Lords Sitting of 27 January 1983

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

Vaccine Damage: Compensation
Lord Campbell of Alloway: 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 it is intended to repeal or amend the Vaccine Damage Payments Act 1979 so as to afford adequate compensation without proof of causation in all circumstances.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Lord Trefgarne): No, my Lords.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend the Minister for that unexpected and wholly comprehensive reply, may I ask whether he would agree that if adequate compensation is not to be had, then adequate care must be provided? Is he aware of the dissatisfaction expressed on all sides of your Lordships' House with the working of this Act, having particular regard to the whooping cough injection? Is he also aware that the two decisions of the tribunals which so far have come before the courts have been quashed on judicial review?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, perhaps I may deal first with the last of my noble friend's supplementary questions. I understand that the position is that the two cases that have come before the courts have, in fact, been referred back to the tribunals in order that additional reasons or grounds may be given. So I do not think that it is correct to say, as my noble friend suggests, that the decisions have in fact been quashed. Turning to the first of my noble friend's supplementary questions, I certainly agree that it is desirable that people suffering from all types of handicap ought to have the best treatment, support and care that we can provide.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, I am sorry to press the noble Lord the Minister on this matter, but it is extremely important. I should like to ask two questions. First, does the answer which the Minister gave mean that the Government now regard the 1979 Act as a permanent measure, notwithstanding that it was introduced as a purely temporary arrangement, notwithstanding that the modest lump sum it provides for is not indexed, and notwithstanding that its actual operation is full of glaring inconsistencies according to the particular part of the country in which one happens to live? Secondly, does his Answer mean that the Government have definitely decided not to change
364
the basis of liability for the authorities from one of fault to one of strict liability?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the answer to the noble Lord's second question is, Yes. As to the first of the noble Lord's questions, we think that improvements to the system ought to be subsumed in a wider consideration of benefits available for disabled people, and we shall do that as soon as resources are available.
Baroness Lane-Fox: My Lords, would my noble friend the Minister not agree that the inadequacy of the current provisions for vaccine damaged children only underlines the urgent need for a national disability income or an allowance for extra expenses for disability on the lines of the DIG's campaign which would, of course, include all children severely handicapped from whatever cause?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, my noble friend is quite right that the Government see the way forward in this matter as producing a comprehensive system for disabled people, including a simplified and modernised system of benefit for handicapped and disabled people of every kind. We shall do that, as I said in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, as soon as the resources are available.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, is there not a special case where vaccine damage has been caused as a result of the administration of vaccine following Government propaganda and urging? Will the Government not at least move to the position that where the plaintiff can show on the balance of probabilities that the injury suffered was attributable to the administration of a vaccine—on such a recommendation by Government as I have mentioned—compensation should be paid?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, of course the existing system is in place and will continue until such time as we can produce a more comprehensive system, as I have said. But as the noble and learned Lord will recall, during the recent debate on this matter, my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack made it quite clear that the prime purpose of vaccination is not a public purpose but a purpose in the interests of the child itself.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, is the noble Lord the Minister in a position to tell the House what progress has been or is being made in the development of a whooping cough vaccine which does not cause brain damage? Is not progress in that direction every bit as important as progress in the direction to which the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, has drawn attention?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the noble Lord is quite right to put his finger on that point. As it happens, I was myself visiting the Porton Down establishment quite recently and saw the work that is being carried out in this particular field. They have not yet reached the stage of being able to start clinical trials, but I understand that they hope to be able to do so before too long.
Viscount Hanworth: My Lords, can the noble Lord tell me whether I am correct in stating that the liability to brain damage is just about the same from the vaccine as it is from actually getting the disease? Or am I wrong?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, no; the risks of contracting brain damage are much greater for unvaccinated children than for those who undergo that treatment.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, I should like to ask my noble friend to clarify one matter which I thought he suggested just now. The noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, made reference in her supplementary to the campaign by DIG, which is the Disablement Income Group. Are we to gather from my noble friend's reply that the Government regard with some sympathy the proposals and anxieties expressed by that group, even though at present they are constrained by lack of resources?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I sought to reply to my noble friend in a general way, saying that we saw the case for the development of a more comprehensive system of benefit for disabled and handicapped people of every kind, and I was not specifically thinking of the campaign of any particular pressure group.

European Air Routes: Proposed Changes
3.8 p.m.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: 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 conclusions were reached at the four meetings held by the European Air Navigation Planning Group to look into specific IATA proposals concerning 10 routes within the European Economic Community which could produce considerable savings for airlines and passengers in finance, fares and fuel; and whether they will make a statement.
The Secretary of State for Trade (Lord Cockfield): My Lords, agreement in principle was reached at the meetings arranged by the European Air Navigation Planning Group on a number of route improvements—including changes to all 10 routes singled out by IATA. The next step will be for the changes to be approved by the European Air Navigation Planning Group in plenary session in June. It will then be a matter for the individual countries concerned to seek the agreement of their appropriate authorities before the new routes can be implemented. It will also be necessary, in due course, for the council of the International Civil Aviation Organisation formally to recognise the new routes by adopting them as operational requirements. The European Air Navigation Planning Group intends to review the air route structure regularly from now on.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, is the Minister aware that those of us interested in civil
366
aviation are most grateful for the way in which he has pursued this matter and for the Answer which he has given today? Does he recall that in October last, when this matter was raised, he said that he would continue to press the matter? Going on from there to the many meetings which the noble Lord has outlined, will it be possible, when they are all finished—which presumably will be in the summer—to put down a Question and ask the noble Lord whether he can make a final statement? Finally, does the noble Lord feel that what has been done on these routes will result in the savings estimated in the Question with regard both to fares and to the aviation spirit which is used?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for what she says. I should, of course, be only too happy to make a statement setting out the results of the arrangements when they are finally made. On the last part of the question of the noble Baroness, the object of the exercise is, of course, to save costs. I am sure that it will achieve a greater degree of efficiency in the operation of civil air transport in Europe.

Gibraltar: Restrictions on Access
3.10 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: 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 will state the present position in respect of Spanish obstruction of access to Gibraltar by land, sea and air respectively.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Belstead): My Lords, on 15th December the Spanish Government opened the border to crossings by certain categories of pedestrians. Apart from this relaxation, other restrictions on land and sea access imposed during the 1960s remain in force, as does the Spanish prohibited airspace, which affe s access to the airport. The Government hope that the 1980 Lisbon Agreement, which envisages the lifting of restrictions on Gibraltar, will be implemented in the spring.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. Can he tell me whether the latter part of it is or is not affected by the statement reported in The Times today, that the Spanish Foreign Minister has ruled out further discussions on the Gibraltar blockade unless the subject of sovereignty is on the table?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, when my right honourable friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary met the new Spanish Foreign Minister in Brussels on 10th December, they reaffirmed their commitment to the Lisbon Agreement and agreed that officials should meet to discuss details with a view to implementation in the spring, and that is the situation as, we understand it.
Lord Gladwyn: My Lords, when they resume negotiations with the Spanish Government on the question of Gibraltar, would the Government be prepared, as they were with the Argentine, at least to discuss the question of sovereignty?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government have noted the reports of remarks made by the Spanish Foreign Minister at a foreign correspondents' lunch in Madrid yesterday. In reply to the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, I would say that Spanish aspirations towards Gibraltar are well known, and they are of long standing. The Lisbon Agreement provides for each side to raise any subject it wishes. There are many things which we ourselves wish to raise—for example, practical co-operation, economic development and tourism—for when the agreement is implemented in the spring. But our commitment to honour the wishes of the people of Gibraltar is totally clear and is set out in the 1969 Gibraltar Constitution, and it is specifically referred to in the Lisbon Agreement.
Lord Merrivale: My Lords, bearing in mind the highly discriminatory nature of the partial opening of the border, can the Minister indicate the effect it is having upon the economy of Gibraltar and the various sectors of local trade? Furthermore, can the Minister say what steps Her Majesty's Government are taking so that there is no discrimination at the frontier between different nationalities?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, there is discrimination at the frontier at the moment. Of course, we have made it clear all along that, although any lifting of Spanish restrictions is a welcome step in the right direction, it is no substitute for the full removal of restrictions as envisaged in the Lisbon Agreement. It is difficult to say at the present time what effect this particular step has had so far on the Gibraltar economy.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, does the noble Lord's reply to the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, mean that the Government give the same weight to the paramountcy of the Gibraltarians' rights of self-determination as they have said they give to the paramountcy of the Falkland islanders' rights? In view of the profound implications of this matter in the light of recent events and in the light of what the noble Lord has said about the Lisbon Agreement, do the Government propose to have serious bilateral talks with Spain over the next few weeks?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, as regards the second part of the supplementary question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, it was agreed on 10th December that officials from the Spanish Government and from the British Government should meet to discuss details with a view to implementation of the Lisbon Agreement in the spring, and that intention goes ahead. I would not wish to make comparisons between any undertaking made to the people of Gibraltar and that made to any other people. Our commitment to honour the wishes of the people of Gibraltar is clear, and it stands on its own. I repeat, it is set out in the 1969 Gibraltar Constitution and it is specifically referred to in the bilateral agreement between Spain
368
and Britain, which was the undertaking to go ahead with the Lisbon Agreement.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, will the Government this time take care not to discuss doing anything which they do not intend to do?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I am sorry, but I do not understand the force of the noble Lord's question.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, will the Government this time take care not to discuss doing anything—for instance, ceding sovereignty—which they do not intend to do?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, perhaps it would be best to answer the noble Lord's question by giving to the House a transcript of what Sr. Moran is reported to have said yesterday, as translated by the British Embassy in Madrid. I understand that the Foreign Minister said:
"No Spanish Foreign Minister could enter negotiations without putting forward the question of sovereignty".
I understand that the Foreign Minister went on to say:
"This does not mean that negotiations cannot continue once we have put forward the question of sovereignty and the British side have noted that we have done so."
The Foreign Minister then ended by saying:
"I don't believe a solution on Gibraltar will be immediate but of course I will take no steps that would weaken the Spanish claim to sovereignty over Gibraltar."
It is bearing those words in mind that I have already said to your Lordships' House that, of course, Spanish aspirations towards Gibraltar are well known and of long standing, but the Lisbon Agreement provides for each side to raise any subject it wishes, and there are things that we would wish to raise. We bear in mind all the time that our commitment to the people of Gibraltar is clear and is contained in the Lisbon Agreement.
Lord Paget of Northampton: My Lords, is not the position of Gibraltar very different indeed from that of the Falkland Islands? It has a substantial, viable population; and it is not Spanish in language, by descent or by race. In its whole history it has spent only a very short interval under Spanish colonial rule. In those circumstances, like Andorra, to give an instance, why cannot one look to an independent Gibraltar under an international guarantee?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Paget, will not think me discourteous if I return to the original Question. The original Question was about access to Gibraltar by "land, sea and air respectively". We believe that these difficulties will be resolved by implementing the Lisbon Agreement. I have made clear the stance of the British Government as regards sovereignty on Gibraltar, which is contained in the Lisbon Agreement. Therefore, the Government look forward to the implementation of that agreement.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, is my noble friend aware of what splendid answers he has been giving to very difficult questions?
Lord Merrivale: My Lords, I should like to ask my noble friend one final question on the matter of discrimination at the frontier. Could he please tell the House what is the present position for dependants of British service men serving in Gibraltar regarding the possibility of their crossing the border, for Moroccan and Portuguese residents in Gibraltar and for the many British passport holders living in Spain in the vicinity of Gibraltar?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, if you are a Spaniard or a Gibraltarian living either on the Rock or in the Campo area, or a British passport holder resident in Gibraltar, then so far as the Spanish authorities are concerned you can cross the border. So far as the Gibraltarian authorities are concerned, the border has always remained open.

The Open University: Grants Policy
3.19 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 how many students have had to drop out of Open University courses as a result of decreased grants over the past year and what remedial action they propose to take.
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, as far as the first part of the noble Lord's Question is concerned, this information is not collected. As regards the second part of his Question, Open University students are eligible for awards only at the discretion of their local authority. Where this is insufficient, the university itself may offer assistance. The Government made available to the university in 1982 and 1983 an earmarked grant of £0.5 million specifically to assist unemployed students.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl the Minister for some information? Is it the case that in this year, for the second year running, 40 per cent. of those offered places in the Open University were unable to take them up mainly because of cost? Secondly, is it the case that over the last two years the fees for the Open University have been increased by 79 per cent.? Lastly, has the noble Earl read the analysis made by the Open University itself on its 1981–82 admissions, which states that continually increasing fees may mean that lower income and other underprivileged groups will be priced out of study?
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, coming to the third of the noble Lord's questions, no, I have not read that. So far as the fees are concerned, I am not quite so good at my sums as the noble Lord, but I can give him the fees. In 1981 they were £98—and this is the tuition fee for a full credit course; in 1982 they were £120, and in 1983 they are £127. I think that this last rise is just about the 5.8 per cent. which refers to inflation. The noble Lord had a third supplementary, and I have forgotten what it was.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, my other supplementary was: is it the case that 40 per cent. of those offered places at the Open University this year and last year were unable to take up their places because of the rise in costs?
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, this is quite a difficult question to answer because people are not asked the exact reason why they have not taken up their places. The university carries out some form of survey. As I understand it, it is rather like one of those surveys where you get a list of columns and you tick things off. There are a number of reasons, and a number of reasons are given. I will try to help the noble Lord if I can, but the drop-out from the Open University is a difficult situation to discuss. It is not like a normal university where you suddenly give up. Obviously, you can stop in the middle of a course at the Open University where you are gaining credits and take a year off, if you want to.
It can refer to new applicants who are offered a place on the undergraduate programme but decline the offer. It can refer to students who finally registered on a course but did not sit the exam. Approximately 17 per cent. of new students fall into this category, and approximately 28 per cent. of continuing students, but nothing is known of the reasons why they did not sit. Finally, it can refer to existing students who conditionally register for courses the following year but decline some, or all, of them when offered. The details are that 62 per cent. of these students said that lack of time was either "quite" or "very important", and 40 per cent. said that not wishing to commit themselves to the cost of the course was "quite" or "very important". This analysis was based on 5,300 course declines. I think perhaps I would not disagree with the 40 per cent. that the noble Lord mentioned. At the same time, 63 per cent. seemed to think that the difficulty of studying was more important than that.
Lord Perry of Walton: My Lords, is the Minister aware that discretionary grants have become progressively more difficult for students to get because of the pressure on the finances of local authorities? Is he also aware that it lies within the power of the Government to extend the system of mandatory grants to the part-time students of the Open University? Could he give us the reasons why the Government have consistently not met this request of the students of the Open University?
The Earl of Swinton: Yes, my Lords. I would say, first of all, that awards given to students to study at Open University are made entirely at the discretion of the local education authorities. It is therefore inevitable that the practice will vary between authorities. Each authority will need, on the one hand, to balance the case for each applicant and, on the other, the need to keep its expenditure and rates at reasonable levels. Constraints on public expenditure in recent years have caused some local authorities to reduce the level of assistance they give under the discretionary awards arrangement, but this is a matter for authorities to decide for themselves.
The Government would have to consider introducing legislation should they decide to extend the mandatory awards to the Open University

371
students; and the Government have concluded that it would not be acceptable to consider extending mandatory awards for Open University students in isolation without including other part-time students. The cost of extending mandatory awards to cover all part-time students is estimated to be about £40 million, and currently resources just are not available to meet this extra cost.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that in all ranges of industry, as a result of increases in rates, many sections are having to face problems and painful difficulties, and that the nation as a whole would expect the student fraternity to play their part in bringing about the essential economies that are necessary if we are to get back again to sound money and sound levying of taxes?
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, yes, I would accept that point from my noble friend.
Baroness David: My Lords, would the Minister agree that less money will be available for helping students this year and next year because the financial assistance fund which is operated by the Open University itself, which it takes out of the DES grant, is going to be able to produce 25 per cent. less this year than it did before? Also, the half million, which of course they are glad to have again, will not be worth quite half a million this time, and the half a million last year was fully taken up. So overall there will be less money, and I think it is accepted that the increase in fees has deterred some students. There were 1,200 students assisted by the financial assistance fund in 1981. and 5,000 in 1982. Would the noble Earl accept that there is a very great need to help this particular class of student a little more?
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I accept part of that. On the other hand, I cannot resist telling the noble Baroness that the Open University, as a direct grant institution, receives the major part of its income from central Government in the form of an annual recurrent grant. I am sure she is aware of that. Further, whereas in 1979 it received about £34 million, in 1983 it is receiving nearly £57 million; so I do not think it is doing too badly.
Lord Brockway: My Lords, the Minister said that a grant has been made available for the unemployed applicants. May I ask him whether that has been extended to old-age pensioners? I must declare an interest. When I am unable to come to this House, I propose to apply to become a student.
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I am sure that if the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, were to become a student and give up part of his time in this House we should all miss him immensely. I suppose the answer is that if you are unemployed it does not matter what age you are. I give that off the cuff. I think he would have to write to me for an answer in this case. I am sure that we should miss him very sadly if he were to go there too often.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, would the noble Earl the Minister put it on record that the Open University is one of the jewels in the British Crown, and universally respected all over the world? It is a great help particularly to industry. Perhaps he would tell his noble friend that. Is he also aware that one of the reasons for a large number of students not taking their examinations is that the grant to assist students to attend summer schools, which are compulsory for certain courses, has fallen from 75 per cent. in 1978 to under 60 per cent. by 1981, so that students simply cannot afford to go to summer schools? Is he further aware that it is women who are particularly discriminated against as students, are unable to take up their courses in the Open University, and particularly students in the North as distinct from the South?
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, it is very difficult to answer the noble Lord because he asks so many supplementary questions at a time that, by the time he gets to the last one, one has forgotten what the first one was and vice versa. Perhaps it is easier to concentrate on the middle one, but I have even forgotten what that one was.
I think I have said enough in my answers to assure the noble Lord and other noble Lords that the Government support the Open University and wish it nothing but well. It is well worth saying that in 1982 the university planned to achieve an undergraduate student population of 59,530, full credit-equivalent students, and the actual student numbers were extremely close at 59,235. So I do not think that it is short of students.

Kidney Patients: Water Industry Dispute
Lord Wallace of Coslany: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question of which I have given Private Notice.
The Question is as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what contingency plans they have made for the continuation of haemodialysis in hospital renal units in the event of diminution of water supplies.
Lord Denham: My Lords, with the leave of the House, my noble friend Lord Trefgarne will answer this Question in the form of a Statement at a convenient moment after 3.30 this afternoon.

Business
Lord Denham: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of your Lordships if I say that dinner will be available between 7 p.m. and 8.30 p.m. this evening.
Subject to the progress of business, the Report stage of the National Heritage Bill may be adjourned for a short period at approximately 7 p.m.

Matrimonial Homes Bill [H.L.]
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone): My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to consolidate certain enactments relating to the rights of husbands or wives to occupy a dwelling-house that has been a matrimonial home. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Statutory Instruments
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Baroness Denington be appointed a member of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments in the place of the Lord Darling of Hillsborough.—(Lord Aberdare.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

National Heritage Bill [H.L.]
3.33 p.m.
Report received.
Schedule 1 [The Boards: Part I: Victoria and Albert Museum]:
Viscount Ecclesmoved Amendment No. 1:
Page 19, line 23, at end insert—
("( ) The Prime Minister may, after consultation with the trustees, appoint the Director and not more than four members of the staff to the Board of Trustees.").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, at the Committee stage I withdrew an amendment which provided for the co-option of the director and not more than four members of staff on to the board of trustees. The purpose of that amendment was to bring together, as of right, the new trustees and the staff where policy is made. During the Recess supporters of that amendment had discussions with the Minister for the Arts and others, and as a result I am now moving an amendment which makes it permissible, after consultation with the trustees, for the Prime Minister to appoint the director and up to four members of the staff to the board.
It became clear that the director and the staff do not want to sit on the board. We were told that they felt strongly about that. It is difficult to be sure why they take this view, but I think it would be understandable if they expected the new body of trustees to be very similar to the present advisory body, in which case they could be satisfied by invitation from the trustees to attend their quarterly meetings. But will the new body be the same as the old body and will it be content with that form of co-operation?
When the Department of Education and Science gives up the powers which it exercises at present, those powers must devolve either to the new trustees or to the director or be shared between them. It is my
374
conviction that the best result would be to ensure that they are shared between them. So I have to be clear what we expect of the new body of trustees, now that there will be, so to speak, no Whitehall nanny in the background. Do we want them just to be a polished-up replica of the existing advisory body? Surely not. Surely we hope and expect that the Prime Minister will appoint distinguished men and women of experience from many walks of life, each of whom will bring something of real value to the development of the museum. They will see it as their duty—indeed, it is in the Bill—to secure the right balance between the museum's curatorial and public activities. That is not going to be easy.
This will be a growing problem, because there will never be enough money to do all that the trustees and the staff would like to do inside and outside the museum. How and where are their conflicting claims to be reconciled? Should not the trustees he given the obligation to consider the views of the staff? Should not the staff and the director be given the statutory right to share in the policy-making process and, subsequently, having agreed on the policy, to carry it out with goodwill and enthusiasm?
It has been suggested to me that a finance and general purposes committee, with a trustee in the chair and a director and members of the staff as members of that committee, would achieve what I am asking for; but such a finance and general purposes committee would in a short time become a board of management and those trustees who were not on the committee would lose their influence and the museum might be deprived of their special knowledge at the very moment when it was most useful.
Of course, committees do good work on special subjects and in relation to special areas of the institution's operations; but as to big questions such as, How should the Government grant be allocated? What should be the relations of all departments with the education system? How should the policy regarding publications be carried on?—all questions of that size cannot be settled in committee; they must be brought to the central board where one would hope that all those primarily interested would be represented. It is said—I suppose it is said in the Bill—that if the staff recognise that they are responsible to the director in everything, and the director recognises that he is responsible to the trustees in everything, then everything will work well. But that is too simple a formula for a big institution with a variety of departments and a budget of many millions of pounds. I shall leave it to my noble friend Lord Gibson, with his great experience in this matter of managing large institutions, to tell your Lordships exactly why.
I think it is a fiction to say that all the departments of a museum are equal. They have different objectives, different staffs and different budgets and somewhere their valid and conflicting aims must be reconciled. Under modern conditions, that reconciliation requires the understanding and co-operation of not only the trustees but also the heads of the executive departments.
The Victoria and Albert and the Science Museum are not isolated cases. Your Lordships, I am sure, want all organisations, great and small, to improve

375
communications between every level of their staffs and to increase, where practicable, the participation of staff in decisions affecting their work. I cannot believe that, in a sophisticated organisation like a national museum, simply to invite members of the staff to attend meetings when the concerns of their departments are up for discussion will prove sufficient, and I am sorry that the opposition of the present director and staff is such that the Minister feels it would be unwise to provide for their appointment to the board directly the measure comes into force.
Mr. Channon, for whom I have a great personal regard, and who I consider to be a very good Minister for the Arts, tells us, however, that if your Lordships decide that appointments should be permissive, he will be guided by the decision of this House. Therefore, thinking, as I do, that half a loaf is better than none and that one should listen carefully to Ministers—especially if they come from one's own party—I have redrafted my amendment to make these into appointments that the Prime Minister can make at some time in the future.
I notice with interest the amendment to my amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi. It seems to me that no Prime Minister would make such appointments if he or she did not think, after consultation with the trustees, that the time was appropriate. I cannot quite see who there would be to tell the Prime Minister that his or her decision was not appropriate. I understand, of course, what the noble Lord has in mind, but I do not think it is necessary to add those words, though one will listen to his argument with interest.
If my amendment is accepted, it will be possible for a number of members of the staff to be represented at board level by right, but it will not be possible for them ever to outnumber the part-time trustees, and I am sure your Lordships will think that that is right. I beg to move.

Kidney Patients: Water Industry Dispute
3.43 p.m.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, it may now be for the convenience of the House if I repeat the Answer to the Private Notice Question being given in another place by my honourable friend Mr. Clarke, which same Private Notice Question was tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Coslany, a few moments ago. The Answer is as follows:
"It is agreed by both sides in this dispute that every effort should be made to avoid industrial action which would prejudice public health and public safety. We do not at this stage therefore expect there to be any prolonged interruption in water supplies to renal units. Health authorities have however been advised to make contingency plans for hospitals generally which might include transfer of patients to hospitals which are least likely to be affected."
Lord Wallace of Coslany: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating that Answer. Is he aware that this is an emotive subject and that any words uttered should be cautiously and carefully chosen? There is no
376
value in creating unnecessary alarm or despair for patients or relatives or, indeed, among the general public. I do not intend now to become involved in a general argument over the water workers' strike or to go into the reasons for or against: that is for another occasion. I am concerned simply and solely with the subject of the Question and to make sure that adequate cover is available for renal patients in the emergency that exists.
Is the noble Lord able to say how many people are affected in this sphere? I am under the impression—I may be wrong—that the number affected is comparatively small and could be taken care of in hospitals without undue difficulty if the necessity arose. May I also ask the Minister to say what is the present position so far as home dialysis is concerned?
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, is the Minister aware that we on these Benches welcome the steps taken by both sides in this dispute to protect the interests of those who are undoubtedly at special risk? Going to the more general points made in the Answer, may I ask the Minister if he agrees that our water supply and sewage disposal systems in Britain have together done more to protect the public health of our citizens than the work of all the doctors put together? In those circumstances it follows that any interference with those services could be catastrophic.
The Answer refers to contingency plans. In that connection, may I merely say that, irrespective of the merits of the water workers' case in this dispute, any steps which the Government find it necessary to take to maintain those vital services and to safeguard the public health would have the support of noble Lords on these Benches?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, to answer the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, I can tell him—these are not the latest figures but I think they are not far adrift—that there are approximately 1,100 patients on hospital haemodialysis in England: 1,820 on home dialysis: 84 on intermittent peritoneal dialysis: and 659 on continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis. Those numbers, as I say, may be slightly out of date.
In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, I agree of course about the importance of the sewerage and water systems. It is perhaps worth noting that the responsibility for the operation of the sewerage system, so far as the treatment plant is concerned, is largely a local authority matter, and those particular workers are not affected in the present dispute. It is the sewage treatment plants that are, generally speaking, the responsibility of the water workers, and of course I acknowledge the importance of those plants.
Lord Wallace of Coslany: My Lords, may I ask the Minister to answer my supplementary about the present position of those on home dialysis?
Lord Trefgarne: I apologise for that omission, my Lords. Home dialysis patients, generally speaking, require a water supply of some 25 lbs. per square inch and about 60 gallons per dialysis. In general, they need to be dialysed, as the expression is, two or three times a week, depending on the extent of their disease. In general, water workers have regarded these as priority

377
supplies and have restored supplies by repairing breaks if necessary where home dialysis patients were said to be at risk. I regret to see that there is one report of a situation in Wales where that is not so, which, naturally, we very much regret. In a case where a home dialysis patient cannot be guaranteed a continuous supply of the right purity and at the right pressure, the patient will normally be taken into hospital.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, I should apologise to my noble friend for the fact that I was on the telephone when the Answer was given. In regard to this very worrying dispute, is my noble friend aware that the major clause in the agreement that the unions have with the employers provides that, in the event of industrial action, every effort shall be made to avoid harm to the health of consumers? In this particular context, and in wider contexts, it will become increasingly difficult to maintain and to discharge that very important obligation of the employees each day the water strike continues. Will my noble friend take note that there really is a very weighty obligation on the three unions concerned to consider much more closely the reasonable offer that they have been made and to bring this damaging strike to an end?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, of course I entirely agree with my noble friend, who speaks with particular knowledge and experience of the matter. The offer currently before the workers in the water industry is for an average increase of about £10 a week, taking their average weekly pay to about £145. Reverting to the first of my noble friend's points, I would say that I fear that it is not possible indefinitely to take industrial action of this kind without affecting people in one way or another, and of course the people whom we are discussing in particular—the renal dialysis patients—are likely to be the first to suffer.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, I rise because the noble Lord mentioned a case in Wales. Would he not agree that the problems arising from the dispute tend at the moment to be rather more acute in the remoter rural areas, such as Wales? In the last part of the Answer, the noble Lord referred to arrangements between the authorities and the hospitals in relation to the transfer of home patients, but does he not agree that that could create greater difficulties in fairly scattered rural communities? Will he say that the Government are satisfied that proper arrangements are being made for patients in such areas to be taken to hospital where necessary?
Lord Trefgarne: Of course the Government will do what they can to see that the proper arrangements are made in these circumstances, but, as the noble Lord rightly points out, transfer between distant hospitals—for example, in remote regions—is more difficult. That is why I would say that it is incumbent upon those working in the industry—in Wales, for example—to be particularly careful that they observe the agreement to which my noble friend referred, which provides that they should take action to restore services in these situations, even when they are in fact in dispute.

National Heritage Bill [H.L.]
Report stage resumed.
3.53 p.m.
Lord Strabolgimoved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 1, Amendment No. 2:
Line 1, after ("may") insert ("at an appropriate time").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 2 as an amendment to the amendment standing in the name of the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles. I have listened with great interest to all that the noble Viscount has said, and I agree, if I may say so, that Amendment No. 1—his present amendment—is an improvement on the previous amendment that he moved in Committee. To start with, it is permissive, while the previous amendment was, I think, mandatory. Further, the members of the staff—that is, the favoured ones who are to be chosen—are now to be full trustees, appointed by the Prime Minister, instead of being co-opted unofficially by the appointed trustees. Thus they would share with their fellow trustees full responsibility for the objects in the museum, which is right; and I think that there was one of the defects of the previous amendment. We also do not want any second-class trustees. All of this, I submit, is an improvement and is more acceptable.
However, in my view, certain other objections remain. There are 13 departmental heads at the V and A. How—we always get back to this question—will four be chosen? If one gets round the difficulty and selects one or two senior staff, the result could still be that certain heads of departments will be taking part in making decisions affecting their colleagues. Whatever way one looks at it, that would be the result. That could at times put them in an invidious position, and could cause resentment, division and much ill feeling. Matters could be made worse if the trustees are given full powers, as the noble Viscount now proposes. Therefore, in view of all of this, is it any wonder that all—I repeat, all—the V and A keepers and senior staff are unanimously against even this modified proposal? Why cause all this dissension among those on whose goodwill and co-operation we rely to run this great museum, in particular during the transition period after the Bill is passed and becomes an Act?
This is the position at present, and it is one of great difficulty. So difficult is it that I am bound to say that at the present time I would oppose an amendment of this kind, and appointments of this kind being implemented in the near future. On the other hand, the position may change; I accept that. Indeed it probably will, since, as we all know, we live in a period of rapid change. We are legislating for a number of years ahead. It is possible that in, say, 20 years or so it may be unanimously agreed by all concerned at the museum, and elsewhere, that it is right to do what the noble Viscount advocates. We cannot predict the future. Therefore I have put down my amendment to allow for the appointment of staff as trustees to be made in the future if it is considered advantageous and appropriate at that time. I do not think that it is advantageous or appropriate at the present time, but it may be in a few years ahead. For that reason I do not

379
want to submit to the House that it should turn down the noble Viscount's amendment out of hand. I think that we should leave the door open, because the position may change. I beg to move.
Lord Annan: My Lords, I should like to speak briefly about the relationship of chairmen and trustees to the heads and staffs of public organisations within the arts, since I think that in this area a very great change has taken place in the past 20 years. The relationship has changed because the role of Government has changed in relation to the arts, and, for that matter, in relation to universities. At one time, in a museum, once one had one's estimates—and they were very modest —that was all that there was to do about it. One worked within those limitations, and one was expected to do what one had done in the past.
Now that has changed. Museums and galleries are now being expected to do many things that they did not do in the past. They have to deal with all kinds of agencies, they have to meet threats, they have to meet demands made upon them, they have to satisfy expectations; and the response of Government to them depends on how they perform. That is why there is a very greatly increased importance in the relationship of the chairmen and trustees with the director and the staff.
Because the arts have increased in importance, just as the universities did when they increased in number, their budgets are watched much more carefully by Government, and, as a result, Government will take an interest in how they perform and whether they perform efficiently.
I should like to say a few words about the change in the relationship. In the 1950s, for example, if one thought of the Arts Council, one naturally thought of Sir William Williams, who was the Secretary-General. In the 1960s, one thought of the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, because, in his great partnership with the noble Baroness, Lady Lee of Asheridge, he transformed the relationship of the chairman of that body with the Secretary-General. Or, again, if I may. I go to the British Museum, of which, after the 1963 Act, I was appointed a trustee, and of which I was a trustee for 16 years. After that Act the late Lord Radcliffe became the chairman of the trustees. He was a distinguished lawyer, and he regarded his main duty as being to adjudicate and to be fair on any question which came up to the trustees. As regards the Government, if I may say so, he regarded himself rather (in the words of that proverb about the mountain and Mohammed) as Mohammed, and he expected the mountain of Government to come to him.
When it came to the question of the move of the library out of the British Museum, he was very surprised indeed when the Government did not obey Mohammed. Of course, that may have been because he had been at Winchester and the Minister responsible in the Government was also a Wykehamist, but one with whom I would hardly say Lord Radcliffe was on the closest terms. However that may be, there came a major dispute between the trustees of the British Museum and the Government. Lord Radcliffe came down to your Lordships' House and delivered a philippic which, by at its eloquence and
380
power, amazed those who heard it; although, at the end of the day, I must say that I think he left the House as a whole feeling almost sorry for the Government. The reason I think noble Lords felt so was that they felt that there ought to have been better and closer relations between the chairman and the Government.
Lord Radcliffe resigned over that issue, and was succeeded by the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles. Well, we had a very different chairman in the British Museum when the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, took over. The difference was that Lord Eccles had been a Minister of the Crown, was used to dealing with permanent officials and was used to managing affairs. I would remind the House, if I may, that the noble Viscount fought a very remarkable battle in the 1950s against the officials in his own department in order to get technical education in this country on its feet. There are bound to be occasions when the chairman of a body of trustees may have to do this.
At the time when the noble Viscount took over the chairmanship, if I may express my personal opinion, there was a need for a shake-up in the British Museum. For instance, the noble Viscount created a central administration which had existed hitherto only in the most vestigial form. I will not go on to embarrass the noble Viscount further with my praise of what he did for the museum—and he did a very great deal. He was succeeded, I may say, by someone who, again, some would have called a strong chairman: the noble Lord, Lord Trevelvan. I remember very clearly the way in which, on any difficult item, Lord Trevelyan, as chairman, would sum up, and then would indicate on the spot, then and there, what administrative action he expected to be taken by the director and his staff.
I think a false dichotomy is often made between policy and executive action. In fact, if you are interested in trying to direct policy, you have to involve yourself in executive action. For instance, when the noble Earl, Lord Drogheda, became chairman of the board of directors of the Royal Opera House, Sir David Webster, the general administrator of the Royal Opera House, used to receive something like 14 postcards a day from the noble Earl. They were called "Droghedagrams". Although it may be that the noble Earl's activities were, in some people's views—certainly in Sir David Webster's view—excessive, nevertheless he raised the standard of the Royal Opera House in Covent Garden in the most astonishing way.
One of the things that you have to do if you are a trustee is to see that executive control is exercised over the budget, and you have to see that the departments within the organisation which is your concern are operating properly. Perhaps I may allude to an experience of mine as chairman of the National Gallery Trustees. I had just become chairman, and my first meeting was of what is called the publications committee, which is responsible for the shop which sells the slides, the postcards and all the books which are on sale in the Gallery. At that first meeting—and I had asked Sir John Sainsbury if he would take the chair of that Committee—we were informed that since August (and this was in October) we had run into a deficit of £50,000. The next month I was told that the deficit had risen to £70,000.

381
At this point, Sir John Sainsbury took off his coat and virtually did the work equivalent to that of a branch manager in Sainsburys Limited. He first of all went into the accounts, and with his expert eye managed to disentangle the difference between a cashflow crisis and a genuine deficit. Then, of course, he asks, "Is the place where we sell these objects all that it should be?" He, I and the director agreed that it was not. So we took an axe to the shop. Sir John managed to find £50.000, which he borrowed from a charitable trust—or, I should say, the publications department borrowed—and we built a new shop. Now we are beginning to get much more satisfactory results in regard to the accounts of the shop. This is management. I submit that it is day-to-day management, and that you really cannot divorce policy from management.
Again, if I may allude to something which I shall be doing later this evening—and I apologise to the noble Earl, but it was arranged a long time ago—there is to be an informal meeting between some of the trustees and the director of the National Heritage Fund. Why are we having such a meeting? It is because I thought that probably the Gallery ought to discuss with the National Heritage Fund chairman and some of its members what procedures the Gallery should adopt which would be helpful and reassuring to the National Heritage Fund, because we in the National Gallery rely very much indeed on the goodwill and the understanding of those who manage that fund.
I do not know whether that is policy; I think it is management. I am not at all ashamed at having arranged such a meeting. Therefore, if I may say so with the greatest respect to the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson (whose words in the Second Reading debate I remember very well), I do not quite follow his line that it is really indecent of the trustees to involve themselves in problems of management. I think that they are inevitably involved in managerial work.
I think nothing could better show this—and it shows what the new trustees of the Victoria and Albert will have to encounter when they are appointed—than the circular on 10th December sent by the senior keeper on behalf of the keepers there. It shows extraordinarily well what differences of opinion there can be on this matter. I am bound to say that I think that what they said in that letter was most unwise. It simply plays completely into the hands of the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, because it shows exactly how unaware are the keepers of the change which will take place when there are trustees—whether or not there are members of the staff of the Victoria and Albert on the board of trustees.
May I just show, by quoting from it, how they are determined to resist management by the trustees? First, they say that the trustees are to meet four times a year, as the present advisory council. They do not seem to realise that when trustees are appointed the trustees will have to approve any purchase made by the director or keepers of the Victoria and Albert Museum. Are potential vendors to be kept waiting for a full quarter of a year before a decision can be made about a purchase?
Again, the trustees, they say, should hold office for only four years, and there should be no immediate reappointment. If that is not a recipe for total
382
weakness in a body of trustees, I should like to know what is. In my view, seven years should be the minimum. Then, again, they say that there should be a large number of trustees—up to 20. The more trustees there are the less easy it is to exercise management, very much like the way in which the senates of universities have grown to a size which makes them incapable of becoming executive bodies.
They then say that the trustees' job is essentially consultative in relation to the daily life of the Gallery. They are very confused, it seems to me, about this. They quote from the trustees' handbook of the Tate Gallery, which likens the relationship of the board of trustees to the director and staff with that of a Minister in charge of a Government department to his permanent officials. If that is the case, I would be very interested to learn what their reaction would be if the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, was made the first chairman of the trustees. They would soon find that it was a very different kind of relationship from the one they desired.
I have spoken for too long, but what I am trying to explain is that the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, is saying that some of the staff of the museums ought to take collective decisions with the trustees, and the Victoria and Albert museum staff dislike this because they either want total freedom to get their way or total freedom to complain that they are not brought into consultation before decisions are made by the trustees. I am sympathetic to Lord Strabolgi's amendment, but he asked how it was that, out of all the keepers, four were to be chosen for this very difficult task. How were they to represent their colleagues? This has been done in universities for over 50 years. For over 50 years members of the academic staff have chosen from their number a mere handful to sit on the governing body, the council of the university. There is no problem at all. It can be dealt with by grouping departments and then saying. "You are in that group; choose the man you want".
The noble Viscount suggested that the creation of a board of management should be permissive. I am in favour of that. At some later stage—it does not have to be done immediately—if the staff wanted to be represented, this would enable them to be represented. This amendment is now in a form which I could easily accept without feeling that something was being forced on a board of trustees or on a staff which would have had no say in the matter.
4.13 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, to save time and repetition, may I adopt much of what the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, has said? There is another ground of objection to the amendment of my noble friend Lord Eccles, and also to Lord Strabolgi's amendment. With the greatest respect to the noble Lord, Lord Annan, there is a serious problem. It is this. If the amendment is carried, it could well give rise to a type of conflict of interest which is wholly incompatible with trustee status, because it accords trustee status to salaried staff of the Victoria and Albert Museum. This gives rise to a situation of which the courts might well not approve.
Part of the duty of the salaried staff trustee is to control administration of the expenditure of the trust

383
under Clause 22(3) in particular. This could well at times involve decisions on closures of sections, on grounds of economy or otherwise, which would affect other fellow salaried employees. Also at times this could well involve decisions as to the apportionment of an available fund between staff allocation and purchase allocation. The position of the salaried employee trustee who is considering leaving his employment in order to use his specialist expertise at a higher salary employed by one of the prestigious art dealers or auctioneers also warrants consideration. I mention it, but I shall take no time on it.
The position really is that, however well motivated, however reasonable, however desirable this amendment may be, there are, with respect, certain legal objections. Would it not be wrong—and it is a matter for your Lordships; with respect, I merely draw these matters to your attention—to put my right honourable friend the Prime Minister, or any Prime Minister, who makes this appointment, into such a situation of legal controversy?
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: My Lords, we have heard a very entertaining contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Annan. There were two great omissions from what he said. There is, first of all, the situation, I think he would agree with me, that he speaks alone for the institution which, with such distinction, he chairs. The whole of his staff, I understand, are against the views that he has expressed—and, of course, I do not speak for his other trustees.
He referred to a number of distinguished chairmen of the British Museum, but he did not refer to the present distinguished chairman, the noble Lord, Lord Trend. I have his authority to say that in his view this amendment is really no more than a nonsense. Of course, the situation is that the noble Viscount has now had three bites at this cherry. To begin with, he wished the trustees to be obliged to co-opt the director and a number of his staff; at the second bite it was only the director who was to be obliged to be co-opted; and now we are in the position of having the suggestion that it should be the Prime Minister, not the trustees, who is to be given the power of co-option after consultation.
The purpose behind these amendments has been clearly spelled out by the noble Viscount: to alter the structure of government of the national museums; to get rid, as he says, of the archaic trustee system; to substitute for the boards of trustees an efficient, modern, streamlined board of management. It was perfectly clear (was it not?) at the Committee stage and at Second Reading that that suggestion did not seem to have a great deal of support from your Lordships. The noble Viscount now comes forward with the pill of what is really commercial management of the national museums coated with the sugar of the Prime Minister's permissibility.
I suggest, with the greatest of respect and even with trepidation, that this amendment is meaningless in the context of the first 28 clauses of this Bill, and potentially dangerous as well. The Bill sets up the structure of the government of these museums. The purpose of the Bill is spelt out in the Long Title which, as your Lordships know, says that this is,
384
"An Act to establish Boards of Trustees of the Victoria and Albert Museum",
and so on. Schedule 1 defines the board and establishes the constitutions of the museums. The members of the board are, by definition, trustees. The trustees appoint the director; they appoint the curators; they decide their own pay; and the director is responsible to the board—that is to the trustees.
How, then, in view of this statutory structure as it will be, can a Prime Minister, at the wave of a wand, alter the whole constitution? How can a Prime Minister set up a totally different structure from that which has been established at the beginning of an Act? If the director and curators are made members of the board they become, by definition, trustees and of course they become eligible, for example, along with the other trustees, to be chairman. They must leave after five years; they will be settling their own remuneration; the director will be responsible to himself, as a trustee; the roles of chairman and of director would be hopelessly befogged together, and the loyalty of the staff split from top to toe as between the director and the chairman. In those circumstances the situation would be Gilbertian, a hotchpotch, a dog's dinner—or what I am tempted to call, in this context, an Eccles cake.
If the noble Viscount wants to alter the structure of the government of these museums and to rid the country, in relation to them, of the trustee system—which I suggest has worked extremely well in practice—then surely he should have set down amendments to Clauses 1 and 2 and to the whole of Schedule 1, rather than seek to do what he really wants to do by this series of amendments, hiding the reality of it.
We have already rehearsed the arguments for management boards as opposed to trustees. I do not wish to go over that ground again, although I would still argue that it is a system which is wholly inappropriate for the running of these great institutions. The noble Viscount at Second Reading said that these national museums are now big business, and that is the essence of what the noble Lord, Lord Annan, was saying. That phrase is the key, I would suggest, to this amendment because both noble Lords who have set their names to this amendment have the greatest experience of the commercial world. Their hands rest easily, if I may say so, on the levers of power. But could it be that when they become chairmen of boards of trustees they feel a degree of frustration because they are not, as it were, in the driving seat?
I would urge that the great merit of the trustee system, applied to these specialist institutions of scholarship and enjoyment, is the creation of a body of men and women who are endowed with an amalgam of the relevant skills, knowledge and experience; who are independent and disinterested; who can stand back from the day-to-day management of the museum itself; who would accept responsibility, lay down policy and monitor the performance of the staff on behalf of the public—whose money, of course, funds the whole operation. To try to manage the British Museum or the Victoria and Albert Museum with a board of part-time remunerated businessmen or administrators would, in my submission, be a recipe for disaster.

385
The noble Viscount said that there was no channel of communication between the curators and the board, and that they played no part in the formulation of policy. He was saying today that there should be a statutory obligation on the trustees to consider the views of the staff and that central questions as between departments should be brought to the board. The noble Viscount has also been heard to say that the only time he ever met any of the curators, when he was chairman of the British Museum, was in the lavatory. But times have changed and, if I may say so, it is perhaps lucky that he is not chairman of the British Museum at the moment, because opportunities for consultation there at present and in the near future would obviously be severely limited.
As I say, times have changed and the picture which he draws as chairman of a national museum seems to bear no relation whatever to the work which I find is done in a national museum. No decision of the trustees as a board is ever taken, without the curators being present. The curators and the director take a full part in the discussion of policy. They are always there, of course, and it would be quite ludicrous to decide in this day and age that a body of trustees' questions which affect the director and curators could be discussed without these people being present throughout the discussions and playing a full part.
Why do I say that this proposed amendment is dangerous? I submit that it could politicise the museums. Looking at this amendment, suppose that you had a Prime Minister and a Secretary of State who held strong views on how museums should be run; the Prime Minister, to bring in this new structure, has nothing more to do than to consult the trustees. Those trustees, of course, have been appointed by the Prime Minister himself or herself. In those circumstances the appointment of new trustees could be affected—could it not?—by a desire to have like-thinking people on the board. The director would be appointed to the board by the Prime Minister and not by the trustees. There would—would there not?—in those circumstances be a danger that the director would become in some degree the creature of the Prime Minister. Equally, the curators would owe their positions on the board to the Prime Minister and not to the trustees. Once again there might be a strong motive, and if you had a strong Secretary of State or an interventionist Prime Minister, of any political complexion, be it of the Right or of the Left, not only could this permissive power be disruptive to the independence and to the non-political nature of the present system but its very existence on the statute book, I would suggest, could be a temptation to those in power and a threat to the freedom which at the moment the museums have.
For these two main reasons—quite apart from those reasons which were rehearsed at the previous debates which we have had in this House—first, because this amendment is simply a non-starter, having regard to the constitutional position under the Bill of the museums, and, secondly, because I suggest to your Lordships quite sincerely that the wording of this amendment would lay open the running of these museums to a whole political approach, which might be used in one direction or another, I ask your
386
Lordships not to accept it. The existence on the statute book of the power to do this would be a constant source of concern, worry and argument to those who, at the moment, serve the museums with their expertise. They have put the museums in this country above all others in the world and, under a system of disinterested, independent trustees doing the work that they have done so well in the past, and with the constitution which there is in this Bill, one hopes that they will continue to do so. So I would ask the noble Earl the Minister to come out strongly against this amendment and, if it is necessary in due course, I ask your Lordships to reject it.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Cottesloe: With the greatest respect to my noble friend Lord Eccles and to his experience, I hope that the Committee will not accept this amendment. It seems to me to be misguided in principle and undesirable in practice. I have two reasons for saying that. First, it would undermine the position of the director. The director may, or may not, himself be a trustee—I think that he should be—but he is responsible to the board of trustees for the whole management of the institution, collections and staff alike. If, when the board is considering his recommendations, some of his keepers, heads of departments, who are, and must be, responsible to him as director can represent opposing opinions, speaking as trustees and as equals, that places him in an intolerable position.
Secondly, it would not only be liable to introduce into a highly departmentalised institution such as the Victoria and Albert personal rivalries and jealousies if some of the heads of departments were put in a privileged position as trustees, but—and I think this is more important—it would also give their departments a special advantage in the board's consideration of the demands of the departments for the always limited resources to which my noble friend Lord Eccles referred, be they resources of money or of manpower, which the board have to consider dispassionately and to give judgement on as between one department and another. For those reasons, I hope that the Committee will not accept this amendment.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: Your Lordships have heard powerful arguments on both sides of the very important question that is raised by Amendment No. 1. My own experience is far too out-of-date for me to venture to address your Lordships on that. But I desire to say one short word on Amendment No. 2, the amendment to the amendment, which, on the ground that we should not clutter up the statute book with unnecessary verbiage, I hope your Lordships will not, in any event, accept.
The amendment itself runs, in essence, "The Prime Minister may appoint". The amendment to the amendment would make it read, "The Prime Minister may, at an appropriate time, appoint". The noble Lord made quite clear what he wanted. He did not want that power exercised now, but he wanted the potentiality to exist. But those words do not do that. They do not add anything to what is, in any event, a permissive power. The Prime Minister will appoint at the time when he, or she, thinks it appropriate,

387
whether these words are in or out. On those grounds, I suggest that your Lordships ought not to countenance the introduction of a wholly unnecessary statutory phrase.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: We must hope that the substantial debate that we have had on this first amendment may serve to reduce the length of our discussions later in the Bill. We may hope that in vain, but we must continue to hope it. I have an amendment which follows this, and which goes a great deal further than the amendment which was so eloquently moved by the noble Viscount. Therefore, I must support it, because it goes a little way in the direction in which I want to go.
The way that I want to go is to move a little away from the situation of untrammelled appointment to which noble Lords, who have enjoyed that situation for so many years, are so totally dedicated. I think, however, that, if the noble Lord, Lord Trend, were here and had heard the speech made by the noble Viscount in support of the amendment, and the support given to it by my noble friend Lord Annan, he most certainly would not have used the word "nonsense", which was attributed to it by the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson. If the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, is himself adopting that word in relation to the amendment, then so much the worse for him. This is not a nonsense at all. All that is being proposed here is a very tiny step, a sort of a gnat of an amendment, moving in a certain direction, and it is being screamed against as if it were an elephant.
I have done no research on the matter, but it is my belief that on the Continent most museums, and, indeed, many businesses, automatically have on their boards an element of staff participation. We are rather backward about the whole idea of staff representation on boards. There is no reason at all why all the disadvantages which are seen by noble Lords on this matter should follow from this very small step. Therefore, I hope that, whether it is amended or not, the amendment will be pressed. I trust that the Government will take the view that this is a matter which your Lordships should decide, and will not seek to come down one way or the other on the matter. If the matter is left to the free decision of your Lordships, then I hope that you will decide to take this small move away from the whole situation of appointment.
Appointment is something to which we are hopelessly dedicated in this country. We are terribly frightened of a slight degree of suggestion from below of representation from below; of any suggestion that anything may be done which at all inhibits the free appointment from the top down. Everything has to stem from the Prime Minister and go downwards. This system is not, in itself, faultless. It gives rise to all kinds of suspicions. For example, we now have the suggestion, arising from the system of appointment in the Arts Council, that the new Secretary-General, who has just been appointed to the Arts Council, Mr. Luke Rittner, has been appointed at the direct instigation of the Prime Minister. I do not believe any such thing. I believe that Sir William Rees-Mogg knows the Prime Minister's mind well enough to know that, given a free choice, she would choose a member of the Carlton Club. I do not believe that he had any need whatsoever
388
to consult her on the matter. The idea that one person, stemming up from the Prime Minister, must be responsible for every appointment and that, if anything at all is done to get away from it, it will somehow destroy staff relations and undermine the authority of the director—that is the nonsense, not the speech uttered so eloquently in support of the amendment by the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles.
For these reasons, it is my hope that your Lordships will decide to accept this modest amendment. It is even my hope that, when in a moment or two we look at the somewhat more radical proposals which I shall be putting forward, noble Lords may decide not to set their faces totally against them.
Lord Blake: My Lords, I am a Trustee of the British Museum and have discussed the matter with the noble Lord, Lord Trend. I should like to express the strongest support for the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington. I thought it was excellent and I do not wish to add anything to it. The trustee system has proved its worth. I cannot see that there is anything violently wrong with it and I would endorse what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: that the British Museum operates in a very different way from the way in which it operated when my noble friend Lord Eccles was its chairman. It is a very different system now and it is perfectly possible to adapt it.
There is one other matter which I should like to raise. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, referred to the undesirability of appointments always being made from above. But the noble Viscount's amendment proposes that appointments should be made by the Prime Minister. I do not see that you can go any higher than that. In the light of that, I do not understand why the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, feels he can support the amendment. I very much hope that the amendment will be rejected.
Lord Gibson: My Lords, it is always agreeable when people who are not normally allies find themselves together, however fleetingly. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, and I have had many disagreements in the past about appointments. They were enjoyable at the time. I am particularly enjoying being in agreement with him this afternoon, though probably our reasons are different and I fear that our agreement may not last.
I hope that your Lordships will accept this amendment in its new form, though I sympathise with the spirit behind the amendment to the amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, clearly wants to put in some form of words—I should not think, however, that he would be very insistent upon this particular form of words—to reassure the staff of the Victoria and Albert Museum that they are not going to have imposed upon them in the near future a system which they bitterly resist. These things have to be done slowly, gently and by persuasion, not by force.
I very much prefer the amendment in its present form. It is wholly permissive. It forces nothing upon anybody. It does not require any change unless the Prime Minister, after consulting the trustees, agrees that change is desirable. The important point is that, effectively, it leaves the museum itself to institute

389
change. That is in accordance with what should be the spirit behind the Bill, or that part of it which disestablishes these bodies. It allows them to organise and arrange their own development and it devolves to them the authority by which to do so. The museum will then be able to make this change of its own volition.
Under the pressure of the need to adapt to modern conditions, I believe that they will ultimately make a change of this kind, in one form or another. I say "in one form or another" because it is not absolutely necessary to dismantle the trusteeship system in order to make the change. It is a slight second best if you do not do so, but you can form an executive committee underneath the board of trustees. Then the false dichotomy to which the noble Lord, Lord Annan, referred—and I entirely agree with him—between policy and management is resolved. The outside people with outside skills, the staff and the director come together to make policy and to fuse in those areas where policy and management meet.
That is the essential principle. The idea that there is some deep constitutional principle at stake is an entirely unjustified dogma. Provided that you arrange for them to meet somewhere and that this point of fusion is provided for, you achieve what you need. But it is rather second best to have to get round a system of trusteeship by forming an executive committee. It has the disadvantages to which the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, referred: that those trustees who are not on the executive committee are, as it were, second-class trustees. So it is not an ideal solution, but it can be done.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: My Lords, if I may interrupt the noble Lord for one moment, may I ask him to explain why he thinks that this procedure is not followed at the moment between the trustees and staff of national museums?
Lord Gibson: My Lords, the answer to the noble Lord is that of course this procedure is followed at present. It is followed at the British Museum. If, however, you are legislating for the future, it is better, rather than instituting a system which has to be overcome in practice by a system of committees, to institute a choice so that those museums and institutions which are currently run by the trusteeship system can choose whether they want to change to the other system. The whole point about this is that both systems can be made to work. I find it very difficult to share in the passions so clearly evident on both sides of the argument. Which system you adopt is not of great importance, provided that you ensure there is a point at which the outside people—let us call them the non-executives—come together with the staff. Although I come from finance and industry, I am not ashamed of it and do not feel that, because of my commercial background, I am frustrated in the other bodies that I serve on. There is no great desire on my part nor, I am sure, on the part of the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, to get our fingers on the power, and we do not feel frustrated because of not being able to do so. I always found that it was quite easy to do so. In the National Trust, of which I am chairman, we and the staff come
390
together. We have a trusteeship system there, because we are elected. We overcome any problems through the committee system, exactly as the noble Lord suggests. But why start that way?
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: Because it works very well.
Lord Gibson: Yes, but so does this. Why not allow both to exist? There are advantages in having people of equal status sitting round a table, their appointments deriving from the same source. If that is what they want, why not allow them to move to it?
I believe that, as the museums become less exclusively institutions of scholarship and curatorial expertise, they will want to make a change. There are two ways of making that change: one through a system of committees, the other through introducing a board of management. Let us leave it to them to choose. That, surely, is the right way to set the Victoria and Albert Museum on its way for the future. Whether that should apply to the other institutions with which we are dealing in this Bill, I am not competent to say. However, in the past I was chairman of the advisory council of the Victoria and Albert Museum. That was not a trusteeship system, but in those days I saw enough of the museum to make me believe that in the long run the board of management system was the right one and that they would want to move to it. But let us not force them. Let us leave the choice to them.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, it is strange how often "may" seems to get confused with "shall"; so have I found with another Bill with which I am concerned. If my noble friend's amendment is adopted, it may be implemented; but it may not be. Times change, as the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington, said. Surely the point is that in years to come, when opinions may well have changed, the option to appoint will be there. Where is the harm in that? I part company, though, with my noble friend Lord Eccles since listening to the debate.
The noble Lord, Lord Cottesloe, who spoke so ably, made the point that if fellow members of staff were appointed as trustees as well as the director, there is the possibility that they would "gang up" against him and undermine his authority, and the passage of time cannot change this possibility.
4.50 p.m.
Lord James of Rusholme: My Lords, I wish to say two sentences in support of this amendment, based on my experience of an insitution which has precisely the arrangement of members of the staff being on the governing body; that is to say, a university. Heaven knows that they are not perfect, but very few of the great dangers which have been raised arise in the case of universities. On the whole, one does not have staff "ganging up" against the vice-chancellor; one does not get problems about, "Muggins is on it", and, "Muggins isn't, and what a shame", and, "Buggins will push his department". It does not work like that in the real world—not in a decent institution. It may sometimes happen in a very bad institution, but in a decent institution it does not work like that.

391
In some ways, museums with their scholarship and expertise are rather similar to universities; and museum people are rather similar to university teachers. This seems to me to be a perfectly rational way of moving towards the government of an institution of this kind, as the noble Lord, Lord Annan, and the noble Viscount have indicated.
Lord Mowbray and Stourton: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord James of Rusholme, said, very wisely, that he in his experience did not find people "ganging up" against vice-chancellors—but when he was vice-chancellor of York University and High Master of Manchester Grammar School, he was a man of such eminent common sense and reasonableness that that would not have happened. The noble Lord, Lord Gibson, said that all systems can he made to work, and we are all in agreement about that; where one has men of goodwill and common sense this is indeed true. But the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, when moving Amendment No. 2, to my mind gave some of the best arguments against the noble Viscount's amendment when he said that none of the staff at the V and A, in whose name this amendment is nominally being moved by the noble Viscount, want the amendment. The noble and learned Lord on the Cross-Benches put powerful arguments why the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, should not be heard. I personally do not like to have hanging over Acts of Parliament swords of Damocles which can be utilised at any moment by any Minister who feels so inclined for the care of the Government.
As has been said, the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington, has once again, not unusually, eaten all the cherries which I was going to spew forth. He always seems to hit the nails on the head and I can only totally support what he has said. My noble friend Lord Eccles has indeed had three bites of the cherry and very well and carefully has he argued his case. But, at the end of the day, I believe that an argument has not been made out for this amendment, or for the second amendment, to be agreed to. Enough has been said by me on this matter already.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, may I make three points. First, I of course support my noble friend Lord Hutchinson of Lullington. I agree that he has taken my cherries, which saves my serving them out again. If I were to accept this amendment—and I do not want to do so—I should not at all like it in its present form. Why should the Prime Minister be brought in? Why should the director not be consulted? It seems to me that if one is going to do what is suggested—and on the whole I am against it—it should be done by the board itself in agreement with the director.
My second point is this. My noble friend Lord Annan made a splendid speech, describing in very great detail how adequately the present system works if it is worked by the right people, in agreement. He pointed out how, in agreement with his chairman, he was actively intervening in all sorts of matters and how well this worked. There is no reason to change this, although I am not against the permissive background to the amendment, except for this reason. My late colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, and I have always disagreed absolutely on how one gets
392
people on committees or boards in order to achieve the best result. It is simply because this is the first step in the direction in which he wants to go that I shall be very happy to oppose it.
4.55 p.m.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, I will speak very briefly in support of the amendment moved by the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, and supported by my noble friend Lord Strabolgi, although in his own amendment he makes a proviso. It seems to me that the objections to this amendment fall into several parts. One is that one should leave well alone. Another is that the whole staff and the heads of most of the museums are against this amendment. Another is that it just could not be worked out anyhow, because people would "gang up" or because it would be impossible to choose the keepers to serve on the board. All those are valid arguments only if one is, first, making it mandatory, which the noble Viscount is not doing; and secondly, if it is supposed to take effect immediately. But, as the noble Viscount has pointed out, and I strongly agree with him, we are not going to secure legislation along these lines in respect of museums either in the near, distant or even in the far distant future.
What the noble Viscount is doing is absolutely right and was very well supported by the noble Lord, Lord Annan. The noble Viscount is laying down a pattern that can be followed or need not be followed: it is there to be picked up. Very often, this House is very much more go-ahead and radical than another place, and to set ourselves against change would be a most antediluvian attitude to take; to say that because people currently involved are against it (and on the whole, it would be surprising if they were not against it) we should not do anything about it, would be wrong.
To follow the point made by the noble Lord, Lord James of Rusholme, I found exactly the same thing in respect of a hospital management committee on which doctors sat. So that the particular representative of the medical side did not have the feeling that he was promoting only his particular department, the medical people had their own committee and put forward representatives whom they nominated themselves. All this can be worked out. It would be a pity not to take the advantage which this Bill presents. Even though this amendment may not be 100 per cent. perfect at the moment, the whole principle and trend of it is absolutely right. To vote this down would be a very retrograde step.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, when I was coming here I thought that one thing which was incontrovertible about this Bill at Committee stage and Report stage was that party politics did not enter into it. We have now spent one and a half hours on an amendment, from which it appears—certainly from the point of view of noble Lords on these Benches—that party politics do come into this to a certain extent. The amendment which has been put forward by the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, although in some ways defective—and I am sorry that the proposal is for appointment by the Prime Minister because I believe it should be by some form of election by the members of the staff themselves, as

393
undoubtedly it will be in practice—points in a direction for which members of my party have always fought. It acknowledges the importance of people who work in an organisation having a say in the direction of that organisation. It should not be one of those covert arrangements but comprise involvement at the top level. I agree entirely with the sentiments expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Birk. This amendment is moving in the right direction and it would be a pity if we rejected it at this stage.
The Earl of Perth: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, has said, we have discussed this question for a very long time, but it is a pity that there should be passions about it, particularly when this amendment is one that is permissive and looking to the future. Up until 30 years ago, for a hundred years the directors of these museums were generally on the board of trustees—certainly in the case of big museums. I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Cottesloe, is ready to see a director as a member of a board, although it is hardly allowed for at the present time. What I think we have to realise is that, although we have at this moment the people who are operating the old system all against this, there may come a moment when we want a change, just as after a hundred years changes have occurred before.
It is very difficut to meet all the arguments that have been put forward. I was struck by what the noble Lord, Lord Annan, said: that at times in practice the board of trustees has to step in and manage. That is right. But it is so much better if when they are managing, perhaps after something has gone wrong, they have the members of the staff with them.
A lot is made of the fact that if this amendment is accepted it is the Prime Minister who is to appoint. Surely this is right, because you do not want two classes of trustees, those who are appointed by the Prime Minister and those who are not. I think without any doubt if it is to be anybody it is right that it should be the Prime Minister. I am quite clear in my own mind that this is something we should support, for the reason that as things develop it may well come to be seen by those who are against it today that it is a good thing. Do remember, it is permissive.
The noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, said that politically it was very dangerous. I frankly do not understand that. The amendment says:
"The Prime Minister may, after consultation with the trustees"—
et cetera. I think there is far more danger of political trouble when the Prime Minister is first appointing trustees than when appointing from the staff or the director himself.
In the light of the fact that the Government have declared themselves neutral, and in the light of the arguments of the noble Lords, Lord Gibson and Lord Annan, as well as what the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, said at the beginning, I hope very much that your Lordships will feel it right to support this amendment.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Energy (The Earl of Avon): My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Eccles for
394
returning to one of the most important points to be raised during consideration of this Bill. The government, as he knows, have continued to give careful consideration to the issue. All forms of administrative organisations are dependent for success upon the individuals involved. The noble Lord, Lord Annan, in his excellent speech, brought this out to a marked degree. I must confess that the noble Lord kept me in suspense right up to the last moment of his speech because I thought his examples supported both sides, but certainly they supported the excellence of the present system. Success cannot be guaranteed by statute, but the Government believe they have taken a number of reasonable steps to ensure the best possible chances of success.
First, it is essential to determine the respective responsibilities of the trustees and the director. The Bill does this, and says that the board of trustees shall be responsible to Parliament and the people for the museum's affairs. The director is to be responsible to the trustees for all the activities carried out by the museum in their name. The trustees will therefore determine the policies that the museum shall follow. Second, how will those policies be formulated? That must come about as a result of the trustees, the director and the staff all doing their jobs. Policy ideas may originate from a number of quarters within the museums. The director, as senior member of staff, will be influential, but the ultimate decisions will rest with the trustees.
My noble friend would like to be able to point to one body and say, "There are the trustees and the senior staff, so that must be where the policies are developed and the decisions taken". However, there are real difficulties—and some of them have been brought out—about including the director and senior staff on the board of trustees. There is a well-tried rule of equity which prevents a trustee from profiting from a trust. The director and the staff will be salaried employees of the board, and there would appear to be little doubt that they would have difficulty in serving on the board in the manner envisaged.
I know my noble friend Lord Eccles may say that you can change their names and not call them trustees, but here we move into a complicated area. For instance, would the Charity Commissioners accept this? My noble friend may wish them to go all the way to boards, like the British Library, or commission; and we have heard talk today about management committees. We have also heard from the noble Lord on the Cross-Benches about universities. But we would argue that these are different creatures. These are management boards; and what we are looking at here and what we have suggested is a board of trustees.
Perhaps I might at this point say a word about Lord Strabolgi's amendment, which clearly is designed to provide for a helpful interval to elapse before the Prime Minister need appoint the director or senior staff to the board. I do not think this assists in solving the fundamental difficulties posed by the amendment. I am grateful to him for tabling the amendment, but I hope that in the light of my explanation and the remarks of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, he may feel able to withdraw it. If I may underline what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of

395
Glaisdale, said, Section 12(1) of the Interpretation Act 1978 says:
"Where an Act confers a power or imposes a duty it is implied … that the power may be exercised, or the duty is to be performed, from time to time as occasion requires."
There is, of course, nothing in the Bill to prevent the board of trustees inviting the director to attend board meetings in a non-voting capacity, and inviting senior staff whenever particular issues warrant it. Of course, the boards may wish to establish formal machinery for policy-making purposes, and the Bill makes provision in paragraph 6 of Schedule 1 to permit the establishment of committees comprising trustees and staff. The noble Lord, Lord Gibson, and my noble friend Lord Eccles mentioned this. Perhaps I could draw your Lordships' attention to sub-paragraph (5), which says:
"A committee shall act in accordance with such directions as the Board may make from time to time".
We believe that is a good insurance. The board may confer a range of powers to such a committee, including the delegation of decision-making. For this reason the Bill requires committee chairmen to be trustees.
We have had an interesting and fairly lengthy debate on the relationship of the board and the director concerning the way he is to run the museum. I have listened carefully to the points made both for and against the proposals, now and in Committee. The Government remain of the opinion that the trustee approach is the best for the Victoria and Albert Museum. The noble Earl, Lord Perth, said that the Government were neutral. We are indeed neutral to the point that we are not in any way whipping on this issue, but it would be naive for me not to say what the Government prefer. We prefer the two museums to go forward on the trustee system, and we believe it is the correct way for the future. I look forward to the decision of the House.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, we have had a most interesting debate. My amendment was an attempt at a compromise in view of the very strong feelings against the noble Viscount's amendment expressed by the senior staff and keepers of the Victoria and Albert Museum. Several noble Lords have mentioned universities, companies and other fields in which this works well, but I can assure them that this will not work at present at the Victoria and Albert Museum. There are very strong feelings and reservations about it, as I think the noble Earl, Lord Avon, implied.
While I am not happy with the noble Viscount's amendment at present, I think it should stand or fall by itself, I therefore beg leave to withdraw my own amendment, so that if the noble Viscount decides to press his amendment—perhaps he may not—your Lordships can make up your minds on that amendment itself.
Amendment to the amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Viscount Eccles: My Lords, I should like to thank all noble Lords who have spoken. Seldom have I been more interested in a debate which I think has brought out the experience in your Lordships' House, where many members have served on museum and on other grant-aided bodies as trustees or as chairmen. I shall
396
not recite the names, but we really do have here today a powerful body of witnesses.
I am convinced that it would not have been right to force the appointment of the director and some members of the staff here and now. I think the argument is fairly against that. On the other hand, I think that to make it permissive is well worth doing because, as the noble Lord, Lord Annan, and the noble Lord, Lord Gibson, said, we are entering into a new age in which boards of management—if your Lordships do not like the name, call them something else—will have to take over in some considerable degree the very gentlemanly arrangements we had under the trustee system. I can only tell your Lordships that when Lord Radcliffe retired from his post at the British Museum, as the noble Lord, Lord Annan, reminded us, and I became chairman, there was no policy. I had considerable trouble in trying to get the future of the museum looked at a long way ahead, and not just from meeting to meeting and from acquisition to acquisition, in regard to what we were to do with the library, the new exhibition space, the coins and the medals, and all sorts of things like that. I admit that I entered into management, but there was a vacuum and someone had to fill it.
The noble Lord, Lord Trevelyan, who succeeded me, was an admirable chairman and he, perhaps with a little help previously from me, left the noble Lord, Lord Trent, a machinery that was really running, which was not so 20 years ago. However, let us not talk about a particular experience.
I cannot accept the arguments concerning rivalry among keepers, either now or at any time, when it was thought by the trustees and the Prime Minister and, perhaps, the director as well, that it would be a good thing to have representation by right on the board, I cannot accept the idea that rivalry between managers is a sufficient reason for not doing that. How would any large business run if the head of every department was treated as equal and none was to be put on the board unless all were put on the board? That is not what life is about. It is that which makes me want to see a more managerial attitude taken in these great museums, particularly for the reason advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Annan. Parliament will not go on increasing these grants and have no further information and knowledge of how the money is spent than it has had for the last 100 or 150 years. Parliament will want to know these things, and the public will want to know. Therefore, we should create a structure where these questions can be answered, and the museum as a whole in agreement—with the staff defending their scholarships and the new trustees looking to the new activities in relation to the public.
The question was asked: why has the Prime Minister to appoint the director and members of the staff if, at some time in the future, it is thought appropriate to do so? The answer has already been given, but I should like to repeat it. We thought that to have two kinds of trustees would not be a good thing. To have some appointed by the Prime Minister and some by the trustees themselves would create a kind of difference in status. However, I leave it to the decision of the House. I shall press my amendment if the House wishes to have a Division, because I believe it is our business to

397
look to the future and to see whether we can create circumstances in which communication and participation between all levels in all great organisations is satisfactory to both.
5.15 p.m.
On Question, whether the said amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 83; Not-Contents,
98.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Aberdeen and Temair, M.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Airedale, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Amherst, E.

Kagan, L.

Ampthill, L.

Lane-Fox, B.

Annan, L.

Lawrence, L.

Bathurst, E.

Listowel, E.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Birk, B.

Longford, E.

Bishopston, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Blyton, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Marley, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Mayhew, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Chorley, L.

Nicol, B.

Collison, L.

Oram, L.

Congleton, L.

Peart, L.

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

Perth, E.

Cromartie, E.

Reilly, L.

David, B.

Rochdale, V.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Rochester, L.

Eccles, V. [Teller.]

Rugby, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

St. Davids, V.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

St. Just, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Sandford, L.

Foot, L.

Seear, B.

Galpern, L.

Segal, L.

Garner, L.

Shinwell, L.

Geoffrey-Lloyd, L.

Somers, L.

George-Brown, L.

Stamp, L.

Gibson, L. [Teller.]

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal,

Gormley, L.

L.

Greenway, L.

Terrington, L.

Hampton, L.

Thurso, V.

Hayter, L.

Tordoff, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Tryon, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Underhill, L.

Ilchester, E.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Whaddon, L.

Jacques, L.

Wigoder, L.

James of Rusholme, L.

Willis, L.

Jeger, B.

Winstanley, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Cockfield, L.

Ailesbury, M.

Cottesloe, L.

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Craigton, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Croft, L.

Auckland, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Avon, E.

Daventry, V.

Aylestone, L.

Davidson, V.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Denham, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Derwent, L.

Bellwin, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Beloff, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Bessborough, E.

Ellenborough, L.

Blake, L.

Elton, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Faithfull, B.

[Teller.]

Ferrers. E.

Cathcart, E.

Ferrier, L.

Clitheroe, L.

Fortescue, E.

398

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Gainford, L.

Mottistone, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Gisborough, L.

[Teller.]

Glanusk, L.

Moyne, L.

Glasgow, E.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Nairne, Ly.

Glenkinglas, L.

Newall, L.

Gridley, L.

Northchurch, B.

Haig, E.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Hailsham of Saint

Orkney, E.

Marylebone, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Harvington, L.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Henley, L.

Renton, L.

Hives, L.

Roberthall, L.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Romney, E.

Hunt, L.

Selkirk, E.

Hunt of Fawley, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Stedman, B.

Kinnoull, E.

Strathclyde, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Strathspey, L.

Kitchener, E.

Swinfen, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Swinton, E.

Long, V.

Trefgarne, L.

Lyell, L.

Trumpington, B.

McFadzean, L.

Vivian, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Walston, L.

Mancroft, L.

Ward of Witley, V.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Westbury, L.

Merrivale, L.

Wilson of Langside, L.

Mersey, V.

Young, B.

Milverton, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

5.25 p.m.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Derwent): My Lords, the next amendment is Amendment No. 3. I must tell the House that, if Amendment No. 3 is agreed to, I shall not be able to call Amendment No. 4.
Lord Jenkins of Putneymoved Amendment No. 3:
Page 19, line 24, leave out sub-paragraph (2) and insert—
("(2) Not less than one half of the Trustees shall be appointed by the Minister for the Arts from among persons who shall be nominated by the staff of the museum, the Arts Council and the Museums Association in such proportions and manner as the Minister may determine after consultation with the nominating bodies.
(2A) The remainder of the Trustees shall be appointed by the Minister for the Arts and in making these appointments the Minister shall ensure that the Trustees include a substantial number of women and also include persons representative of ethnic minorities.
(2B) At the first meeting of the Trustees they shall appoint a Chair occupant from among their number.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 3. As the Duke of Wellington said on another occasion, "That was a close run thing". I would venture to doubt whether the amendment which I now put before your Lordships will be quite as close run because it is a rather more drastic proposal than the one which your Lordships have just narrowly defeated. I seek to go further, and, if your Lordships came to the conclusion that the real reason why you did not accept the amendment which has just been so eloquently moved by the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, was that it did not go far enough, then perhaps I can live in hope that you will consider that this amendment, which goes rather further, will perhaps after all be more to your taste. I can live in hope—even

399
if I say that without a tremendous amount of conviction.
As far as the merits of the amendment itself are concerned, I have very considerable conviction, and, in particular, conviction about the general proposition which it seeks to advance. The noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, quite correctly said that he and I have disagreed on this general issue for many years. But it is not a question of disagreement between the noble Lord and myself. The question of constitutions is perhaps a rather theological matter, and I recall a story about a difference of opinion between two prelates. They disagreed for some time and eventually one of them said to the other, "Very well, let us agree to differ. You continue to worship God in your way and I in His". That is the difference between the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, and myself—the proposition of vox populi, vox Dei. On this occasion I am on God's side because I am on the side of democracy and the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, is welcome to continue to worship in his way—look where it has led him!
As regards the general proposition, we are seeking to make a small advance in the direction of spreading authority and power a little more in this area. Every examination which has ever been made of the control of the arts in this country has always come down to the conclusion that the whole principle of appointment from above should be looked at again. There was a Royal Commission in 1948, and, shortly after, the Arts Council was appointed. Its first recommendation was that in that particular body some attempt should be made to ensure that the council had some representation arising from below rather than it all coming down from above. Other examinations—grants for the arts for example, in 1968—made exactly the same recommendation. Even the current Eighth Report of the Education, Science and Arts Committee again touches very lightly on the subject but says in this connection as regards the Arts Council that the methods by which the Arts Council is constituted should be reviewed.
Time and time again there has been unease about our total addiction to the notion of appointment from above. Moreover we take it to absurd lengths in this country inasmuch as we have the list of the great and good—which has come under some consideration lately—and the fiction that the Prime Minister is omniscient, knows everything, knows everybody and is ultimately responsible for the appointment of everybody to everything. That proposition is so widespread that now nobody wants to be appointed by anyone but the Prime Minister because it is looked upon as a type of grading—if you are not appointed by the Prime Minister you cannot be much good. There is another amendment later on which will enable me to say a few words about that.
I should like now to turn to the detail of the amendment which I now propose. As I understand it, Amendment No. 6 is being taken with this because it is, as it were, consequential upon it. The amendment proposes that:
"Not less than one half of the Trustees shall be appointed"—
that is not too drastic and still maintains the proposition of appointment—but that the appointment shall
400
be made not by the Prime Minister, not by a Secretary of State who has very wide responsibilities, but by a Minister who may conceivably be thought to know something about it, the Minister for the Arts. He, as he is directly responsible, is much more likely to know the people concerned and to he able to survey the field than any Minister with greater responsibilities. Indeed, in practice and in reality, the names which are put forward for appointment are probably put up by the Minister for the Arts—in my experience that was the case—to the Secretary of State and finally to the Prime Minister, who usually rubber-stamps the recommendation. So this idea of appointment by the Prime Minister is largely fictional, and I think that it is rather unhealthy to enshrine in legislation something which can have very little reality in practice and which is probably undesirable in itself, anyway.
The proposal is that:
"Not less than one half of the Trustees shall he appointed by the Minister for the Arts from among persons who shall be nominated by the staff of the museum, the Arts Council and the Museums Association in such proportions and manner as the Minister may determine after consultation with the nominating bodies".
It leaves it very loose, but it introduces an element whereby names may be put forward by these three interested bodies—by the Museums Association, the Arts Council and the staff of the museum. Half of the Trustees are to be appointed in that manner.
Sub-paragraph (2A) provides that;
"The remainder of the Trustees"—
and, if the full quota of 20 were appointed, that would be 10 trustees—
"shall be appointed by the Minister for the Arts and in making these appointments the Minister shall ensure that the Trustees include a substantial number of women".
We are very short of appointments of women in these areas and, after all, they represent more than half of the population. I think it is desirable that in the legislation there should be some indication to the Minister that, where the choice is before him, he should be advised—in fact legislatively obliged—to appoint a substantial number of women, (it leaves the exact number to the Minister), and that he should:
"also include persons representative of ethnic minorities".
Here again, in this whole area there is scarcely representation of a group which constitutes an important minority in our society.
The final point made in the amendment is that the trustees should appoint a "chair occupant"—I dislike the word "chairperson"—"from among their number". So it leaves the selection of chair occupant, which is my chosen definition, to the trustees themselves rather than having a chairman imposed on them from above as though they could not be trusted to select their own chairman. The idea that a group of people who have sufficient distinction to be appointed as trustees, and to have all the responsibility of trustees, have not the intelligence and the wisdom to choose their own chairman is taking the whole process of domination from above, of appointment from above, altogether too far. Surely they should at least have this power.
That is the object of the amendment. I hope that my feeling that your Lordships may find that this goes a little too far will turn out to be wrong, and that your

401
Lordships will decide that, if you want to move at all in that direction—and a substantial number of you decided on the last amendment that you did want to move away from the present situation—you will give me sufficient encouragement to put this amendment to the test, as was the case with the previous amendment.
I should like to raise one other matter before I sit down. We do not want to exaggerate too much the importance of these constitutional, organisational changes. I think that they are important, but they are not decisively important. As has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Gibson, under one system or another, good work can be done. For example, the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, went so far as to suggest that the trustee system was responsible for the general excellence and reputation of the museums of this country and the world. That is not so. The very museums which we are now changing—the V and A and the Science Museum—under the system of direct control have an enormous reputation which compares quite favourably with any trustee museum. Yet we are changing the system of direct control to the trustee set-up and we cannot possibly say that we are doing this because they have not worked well under the old system, because they have. Therefore, changes are sometimes desirable and, if this change is desirable because it is right in principle, I want to suggest to your Lordships that the further change which I suggest in this amendment is equally desirable. I beg to move.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, I do not think that your Lordships will be unfamiliar with the fact that I often find myself in some disagreement with the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney. But he has never previously managed to shock me as much as he has shocked me by this amendment or, rather, by sub-paragraph (2A), in which he refers to the Minister ensuring,
" … that the Trustees include a substantial number of women and also include persons representative of ethnic minorities".
If I may say so, this seems to me to reveal a degree of racial and sexual prejudice on his part which I find almost unthinkable in your Lordships' House. If we look at Amendment No. 5, which the noble Earl, Lord Avon, is to move, we see that the trustees are to be, as one might expect, persons expert in the various fields which this great museum covers.
What the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, is suggesting is that it is unthinkable that any member of the female sex or any non-white person should ever acquire the degree of expertise in these fields which would make her or him an appropriate person to be a trustee. I think that, for our own reputation, we ought to repudiate that allegation and, whatever we think of the rest of the amendment, not possibly accept something which suggests permanent inferiority in the arts and crafts of more than a majority of our population.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu: My Lords, I, too, think that this amendment has gone too far. I think the House will agree that the most important thing is that trustees should be the very best people who can be found to run these great institutions. Once one starts having appointments representative of various bodies, one is definitely restricted and, as the noble Lord has just said, I do not think that the colour of the skin or
402
the sex of the person has anything to do with it whatever. It only means that sometimes appointments are made without the best person being appointed. I personally prefer the amendment which is to be moved by the noble Earl, Lord Avon. I think that Amendment No. 5 covers the situation perfectly well. Although, as President of the Museums Association, I am sure that we are most flattered that the Museums Association should be considered suitable to be a trustee, I am sure that, sooner or later anyway, there will be members of the Museums Association as trustees. I certainly oppose this amendment and I hope that the House will too.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, with the leave of the House I, too, should like to take Amendments Nos. 3 and 6 together. As the House will recall, we discussed the substance of these amendments in Committee. I can only repeat what I said then. The appointment of trustees for the board of trustees of the Victoria and Albert Museum should be the responsibility of the Prime Minister. The Government are against rights of nomination by outside bodies. This is a point which we discussed in depth during the Committee, and I believe that that, in the end, was the Committee's view, too.
I find the idea of a trustee nominated by the staff a surprising one. I should have thought that all the trustees would wish to feel that they carried the support of their staff. But a staff nominee would surely be in a difficult position, either saying thank you to his voters or else looking over his shoulders to get reelected. For similar reasons, the Government believe it to he undesirable to include criteria to appoint trustees on the basis of their gender or their ethnic origins. I should like to pay a tribute here to Dame Margaret Weston, who is an excellent example of how ladies get on in this particular sphere.
I do not believe that the selection of trustees should be influenced by such matters. It is the skills and expertise which should he paramount. In Committee, the Government agreed to look again at the appointment provisions in the Bill, and I am pleased to say that we have now tabled our amendment, which is Amendment No. 5. The Government also feel unable to accept the amendments because they speak only of the appointment of a first chairman and make no provision for the appointment of subsequent chairmen. I am sorry, I should have said "chair persons", for the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins. An underlying effect of the noble Lord's amendments would be to remove from the Bill any involvement by the Prime Minister. This would require an amendment to paragraph 3(4), which the noble Lord has chosen to deal with by proposing its deletion.
The Government do not wish to alter the provision in the Bill governing appointments in the way proposed by the noble Lord. We also believe that it would be unnecessary and undesirable to discard paragraph 3(4). The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, in his customary way, has, through these amendments, provided the House with a valuable opportunity to reconsider the approach to the appointment of trustees. He will probably not be surprised to know that the Government feel unable to accept his amendments.
Lord Renton: My Lords, in view of what my noble friend has said about Amendment No. 5, I should make it clear, lest there is any misunderstanding, that when we come to it I shall endeavour to persuade your Lordships, including my noble friend Lord Avon, that Amendment No. 5 is unnecessary, unenforceable, and not the sort of thing that should be covered by legislation at all.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, was right in the suggestion at the beginning of his speech that I should not be agreeing with him. I agree with the Government objections to what he says.
5.43 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, a couple of points. First, there is the general question of the desirability or otherwise of subsection (2A) of the amendment, which provides for "a substantial number of women" and also to "include persons representative of ethnic minorities". The question whether in any legislative or constitutional arrangement one makes provision for people who are not normally elected is always difficult. It is not quite such a terrible thing to do as the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, suggests. It is often done. One makes boxes in constitutions of different sorts to ensure that certain groups are represented. I am used to this because I worked for many years with Equity, which has a whole number of different boxes to ensure that the various areas of the profession are represented. There were arrangements for dancers, chorus singers, ballet dancers, and so on, to make sure that people were represented.
In the area that we have been discussing here, I do not think there is any doubt that, in spite of the great distinction of Dame Margaret Weston, about which I wholeheartedly agree, there is a shortage of women, particularly among the trustees of the museum. I am open to correction, but I believe that in a number of cases there are no women whatsoever on the boards of trustees. It is also true that there is a great shortage of persons who are representative of ethnic minority groups.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, if I may, with leave, speak again though it is Report stage, there are three ladies on the British Museum board, one on the Imperial War Museum, one on the National Gallery, two on the National Portrait Gallery, one on the Tate Gallery, one on the Wallace Collection, one on the British Library and two on the Museum of London. The only one which has a zero against it on my list is the National Maritime Museum.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, it is not exactly overwhelming, is it? What the noble Earl has just said serves rather to confirm the desirability of some categorisation for women than otherwise. It is done in the Labour Party. The National Executive Committee of the Labour Party has a group reserved for women. Your Lordships may not think this a particlarly good example, but to us on this side of the House it is a good example and one which works.
I, too, take the view that the fact that it is necessary to make these boxes is basically undesirable. If it were
404
the case that women were elected automatically and without any difficulty to the other House, there would be no need to do what many parties are doing at the moment—trying to find ways in which they can encourage more women to stand. I would not exclude the possibility that it might be decided that it was desirable even in the other Chamber to ensure that a larger percentage of women was present there. They are grossly under-represented in both Houses. I think it undesirable that they should continue to be so when we have it within our legislative power, so far as these institutions are concerned, to ensure that in future they are not under-represented. That is as far as those special places are concerned.
The only other point I want to make is on the question of the staff. It has been said more than once that the staff of the V and A Museum are wholly opposed to this proposal. I do not believe that to be the case. I do not think that anybody who has said that it is the case is in a position to know anything at all about the subject except to say that it is of course the case that the senior staff, the only people who have been consulted on this particular point, are against it. One needs to ask why the senior staff are opposed to this.
Is it not the case that, in spite of the examples which have been given of the occasional strong chairman, the senior staff are against it because they think they can get their own way better this way? They think they can manipulate the trustees and control the institutions, turning the trustees into mere cat's-paws instead of the other way about. This is why the staff prefer not to have the overt situation. It is only the senior staff who are against it. So far as the whole of the rest of the staff are concerned, they would warmly welcome the possibility of putting a person on the board whom they could regard as somebody who would speak for them. For this reason, I hope that your Lordships will decide to accept the amendment which I now press.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Jacques): The Question is, That this amendment be agreed to? As many as are of that opinion will say "Content"; to the contrary, "Not-Content". I think the Not-Contents have it. Clear the Bar.
My Lords, tellers for the Contents have not been appointed, pursuant to Standing Order No. 50, and the Division therefore cannot take place. I declare that the Not-Contents have it.
5.55 p.m.
Lord Strabolgimoved Amendment No. 4:
Page 19, line 25, at end insert ("and thereafter, following the resignation from office of the first chairman, the subsequent chairmen shall be elected by the trustees.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have ventured to put this amendment down again as I believe it is an important one and I was not quite clear from the Committee stage about the Government's attitude to it. I hope that perhaps this time it will be favourably received.
I accept that the first chairman should be appointed by the Prime Minister, as is laid down in the Bill, but thereafter I think that it would be better to follow the custom of the National Gallery and the Tate Gallery, and indeed other institutions, where the trustees elect

405
their own chairman. I think that this is much better than having an outsider appointed by Prime Ministerial patronage. I am anxious that the V and A chairman should not always be looked on as a political appointment. I am sure that Prime Ministers are always impartial in their choice but the result usually seems to be, although not invariably, that chairmen of various institutions reflect the Government of the day.
The other objection is that a chairman imposed from outside may not be a good committee chairman, however distinguished he may be in other fields. The one does not necessarily follow from the other. I am sure the well-tried, democratic system of election by one's colleagues, by those who know one, like one and work with one, is best. I beg to move.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, in a word I should like to support this amendment. I think it is sensible and showing trust in the board.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, the Government agreed in Committee to reconsider this point. We have since done so, but I regret we still do not feel able to accommodate the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi.
Incidentally, the amendment would take effect only on the resignation of the first chairman. Therefore in the event of completion of his term of office, his death, or his removal from office, rather than his resignation, I understand the amendment would not bite; nor would its provisions for election deal with the possibility of appointing as chairman someone who was not already a trustee. However, those are side issues to what the noble Lord is intending. The Bill as drafted provides for the Prime Minister to select a chairman. As I said at a previous stage, it is the intention that the Prime Minister be guided by the trustees in this matter. It would perhaps be unhappy if the Prime Minister of the day had no opportunity to consider the new chairmen of these illustrious museums. The boards would be highly influential in their fields and I believe that it is right that the Government should themselves be satisfied with the choice of chairmen.
It is easy to imagine scenarios to support all arguments but I feel I should bring forward to the House one or two. The first I should like to put forward is the situation of a strong chairman. Surely he could easily create an atmosphere where trustees just rubber stamp his reappointment. There is also the possibility of a weak but popular chairman, where it would be more pleasant for the trustees if the Prime Minister rather than the trustees were to wield the axe. They could then continue to profit from his knowledge if they wished to keep him on as a trustee. Incidentally, the noble Lord, Lord Annan, with his examples, gave me another idea, which was that, after a big shake-up, it might well be important that the Prime Minister should appoint the chairman rather than the trustees.
We recognise that the precedents for the proposals of the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, do exist elsewhere with trustee museums and galleries. We also accept that trustees themselves should be good judges of who among them would make the most suitable chairmen. There are, of course, points on both sides but, on the whole, the Government believe that the Bill is best left
406
as it stands, with the assurance that the Prime Minister would normally consult trustees about future chairmen and would be guided largely by their recommendations.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, just very briefly. I should like to support the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, and the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, on this matter. I do not really think that the arguments which have been put up by the Government spokesman hold that amount of water. He said—I think I quote him correctly—that the Government would be unhappy if the Prime Minister had no opportunity to consult on such an important appointment. I should have thought that the Prime Minister has quite enough to do in a modern state without necessarily being consulted on appointments like these, important though all of us in this Chamber admit that they are. It is a field in which I think they would be happier if the appointments were made by the Minister for the Arts rather than the Prime Minister, anyway. I think that the arguments and reasoning behind the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, are absolutely sound.
The suggestion that the amendment as drafted does not bite surprises me. I thought it was open to argument, but presumably if the House decided to support the amendment, as I rather hope it will, that could be put right on Third Reading.
Viscount Eccles: My Lords, the arguments are pretty balanced, but I come down on the side of the Government. What I have in mind is another point. Let us take the Arts Council as an example. Does the House really think that the last two or three appointments to chair the Arts Council would have been better if they had been made by the members of the council rather than by someone brought in from outside? One could have that situation and, consequently, would be in great trouble if there was nobody on the board who fits the office. I know that does not happen always, but it is a worse possibility than the other way round.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: My Lords, I should like to support the amendment. The parallel drawn by the noble Viscount is not quite accurate because members of the Arts Council are not trustees. It is a different situation. The trouble about the whole matter of chairmen of trustees in relation to the arts is that so much in the arts is considered, by those who are not participating, as being political. In other words, if a museum purchases works of art which a Right-wing Government think are beyond the pale and too advanced, immediately they have a political criticism to them. Equally, a Government of the Left, if a museum purchases traditional art, after a time will say, "These are a lot of Right-wing fuddy-duddies".
The trouble is that art and politics continually get bound up together. I should have thought it was a very good thing indeed that the chairman should never be appointed in order to set right what appears to be a political tendency in one set of trustees or another. Certainly he should never be appointed for prestige reasons, and certainly never for political reasons; and we know in the past that that has happened.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Donaldson, Lord Hutchinson and Lord Beaumont, for their support. I would say with respect to the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, that I do not think the Arts Council is really comparable as an example. As I think the noble Earl, Lord Avon, implied—although, naturally, he did not make very much of it—this is working very well at the National Gallery and Tate Gallery and there seems no reason why it should not work at the new Victoria and Albert Museum. I thought the stories he put up about a strong or weak chairman were rather specious.
There is, I agree, a grave danger that from time to time a chairman may be imposed from outside, for political or other reasons, and he may not be suitable at all. Indeed, looking back over the decades since I have been interested in the arts and have had the privilege of being a Member of your Lordships' House, I am bound to say that one or two chairmen who have been imposed from outside have been less than perfect. I will not put it any higher than that. I think it is much better, after the initial period, that the trustees—who will all be distinguished, experienced men and women—should be able to elect their own chairman from among themselves. Therefore, in view of the encouragement I have had, I feel bound to press the amendment.
6.3 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 4) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 53; Not-Contents, 90.

DIVISION NO. 2

CONTENTS

Amherst, E.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Annan, L.

Moyne, L.

Ardwick, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Aylestone, L.

[Teller.]

Banks, L.

Roberthall, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Rochester, L.

Birk, B.

Seear, B.

Bishopston, L.

Shannon, E.

Collison, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

David, B. [Teller.]

Stamp, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Stedman, B.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Foot, L.

Stone, L.

Galpern, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Garner, L.

Thurso, V.

Gibson, L.

Tordoff, L.

Hampton, L.

Tryon, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Underhill, L.

Hooson, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Walston, L.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Whaddon, L.

Jacques, L.

Wigoder, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Willis, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Wilson of Langside, L.

Kagan, L.

Winstanley, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Young of Dartington, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Belstead, L.

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Bessborough, E.

Avon, E.

Blake, L.

Bellwin, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Beloff, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

408

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Lyell, L.

Cathcart, E.

McFadzean, L.

Chorley, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Cockfield, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Congleton, L.

Marley, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Marshall of Leeds, L.

Craigton, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Croft, L.

Merrivale, L.

Cromartie, E.

Mersey, V.

Daventry, V.

Milverton, L.

Davidson, V.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Mottistone, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Eccles, V.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Newall, L.

Elton, L.

Northchurch, B.

Faithfull, B.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Ferrers, E.

Orkney, E.

Ferrier, L.

Pender, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Perth, E.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Gisborough, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Glanusk, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Renton, L.

Greenway, L.

Rochdale, V.

Gridley, L.

Rugby, L.

Haig, E.

St. Davids, V.

Hailsham of Saint

St. Just, L.

Marylebone, L.

Sandford, L.

Harvington, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Henley, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Hives, L.

Strathspey, L.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Swinfen, L.

Hunt of Fawley, L.

Swinton, E. [Teller.]

Hylton-Foster, B.

Terrington, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Trumpington, B.

Kitchener, E.

Vickers, B.

Lane-Fox, B.

Vivian, L.

Lawrence, L.

Ward of Witley, V.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Young, B.

Long, V.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
6.12 p.m.
The Earl of Avonmoved Amendment No. 5:
Page 19, line 25, at end insert—
("(2A) In appointing any trustee, the Prime Minister shall have regard to the desirability of the person's having knowledge or experience of art, the crafts, design, management, administration, or any other subject knowledge or experience of which would be of use to the Board in exercising their functions.")
The noble Earl said: My Lords, with the leave of the House, in moving Amendment No. 5 I should also like to introduce Amendments Nos. 32, 42 and 63. These amendments seek to meet the principle embodied in a number of proposals made during Committee stage. Concern was then expressed that in making appointments care should be taken, so far as possible, to secure that candidates possessed relevant knowledge or experience. A number of amendments were moved on that occasion, and the Government have considered carefully the two approaches proposed. The Government would prefer not to reproduce on the face of the Bill lists of particular subjects or specialisms. We consider that in the case of the two museums in particular it would be invidious to alight on one or two particular subjects from the many represented in their collections, and I believe that noble Lords expressed similar unease.
It is for that reason that the Government have opted to follow the principle embodied in the amendment originally submitted in Committee by my noble friend

409
Lord Craigton in relation to the Royal Botanic Gardens and on that occcasion accepted in principle on behalf of the Government by my noble friend Lord Ferrers. Your Lordships laid particular stress on skills in management and administration, and these amendments have been drafted to refer to those and to the general functions of the museums. The four amendments refer to the two museums, the Armouries and Kew. I hope that your Lordships will accept that the amendments now proposed adequately meet your wishes. I beg to move Amendment No. 5.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, I am sure that we are grateful to the Government for tabling this amendment. In Committee we had a long discussion on the whole question of trustees and the way they are appointed, the qualities to be looked for in a modern world and the drawbacks of recycling (as it was called) and selection from a narrow field. If I interpreted the views of the Committee aright—and I know that the noble Viscount shared them—the general feeling seemed to be that the whole system of selection needed to be brought up to date. I think that the Government are right to be fairly flexible, and the wording of the amendment reflects this.
I should like to ask one or two questions to discover the lines of the Government's thinking over appointments. Is it intended to have a letter of appointment making clear that regular attendance at board meetings is required? Secondly, will one of the trustees have special knowledge of the art of the theatre, in view of the theatre museum project, and will the Government consult those concerned in the theatre world? Lastly, in Committee I gave reasons why I thought that the RCA should be represented, in view of the close ties between the Royal College of Art and the museum. Will that be taken into account? I see nothing about it in the amendment. Apart from those points, I should myself like to give a general welcome to the amendments.
Lord Renton: My Lords, although I realise that my noble friend Lord Avon tabled the amendments as a result of representations made on both sides at the Committee stage, I hope I can persuade him and your Lordships that they are unnecessary, unenforceable and unwise. Surely it is fundamentally wrong for us to legislate in this way. Clearly, in appointing any trustee the Prime Minister should, and would, have regard to the qualities mentioned and other qualities, too; but for the statute to attempt to enumerate some of the most relevant ones is meaningless. It is not our custom to do this. When we give power to make appointments we do not always set out all the possibilities to which the Minister of the Crown—whether they be the Prime Minister or somebody else—shall have regard. To what they shall have regard is generally perfectly clear from the circumstances in which the statute is enacted; and I would respectfully suggest to your Lordships that this is not what statutory legislation is for.
Also, I must point out that the provisions in Amendments Nos. 5 and 32 are quite unenforceable, because if by some miracle one were to drag the Prime Minister before the High Court—which is almost unthinkable—all that he or she would need to do
410
would be to say, "Yes, I had regard to those things, and I made the appointment". I hesitate to use words that might be thought to be extreme, but it is nonsense. Our statutes are cluttered up with all kinds of unenforceable provisions that are not really laws at all, and I hope that we shall be spared these.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, I have to confess that the noble Lord, Lord Renton, is talking sense. That does not mean that I want to support him in opposing the amendment, because I do not feel that I agree with the adjective that he used when he said, I think, that the proposal was dangerous, or unwise, or something of that sort. I do not think that it contains any harm in itself. I believe it to be totally unenforceable, and I consider that it could be easily got round by any Prime Minister or any other person making an appointment at any time. I agree entirely on that.
On the other hand, in Committee the Minister was pressed to make even worse, and more exact, requirements, and it was in order to avoid being pushed into doing that that he has produced his present proposal, which is vague enough, at least in my opinion, though not in the opinion of the noble Lord, Lord Renton, to be harmless. So I certainly shall not oppose the amendment, but I believe it to be quite unnecessary.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu: My Lords, I should like generally to support the amendment. I think that everybody in your Lordships' House has been trying to get away from "the great and the good" type of appointment, which will inevitably go on. There is now some indication that even though one may be great and good, one might have other qualifications as well. So although the proposal may not be enforceable, I believe that in years to come somebody might wish to pack the board of trustees with political appointments, with people who have no knowledge whatever of the subject of the museum, and so it may be desirable to mention in the legislation the point covered in the amendments. That is why I definitely support them, and I am very glad that the Government have brought them forward.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson—if not, it was certainly one of his colleagues on the Back-Bench there—who in Committee told me that I was carrying out a task that was impossible, and that I could not please everybody. I am therefore delighted with the view now taken by my noble friend Lord Renton.
The noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, spoke about the letter of appointment. It is the intention that there should be one. As far as concerns the matter of regular attendance being within it, it could be part of it; and, as he has brought it up, we shall bring it to the attention of the appropriate people. He spoke also about the special interests of the theatre, and of the RCA. On that, all I can say is that all the various fields of industry which the V and A cover at the moment will be taken into account on the appointments. Equally, I am happy to draw these two particular things to the attention of my right honourable friend.
What can I say to the noble Lord, Lord Renton? What I have provided is what, at Committee stage,

411
your Lordships wanted me to provide. That I have done. I take his point, and will ensure that the law officers' attention is drawn to what he has said this evening. I should like to have this in the Bill at the moment because it is a plank on which the Committee decided and a plank on which we are building this particular part of the Bill.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 6 not moved.]
The Earl of Avonmoved Amendment No. 7:
Page 19, line 33, leave out from first ("chairman") to end of line 34.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, with the leave of the House, in moving Amendment No. 7 I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 33, 48 and 64. These have been tabled to meet the will of the Committee that a resigning chairman may continue in office as a trustee for the unexpired period of his term of office. The amendments do not affect the provisions to prevent a resigning trustee from continuing as a chairman. I hope that these are self-explanatory. I beg to move.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, as I ventured to raise this point on Committee, I should like to express my appreciation to the noble Earl and to say how very glad I am that he has met the point by excision rather than addition. Your Lordships will remember that the cleverest thing that the White Knight ever did was to invent a new pudding during the meat course. Your Lordships will probably think that the noble Earl has been even more clever, in the way he has gone to meet the wishes of your Lordships at this stage of the Bill.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
6.24 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putneymoved Amendment No. 8:
Page 20, line 3, leave out ("with the approval of the Prime Minister").
The noble Lord said: This amendment seeks to remove from the schedule the words "with the approval of the Prime Minister". The whole paragraph reads:
"There shall be a Director of the Victoria and Albert Museum who shall be appointed by the Board with the approval of the Prime Minister".
This is carrying things to an absurdity. If we have the position in which even the director, not merely the trustees, is to go through this formal process of approval by the Prime Minister, we are descending to the level of farce.
There has been a certain amount of kerfuffle recently in the Arts Council about the appointment of their chief executive being the new Secretary-General. One of the charges made there was that this appointment was a political one. It was suggested in one of the newspapers that the appointee was the choice of the Prime Minister. I have no doubt that the new Secretary-General is somebody of whom the Prime Minister would approve, and I am equally sure that the suggestions that have been made in the newspaper that Sir William Rees-Mogg actually consulted the Prime Minister on this matter before making the appointment of Mr. Luke Rittner, are almost certainly entirely fallacious. Indeed, they have
412
been denied by Sir William and I personally would accept that.
It seems to me that the chairman and members of the board would know full well what sort of person would be likely to be acceptable and that they do not need to go through the formal process of appointment, let alone to put it in the legislation. I think it is quite sufficient—and, in fact. I think it goes altogether too far—that the trustees themselves should be appointed by the Prime Minister. To have the chief executive also subject to that approval is so ridiculous that I hope that your Lordships, on consideration, will say that this is really going too far and will agree with me by throwing it out.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, will be surprised to hear that I agree with him, perhaps for the first time this afternoon. It is absolutely wrong in my opinion that a director should be appointed by anybody other than the board. What happens, and will always happen, is that the chairman of the board consults that organisation which gives him his money, whether it is the Arts Council or the Minister or whoever it is, and says, "Have you any views about this?" But it is not a statutory affair; it is one of good management. To bring in the Prime Minister simply means that appointment by the Prime Minister has no meaning, because it will not be done by the Prime Minister if every director of every museum and all the trustees are going to be appointed by the Prime Minister. I support the noble Lord's amendment.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, the Bill gives the board power to appoint its director subject to the approval of the Prime Minister. The Government believe this to be a modest but essential safeguard of the public interest and one which is found in the arrangements for the appointment of directors at other trustee museums and galleries. Similar provisions are included in the Bill in respect of the other boards and the commission. I recognise that the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, may be concerned to ensure that the board of the V and A is not impeded in its choice of candidate by any political considerations presented by the Government of the day.
The past experience of the other trustee museums and galleries suggests that such concern is groundless. I hope that the House will feel as I do, that the system works well in practice. In fact, directors of the British Museum and of the Natural History Museum are selected by the trustees with the approval of the Prime Minister. Those of the Imperial War Museum, the National Gallery and of the National Maritime Museum are selected by the Treasury, which is, of course, in effect the Prime Minister again. I understand that the Tate Gallery has no statutory provision although we find, from a minute of 1885, that the director is normally approved by the Prime Minister. We are doing nothing strange at the moment. If the House so wishes we could make a change in this particular case, but I believe that this is a good safeguard and one which I would prefer to see in the Bill.
On Question, amendment negatived.
Viscount Ecclesmoved Amendment No. 9:
Page 20, line 4, at end insert ("for a period of not more than seven years and shall be eligible for re-appointment").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, when we last debated this question there appeared to be general agreement among your Lordships that directors of the museums should be appointed for a limited number of years, with the possibility of renewal. The Government saw some objection to putting this in the Bill and I withdrew my amendment to give them time to consider the matter.
It appears that under the Bill all the present members of the staff are guaranteed Civil Service status to the end of their period of employment, and, as the present director has some 16 years yet to go, it would be difficult, if not impossible, for the new trustees to give him a contract for less than that period. None the less, I have put the amendment down again because I hope to hear from the Minister that, after the end of Sir Roy Strong's period of office, the Government will encourage the trustees not to hesitate to appoint a young man or young woman on account of his or her age, and to give all future directors a contract of, say, up to seven years, renewable at their discretion. If my noble friend can give me an assurance of that kind, I shall not press this amendment. I beg to move.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, as I said at Committee stage, of course we appreciate the concern lying behind this amendment. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Eccles for raising it again, thus enabling me to place on record the Government's thinking about the term of appointment for each subsequent director. It is indeed our intention that the board should be able, if it so chooses, to offer future directors appointments for a fixed term. Precise details concerning the length of the appointment will be matters for consideration in consultation with the board, and the terms and conditions of service will be subject to Government approval under paragraph 4 of Schedule 1.
The proposal for an appointment of seven years seems, on the face of it, not unreasonable, although of course I could not give a firm commitment that this limit will be the one selected. The precise length of a particular appointment, and the option of renewal, may depend upon several factors relating to the individual concerned and the needs of the institution at the time. It is therefore best that the Bill permits flexibility, and the Government would not wish to prescribe in the Bill limitations that prove to be obstacles. In response to my noble friend, I would, however, reassure the House that it is the intention to enable boards both to specify a term for each appointment of a director and to provide for reappointment on completion of that term. Indeed, we would be willing to encourage the boards to proceed in the ways described by my noble friend. I hope that with these assurances my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Viscount Eccles: My Lords, I thank the Minister for what he has said and for the assurance, which I find satisfactory. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.33 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putneymoved Amendment No. 10:
Page 20, line 36, at end insert ("A person who refuses an offer shall be offered instead either employment elsewhere in the civil service on his existing terms and conditions of employment or a cash settlement in lieu.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment, like the one which follows, is a matter of substance and importance. I shall require very considerable reassurances from the Front Bench if the matter is not to be fully pressed. The position so far as the staff are concerned is that they are required under the proposed legislation to be given an offer of employment. There is, however, no alternative in the Bill. It does not say anywhere what happens if the person finds the offer unacceptable. I think it is a very serious omission from the Bill.
Your Lordships may say. "Why should not anybody accept an offer of employment?" If anybody says that, they under-estimate very greatly the pride which many members of the staff feel in being civil servants. This is particularly true among the security staff and among the many of the staff rather than the few. Regarding the director and his leading officials in a museum, their loyalty—their "feeling"—is to the museum, to the institution. So long as the controlling organisation is satisfactory, they are not greatly worried about this. Members of the staff lower down the scale have a strong feeling of being in the Civil Service, and many of them have obtained their post through their trade union. They have made the point that they feel that they will lose status—personal status and collective status—as a result of losing their position as civil servants.
Your Lordships may not understand this, but I assure you that it is so. Many of the security staff are people who come from the police and from the forces, and they regard their continuity of service in the Civil Service as part of a lifetime spent in the service of the Government. They do not want to lose that basis; they do not want to lose the prestige, which can have quite some standing in certain parts of the community—the business of being a servant of the Government.
We recognise at this stage of the Bill that unless the other House decides differently—they might do that—so far as this House is concerned the general argument as to whether the devolution should take place at all is lost. Later on, I shall be saying something which will endeavour to defer the evil day; but the argument on principle was heard at Second Reading, and it is therefore the case that in this House there is no going back on the position that, whether or not the staff like it, trustee status is going to come about. There may be some members of the staff who will say, "No; so far as I am concerned, I have been a civil servant all my life and I want to stay a civil servant. I do not want to become an employee of these trustees, who I neither know nor trust. I do not want to lose my standing". What happens then?
This amendment seeks to make provision for that situation, which as I see it is not currently provided for in the Bill at all. It says:
"A person who refuses an offer shall be offered instead either employment elsewhere in the civil service on his existing terms and conditions of employment…".

415
It might perhaps say,
"not less favourable than his existing terms and conditions of employment";
but if the Government will agree to accept the amendment in principle, I shall not argue about the wording. If I were to receive that assurance, I would not wish to press the matter to a Division. The amendment continues:
"on his existing terms and conditions of employment or a cash settlement in lieu".
It does not attempt to spell out what the cash settlement should be. What it does is to provide an alternative for the man who says, "No; all my life has been spent here. I have been here years. This is what I take pride in; this is what I want to do. I want to go on being a civil servant, and I am not prepared to move".
Under these circumstances, it seems to me that there ought to be specific protection for that man or woman in the Bill, and it is in an endeavour to create that protection that I move the amendment. I beg to move.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, this amendment deals with what we hope will be the hypothetical question of what should happen if someone refuses an offer of a job by the trustees. Of course, we very much hope that there will be no such refusals. I have already explained at Committee stage that the intention is that the staff of the trustee institutions should be treated for all practical purposes as if they were civil servants. It is therefore difficult to envisage that many people will have reasonable grounds for wishing to refuse an offer. We would not wish to incorporate into the Bill a clause which might deal with a non-problem. If the Government were to accept the amendment, this might lead to problems. The introduction of new trustee bodies might prompt some people to look round to see whether a better job was available. If they found one, they would—as now—need to resign. They might therefore have to refuse the trustees' offer, but there would of course be no case for compensation.
The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, will be pleased with what I am now about to say. There are also some staff in the departmental museums who are generalist staff. They may see their future career as lying partly, at least, in the DES. They may have been posted to one of the museums for a period of two or three years with the intention that they should then move on elsewhere in the DES. If any of the staff in the generalist grades did not want to stay permanently in a museum, it would be possible to put them on secondment from the DES to the museum. They could then be brought back to the DES at some later time which was convenient in the planning of their career, and fitted in with other staff moves. They might then be replaced by someone else on a short-term secondment from the DES. I understand that the amendment as proposed would not allow this to happen.
The amendment describes two of the main features of what is available to civil servants under redundancy procedures which have been collectively agreed with the Civil Service unions. Under those procedures, which are similar to those in the private sector, if a person's job ceases to exist attempts are made to find him another one in the same grade. If he is in certain grades, his terms and conditions of service may oblige
416
him to accept a job in another part of the country. If nothing suitable is available, an elaborate order of discharge is followed.
In the situation we are considering, there is a job to go to—his own job. The object is to make the minimum change in the terms and conditions of the job. I should like to assure your Lordships that, if we thought a significant number of staff in the museum were still worried about the proposals, we should like to be able to deal with the underlying problem now. The DES have held meetings with the trade union side and the museum management. My right honourable friend the Minister for the Arts has also had meetings with the unions. We shall continue to keep the matter under review. Our assessment is that this amendment is unnecessary and would in fact impede the interests of some of the staff. If there was a problem, we should look for a different solution. I hope that some of the things I have said will help to give the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, some confidence that there is another opportunity open, particularly for the generalist staff.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu: My Lords, I am rather surprised at this amendment because, as President of the Museums Association, I took it as my duty to consult the Civil Service unions, and certainly they made no mention of this worry to me. I feel that perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, has been misled by an extremely misleading leaflet which was put out, without any authority, by people calling themselves "the staff of the museums". The directors of both museums do not know who these people are, and the leaflet was not signed. If it really is a question of Civil Service pride, in future we want people in museums who have pride in the profession of being a museum person and not just an ex-police officer or an ex-civil servant. It is the professionalism of museum attendants and their training which is going to count, and not the fact that they might be civil servants.
I do not think that the amendment is necessary. I feel quite sure that the arrangements by which the museum staffs are looked after are sound, and certainly the Civil Service unions that I have consulted are happy with them.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, the representations which I have received come from the Civil Service Union branch No. 575, which is the branch based upon the Victoria and Albert Museum; and the letter I have is signed by its chairman, whom I have met, together with several other representatives of this grade. Therefore, I do not think there is any doubt at all that these fears and this anxiety are genuinely held there.
However, I was encouraged by the noble Earl's mention of the fact that the matter is still under review. Perhaps the noble Earl may be able to say that he can go a little further and that he will suggest to his colleagues that there should be some further discussion with this branch of the Civil Service Union, or with what other appropriate representation there may be at that level, with a view to doing one very important thing. I believe there is some difficulty as to where the line should be drawn and at what point it is considered appropriate for people to be allowed to stay in the Civil Service and in what circumstances that

417
privilege, as some regard it, should not exist. It seems to me that the matter is certainly not clear to the people who are affected. They are rather unhappy about it, and, if the noble Earl would undertake to have another look at this and talk further with the people concerned or their representatives, then I think it would be possible for me not to press the amendment to a Division.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, if the House will permit me to speak twice, I will of course undertake to have a look at what the noble Lord has said.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putneymoved Amendment No. 11:
Page 21, line 3, leave out ("industrial tribunal") and insert ("an arbitration machinery agreed with the appropriate trade union").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is another important matter which refers to the appropriate machinery in the event of dispute. We had a discussion on this at an earlier stage in the Bill and I understood the noble Earl to say at that time that he would have another look at this. I thought that perhaps he might bring forward an amendment under his own name. What the Bill says at the moment at the bottom of page 20 and at the top of page 21 is:
"Any dispute arising under this paragraph as to whether or not the terms of any employment offered by the Board are, taken as a whole, less favourable than those applying to a person's employment in the civil service of the State shall be referred to and determined by an industrial tribunal".
What the amendment seeks to do is to take out the words "industrial tribunal" and insert,
"an arbitration machinery agreed with the appropriate trade union.".
I believe that that would he very much better, because an industrial tribunal is one set up for a specific purpose and it might be quite unsuitable to deal with all the questions which might arise on this issue. An industrial tribunal is an extreme point: it is at the end of a whole procedure when somebody is on the point of dismissal and is complaining that he has been wrongly dismissed. Surely, before one reaches that extreme point, one needs to have arbitration machinery. One does not want to assume that one has to go automatically, every time there is a disagreement with any individual, to the extreme length of going to an industrial tribunal. Therefore, I hope that the noble Earl, on consideration, will agree to accept this amendment, which was the feeling I was left with when we discussed this issue at an earlier stage. I beg to move.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, the noble Lord did indeed co-sponsor a similar amendment at Committee stage. He was concerned at that point to ensure that machinery existed for settling disputes before an employee had been dismissed. I did undertake to look at the matter again in the light of the debate, and I wrote to the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, about it. I
418
believe that I sent a copy to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins.
The Government have reconsidered the matter and perhaps it may be helpful to the House if I set out now the main points, so that the matter may be placed on the record. Perhaps I may reassure the House that the provision in paragraph (6) referring to an industrial tribunal applies whether or not an employee has actually been dismissed. Industrial tribunals derive from Section 128(1) of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978. This provides that the Secretary of State may by regulations make provision for the establishment of tribunals, to be known as industrial tribunals, to exercise the jurisdiction conferred on them by or under that Act, or any other Act, whether passed before or after the 1978 Act. They exercise a range of functions conferred on them by a number of statutes, of which the duty to hear disputes concerning offers of employment under this Bill would be only one. There are numerous examples of statutory provisions conferring functions on tribunals, including some where a complainant would still be employed by the person against whom he is complaining or indeed where the complainant is not an employee at all. Examples of these statutory provisions conferring functions on industrial tribunals are set out in Halsbury's Laws of England, 4th Edition, Volume 16, paragraph 1021.
As I said in Committee, well-tried grievance procedures already exist at the Victoria and Albert Museum and it is the intention that they should continue to do so. The board will be under a statutory duty to offer employment on terms and conditions not less favourable than those enjoyed by the civil servant at the time the offer is made. In this case it is entirely right that judgment on whether these statutory obligations have been met should be a matter for consideration by a statutory body.
We remain of the view that the Bill as drafted provides adequate safeguards for existing civil servants affected by it. We therefore continue to believe that the amendment is not really necessary and I hope that, with these reassurances, the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, will he satisfied.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, before he sits down, may I ask the Minister a question on this amendment, as I moved a similar one at Committee stage? I am not sure that this is altogether clear. He wrote to us in those terms and has spelled it out again now. But he is very well aware that what is in Hansard is not before the courts and is not part of the Bill. The general understanding is that one goes to an industrial tribunal after dismissal, and in that short debate the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, inquired about the grievance procedure and industrial tribunals. I am wondering whether what the noble Earl said is all right, so long as it is understood, but the position can be made clear beyond doubt in the schedule itself.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will respond to the noble Baroness. I see that my noble friend Lord Renton is sitting on the Woolsack at the moment, and I hesitate to say that anything can be put on the face of the Bill in this way. I cannot honestly say to the noble Baroness that I think

419
I shall have any success, but I shall certainly look at the point which she has made. I believe that the Bill covers the worries of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins. However, I am happy to say that I will take it back, but with absolutely no undertaking that I shall get anywhere.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for that assurance. Maybe, he could go this step further and say that when he or his colleagues have those further discussions which we envisage may take place in relation to the previous legislation, he will be able, in the event that he finds himself unable to accede to the best idea, which is the inclusion of something in the legislation itself, to give the sort of assurance which he has given in this House to the representatives of the staff. They, too, may then understand that this does not mean what it is generally understood to mean, which is that the only recourse is the ultimate recourse of reference to an industrial tribunal, which is thought to be constituted as a final court of appeal in industrial matters. If the noble Earl were to say that. I think that my noble friend on the Front Bench and I would be happier.
The Deputy Speaker: (Lord Renton): My Lords, does the noble Lord seek leave to withdraw the amendment?
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, I think that I saw a nod; so, having seen that nod, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.53 p.m.
The Earl of Avonmoved Amendment No. 12:
Page 21, line 5, after ("including") insert ("subject to subparagraph (6A)")
The noble Earl said: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to move Amendment No. 12 and speak to Nos. 13, 16, 36, 51, 59, 68 and 70.
The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, I think I should point out that if Amendment No. 16 is agreed to, I cannot call Nos. 17, 18 or 19.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, the amendments which I am proposing relate to four different parts of the Bill, which is the reason for so many numbers. These amendments do two things. First, they honour our commitment to my noble friend Lord Montagu to consider stipulating the mininum size of the quorum for each board of trustees. We remain of the view that the determination of the quorum above a minimum should be a matter for the boards and future variations should not necessitate amending legislation. However, we accept the main merits of setting a minimum quorum in each case to ensure proper representation at meetings. Accordingly, we propose that a minimum of four be set as the quorum in the case of the three larger institutions and a minimum of three in the case of the Armouries. The later amendments, which need a lot of paper, provide revised financial arrangements for the Victoria and Albert and Science Museums. I have previously explained to the House that the Government intend that the two museums should be financed by means of separate Votes.
420
The two museums at present receive their finance through Votes, but being within the Government service the Department of Education and Science is accountable to Parliament for their expenditure. This Bill establishes the two museums as non-Crown bodies. The Government's accounting rules to be observed by Vote-holders are contained in the Exchequer and Audit Departments Acts of 1866 and 1921. Because they have been drafted in terms more commonly associated with Government departments, it is necessary to put beyond doubt that the two museums will be subject to the relevant provisions of the two Acts and these amendments have that effect. The boards of trustees of the two institutions will be accountable to Parliament for their expenditure and the directors will be the accounting officers responsible for the conduct of the Votes.
The difference between the Armouries and the remaining boards, concerning size of quorum and the redrafting of paragraphs 9 and 16 on finance, has entailed rehearsing in full the provisions relating to proceedings, allowances, instruments, finance and reports for each institution covered by Schedule 1, and, as a consequence, removing the present cross-references to paragraphs 6 to 10 made in paragraphs 16, 23 and 30. The Government believe that in respect of quorum the amendments both meet the wishes of the House and leave sufficient room for flexibility. In relation to the financing of the V and A and Science Museums, they provide a sound legal basis for arrangements similar to those existing in other museums and galleries. My Lords, I beg to move.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu: My Lords, as the Member of your Lordships' House who raised these matters in Committee, I should like to thank my noble friend for meeting us on this occasion and for introducing the amendments, which I am sure will cover the position which I outlined.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, from this side of the House I should like to say, also, that we are very grateful to the Government for meeting these points.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Avonmoved Amendment No. 13:
Page 21, line 18, at end insert—
("(6A) The quorum for meetings of the Board shall not at any time be less than four.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I spoke to this on the previous amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
6.58 p.m.
Viscount Ecclesmoved Amendment No. 14:
Page 21, line 24, after second ("or) insert ("remuneration and").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, as your Lordships will see, this is an important amendment in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Gibson, the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, and myself. I think that all noble Lords want present and future Prime Ministers to have the widest possible choice when appointing trustees, and the Prime Minister will wish to consider a far greater variety of qualifications than have been necessary for the old advisory committee. In these

421
days, too, the financial circumstances of suitable candidates should not be a reason for failing to secure their services.
Those who know and care about museums are not all blessed with substantial private incomes, and a trustee, in what we hope will be a new era, will have to do more than attend four meetings a year. A trustee may very well be a member of one or more committees which will require quite frequent meetings and might take up a considerable amount of time.
I am told that the Treasury is willing to see members of the commission receive remuneration, as provided for in paragraph 11(1) of Schedule 3. It is willing only because these persons are not called trustees. The Treasury fear that, if the trustees of a museum like the Victoria and Albert Museum receive a remuneration, there will be a demand from many other bodies of trustees; hands will be held out all over the place. What if they are? The Treasury keeps control over the amount of the remuneration. We are moving into a world in which we shall not find that the best people are always able to serve if only their expenses are paid.
Our task this afternoon is to remove obstacles to the best possible body of trustees. That is much more important than having to pay out a few thousand pounds in remuneration. It may well be that one or more of the trustees whose services can be obtained only if some remuneration is allowed are really good at finance. They might be the people who really could get value for money. I can suggest one particular area of all museums where that is almost certainly the case; namely, publications which have to do with schools. For that kind of work you need somebody with special knowledge. If they were, say, an ex-headmaster or an ex-headmistress and they needed some small remuneration, would we have to say, "Oh, no, we can't have you; you're not rich enough"? I very much hope that the Government will not be put off just beause of the name "trustees". These persons will be serving a great museum, and what they are called should not be the last word. I beg to move.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, I should like to support the amendment to which I have added my name. Another point to add to those so admirably covered by the noble Viscount would be the amount of time that is to be given to the Victoria and Albert Museum, especially during the initial period. It is going to be a very busy time indeed for the board, and choice will be very much restricted if the only people you can invite to be trustees are the elderly, who are retired on pensions of some kind, or those with private means. The Government must face up to the fact that we are no longer living in the 19th century. It is becoming increasingly difficult to get public-spirited people to do this work for no money at all. At one time they got absolutely nothing. Then the Treasury, as I said in Committee, were persuaded to pay expenses and fares—air fares and railway fares—for, say, the National Gallery. This is also accepted in the Bill, because expenses will be paid. I believe, however, that they have to go a bit further, as they have recognised over the commission and, indeed, over many other boards and those quangos which remain, where the members are paid. Why should the trustees of
422
museums be different? We are reaching the stage at which, if we want to widen the choice as much as possible and attract younger people, they will have to be paid some remuneration. I warmly support the amendment.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: My Lords, may I point out that the advantage of expenses is that they do not attract tax. Much depends, of course, on how large the expenses are.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: My Lords, I too should like to support the amendment. I have a particularly warm feeling that in doing so I am on the same side as those who have put forward the amendment and that on this occasion I am with the "with it" and forward-looking Members of this House. I have already said that I support in every way a broader and deeper trawl for trustees of museums. I am sure that it makes a profound difference if you can say to potential trustees that they will receive some form of remuneration to cover the amount of money which they will lose by doing this job. If this amendment goes forward, I am wondering whether some arrangement for loss of earnings, in the form of an attendance fee, or something like that, could be devised in order to assist people to give the kind of service which so many of them want to give.
Speaking as a professional man, I know perfectly well how much income has to be sacrificed by attending numerous committee meetings, board meetings and so on. If you are self-employed it results in loss of income. If you happen to earn enough money to make it possible to do so, you accept it, but there are a great many people whose help would be of enormous value who do not earn enough money to be able to do that. I should particularly like to mention artists. Artists make a tremendous contribution to many of these organisations; but, as we all know, they are under-renumerated. It would be of the greatest possible help if practising artists could be brought into this kind of administration. Their assistance and help is very difficult to obtain at the moment. They do not even think of becoming members or trustees of these boards. I most enthusiastically support this amendment.
Lord Gibson: My Lords, in supporting the amendment, may I add that people want to do this kind of work for love and would be content with quite modest remuneration, which I am sure is all that the Government would wish to offer?
The Earl of Perth: My Lords, perhaps I could mention my experience with the Crown Estates. We have commissioners there. They receive very modest pay as well as expenses. I assure noble Lords that it is very modest in relation to the work which they do. In this particular case, some of them are farmers, with great agricultural experience. They have to leave their work on the farm in order to take part in the deliberations of the Crown Estates. That is not just a question of expenses; it is very definitely a sacrifice. In this day and age it seems unreasonable to expect such people—the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington, gave us a very good example of artists—to sacrifice their time. I am sure that they would do it for

423
a very small sum, but they should not be penalised for public service. I understand the Treasury objections. But this is only permissive. It could happen on a very modest scale. I beg the Government to think again and to accept the amendment.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu: My Lords, in supporting the amendment there is one more point to make: the desire at all times in the future to have the very best trustees. Times are changing fast. Trustees are not going to be the same trustees as they have been in the past. If they are paid, it will give them a moral obligation to turn up at trustees' meetings and do a proper job. If they do not wish to take their money they do not have to, and if they did not choose to do so I am sure the Treasury would be delighted. In future there will be a strong obligation on trustees to consider their job to be important. To pay them would give them an extra moral obligation to do their duty properly.
Earl Haig: My Lords, having served for 10 years as a member of the board of trustees of the National Gallery of Scotland, I should like to support this amendment. At one time I was attending 35 meetings a year. They were 35 days away from home. I am also a practising artist, so that was a very big sacrifice. I admit, however, that I had a private income which enabled me to make that sacrifice. Taking into consideration present circumstances, I am sure that artists would be of the greatest benefit to everybody if they could be involved in these jobs, and they should be encouraged to become involved by the help of some form of remuneration. As the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington, has suggested, perhaps there could be some form of loss-of-earnings scheme.
However, on the other side there is the question of service. It has always been a great honour to serve on these boards, and I believe that any financial remuneration should be carefully considered and weighed up; it should not be taken for granted that by being appointed to a board one automatically qualifies for a given sum of money. It should be done permissively, as the amendment requires; and if that is the way in which it is suggested, then the amendment has my support.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, the Government listened with great care to the contributions to this debate on a similar amendment moved at Committee stage. Since then we have looked at the matter again in detail: not just in relation to the amendment proposed but as to the principle involved, and also as to the options offered in discussion, such as honoraria rather than remuneration, and the possibility that only the chairman should be remunerated. The most important objection to my noble friend's amendment is that the proposal to remunerate trustees would offend the well-tried law of equity, which does not permit of a trustee being allowed anything by way of remuneration. The alternatives we discussed will not withstand close scrutiny. For example, to offer an honorarium would preclude trustees and committee members claiming loss of earnings; and to remunerate chairmen only, which I notice has not been suggested today, we believe would be inequitable, particularly as
424
people might be serving on other committees on which they do a lot of work.
In general, we remain unconvinced that an offer of remuneration will in any significant way facilitate the appointment of trustees or lead to the presentation of better-quality advice. The existing trustee museums and galleries run very well on the present system, and, so far, the Government have experienced no difficulty in finding able people to serve on their boards. Indeed, acceptance of the present amendment might pose problems in this respect by creating two classes of trustee institutions, the remunerated and the unremunerated. We remain concerned that the proposed power will create a precedent in this field.
We cannot lightly disregard the consequential effects on public expenditure. It is true that under the amendment the Treasury will regulate the rates of allowances and remuneration, but it could not control the total amounts paid. The total would depend on the number of trustees claiming remuneration and the amount of time they were devoting to their trustee duties, if remuneration was on a per diem basis. If the principle of remuneration were extended to other museums outside the Bill, the potential total cost could be quite significant.
We believe that it would not be right to accept this amendment conferring this power on the trustees knowing that in the foreseeable future the Government might find themselves unable to consent to the trustees' exercise of that power. I am fully aware—it has been expressed again this afternoon—of the strength of feeling among your Lordships on this issue, and should my noble friend wish to divide the House I am willing to take your Lordships' view.
Viscount Eccles: My Lords, I find this a very difficult situation because I do not like having to divide the House against the advice of the Minister, but I really think he is wrong. I believe we have reached a period when, to get the best of bodies of trustees, the option must be there to provide some form of remuneration. It is noticeable that every single speaker before my noble friend Lord Avon rose spoke in support of this amendment. I am particular grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington, who was quite right about artists. Here we have not only artists but also craftsmen to consider, because the Victoria and Albert Museum is one that represents crafts as well. Craftsmen are essentially self-employed people, and if one asks them to spend time on any form of committee or public duty they will in effect be producing fewer objects of their craft. Therefore, I feel I cannot withdraw this amendment.
7.15 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 14) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 49; Not-Contents, 57.

DIVISION NO. 3

CONTENTS

Adeane, L.

Aylestone, L.

Amherst, E.

Banks, L.

Ardwick, L.

Barrington, V.

425

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Birk, B.

Marley, L.

Congleton, L.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Craigavon, V.

Peart, L.

Cromartie, E.

Perth, E.

David, B.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Sandford, L.

Eccles, V. [Teller.]

Seear, B.

Flowers, L.

Stamp, L.

Galpern, L.

Stone, L.

Gibson, L.

Strabolgi, L. [Teller.]

Greenway, L.

Thurso, V.

Haig, E.

Tordoff, L.

Hampton, L.

Tryon, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Underhill, L.

Hooson, L.

Vickers, B.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Whaddon, L.

Jacques, L.

Wigoder, L.

Kennet, L.

Willis, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Winstanley L.

Kitchener, E.

Young of Dartington, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Long, V.

Avon, E.

Lyell, L.

Bellwin, L.

McFadzean, L.

Beloff, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Belstead, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Blake, L.

Marshall of Leeds, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Mersey, V.

Cathcart, E.

Mottistone, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Craigton, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Croft, L.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Davidson, V.

Newall, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Northchurch, B.

Elton, L.

Onslow, E.

Faithfull, B.

Orkney, E.

Ferrers, E.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Ferrier, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Glanusk, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Renton, L.

Gridley, L.

Rochdale, V.

Harvington, L.

St. Just, L.

Henley, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Hives, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Swinfen, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Swinton, E. [Teller.]

Kinnaird, L.

Trumpington, B.

Lane-Fox, B.

Young, B.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, this seems to be an appropriate moment to break for dinner. I think it has been agreed through the usual channels that the House will not reassemble until eight o'clock.
[The sitting was suspended from 7.24 p.m. until 8 p.m.]
Lord Jenkins of Putneymoved Amendment No. 15:
Page 21, line 25, leave out ("Secretary of State") and insert ("Minister for the Arts").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it is not my intention to move all the similar amendments which stand on the Marshalled List. Nor indeed, to tell the truth, was it my intention to put down these amendments throughout the whole of the schedule. My wish in this matter, which I hope will commend itself to your Lordships and to the Government, is to
426
substitute the Minister for the Arts for the Secretary of State in respect of the Victoria and Albert Museum only—that is, for the first part of Schedule 1 and not the whole of Schedule 1.
The point I have to make to your Lordships is why I wish to pull out the V and A for this special treatment so that the Minister in relation to the V and A shall be the Minister for the Arts and not the Secretary of State. It is customary in Bills not to name or indicate the particular Secretary of State concerned. Whether that applies in all Bills, I do not know, but it is a widely observed custom that Government Bills do not name the Secretary of State to which they refer. They refer to "the" Secretary of State. I imagine that the object of that peculiar practice is to facilitate a departmental change so that if the responsibility is transferred at any time from one department to another, the words "Secretary of State" can be held to embrace, for example, the Secretary of State for the Environment, the Secretary of State for Defence, the Secretary of State for Education and Science, or whatever Secretary of State may seem to be appropriate at the time. So we refer in this Bill and in a large number of Bills to "the" Secretary of State.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I think that is one reason, but also in constitutional law there is only one Secretary of State. I think that is the reason one generally finds it.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, I bow to the noble Lord's superior knowledge in these matters. Although that may be the technical reason it may also be that it has the practical advantage of allowing responsibility to be transferred from one department to another without having to amend the legislation, which one would have to do if one spelt out, for example, the Secretary of State for Education and Science, although, as the noble and learned Lord says, there may be that other historical reason as well.
Why do I wish to pull out the Minister for the Arts to be the responsible Minister for the V and A and to prohibit the possibility of a transfer of responsibility to another Secretary of State, which could happen if we leave the Bill unamended? In practice, what will happen in relation to the V and A and all these matters which are covered whenever the Secretary of State is referred to—the particular one in this amendment or in the other cases—is that, as far as the V and A is concerned, the Minister for the Arts will be the effective Minister. After a decision, whatever it is, has been made and the Minister has agreed it, he will pass it up to his own Secretary of State for Education and Science, who will give his formal OK. Once again we are back at this old practice of naming someone higher up the ladder who ultimately becomes the person responsible instead of naming the person who is actually responsible.
In the case of the V and A, I consider that it will be highly undesirable for departmental responsibility for the V and A to be transferred to any other department. In the whole of the museum area there is already a mixture of responsibility. In the case of the military museums, for example, the Secretary of State for Defence is responsible. The Secretary of State for the Environment has some substantial responsibilities in

427
this area, being in many cases responsible for the buildings within which the collections are housed although he is not responsible for the collections themselves. This is probably the case at the V and A. The noble Earl will no doubt correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that the Secretary of State for the Environment is responsible for the V and A building whereas the Secretary of State for Education and Science is responsible for everything that happens inside the building.
The reason I want responsibility to remain in the hands of the Minister for the Arts is precisely that it seems to me that the Minister for the Arts is very much the Minister who should be responsible and who has a peculiar and particular responsibility for the V and A, which is a museum orientated in the direction of the Ministry for the Arts. For example, it has recently taken on the additional responsibility of being the parent, as it were, of the Theatre Museum. I consider it would be wholly wrong and wholly undesirable if, in pursuance of the width of possibility that exists within the present wording, the responsibility for that museum should be transferred to any other Secretary of State for any purpose whatsoever.
In addition, there is the other point to which I referred on a previous amendment. On the whole the Minister who actually does the decision-making should be named in the legislation and should not be forced to pass up for rubber stamping to a higher level what, in fact, occurs.
It may be said that my proposal is uncustomary, that normally speaking we always say "the Secretary of State" and that we have never done it this way before. But I fail to see any reason why in this legislation we should not decide in the case of the V and A, and the V and A alone—that is the purpose of this amendment and some of the succeeding amendments—to name the Minister who is in fact responsible, instead of a vague person called the Secretary of State. I beg to move.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I appreciate what the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, is seeking to do; to lay the responsibility for determining any allowances for trustees at the door of the Minister for the Arts instead of that of the Secretary of State. My right honourable friend the Minister, although very much alive and kicking, lacks the legal capacity for the purposes intended by the noble Lord. The functions exercised by him are functions of the Secretary of State. In practice, since he exercises the functions of the Secretary of State in this field, the Minister for the Arts will be responsible for determining the level of allowances, subject to the Treasury's approval. The effect of the noble Lord's amendments in this particular aspect will be covered.
I can understand that the noble Lord may feel that my right honourable friend the Minister for the Arts should exercise ministerial functions relating to the arts in his own right, but this Bill is not the vehicle for achieving that. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, said, this is enshrined in legislation and the Bill has to reflect the fact that the general functions concerning the arts are at present vested in the Secretary of State.
428
I recognise, too, the wishes of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, to make full use of the name "Minister for the Arts". It is an attractive office of which he was a distinguished past holder. However, I am afraid that it is wrong in principle to make reference to the Minister for the Arts for the reasons I have explained, and regrettably, therefore, the Government cannot accept the noble Lord's amendment.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, I do not find the noble Earl's reason for refusing this amendment entirely convincing. What he says, in effect, is that the Secretary of State has always had the titular responsibility, and of course that is true. There have been some very peculiar changes in the responsibilities of the Minister for the Arts and in the location of the Minister for the Arts over the years. The first Minister for the Arts—the noble Baroness, Lady Lee—was originally located in what was then the Office of Works. Presumably, therefore, the Secretary of State would for a time have been the then Secretary of State, whoever he was, who was responsible for that sub-department in the Office of Works; I think it would be the Minister we now call the Secretary of State for the Environment. Then there was a period during which the arts were the direct responsibility of the Treasury. Whether the Secretary of State under those circumstances would have been the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Chief Secretary I am not really sure.
Subsequently, the Minister for the Arts, under the auspices of the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, secured an independent status with separate offices of his own in Belgrave Square. I personally am very sorry that that separate establishment was ever given up, because it gave the Ministry a separate identity which I enjoyed, in assocation with my noble friend Lord Strabolgi, during the period when I was Minister for the Arts. We happily set up in that establishment, which was created by the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, what could be described as an autonomous republic within the empire of education and science. It was an ideal situation. We then had the further position when Mr. St. John-Stevas became Minister for the Arts and again established a separate status, separate once again from the Secretary of State.
So who do we mean when we say in the Bill, "Secretary of State"? Who are we talking about? It is entirely unsatisfactory to name a person in a Bill when we do not really know who we are talking about at all. Which Secretary of State? The noble and learned Lord who very helpfully intervened in the debate just now claims that there is only one Secretary of State. Who is this one Secretary of State? It seems to me to be entirely unsatisfactory to talk about someone as "the Secretary of State" when we do not know who we are talking about at all. If there is a change of responsibility so far as the Ministry for the Arts is concerned and it moves again to another area, then we may be talking about somebody quite different.
I am not convinced by what the noble Earl has said. There seems to me to be a very strong case for naming the Minister who is in fact responsible, certainly so far as the V and A is concerned, if in no other case. Therefore, I do not at this stage find myself convinced by the answer which the noble Earl has given and I

429
wonder whether he can add anything, having regard to the questions that I have just put to him.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, with the leave of the House—because this is the Report stage and not a debating stage—I point out to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, that it is enshrined in legislation that the "Secretary of State" shall cover all Secretaries of State and in this particular case, as the Minister for the Arts has no, as it were, legal standing in legislation, it is the Secretary of State who must apply in this legislation. It may be unsatisfactory to the noble Lord; it may be unsatisfactory for us all; but it concerns a different part of the legislation which we cannot change tonight in this particular Bill.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, I do not feel very happy about that reply and I hope that the matter will be taken up in another place. But in all the circumstances and having regard to the lateness of the hour and one thing and another, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Speaker (Earl Cathcart): My Lords, the next amendment is Amendment No. 16. In calling Amendment No. 16, I should advise your Lordships that, if it is agreed, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 17, 18 or 19.
The Earl of Avonmoved Amendment No. 16:
Page 21, leave out from beginning of line 34 to end of line 19 on page 22 and insert—
("Finance
9. For the purposes of sections 22 to 32 of the Exchequer and Audit Departments Act 1866 and section 1 of the Exchequer and Audit Departments Act 1921—

(a) the Board shall be treated as a department of the public service, and

(b) the Director of the Victoria and Albert Museum shall he treated as a public officer.").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment with Amendment No. 12. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 17 to 22 not moved.
8.15 p.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitleymoved Amendment No. 23:
Page 22, line 29, at end insert—
("( ) Each report shall include a statement of action taken by the Board to promote the use of the Museum by disabled people.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 23. This amendment is to ensure that these bodies established by statute should provide facilities to be used by the public and that those facilities should include special facilities for disabled people. In every case this is something which is already being done. But we believe that in this case, as in many others, it will be assisted if the report which is produced has to include a statement as to what is done in this respect. A second reason is that we believe that not only will it help with the production of those facilities in the institutions themselves, but, if such
430
statements are printed in the reports, which are fairly widely read, they will be read by others who are concerned with similar organisations on a different level, thus assisting the spread of good practice.
In moving Amendment No. 23, I am speaking also to Amendments Nos. 56, 69 and 85. The Government did accept amendments like these in, I think it was, the Wildlife and Countryside Bill, and I am delighted just to have heard that there is the likelihood that they will do so tonight. I hope that they will. I beg to move.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, anticipated, the Government are sympathetic to the objectives behind these amendments. The matter was raised in Committee, and I am grateful to the noble Lord and other noble Lords for tabling these amendments again. We are pleased to accept the principle underlying them, but we should like to consider the precise drafting and whether some slight further amendment is necessary. It might be for the convenience of the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, to press his amendment and, if we find further slight amendments necessary, we ourselves will move them.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 24 not moved.]
Clause 3 [Initial vesting in Board]:
Lord Strabolgimoved Amendment No. 25:
Page 3, line 2, at end insert—
("or
(c) formed part of the book stock of the National Art library located in the Victoria and Albert Museum, and used as a source of public reference").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 25, and I should like, with your Lordships' permission, to speak also to Amendment No. 39, which relates to the Science Museum. These amendments are intended to ensure that the important reference collections contained in the two museum libraries are specifically referred to in the transfer of property and therefore become subject to the restrictions on disposal. This is particularly important in view of some of the recommendations of the Burrett Report. The attachment of the amendment to Clause 3 is, I believe, in accordance with the suggestion made by the noble Earl, Lord Avon, during the Committee stage of the Bill.
As is well known, the National Art Library at the Victoria and Albert Museum contains, as well as a great many books which are just there for reference, some very valuable books and bindings and many that are essential for study and reference purposes. It is essential for the whole collection to be kept together, and no part of it should be disposed of. Therefore, I think it would enhance the importance of the collection from the legislative point of view if an amendment such as I propose forms part of Clause 3 of the Bill. I beg to move.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, with the permission of the House, I, too, will speak to Amendments Nos. 25 and 39 together. I appreciate the concern lying behind the amendments moved by the noble Lord, Lord

431
Strabolgi. It is right that he should be concerned to ensure that the contents of the excellent libraries at the Victoria and Albert Museum should, along with the remainder of the collection, vest respectively in the new boards. May I reassure the House categorically that this will be the case. Those books having intrinsic value as objects will vest in the boards as part of their collections by virtue of Clause 3(1)(a) and Clause 10(1)(a).
Those other books comprising the bulk of the libraries and used as reference works by the public are treated by the Bill as being in use in respect of collections. They will vest by virtue of Clauses 3(1)(b) and 10(1)(b). For this reason the Government believe that the amendments may be unnecessary. The Bill makes no distinctions between paintings, sculpture or other types of object. We believe, therefore, that it would be inappropriate to make books a specific category, particularly as the Bill deals with them without resorting to that device.
I recognise, as with the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, at the Committee stage, the concern which is behind these amendments. However, given the difficulties presented by the noble Lord's amendments and the firm assurance that I have offered that the contents of the libraries will be transferred as part of a vesting process, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, will now be able to feel content.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu: My Lords, before we leave the subject entirely, I notice one important difference between these two amendments, and that is that with regard to the Victoria and Albert the National Art library is used a a source of public reference, whereas the Science Museum does not seem to have that attached. I think it is well known that the Science Museum library, fine as it is, is basically for the use of its own museum staff. I wonder whether it might be considered that it should be used more openly by the public than it is at the moment.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, I am sure that we are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Montagu of Beaulieu, for stressing this point about the Science Museum, which, of course, is an important library and which, as he says—and I agree with him—should be more widely known. In view of the assurances of the noble Earl, Lord Avon—and I am most grateful to him for going into this, because I think the importance and value of the Victoria and Albert Museum library is not always recognised—I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave withdrawn.
Clause 5 [Acquisition and disposal of objects]:
Baroness Airey of Abingdonhad given notice of her intention to move Amendment No. 26:
Page 4, line 25, at end insert—
("Where an object has become vested in the board by virtue of a gift, bequest or grant towards its acquisition and is subject to section 2(6), the Board shall, if reasonably practicable, consult with the donor or grant-giving body regarding such conditions or trust pertaining to the disposal of the object.")
432
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, it is not my intention to press this amendment tonight because as tabled it relates to Clause 5, whereas it should relate to Clause 2(6). The principle at stake is important, but I feel that instead of taking up the time of your Lordships now I should not move this amendment but should table it in the right place in the Bill for Third Reading.
[Amendment No. 26 not moved.]
8.25 p.m.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieumoved Amendment No. 27:
Page 4, line 25, at end insert—
("( ) The Board shall endeavour to make arrangements by way of sale exchange or gift of any object, under subsection 3(a) or (b), in the first instance to any other institution for the time being listed in paragraph 12 of Schedule 6 to the Finance Act 1975.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I should like to stress that this amendment relates only to objects which the board of one of the trustee museums may wish to dispose of as being a duplicate or unsuitable for retention but which, indeed, might well prove to be a suitable object for a provincial museum. I remind the House that the Museums Association's code of practice for museum authorities requires member museums to offer material first to other museums before sale by public auction or any other means is considered.
This amendment attempts to ensure that first offers of material no longer required by national museums might be made accordingly. I hope that your Lordships would agree that what a national museum might no longer wish to have may be of some importance to a provincial museum. But this does not affect the arrangements for transfers between national institutions set out in Clause 5(4) by the National Gallery and Tate Gallery Act 1954, procedures obtaining. The main object of this amendment is to widen into the provinces some obligation for the national museums to offer their material when they no longer need it. I beg to move.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, I should like to support this amendment. I have nothing to add to the way in which it has been admirably described by the noble Lord, Lord Montagu, and I should like to give it my support.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I, too, should like to support this amendment, but in doing so may I indicate some of the difficulties that I had when I tried to draft a similar amendment which I thought ought to be made to subsection (4). When the noble Lord, Lord Montagu, told me that he had put down, or was on the point of putting down, this amendment, I withdrew mine, partly because I was very puzzled over the terminology and, secondly, because attached to subsection (3) it seemed to me an amendment that the noble Earl could hardly resist, subsection (3) being an extremely narrow subsection.
No doubt I ought to have raised these matters in Committee, but I did not really face them until I tried to frame an amendment. I have given the noble Earl no notice, so unless he can give me an answer off-the-cuff, perhaps he would consider whether there

433
is anything in them before the Committee stage is reached in another place.
The first difficulty I had in attaching it to subsection (4) was the word "transfer" in line 26, which I took—contrasting it to Clause 6(1)—to mean transfer of ownership. As such, I would certainly like to see the 1975 Act schedule replacing the 1954 Act schedule. But although that is the way in which one would normally read "transfer", subsection (3) deals with sale, exchange and gifts, which are all methods of transfer. I could not think of any other method of transfer which was not purely fanciful, like pledge, to which subsection (4) could attach.
However, that was not the only difficulty, because subsection (5) deals with destruction or other disposition, and "dispose of" is a method of transfer. It may be that that means "dispose of" by way of destruction, which would be a normal method of construction. But, if so, subsection (5), taken together with subsection (6), is directly at variance with Clause 2(6). Perhaps I could leave those difficulties with the noble Earl, unless he feels able to dispose of them without notice. It was really because of those terminological difficulties that I did not proceed with my amendment.
It seems to me to be an important amendment. We tend in this country to metropolitanise generally. It has had a great advantage politically in the country if one compares this country, for example, with Germany. But, on the other hand, the very strong life of the provinces historically in Germany and, indeed, elsewhere, has borne very valuable fruit in the very field that your Lordships are considering.
The 1954 Act—particularly if it is strengthened in the way that the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, wishes it by a later amendment—covers virtually all metropolitan institutions, mainly London institutions. The great advantage, the flexibility, that is given by the 1975 Act is that it extends to, for example, university museums. One asks: why should there not be a transfer, to use it in its broad sense, say, to the Fitzwilliam, or to the Ashmolean, or to the Gulbenkian museum at Durham, which the noble Earl will know well?
Then there are the National Trust properties all over the country. The National Trust is one of the institutions mentioned in the schedule to the Finance Act. It is not in the schedule to the National Gallery Act. There are many other examples, but that one is probably sufficient. Perhaps I also ought to mention local authority institutions. They appear in the 1975 Act schedule, not in the 1954 Act schedule. Therefore, one asks: if Edinburgh, why not Glasgow? If London, why not Manchester, Liverpool, Birmingham, and so on? I support this particular amendment as strongly as I can, although, as I say, I should like, if I have understood subsection (4) correctly, to see the amendment made there as well, as perhaps it can be in another place.
Earl Haig: My Lords, I too should like to support this amendment, particularly when one realises the large number of items which are hidden in museums and galleries in the metropolitan area. I am no expert in the various laws which governed this situation
434
hitherto, but I wonder whether we could introduce the permanent loan element? I would ask my noble friend to consider that.
Viscount Eccles: My Lords, I too have much sympathy with this amendment. In the course of my connection with those museums I always tried to bring the provincial needs home to the metropolitan museums. Indeed, I think I reminded your Lordships at one time that I used to think that the national museums in London should assume the same sort of status as teaching hospitals. They should have an obligation to a large number of smaller museums. That is one point, and I support very much what the noble and learned Lord has just said, with all his legal knowledge.
However, there is another point behind this amendment. We are moving into a time—and I hesitate to say this sort of thing to the Government, because they seem to be thinking only of the past in most of this Bill—where the value of works of art is so great that it will be practicaly impossible for museums, in competition with the Malibu Museum in California, and such places as that, to find the money to buy the few remaining first-class objects that come on to the market. When that happens it must then be right to consider exchanges much more than we have done in the past.
I gave an example the other day, and I repeat it now. The British Museum had three sides of one of the most famous ivory caskets in the world, and we wanted the fourth side. The fourth side was in the Marcello in Florence, but we had a Medici drinking cup which they wanted very much indeed because of the Medici connection with Florence. We made an exchange and got the fourth side of our casket, which was certainly, from any antiquarian point of view, a very good exchange indeed. How could we do it under this Bill?
Is it not necessary, given the probable scarcity of new works of art coming on to the market, for these museums to have the power to exchange their objects where they can fill a gap that otherwise they may never be able to fill, the same thing applying to the other museum, which has a different gap? I merely want to ask my noble friend: is that possible under this Bill, and does he favour that sort of thing?
8.36 p.m.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, once again I appreciate the wishes of the noble Lord, Lord Montagu, and the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, to ensure that objects which the V and A no longer require for their own collection and which meet the strict criteria for disposal under Clause 5 should go to institutions which will look after them in the public's best interest. There is nothing in the Bill to preclude the board of the V and A from doing that, or, indeed, any of the other boards established by the Bill.
The issue therefore becomes one of policy. Should the museum be required at all times to give priority to the institutions listed in paragraph 12 of Schedule 6 to the Finance Act 1975; and, if so, should this be a duty in the Bill? If the motive for the amendment is to preserve the national collections by preventing disposals to private collectors or overseas, the Bill constrains

435
the board of the V and A by a strict control on disposals. If the motive is to enhance the collections of other public institutions around the country, then the Government have sympathy with the objectives, but there are practical problems to consider.
The amendment uses the word "endeavour", and this qualification of the proposed power suggests that the noble Lords have recognised the difficulties. The provisions of the Bill permit disposal by sale, exchange or gift. To sell must mean that a museum has a potential buyer having the necessary available funds. It may be supposed that there are public institutions other than those listed in the schedule to the Finance Act which are equally worthy and able to deal with the museum. These, we believe, should not be inadvertently disadvantaged.
The powers to exchange an object for another, or to make a gift, could probably be exercised only with those able to offer an object in return, or appropriate to receive a gift from a national collection. These two provisions are obviously concerned with dealings between institutions, and I do not think it would be right to fetter them by attaching to them a schedule of preferred bodies.
The Finance Act includes an impressive compilation of important institutions, but it is not intended to be definitive, and we should not expect it to be. I am sure that the new board will exercise its powers of disposal responsibly and with discretion. In doing so, I am able to assure my noble friend, the board will have regard to the opportunities to assist or enhance our collections in provincial centres. I am really saying to my noble friend that there is nothing in the Bill to preclude the board from doing what, as I understand it, my noble friend wants.
I am assured that there is nothing to preclude long-term loans. So far as the Medici cup is concerned, this Bill is the same as the British Museum Act 1963 in this particular case. I think that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, may be mixing up a little the difference between the rules for sale, exchange or gift, and those for transfer. We shall be coming on to this when, in the next amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, comes on to transfers. Otherwise, I shall study what he has said, and give him a response as soon as I can.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for that answer. I am sure we shall be relieved to hear that there is no bar to objects being transferred to provincial museums. The noble Earl will remember that at Committee stage I had an amendment down about the provincial responsibilities of the V and A and the Science Museum. I do not know whether this is an opportunity to ask the noble Earl to confirm that those responsibilities are envisaged by the Government to continue. The provincial museums have felt a great debt in the past for the leadership and advice given by these two great institutions. It is important that this should continue. But if the noble Earl could make it absolutely certain that there is no legal bar to these transfers taking place, I believe the provincial museums will be forever in his debt. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Strabolgimoved Amendment No. 28:
Page4, line 27, after ("any") insert ("nationally owned").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, as the noble Earl, Lord Avon, said, this amendment will deal with transfers which, of course, are quite a different matter from loans or disposal of property which is no longer required. This and the two subsequent amendments, and indeed my amendment to Schedule 5, are all attempts to tidy up some legislation which, quite frankly, is in a terrible mess—not only the National Gallery and Tate Gallery Act 1954, but also the British Museum Act 1963 and other museum legislation over the last 20 or 30 years.
The first of these amendments seeks to ensure that in Clause 5(4) any transfers by the board of the V and A will only be to a nationally-owned institution. Of course, the institutions in Schedule 1 to the National Gallery and Tate Gallery Act 1954 are nationally owned.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords—
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, if I may just finish the sentence, I should like to remind the noble and learned Lord that the Schedule to the National Gallery and Tate Gallery Act 1954 contained all the national museums and galleries in the United Kingdom at that time.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, if the noble Lord will allow me, I have the schedule before me and I see that it includes the London Museum, which I take it would now be the Museum of London, which is certainly not a national institution. It is owned by the local authority.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, I have the list here and I shall have to took into that, but the point that the noble and learned Lord is making is that these are all London-based museums, but of course they are not, they include the Scottish museums—
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: "Metropolitan", my Lords.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, what I was attempting to say was that these museums are not all London based or even English based. They include the National Gallery of Scotland, the other Scottish museum and the national Museum of Wales. That is what I was attempting to point out to the noble and learned Lord.
This amendment allows transfers to the museums and institutions listed in the first schedule to the National Gallery and Tate Gallery Act 1954, together with some that do not appear in that schedule. The Treasury may add to that list by order, but we do not know what could be added. The purpose of my amendment is to ensure that the V and A may transfer only to national institutions, as these are bound by strict rules over sales. While I agree that one can perhaps lend objects to some of the institutions listed in the Finance Act 1975, it would be quite wrong to transfer permanently from national museums to some of the institutions, because they have powers of disposal.

437
In Committee, I attempted to give quite a few examples of these other, non-national institutions which have attempted to dispose of works of art in their possession the most notorious being the sale by Dulwich of the Domenichino in its possession. Fortunately, the National Gallery of Scotland stepped in and bought it otherwise it might have been sold abroad. I gave other examples. I submit that, if the V and A is to be allowed to transfer to other institutions, such transfers should only be to national institutions. I beg to move.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I hope that the noble Earl will not, on behalf of the Government, accept this amendment, which seeks further to restrict the scope of the bodies to which transfers can be made. I for one see no reason why a transfer should not be made to the Museum of London, which as I ventured to point out, is not a national institution.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, if I may briefly add to what I said to my noble friend Lord Montagu of Beaulieu as regards his amendment about the provincial museums, I am happy to confirm that it is our aim to continue our liaison and aid provincial museums. My noble friend will recall that the Bill is drafted so as to keep the status quo and to make any changes which may be necessary later.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, asked about the London Museum. It is, of course, now called the Museum of London and is financed equally by the GLC, the Government and the City of London.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, for raising his amendments and, with leave of the House, I too will take them together. I understand the noble Lord's concern to ensure that objects transferred from the V and A will not pass to institutions having less rigorous controls over disposals, with a consequential risk of the objects being sold off and perhaps lost to the nation. Unfortunately, I believe that his amendment leaves doubt because the expression "nationally-owned" could he considered imprecise and would not perhaps catch the bulk of the institutions already included in Schedule 1 to the National Gallery and Tate Gallery Act 1954. With a few notable exceptions these are all independent trustee bodies and this Bill will, of course, reduce the exceptions still further.
I should, however, like to deal with the point underlying the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi. The primary purpose of the Schedule to the 1954 Act is to provide the Secretary of State with a list of institutions to which he may direct objects left to the benefit of the nation. I cannot see a circumstance where the Government would consider directing such an object to any but one of the major national collections. The provision to transfer objects between collections is a secondary purpose to which the schedule has been put. I can assure the noble Lord that the Government would only ever add to the schedule to the 1954 Act an institution that was clearly fit to receive objects left to the nation.
The second amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, attempts to put on an even footing all the transfer provisions contained in existing museum
438
legislation. Again, his amendment would widen the scope of the Bill considerably and is for that reason difficult to accept. Moreover, it would still be necessary to amend or repeal the related provisions in the existing legislation. This would be an exercise of considerable complexity and would probably require a separate Bill.
I sympathise with the noble Lord's objective. The present provisions are not fully reciprocal. The Bill improves matters a little and, when we come to discuss some related amendments concerning Schedule 5, I hope to indicate that we may be able to do a little more. However, the Bill is not the vehicle to carry out the major undertaking proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, in his amendment, and we do not think that it would have the desired effect. Perhaps this is a matter for the future, but for the present I hope the noble Lord will feel convinced that this is not the vehicle for his amendment.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, this was a probing amendment only. I am grateful to the noble Earl for what he has said, also to other noble Lords and the noble and learned Lord. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.50 p.m.
Lord Strabolgimoved Amendment No. 29:
Page 4, line 32, after first ("Board") insert ("The Ulster Museum Trustees").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a drafting amendment but it is an interesting example of the sort of difficulties we are up against when amendments to the First Schedule to the 1954 Act are made in this piecemeal fashion. The Ulster Museum does not appear in the list of institutions in Schedule 1 to the 1954 Act, for the reason that it had not been formed then; it was promoted to national status and added by order in 1962. However, it is difficult to discover that without hunting through the long list of statutory instruments. I submit that it would be convenient to have it listed with the other additional institutions set out in this clause.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: I support the amendment, my Lords. This is an admirable museum and any advantage available should certainly be given to it.
Viscount Eccles: Hear, hear!
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I appreciate the desire of the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, to ensure that transfers may take place between the board of the V and A and the trustees of the Ulster Museum. I wish to reassure the House—and particularly the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, and my noble friend Lord Eccles, whose "Hear, hear" I heard—that the amendment is unnecessary because the Ulster Museum was added to the institutions listed in Schedule 1 to the National Gallery and Tate Gallery Act by means of an order in 1962. The effect of that order is to read the schedule as if the Ulster Museum is included in it. That being so, it is unnecessary to make additional reference to it by adding it to the

439
bodies named in Clause 5(4). Accordingly, transfers will be possible between the V and A and the Ulster Museum. I hope that with that explanation and assurance, and the added publicity we have been able to give the Ulster Museum tonight, the noble Lord will rest reassured.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, I know it is unnecessary from a legal point of view and of course the department's lawyers take the view that it is part of the schedule because it was added by an order. But the general public have no idea that the Ulster Museum forms part of the First Schedule to the 1954 Act because it was not in existence when that Act came into being. How can members of the public be expected to hunt through every statutory instrument over the last 20 or 30 years? Surely it would be a convenience to have the words "Ulster Museum" added in Clause 5(4)? What is there against doing that?
Viscount Eccles: Because it is already in the schedule.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I have one suggestion against doing what the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, suggests; that is, that we should not clutter up the statute book with unnecessary provisions. This is quite unnecessary because the institution has already been added by statutory instrument to the schedule to the 1954 Act. If we can avoid putting four unnecessary words into a statute we should grasp eagerly at that opportunity.
The Earl of Avon: Fifteen all?
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, I still maintain that it would be for the convenience of the public to have this together with the other institutions listed in subsection (4) which do not form part of Schedule 1. But I take note of what has been said and, as this was a probing amendment attempting to improve the draftsmanship, and having heard what the noble Earl said in reply, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Strabolgimoved Amendment No. 30:
Page 4, line 33, at end insert—
("( ) Transfers of objects vested in the governing bodies of these nationally-owned institutions may take place reciprocally, subject to agreement between the transferor and transferee governing bodies.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is an attempt to allow transfers to be reciprocal between the national museums. The noble Earl, Lord Avon, referred to this matter earlier and I wish to give him some examples of the sort of trouble we are having and the anomalies that exist, because the Government have not tidied up the legislation. That fact applies not just to this Government but to our Government as well; it has been done in a sort of piecemeal way, by picking at it every time there is introduced a measure dealing with museums instead of drafting some proper legislation so that transfers can be made reciprocally between all the national museums and galleries in the United Kingdom.
For example, there is a copy of a self portrait by Van Dyck which the National Gallery do not
440
want—because it is a copy and not a particularly fine work of art—although it is of interest to the National Portrait Gallery as a portrait of Van Dyck. It has been lent to the National Portrait Gallery by the National Gallery, but it cannot be transferred because, under present legislation, which is in such a mess, one cannot transfer from the National Gallery to the National Portrait Gallery. The National Portrait Gallery have a painting, an unidentified portrait from the British school, which the Tate want for their British collection. The National Portrait Gallery cannot transfer it; they can only lend it on loan, because one cannot transfer from the National Portrait Gallery to the Tate Gallery. On the other hand, one can transfer from the Tate Gallery to almost any national institution in the country, though very many of those cannot transfer to the Tate. This is, therefore, rather a mess and, together with my amendments to Schedule 5, this is an attempt to allow a certain amount by way of reciprocal transfers between the national institutions, and I hope it will find favour with your Lordships.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I recognise the attempt of the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, to put on an even footing all the transfer provisions contained in existing museums legislation, and I have to tell the House that he was entirely right in the examples he gave. But, unfortunately, his amendment would widen the scope of the Bill considerably and, for that reason alone, it is difficult for the Government to consider it. It would, we believe, be necessary to amend or repeal the related provisions in the existing legislation, to which he referred, and that would be an exercise of complexity and might even require a separate piece of legislation.
I sympathise, as I am sure the whole House will, having heard the examples of the noble Lord's objective, in that the present provisions are not fully reciprocal. The Bill improves matters a little and, as I said earlier, when we come to discuss some related amendments concerned with Schedule 5, I hope to indicate that we may be able to do a little more. However, I must tell the noble Lord that I do not believe this Bill is the vehicle to carry out the major undertaking proposed by him, and I have some doubts, too, whether it would have the desired effect. The noble Lord has seen me on the subject and knows that we have very much in mind what he has suggested, but I am sorry to tell him that for the present we cannot accommodate him in this measure.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for his interest in the matter. I am glad to know that the Government are considering it, and I hope that one day they really will tackle it because it is very important that it should now be tidied up. We shall return to it, as the noble Earl said, when we come to Schedule 5, and in view of his remarks, I look forward to that with great hope. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.58 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putneymoved Amendment No. 31:
Page 4, line 45, at end insert—
("(8) Subject to section 2(6) the Board may transfer any object the property in which is vested in them to any institution in any country

441
making a valid application for the return or restitution of cultural property under UNESCO auspices.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Strabolgi has been talking about internal transfers—that is, transfers taking place inside this country—whereas my amendment refers to the question of the transfer of objects outside this country. It is possible that there may be little or nothing in the V and A which falls within the fairly rigid rules laid down for the transfer or restitution of cultural property outside this country under the UNESCO rules. But this country has dragged its feet in recent years in this matter and refuge has been taken in the claim that, even if the Government were anxious to take part in the general process which has been taking place in recent years, they are prohibited from doing so because of legislative provisions which render it impossible for the various institutions to take part in any process of restitution of cultural objects which are of specific historic interest to any country. Therefore the consequence has been that this country has been giving the impression internationally of dragging its feet in the matter.
In the post-war years newly independent countries have developed an understandable passion to establish their own cultural heritage, and in 1976 UNESCO decided to set up an intergovernmental committee to seek ways and means of restoring cultural property to countries of origin. In 1977 UNESCO appealed to the International Council of Museums to help in the task, and an ICOM committee examined the subject exhaustively and concluded that:
"The reassembly of dispersed heritage through restitution or return of objects"—
and this is the important sentence, I think—
"which are of major importance for the cultural identity and history of countries having been deprived thereof, is now considered to be an ethical principle recognised and affirmed by the major international organisations. This principle will soon become an element of jus cogens of international relations".
In 1979 the General Assembly of the United Nations gave the go-ahead to UNESCO, and the following year the intergovernmental committee held its first session. Last year the General Assembly received a UNESCO report that the work was actively in hand. Sri Lanka had put forward a request for the return of art objects located in other countries. Ecuador was after some property in Italy. Case studies had been prepared concerning Bangladesh, Mali, Samoa, Ghana, and Panama. Inventories had been carried out covering cultural property from Oceana to be found in Australia and in British and Irish Museums. These inventories were in hand in America and New Zealand.
The convention prohibiting illicit traffic in cultural objects has now been ratified in 50 countries, and a start is being made in trying to create a more informed public. Among other things the committee welcomed the return to Yemen by the Wellcome Institute of London of a collection of archaeological items, and the committee also recognised the importance of adequate museum facilities in countries requesting the return of cultural property.
Recent developments include agreement for the celebrated masterpiece, the head of Queen Nefertiti, to
442
be shown in turn in Berlin and Cairo, while the efforts of Nigeria to secure the return of the famous Benin works from Britain and elsewhere have perhaps been less successful. While some important pieces have been returned to Sri Lanka, much of the cultural heritage of that country remains in London and in other Western capitals.
Australia, on the other hand, has returned many works to Papua New Guinea and other Pacific islands. Belgium has concluded a restitution agreement with Zaire, which includes generous aid terms. Holland has made similar arrangements with Indonesia, and France with India and Thailand. In the United States individual agreements have been made by United States museums with Latin American countries for the restitution and exchange of objects.
The noble Earl may tell us that this is not the Bill for the Government to agree to enter into this process and that, rather than standing on one side, which has been our attitude up to the moment, there is a process. The circumstances in which an object should be returned are fairly closely laid down, and application has to be made on a form prescribed by UNESCO. There has to be an agreement between the countries. Some of your Lordships might have noticed the persuasive article in The Times recently by Madame Mercouri, concerning the question of the Elgin Marbles. I think that the article demonstrated that Madame Mercouri recognises that this can be achieved only by agreement; there is no question of a forcible return.
But our position is unique in the Western world, in that we have legislative prohibitions. Therefore, while the process of the return of some objects that are especially precious to the countries of Africa, Asia and so on, is taking place by many of the post-Imperial powers—France, Holland, Belgium, and of course Germany, which accumulated a great deal of property during the war, much of which was forcibly returned after the war by an agreement of 1943—we have, as it were, been on one side. We are being regarded as a kind of "what we have, we hold" country, unwilling even to discuss the question, and taking refuge in the fact that it is a legislative impossibility for us to consider the matter at all.
What I am seeking by the amendment is for the Government to show an example in this case, in that so far as the V and A are concerned, they will remove any legislative prohibition which may exist, and they will at least free the trustees to consider the question. The trustees would have a free hand. They may decide that there is nothing there. There may be no application for anything in the V and A. But at least it would mean that, for the first time, we in this country would begin to look at this question, and would not say, "Under no circumstances will we return anything, because we legally cannot do so".
It would be a start, and it is my hope that the noble Earl will say, "We will give the trustees this power", recognising that in giving them the power we should merely be making a gesture. There might not be a great deal in it, but it would open the way, and I believe that at some stage we shall have to get into the international swim. We shall have to say that there are some things which we really recognise ought to be returned to the country of origin and we will no longer take refuge in

443
the argument of legislative impossibility. I beg to move.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, I do not feel that the Bill is a proper vehicle for this most complicated proposition which the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, has put forward. The differences need most careful definition. There is no doubt that in the eighteenth century and early nineteenth century, as a result of the grand tour undertaken by the rich young men of this country, we collected an enormous number of works of art, which people sold because they had no money and wanted some. It is very difficult to be certain of what one feels about this. I am not sure that I think they should all be given back. I think it is possible that one or two might reasonably be asked for. That is one thing.
The other, much more difficult thing concerns the more primitive collections made by various people travelling round the world. There are certain primitive countries which have very little and which would very much like to have back certain things which we now have. This is an extremely complicated proposition. Are we to get back from America things that we have acquired and they have bought? Where does one begin and where does one end? It is quite wrong to bring this sort of thing into the discussions on a Bill of this kind. It is a very difficult thing. I do not wish to say anything derogatory about what the noble Lord has said, because I think it is something that we all ought to start thinking about. But not, I beg your Lordships, in this Bill. It has nothing to do with it. It is a very difficult matter which has got to be discussed after a series of elaborate papers, subject by subject and area by area, on what ought to be done. Then we can come to a conclusion in due course: but not tonight on this Bill.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu: My Lords, I would support the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, on this amendment. This amendment gave the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, the opportunity to express a widespread opinion held by certain people. He said that a lot of people thought that Britain was dragging its feet. A lot of people in the museum world are delighted that they are doing so. I believe it would be quite wrong that this should be in this Bill. Certainly, it would be wrong to single out the Victoria and Albert Museum, of all museums, to have these powers.
I think this subject is very complicated in many ways. I remember having an interview with a past director of a museum some years ago about some Ghanaian treasures. He saw no reason why they should not be allowed on loan, but the trouble was that he could not satisfy himself (nor could the Ghanaians approached by him) that if they went to Ghana they would be properly looked after and would be in any state to exhibit after a few years. I think it is most important, if they are looked upon as world treasures, that if there is going to be any transfer the conditions in which they will be displayed are vital. I do not believe that this Bill should have anything to do with this subject. Certainly the Victoria and Albert Museum should not be singled out to be covered by this amendment.
Viscount Eccles: My Lords, I should like to support what the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, has said. I do not believe in insular culture. We live in a narrow, damp island, and we very much need injections of the culture of other countries in order that we may be a civilised nation. If one walks through the galleries of the Victoria and Albert, how poor they would be if there were nothing there but objects that had been made in the United Kingdom! We learn about the decorative arts because we compare one school with another. I do not know how one would ever pick out this or that object and say that that contributes more to somebody else's culture than it does to ours. We need culture very badly in this country, and we have profited enormously by its import, by one means or another, by hook or by crook—and sometimes by crook—so that we have these thing in our museums. The less we talk about it the better.
9.12 p.m.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, an amendment of the kind presented by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, would be an invitation to any country or interest group to seek the return of any cultural object of which it can claim to be the country of origin. I had the opportunity to explain to the House on 15th February last that in the Government's view there is no case for amendments to legislation intended to facilitate the dispersal of our great national collections. It is not a question of return or restitution, but of whether one takes a narrow or broad view of a world cultural inheritance.
It is surely self-evident that great collections such as those of the V and A are of international and not simply national value. They offer opportunities for the cultures of the world to be admired and compared; they give endless opportunities for scholarship and for the development of skills of conservation—skills which are made available, as far as resources permit, to the benefit of institutions and countries throughout the world. The fact that satisfactory replicas can in some cases be made does not detract from the value of the originals or their intrinsic importance in these respects.
The Government have made their position on the return of cultural objects very clear in the case of the Elgin Marbles, which are part of the collection of the British Museum. They see no basis for taking provisions which would override or alter the existing or proposed powers of the trustees of museums such as the Victoria and Albert. It is, of course, always open to museums to loan objects, and a very great deal can be done by bilateral assistance, including direct help with exhibitions, conservation and field work. This Government cannot accept an amendment which would imply an expectation that the trustees of the V and A will be open to applications for the return of objects to other countries, and would put them under pressures in consequence. But, above all, an impression would be given that this country is willing in principle to consider requests for the return of objects on a substantial scale.
If I may quote from the reply of the Minister for the Arts following the conference in 1982, my right honourable friend said:

445
"The British delegation to the UNESCO World Conference on Cultural Policies in Mexico made it clear that it is not the policy of Her Majesty's Government to invite independent institutions to break up their collections. To do so would require legislation. I doubt if this could go through Parliament. Should any country wish to have replicas, the Government would consider sympathetically any such request".
That is where the Government stand. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, will not wish to press his amendment.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, that is a most disappointing reply. Far from opening up to the possibility which this probing amendment might have made for the serious examination of this matter, as was suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, the noble Earl has simply reiterated the wholly negative attitude which the Government have held in this matter until now. Some of the objections which are made are totally invalid. I repeat that a separate application must be made in each case. The application has to conform to the rules which are laid down. Only objects which are of major importance to the cultural identity and history of the countries having been deprived thereof can be asked for. The request having been made, it is entirely up to the institution and the Government to decide whether it should be accepted.
The notion which is put forward that by carrying an amendment like this, then suddenly everything we have of value is going to be dispersed all over the world, is an excuse put forward for doing nothing and for refusing to get into the international situation. In this field, we are regarded as the curmudgeon of the Western world. It is not a good position for us to be in, and it is about time that we came out of it. We could do it very easily and with the loss of very few objects. We could arrange a replica exchange. We could arrange a loan basis. But at the moment our institutions are virtually prohibited by law from doing anything at all.
In my view, an amendment of this sort would have been appropriate on this occasion. I understand the point that one can hardly pick out the Victoria and Albert Museum and say, "You will do it"; but I should like to see from the noble Earl on some other occasion a more open-hearted attitude to this matter and a resolution that we shall not be alone among the nations of the West who say, "No, we will not part with anything". Let us be a little more open, a little more outgoing. Although I beg leave to withdraw the amendment now, I should like to give notice that on some suitable occasion I shall seek your Lordships' leave to return to the issue.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 1: Part II [The Boards: Science Museum]:
9.17 p.m.
The Earl of Avonmoved Amendment No. 32:
Page 23, line 9, at end insert—
("(2A) In appointing any trustee, the Prime Minister shall have regard to the desirability of the person's having knowledge or experience of the development of science and technology, management, administration, or any other subject knowledge or experience of which would be of use to the Board in exercising their functions.").
446
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment in moving Amendment No. 4. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Avonmoved Amendment No. 33:
Page 23, line 17, leave out from first ("chairman") to end of line 18.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 7. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 34 and 35 not moved.]
The Earl of Avonmoved Amendment No. 36:
Page 24, leave out lines 23 to 26 and insert—
("Proceedings
16.—(1) The Board may regulate their own procedure (including, subject to sub-paragraph (7), quorum).
(2) In doing so, they may make arrangements for any of their functions, other than the power to acquire or dispose of land, to be discharged by committees.
(3) Any committee shall be appointed, and may be dissolved, by the Board.
(4) A committee may include as members persons who are not trustees, but at least two of the members (including the committee's chairman) must be trustees.
(5) A committee shall act in accordance with such directions as the Board may make from time to time.
(6) Anything done by a committee under the arrangements shall, if the arrangements so provide, have effect as if done by the Board.
(7) The quorum for meetings of the Board shall not at any time be less than four.
(8) The validity of any proceedings of the Board shall not be affected by any vacancy among the trustees or by any defect in the appointment of any trustee.
Allowances
16A. The Board may pay to each of the trustees and the members of any committee such reasonable allowances in respect of expenses as the Secretary of State may determine with the Treasury's approval.
Instruments
16B.—(1) The fixing of the seal of the Board shall be authenticated by the signature of the chairman or of some other person authorised either generally or specially by the Board to act for that purpose.
(2) A document purporting to be duly executed under the seal of the Board, or to be signed on the Board's behalf, shall be received in evidence and, unless the contrary is proved, be deemed to be so executed or signed.
Finance
16C. For the purposes of sections 22 to 32 of the Exchequer and Audit Departments Act 1866 and section 1 of the Exchequer and Audit Departments Act 1921—

(a) the Board shall be treated as a department of the public service, and

(b) the Director of the Science Museum shall be treated as a public officer.

Reports
16D.—(1) The Board shall make to the Secretary of State a report on the exercise of their functions since the last report was made or (in the case of the first) since the Board's establishment.
(2) The first report shall be made not later than the expiry of the period of 3 years (or such shorter period as the Secretary of State may direct) commencing with the day of the Board's establishment.
(3) Each subsequent report shall be made not later than 3 years (or such shorter period as the Secretary of State may direct) since the last was made.
(4) The Secretary of State shall lay a copy of each report before each House of Parliament.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment when I moved Amendment No. 12. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 9 [The Board's general functions]:
The Earl of Avonmoved Amendment No. 37:
Page 6, line 5, leave out from ("public's") to ("both") in line 7 and insert ("enjoyment of science and technology by advancing their knowledge of the development of those subjects")
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this amendment seeks to fulfil the commitment that I gave to your Lordships during Committee stage that the board of the Science Museum should have a duty to promote the public's "enjoyment" of science and technology. We had some trouble in drafting this amendment. I could not bring it to your Lordships at Committee stage, but I have brought it to the House now. I have to say that we are still not very happy with it. I am totally content to accept the amendment by my noble friend Lord Montagu. I should like to assure the House that we shall continue to look at this matter as we have other representations on it. I hope that the House will appreciate the difficulties that we have been in, and are still in, to try to accommodate everybody. I beg to move.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu Lord Montagu of Beaulieu moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 37, Amendment No. 38:
Line 2, leave out ("by advancing") and insert ("and advance")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I note what my noble friend has said. I believe that there have been some drafting problems here. May I simply state—and I know that my noble friend has already accepted this in Committee—that we think it is totally contradictory for the V and A, the Armouries and Kew Gardens to be urged to promote public enjoyment and deny that important right to the Science Museum. After all, science and technology can be enjoyed by everybody; and as somebody who runs a museum of scientific interest, I can assure your Lordships that is true. I am happy to leave it there, but may I please have an assurance that "enjoyment" will be one of the cardinal objectives of the Science Museum, regardless of any other educational objectives they have?
On Question, amendment to the amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 37, as amended by Amendment No.38, agreed to.
Lord Strabolgihad given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 39:
Page 6, line 43, at end insert—
("or
(c) formed part of the book stock of the Science Museum library")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment in connection with Amendment No. 25. Therefore I do not propose to move it.
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I think in all fairness to those who are to take part in the debate that is to follow, we have probably gone far enough with this Bill tonight. I therefore beg to move that consideration on Report be now adjourned.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

European Air Fares
9.21 p.m.
Lord Bethellrose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will make a statement on the present high level of European air fares and on the need for measures to enforce the competition rules of the Treaty of Rome.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, at this very late hour, I will speak very briefly about the question of European air fares, but I hope that we shall have unanimity in this House on the basic principle that I will put before you that European air fares are too high. I imagine that most of us have from time to time travelled by air in Europe and have experienced this problem at first hand. Perhaps certain figures will illustrate the point that I am about to make. If one flies by British Airways from London to Athens one way, the fare payable will be £273, whereas for £21 less it would be possible to take a flight from London to Los Angeles—a destination four times as far. By the same token, it costs nearly twice as much to fly to Helsinki as it does to Boston, which is three times the distance from London. To take a purely European example, a British Airways flight from London to Gibraltar costs £42 less than a British Airways flight from London to Madrid, even though Gibraltar is 300 miles in a direct line further from London than Madrid.
The whole world of air travel is, as I am sure your Lordships will agree, full of anomalies almost to the point of economic madness. My own view about this is that the reason for the very grave discrepancy in the costs of travel across to and on the other side of the Atlantic and travel within Western Europe is that, whereas over there air travel is dependent upon free competition, in Western Europe it is based very largely on the state monopoly system. I have maintained in the course of a campaign that this state monopoly system—arranging as it does for air fares to be agreed by air carriers and then rubber-stamped by governments—is contrary to the competition articles of the Treaty of Rome, and in particular Articles 85, 86 and 90.
On the basic principle that European air fares are too high, I expect that my noble friend Lord Cockfield will agree with me. Indeed, the Government, in their manifesto for the European elections of 1979, put as one of their priorities the proposition that European air travel should be made cheaper. The Prime Minister and my noble friend the then Foreign Secretary mentioned the high level of European air tariffs in various public utterances in July 1981 as one of the priorities for the British presidency of the Council of Ministers. So, on that point, I do not believe that there will be any argument between us.
At this stage, I should declare an interest, in that for some years I have been engaged in a campaign to bring down the cost of European air travel and, together with some 2,000 individuals, mostly members of the International Air Passenger Association, I formed an organisation known as Freedom of the Skies. We have decided to use the weapon of European litigation, in

449
order to urge member governments of the Community to enforce our interpretation of the competition rules of the Treaty of Rome. It is on this point that, perhaps, my noble friend and I may, over certain nuances, part company, and it is also on this point that I wish, particularly, to hear the reply of my noble friend Lord Cockfield to this Question.
I did, at one stage, some 15 years ago, take comfort from the remarks made by my noble friend's predecessor in the Department of Trade, Mr. John Biffen. At a press conference, Mr. Biffen stated that the present bilateral system of fixing air tariffs was, as he put it—and I have his words before me:
"outmoded and, in my opinion, contrary to Community law".
He went on to say publicly that, in his view, the EEC Commission had been fainthearted in trying to bring more competition into the process of liberalisation. He said:
"It is clear that some fares are too high. In our view, that is not consistent with the Treaty, and we want some urgent action".
He then said:
"We will not be satisfied until we have brought about changes".
He concluded by saying:
"I believe that we have public opinion firmly behind us in this country and, in fact, in most other Community countries".
With the greatest respect to my noble friend, I hope that he will be able to answer certain questions in the light of those remarks by his predecessor.
First, can he tell us whether it is still his view, and the view of his department, that the present system of fixing air tariffs in Europe is contrary to European law? Is that the view of the Department of Trade? If that is still the view of the Department of Trade, as expressed by Mr. Biffen in October 1981, does he believe that the British Government are, in fact, acting in accordance with the Treaty in continuing, 15 months after those words were uttered, to go along with the system that was criticised so harshly by Mr. John Biffen? Indeed, I hope that he will be able to indicate to us, in view of the comments about "urgent action" and the words,
"We will not be satisfied until we have brought about changes",
what exactly has been done in the 15 months, during the British presidency of the Council of Ministers, since this attack—if one likes to put it in that way—was launched by the Secretary of State for Trade.
Of course, I agree that public opinion is solidly behind such urgent action. Our country is an island and if we have to travel to Europe, then, by and large, we have to fly. It is difficult to go by surface transport, and we are discriminated against in a whole range of economic activity if European air tariffs are set at too high a level. So I think that we should not be satisfied with the present situation. I wonder to what extent my noble friend is satisfied and whether he can indicate any possibility of change in the near future, or whether he can point to any improvements that have been achieved since the British presidency, when this cry from the heart was launched about the high level of European air tariffs.
Of course, we are hoping that agreement will be reached in the near future on inter-regional air services. I hope my noble friend will be able to indicate
450
that. But does he agree with me that, even if this is agreed, it will go only one tiny step along the way to the desired state of affairs whereby European air travel would be set at a reasonable level?
As for the Commission's proposed directive of air tariffs, can my noble friend indicate to me any hope at all of the 10 member states being able to reach agreement on this admirable, evolutionary proposal? I have to say to him, in all frankness, that my own information is that Hell will freeze over before the 10 member states voluntarily agree the proposal on air tariffs. I hope I am wrong and that my noble friend will be able to indicate some hope over this, but my own view on that proposal is pessimistic.
The nub of the whole argument is not one of evolution against revolution, as has sometimes been alleged over the Freedom of the Skies campaign. We are not revolutionaries in our campaign. We insist on evolutionary change. We do not want to create chaos. But change we do want. We are not satisfied with the status quo and we shall not rest, as Mr. Biffen said 15 months ago, until there is some change. I wonder whether my noble friend will be able to indicate what evolutionary change there has been and what chance there is of gradual liberalisation in the near future through the consent of the 10 member states and the unanimous decision of the Council of Ministers.
In conclusion, subject to what my noble friend will tell me at the end of this debate I must say that I personally doubt whether the 10 member states will agree to a more liberal régime which could lead to lower air fares. I believe that vested interests are such that the member states on the continent, apart perhaps from the Government of the Netherlands, will not voluntarily bring about any change such as the one which my noble friend and I would like to see. If he quarrels with my method, the method of litigation, can my noble friend please indicate how he plans to break the log jam?
The simple fact is that it seems that eight of the 10 member states of the Community do not want the liberalisation movement which my noble friend and I want, a movement which has been so warmly applauded by the Prime Minister and by other Government Ministers and which is longed for by millions of people in this country who wish to travel to Europe at a reasonable cost: for tourist purposes, to see their friends and relatives and for business purposes. What chance is there of bringing about this liberalisation and of breaking the impasse without taking the matter to the courts and insisting on the rule of law? I hope that my noble friend, to whom I am very grateful for coming to the House at this late hour, will be able to indicate the answer to this question.
9.33 p.m.
Viscount Thurso: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, raises an interesting, if complicated, question. He states that air fares are too high. From the point of view of the travelling public, whatever you charge is always too high if you can get a journey for the same distance at a lower fare. The noble Lord also says that the state monopoly system is one of the causes of this problem, and that the bilateral system of fixing air fares is outmoded. What the noble Lord does not indicate to us, or hold out to the Government or to

451
anybody else, is any way by which a level of air fares can be enforced.
It is not realistic to imagine that if two airlines are operating upon, shall we say, the London to Paris route one can deal with the question of Air France charging too much by taking away their licence to operate on the route. One can visualise that their immediate riposte would be to take away the right of British Airways to operate upon the route. In that way one reaches some sort of chaos.
The biggest question and the biggest problem which faces us is that if we are seeking to achieve a level of air fares within Europe or anywhere else, how is that level to be imposed on the airlines involved? What legislation is there, and what regulations and sanctions are there, to enforce any level of air fares upon any airline company? At the moment it seems that this is left entirely for the companies to agree among themselves, and as long as it suits them to operate the agreed figure then they operate it. The moment it does not suit them to operate it, they do not operate it, and there is very little that we can do about it. The first question we must ask the Government is: what measures do they propose taking to bring agreement within the EEC and Europe on a method of ensuring reasonable air fares and of enforcing reasonable levels of air fares within Europe?
This raises the question of what one does about all the myriad airlines which fly in and out of Europe from outside Europe, where one has very little control over the level of fares which are charged to and from their countries, and so forth. At present, we have to leave that aspect out of the question because, obviously, the first thing to do is to put our own house in order. But it will be interesting to know what measures, if any, the Government contemplate, and which are contemplated within the EEC, to control the level of air fares to a reasonable point.
On the other hand, it is a kind of tightrope because, if one lives in a remote area, how does one deal with the problem of providing services where these are difficult and expensive to provide? One cannot adjust the cost per mile or per kilometre; one has to think of a service to the community. This brings into the question all sorts of subsidies, and so on. I come from a part of the world where probably the first internal airline in Britain started. Sir Alan Cobham's flying circus came up to Wick in the 1920s and, it having given its display, an old fish curer from Orkney sidled up to one of the pilots and said, "Here's a fiver to take me to Orkney". So the pilot flipped his passenger over to Orkney, where another old fish curer said to him, "Here's a fiver to take me to Wick". It was immediately apparent that here was a possibility for an airline. Indeed, I can remember two airlines operating out of Caithness in the 1930s—Scottish Airways and Allied Airways. One was run by the late Captain Fresson and the other by the late Mr. Gandar Dower. Both airlines operated successfully until the war. They both restarted after the war and were eventually incorporated, first into British European Airways and finally into British Airways.
The wheel has now turned full circle, and the airlines which fly out of Wick have gone back to being
452
small airlines using small aircraft. British Airways has moved out, and Loganair and Air Ecosse have moved in and are providing a regular, satisfactory service at a price that people are prepared to pay. There is a lesson here that price is not the only criterion; service is as important. There has to be a balance between price and service, and there has to be some sort of machinery to monitor both.
Therefore, I end by asking the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, whether indeed he can give us any idea how the Government hope to reconcile these two problems which face any airline operating in Europe: how to keep its remoter branches going while keeping the element of competition and while keeping the cost of the air fare down to the travelling public, whether they be travelling on a busy route like London to Paris or on a very remote route like Inverness to Wick.
9.41 p.m.
Lord Harris of High Cross: My Lords, it is some consolation for taking part in this debate to follow the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, whose father I recall, as Archie Sinclair, was a schoolboy hero of mine in the Air Flying Corps. But I must confess that I parade at this hour with the greatest possible reluctance. Not having served time in the other place, it has always seemed to me rather dubious that the serious business of Government should be conducted after dark, let alone when sensible citizens are thinking of their beds or at least of their nightcaps.
I wanted to come here particularly to support the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, in pressing this Question, if only to express my admiration for his courage and persistence in campaigning against those common enemies, the twin evils, of economic nationalism and monopoly. I should say candidly, as I think he knows, that I have never supported British membership of the EEC, and unless we can dismantle the common agricultural policy I would personally even now contemplate withdrawing. But this Question goes far wider. I hope I do not have to emphasise that I do not imply any hostility towards Europe. Indeed, I have a modest interest to declare in that I have a married daughter living and working in Lyon and bringing up my two Anglo-French grandchildren. It is a minor part of my complaint that the inflated air fares make family reunions less frequent than we would all wish.
My Lords, the argument that higher European fares are due to higher European costs simply will not wash. Of course it is true that shorter hauls cost more per mile than long non-stop runs, not least because the overhead costs of taking off and landing and wear and tear on engines has to be spread over a shorter run. But that could not account for differences as wide as we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, between European and transatlantic charges. Furthermore, the conclusive argument, for my money, is that short hauls within the United States of America have, since deregulation, my Lord Thurso, come down to levels that are commonly between one-third and even one-quarter of comparable flights within Europe.
My Lords, as an humble economist, I would not set out to try and teach the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, anything in this subject, but for the dubious benefit of any others who may be awake, I would like to say that

453
I believe the explanation of high costs is almost always to be found in regulation and never for long in open competition. If we look back over the post-war years it is difficult to doubt that the phenomenal increase we have seen in air travel would have produced much lower fares under a competitive régime than we have witnessed under universal regulation. The reason has been touched upon, that the International Air Transport Association has throughout this period acted as a private cartel of airlines explicitly to keep prices up, and in this vulgar conspiracy IATA has been generally buttressed by national Governments.
It is clearly the intention of all such market rigging to ensure comfortable profits for the less efficient operator, but as so often the outcome is very different. There are many reasons why prices that are fixed too high raise costs rather than maintain profits. For example, unless new entrants can be kept out and existing operators prevented from expanding, the prospect of fat profits will attract additional capacity, much of which will be under-employed, thereby raising costs. Again, if the cartel can stop airlines engaging in price competition, it is less easy to stop non-price competition through the proliferation of so-called free services, which are simply an expensive substitute for lower fares. Finally, so long as prospects of comfortable profits last there is cash available for all kinds of featherbedding within the airline companies, and I observe that trade unions are never slow to take advantage of any scope for overmanning or other ways of inflating labour costs.
So, for these and other reasons, it is less true to attribute high fares to high costs than to say that European costs have been inflated because prices were fixed too high in the first place. At the end of the day, even with higher fares, profits may turn out to be lower than they would have been under competition. The remedy is not to raise prices still higher, which would in any case further shrink the market of passengers who pay their own fare.
454
I was not surprised to read in the literature which the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, kindly supplied, that European labour and operating expenses are a good deal higher than they are in America. My abbreviated analysis suggests that the best way to bring down costs is to allow free competition in air fares, and since Governments are often drawn into price fixing to protect their own inefficient state airlines, it would help if European airlines were denationalised, as I am glad to see is planned for British Airways. They would be subjected to a competitive market and would be regulated only by safety requirements on the long-established principle of the Plimsoll line for shipping.
It seems to be a particular paradox and a scandal that the EEC, which was supposed to bring people closer together, has raised the barrier still higher between me and my French grandchildren. The noble Lord, Lord Bethell, argues that this manifestation of economic nationalism in air transport is in breach of Articles 85 and 86 of the Treaty of Rome. As he said, he was upheld in that explicit view by Mr. John Biffen, who was Lord Cockfield's predecessor as Secretary of State for Trade.
I join the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, in asking the Minister whether he will undertake to bring whatever pressure is possible against European Governments which are unquestionably acting in defiance of the competitive spirit, if not the legal letter, of the Treaty of Rome. I have a suggestion. He might be strengthened in his resolution by a leading article in The Times of 13th May 1981, which I assure him neither the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, nor I have written. It concluded by suggesting that the British Government approve low fare applications by British operators, and if resisted by European Governments they should threaten to renegotiate the air service agreements with the offending Governments and,
"There should be an implicit warning that landing at Heathrow and Gatwick could be denied their flag airlines if no sensible reductions were forthcoming".
9.49 p.m.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, I should like to offer congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, for raising this matter tonight and for his speech, but principally for the fight that he has carried on for so long on this very thorny problem of European air fares. I hope that he will have a reply tonight from the Secretary of State agreeing the need for measures to enforce the competition rules of the Treaty of Rome.
This is no new problem. When we discussed air fares in Europe about two and a half years ago on a report of the European Community's Committee, of which I was privileged to be a member, I recall saying that as long ago as 1971 I had stated what seemed to me a very obvious fact; namely, that air fares in Europe were far too high. On that occasion, some 12 years ago, I think that the House agreed, but not those people in authority, either on the ground or in the air. We all know that one has to be right at the right time. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, is going to be right today.
Moving to more recent times, how did we get on in July 1980? Quite definitely we made progress. If I may summarise the reply given by the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, for the Government, it was to the effect that they were not satisfied with the then current position and that the air traveller, in their opinion, was entitled to a better deal. Concerning the Treaty of Rome, the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, stated that progress by agreement under Article 84.2 was the aim of Her Majesty's Government. The noble Lord, Lord Bethell, has mentioned other articles and I would not be competent to comment on those, but I hope that Article 84.2, as it was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, may perhaps be added to them.
Significantly—at least, I hope it was significant—the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, went on to say that if sufficient progress were not made, it would then be necessary to consider what other steps might have to be taken in order to make reasonable progress. So having reached that stage in July 1980, where are we today? I would like to ask: do the Government consider that insufficient progress has been made and, if so, what do they suggest might be done? It is no secret that efforts by the Government to make progress have not met with success where other countries are concerned. I am quite sure that the public believes—what I think most of us accept to be a fact—that vested interests, within both the member states and the national airlines, are still proving obstacles to reform. I should have thought that surely there must be more scope for more competition and lower scheduled fares in Europe without going to the extremes of the United States' domestic deregulation.
This country has led the campaign to liberalise Europe's air fares. Only last month Mr. Iain Sproat, the Trade Minister responsible for aviation, launched a further attempt in Brussels. Doubtless the Secretary of State will tell us tonight, but I gather that Mr. Sproat failed in those efforts. So if Mr. Sproat did fail, I would like to know if I am correct in assuming that the problem of easing scheduled air fare regulations within the Common Market countries will now go back to the Community's ambassadors in Brussels.
456
The Financial Times of 16th December last said:
"Even efforts by the European Commission to bring European air transport under the aegis of the Treaty of Rome, so that the rules governing competition can be implemented, have been vigorously resisted by Governments which fear the end of their right to total control over their airspace and what can fly through it".
In view of this entrenched opposition, which I certainly accept—and I should have thought everyone in the House accepted—what other action do the Government propose? I know, in common with everyone else, that leaders of the EEC at their summit meeting in Copenhagen agreed on measures to open up the internal market and to remove unnecessary barriers to competition. All I can say is that up to now this agreement does not seem to have reached the airline industry.
British Airways and British Caledonian have played their part. The Government want competition on European air fares. The Civil Aviation Authority agrees, as did the all-party Select Committee of this House which reported in 1980. Then why the lack of progress? The obvious reason is fare-fixing between national airlines, protected by their Governments. Perhaps the Minister should give us some more details when he comes to reply, and doubtless he will correct me if I am wrong. But I understand that when Mr. Sproat went recently to Brussels he tried to get EEC member countries to ease their control over the introduction of new international scheduled services between provincial cities.
I gather that the United Kingdom had wanted the right of refusal by a receiving country of a new service to be done away with so that if, for example, the United Kingdom gave approval for a new service between one of our cities and one in the EEC, then the latter country could not refuse it because United Kingdom approval had already been granted. If that is correct, presumably Mr. Sproat offered the same in reverse. If he could have got that agreement, it would have been a small dent in the protectionism which has existed in Europe since the 1940s. As a result of that protectionism airlines require national Government permission to operate through national territory. A system of bilateral restrictive agreements between Governments on behalf of their airlines normally allows for only one carrier from each country to fly a particular route, and in nearly all cases this is the flag-carrying airline.
I hope that the Minister can give us encouragement tonight. In our report to the House in 1980 we gave various examples and reasons for the cost of air fares in Europe, and there is, indeed, ample evidence that fares are too high. It seems to me that what Mr. Sproat was trying to establish was that the rules of free competition in the Common Market should apply, for the first time, to European air services. I look forward with much interest to the reply that we shall receive tonight from the Secretary of State, and I very much hope that the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, will be satisfied with what he receives.
9.57 p.m.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, first I join with other noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Harris of High Cross, and the noble Baroness,

457
Lady Burton of Coventry, in paying tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, for the fight which he has put up, over a considerable period of time, to get the level of air fares in Europe reduced. When he started his remarks this evening he quoted examples of the ludicrous way in which some air fares are fixed. My mind immediately went back to the question which was put to Sir Freddie Laker on 6th February 1980 when he appeared before your Lordships' Select Committee on European Air Fares. He started his remarks by saying:
"If I may [I will] start off by telling you the story of the German boy that said to his Dad—he lived in Berlin—'Daddy, where is New York?' and Daddy said 'I do not know but by the air fare it is somewhere between Frankfurt and Hamburg'.".
That story has been repeated many times since in different forms.
The last few years have witnessed a dramatic change in the level of transatlantic air fares, and this has brought very great benefit to the travel and tourist industry. Because that has happened there has been even greater disappointment at the fact that a similar cutting of fares has not taken place in Europe. Many reasons have been given for that.
It has been suggested that the European landing and navigation charges are five to 10 times higher than those in the United States; that fuel is about 50 per cent. more expensive; that there are higher taxes; that labour costs are twice as high; that night flying restrictions mean that aircraft in Europe have a working day 24 per cent. shorter than that in America; that military and political restrictions make routes on average 15 per cent. longer than they should be; and that operating aircraft over Europe's short distances has an effect on efficiency. Of course, as has been mentioned, one of the biggest obstacles to the cutting of air fares has been the question of national sovereignty in Europe, which has had the effect that every nation insists on its own flag-carrying aircraft flying a particular route.
Those may be some of the reasons. Again it is perhaps instructive to go to the report of the Select Committee. On 5th march 1980 Mr. Norman Tebbit appeared before the Select Committee. He was at that time Under-Secretary at the Department of Trade. In answer to a question about what would be the effect of more competition in Europe, he said:
"If airlines were not able to cover their less than satisfactory returns on the Atlantic they would be under pressure either to become more efficient on the Atlantic, and certainly Sir Freddie Laker maintains that he is making satisfactory profits although many others maintain that they are not—there would be that pressure on the Atlantic if we were to put new pressures into Europe".
The implication of those remarks—and, in a sense, this has been the implication of some of the speeches made in the debate this evening—is that there is not all that much fat to go around in the air transport industry as a whole. The question one has to ask is as to whether in fact the answer to cheaper European air fares is solely more competition. Certainly the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, when he appeared before the Select Committee on 20th February 1980, thought that that was the case.
However, one has to examine the whole spectrum of European air fares, and see that, in certain instances,
458
of course there are cheap fares in Europe if you wish to fly in a particular way for a particular purpose. I am thinking here of the fares which people can obtain to holiday destinations such as those in Greece, Spain, Italy and Portugal. If one is able to operate one's businesses in those areas one is not faced by the same high air fares.
Indeed, the Observer of 25th July last commented that about 45 per cent. of passengers travel on inclusive tours at well below scheduled prices. Another 20 per cent. are business travellers whose employers sign their cheques, and therefore they are not so much concerned about the cost of air fares. In a sense, the people who really are hurt are those who do not wish to take advantage of package tours, or who wish to travel individually, whether they be travelling for holidays or for business. They have to meet their fares out of their own pockets. They are the people who suffer considerably from the high level of air fares in Europe.
Now what can be done? The noble Lord, Lord Bethell, has proposed his answer. The answer to his frustration is to take the matter to the courts. One has to be realistic in the whole question of the level of air fares in Europe. One has to think that the national airlines will not always be in a position to continue losing money. I think that one of the effects of cheaper air fares in Europe—one has to be pragmatic about this—would be a greater rationalisation of the airline networks of individual airlines. If one could accept a situation where there was a rationalisation of structure—where there were fewer routes, where there were routes which would probably mean more changes and where one might not be able to get a direct flight to every single Continental city of any size, but where one went into a hub airport in a particular area and then took a smaller plane out—one could achieve some considerable reduction in fares. But if one has to maintain services from every major European city to every other major European city and those services can operate successfully only if they succeed in obtaining a high level of traffic, that is not a satisfactory situation for the airlines themselves in the long run.
Indeed, I remember last year travelling from Paris to Manchester and the 'plane being about 10 per cent. full. That obviously was not a particularly economic route to operate. No doubt it would have been much more economical for the airline if I had travelled from Paris to London and then used some other means of transportation from London to Manchester. One has to have cognisance of the fact that the airlines will be able to bring their level of fares down only if they are able to organise their business in a way which will make that practicable from their point of view.
I join with other noble Lords in saying that I am not at all happy about the present high level of tariffs. I do not believe that competition is the only answer to this particular problem. I believe that there should be a measure of reorganisation, a measure of rationalisation and a measure of greater usage. I also believe that if the air fares come down, one will have a greater usage, which will be of benefit to the airlines themselves. I join with other noble Lords in expressing great interest in hearing what the Secretary of State has to say.
10.8 p.m.
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, for some years now my noble friend Lord Bethell has pursued a vigorous crusade on the subject of air fares in Europe. This evening he has clearly gained a number of doughty recruits. He has done an added service in keeping the noble Lord, Lord Harris of High Cross, from his bed, thus allowing us the benefit of his wisdom in economic affairs. As the noble Baroness, Lady Burton says, this is no new problem. I think all of us are convinced that certainly some, and possibly many, scheduled air fares in Europe are too high when considered against costs. It may well be that the costs are too high as well.
We do not, of course, set out to tell airlines what their passengers want. That is a matter of commercial judgment for the airlines, and the price that they charge—that is, the fare—can only be assessed in relation to what is provided for it. That is a most important consideration and one that is often overlooked. The air passenger market is not homogeneous. There is a wide spectrum of user requirements. All airlines are not necessarily able to meet all elements of demand on all routes at all times. Airlines must act in a commercial manner—and that means profitably—and it is for them to judge what can be provided at any given time in relation to their knowledge of what the markets they are serving want. This ranges from high quality services provided on demand at the shortest notice to the most limited and simple provisions of transport from one place to another without any trimmings or, for example, with advance booking and without the possibility of changing those bookings without financial penalty.
The many United Kingdom travellers who fly on holidays to Europe on inclusive tours already enjoy some of the lowest fares which could be expected, thanks to the nature and efficiency of such operations, and the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, referred to that. The policy of the Government is that the prices charged for these varying products should reflect the cost of providing them efficiently, while permitting the airlines to respond to competition and earn a sensible and fair commercial profit. We do not believe it is right for the prices of one product to be set at a level which results in an artificially high, or low, price being charged for another product. On this basis, we believe that the price of the normal on-demand fares on some routes in Europe are too high, and we want to see them come down. To this extent, I find myself on the same side as my noble friend, and on the same side as most noble Lords who have spoken this evening.
Within the powers available to us, we have for some years taken action to see that fares come down where the circumstances so justify. In this respect the Civil Aviation Authority act as the advisers of the department where appropriate bilateral arrangements allow action to be taken. We also want a regulatory system which is sufficiently flexible to permit airlines to exercise their commercial judgment on the products they can profitably provide and the prices to be charged. But we are not saying that the airlines can be turned lose to do whatever they like. Because of the international system which limits the number of airlines which can operate on any given route, the
460
airlines are bound to some extent to operate within a system of limited competition. These limitations in competition mean that Governments have a role to play in the protection of consumer interests in the air transport field, as in other commercial fields.
The Government are, therefore, seeking agreement to modify the regulatory system so that when an airline has proposed a product and a fare to its own Government, and that Government have satisfied themselves that it is properly related to that airline's costs, then the airline should be able to implement the product and the fare, and it should not be blocked by other Governments acting on behalf of their own airlines which may, because of their structure and costs, or their policies, be interested only in serving a different sector of the market at different prices.
The approach that we propose is such a normal, commercial market approach that it may seem extraordinary that we have had to negotiate in Brussels for over four years without having achieved agreement on it. But while the Commission itself takes the same view as we do, as indeed do the Dutch, unfortunately most other Governments and airlines in Europe do not.
It would not be right to place emphasis entirely on lower air fares. There are undoubtedly some fares which are too high in relation to the costs of what is provided. But the real objective is for freedom for airlines to provide a range of products to meet the consumers' choice at a price that they are prepared to pay. I would not want, and I am not prepared, to tell passengers what they ought to want, or are permitted to buy. The way to success and profitability for airlines is to respond to market forces. If the regulatory system were to permit airlines to respond more closely to market demand, I am convinced that they would do so; and that is what Her Majesty's Government are trying to achieve.
The pace of negotiation in the European Community is always slow. We have already faced many disappointments; most recently the failure to secure agreement to the very modest measure designed to liberalise the process of authorising new interregional air services in Europe. But we are determined to persist. Our lack of progress so far is due, at least in part, to the problems or difficulties of reconciling the views and objectives of 10 member states and adapting them to the rules of the treaty. But we must continue to exert pressure, and that we shall unquestionably do.
That brings me to the second part of my noble friend's Question, on measures to enforce the competition rules of the Treaty of Rome. Before they can be enforced, it has to be determined that they do in fact apply. There has been no decision of the European Court of Justice in relation to air transport which says conclusively that they do apply. There are certain indications that they may do. The Commission thinks that they do, and under Articles 89 and 90 of the Treaty the Commission has a duty to enforce them. That is what my noble friend has been trying to persuade the Commission to do. The Commission has said that it is in the process of acting. and that is why the European Court has so far ruled that there is no ground for complaint.

461
If the rules do apply, certain consequences follow for member states in relation to their obligations under those articles. But air transport in the Community is a matter involving 10 Governments, and many of those Governments disagree with the Commission and say that the competition rules do not apply to air transport because of the provisions of the transport chapter of the treaty. Until this matter is resolved either by Council action or by the European Court, it would not be helpful to the air transport industry, nor to its passengers, for Her Majesty's Government to act unilaterally.
Should the Government at the other end of our airlines' routes take a different view, there would be a chaotic situation which would not help anybody. That is the point put so forcefully by the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso. Air transport is an international industry, and operates only with international consensus. As a Government we could not take action which would disturb that consensus until there is something better to put in its place.
To some extent, the solution to this problem is in the hands of member states' Governments. For over a year now the Council of Ministers has had before it a Commission proposal for a regulation to implement the application of the competition rules to air transport. We and the Dutch have supported the proposal in principle, but virtually no progress has been made because other member states are seeking to preserve the present system.
I regret that the air fares directive proposed under Article 84.2 of the treaty is in the same situation. As this has been raised specifically both by my noble friend Lord Bethell and by the noble Baroness, Lady Burton, perhaps I might deal with this in rather more detail. The directive has not yet been discussed substantively by Ministers in the European Community Council, but negotiations on the text are continuing in the Community at official level. The next opportunity to consider it at ministerial level, if progress is made towards agreement during the German presidency, would be at the June Council of Transport Ministers. I must admit that so far those member states who disagree with our general approach show little inclination to accept the very reasonable reform envisaged in this particular directive. Nevertheless, we will continue to press on this particular front.
The regional air services directive on which Community Ministers have three times failed to agree is in much the same situation. The Government are giving all support to the Commission and are doing, and will continue to do, all that they can to achieve agreement on a more liberal regulatory régime. What we want to see is a more liberal system which will generate more competition between airlines by providing them, subject to regard for the reasonable interest of users, with opportunities for freer exercise of their commercial judgment.
We are convinced that this would be to the advantage of the airlines themselves and, certainly, of their passengers. But if one lives in a community of 10 the position, unfortunately, is that one has to get the
462
agreement of one's fellow members to whatever action is proposed. This is where, ultimately, the difficulty lies. Our objectives are much the same as those of my noble friend Lord Bethel and of other noble Lords who have spoken. But our chosen route perhaps differs. We as a Government have a responsibility for our airlines as well as for our passengers, and this means that we may have to hasten more slowly than my noble friend would want.
The position of the airlines was touched upon by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, and their interests must be taken into account in these matters. This is, I must admit, a frustrating situation. It is perhaps even more frustrating for Government than it is for noble Lords who have spoken in this debate, because it is Government who are cast in the role of defending a situation which we ourselves would be only too anxious to see changed for the better. This is a field in which we need to make progress and I assure noble Lords on both sides of the House that we are directing our efforts to achieve just that.
House adjourned at twenty-four minutes past ten o'clock.