Clause 36 [Short title]:
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: As I understand it, Amendments Nos. 122A and 124 are alternatives, and perhaps they can be discussed together.
Lord Strabolgi Lord Strabolgi moved Amendment No. 122A:
Page 18, line 19, leave out ("National").
The noble Lord said: I put down the amendment for the sake of accuracy, because to me it does not seem to be right to call the Bill the "National Heritage Bill" when it excludes Scotland. Clause 35, which your Lordships' Committee has just passed, makes quite clear that the Bill does not extend to Scotland,
"except so far as it amends or repeals"
certain enactments. But it does not extend to Scotland, and it seems to me quite wrong to call a Bill "National"when it does not extend to the whole of the United Kingdom. I beg to move.
Lord Airedale: I should like to support the amendment. I thought that I had better look up the word "nation" in the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, but the trouble with lexicographers is that they always seem to give a variety of meanings, and one can pick and choose whichever meaning one likes. However, if one accepts the definition that a nation is a people,
"organised as a separate political state",
then it seems to me that an Act of Parliament which does not apply to Scotland cannot be called "National".

1041
I have been invited to speak to my amendment, No. 124, and I hope that I may, very briefly. I put it down because it seemed to me that people might be confused in their minds between "heritage" and "inheritance", and that it might be a good idea to get away from the word "heritage" altogether. So I have put down my amendment to entitle the Bill the "Museums etc. Bill". In support of it, I would simply say that it would indeed make a short Title, and the Bill is overwhelmingly about museums. One cannot usually get into a Short Title everything with which a Bill deals. If your Lordships think that the word "etc." in a Title is untidy, I can only say that there are precedents. I opened at random the index to Halsbury's Statutes, and I came across the
"Naval and Military War Pensions Etc. Act,
and the
"Naval Billeting Etc. Act".
Lord Jenkins of Putney: I find myself unattracted by the alternative preferred by my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Airedale. It seems to me that the Scots would greatly resent the notion—I think, for example, of the Scottish National Party—that the Scottish nation embraced England. I do not know why we should presume to suppose that the English nation embraces the Scots. I rather think they would reject our embrace, so I do not think that that is much of a good idea. The "Museums etc. Bill" is very unattractive. It seems to me that in order accurately to describe the Bill we should call it "The Dog's Dinner".
Lord Mottistone: I think there is a precedent for what is currently the Title. I happen to be associated with the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, which has a parallel body in Scotland called the Royal Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children. They clearly accept the fact that the society which represents England and Wales is known as the "National Society". I am sure that there are other examples. This happens to be in my personal knowledge.
I also slightly resent, on behalf of my wife, the fact that all the protests have been about Scotland and not about the fact that Northern Ireland, in the preceding clause of this Bill, is also left out. Northern Ireland does not seem to be given thought from the other side of the Committee as being people who might be equally insulted. I should have thought that the whole of this is a load of nonsense.
Lord Kennet: I agree with the last point and, as usual, when you have a load of nonsense it is best not to change the original Title of the load of nonsense. Surely, common usage says that there are three nations in Britain: the English, the Scottish and the Welsh. This one covers one of the three nations, and so it is quite correct to call it the National Heritage Bill.
The Earl of Avon: I think that I really ought to have rested my case on that excellent expose by the noble Lord, Lord Kennet. These amendments might enjoy a measure of support to avoid any confusion arising between the Title of this Bill and the National Heritage Act 1980. The creation of a series of legislation under a generic heading is a common device, and the
1042
Government do not think that such confusion is likely to occur.
The proposed revisions to the Title we do not think are satisfactory. The first does not take proper account of Clause 35, which makes reference to the amendment and repeal of enactments which make reference, in turn, to Scotland and Northern Ireland—which will please my noble friend Lord Mottistone. To limit the Short Title in this way incorrectly suggests that other parts of the United Kingdom are not affected by it. The second abbreviates the Title to such an extent that the Government consider it to be seriously misleading. It would not be appropriate to rest the Short Title on the museums alone. The trustee institutions covered by the Bill are London-based, but we consider them national institutions. It would be wrong to imply they had relevance only to England or—to mention it before we close—Wales. I hope the noble Lords will be prepared to withdraw their amendments.
Lord Strabolgi: I am grateful to those noble Lords who took part in the debate for their various suggestions. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 123 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
[Amendment No. 124 not moved.]
Clause 36 agreed to.
In the Title:
Lord Strabolgihad given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 125:
Line 3, after ("Gardens,") insert ("Kew,").
The noble Lord said: We had a debate about this at an earlier stage of the Bill. I understand that the Government have given an assurance that they will consider "the Royal Botanic Gardens", making clear that these are not the only Royal Botanic Gardens in the United Kingdom. With that assurance, I do not propose to move the amendment.
House resumed: Bill reported with the amendments.

USA: Europe Command Headquarters
10.35 p.m.
Lord Brockway Lord Brockway rose to ask her Majesty's Government on what conditions they have given permission to the Government of the USA to establish in this country an alternative command headquarters for their military forces in Europe.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, except for the staff of the House, for whose services we are all so grateful, I make no apology for asking this Question even at this late hour. I think that the apology is necessary from the Government Benches. When I sought to put down a Private Notice Question on this subject, I was told that it would depend upon a decision reached in another place where a similar request was being made. That request was refused on the ground that there would be a debate in another place where this subject could be

1043
raised. But in this House no debate has been allowed. With the help of the Opposition Front Bench, the only possibility was an Unstarred Question tonight. I think it disgraceful that, on such an important issue as this, the only possibility of expressing an opinion is at this late hour in a House with a small attendance.
I doubt very much whether we should have known of this decision to allow an American command centre in reserve to be established in this country had it not been for the report in the Guardian. I regard the Government as very much at fault in that they kept us in the dark on this matter when discussions began last spring. There are three consequences of this decision. The first relates to High Wycombe itself. It is much more than a local issue. High Wycombe has already become the military headquarters in Great Britain. It is the headquarters of the RAF in Britain. It is the headquarters of the American bases in Britain. There has been built in the Chilterns itself the deep and expansive bunker for VIPs. There is in High Wycombe the reserve NATO headquarters for Europe except for West Germany.
Now, in addition to these military establishments, there is the proposal that the alternative American command should be constructed in High Wycombe. If a war occurred, a survey has already indicated that High Wycombe would be the most dangerous place in England—second only to Strathclyde where the Polaris submarines are based. Now I think that in the event of war High Wycombe will become even more dangerous than Strathclyde.
To that I want to add one incidental point: the Prime Minister, in a Written Answer in another place, emphasised that the American command centre was American and not a NATO establishment. But, as I have indicated already, in High Wycombe itself there is a NATO establishment.
The second consequence of this decision is one which refers particularly to the question I have put about the conditions in which the American command centre will be allowed in this country. So far we have had repeated assurances that American action could not be taken in the event of war without the consent of the British Government, and that has applied to the many American bases in this country. It is impossible to make that demand for prior consultation when the new command centre in High Wycombe is to be a command centre for the whole of Europe. I should like the Government to answer the question whether prior British consultation about the use of that command centre still stands in view of importance for the whole of Europe for the American forces.
The third point I want to make is this: this country is now becoming a military colony of the United States of America. We have the American bases scattered all over the country. Now we are to have even the alternative American command centre for the whole of Europe on our territory; and the position is being reached that any decision in wartime which would be taken would not be a British but an American decision. The issue is even more than an issue of war and peace: it has become an issue as to whether our own people are to have their destiny in their hands.
I want to put it to the Government that it is very unwise to proceed with these proposals when opinion polls have indicated that a large majority of our people are opposed to the presence of American bases here at all and when it is very likely indeed that the next Government of this country will abolish those American bases. That must refer to the proposed American command as well. The vast expenditure which is resulting from these proposals may be entirely wasted by a decision of a forthcoming Government. I put it to the Government that it is unwise, when we are approaching a general election, to make decisions of this kind.
It has been suggested in a High Wycombe local newspaper that many of the people of High Wycombe are not concerned because they do not believe that a nuclear war will take place. If it does not take place, it will be due to the strength of the Peace Movement in this country, in Western Europe and now in America, as well as in Japan, Australia and New Zealand. That movement has now become so strong that 138 elected local and regional authorities in this country have declared themselves nuclear weapon-free zones.
It is so strong in Western Europe that the Governments both of Belgium and of Holland have to reject NATO's demand that cruise missiles should be established there. It is so strong in Western Germany that it was recognised both in Bonn and in Washington that its strength was the reason why the German Chancellor had to fly to President Reagan, to convince him that he must begin talks with the Soviet Union. It is so strong in America now that the Democratic Party, which is likely to be responsible for the Adminstration in America after the next election, has declared for a nuclear weapons freeze.
For all these reasons, it is deplorable that the Government have proceeded to give permission for the American command centre for Europe to be stationed in this country—a decision which I believe all of us will regret.
10.46 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, I should like to support what my noble friend has so eloquently said. His Question asks on what conditions the Government have given permission to the Government of the United States to have in this country an alternative command headquarters. I hope that we shall be hearing from the noble Viscount what those conditions are. So far, however, there is one condition that the Americans, we know, have not conceded, and that is the condition that the Prime Minister asked Mr. Schultz to concede recently, when she suggested to him, if newspaper reports are to be believed, that there should be established a dual key operational control over American nuclear weapons in this country. Again, if newspaper reports are to be believed, Mr. Schultz went away without having made that concession. Whether or not he said that he would put it to the American president, we do not know.
What we do know, however, at the moment, is that there is no operational control, so far as the British forces are concerned, over American nuclear weapons. This applies equally whether the American nuclear weapons are in American hands or whether they are

1045
committed to NATO. At the present moment, there is absolutely no British operational control, shared control or dual key control, as it is called, over American weapons deployed in this country. This is true of the NATO committed weapons and it is equally true of those which are under American sole control.
So we have the extraordinary position that it would be possible for the United States forces in this country to launch a nuclear war against the Soviet Union, without any parliamentary consent whatsoever. It could happen without our knowledge and completely without our consent. We have completely abrogated our national control over our own fate. In reply to this the Government will say, "Oh, yes, but we do have political consultation"—and, of course, that is true. But political consultation without operational control is no good at all in time of emergency, and it is absolutely essential that we re-establish operational control over our own fate in the dangerous times in which we exist.
I hope, therefore, that in his reply the noble Viscount will not be totally negative. I hope he will agree that the question has been discussed between the Prime Minister and Mr. Schultz; and that every sane person in this country, every patriotic person in this country, must believe that it is right for us to exercise control over our own fate and not to have some nebulous proposition of political consultation. In wartime, as anybody who knows anything about the matter appreciates, there is no substitute for operational control. You must have your man with his finger on the key, with his agreement, so that this nation of ours cannot be committed to nuclear suicide at the behest of someone 1,000 miles away, in Washington.
For this reason, I hope that the noble Viscount will not, as I have said, be entirely negative in his response. It is all the more necessary because of the changes which have recently taken place in the operational nature of nuclear warfare. While we rely purely on a deterrent strategy, it seems to me that possibly one can say that these weapons will never be used, but with the American adoption of the counterforce strategy, with the gradual improvement of the accuracy of weapons, with the notion of being able to take out the enemy's weapons, the possibility of a first strike looms on the horizon. Once we move into the position of a first strike—and the NATO forces have refused to repudiate the first strike position—our peril becomes enhanced. We are therefore not static; we are moving into a situation of greater peril all the time. Therefore it becomes all the more necessary that we should exercise control over our own fate.
For that reason, the Question which my noble friend has raised about the moving of an American reserve control area into this country—whether this be a new development which has only just emerged or whether it is an old development which the Government have hitherto succeeded in concealing from us (I do not make any particular charge against this Government; all Governments have been extraordinarily secretive about nuclear developments in this country, to our disadvantage rather than to our advantage)—is timely. Mr. Healey recently recanted on the Chevaline decision which was taken secretly by a previous
1046
Labour Government. There can be no doubt that, if that decision had been taken publicly, it would not have been made, and we would have saved a great deal of money on a process which Mr. Healey now agrees was a mistake and which has cost us millions and millions of pounds.
I hope, therefore, that the noble Viscount will not take refuge in unnecessary secrecy. If it is true that an American reserve control is to be established in this country at High Wycombe, and if it is true that that reserve command will retain operational control over American weapons in this country, it seems to me that it is necessary for us to reassert ourselves, and I hope that the noble Viscount will tell us that we are going to do so.
Baroness Airey of Abingdon: My Lords, perhaps I may be permitted a very few words. We should not give comfort to our potential enemies. What we discuss in this House is published and will be read with great interest in Russia and in other countries which may have sympathy with her. I speak from a very vulnerable position as both a mother and a grandmother. Noble Lords can therefore imagine that my sympathies are to a very large extent with those who have spoken. However, I do not feel that this is the way in which we shall best deter what we most fear. Everything has shown in the past, and will in the future, that by being prepared and by not saying too much we shall be in a far better position to counter what we most fear. Therefore I believe that we should not in any way play into the hands of our potential enemies. I feel very deeply that over the past years we have had the good fortune to have peace through strength.
10.54 p.m.
Lord Bishopston: My Lords, the debate on which we are engaged tonight has been partly initiated because of the lack of assurances which, though demanded, have not been forthcoming from the British Government. The Government do not help themselves in the handling of the matter of control of bases sited on British soil or, indeed, in British territorial waters, as was evident when my noble friend Lord Jenkins of Putney brought here for Second Reading only a few weeks ago his Bill relating to bases. As the Government do not help themselves, and as they believe that such bases are justified, they ought to accept that natural fears should be satisfied as far as possible.
On the matter which we are discussing, on 15th December in the other place the Prime Minister replied to a Question for Written Answer from Mr. Frank Allaun, who asked what agreement had been reached regarding the transfer of the United States command headquarters from Stuttgart to the United Kingdom. Her reply was very brief indeed. She wrote:
"We have agreed that in war time an alternative headquarters for parts of US European command may be located at Wycombe air station",
and she went on to explain a few more details. The opportunity was not taken to say whether or not that was the only agreement.
One can agree very simply to a demand, or one can make requests which are, in the minds of many of us, absolutely essential to this vital matter. Apparently,

1047
from the Written Answer, there were no restrictions, no indications of joint control, and no safeguards mentioned. So the Prime Minister missed the opportunity, if there were all these safeguards, to give the information which our country needs and has a right to know.
The news of the proposals about the siting of the American bases in this country came, as my noble friend has said, from various sources, including the American press. In the absence of reassurances from the Government, this was bound to lead to fear. Denials about bases being established here, followed by admissions that talks were taking place and that alternative war-time headquarters will be located at the Wycombe air station, did not add to our confidence. But, of course, war-time headquarters are not places at which operations are started after the beginning of hostilities, but where preparations have to be made a long time in advance. Such a base is sure to be in use long before it is actually required, even if it is not needed later. If there is a war and it turns into a nuclear confrontation, then not only the base but also the area in which it is situated will be under attack. This can be a very big area indeed.
Part of the concern arises from the considered American view that Europe may or will be the place of conflict in the future, with West Germany a possible centre of hostilities. Why else should the United States be thinking of moving the base from Stuttgart to the United Kingdom? It is known that General Rogers has made proposals which will make NATO less reliant on nuclear capability, but we have not yet heard the reactions of Her Majesty's Government. The fear is that if countries are not adquately equipped for conventional defence, then they may be forced to go nuclear at an early stage in order to maintain or secure the advantage. All this brings in far wider issues than the subject of this debate might suggest—and into which, obviously, I will not go this evening.
What concerns us is not merely that bases under foreign control are being sited here but the purposes for which they will be used. If they were for conventional defence, the concern might be less than it is when we know that nuclear aspects will dominate. In another place on 15th December Mr. Pym, the Foreign Secretary, said (at col. 319):
"There are long-standing agreements under which the use of such bases in an emergency would be a matter for joint decision with the British Government.".
He went on to say that British personnel will also be involved. When asked by my right honourable friend Mr. Healey:
"Can the Foreign Secretary assure the House that if those missiles are ever placed in Great Britain they will be subject to the same dual-control arrangements as for earlier American nuclear weapons based in Great Britain?"
Mr. Pym replied that he could not give that assurance.
I certainly think that the noble Viscount the Minister of State for Defence Procurement should give this House some assurance tonight, if it can be given. Can we be told now the conditions for the use of the base? In reply to my right honourable friend Mr. Healey, the Foreign Secretary said on 15th December that he took on board the anxieties expressed by my right honourable friend and others,
1048
but that was as far as he could go then—although he did note what had been said. I believe that your Lordships' House is entitled to far more information on the aspects which were denied to the other place.
I believe it is a significant aspect of the so-called "Falklands factor" that the Prime Minister is depicted as someone who thinks that Britain is a force to be reckoned with; that we are right to show we mean business when our rights are threatened; and that we are not going to be pushed around. Certainly our forces did well for Britain in a conflict with a small power, albeit 8,000 miles away—and we showed that Britain still means business. Of course, it was not the Prime Minister alone who did it. On a matter of much graver importance where the lives of millions of our citizens are at stake through nuclear weapons, we still need to show that in matters of life and death Britain is not going to be pushed around and we still maintain our right to influence and control our destiny.
As we enter the final stages of the season of peace, comfort and joy, we are at least entitled to some comfort, even if the joy is not evident at this particular time. I believe the Minister can do much to help the Government by giving the assurance which the House needs on this occasion.
11.2 p.m.
The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Viscount Trenchard): My Lords, I welcome an opportunity to clear up what would appear, from what the noble Lord, Lord Bishopston, has just said, to be an enormous misunderstanding, in spite of answers that have already been given in the other place on this subject. I should start by saying that I believe that the main reason why there has been a misunderstanding is because the news became public in a news story and was not released by the Government at this time. I want to say to the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, that there is no question of this being a matter which would or should have remained secret. There are military matters that we do wish to keep secret, but this is one that in our own good time would have been released. However, to put it quite frankly and bluntly, the press beat us to it with a story which I hope the noble Lord, Lord Bishopston, will see by the time I have answered this Question, did not exactly portray the correct balance of what is a pretty minor move. What all noble Lords have said has convinced me that there is enormous misunderstanding. I will not make comments on such assertions as this country becoming a military colony of the USA, because I really do not believe that they are worth comment.
My Lords, a united NATO will continue to prevent war. The subject of this Question is, if I may say so, and as I think I can explain, a storm in a teacup; it must not be allowed to be interpreted as any change in NATO's realistic plan to prevent aggression against any member of the alliance.
NATO's headquarters is on the Continent, as are 275,000 out of over 300,000 United States forces personnel in Europe. They will stay there and prevent aggression. A number of misleading statements have been made about the residue of the United States European Command Headquarters in the event of any aggression. US European Command—EUCOM for short—in Stuttgart is currently the unified command

1049
covering all US forces of all three services in Europe in peacetime. There are no plans to move it from Stuttgart in West Germany. The US Commander-in-Chief who commands US EUCOM in peace, also, and most importantly, is the Supreme Allied Commander Europe, SACEUR. He commands NATO forces from the headquarters in Mons in Belgium. This is Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe, SHAPE for short. In war-time SACEUR would relinquish the post of US Commander-in-Chief Europe. Furthermore, and vitally important, all US combat forces would be placed under SACEUR and SHAPE.
The vast majority of US forces in Europe would, therefore, be placed under NATO command on the Continent in the event of any war. A very different US EUCOM would then be purely concerned with the control of US forces remaining under national command. This very different US EUCOM may have to be located in a more secure facility than that which exists at Stuttgart. Such a facility, in fact, already exists at the USAF base at Wycombe in the United Kingdom. If in wartime US EUCOM moved to these facilities it would be responsible for directing the administrative reinforcements and logistic support of US forces in Europe and for exercising control over forces not yet committed to NATO. In my terms, my Lords, it could be called principally a supplies and reserves headquarters. It occurs to me that it may have been a pity that it has been called EUCOM at all because by far the largest part of the responsibilities of peacetime EUCOM—that is, at Stuttgart—would be transferred to SHAPE at Mons in Belgium, as has always been planned.
I say to the noble Lords, Lord Brockway and Lord Jenkins, that had they perhaps been Belgians they might have been suggesting that Mons was becoming a dangerous place, because that is where SACEUR will command the defence of NATO if deterrence were to fail, which, as I have said, in my opinion clearly it will not. The main reason why the United States have decided that they would like to locate this headquarters at Wycombe in wartime is that the secure facilities which may be necessary in the main exist at Wycombe, whereas at the other localities examined by the US they would have to be created and would cost much more. Such an important but mundane reason would, of course, not have been newsworthy. Thus, there has indeed been blown up a storm in a tea cup.
Let me summarise the reality of the situation and try to put it in perspective. NATO, with over 300,000 US service personnel stationed in Europe, can and will prevent aggression against any of its members. Our plans for resisting aggression and making deterrence work must include a realistic plan for such resistance. That plan is, and always has been, based on NATO's Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe at Mons in Belgium under SACEUR. Therefore, there is no question of the Wycombe fallback facility in any way being the headquarters for the whole command in Europe, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, suggested. In the case of war, that will be NATO's supreme headquarters at Mons in Belgium. In planning more secure facilities for the necessary US administrative headquarters for supplies and reserves a decision has been taken, principally for reasons of
1050
cost, to seek agreement to locate it at an existing US Air Force facility.
The Question asks on what conditions has this been agreed. The arrangements have been agreed under the general provisions of the North Atlantic Treaty and the agreement of Status of Forces of Parties to the North Atlantic Treaty. Both were published as Command Papers, and are therefore held in the Library.
My answer, I hope, makes clear that the political and military importance of forward defence to resist aggression remains the cornerstone of NATO's policy.
The noble Lords, Lord Brockway and Lord Jenkins of Putney, in speaking to the Question tabled, have also covered much other familiar ground which we have heard them cover previously. I will not follow them, except to observe that the similarity today of statements emanating from Moscow, the CND and others who seek to disturb, or have the effect of disturbing, the unity of NATO, has now reached a point which is not in the interests of the free defensive democracies. The type of phrase used by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, that the strategy of deterrence has been changed, that first strikes with accurate weapons are planned, is the propaganda of the Soviet aggressors almost ungarnished.
Freedom and democracy, which we seek so passionately to defend, do have their handicaps when headlines in our free media can be so easily produced along lines likely to produce discord among the allies. Let us keep the right to criticise one another both within our country and between the countries of the alliance. But let us be on our guard against that right being used to put our very freedom at risk.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, before the noble Viscount sits down, I would be very grateful if he would address himself to a single point. Is it not the case that greater accuracy of nuclear weapons has been occurring? If it is being pointed out in different parts of the world that the greater accuracy of nuclear weapons can bring its own dangers, this ought not to disturb the noble Viscount, but I suggest that he ought to respond to the increasing dangers which greater accuracy means and the fact that the Americans have been talking in terms of counter-force strategy.
Viscount Trenchard: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, should be pleased, as indeed I am, that these awesome weapons are more accurate and can therefore be an even more effective deterrent than their previous generation. But I am absolutely clear that NATO and Europe, as President Reagan has repeatedly made clear, have made entirely clear that no weapon will be used unless there is aggression. Therefore, although the weapons themselves will change there is no change in the deterrence strategy which has kept the peace of the world for the last 35 years.
Lord Bishopston: My Lords, before the noble Viscount sits down, may I say to him, with all the Christmas spirit I can muster, that I do not think he helps his case by the type of smears of association with which he ended his remarks. He must surely realise

1051
that the concern expressed here tonight is not one with doubtful origins, but is a genuine concern of millions of people of all points of view.
Viscount Trenchard: My Lords, I noted the words of the noble Lord, Lord Bishopston, and I certainly intend him no smear whatever. I have a certain sympathy as to his ability to reconcile those words with the degree to which his official party spokesmen have moved to a nuclear unilateral position in recent public broadcasts. One has to observe the degree of similarity of much of what the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, in particular says on each occasion, with the propaganda that is coming out of Soviet news agencies day in and day out.
I would only hope that in this House, as in the past, the Front Bench of the Opposition—indeed, the main spokesmen from every part of the House—will, as usually happens when we have a defence debate, show a degree of determination to maintain the alliance, to foster the alliance, and not to break it down.
House adjourned at a quarter past eleven o'clock.