Lords Sitting of 31 January 1983

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Carlisle.

Land: Local Authority Registers
The Earl Alexander of Tunis: 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 acres of vacant land are currently listed in the registers of local authorities and how many acres have been sold since the registers were first established.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, at 1st January the registers contained details of sites of one acre or more amounting to 108,000 acres of unused and under-used land owned by public bodies. By the same date some 6,000 acres of registered land had been disposed of or brought into use.
Earl Alexander of Tunis: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his Answer. Can he say what proportion is now available for residential purposes?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords. it is estimated from a special study that about 16 per cent. of the land on the first 35 registered appeared to be suitable for housing development.
Lord Northfield: My Lords, can the noble Lord say for how many years this would suffice at the present rate of housebuilding? Is he aware that the national housebuilders feel that this is an overstatement, in a sense, of the amount of land that really would be helpful to them in getting a faster housing programme going?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, it is my understanding that housebuilding depends on demand. but I am sure that the noble Lord would have his own views on that subject. The housebuilding federation also conducted a study and found that 11 per cent. of the land on a sample of 63 registers was both suitable for housing and—and this is the differential—is available to private builders. There is no conflict there with my department's estimate. I am afraid I cannot say how long this land would last at the current rate of housebuilding. If I may. I shall take the opportunity to write to the noble Lord.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, can my noble friend say, or provide and estimate to the House, what percentage of the land has actually appeared on the register? No local government is perfect. Perhaps one could form an estimate that a half, or three-quarters, of all the publicly-owned land is on the register now, or
512
is it 100 per cent.? What is the percentage actually on the register?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I am afraid I do not have details on that. However, I would point out, as I pointed out when I was answering a similar Question on 24th January. that we are not entirely talking about local authorities. Although the counties and districts between them make up 61,000 acres—that is 64 per cent. of the total—nationalised industries and statutory undertakers have declared 24,000 acres: Government departments and other Crown bodies, 2,000: and other public bodies such as new towns, housing corporations and so on, a further 8.000 acres. Therefore. no one should run away with the idea that local authorities are entirely to blame in this matter.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, while the general view of local authorities is that this land will be needed for housing development over the next 10 years, can the noble Lord say what percentage of the land held by them is deemed to be suitable for industrial development?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the land falls, as I understand it, into three categories. I have already identified the 16 per cent. which is thought to be suitable for housebuilding. There is a small amount of agricultural land, and I would assume that the rest is suitable for factory sites and roads, car parks, or perhaps extensions to stations and such things.

Forestry Commission: Sale of Land
2.40 p.m.
Baroness Elliot of Harwood: 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 acres of forestry land the Forestry Commission have sold to the public since the Royal Assent was given to the Forestry Act 1981.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, between 27th July 1981 and 21st December 1982 the Forestry Commission sold 16,042 acres (which is 6,492 hectares) of forestry land and plantations. As at 21st December 1982 a further 95,600 acres (which is 38,700 hectates) of forestry land and plantations were in the process of being sold: that is, they were either on the market or had been approved for sale and reserve prices had been fixed.
Baroness Elliot of Harwood: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for that Answer. Are there further plans for selling land which belongs to the Forestry Commission but which is not yet planted at all?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the main intention is to sell forestry land which has plantations on it.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, could the noble Earl say what representations he or the Government have

513
received from Britain's farmers who are affected by these sales, and what representations, if any, there have been from those representing the Forestry Commission?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am not aware of any particular flood of representations from farmers. Certainly there have been queries from a number of individuals, but not necessarily from farmers.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, the noble Earl's reply to his noble friend Lady Elliot's supplementary was slightly unsatisfactory, to me at any rate. Could the noble Earl tell us how much plantable land has been sold—as I understand it, there has been plantable land sold—from the Forestry Commission's reserve? As he, I hope, knows, they were given a minimum target of 10,000 hectares. Does he feel that selling off plantable land will be in any way a danger to achieving that target?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I shall certainly find the figures which the noble Lord requested and send them to him and to my noble friend. I think there is no doubt that any sales of Forestry Commission land which take place are made in order adequately to reorganise the Forestry Commission's assets, and where land is sold it is only that which is not anticipated to be required for urgent use.
Lord Hale: My Lords, could the noble Earl say whether he has had representations on this matter from the organisation representing agricultural workers?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, again, I am not aware of any specific organisation having written complaining, if that is the inference of the noble Lord, Lord Hale. Periodically people write in about sales of specific parcels of land, but not in a general way.
Lord Wells-Pestell: My Lords, would the Minister be good enough to indicate the purpose for which this land will be used?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the land, which is Forestry Commission land on which forestry stands, is sold to private purchasers, who will continue to use it for private forestry. I should make the point, though, that if people who have purchased Forestry Commission land wish to fell it they must have a licence from the Forestry Commission, who also have power to direct them, and indeed to enforce their direction, to replant that land.
Lady Saltoun: My Lords, as the Minister said that no plantable land had yet been sold by the Forestry Commission, may I ask why that has been the case? Is it just because there has been no demand?
Earl Ferrers: The noble Lady understood me slightly incorrectly, my Lords. I said the main object of the selling of the land was to sell land which had trees on it, and I said I would find out and let the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, know—and the noble Lady, if she is interested—exactly how much of that land has trees on it and how much has not.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, would the Minister agree that the use of the word "public" in the Question tabled by his noble friend is rather inappropriate in the circumstances and that it might be better to term it "private exploitation"?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I do not know why the noble Lord directed that question to me. What the terms of my noble friend's Question are is a matter for my noble friend. Having said that, I would not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Bruce.
The Duke of Atholl: My Lords, when my noble friend sends the figures to the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, and the noble Lady, may I ask him to say also how much Forestry Commission land which has been sold, although not under trees, is capable of being planted, as opposed to that which is unplantable?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords. the Question to which I am asked to give a reply appears to be getting more and more convoluted. I think the best thing for me would be to write to the noble Lord as indicated and then, if my noble friend the Duke of Atholl wants further information, if he would table a Question for Written Answer I will give him all the information that I can.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, I made it perfectly clear—I hope the Minister appreciates the point—that I was referring to plantable land.

Gibraltar: Lisbon Talks
2.45 p.m.
Lord Merrivale: 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, bearing in mind the 1967 Gibraltar Referendum and the Gibraltar Constitution Order 1969, they will give an assurance that as a result of the proposed meeting next spring of the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary and the Spanish Foreign Minister (the agenda of which could include discussions on the future status and sovereignty of Gibraltar) there will be no Act of Parliament or arrangements under which the people of Gibraltar could pass under the sovereignty of another state "against their freely and democratically expressed wishes".
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Belstead): My Lords, the Government stand by the commitment contained in the preamble to the Gibraltar Constitution, and referred to in the Lisbon Agreement, to honour the freely and democratically expressed wishes of the people of Gibraltar.
Lord Merrivale: My Lords, while I thank my noble friend for that unequivocal assurance, may I ask him two questions? First, will Her Majesty's Government insist that the lifting of all restrictions on access to Gibraltar and the resumption of ferry services from

515
Algeciras and air services to Madrid are agreed upon en bloc and not piecemeal? Secondly, while hoping that the whole tone of the negotiations will be centred on practical co-operation for mutual benefit, may I ask whether Her Majesty's Government would consider playing the Ceuta and Melilla card should the discussions tend to concentrate on the reestablishment of the territorial integrity of Spain?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I entirely understand why my noble friend is concerned about all the various forms of communication to Gibraltar; my noble friend takes a close interest in that and I absolutely accept that it is a valid question. I would simply draw his attention to the fact that under the Lisbon Agreement, both Governments have agreed to start negotiations aimed at overcoming all the differences between them. As for Ceuta and Melilla, that is not a matter for Her Majesty's Government.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, if there is any question of the dockyards being opened, or perhaps partially reopened, may I ask whether any consideration would be given to the granting of work permits to Spanish citizens—because that was the essential bond between the two communities prior to 1969—and will that subject form part of the negotiations?
Lord Belstead: That matter may be discussed under the Lisbon Agreement, my Lords, but I cannot forecast exactly what will be raised.
Lord Stewart of Fulham: My Lords, is the Minister aware that there is anxiety in Gibraltar lest the possible closure of the dockyard may make it impossible for Gibraltar to maintain her identity, whatever legal safeguards are adopted?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, that is an apprehension which I do not think is borne out by the facts. The facts are that officials are now engaged in detailed discussions with the parties directly concerned for establishing a commercially managed dockyard in place of the naval dockyard, and I very much hope that those negotiations will meet with success.
Lord Saint Oswald: My Lords, do the Government consider that, in the light of the recently and frequently described efforts of Her Majesty's Government to reach accord with the Argentine over the Falkland Islands, including the possibility of condominium, leaseback or eventual cession of sovereignty, it is even more difficult than it was before for any Spanish Government further to restore the facilities which once existed on the Gibraltar frontier, without parallel possibilities being included for discussion in the intergovernmental talks promised by Her Majesty's Government and soon, I hope, to take place between our Government and the Spanish Goverment?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, let us concentrate simply upon the issue of Gibraltar. From the point of view of Her Majesty's Government, the Lisbon Agreement is a method of looking at the future generally of Gibraltar. Only a week ago I told your Lordship's House on behalf of Her Majesty's Government that there are matters that the Government will wish to
516
raise in the Lisbon talks. I consider that the people of Gibraltar believe that is a realistic way forward. Therefore I hope that my noble friend will accept from me that we are focusing upon Gibraltar, and not upon anything else.
Lord Beswick: My Lords, have we not really got beyond the point when we should be considering the problem as a question of sovereignty under this nation state or that nation state? Is there not any constructive thinking going on at all about the possibility of some form of United Nations trusteeship?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, in my original Answer to my noble friend Lord Merrivale, I repeated our commitment to respect the freely and democratically expressed wishes of the people of Gibraltar. It is written into the constitution. It is also written into the Lisbon Agreement. That is an agreement between the Governments of Spain and the United Kingdom; and it will be between those two Governments, together with the Government of Gibraltar (because they, too, will be present at the time) that the Lisbon talks will be held.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, when the discussions take place, will my noble friend invite the attention of Spanish Ministers to the fact that the continued obstruction of access to the territory of a friendly power would be quite inconsistent with membership of the European Commiunity?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, as I think my noble friend knows, Her Majesty's Government fully support Spain's application to join the European Community. but it is inconceivable that Spain should join the Community while restrictions remain on ordinary traffic between Spain and Gibraltar.
Lord Paget of Northampton: My Lords, so far as the dockyard is concerned, is there in Europe a single dockyard that can exist without heavy government subsidy—and who will provide the subsidy?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I have no idea what is the answer to that particular question, but what I do know is that we are making realistic, and I consider, sensible proposals, from the point of view of Her Majesty's Government, to see that commercialisation is a success, if—I repeat, if—the details of the matter can be worked out to the satisfaction of all concerned; and it is those talks that are going on at the present time.

Nuclear Weapons: Geneva Negotiations
2.53 p.m.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what progress has been made in the intermediate range nuclear weapons negotiations in Geneva.bution>
Lord Belstead: My Lords, there was limited progress in the first three rounds of the negotiations because the Soviet Union insisted on trying to justify its monopoly in intermediate range nuclear missiles and was unwilling to negotiate towards the complete elimination of this class of nuclear weapon, as proposed by NATO. A new round of negotiations began in Geneva on 27th January. The United States negotiator, Ambassador Nitze, has our full support in his efforts to continue to examine thoroughly the Soviet position, including the various proposals made since the last round by Mr. Andropov.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, would the noble Lord not agree that the Government might combat unilateralism more effectively by taking a more positive attitude to negotiations than that represented by the scandalous proposal to spend £1 million of taxpayers' money on advertising?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, so far as the first part of the noble Lord's supplementary question is concerned, the Americans are making the zero offer—meaning no land-based intermediate range missiles in Europe—in good faith, and that is the objective for the negotiations agreed within the alliance. With regard to the second part of the noble Lord's supplementary question, no final decision has been taken on whether to conduct a campaign of the kind reported in the press. The Government are considering ways of increasing public understanding of the issues involved in their nuclear disarmament and defence policies, and this is one of the possibilities being considered.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, will my noble friend consider publishing pictures of the SS20, 300 of which are currently deployed by the USSR against Western Europe? Is he aware that we have seen pictures of the cruise missiles, but we have not seen pictures of the Soviet equivalent? Since these have now been in existence for a number of years, and have been deployed up to the maximum extent, are not the public in this country, and in other free countries of the West, entitled to see some of the pictures which must undoubtedly exist in our intelligence files?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I shall certainly take seriously into account what my noble friend has suggested.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that many people are worried about the Government's proposal to undertake what would seem to be party political propaganda at the public expense? Is he also aware that the exclusion of British, French and other nuclear weapons from balance calculations gives rise to false comparisons between the East and the West?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I am not sure that what the noble Lord said at the beginning of his question presents a very fruitful way forward. The fact of the matter is that under the Government at the end of the 1960s the Administration ran a campaign to promote British NATO defence policies, including possession of nuclear weapons. The campaign involved full-page newspaper advertisements, which invited readers to
518
send for a booklet, and I think that very probably it was a sensible and prudent thing for the Government to have done at that particular time.
So far as the French and the British deterrents are concerned, this is a quesstion on which I have answered the noble Lord on many occasions. The fact of the matter is that the Andropov proposals, so far as this matter is concerned, would give the Russians a monopoly of intermediate range land-based nuclear missiles in Europe. That is something which, for the safety of all people in Western Europe, we really cannot allow.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, is not the most important point that real, practical progress should be made in the talks? In view of the fact that the Soviet refusal to make substantial progress on verification has been the stumbling block up until now, can the noble Lord say whether, on the Soviet side, there is any easement on that central issue?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I do not in any way want to be unhelpful to the noble Lord on what I of course agree with him is the key question, which has been the stumbling block for very many years, but I have not any news to give on this particular point because the negotiators met afresh only four days ago.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, is the Minister of State aware that the only two examples of press advertising from the late 1960s, to which he has referred, and to which the public's attention was directed when inquiring from the Ministry of Defence this morning, relate to straightforward accounts of Government defence policy—more of a recruiting nature than of anything else—which could not possibly have been objected to by any party in Parliament at the time; and that that is a very different situation from the use of Government funds on a matter—
Several noble Lords: Question! Question!
Lord Kennet: My Lords, will the Minister of State agree that that is different from the spending of Government money on presenting one side of an argument that is now a matter of acute party disagreement in Parliament?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I must make myself clear. I was not criticising the previous Government, in which of course the noble Lord was a Minister; indeed not. I think probably the previous Government were prudent. I say "probably" merely because I began to think about this point only a few hours ago. With regard to the question of the rightness of spending money in this way at the present time, if it is to be spent, the intention would be to create a better awareness of the issues and facts by publicising Government material about disarmament and deterrence.

Business
Lord Denham: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I announce that dinner will be available at the usual time this evening.

519
The Report stage of the National Heritage Bill will be adjourned at approximately 7 p.m. for a short period. During this adjournment, the Third Reading of the Juries (Amendment) Bill will be taken.

Mental Health Bill [H.L.]
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone): My Lords, I rise to move that this Bill be now read a second time. It is a pure consolidation Bill. It brings together the law relating to mentally disordered persons. The principal Act is the Mental Health Act 1959. Over the years numerous, if fairly minor, amendments have been made to that Act by subsequent legislation, and more recently the Mental Health (Amendment) Act 1982 made extensive textual amendments to the 1959 Act as well as introducing new provisions relating to the treatment and discharge of mental patients. This is accordingly a good moment to consolidate. If your Lordships agree to the Second Reading of this Bill, it will be referred in the usual way to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read a second time, and referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.

National Heritage Bill [H.L.]
3.2 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Energy (the Earl of Avon): My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now further considered on Report.
Moved, That the Bill be further considered on Report.—(The Earl of Avon.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Schedule 1: Part III [The Boards: Armouries]:
Baroness Birkmoved Amendment No. 40:
Page 25, leave out lines 4 and 5 and insert—
("(2) Subject to sub-paragraphs (3), (4) and (5), the trustees shall be appointed by the Secretary of State.")
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I think that it will make better sense if I also speak to Amendments Nos. 43 and 44. The object of these amendments is to enable the Prime Minister to appoint the chairman of the trustees. Noble Lords will remember that when we debated this matter in Committee, Members from all parts felt that the Armouries Museum, which is now being devolved and being made a trustee museum of its own, should be treated in the same way as the other devolved museums and therefore that the chairman and the trustees should be appointed by the Prime Minister. This is felt very keenly by the Master of the Armouries and by other people concerned.
Since the Armouries in the Tower of London is the oldest national museum in Britain, and the major part to its collection consists of the personal weapons and
520
arms of our sovereigns, it was felt that the appointment should be consistent with those of other museums and therefore should be appointed at the highest level. In Committee, the Minister in his reply pointed out that the reason why the Government were objecting to this was that the Armouries Museum was part of the Tower of London. and the fabric and upkeep of the Tower of London came under the Department of the Environment. With great respect, I do not think that this is relevant. The fabric of most of the other trustee museums—in fact all of them—comes under the Department of the Environment, as I know from the time when I was a Minister in that department.
Therefore, these amendments are to effect a compromise, leaving the appointment of the trustees generally to the Secretary of State, but providing that the chairman of the trustees should be appointed by the Prime Minister. This I think would give a fillip to the Armouries, the Master of the Armouries and the people concerned, and would also not make them feel, as they do at the moment. that they are being rather denigrated and made to be rather second-class museum citizens as they are in a different position from the others. I beg to move.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu: My Lords, in supporting this amendment may I say that it may be recalled that on Committee stage we had a Division about this amendment. As a compromise, the point that the noble Baroness, Lady Birk. has raised was suggested: that, even if the Secretary of State continues to appoint the trustees, perhaps the chairman should be appointed by the Prime Minister. It may seem that the Armouries are taking unnecessary umbrage and feeling that they are being put on a lower status. That is a matter of opinion. Nevertheless, they feel this and one has to take into consideration their feelings. Certainly in view of the fact that the Armouries have an important place in this Bill it appears rather strange that they are treated so differently. I hope that the appointment of the chairman by the Prime Minister can he accepted, even if the Secretary of State continues to appoint the other trustees.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, as the noble Baroness and my noble friend Lord Montagu have said, these amendments provide either that the Prime Minister shall appoint the chairman or that the Prime Minister shall appoint the first chairman but only appoint subsequent chairmen after consultation with the trustees. At Committee we discussed the question of prime ministerial involvement in appointments, and on a Division the Committee showed themselves in favour of leaving appointments at the Armouries in the hands of the Secretary of State for the Environment. Under both these amendments, the Secretary of State will appoint the majority of the trustees. I can see no good reason why he should not appoint the chairman. The Government continue to believe that the arrangements adopted in the Bill are the best.
Since the Committee stage I have pursued this subject with my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. The Government still feel that he is the appropriate person to appoint the chairman. I reiterate what I said in Committee: there

521
has been a close relationship between the department and the Armouries. This must inevitably continue as the Tower will be still managed by the Department of the Environment. I do not feel that the Armouries need a fillip. They have a great standing of their own. I do not believe that the standing of the Armouries should be in any way impinged by our discussions this afternoon. One might even say that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State might be getting rather worried about his own standing.
The Government wish to stress that our decision in no way affects the standing of the Armouries. We recognise their international repute. It is simply more convenient and more straightforward. If the noble Baroness is not prepared to withdraw her amendment, I shall be happy to abide by the wish of the House.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his very clear and concise explanation of this issue. With great respect, it is all very well for him to say that this does not mean that they are any lesser bodies; it does not mean this and that. The point is that this is the way the people concerned feel. Speaking personally, one can argue that it may not necessarily make all that difference whether it is the Secretary of State. This could apply to all the museums or just to the Armouries. It is unfortunate. It is a very narrow view that the Government are taking over this matter, because it really is nonsense. I have discussed this with a wide range of people who have a great deal of experience and a diversity of views on the whole question of the museums. To say that its tie-up with the Department of the Environment means that the chairman of the trustees cannot be appointed or should not be appointed by the Prime Minister is, quite frankly, nonsense. However, as we have voted already so far as the trustees are concerned, and as I imagine so many people who are not in the Chamber at the moment would come in and vote against the amendment, as they did before, I shall not take up the time of the House. I hope that in another place they will think that it makes more sense and shows more humanity and sensitivity if they take the line which the noble Lord and I have put forward. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 41 not moved.]
The Earl of Avonmoved Amendment No. 42:
Page 25, line 8, at end insert—
("(4A) In appointing any trustee, the Secretary of State shall have regard to the desirability of the person's having knowledge or experience of arms, armour, the Tower, 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, I spoke to this amendment last Thursday when I moved Amendment No. 4. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 43 to 47 not moved.]
The Earl of Avonmoved Amendment No. 48:
Page 25, line 22, leave out from first ("chairman") to end of line 23.
522
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment when I moved Amendment No. 7. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 49 and 50 not moved.]
The Earl of Avonmoved Amendment No. 51:
Page 26, line 27, at end insert—
("Proceedings
21A.—(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 three.
(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
21B. 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
21C.—(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 he 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.
Accounts
21D.—(1) The Board shall keep proper accounts and proper records in relation to them.
(2) The Board shall prepare a statement of accounts in respect of each financial year.
(3) The statement shall give a true and fair view of the state of the Board's affairs at the end of the financial year and of the Board's income and expenditure in the financial year.
(4) The statement shall comply with any directions given by the Secretary of State with the Treasury's consent as to the information to be contained in the statement, the manner in which the information is to be presented or the methods and principles according to which the statement is to be prepared.
(5) The Board shall send the statement to the Secretary of State at such time as he may direct.
(6) The Secretary of State shall, on or before 30th November in any year, send to the Comptroller and Auditor General the statement prepared by the Board under sub-paragraph (2) for the financial year last ended.
(7) The Comptroller and Auditor General shall examine, certify and report on the statement sent to him under sub-paragraph (6) and shall lay copies of it and of his report before each House of Parliament.
(8) In this paragraph "financial year" means the period commencing with the day of the Board's establishment and ending with 31st March following that day, and each successive period of 12 months.")
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.
[Amendments Nos. 52 to 55 not moved.]
Lord Beaumont of Whitleymoved Amendment No. 56:
Page 26, line 40, at end insert—
("( ) Each report shall include a statement of action taken by the Board to promote the use of the Armouries by disabled people.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords. I spoke to this on a previous amendment. I understand that this is one of the amendments which the Government have undertaken to make in some form or another. Since that is so, I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 57 and 58 not moved.]
The Earl of Avonmoved Amendment No. 59:
Page 27, leave out lines 1 to 4.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I spoke to this with Amendment No. 12. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 16 [The Board's general functions]:
3.11 p.m.
The Earl of Avonmoved Amendment No. 60:
Page 10, line 23, at end insert—
("(4A) For so long as the Board have a right to occupy premises in the Tower, and so far as otherwise practicable, they shall secure that an exhibition of arms, armour and associated objects from among their collection is maintained and open to the public in those premises.").
The noble Earl said: This amendment seeks to ensure that so far as possible the trustees of the Armouries maintain an exhibition, as they have traditionally done, within the Tower of London. Noble Lords will recall the discussion we had on this question at Committee stage. I said then that, unfortunately, we were unable to accept the amendment of my noble friend Lord Montagu which would have required the trustees to display a major part of that collection at the Tower because, without having an express right in the Bill to occupy premises at the Tower, the trustees would be given a duty which they had no power to fulfil.
I hope your Lordships will agree that we have found a way round this difficulty by giving them a duty to maintain an exhibition at the Tower for so long as they have a right to occupy premises there. If they have an agreement to use part of the Tower for their collection, as we fully intend they shall, then they must maintain an exhibition there. The amendment makes it clear that the exhibition must be open to the public. The amendment itself does not attempt to define the extent of the exhibition at the Tower, for that would seem to be unnecessary. I am sure that the Tower will remain the centre of the Armouries exhibition. I hope that noble Lords will agree that this is a good solution. I beg to move.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for moving this amendment. It certainly covers the points that I raised on Committee and will ensure that the connection between the Armouries and the Tower of London will last as it should last.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, may I welcome this amendment which covers broadly the ground that the noble Lord and myself were anxious to get established.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 21 [Establishment of Board of Trustees]:
Earl Ferrersmoved Amendment No. 61:
Page 13, line I at end insert (" . Kew")
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 61. It may be convenient to the House if I speak to Amendments Nos. 62, 65, 67, 71, 156, 157 and 163 at the same time. At the Committee stage, there was a certain amount of discussion as to the name which should be given to the Royal Botanic Gardens. The noble Lord. Lord Strabolgi, suggested that they should be called the "Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew". At that time I intimated, possibly a trifle injudiciously, that there was little point in adding the address in order to make it clear.
The noble Earl, Lord Perth. suggested that they should be named the "Royal Botanic Gardens of England". It was in order to differentiate them from Edinburgh that he suggested adding the words "of England". I did say that we would consider the arguments made in Committee and, having done so, I conclude that Lord Strabolgi's suggestion of "The Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew" is the best. I might add that I was very grateful to your Lordships for the advice given and, as your Lordships will see, the Government, as usual, took it. I would only add that I think it was Sir Winston Churchill who once said that periodically one has to make a meal of one's own words; and I think that he added, "And not an unwholesome diet, either".
The amendment that I am proposing is that the institution should be known as the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew. It is also necessary to include a small addition at the end of Clause 22 to ensure that there is no confusion about the powers of the board. These words make it clear that these powers go wider than just the location of Kew Gardens itself. If they were not added, it might be questionable whether the board had the power to continue its present activities at Wakehurst Place or any other location in the future. I am grateful for your Lordships' suggestions. I hope that your Lordships will approve the amendment that I move.
The Earl of Perth: My Lords, I am sure that I am also speaking for the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, although he is not here, in thanking the noble Earl. Lord Ferrers, for the amendment. I think that "Kew" is totally appropriate. If I did suggest, "of England", it was because I wanted to make sure that there was no muddle between England and Scotland which both have their botanic gardens. Ours is the Royal Botanic Gardens, Edinburgh; here it is the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew. I thank the noble Earl very much for making the necessary change.
Baroness David: My Lords, in the absence of my noble friend Lord Strabolgi may I say that I know that he is very pleased that this has happened, and I would say how grateful we are to the Minister.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 1: Part IV [Royal Botanic Gardens]:
Earl Ferrersmoved Amendment No. 62:
Page 27, line 8, after ("Gardens") insert (", Kew,").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this amendment goes with Amendment No. 61. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Ferrersmoved Amendment No. 63:
Page 27, line 31, at end insert—
("(2A) In appointing any trustee, the Minister shall have regard to the desirability of the person's having knowledge or experience of the science of plants or any related subject, 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, this amendment is consequential upon Amendment No. 1. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Ferrersmoved Amendment No. 64:
Page 27, line 42, leave out from first ("chairman") to end of line 43.
The noble Earl said: My Lord, this amendment is consequential upon Amendment No. 7. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Ferrersmoved Amendment No. 65:
Page 28, line 4, at end insert (", Kew,").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 61. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 66 not moved.]
Earl Ferrersmoved Amendment No. 67:
Page 28, line 22, after ("Gardens') insert (", Kew,").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is another consequential amendment following Amendment No. 61. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 68:
Page 29, line 5, at end insert—
("Proceedings
28A.—(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.
526
(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
28B. 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
28C.—(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.
Accounts
28D.—(1) The Board shall keep proper accounts and proper records in relation to them.
(2) The Board shall prepare a statement of accounts in respect of each financial year.
(3) The statement shall give a true and fair view of the state of the Board's affairs at the end of the financial year and of the Board's income and expenditure in the financial year.
(4) The statement shall comply with any directions given by the Secretary of State with the Treasury's consent as to the information to be contained in the statement, the manner in which the information is to he presented or the methods and principles according to which the statement is to be prepared.
(5) The Board shall send the statement to the Secretary of State at such time as he may direct.
(6) The Secretary of State shall, on or before 30th November in any year, send to the Comptroller and Auditor General the statement prepared by the Board under sub-paragraph (2) for the financial year last ended.
(7) The Comptroller and Auditor General shall examine, certify and report on the statement sent to him under subparagraph (6) and shall lay copies of it and of his report before each House of Parliament.
(8) In this paragraph "financial year" means the period commencing with the day of the Board's establishment and ending with 31st March following that day, and each successive period of 12 months.")
The noble Earl said: My Lords, both Amendments Nos. 68 and 70 are consequential upon Amendment No. 12. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Beaumont of Whitleymoved Amendment No. 69:
Page 29, line 17, at end insert—
("( ) Each report shall include a statement of action taken by the Board to promote the use of the Royal Botanic Gardens by disabled people.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is one of the amendments to which I have spoken previously and which I understand is accepted. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Ferrersmoved Amendment No. 70:
Page 29, leave out lines 25 to 30.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 68. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 22 [The Board's general functions]:
Earl Ferrersmoved Amendment No. 71:
Page 14, line 27, at end insert—
(" (10) The Board's name shall not be taken to confine their activities to Kew.").

527
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is consequential on Amendment No. 61. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 29 [Establishment of Commission]:
3.19 p.m.
Baroness Birkmoved Amendment No. 72:
Page 17, line 3, leave out ("Commission for Ancient Monuments and Historic Buildings") and insert ("Heritage Commission").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 73 because they are alternatives. Noble Lords will recall that we had a long and lively debate at Committee stage as to what this new Commission should he called. It was generally felt from all parts of the Committee that to call it the "the Commission for Ancient Monuments and Historic Buildings" and then try to gather together those initials, and then use them for everyday usage or for answering the telephone, would be an enormous mouthful and would probably be reduced to something else which was not perhaps as good as would be obtained by considering the matter in advance. One of the problems was that, on the whole, everybody rather disliked the idea of having to use the word "heritage" but could not come up with an alternative. We have all since been rushing about consulting Fowler and the OED and anything else we could lay our hands on, but we are still left with this word "heritage". It is having a rather bad time at the moment, because on the whole it is rather a good word which means very much what it says.
There were other problems associated with this, and one was that a title should not be chosen which would either conflict or cause confusion with the National Heritage Memorial Fund. I am very glad, incidentally, to see the noble Lord, Lord Charteris, is in his place this afternoon. When this was discussed informally he indicated that he personally did not feel that the Heritage Commission would have that effect. Since then I have thought further about this, and it seems to me there is probably a better case for calling it the Heritage Conservation Commission. The reason is that we are talking about conservation and preservation and we shall be coming on to the functions later on. Nevertheless, preservation and conservation are the main functions of this new body, it seems to me. The two words are very similar but I think that "preservation" rather has the connotation of keeping something in its original state—in a way, sometimes, almost pickling it—hut it would certainly apply to archaeology.
One talks of "preserving" a tree, while one would perhaps talk of "conserving" a forest. We talk about preserving wildlife and in the countryside conservation context we would often use the word "preservation" as an alternative to "conservation". The advantage of using the word "conservation" is, first, I think, that "ancient monuments and historic buildings" is not by any means fully descriptive of the scope that the new commission will have, because it also has to look after those parts of cities, towns and villages where listed buildings are found grouped together in conservation areas and where their repair can be grant-aided under town schemes or where conservation area grants can
528
be used. Also, of course, it deals with archaeological work. Conservation, unlike preservation, also indicates the use of buildings for purposes other than their original purposes. That is how we are able to save so many of our buildings; for example, by converting old and redundant churches for other use and also converting old warehouses and so on.
The Conservation Commission was my first thought, and then I realised that that would again open it wide to the countryside or to nature, whereas Heritage Conservation Commission seems to me to carry both sides of it—and, quite frankly, unless we keep this long and perhaps not very accurate name for the new commission the width of the work of the new commission is not indicated. Therefor, if we take out "heritage" we are left with something rather woolly. On the other hand, "heritage conservation" pins it down very much more to what this whole commission is about. It also removes it, I think, from any possible confusion with the National Heritage Memorial Fund. Personally, having considered both of those, I would plump for the second of them. However, I should like to hear what other speakers have to say. I beg to move.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: One can argue endlessly about a name. Your Lordships will remember that the great philosopher Bradley described metaphysics as finding bad reasons for what we believe instinctively. The noble Baroness, it seems to me, has given some very good reasons, but in the end it is a matter of impression. I am bound to say that "Heritage Conservation Commission" seems to me entirely felicitous.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu: My Lords, we had a discussion on this at Committee stage and I think it was generally agreed that the present title is rather long and clumsy. It is also generally agreed by many people, inside and outside your Lordships' House, that the word "heritage" is a very over-worked word at the moment. Nevertheless, the fact that nobody likes it at the moment does not mean that it will not become even more respectable as the years go on. Indeed, perhaps the commission will make it more respectable, apart from anything else; so I hope that some further thought will be given to this, because it is a great mouthful and it is going to he abbreviated anyway. I think we may as well try to encourage people to use an expression which is sensible.
Lord Charteris of Amisfield: My Lords, if I may say something as chairman of the National Heritage Memorial Fund, we do not want to be dogs in the manger about the word "heritage". However. although, as the noble Baroness said, I did on a previous informal occasion say that we did not really mind whether it was called the Heritage Commission or not, I think that, on consideration, I should like to take those words back. The disadvantage of using the word "heritage" is, first, that I think, whatever happens, it is liable to get the new commission muddled up with us. Secondly, "heritage", as we understand it, has so much wider a connotation than the various things which will be looked after by the new commission. That has been demonstrated by what we have been able to do during the two and a half years of our existence, when we have grant-aided not

529
only buildings but a various and wide selection of museum objects—pictures and things like the Kennet Ciborium. We have also grant-aided the last active "blanket mire" in Europe near Blar-nam-Froileag and other bits of delightful wilderness, to say nothing of the habitat of the Greater Horseshoe Bat. Therefore I think it would be much better if we did not use the word "heritage" in the title.
Baroness Airey of Abingdon: My Lords, I should like to support my noble friend Lord Charteris. If we use the word "heritage", there are already two organisations—one besides ours—and everyone knows the National Heritage Memorial Fund. Surely, if we had a third one using the word "heritage" there could be great confusion. I do agree with my noble friend that what we have grant-aided goes extremely wide. I should like to add to the things that he has mentioned, for instance, Wimpole Avenue, an aeroplane and the famous vehicle "Bluebird", which everyone knows about, and also the manuscript of Tennyson's In Memoriam. Our scope is very wide, and the suggested title could cause confusion with an organisation which is more specialised. Therefore I should like to join my noble friend Lord Charteris in opposing the use of the word "heritage".
Lord Mancroft: My Lords, may I ask your Lordships to remember the debate that we had when the word "ombudsman" first came before us? Everybody complained about it: it was an ugly word; nobody would know what it meant; and it was not even English. Despite all that, that is the word which everybody now uses and I doubt whether there is one Member in 10 of your Lordships' House who knows what the correct legal definition of "ombudsman" is. May we therefore decide that whatever we eventually call this new commission, however ugly it be, it must be something that the public are going to call it, and let us remember that "ombudsman", ugly though it is, is what the public now says.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, may I point out that "ombudsman" has three syllables whereas Conservation Heritage Commission has 10? This is, of course, the difference; and if anybody could find three syllables for this one how grateful the House would be.
Lord Cottlesloe: My Lords, may I point out, leaving aside any question of the Ombudsman, that, if this is simply called the Heritage Commission, it is concerned with only a part of the heritage, the preservation of ancient monuments and historic buildings in England. The word "heritage" has a much wider scope, and it would be better to define it as it is defined in the Bill as drafted.
Lord Sandford: My Lords, I support the amendment we are discussing and go for the shortest of the alternatives proposed, for two reasons. First, it is quite unthinkable that the title proposed in the Bill will last for more than a week or two. If one attempts to use it either in its full form or in its abbreviated form for more than a few minutes one can realise that. The second is to rebut the point being made about
530
"heritage" being too wide a term for things covered by the Bill. If that were so, the Bill would not be called the Heritage Bill. Nobody objects to that, and if nobody objects to the Bill being called the Heritage Bill why on earth should the commission not be called the Heritage Commission?
But on the substance of "heritage" being too wide a term, in the sense it is used in the Bill, is it really true to say that the historic buildings do not contain almost all the elements with which the other bodies deal? In this Bill we are concerned with land: we are concerned with pictures; we are concerned-with furniture; we are concerned with gardens. What aspect of the heritage does not come into the things with which the commission will have to deal? I strongly urge the House to support Amendment No. 72.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, when your Lordships discussed this question at the last stage my noble friend Lord Avon agreed to consider all the ideas and points put forward in that debate. The Government were open to suggestion, and continue to be so, about this important and rather difficult matter. If I may put in a "plug" for the team on the Bill so far. perhaps I might say that the difficult we manage to do at once, the impossible takes consultation. However, having considered everything that was said before and is now being said, I am still not convinced that any of the ideas that your Lordships have come up with is better than the title we have now. But I agree that it is by no means perfect. It is rather long and rather solemn—my noble friend Lord Montagu made that point—hut it has the most unusual virtue of being accurate.
My noble friend Lord Avon spoke before of the doubts about the word "heritage", and these have been exemplified by some of the contributions this afternoon. The noble Lord, Lord Charteris, and my noble friend Lady Airey do not like "heritage". The Government do not like "heritage" either, despite the point made by my noble friend Lord Sandford, who said: this is called the Heritage Bill, so why should not the commission be called the Heritage Commission? The answer is that the Bill falls basically into two parts; one concerns what one might call general heritage and the other is about the commission, which may or may not include heritage. The importance, as we see it, is that whatever the commission ends up being called it should have a title which is descriptive of what it is trying to achieve.
At the last stage my noble friend Lord Sandford invented a splendidly complex acronym for the title, using all its initials, but the Government feel that this could be shortened to CAMHB, standing for the Commission for Ancient Monuments and Historic Buildings. That would surely be known as "Cambie" in common parlance, which is a perfectly acceptable set of letters. At the moment, the Government believe that the title should be left as it is, and I hope that the noble Baroness and the noble Lord will not feel it necessary to press to a Division either this or the next amendment. I emphasise that this discussion is going on, and will go on, but I really cannot see, at the moment, a sensible outcome.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, it is interesting to hear the contributions from the House. I am grateful for the support from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, and the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, who I think hit the nail on the head in many of the points he made. I am not sure whether the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, was or was not supporting me. If, as he says, one gets used to a word, it seems to me that it is very much easier and simpler to get used to saying "Heritage Commission" rather than saying, "Commission for Ancient Monuments and Historic Buildings". It is not a question of a strange word but of a string of words.
I would have been inclined to leave it for the moment, but I do not think I am going to do that. The reason I am not going to do that is because everybody who has spoken, and those who have not spoken, have not come up with any alternative at all. They all agree that this is a very clumsy vehicle to use—"Ancient Monuments and Historic Buildings". They say that they are not keen on the word "heritage", but again this is something which explains exactly what the Bill is about. I have the feeling so far that, of the two, "Heritage Commission" seems to get rather more support than "Heritage Conservation Commission". For myself, I do not mind either of those two. I thought the name "Heritage Commission" in fact pinpointed it rather more. I feel I am not prepared to leave it to some thoughts coming up in the future, when so far nothing has arisen except saying, "We do not really like the Long Title but we will leave it as it is". I do not think that is the way to legislate.
Taking up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, I agree with him that it is also perfectly true that once one has chosen a title such as this, which is either one or two words—and, in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, "Heritage Commission" has fewer syllables than "Heritage Conservation Commission"—people quickly know what it means and what it is about. They know quite distinctly that this is quite different from the National Heritage Memorial Commission. It may well be that our pressing the amendment will also stimulate even more thought-buds in the lexical area of the Government's collective brain, and that they will then come forward with something else.
Thus, at this moment. I intend to press the amendment to see what is the feeling of the House. I hope that those who may not be entirely satisfied with the name "Heritage Commission" will support it even on the basis that it should be used as a catalyst to try to get the right wording. If, before we move to a Division, any noble Lord wants to speak out and show a preference for "Heritage Conservation Commission", I should be happy with either of those alternatives.
The Earl of Perth: My Lords, before there is any question of a Division, I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, that I was worried when I heard the noble Lord. Lord Charteris, say that he was worried that "heritage" could cause confusion with his own council. Would it not be sufficient if the Government said, "We are prepared, before Third Reading, to listen to any other good name and would be ready for someone to introduce it"? If we were to divide now on
532
the word "heritage", not being able to find a different name I, for one, would vote with the Government against the word "heritage" at this stage.
Baroness Birk: With the leave of the House, may I say that I omitted to ask the noble Lord, Lord Charteris, before he sat down, whether he felt the same objection applied to "Heritage Conservation Commission" as he felt applied to "Heritage Commission". I am sorry I overlooked that point.
Lord Charteris of Amisfield: My Lords, I think that my real objection is to the use of the word "Heritage". "Heritage Conservation" I find rather less objectionable than the other title.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, with the leave of the House, just to answer the noble Earl, Lord Perth, I hope I made it clear that the Government's mind is entirely open on this matter. Therefore, there is no pressing case for him to vote with the noble Baroness.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I think that the whole House has paid the greatest attention to what the noble Lord, Lord Charteris, has said. But he said in his first intervention that he did not want to be dog in the manger about it, which I suppose, to put it in strictly statutory terms. was not an overwhelming objection. I should like to add that, if we are going to effect any change, it should be a change towards the shorter form "Heritage Commission" rather than towards "Heritage Conservation Commission", which is almost as unsayable as the existing title, although it contains fewer words. So I would urge the House to go for "Heritage Commission" now. I think that within a very few months of its coming into operation the slight difference in the range covered by, on the one hand, the National Heritage Fund and, on the other hand, the Heritage Commission will become quite familiar to all those who are at all concerned with these matters.
Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal: My Lords, may I ask the Minister three questions?
The Earl of Avon: No, my Lords. This is Report.
Baroness Birk: He has not spoken, my Lords.
Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal: My Lords, I have not spoken before. Is it suggested that I have, and that I am therefore out of order?
The Earl of Avon: No, My noble friend cannot answer.
Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal: In that case, I will leave it.
3.42 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 72) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 75; Not-Contents, 79.

DIVISION NO.1

CONTENTS

Amherst, E.

Kilbracken, L.

Ampthill, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Amulree, L.

Leatherland, L.

Ardwick, L.

Listowel, E.

Aylestone, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Balogh, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Mancroft, L.

Beswick, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Birk, B.

Mayhew, L.

Bishopston, L.

Molloy, L.

Blyton, L.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

[Teller.]

Bruce of Donington, L.

Nicol, B.

Burton of Coventry, B.

Northfield, L.

Byers, L.

Oram, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Paget of Northampton, L.

Collison, L.

Peart, L.

David, B.

Phillips, B.

Derwent, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Diamond, L.

Rea, L.

Digby, L.

St. Davids, V.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

St. Just, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Sandford, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Spens, L.

George-Brown, L.

Stamp, L.

Gore-Booth, L.

Stedman, B.

Granville of Eye, L.

Stewart, of Alvechurch, B.

Gregson, L.

Stewart, of Fulham, L.

Grey, E.

Strabolgi, L.

Hale, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal,

Hampton, L.

L.

Hanworth, V.

Taylor of Mansfiled, L.

Hayter, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L. [Teller.]

Hylton-Foster, B.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Ilchester, E.

White, B.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Wigoder, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

Kennet, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Adeane, L.

Holderness, L.

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Kilmany, L.

Atholl, D.

Kinloss, Ly.

Auckland, L.

Lane-Fox, B.

Avon, E.

Lauderdale, E.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Long, V.

Bancroft, L.

Lovat, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Luke, L.

Belstead, L.

Lyell, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

McFadzean, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

MacLehose of Beoch, L.

Charteris of Amisfield, L.

Macpherson of Drumochter,

Clitheroe, L.

L.

Cockfield, L.

Margadale, L.

Cottlesloe, L.

Marley, L.

Croft, L.

Merrivale, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Mersey, V.

Daventry, V.

Mottistone, L.

Davidson, V.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Newall, L.

Dudley, B.

Northchurch, B.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Elton, L.

Onslow, E.

Faithfull, B.

Orkney, E.

Ferrers, E.

Pender, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Perth, E.

Gainford, L.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Geoffrey-Lloyd, L.

Portland, D.

Glasgow, E.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Romney, E.

Gridley, L.

Saint Oswald, L.

Hailsham of Saint

Saltoun, Ly.

Marylebone, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

534

Somers, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Strathspey, L.

Vickers, B.

Sudeley, L.

Vivian, L.

Swinton, E. [Teller.]

Wynford, L.

Thorneycroft, L.

Young, B.

Thurlow, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
[Amendment No. 73 not moved.]
Schedule 3 [The Commission]:
3.50 p.m.
Lord Strathcona and Mount Royalmoved Amendment No. 74:
Page 30, line 43, leave out ("not")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a repeat of an amendment which we discussed at the Committee stage. It deals with the very important issue of the tax régime under which the commission will operate. At the Committee stage we were somewhat surprised when the noble Earl said that the question of the tax régime was still under consideration. However, speaking for myself, I was also very gratified when the noble Earl said that he would be doing his best to secure Treasury agreement to some of the suggestions which were made on all sides of the Committee. The noble Earl promised to put down a number of amendments to support the undertakings which he had given. Unfortunately, those amendments have not been forthcoming. I thought, therefore, that we ought to run the amendment again.
Of course, one sympathises with the noble Earl the Minister in having to negotiate with the Treasury and try to tie it down. I hope he will be able to tell us how far he has got in that difficult and taxing—perhaps I should not use the word "taxing"—in that difficult and demanding task.
Before we hear what the noble Earl has to say, there are two points which I should like to make. I believe that it is very important not to create a kind of merry-go-round situation whereby the commission find themselves paying out taxes with one hand and then drawing them back in the form of grants-in-aid from the Treasury with the other. The only beneficiaries will be Treasury civil servants. This Government are devoted to the notion of reducing the number of civil servants, something which certainly I support wholeheartedly.
Secondly—I believe we said this once before, but it has to be said again—it is important to create a tax régime for the commission which is the equivalent of charitable status, so that anybody who wishes to give money to the commission will be satisfied that the Treasury is not going to get its hooks on any donations which are given. The commission therefore need to be in at least as good a situation as a charity would be.
Having made those two points, I had better hear what the Minister has to say. I beg to move.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for giving me this opportunity and for introducing his amendment in such a mild manner. Very seldom has such a short amendment been about to get such a large response.

535
When we discussed a similar amendment from my noble friend at the Committee stage I said that the Government were urgently considering the question of taxation. I am pleased to say that we have made considerable progress. It might be useful to the House if I outlined the tax régime which we should like to apply to the commission.
The Government's concern has been to create for the commission a tax régime appropriate to its status and to the nature of its responsibilities and operations. It is clear that, as several speakers said in Committee, it would be wholly inappropriate for the commission to be regarded for all taxation purposes as if it were a private sector company. On the other hand, the answer is not simply to exempt the commission from all taxes, duties and levies. Such tax exemptions would outstrip the merits of the case and would be far in excess of anything available to any other body, even the Crown.
The Government have carefully considered what form of exemption is most appropriate. The commission's primary aim will be the preservation of the national heritage, and its activities and purposes will be most closely parallel with those of a charity. Like a charity, it will attract significant private donations. Indeed, similar bodies, such as the National Trust, are charities and enjoy the tax benefits which charitable status brings. The Government recognise and have therefore decided in principle that the commission should he, for the purposes of taxation, treated in the same way as charities. I should stress that this does not mean that the commission will be a charity, but only that it will be treated in a similar fashion by the Inland Revenue.
As I explained in Committee, the situation with regard to charitable status is complex and there is some uncertainty as to whether the commission's full range of functions is wholly compatible with charitable status, particularly as regards the commission's quasi-governmental functions. The Government recognise, however, that these difficulties should not debar the commission from the most appropriate tax treatment. There is precedent for such arrangements. Similar provisions were made for the National Heritage Memorial Fund which, like the commission, is clearly on a par with charitable bodies but which has a closeness to Government which renders charitable status inappropriate.
I cannot at this stage give a detailed exposition of the mechanics of such arrangements, which will have to be tailored closely to the specifics of the commission's operations and finances. I am, however, aware of the justifiable interest of the House in these matters at this stage. and it might be useful if I set out the tax treatment of the National Heritage Memorial Fund which, as I have already said, sets a precedent for this type of arrangement.
The fund is, as are charities, exempt from income and corporation tax on income arising out of activities related to its main purposes: from capital gains tax, development land tax, national insurance surcharge: and from stamp duties on sales or transfers to the fund. Private donations by way of covenant—a point which my noble friend raised—are treated as if they were
536
covenants to a charity. The fund is also listed, by virtue of the Finance Act 1980, in the Finance Act 1975 as one of the national institutions to which beneficial capital transfer tax and capital gains tax arrangements apply. These exempt transfers to the fund from capital transfer tax and offer capital gains tax concessions to vendors to the fund. The National Heritage Memorial Fund does, of course, pay VAT, but this is no different from charities.
The Government have therefore in principle decided that the most appropriate course is to follow the National Heritage Memorial Fund example and to put the commission on a par with charities for the purposes of taxation. This would not require the commission to be a charity. The necessary legislation will be introduced in this year's Finance Bill.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu: My Lords, as one of the Members of your Lordships' House who raised this matter in Committee, I should like to thank the noble Earl for his most satisfactory statement. It is one which I warmly welcome. I am sure that the comparison which has been made with the National Heritage Memorial Fund is a very good one, because that is working so well. Another very good reason is that it is most important for the public to have confidence that the new commission is working for the national benefit as a whole and that no tax of any sort, which would simply go round in circles, will have to be paid. Therefore I warmly welcome the noble Earl's statement, and I am sure that the whole House will welcome it, too.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, while welcoming the charitable aspects of the statement which the Minister has outlined, which put the commission in line with the National Heritage Memorial Fund, I ought perhaps to point out that some other aspects have not been covered. These will cause considerable anxiety and will create hardship for the commission. I have not seen in print the Minister's statement, but I believe he said that so far as taxation otherwise is concerned the commission will be treated just like anybody else will be treated and that VAT and other aspects of taxation, except for the charitable dispositions, will not be affected. I shall not go into VAT on this occasion. Nevertheless, for many years many of us have felt very strongly about the imposition of VAT on the repair and restoration of historic buildings and monuments, because it makes it so costly and often impossible to conserve buildings before it is too late.
Here, there is an added problem. As I understand it. VAT is not paid when the Government own a building. What will happen when some of these buildings are transferred to the commission? Surely the commission should not be left in a worse financial position? In other words, either the commission should be exempted from VAT or have financial assistance in order to be able to pay the tax. Otherwise. how is the commission to be put in funds to pay VAT? Although the refund of any tax paid or monies included in advance for others to use in payment of tax may be made via grant in aid, we need a firm assurance that it will be met in full and is not something that the commission has to find out of its grant in aid generally.
It will be very easy for the commission's financial position to slip quite quickly. The grant in aid which

537
should be used for the real work of conservation, restoration and the running of buildings and monuments may in fact be going back to the Treasury by way of taxation, be it VAT or some other form of tax. This is a basic and very important point; one of the most important questions of resources that we shall be discussing during the passage of this Bill. We need a clear answer to this point, which is an addition and not one covered by the general statement the noble Earl the Minister made. It was only covered in so far as it appears to leave the situation as it is at the moment. It would be quite wrong and difficult for the commission to operate in that financial context, and the commission should not be forced to do so.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, as one who intervened at Committee stage in connection with this matter, I warmly welcome the comments made by the noble Earl and thank him for his long and helpful statement in respect of the tax position.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I too should like to thank the noble Earl for his statement, which seems to be entirely satisfactory. I have only one query. If this state of affairs is going to be enacted, as clearly it must be, I wonder whether the Finance Bill is preferable to this Bill for its enactment? I have in mind the urgency in any event of consolidation. I would have thought that consolidation would be simpler if it were put into this Bill rather than to be plucked out from a Finance Act.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, with the leave of the house, I will respond to a couple of points. First, I should like to thank the noble Lords who welcomed my statement. The noble Baroness, Lady Birk, concentrated her remarks mainly on VAT. I would like to underline again that the fund is exempt from income and corporation tax on income arising out of activities relating to its main purposes; from capital gains tax; from development land tax; from national insurance surcharge; and from stamp duties on sales or transfers to the fund.
The noble Baroness was mainly concerned about VAT. At present the department pays VAT anyway, and so there is no worsening of the situation. The idea is that the commission will continue to do so. If one looks at taking on an actual building, when one goes to the Treasury part of the cost when one discusses it with them will be VAT on whatever the item is; so the grant in aid will take that element into account in such cases. The noble Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, suggested that it would be better that this were put into this Bill rather than into the Finance Bill. I will take advice on this point. If it is possible to do so, we will try to do it in another place.
Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal: My Lords, may I just pick up on the very last point made by my noble friend Lord Avon. He mentioned another place, but we do have another stage in this Bill yet to come before this House. I had better start by thanking and congratulating my noble friend lest I forget to do so. I do not know what he was doing over Christmas but clearly
538
my noble friend has been very busy. He has done an effective bit of arm-twisting and has given us an extremely satisfactory statement. My noble friend rattled off so many taxes at such a rate that I am sure he will forgive us if most of us want to check Hansard to make sure that he has got them all in and has not left out any which we regard as highly significant; I feel it is very likely that he has not done so.
To revert to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, a slightly different point that worries me is that if this provision goes into a Finance Bill, might not this put us into a situation where the matter is not debatable in your Lordships' House? Having got this far with the amendment, and having made such satisfactory progress on achieving the right tax régime—which is not a simple matter—it will be a pity if there were any elements in it which were not considered perfectly satisfactory and yet we were precluded from discussing the amendments that would be required.
Despite what my noble friend said to me earlier this afternoon, I am perfectly sure that your Lordships will be prepared to give him leave to speak if he wishes to answer this point. My recollection is that this House is very indulgent towards Ministers speaking twice and sometimes even three times at Report stage. If my noble friend can react at all to the question of what could be done at Third Reading, I am sure that we will all be very pleased to hear from him, but I do assure him that there is no intention of pressing this amendment at this juncture.
The Earl of Perth: My Lords, before the noble Earl, Lord Avon, answers his noble friend, may I just check that I understood him aright when he spoke on the question of VAT. I believe that almost everybody in this House dislikes VAT, but there it is. The noble Earl said that in the event of the new commission seeking a grant from the Treasury for some purpose or other, the VAT could be included in the amount required for the grant. If the noble Earl will just reaffirm that, it would give me great comfort, even though I dislike VAT in many other respects.
Lord Hayter: My Lords, is it the intention of the Government to leave the phraseology exactly as it stands in this Bill, and to say that the commission will not be exempt from any duty or any tax when it is given all those concessions? That does not seem to me to make sense.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, if I may be permitted to respond a third time, your Lordships will see the danger of letting matters go on. In reply to my noble friend Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal, the advice I have is firm, and it is that tax amendments are appropriate to a Finance Bill and this is rather more a problem of getting it ready in time. If this device proves to be in any way faulty, I will see what we can do about bringing these forward more quickly. To the noble Earl, Lord Perth—yes, that is what I said. To the noble Lord, Lord Hayter, who asked whether the Bill should stand as it is now, we have only just completed our negotiations with both the Treasury and the Inland Revenue on this question and I am sure we shall be looking at the Bill to see what now needs to be done.
Lord Geoffrey-Lloyd: My Lords, I should like to join in the welcome given to the remarks made by my noble friend today, although I do so for a reason slightly different from the reasons which have been advanced by other noble Lords. Some of us are very anxious to see the new commission acting like an entrepreneurial charity. We had some doubts before as to whether the tax regime would be suitable for such a role. Therefore, I am very glad that my noble friend has set those doubts at rest, because I believe the arrangement will very much facilitate the enterprising yet charitable role that some of us so much hope to see in the commission.
However, it will be just as well to remind the Treasury and the Inland Revenue that, under the present proposals in the Bill, there is only just under £2 million-worth of revenue from the historical buildings and ancient monuments which is to be transferred, and something like £6 million-worth of revenue coming in from the Tower of London and Hampton Court, and so on, which is being withheld. So at the moment the Government are transferring only 25 per cent. of the income from the historic buildings and monuments. Many of us feel—and there are certainly reactions on the tax régime—that it does not look as if they are taking it really seriously. We should like to see a really important commission and one which would be able, as a result of entrepreneurial success, to do good works for other parts of the heritage; for example, what is so dear to the heart of the noble Baroness, Lady Airey, the preservation of some of the smaller manor houses of England which have not got the opportunity, for a variety of reasons, of being as entrepreneurial as the larger houses.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.12 p.m.
The Earl of Avonmoved Amendment No. 75:
Page 31, line 6, leave out ("13") and insert ("17")
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this amendment increases the maximum number of members of the commission from 13 to 17: the minimum remains at eight. This will give the Secretary of State additional flexibility and still allow him to achieve a balance between the need to represent a wide range of expertise and the need to keep the commission small enough to act as an efficient body. We did discuss this question at Committee stage. I beg to move.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, I welcome this amendment very much indeed. I cannot remember whether I moved the amendment but certainly I spoke strongly in favour of having a larger number of commissioners, particularly when they get to the point of setting up committees. I am pleased that the Government have taken this view.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Avonmoved Amendment No. 76:
Page 31, line 12. after ("namely.") insert ("history.")
The noble Earl said: My Lords, with the agreement of the House, I should like to address myself to Amendments Nos 76, 78 and 79. The question of the knowledge and experience of members of the commission is an important one. We all want to ensure that
540
the right people with the right spread of skills and expertise are appointed to the commission. The list contained in paragragh 3 of Schedule 3 is a guideline. It sets out the kinds of knowledge and experience we think are most relevant to the commission's work. I think it important to bear these points in mind when considering what it should include.
We had a good discussion at Committee stage, when several suggestions were put forward about how the list might be improved. We have considered them all very carefully and these amendments are the outcome of our deliberations. We were concerned that "history" might be a little wide, but upon reflection we think there would be some advantage in including it, as it would cover a range of specialist areas, including the history of architecture, and we think that that can be safely deleted. I indicated at Committee stage that we preferred "town and country planning" to "planning" on its own without qualification. A large element of legislation which is relevant to the commission is embodied in the Town and Country Planning Acts, and I am sure that we must reflect that rather than the wider concept of "planning", which includes aspects which are largely irrelevant to the commission. I hope the House will agree with these three amendments. I beg to move.
Baroness Birk: My Lords. I should like to support these amendments and welcome them very much, as I think they are a great improvement, particularly in including "history" and taking out "history of architecture", because we have left "architecture" in. I also welcome "town and country planning". I think this makes a more comprehensive and balanced list.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerranmoved Amendment No. 77:
Page 31, line 12, at end insert ("(prehistoric, Roman and mediaeval)")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is another amendment in order to assist the Government as to the view of archaeologists and to get a right spread of expertise particularly in relation to archaeology. The amendment I am suggesting is to insert after "archaeology" three branches—"prehistoric, Roman and mediaeval". I confess at once that I have no expertise whatever in this matter, but I am instructed by the professor of aerial photography at Cambridge, Professor St. Joseph, who also has the support, I understand, of the President of the British Academy in this matter. I am instructed that there has over the last seven to 10 years been a great explosion in archaeology as a result of the development of such matters as aerial photography. Buried sites of great interest have been discovered and I am told that they are the source of tremendous information and research in the knowledge of human history. They include villages, prehistoric settlements, new henges, foundations, mediaeval and early buildings, hill forts of the iron age, thousands of sites which are buried but very important. Therefore, when it comes to appointing the members of the commission, the plea is made from my friends in Cambridge—all of us belong to the fellowship of Selwyn College Cambridge, and that is how I come into the matter—that there should be

541
more than one person having knowledge of archaeology, that the membership should cover persons having knowledge of prehistoric, Roman and mediaeval architecture. The amendment that the noble Earl has introduced, including the word "history", was considered by the professor of aerial photography to see whether it would be suitable, but he still urges me to put it to the Government that the subject of archaeology is far wider than most people think, having regard to the great discoveries which have been made and are continuing to be made in this country. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I wonder whether it has occurred to the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, that the words he is suggesting should be inserted will in fact be interpreted—if it ever has to come before the courts, which I agree is unthinkable—as words of limitation. I do not suppose he really wants these words to be treated as words of limitation, but that, is what they are. For example, they would leave out Tudor architecture, seventeenth century architecture, with all the work of Inigo Jones and Wren, all the eighteenth century architecture, and so on. Of course this paragraph is completely unenforceable anyway, and, as I said in connection with Amendments Nos. 5 and 32 last week, therefore really not fit for legislation at all. But, if we are to have this, then I suggest we do not have words of limitation. The word "history" is not a word of limitation in the context. The word "architecture" is not a word of limitation, but, by the noble Lord's amendment, we shall be limiting the effect and meaning of the expression "architecture".
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I, like the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, can produce no expertise on this subject. The Government have from the start recognised that archaeology should be one of the subjects on this list of areas of knowledge and expertise, and it is fundamental to many of the commission's functions. However, I do not believe that we ought to go on from there and break it down into its component parts. In general, as Lord Renton said, appending lists of specified types would tend to narrow the definition rather than widen it. Although I cannot pretend to be a great expert, it seems to me that there is a great danger that we may exclude things that we want to include—for instance, if I may give an example, industrial archaeology.
Nor should we give the impression that there should be one specialist in prehistoric archaeology, one in Roman and one in mediaeval. The noble Lord said that they were worried that there would be only one specialist in archaeology. I assure him that that need in no way be so, and the general balance will be maintained throughout. I hope that, with what my noble friend Lord Renton said and the few words that I have been able to add, the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, will be reassured and will be able to reassure his friends that we have a conscious knowledge of the general field of archaeology, but prefer to leave this in general terms as we have it. The noble Baroness was generous enough to say earlier that she was happy to see "history of architecture" left out. We might have put in prehistoric history and all the other histories as well,
542
which I think would have muddled rather than clarified matters.
Lord Renton: My Lords, may I, with your Lordships' leave, make an apology? By the placing of the noble Lord's amendments they qualify not the word "archaeology" but the word "architecture". We should realise that.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl, and for the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Renton in this matter. I raised this question of field monuments in Committee, if your Lordships remember, because it was felt that it was a branch of archaeology which might be missed generally in the formulation of the Bill. I should have thanked the noble Earl earlier for his letter to me explaining fully that the Government have in mind, and the Bill envisages, full coverage for these important field monuments that have been discovered during the last seven to 10 years. In view of what has been said, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave withdrawn.
4.20 p.m.
The Earl of Avonmoved Amendment No. 78 and 79:
Page 31, line 13, leave out ("the history of architecture,").
line 14, after ("buildings,") insert ("town and country planning,").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I have already spoken to Amendments Nos. 78 and 79. With the leave of the House, perhaps I may move them together.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Sandfordmoved Amendment No. 80:
Page 31, line 14, at end insert ("and to the desirability of one or more of the foregoing also having knowledge of local government.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I hope it will not cause alarm if I remind your Lordships that this is the point to which my noble friend Lord Ridley said he would have to return savagely if our pleas about local government, which were made in Committee, prove not to have prevailed. I am afraid that seems to he the case. I must, therefore, go through the argument again.
Looking back over the Committee stage, at column 808, I have to say that my noble friend Lord Avon appeared to have misunderstood the point that my noble friend and I were making. We were certainly not suggesting that local government should be in a position to nominate a member of the commission. We are all agreed that that process is very undesirable. Nor were we even wanting someone on the commission whose sole qualification was a background in local government. What we were saying, and I hope that we are now making it even clearer in this amendment, is that an acquaintanceship with the process of local government should be available to the new commission through at least one member of it. I should have thought that was a modest enough request to make on behalf of all three local government associations representing the 450 units of local government, without whose practical involvement this commission would be virtually powerless to act.

543
The commission may very probably abound with experts such as archaeologists, historians and conservationists who have expert knowledge of those fields. We are arguing that among them there should be at least one person not so much with knowledge—although that is the word that I have used in the amendment—as with experience in the operations of local government. In seeking to meet us, if that is what he is doing, by including in Amendment No. 79 the term "town and country planning" I submit that my noble friend on the Front Bench has done precisely what we were being urged not to do by my noble friend Lord Renton: namely, to introduce a term which has a limiting effect. It is the experience of the operations of local government with preferably, but not necessarily, also some experience of being, say, chairman of the planning committee, which would be useful.
We are urging on the Government, I hope successfully, that there should be somewhere on the commission, among all those people on it who are individually selected for their expertise and knowledge in the fields quoted, someone with experience of local government. That is about the most modest request it is possible to make on behalf of local government. I beg to move.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, I support this amendment although I am well aware of the reasons that the Minister gave for opposing it previously and although I believe he does not oppose it on the basis of being anti-local government. The way that the amendment is worded—"also having knowledge of local government"—could well mean that one of the commissioners could be doubling, with experience of local government and some other expertise. It is important that the relationships between what is now the Department of the Environment, which is now handling all this work, and local government should be carried on into the commission. It is essential, particularly when the commission becomes a quango on its own, that there should be at least one commissioner with knowledge of local government. Frankly, I imagine it will end up with a number of people having such knowledge in exactly the same way as have members of the Historic Buildings Council for England.
I would go one stage further. It is extremely important that there should be at least one commissioner who is very well versed in the relationships and the workings of central Government. Dealing with Government in both its fields, local and central, is extremely important and requires a certain amount of experience and expertise. Therefore, I welcome the amendment because it does not limit the commission to having somebody who is in local government and has no other wider knowledge or expertise. It refers only to "having knowledge of local government". I have not put down an amendment. but I hope that the Government will think about this and also bear in mind, even if it is not possible to include it in the Bill, the need to have knowledge of the workings of central Government, the question of departments and also how the Treasury works. It is very important that these skills should be available on this quango because it will
544
no longer have a department and Ministers to fall back on, as it has had up to now.
The Marquess of Aberdeen and Temair: My Lords, may I raise a point of information with the noble Lord, Lord Sandford? I entirely agree with his amendment and with what the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, has said, but there seems to be an interchangeability between the phrases "knowledge of" and "experience in". The amendment refers to "knowledge of". I know a lot about local government. I have done for 50 years. for journalistic and practical reasons when I was on the staff of the CPRE before the war, and this has persisted ever since, but I have never had experience of working in local government. Which does the amendment mean? Does it wish to be more definite? I entirely agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Birk. If one of these persons with other qualifications has experience in, or knowledge of, local government up to the level I have, how is anyone to test that? I shall be satisfied if I can have a reply to that point.
Lord Sandford: My Lords, may I answer the point just made by the noble Marquess, Lord Aberdeen and Temair? I have only put in the words "knowledge of because that is a little broader in its effect. If one has "experience in", which is what I am concentrating on, that is limited to people who have been elected and served as councillors, whereas, as the noble Lord said, there are a number of people with a very wide knowledge of local government, through having cooperated with it and so on, who would come into a slightly broader scope, and I am trying to be as broad as I can.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I am well aware from discussions here in Committee, and elsewhere, of the desire of my noble friend to involve local authorities in the work of the commission, to establish good relations between them from the start and as a symbol of this to include "local government" in this list of qualities. Local authorities will, of course, continue to have an important and valuable role to play in the presentation of the heritage.
However, the Government continue to believe that this amendment is not the right way to achieve this co-operation. I can only say what I said before, that members of the commission should be appointed for their individual skills and knowledge and for the expertise they can bring to the work of the commission. The paragraph in Schedule 3 which this would amend does not prescribe that certain groups or institutions should be represented. There are many additional areas of knowledge or expertise which it would be useful for members to have, and the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, mentioned central Government, for one. But we have not sought, for instance, to include them because the question of the commission's relations with other interests is incidental to the carrying out of its main function, which is what we are really concerned about.
I can assure my noble friend that local government will, indeed, be a subject much in the mind of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State when appointments come to be made. I am sure that a number of those appointed will have substantial knowledge of government, not only local, but central.

545
During our debates on Thursday we heard the noble Lord, Lord Annan, describe the amusing incidents upon the arrival of my noble friend Lord Eccles as a chairman of one of those institutions, when his knowledge of central Government made a great deal of difference.The likelihood is that a number of members will have experience in government—some local, some central and some both—and I very much hope that, with the reassurances that I have been able to give my noble friend, he will feel able not to press his amendment.
Lord Sandford: My Lords, I wish that I could do so. The assurances—if one could rely on assurances—are more than adequate, but, as we often say to Ministers when discussing legislation, what really counts is what is on the face of the Bill. When my noble friend said at the beginning of his remarks that he thought there were better ways in which to secure, on the face of the Bill, the involvement of local government, I was hoping that he would then go on and say exactly where and how that should be done; but he did not do so.
Although I have other amendments later on in the Bill which would have the effect that I am seeking here, my noble friend has given me no assurances that he will accept any of those. That puts me in a difficult position because I think that the argument for having knowledge of, or experience in, local government represented in some way on this commission is absolutely clear, and neither he nor anybody else has sought to argue against it.
My belief is that if the Secretary of State must ensure that this is so—and that is all that my amendment requires—because the commission will find itself operating very largely with local authorities. It will have the management of some of its own ancient monuments in its own hands and need not co-operate with local government; and in the allocation of grants to the private owners of quite a lot of the historic buildings it will not necessarily involve local authorities; but in all the rest of its work, well over half of it and probably three-quarters of it—conservation areas, town schemes, listed building consents and so on—it will be operating with local government. To say that in the process of choosing one's archaeologists, architects, historians, conservationists and experts in finance, it is more than likely that somebody with experience of local government will turn up, does not seem to me to be a satisfactory way of meeting the point that I am making.
Therefore, in the absence of any other assurance that my noble friend will accept some subsequent amendment of mine dealing with local government, I do not think that I have any option but to press the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
4.35 p.m.
Lord Strathconaand Mount Royal moved Amendment No. 81:
Page 32, leave out lines 7 to 13 and insert—
("(6) Employment with the Commission shall be included among the kinds of employment to which a scheme under section 1 of the Superannuation Act 1972 can apply, and accorddingly in Schedule I to that Act (in which those kinds of
546
employment are listed) "Commission for Ancient Monuments and Historic Buildings for England" shall he inserted after "Tate Gallery".").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 81. The phraseology of this amendment is a little daunting, but what it does is to replace paragraph 4(6) of Schedule 3. It is part of an amendment which was discussed in Committee. At that time the Government were very helpful in explaining their intentions as regards pensions, but there are still one or two points which I think need a little further examination and clarification. For example, how is the commission going to he put in funds to make pension payments itself—if it sets up a scheme itself—or through some other scheme or some scheme analogous to that run by the Civil Service? Will it be by grant-in-aid? This would appear to be the case from what the noble Earl has said.
The noble Earl used some rather Delphic words in Committee. He said at column 817 of the Official Report for 16th December 1982:
"it is going to be an unfunded scheme and the costs, if there are any, as it were, will he taken out of grant-in-aid and will he taken account of".
I am not entirely clear what he meant by that, but perhaps he will be able to expand on the position slightly. Does it mean that the commission will have to find its pension money out of the grant-in-aid which is allocated for administration, which is what one would imagine would happen? If so, the commission, when it makes these payments, will have to account for them and will have to ask for an advance to cover them; because I hope it is not the intention that the commission will pay out the money and then have to seek to claw it back from the Treasury. This is a point that I have already made in a slightly different connection as far as tax is concerned.
It seems to me that there are going to be problems—for example, there will be arguments as to who is entitled to pensions. We do not want the commission to be put in the position where it has the responsibility without either the power or the funds to discharge that responsibility. The commission could find itself holding a baby, having paid out some pension money and then that payment being disallowed by its financial masters in the Treasury. That of course would detract from the amount of money that it had available to do the administrative work in connection with its other duties. Much the same argument applies to redundancy monies.
Therefore, we need a total assurance from the noble Earl that the full amounts needed for pensions will be handed over without argument and grant-in-aid. Frankly, I do not expect the noble Earl to be able to give us that type of undertaking. That makes one wonder whether it would not be more sensible to let the commission actually use the Civil Service scheme.
I should like to make one final point. It may sound premature to start talking about this when we have not yet even set it up, but what would happen if the commission had to be wound up? Obviously, the Government would honour the outstanding pension commitments. But again, would it not he simpler if this matter were subsumed into the Civil Service pension scheme? I would be grateful if we could get some guidance and some reassurance from the noble

547
Earl in simple but understandable terms, because I believe that some of the civil servants in some of the directorates which are going to be transferred, are a little apprehensive as to where they stand on this question. I beg to move.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, I should like to support the noble Lord. Lord Strathcona, in his amendment. As he rightly said, this matter was debated in Committee, although the amendment was in a slightly different form. I do not think that we are satisfied with the commission being left to carry out this task on its own. As the noble Lord pointed out, if by any chance the commission has to be wound up, it will go back to the Government anyhow. Therefore, it seems rather unnecesary to have started out on the other route. It is also very difficult to see how it will be prevented from encroaching on grant-in-aid unless we have the firmest possible assurance that the pension content in grant-in-aid payments will he 100 per cent. Once the Government get that far, I should have thought that it would be far better to leave the matter in the hands of the Government, as it is now. So far as I can discover, in recent years one quango which has had the same sort of problems was the Countryside Commission, and the Government have taken full responsibility for the pension scheme. With everything else being added to a very new body—and, as I said before, we are knitting the fabric of its existence as we go along—why add a pension scheme when, throughout their life, the Government have had experience of handling such schemes and could continue to handle this without the commission losing any independence?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, as I said in Committee, the Government see a distinction between the situation of the trustee museums and of the commission. For the trustee museums there is the close link with existing trustee museums which makes it appropriate that their staff continue in the Civil Service scheme. However, the commission, as an executive agency, will need freedom to operate in what it sees as a most efficient way. In particular, the commission will need flexibility in its staffing arrangements. Staying within the Principal Civil Service Pension Scheme we do not think provides that flexibility.
It is right that the commission itself should decide on its pension arrangements, subject to the express provision that the terms that the commission offers to staff transferring from the Civil Service should be not less favourable than those existing at the date of the offer. The Government intend to recommend to the new commission that it adopts a pension scheme analagous to but separate from the Civil Service scheme. By adopting a by-analogy scheme, the commission would get a ready-made, unfunded pension scheme incorporating all the important features of a Civil Service scheme, including index-linking, and one which will allow for the transfer of benefits from the Civil Service. Existing by-analogy pension schemes are not significantly more onerous to run in terms of staff effort than the PCSPS. Being unfunded, they operate on a pay-as-you-go basis and will he properly provided for as a separate heading within the commission's grant-in-aid. I think that that
548
satisfies the noble Baroness's main point, and also one of the points raised by my noble friend.
To pick up a point which my noble friend made in Committee, I do not think that it would be good managerial sense to have within the commission different pension arrangements for transferred staff and direct recruits. This would create two classes of citizens within the one organisation and would hardly make for harmonious relations.
To sum up, the Government believe that pension arrangements are a matter for decision by the commission, within the safeguards that we have laid down. The new body should be clearly separate from Government and should have flexibility in its staffs terms and conditions. Remember, we are looking some way to the future. To remain within the PCSPS does not meet these aims, and we believe that a by-analogy scheme would do so without reducing available benefits. I hope that what I said earlier will have satisfied my noble friend. After this debate, I shall read what he has said and see whether there are any other points on which I should write to him.
Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister. I think that this is a case where we are looking rather precisely at the language which is used. What my noble friend said was clearer and more unequivocal than what I thought he said at the Committee stage. But I agree with him; this is a case where we have to read exactly what has been said and reserve our right to come back at Third Reading, which I sincerely hope we shall not have to do.
He did not touch at all on the point about what could happen in the event of this commission being wound up, reorganised or subsumed into any other organisation. But I agree that it is rather premature to start thinking in those terms when we are actually discussing setting it up for the first time. Nevertheless, it is a point. Possibly my noble friend will have an opportunity to write to me on that particular subject so that everybody gets their reassurances on the record. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw this amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Speaker (The Earl of Listowel): My Lords, before I call Amendment No. 82, I should point out to the House that, if this amendment is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 83, 84 or 84A.
4.46 p.m.
Lord Sandfordhad given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 82:
Page 33, line 34, leave out sub-paragraph (1).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I do not think there is any danger of that, because I have no intention of pressing this amendment. But it links with my Amendment No. 100, and is concerned with the functions of the commission and the way in which they should be discharged. Your Lordships will remember that at the Committee stage there was much discussion about the extent to which those functions should be set out in Schedules 3 and 4, and the extent to which they should be on the face of the Bill, in Clauses 29 and 30. To a very large extent, the Government have met that point with their new

549
Clause 30, and my Amendment No. 100 adds to what the Government have already done. If Amendment No. 100 were carried, or assurances were given which had that effect, I submit that this sub-paragraph in the schedule would be otiose. It is only to point out that fact to the House as we go along that I have tabled this amendment. Unless my noble friend wishes to make any comment at this point, I propose not to move it.
[Amendment No. 82 not moved.]
Baroness Birkmoved Amendment No. 83:
Page 33, line 34, leave out ("may constitute") and insert ("shall constitute committees on Ancient Monuments and Historic Buildings and may constitute other")
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment is an alternative to the one that has just been "not moved" by the noble Lord, Lord Sandford. We discussed aspects of this amendment in Committee, but it is now in a rather different form. The intention is to ensure that the Ancient Monuments and Historic Buildings committees are set up, while others for other purposes may be set up. I think that a number of noble Lords agreed in Committee that this duty should be put on the commission, to set up committees. On the other hand, I think that one noble Lord felt that the commission should be left entirely free to decide what to do.
Whatever the final name of the commission turns out to be, there is to be a merger between the Ancient Monuments and Historic Buildings and, first, it is very important that that is expressed and shown with tremendous clarity. Secondly, it gives reassurance to both bodies, which at the moment are quite naturally rather uncertain and anxious about what the future holds for them—and I refer here to the Historic Buildings Council and the Ancient Monuments Board—that the committees are set up for them, while others for other purposes may be set up. This would make certain that there is a continuing input of expertise and vitality from outside the commission. It would reassure—and I beg the Minister to accept that this is so, and is of extreme importance—the present bodies that they will have a very important role to play and will not be broken up or disappear almost on entry into the commission. I do not think that the appointment of committees by statute is untrusting of the commission because, in doing it this way, one is carrying along the two bodies that are involved. The possibility of setting up other committees—for example, concerned with exhibitions, promotion publicity or education—is then still open to them.
I prefer this approach to the other one. It has a different nuance from what the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, was moving, although he withdrew the first of his amendments. His Amendment No. 100 reads:
"establish committees to advise them in the performance of their functions or to discharge such functions as may be delegated to them by the Commission with the approval of the Secretary of State.".
We were trying so far as possible to get away from the many "nanny strings" that seemed to be hampering the commission in the Bill as it originally was.
If the Government would accept this, it does not cut across the amendments which we shall discuss later on the functions of the new commission in Clause 30, but makes it clear from the beginning that these two initial bodies are there and have their rightful standing and
550
part to play and are not broken up or dissipated in any way. That is the only mandatory part of it, the other is "may constitute other committees". I beg to move.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu: My Lords, in supporting this amendment, I should like to say, as one who supports the concept of the new heritage or historic buildings commission, that there is a certain amount of apprehension among those two bodies—the Ancient Monuments Board and the Historic Buildings Council—which have done so much marvellous work over so many years. Not only that, there is the public confidence in them, and all the people who have benefited from their advice and help. It would be unthinkable for the new commission not to set up these committees, but nevertheless it would be excellent if this could be put in the Bill because it would give a tremendous amount of confidence to anybody that this new commission was going to work in the way that it wants to.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, to pick up my noble friend's last words, "to work in the way it wants to", we do not at the moment know how it would want to work. This is the basic position, we feel here. The question of whether the commission should be statutorily required to set up advisory committes rather than given discretion to do so was discussed extensively in Committee. This amendment seeks to provide a compromise, in that it would require the commission to set up at least two committees but would leave discretion on how many more it might set up.
The Government have considered this issue very carefully in the light of the points made in Committee. The conclusion remains that it should be for the commission to decide how best to arrange its affairs and that the power to establish advisory committees should be discretionary. As I said before in Committee, the responsibility for carrying out the functions of the commission will fall on its members, and it is they who must decide on the best way of fulfilling their duties. While I agree with my noble friend that there is every likelihood that they will form one committee on ancient monuments and another on historic buildings they might, however, decide that the main body itself should cover both these subjects, and to have two such committees would not work, or they might wish to break up the historic buildings into two different committees.
I do not believe that we should restrain them in this way. I can assure the noble Baroness and my noble friend that both bodies which have been mentioned will of course be looked to tremendously by the commission when they establish their way of work. Perhaps now that we have had a Division on the name and it still remains the Commission for Ancient Monuments and Historic Buildings, that should give them some real confidence in the fact that the Government intend that both of these two ancient associations should be represented on the new commission. We are coming to quite a lot of work on committees and it really will be for the House to decide whether they want to impose this kind of thing on the commission, or allow the commission to start with the freedom which the Government would prefer.
The Earl of Perth: My Lords, I feel, with the noble Earl. Lord Avon, that if we accepted these amendments we should he hampering what is in a sense a totally new body. It is true that it is going to have the functions of two other bodies. The subsection as it stands now says that the Secretary of State enjoins them to discharge their functions. It may well be that they would want to do the main work on either ancient monuments or on buildings in the main body and not have a second committee. I hope that on further thought those who have moved the amendment will go along with the noble Earl and see that what the Government propose is probably the best from every angle.
The Marquess of Aberdeen and Temair: My Lords, I entirely agree with both noble Earls, and speak from the point of view of somebody who may want the services of this body. I happen to be a trustee owner only of a ruinous castle in Scotland of some notoriety. It has not status at all. Under the present system I look down the list of different bodies and do not know which one is the right one to go to. Under this proposed new arrangement I would.
Do we really want sub-committees in order to get expert advice? If, rather than just chopping quickly, you let the existing bodies fade away slowly, you will find that they get perpetuated, and an outsider will be in just as much of a muddle as he is at present in knowing which one to turn to.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, maybe I did not explain it very well, or I have created some confusion about this. There was no intention that these committees should replace, or in any way take the place of either in work or in importance, the main commission. I was moving that the commission, which no doubt—at least I hope it will, otherwise it will not be able to keep up with the work—will be setting up a number of committees, should set up initially two committees to cover the work of the Ancient Monuments Board and the Historic Buildings Council. The work they would be doing would obviously come to them via the commission itself.
The noble Lord, Lord Montagu, also referred to the sort of anxiety and uncertainty that is felt at the moment. The people who are on the Ancient Monuments Board and the Historic Buildings Council at the moment, not all of whom may be able to be on the commission itself, and other people whose expertise would be of great value but who are not members of either at the moment, would he able to go on to one of these bodies to start with.
The noble Minister referred to the name. We have not got to the end of this Bill yet, and the commission may still end up with a different name. There are still a few up our sleeve. We have not even tried out "Heritage Conservation Commission". I was hoping that what happened this afternoon when the Government won by only a small majority would spur them into thinking that the indications are that there are a great many people who want them to find a different name. I do not think you should rest the case on what the final name of the commission is going to
552
be. I hope this will be taken into account, and i beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.59 p.m.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerranmoved Amendment No. 84.
Page 33. line 35, at end insert ("and including one such committee comprising inter alia one member nominated by each of the following bodies, namely the British Academy, the Royal Institute of British Architects, the Society of Antiquaries of London, the Trustees of the British Museum and the Royal Academy of Arts.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 84. The object of this amendment is to try to ensure that there is adequate scholarly advice available to the commission through at least one of its committees. The amendment suggests that one of the committees of the commission should include members from the following scholarly institutions which are set out in this amendment:
"the British Academy, the Royal Institute of British Architects, the Society of Antiquaries of London. the Trustees of the British Museum and the Royal Academy of Arts."
I have been supplied with extracts from letters that have passed between the noble Earl, Lord Avon, and, for example, the British Academy. I am instructed that at any rate the reply given on 6th January by the noble Earl, Lord Avon, makes it look as though the Government are positively desirous of reducing scholarly influence over the heritage, and I understand that there is strong feeling about this in academic circles.
While the amendment contains the word "nominated"—asking that there should be nominations from the various scholarly bodies mentioned—if the Minister would give an assurance that the committees to be set up to advise the commission as to its functions will contain scholarly advisers, that would satisfy me at this time. I beg to move.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, as the commission have discretion whether to set up advisory committees, the power to set up a committee with a particular membership is rather unnecessary and would, in any case. have no effect, as they would be able to decide not to set up such a committee. But even if the establishment of such a committee were intended to he mandatory, I do not think, as I said when replying to the previous amendment. that we are on the right course. A committee with the membership proposed would be more or less reconstituting the nominated members of the Ancient Monuments Board for England, and I believe that the only body with any standing which would be omitted would be the Royal Commission on Historical Monuments. That shows the dangers of trying to establish sub-committees of this nature.
However, I take the noble Lord's point and assure him that there is no desire in the Government's mind, as he expressed, to omit scholarly people, professors and others, from our adjudication. While, again, one cannot say who will form the commission, obviously there will be scholarly members on it. However, as we said in Committee on several occasions, the membership of the advisory committees will come particularly from the scholarly group of people, and I happily give the noble Lord that assurance again.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for his comments, although I feel that at the beginning of his reply he was speaking to a different amendment, and certainly not to the one currently before the House. An amendment was put forward at an earlier stage—or at any rate suggested in correspondence—that there should be an advisory executive committee composed solely of people with academic qualifications and experience. I think the noble Lord, in the first part of his reply, was answering that type of amendment.
That is certainly not the proposal I have made in this amendment. I am only suggesting that one of the committees should include the persons from the five or six organisations mentioned—not that they should be the whole of the committee, nor that we should set up a separate committee—and I do not know whether, in those circumstances, the noble Earl wishes to add to what he said to clarify the position, because, as I say, the first part of his speech was directed to an amendment which is not before the House.
As regards the latter part of the noble Earl's speech, however—I shall read it again in Hansard—I understood him to give a number of assurances that the scholarly interests in these matters will certainly not be overlooked. In the light of those assurances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment, though I reserve the right to raise the matter at another stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Birkmoved Amendment No. 84A:
Page 33, line 35, at end insert ("and may dissolve or reconstitute them.").
The noble Baroness said: This and the following two amendments I can deal with quickly because they really follow the line taken elsewhere in the Bill in that at different stages references have been made to various boards of the museums running their own institutions and several insertions of committees have been made in those respects. However, it seemed to us that what was good for those institutions would not be entirely appropriate for the commission. These amendments are in the nature of probing ones to discover the Government's thinking on the various points. The commission may wish to constitute committees, and we are all agreed on that. If the board of the V and A needs a power to disolve committees that are set up, will not the commission need such a power also? If it must have a particular committee, perhaps it needs a power to reconstitute that committee.
Amendment No. 84B requires that two of the members at least of each committee that is set up shall be commissioners, with more such members on larger committees. It also requires that the chairman shall be a commissioner. This, again, is taken from the boards of trustees, although I appreciate that we are speaking about something that is different; this is more a board of management. Nevertheless, it may not do any harm to inject some of the good points from other areas into the commission.
Amendment No. 84C relates to the delegation of functions and makes it clear that the commission may delegate a function in whole or in part and under whatever limitations the commission may lay down. Since large sums of money may be involved, it is
554
suggested that the Secretary of State should approve any such delegation of functions. If the Secretary of State is happy to leave it to the commission, so shall I be, but when it comes to this sort of delegation, that may not be the case. I look forward to receiving the Government's response to these probing amendments.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, while I recognise that there are well-established organisations—and, as the noble Baroness says, we are trying to establish others—which operate on the basis of delegating functions to committees, we do not believe the concept is always appropriate. We think it would be inappropriate here. There are two vital requirements for the commission, without which it will not be a success; it must have strong and sound management and it must have access to the right range of expert advice. In the Government's view, those two essential requirements are met by the Bill as it stands; strong management and access to specialist advice.
The extent of the committees' advisory role—this is the difference between the committees here and those we are setting up elsewhere in the Bill—is that the advisory committees fall short of actually delegating functions. It is entirely up to the commission, and I am sure the House will recognise that this covers a wide range of possibilities. One example worth citing is the Historic Buildings Council for England, which is itself only an advisory body. The proposal to require a minimum number of commissioners on each committee would be a very sensible precaution if the functions were to be delegated, but it is unnecessary for purely advisory committees. The difference between the museums about which we have been talking and these bodies is that their committees will have statutory roles whereas these will be advisories.
On the question of dissolving and reconstituting committees, I am advised that the provision to set up committees automatically confers such powers, and therefore that amendment is unnecessary. Perhaps the noble Baroness will interpret from what I have been saying that, as we are going along with the role of advisory committees, her amendment is not necessary. It is really, as it were, a question whether the House would wish to change the present basis and go on to a more statutory one, and that point will arise on Amendment No. 100 standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Sandford.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that explanation. As I said, it was in the nature of a probing amendment, and I will read his reply in Hansard to ensure I have fully understood it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 84B and 84C not moved.]
Lord Gladwynmoved Amendment No. 85:
Page 35, line 11, at end insert—
("( ) Each report shall include a statement of action taken by the Commission on the exercise of its functions in relation to disabled members of the public.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is another of the amendments dealing with the disabled which the Government have accepted. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 30 [The Commission's functions]:
5.10 p.m.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerranhad given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 86:
Page 17, line 10, at end insert ("and opportunities for research in relation thereto").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in referring to Amendment No. 86, I should, with the leave of your Lordships, also like briefly to mention Amendments Nos. 87, 88 and 89. The object of this group of amendments was to include in the functions of the commission, as set out in the Bill before us, a provision that there should be opportunities for research. The noble Earl, Lord Avon, will soon be moving Amendment No. 91, with the object of leaving out Clause 30 and inserting a new clause in order to set out the commission's functions more fully. The word "research" is clearly indicated in the new clause, and so I do not propose to move my present amendment.
[Amendment No. 86 not moved.]
[Amendments Nos. 87 to 89 not moved.]
Lord Montagu of Beaulieumoved Amendment No. 90:
Page 17, line 22, at end insert—
("(5A) So far as practicable the Commission shall promote—

(a) the recruitment and training of craftsmen in the use of
traditional materials for conservation purposes, and

(b) the quarrying or manufacture of such materials when in short supply to ensure their availability,

for the Commission's own purposes and for the conservation purposes of others.").
The noble Lord said: We had some debate on this subject during the Committee stage, when I believe the discussion turned more on the recruitment and training of craftsmen. It probably concentrated too much on that and on training in connection with the commission's own work. I am sure that the House would agree that the skills, as well as the materials, that are required in order to carry out conservation should also be available outside the commission. The work of conservation would suffer if such things were lacking. The noble Earl may well tell me that such activities are possible under the Bill, in which case the amendment is not needed. A statement from the Government would be helpful in terms of future guidance.
I want an assurance that, if it thinks right. the commission can become involved in the promotion of recruitment and training and in the provision of scarce conservation materials, funding such activities from grant-in-aid, if necessary. If that is possible under the Bill, I should be very happy to withdraw the amendment. But, if it is not, perhaps the Government will accept the principle of the amendment at this stage, since I believe it very important that recruitment and training and provision of scarce materials form a most important function of the commission in relation both to its own works and the works of other bodies. I beg to move.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, the amendment is designed to encourage and, so far as is practicable, ensure the recruitment and training of skilled conser-
556
vation craftsmen and the provision of traditional materials for conservation purposes. The Government agree with my noble friend that those are admirable aims. These activities will of course be a natural part of the commission's remit. It will employ a considerable number of staff, including craftsmen. It will give them such training as it thinks appropriate, and there is no reason why, within the limits of its resources, it should not train craftsmen for others, such as local authorities, who have conservation functions. Similarly, the commission will be concerned to ensure that it and others have adequate supplies of the materials that they will need for the maintenance and repair of the buildings in their care.
These activities are, and we think should be, secondary to the commission's main purpose and duty to preserve the built heritage. We have slight worries about the possibility of the commission being established to run a school, a quarry, or a manufacturing company, and we do not think that that would be quite appropriate. The commission has the powers to do the things mentioned, so far as it wishes, in the exercise of its functions, and to advise others where that would be helpful.
If I may comment more directly on my noble friend's remarks, I would say that what is proposed in paragraph (a) is covered in the Bill; I can give him that assurance. With regard to paragraph (b), when we fully apply that proposal to quarrying or manufacturing for the conservation purposes of others, we think that it might be going a little far. I hope that with the reassurance that I have given my noble friend on what can be done, he will feel content.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl, and I am now certainly much more satisfied. Having received those assurances, which will certainly make good reading in Hansard, I shall be happy to beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 91:
Leave out Clause 30, and insert the following new clause:
("The Commission's functions.
30.—(1) It shall be the duty of the Commission (so far as practicable)—

(a) to secure the preservation of ancient monuments and historic buildings situated in England, and

(b) to promote the public's enjoyment of. and advance their knowledge of, ancient monuments and historic buildings situated in England and their preservation.

in exercising the functions conferred on them by virtue of subsections (2) to (4); but in the event of a conflict between those functions and that duty those functions shall pevail.
(2) The Commission—

(a) shall (so far as practicable) provide education, instruction and information to the public in relation to ancient monuments and historic buildings, with particular reference to those in England;

(b) may give advice to any person in relation to ancient monuments and historic buildings situated in England. whether or not they have been consulted;

(c) may, for the purpose of exercising their functions, carry out, or defray or contribute towards the cost of, research in relation to ancient monuments and historic buildings situated in England.

(3) Schedule 4 shall have effect to amend the enactments there mentioned—

(a) for the purpose of conferring functions on the Commission in relation to England (including functions of making grants in relation to historic buildings and conservation areas.

557
acquiring historic buildings, acquiring or becoming guardian of ancient monuments, providing information and other services to the public in connection with affording them access to ancient monuments, and undertaking archaeological investigation and publishing the results), and

(b) for connected purposes (which include allowing the Secretary of State to approve lists of historic buildings compiled by the Commission, and imposing requirements for him to consult with the Commission before he includes a monument in the schedule of monuments or grants scheduled monument consent or designates an area of archaeological importance).

(4) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (2)(b), the Commission may advise the Secretary of State with regard to the exercise of functions exercisable by him in relation to England under the Historic Buildings and Ancient Monuments Act 1953 and the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979, whether or not they have been consulted.
(5) For the purpose of execising their functions the Commission may, subject to the provisions of this and any other Act—

(a) enter into contracts and other agreements;

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

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

(d) do such other things as the Commission think necessary or expedient.

(6) The Commission may make such charges as they may from time to time determine in respect of anything provided under subsection (2)(a) or given under subsection (2)(b) to any person other than a Minister of the Crown.
(7) With the consent of the Secretary of State, the Commission may borrow temporarily by way of overdraft such sums as they may require for meeting their obligations and discharging their functions.
(8) In subsections (1) and (2) "ancient monument" means any structure, work, site, garden or area which in the Commission's opinion is of historic, architectural or archaeological interest and "historic building" means any building which in their opinion is of historic or architectural interest.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in Committee we had a considerable amount of very good discussion about the general purposes and functions of the commission. Many speakers thought that the existing statement of the purposes of the commission as contained in Clause 30 was inadequate, and amendments to improve the wording were moved by, among others, my noble friends Lord Sandford and Lord Montagu of Beaulieu. Another amendment, from the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, sought a clear statement of the functions of the commission in a main clause in order to help in the understanding of Schedule 4. I undertook to take away all those various points and to come back with further proposals. The present amendment is the result.
As I indicated in Committee, the drafting of this provision has not been easy. It has been necessary to look carefully at the interplay between these general provisions and the other specific functions that the commission will have and which are to be found in Schedule 4. However, we think that the amendment avoids the various pitfalls, while providing the kind of provision for which your Lordships were looking.
I wish briefly to describe the new clause. Subsection (1) lays on the commission a general duty, so far as is practicable, of securing the preservation of ancient monuments and historic buildings in England, defined widely by subsection (8), and promoting the public's enjoyment of these sites. This duty accurately reflects the Government's concept of the role of the new commission. To avoid duplication of statute, it is
558
specifically laid down that in any conflict between specific functions and the general duty, the specific function shall prevail.
Subsection (2) provides for three standing functions. The first is to provide education, instruction and information. The second is to provide a generalised advisory function: that I foreshadowed in Committee. The advisory function is also contained in subsection (4), which reflects the existing advisory roles of the Ancient Monuments Board and the Historic Buildings Council. The third function is that of research, which we agreed must be provided, and to which the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, has already referred.
Subsection (3) refers to Schedule 4, but also provides a list of the most important functions contained in the schedule, which we believe helps comprehension and makes the new Clause 30 a full statement of the commission's overall role.
The remaining subsections (5) to (7), which so far I have not mentioned, are broadly as already contained in the existing Clause 30. However, there is one important new provision; namely, subsection (5)(d), which enables the commission to do such things as it thinks necessary or expedient for the purpose of exercising its functions. We see this provision as giving statutory authority for a range of matters, such as receiving voluntary contributions (which is therefore no longer specifically included), using voluntary services, managing museum displays at ancient monument sites, or training craftsmen. They are all points that were raised in Committee. I hope that the House will agree with my own view that the amendment goes a long way towards improving the Bill in the way desired by your Lordships. I beg to move.
The Deputy Speaker (The Earl of Listowel): My Lords, before I call Amendment No. 91A as an amendment to No. 91, I should point out to the House that if Amendment No. 91A is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 92 to 95A.
Baroness Birk Baroness Birk moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 91, Amendment No. 91A:
Leave out subsection (1) and insert—
("(1) It shall be the—

(a) primary duty of the Commission to secure, as far as practicable, the preservation and conservation of ancient monuments, historic buildings and archaeological and conservation areas situated in England; and

(b) secondary duty of the Commission to advance the public's understanding of such monuments, buildings and areas and to promote the public's enjoyment of them.")

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this is an amendment to the amendment just moved by the Minister. First, I should like to say that what is contained in the Minister's amendment will be a tremendous improvement to the Bill. Previously there was only a very sparse description—if one may clothe the situation in such grandoise terms—of the new commission, its duties, functions, and establishment. Everything else was in the rather despised, incomprehensible, and generally denigrated Schedule 4. Now we have a far clearer exposition of what this part of the Bill is about—and here I would repeat what I have said on other occasions: it is really a separate Bill on its own, when compared with the first part of the Bill. They are two Bills merged together.
It is now becoming clear that the commission has duties, and some hints are given as to its functions. But there are points on which there should be greater clarity, as well as a difference of emphasis, and that is what I have tried to achieve in my amendment. Subsection (4) of the Government's version of the new clause mentions only two of the Acts that include conservation legislation, and does not refer to the Town and Plan Country Planning Act, which contains all that we need to know about listed building control and so on; and there is no reference to the 1972 and 1974 Acts. Whether this is being saved for the consolidation that we have been promised, I do not know. Perhaps the Minister will let us know when he replies.
It is regrettable that there is no reference to designed landscapes but we are coming to other amendments on that later. There is basically a difference of emphasis, to which I shall come in a moment; but a final question that I want to raise on the Government's amendment—and perhaps it was an unintentional omission—is this. There was a Committee stage amendment on the commission being the Government's capital transfer tax adviser and, as I understood it, the Minister accepted this in principle. There is no amendment down on this subject and it is not included so far. I wonder whether he could comment on that when he replies or can let us know why it has been omitted, or whether there has been any change of heart.
The difference between the amendment that I am moving and the Government's amendment—and let me say right away that my amendment only applies to subsections (1)(a) and (1)(b)—is this. First of all, it makes it clear that the primary duty of the commission is preservation and conservation. The Government's amendment uses the word, "preservation" but not "conservation"; although parts of the Bill use the word "conservation". I believe the word "conservation" is still in the schedule, and now there is the word "preservation". I will not go over the various semantics which I discussed when moving the change of Title to the Bill. I would imagine that it would be generally agreed that we need both words. "preservation" and "conservation". I think this is very much welcomed by the present Ancient Monuments Board and the Historic Buildings Council.
It also stresses that this is the primary duty of the commission. In no way is this a denigration of the secondary duty,
"to advance the public's understanding of such monuments … and to promote the public's enjoyment of them".
But there is no point about in talking about exhibiting, promoting or exposing monuments and historic buildings to the public unless they are in as satisfactory a state as they can be. Therefore, it is essential that they should be both preserved and conserved, whichever term is apposite to the particular building or archaeological site; and, then, the duty is,
"to advance the public's understanding of such monuments".
I am encouraged in this by the fact in the earlier debate on the name there was general support—although your Lordships may not have liked the semantics of putting it in the name—for the stress on conservation and the necessity of bringing that primarily forward. In addition, in the amendment I am moving, the words
560
used bring in archaeological areas and conservation areas—expressions which nobody in the conservation world would be happy to find missing in this particular principal subsection.
I would stress that these, I think, are of such importance that merely relegating them to a schedule and referring to them there is insufficient. In the Government amendment there are some references to ancient monuments meaning sites rather than areas and so on. I find them a little obscure; nevertheless, they do not bring in conservation areas in subsection (8). Finally, this amendment leaves out the Government's reference to functions overriding duties where they conflict. I must confess that I am not very clear on what the Government mean by that, My own interpretation is rather that, if it means anything at all it should he the other way round; that the duties should override the functions. But perhaps that is because that is not clear.
I should have thought that this amendment is something that the Government could accept. It is clear; it reflects what are the duties of the present bodies which are being merged in this commission; it sets out quite clearly the archaeological and historic building responsibilities, and deals with the commission's purpose and work in getting the public to understand and in education. I hope that the Government will find it possible to accept the amendment, which I think adds to the clarity and adds also to the substance of the functions and duties of the commission as explained in the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down can she assist the House by saying what—
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I hesitate to cross swords with my noble friend on a point of this nature, but I think that perhaps the Question should be put before we discuss it.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I am not discussing it.
The Deputy Speaker: Amendment proposed: Leave out subsection (1) and insert the words as printed.
Lord Renton: My Lords, now I cannot put the question. If I am correctly advised which, with deep respect, I doubt, I now ask the noble Baroness before she sits down—well knowing that she has sat down—if she can explain to us the difference between "conservation" and "preservation", because I am ignorant about it.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, with the leave of the House. I may say that I wanted to avoid this. I thought I had gone into that in great detail when discussing the name. It is very difficult from the lexical point of view. There is not very much difference; but the words have altered over the centuries. The word "preserve" on the whole has come to be used for archaeological remains and to keep things as they are. It also implies, to me and to many people that I discussed this with, a sort of first-aid, immediate action to be taken; whereas "conserve" has a wider context. It involves—and this I think is important—using the same building but restoring it and using it for another purpose. I do not think that "preserve" would cover that. "Preserve"

561
would mean that you kept it the same, and if you use "preserve" in that sense I think you would be wrong because you had, it could be said, altered the nature of the thing. In order to cover it all, it did seem to me important to have both those words in.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I rise only to say that I am most grateful to the noble Baroness.
Baroness Airey of Abingdon: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, is it in order for me to ask a further question about historic buildings? Where cottages of great importance are attached to an historic building so that they form an historic whole, is that "preserving" the whole of an historic situation, an historic place? Would that be "preserving" or "conserving"?
Baroness Birk: My Lords, I speak again only with the leave of the House—and I do not know how proper all this is; I think that probably the Minister is being very good natured about this. I think we all want to try to get it as right as we can. As I understand it, historic buildings encompass the whole field, from the largest stately home down to an historic cottage. They are historic buildings. Many of them, as we know, however small or wherever they are, are listed. So it covers all. I should like to refer the noble Baroness to the Government's amendment which refers to historic buildings. The advantage—and I would have thought that she would agree—of my amendment is that it includes archaeological and conservation areas. Therefore, it takes in a wider sweep of historic buildings because of the conservation areas.
Lord Geoffrey-Lloyd: My Lords, I should like very briefly to congratulate my noble friend in introducing this new clause and to ask him one or two questions about the effect that the functions of the commission might have on the work of the commission in doing its best to help the smaller manor houses, farms and cottages of this country. In doing this I am supporting my noble friend Lady Airey. I can understand that it is difficult for the Government to make the definition of "outstanding" easier in relation to the grant-making powers of the commission.
But I should like to ask my noble friend whether there are not certain other powers in his new clause, specifically under subsection (2), in which the commission could do a good deal to help houses of this kind. I know what my actual duty is in relation to one of the great houses, Leeds Castle, as chairman of the charitable foundation which runs it. But, apart from that, my heart is for the smaller country houses in England which are sometimes much more lovely than some of the magnificent and large ones, and also some of the beautiful farm houses and unique cottages that exist. These are the homes that have played an historic part in the tradition and in the achievements of our country. These are the kind of homes in which people like Colonel H have been bred over the centuries in our country.
I should like to make a plea to the Government to encourage the commission in their work for such houses; and, in particular, I should like to ask my
562
noble friend in regard to subsection (2)(a) and (b)—that is, the provision of education, instruction and information and in regard to the giving of advice—whether these are restricted only to houses of outstanding beauty or other outstanding characteristics, or whether, as I believe from the reading of this clause, they can extend to a much wider range of important, interesting and historic buildings and areas.
I can say out of personal experience of Leeds Castle that advice is very important. If some people think that we have been successful there, I should like to say that we had constant informal advice from the director of the Directorate of Ancient Monuments in the Ministry, the superintending architect of Ancient Monuments actually furnished the route for people to go round the house which none of us had thought of, and we have had continual excellent commercial advice from the head of presentation. The ability of the people who are going to be sent to the commission is very great and it would enormously help some of the smaller houses if it were possible for this kind of help to be given by the commission. I should like to make a plea to my noble friend that I hope that this is possible. I hope that the department and the Secretary of State will in their relations with the commission make it clear that they want the commission to help not only the grand houses but also the beautiful smaller houses and cottages of our country.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, are we not wildly out of order now? The last two speeches should surely be made when we have dealt with Amendment No. 91A and get back to dealing with Amendment No. 91, which is the substantive new clause. I think that we were slightly thrown out by the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, who thought that the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, had sat down when she was deemed not to have sat down at that particular moment. Whatever the fault is, surely this business about the small houses—which I support—is something to which we must come back when we refer again to Clause 91. In the meantime, we are discussing Amendment No. 91A, on which I am in full agreement with the noble Baroness.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, I, too, should like to confine my remarks to Amendment No. 91A—that is, the amendment to the amendment. If the House continues to discuss Amendment No. 91, I shall probably be forced to say what I think about the Government's new amendment as a whole at this stage, but let us try to keep it in order if we can.
I should like to support strongly Lady Birk's Amendment No. 91A for all the reasons that she has given, and particularly because it seems to me unnecessarily vague—a little bit chicken-hearted even—to leave the two duties of conservation, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, public enjoyment, understanding and access on absolutely the same footing so that each is equal to the other. It is the duty of the House to make up its mind whether it really believes that or whether it thinks—as I do—that conservation must come first and that, whenever there is a conflict between the conservation of a certain aspect of heritage and its enjoyment by the public, the

563
conservation must come first because if there is no conservation there is no enjoyment. It seems to me that Lady Birk's formula is a perfectly good one for doing this, and I join her in hoping that the Government may agree to accept it at this stage. It may be that the formula itself could be refined at a later stage. Let us establish the principle that the commission has two duties, the first of which—in the case of conflict—must take precedence over the second. They are not equal duties.
The Earl of Perth: My Lords, I am afraid that I do not go along with the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, or the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, about having primary duties and secondary duties. I think that the commission must have a duty as is put down in the original text. On the other hand, I support the amendment when they put in the word "conservation" and, more important, the words "and archaeological and conservation areas. Also in subsection (1)(b) the words "and areas are used". To put those in the Bill would be a great improvement. I am in a sense a mixture: I like and support very much part of the amendment of the noble Baroness. Lady Birk, and the noble Lord, Lord Strathcona, but not the other part. Perhaps at the conclusion we shall all agree that the final decision on exactly what words to use can come at Third Reading.
5.38 p.m.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, perhaps this will be an opportunity for me to respond to Amendment No. 91A. This amendment, as the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, put it, raises a point about the purpose of a commission. By formally giving a primary role to the commission's duty to secure preservation and conservation—and perhaps I can come back to the words later—the amendment runs the risk of relegating to secondary importance the promotion of the public's understanding and enjoyment of this part of the heritage. As the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, said, this is a matter of judgment.
The Government have always made it clear that the commission's first priority is to preserve and protect ancient monuments and historic buildings for future generations. There is no argument about that. Many of the specific functions in present legislation are clearly aimed at preservation. The Government also believe that there is the important role in interpretation, education and promotion of knowledge of ancient monuments and historic buildings, and they believe that the importance underlying the concept of the commission is its ability to look at both aspects in a particular case and decide how the balance of importance can best be struck.
The Government do not believe there is any risk of the commission's deciding to do things that are deleterious to preservation. The duty to preserve has deliberatly been put first in the Government's new clause 30, which also makes quite clear in subsection (1)(b) that the promotion of public enjoyment and knowledge is in part to help understanding of preservation. We believe it is much better to leave the provision in the form put forward, which, together with the clear statements being made of our policy, gives the commission a clear steer as to how it should interpret
564
its duty while allowing it flexibility to make its own judgment within the constraints of its specific functions.
I hear what the noble Earl, Lord Perth. has been saying and obviously we are considering some changes: for instance, there is a separate amendment put down about the inclusion of archaeological and conservation areas. Archaeological areas are already covered by definition in the new clause but we are looking again—this is one of the noble Baroness's points—at a possibility of a change to cover conservation areas.
The amendment put down also omits any mention of the possibility of conflict between the general duty and specific functions. Noble Lords will appreciate that in drafting a general purpose clause of this kind, which must exist together with specific functions, it is necessary to make legally clear which one prevails in a specific case. The normal legal convention is that in such a case specific functions prevail and it is important for the avoidance of ambiguity for this provision to continue to be included.
The noble Baroness, Lady Birk, asked specifically what had happened to capital transfer tax. I believe that subsection (4) dealing with advisory functions is intended to reflect the present advisory functions as regards the Historic Buildings Council and the Ancient Monuments Board. Advice on other legislation will be covered by the general power in subsection (2)(b). Capital transfer tax advice will be covered by this general power.
When we come on to conservation and preservation, this is a more difficult subject: they are, of course, virtually synonymous. For instance, I believe that both mean "to keep from decay". We can argue this point endlessly. I should like to take back what the noble Baroness has said about having them both, and seeing whether we cannot clarify to some extent the use of "conservation" and "preservation" throughout the Bill, and otherwise come back and probably agree with her. But, for fundamental reasons, we do not wish to put these duties as specifically as she wishes to do and we feel it is essential to have in that legal clause at the end. For those two reasons, I hope that the noble Baroness will not press her amendment.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu: My Lords, I have to disappoint the noble Baroness when I say that I really do support the Government's view on this amendment. Those of us who have been concerned with the conservation of the heritage for many years know that it is perfectly possible to have good conservation and public enjoyment running hand in hand. Indeed, in the private sector it is the public enjoyment which usually produces all the funds, the initiative and the incentive to carry out good conservation.
What I fear in the future is that if the commission is given a primary and a secondary duty and a priority for one, they can always make an excuse to deny public enjoyment. That they will do, and there is no doubt that they would, because that is how they have always behaved in the past; so for that reason I hope the Government will resist this amendment. I think it is so important that they should be equally dealt with by the commission.
Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal: My Lords, I put my name to this amendment, but I confess that I found the Minister's reply was compelling. I think it gives us most of what we are seeking, as I understand it. He resorted to giving us an exposition of the legal position and one must assume that he has had first-class legal advice in advising us in this way. I am perfectly clear that it would be unwise for us to put the commission in a position where they would find themselves in conflict with themselves. Some attempt should be made so far as possible to give them a sense of priority. I believe the noble Lord said that was implicit in the wording of his amendment. If that is true, then presumably we are getting what we want.
We know that the National Trust has said many times that opening buildings to the public has, in some cases, done more damage than the neglect of hundreds of years. Buildings were not designed to have sunlight streaming in on furniture month after month, which unfortunately is necessary if you are going to show them to the public. The public do not want to go round a huge house with all the windows shut up. That is the kind of conflict that can happen, and we have heard of the damage that has been done at places like Stonehenge. We cannot pretend that these conflicts will not arise. If the Minister is totally satisfied that his amendment gives the commission a clear guide on this, then I daresay we should accept it.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, this is very difficult. The noble Earl, Lord Perth, said that he agreed with part of my amendment but not with the other part. The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, is clearly much in favour and so is the noble Lord, Lord Kennet. I will take it that the Minister is certainly going to look seriously at the question of preservation and conservation. If, at the end of the day, it is felt that they are almost interchangeable, then there is no harm and a great deal of good to be done by putting in both words.
Over the question of the functions conferred by virtue of certain subsections, and so on—I understand this is something that has been lifted out of other legislation and put in here—I am still not absolutely clear that it is necessary. Also, I am not entirely happy that the function should supersede the duty. On that, perhaps the Minister would be kind enough to write to me, because I am not really quite clear about it.
I do not know that I am altogether happy—nor do I think the noble Lord, Lord Strathcona, will be altogether happy, in view of the line he has been taking over the financial aspects of this—that in fact the financial advice on CTT is really adequately covered in paragraph (4). I thought the Minister himself sounded a little surprised when uttering those words and I did not think that he sounded terribly committed about that. The exercise of functions exercisable by him in relation to England under the historical and ancient monument Acts and so on, quite frankly, does not give a clue that this also includes the financial aspects of CTT. I think that would have to be looked at. Anything that makes it clearer for people to understand this Bill is of essential importance.
The main point of intention which has not been resolved in this question of primary and secondary duty. I am sorry to be in slight disagreement with the
566
noble Lord, Lord Montagu, when we have worked in tandem so well throughout consideration of most of the Bill, having had the same approach to most of it. I still believe that it is the primary function of a commission of this sort to conserve and preserve the heritage—or whatever other phrase one wants to use—in the first instance. Also, it is no good over-exposing, as has been pointed out, ancient monuments and buildings and wearing them away, no matter how important and desirable the advancement of the public knowledge is. The noble Lord, Lord Strathcona, is absolutely right when he says that there is often conflict. We found it in the department as well, and when I was a Minister there I was extremely anxious that we should show exhibits and promote our monuments very much better than we had done in the past. I agree there was tremendous room for improvement; but very often one was brought up against the problem of getting the right balance between the actual destruction and the wearing away of some of the most popular of the monuments, buildings or archaeological finds and conserving them, and also at the same time getting in as good receipts as possible for them and using entrepreneurial skills, as has been put forward so well by the noble Lord, Lord Geoffrey-Lloyd.
I do not believe that it is downgrading the question of promotion, enjoyment and education, if one says what should be accepted as primary. I am inclined to think that it is probably even more important, once one is making this into a quango and cutting it off from the department to the greatest extent, that this should be quite clearly shown. I would have thought that the Government would have felt that.
I am concerned, though not many people have spoken to the amendment, and I am very tempted to press it to a Division because it seems to me to be one of the basic problems we have to face up to. If we are looking to the future and to what the commission's duties and functions are and considering the future changes in circumstances, changes in technology or even in ownership of houses and buildings and the way they are run, I feel we ought to have a safety net here. I think that is of the utmost importance. Although the last thing I want to do is to call any unnecessary Division, I feel this is a fundamental point and therefore I must ask to test the feeling of the House.
On Question, amendment to the amendment negatived.
5.52 p.m.
Lord Sandfordmoved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 91, Amendment No. 92:
Line 2, at end insert ("acting, if necessary after consultation with and in co-operation with any other body").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 92 is one of eight amendments in the name of myself and my noble friend Lord Ridley, all of which seek to amend Amendment No. 91. Before speaking directly to Amendment No. 92, perhaps it would be helpful and would speed up proceedings if I made a few remarks which pertain to all of them. First of all, I should like to add my compliments to my noble friend for what he has done since we were discussing the clause at the Committee stage. The department in which he has lately been serving is one of the best in Whitehall, if not

567
the best, for the care and consideration it shows Members of Parliament in informing them about what it seeks to do in pending legislation.
Here we have a two-stage consultation process in which the Secretary of State set out very clearly what he was seeking to achieve. Therefore, it is all the more sad that, when the Bill came before us, it failed so signally to match the criteria for determining the qualities and characteristics which one looks for in good legislation which we had been discussing only the previous week. This was a bad lapse which the Secretary of State was glad enough to acknowledge in a meeting of Back-Benchers last week when he admitted that it was not one of the Government's best Bills. One could hardly expect him to say that it was certainly one of their worst, in terms of drafting. But I think strenuous efforts are now being made to make amends, and that is greatly to be welcomed.
I should very much have liked to accept Amendment No. 91 as it stood, even though I was arguing at the Committee stage—I thought my noble friend agreed with this, and a substantial number of members of the Committee agreed—that it would have been better to set out in Clause 29 the broad aims and purposes of the commission and to confine Clause 30 to describing its functions and how it was to exercise them. Now that we have so much that is good in new Clause 30, I have decided to make my amendments in relation to that and not to attempt an entirely new structure with two clauses for those purposes.
I turn to the first of these eight amendments. The first three all deal with aims and purposes. I should have thought that it was abundantly clear from the consultation papers that we had during the summer that what the Secretary of State wanted to do was, to use his own phrases, to get a commission which could adopt a more integrated approach to the care of the heritage and could seek to obtain, in every case—whether one is talking about ancient monuments or historic buildings in private hands—a more effective overall management, to get away from the specific functions which are characterised, on the one hand, by the work of the Historic Buildings Council and, on the other hand, by the work of the Ancient Monuments Board. In my original amendment to Clause 29, I thought it sensible to adopt phrases which the Secretary of State himself used. I do not think my noble friend objected to that at the time, but my noble friend Lord Renton, who is more expert than most of us—if not all of us—when it comes to drafting legislation. has put it to me that that is perhaps not the best way of expressing in legislative form what the Secretary of State and all of us are seeking to achieve about the way in which the new commission should set about its work, and has suggested the terms which I have now incorporated into my Amendment No. 92.
We want a body which consults widely with all those other bodies concerned with the care, promotion and presentation of the heritage. We want a commission which co-operates extensively with other bodies, and not a commission which amalgamates the Ancient Monuments Board and the Historic Buildings Council and then carries on before. For those reasons, I
568
commend Amendment No. 92 to the House. I hope that it commends itself to the Government and I look forward to hearing what your Lordships have to say about it. I beg to move.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I hope I may say without presumption that I fully share your Lordships' admiration for the contributions that the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, has made to your Lordships' deliberations on this Bill. Nevertheless, I have shared fully, if I may say so, the unease that has been repeatedly voiced by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, about the unnecessary verbiage that has crept into the Bill. That particularly applies to the schedules, but here we are concerned with one of the main enacting provisions of the Bill, laying down the functions of the commission.
I submit to your Lordships that we really ought not to put in words unless they are necessary. These words,
"acting, if necessary after consultation with and in co-operation",
are only necessary if there is an implication in the main provisions of the clause that would preclude that. On the contrary, as I read the clause, if any implication is to be drawn, it is that co-operation and consultation are entirely open. The noble Earl will, no doubt, advise your Lordships on that, but unless the words are necessary I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, will not press this amendment.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, the amendment seeks to underline the need for the commission to build up good relations with other bodies which have interests in their field of responsibility. The commission will not be able to carry out their duty of preservation without consulting and co-operating with others, and the power to enter into agreements is much better left in the unfettered form shown in the Government's own amendment. My noble friend Lord Sandford wishes to put this, as it were, in the functions—that is, subsection (1)(a) and (b)—and not in the duties. At the moment, it is under the duties in subsection (5)(a)that they can enter into contracts and agreements and, generally, discuss with any other bodies.
There is a tiny technical point in my noble friend's amendment which it is hardly worth raising, but, if the word "body" were put in, it could, for instance, prevent agreement with a person. I think that I heard a general murmur of assent when the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, spoke a few minutes ago, and I hope that, with the assurance to the House that this point is well covered under the duties, my noble friend will agree to leave it there.
Lord Renton: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Sandford was kind enough to mention that he had asked me about the drafting of this amendment, so that he could put before your Lordships the views which my noble friend Lord Avon had expressed at the Committee stage about—I hesitate to use the word, and I persuaded my noble friend that it should not go into his amendment—integrating the efforts of the commission with those of other bodies. But I must confess that I take the point which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, has made, that we should not use words of exhortation—because that is what these words are—and now that we have had the

569
explanation from my noble friend Lord Avon, and now that he has drawn attention to subsection (5) of the new clause which we are considering, and which overlaps to some extent the amendment of my noble friend Lord Sandford, I hope that my noble friend will feel, after this discussion—which, after all, is on the record and can always be borne in mind—that it will not be necessary for him to press his amendment.
Lord Beswick: My Lords, may I say how much I agree with what was said by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, about putting unnecessary words into this Bill? I should have thought that, if anyone wanted to give someone any authority, short of putting in duties such as become an officer and a gentleman, he would go to subsection (5)(d), which reads:
"do such other things as the Commission think necessary or expedient.".
That would catch everything.
But I rise particularly because I so much agree, too, with something which the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, said—and I hope that I understood him aright—which was that we do not want a commission which just amalgamates other things. If that is so, I hope that that is an undertaking that he will be withdrawing his own clause relating to the Royal Commission on Historical Monuments, because I think that we are tending here to put in too many words spelling out in detail what the Royal Commission should do, and are also tending to ladle on to this new commission pretty well everything that anyone can think of.
Lord Sandford: My Lords, I am most grateful to noble Lords. The difficulty we are in is that, on the one hand, we must obviously avoid putting into legislation words that are not necessary, and I would not want for a moment to disagree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, about that. On the other hand, the Secretary of State, in proposing this Bill at all, is seeking to improve on the existing state of affairs, which means pointing up here and there in the Bill, and specifically mentioning, those items which have been neglected, overlooked or not effectively discharged in the past. It was in seeking to do this that I tabled this amendment. But, in the light of this discussion, and particularly of the assurances from my noble friend, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.5 p.m.
Lord Sandfordmoved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 91, Amendment No. 93:
Line 3, after ("the") insert ("recording and").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Ridley and myself, I beg to move Amendment No. 93, particularly having in mind the opinions and views of the county councils. When I included in my amendment in Committee this aim of recording among the broad purposes which we wanted to see the new commission carrying out, my noble friend had nothing to say against it, except that he thought it ought to go in a different place in relation to conservation. Although I thought logic dictated its coming first, I would not have argued with him about
570
that. So it seemed to me that we were agreed that it should certainly feature. But now it seems to have disappeared and this amendment is to probe and to inquire why that should be so.
I do not believe for a moment that my noble friend will say that it is because it is not important, since the recording of the heritage is the first thing that has to be done before one can decide whether something is worth conserving and how important it is in relation to other things. It is not because others have the responsibility of recording; for example, the Royal Commission, to which the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, has just alluded, have important responsibilities in this field. But there are different sorts of recording. Some are appropriate to the Royal Commission and others are appropriate to this new commission, and I submit that this commission needs to have it numbered among its functions.
Perhaps I may give three examples to make clear to your Lordships why I believe this is so. The Royal Commission have a duty of undertaking a systematic, scholarly, academic survey of the whole of the heritage that we are talking about, in order to acquire knowledge for its own sake. They must not move on to study the historic buildings of Wiltshire until they have done a thorough job on the historic buildings of Dorset. They must also speed up the study of the historic buildings of Manchester before they move on to those of Sheffield et cetera. There is that kind of priority, in order that those who need knowledge of these things for their scholarly and academic work can refer to a systematic corpus of knowledge.
Then there are the very different—and, I submit, quite distinct—practical needs of those who have to decide matters of state and policy. If somebody wants to put a by-pass around, for example, Newark and finds, or knows, that there are some archaeological remains in the way, someone has to have access to a proper record in order to determine how important they are, what they consist of, which period they belong to, whether the fact that we have others like them means that these particular ones can be disregarded, or whether they are so important that the road has to take a different course. This Heritage Commission will give advice on those matters to the Secretary of State, and you cannot have the systematic, scholarly recording of our heritage being constantly interrupted for that kind of thing to be done.
Thirdly, there are the needs of those on this commission, and collaborating with this commission, whose job it will be to promote the enjoyment of the heritage for the education and enlightenment of our children and the family visitors. They, too, must be advised in broad terms of the historical detail in which the importance of a particular monument resides, and I think your Lordships will see that that purpose is different from the other two. Because of this range—and I have mentioned only three examples—of the need for this commission to engage in recording, I think that the function needs to be spelled out. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I should like to support my noble friend Lord Sandford. This is much more a point of substance than of drafting. Just in case my

571
noble friend Lord Avon says that a great deal of knowledge and information is already available and recorded about our historic monuments, may I remind him that with modern methods of discovery, including all the electrical instruments which people use to probe the ground, ancient monuments—or signs of them—are being discovered every year. It is important, therefore, that even if recording is taking place. we should make absolutely sure that one of the important functions of the commission is to keep records up to date and to enter everything new which comes along. There will no doubt be occasions when the commission will simply not have the funds to do all the excavation, conservation and then preservation which they would like to do. Meanwhile, it will at least be important that things have been recorded. I hope that my noble friend's amendment will receive a sympathetic reception from your Lordships.
Lord Adeane: My Lords, with every respect to the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, who has contributed so much to this debate and subject, I am bound to remind noble Lords that the recording of ancient monuments and historic buildings has for a very long time been the responsibility of the Royal Commission on Historic Monuments. In fact, this autumn it will have been so for 75 years. It still is their responsibility, as set out in their Royal Warrant. This responsibility is being increased at the moment by the addition of the bits of archaeological work which were formerly carried out by the Ordnance Survey. These are now going to be carried out by the Royal Commission.
As I understand it, one of the main and one of the most praiseworthy objects of the Bill is to simplify the methods by which the more solid remains of our heritage throughout England are dealt with. The proposal contained in the noble Lord's amendment would seem to me to have the opposite effect. Adding recording to the duties of the new commission, which will have quite enough to do, anyway, will lead to overlapping. "A" will be doing what "B" is going to do next week—or vice versa. I take the three points which the noble Lord made about the necessity for recording by the new commission, but it seems to me that the points he makes are ones which relate to the use of records rather than to the making of records. If the commission is to get itself involved in the making of records, I believe that it will have to become a very different body from the one that is in position at the moment. Therefore I hope that this amendment will not be supported by the House.
Lord Beswick: My Lords, may I briefly support what has just been said. I listened with great interest to what the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, said and I could see that in his mind he draws a distinction between one form of recording, or one occasion of recording, and another. But with due respect to the noble Lord, when it comes to the recording of the work which has been created by the by-pass round Newark, I think that it should be done in a scholarly way. The personnel whom we have already in the Royal Commission are quite capable of performing that particular operation which has been created by the by-pass round Newark. I can see that there may well be some occasion when
572
it is necessary for the two bodies, the Royal Commission and this new commission, to consult as to who should do a particular piece of work—possibly some utilitarian recording. But that should be a matter of consultation: the sort of consultation for which the noble Lord was asking earlier. No matter how persuasive the noble Lord may be in saying that there is a distinction between one piece of work and another, if these two words go into the Bill they will all be treated the same. They will all come under the operation "recording". I should have thought that this would lead to confusion.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, having heard both sides of the argument, I am left a little in the dark. I am wondering how comprehensive are the records now kept by the Royal Commission. If we want to build a motorway, can those records be referred to immediately? If so, I should have thought that the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Sandford is not so necessary. If, on the other hand, in 75 years they have not got anywhere near to creating that kind of record. perhaps somebody else should make a start upon it now. I shall be most interested to hear what my noble friend on the Front Bench has to say.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I do not think it is the Government's view that it would be right to make the recording function one of the main duties. Paragraph (a) of clause 30(1) reads at the moment:
"to secure the preservation of ancient monuments and historic buildings situated in England".
I do not think that it would be correct to include "recording" in paragraph (a).
I have listened to the debate and have taken on board quite a number of the points which have been made. I would suggest, rather in the way that the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, has indicated, that instead of inserting the word "recording" here we should think about inserting the word "record"—though not, perhaps, "recording"—somewhere else among the duties. Perhaps we could examine whether it is possible to work in something of that nature. I fully take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Adeane: that the recording functions are a major part of the work of the Royal Commission on Historical Monuments. It is obviously one of their primary duties.
I do not know whether the noble Lord. Lord Adeane, would care to answer my noble friend Lord Mottistone, who asked about the availability of records, since I do not have that answer at my fingertips.
Lord Adeane: My Lords, the answer is that there is a different speed for the publication and for the accumulation of records. The speed of both is controlled by the amount of money which Her Majesty's Treasury are prepared to allot. This governs the number of people who can be employed. Having said that, I can assure the noble Lord that a great deal of information about all parts of England has been accumulated in the records of the Royal Commission—in the national monuments record, in fact—but has not been published and cannot for the moment be published, simply for this reason of facilities. The information is there if it is required, and it is

573
accessible. But it is not, unfortunately, possible to publish it as rapidly as any of us would like.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu: My Lords, I am sure that what the noble Lord, Lord Adeane, has said will be of great interest to the many people concerned. They are worried that unless the information is available, and reasonably quickly available, the commission will he forced, out of necessity, to set up its own records. That would be a terrible duplication which should certainly be avoided. It is the availability of the record which is most important to the commission rather than the actual recording of it themselves.
Lord Sandford: My Lords, I am grateful for that brief debate and I how to nobody in my admiration of the Royal Commission for the work they do and continue to do. But as the noble Lord, Lord Adeane, said in reply to my noble friend Lord Mottistone, the extent of those records often proves to be insufficient for the kind of purposes which I illustrated in my reference to an imaginary by-pass around Newark: I could have used it in respect of a whole lot of matters. such as central area development and so on, and so forth.
I take very much to heart the distinction which the noble Lord, Lord Adeane, made between the function of recording, which is supremely a matter for the Royal Commission, and the access to and use of records, which is what the commission will more often than not be asked to perform. If we leave matters as they are, there is no doubt that a more active heritage commission needing to have access to and the use of records for a whole range of practical matters which will crop up from time to time, with a fair degree of urgency in many cases, will involve the Royal Commission in diverting attention from the scholarly work which they set out to do and oblige them to become involved in urgent pieces of casework, which I know they greatly dislike. This, as all noble Lords accept, is a matter of getting right the relationship and the collaboration and co-operation between the Royal Commission on the one hand and the heritage commission on the other. That is a matter to which we shall return at the end of the Bill, in three amendments; two of them in my name and one in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Birk.
I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Avon for the assurances he has given about this matter being looked at again. If the word "recording" is not thought to be fitting in the place where my amendment would have it, I hope that some other term can be inserted at another place in the Bill, to overcome to some extent the difficulties and irritations which I foresee at present. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment to the amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.22 p.m.
Baroness Birkmoved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 91, Amendment No. 94:
Line 3, after ("preservation") insert ("and conservation").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment when moving Amendment No. 91A. As
574
I understood it, the noble Earl the Minister said that he would take this matter back and consider it. If he can just confirm that, I will withdraw my amendment.
The Earl of Avon: Yes, my Lords. I believe the House will agree that the two words are synonymous and that obviously we should stick to one throughout the Bill. We will look at the matter and come back to it again.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, I did not gain the impression that the House did feel that. There was quite a body of opinion which accepted that there was a difference between these two words. My own understanding was that the noble Earl stated in his reply to Amendment No. 91A that this matter was something the Government would look at, including the words "preservation" and "conservation", because there was a difference between them. That has not been completely denied.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, the point is that in her earlier remarks the noble Baroness said that the word "preservation" was used in some parts of the Bill and the word "conservation" in others. This had me slightly surprised, and my answer is that they are synonymous and that therefore it is unnecessary to use both terms throughout the Bill; one should be there but not both.
Baroness Birk: I did not say that, my Lords. I was only using those words to illustrate that there was some inconsistency in the Bill. That did not alter my major argument, that I considered that the words each had a particular place in the language of the two bodies concerned and that there were different nuances attached to the words. If the noble Earl the Minister will say that he will look at this matter again, not with a view at the present moment of cutting out one word, then we can get on.
Baroness White: My Lords, does the noble Earl not agree that if one has a ruined tower covered with ivy which is doing considerable damage, one can "preserve" the tower in that state, but one would not be "conserving" the tower because it will still gradually crumble? There is a slight difference between the two words.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, if your Lordships will allow me to say so, we appear to be getting into the most terrible procedural muddle. I am not sure whether in fact the noble Baroness is moving her amendment or not, but since we are now discussing matters on the basis that the amendment has been moved, perhaps she should do so.
Baroness Birk: I have moved the amendment, my Lords.
Lord Skelmersdale: But the Question has not been put, my Lords—that is my point.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Nugent of Guildford): The Question is, That Amendment No. 94 be agreed to.
Baroness Birk: I am sorry, my Lords, I do not know quite what is happening. All I am asking is that the noble Earl the Minister will look at the matter and at the inclusion of both words in the Bill. My noble friend Lady White has pointed out, as I did during the rather long debate we had on the title for the commission, that there are two different meanings and the words are very often used in a different way. Archaeologists more often use the word "preserve", whereas conservationists and the historic buildings people tend to use "conserve", and so I cannot see anything wrong about having both words in the Bill to cover every eventuality. I was moving my amendment but was trying to avoid all this, and I only wanted the acknowledgement of the noble Earl the Minister that I was right in my understanding that he was looking into this matter and was considering it, at the moment certainly, very favourably.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I was looking around the House to sense what your Lordships actually felt about this matter because I am very open-minded. I will say to the noble Baroness, Lady White, that I looked up these words in the dictionary, and she will be delighted to hear that for the word "conservation" the dictionary said that it meant to keep from decay. That is the sort of trouble we are in. I will indeed look at it again.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu: My Lords, perhaps I can help my noble friend, having been associated with both conservation and preservation for many years. I believe that in amenity circles. "conservation" entails a great deal more constructive attitude than "preservation"; "conservation" can be on-going and can entail all sorts of matters which "preservation" does not. This may be nitpicking but that is how these words are beginning to change in their meaning in the English language. We all much more prefer "conservation" to "preservation", which can have a rather static and dead feeling to it.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, perhaps it will assist the noble Earl to realise that he is a member of the Conservative Party and not of the Preservative Party.
The Deputy Speaker: The Question is, That this amendment shall be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion will say "Content"; to the contrary, "Not-Content".
Baroness Birk: But, my Lords—
The Deputy Speaker: Does the noble Baroness wish to withdraw her amendment?
Baroness Birk: Yes, my Lords.
Amendment to the amendment. by leave, withdrawn.
6.28 p.m.
Lord Sandfordmoved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 91, Amendment No. 95:
Line after ("preservation") insert ("and management").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 95, in order to secure another brief
576
debate on the possibility of adding to the duties of the commission, as well as the preservation of ancient monuments, that of securing their management. I do this because the approach adopted over many years by the Historic Buildings Council in respect of historic buildings is not at present the best device to give all the help that is needed by the owners of smaller houses, to which my noble friend Lord Geoffrey-Lloyd referred a moment ago. Their activities to date consist of approving for grant a schedule of repairs, deciding whether the repairs are appropriate and that the building is eligible—sufficiently important in heritage terms—and making their grant conditional on a certain degree of general public access. That is not the best that a commission of this kind can do in respect of the smaller houses.
There are hundreds and hundreds of real gems for which the opening of the house to general public access would he quite an impossible burden on the family. There are some in admirable condition, not requiring any repairs, but which could be greatly assisted if the giving of grant was associated with some general management plan. The best analogy I can offer to your Lordships by way of a general management plan is the kind of plan which a farmer or a landowner puts forward to the Minister of Agriculture when he wishes to attract a grant under the agricultural and horticultural farm development schemes. That covers a wide range of activities concerning the way in which his farm should be managed and developed, and for which, if those proposals qualify him, the farmer can then receive grant. That is much wider and more comprehensive in its scope than the kind of things for which the Historic Buildings Council can give grant at the moment.
I would like to feel that this new commission is able to develop a far wider range of grants for a much wider range of management plans appropriate to the needs of the smaller buildings, making grants available to them for purposes other than repairs and subject to conditions other than general public access. This is the shortest way which I can see for securing that change in the style of the new commission. I beg to move.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, as far as my noble friend is concerned, I have, of course, the same proviso about this amendment as I mentioned before, that I would not wish nor would the Government wish to see it in Clause 30(1)(a) and (b). I take his point about management. He said a number of things and I would like to look at them in detail, to see that every one of them is covered by the duties in subsections (2) to (8). Most of the duties which I took down as he was speaking would come under subsection (5). As the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, pointed out earlier, subsection (5)(d) says:
"do such other things as the Commission think necessary or expedient".
There is also mentioned, "enter into contracts and other agreements". I believe that is where the management function should be, but I will look at the list my noble friend quoted and make sure that all those things can be covered under this new clause.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu: My Lords, there is no doubt that the plight of the smaller houses is

577
important, but, as I read the Bill, I must confess they are adequately covered at the moment; they are obviously historic buildings. I cannot entirely agree with my noble friend Lord Sandford when he talks about management. What sort of management does the noble Lord think the owner of a small house is going to be willing to take? If the house is not open to the public, is he going to be told which rooms to live in, what to spend his money on, in living in this house? I think there would be extreme resistance from the small house owner if management is put in to that sort of situation. In the past grants have always been tied to public access, and in that case management obviously does play a part. But for owners of small private houses to have to accept management agreements, as they do with their forestry or farms, would, I think, be very unpopular.
Lord Geoffrey-Lloyd: My Lords, if I am not out of order in intervening briefly, I think it is an interesting point that has been made. We realise that the Government cannot go too far in departing from the general formula of outstanding natural beauty or historic or architectural qualities. With regard to other methods that are open for them to assist in the survival of the smaller house, I do not like disagreeing with my noble friend who has just spoken, but although these arrangements generally might be unpopular, is that any reason why they should not be available in case in certain circumstances? There are an infinite variety of possible circumstances. They might prove attractive. I think the parallel with the agricultural arrangements which have been worked out successfully over the years is an interesting point.
Lord Sandford: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Geoffrey-Lloyd. I am grateful, too, to my noble friend Lord Montagu for enabling me to make clear, as I should have done in the first instance, the kind of thing I had in mind. It would depend entirely on the initiative of the owner, as indeed does the application for grant under the Agricultural Development Scheme. I do not think there would be any difficulty in developing administrative arrangements which would entirely preclude the commission from intruding on anybody's private property and beginning to tell them how they should manage it, what they should do with the contents, who they should cater for, how it should be insured and so on. Of course it is a matter for the private owner to take the initiative.
What I am suggesting is that we need some method in this Bill—this may not be the most appropriate way—of making it possible for the owners of the kind of houses Lord Geoffrey-Lloyd was mentioning to receive a grant. The smaller country houses I suppose together make up the real jewels of our national heritage. If they take the view that they want to share the enjoyment of their possessions with a wider circle of people, recognising that they cannot do that by inviting the public to come and visit them in large numbers, even if only once a week, but perceiving that there might be other things that they could do—for instance, from time to time lending pictures or some of their furniture to a museum or gallery, adopting more stringent methods of regular inspection than would be necessary if this was not part of the national heritage,
578
a whole variety of things which would make it possible for more people to enjoy what they themselves are enjoying—and being able to formulate a plan for that purpose, it should be possible for them to attract not only the advice of the heritage commission, for which provision is made, but also a grant from the commission.
I am grateful to my noble friend for indicating that he will have a look at this. I hope very much that before the Bill leaves us we shall have some indication of how he proposes to take these points on board. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment to the amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Birkmoved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 91, Amendment No. 95A:
Line 4, after ("buildings") insert ("and archaeological and conservation areas")
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, there is no reference as the clause stands now to conservation areas. The only reference to archaeological areas is rather obscure and knotted up in subsection (8). It seems wrong, after so many years of living with conservation areas and the important part they play in conservation in this country, and also archaeological areas, that they should not be boldly and clearly mentioned in the early part of Clause 30. I think I got some support on this point when I was speaking on an earlier amendment. I hope the Minister will look at this in conjunction with the other points that he is taking back.
"Archaeological areas" and "conservation areas" really are terms of art now and should be included in the early part of this clause. If to do so means some rearrangement, or taking out some parts of subsection (8), it would seem to me to be a very much clearer and better way of proceeding. We do not want too much repetition, especially in view of what the noble Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, said; but it would be much clearer if we had the conservation areas and the archaeological areas mentioned early on. All I am asking is that the Minister should take this back and look at it with the other points he is taking back.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, perhaps I can explain the Government's thinking here. As far as the archaeological areas are concerned, the noble Baroness has drawn the attention of the House to subsection (8) which contains a definition of an ancient monument which covers, as the House will see, a vast number of things, including an archaeological area. Obviously we would prefer to leave it where it is, so that when one reads Clause 30(1)(a) and the words "ancient monuments", that covers everything listed in subsection (8). As far as a conservation area is concerned, the noble Baroness is quite correct. As I said earlier, we are looking at ways of meeting this point by redrafting and will bring back an amendment later.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment to the amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.41 p.m.
Lord Sandfordmoved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 91, Amendment No. 96:
In subsection (2), leave out paragraph (a) and insert—
("(a) shall (so far as practicable) provide for the presentation of such monuments, listed in Clause 30(1)(a) above (and in particular by way of interpretative facilities for the public and educational facilities and services for the use of students and pupils;)")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I welcome the fact that this topic already features in the Government's new clause at subsection 2(a). My amendment is merely suggesting that the wording or formulation which the Government have adopted is not perhaps the best that can be devised. I say that for this reason. I think the word "presentation", which is one used in the consultation documents, is clear and useful because it embraces the two distinct arts by which the promotion of the enjoyment of the heritage can be undertaken by the commission. My amendment seeks to indicate a little more precisely what those two are.
One is interpretation, which is a term widely used, and it is the art of presenting a property imaginatively and skilfully using the visual arts, sound effects, the written word, and even drama and music as in "Son et Lumiere", in appropriate styles to kindle the interest and the appreciation of the casual visitor, whatever age and background: that is to say, to deal with the tremendous variety and range of people that one sees, for instance, pouring into the Tower of London. It has to cater for all ages and tastes and a wide range of educational backgrounds and, in cases such as the Tower of London, visitors who speak a foreign language and belong to alien cultures. That art, like the other art to which I shall shortly be referring, has to be adapted for each particular building and should not be provided in a stereotyped form, which it so often is at some of our ancient monuments today.
In contradistinction to that, but still forming part of presentation, there is the use of a particular aspect of a heritage property to illuminate and to bring to life the teaching of a particular classroom topic to a particular category or age group of children. For example, the noble Duke, the Duke of Marlborough, at Blenheim House, uses his family portraits to illustrate various periods of the 18th century to history classes of children, who dress up in the costumes portrayed in the portraits. The same technique could be the use of the fittings or furniture in a Victorian kitchen at Cotehele, one of the National Trust properties, which are, in fact, so used for classes of visiting primary school children. So there are two quite distinctive activities which need spelling out in those terms.
The other point which I make in my amendment is that this par excellence is not a function which the new commission must seek to carry out in its own right. It is a supreme example of a function which must be discharged in collaboration with other bodies. The provision of education—to use the form of words employed by the Government in Amendment No. 91—is, I submit, a function of the local education authorities, and the schools, colleges and universities. They provide education. What the commission must do is provide the facilities and the services which make that possible. The whole business is the art of
580
combining the functions of the education authorities—the schools, headmasters, teachers, and so on—with those of the guide and the guide books which are used to present the properties.
The Heritage Commission and the management of these properties cannot, and ought not to try to, take the whole function on themselves, and where this is done successfully they never do. But the terms of the Government's amendment do not make that clear and, in fact, they lay upon the commission functions that are wider and more extensive than, in my submission, they should have. I very much look forward to listening to your Lordships' comments and to my noble friend's reply. I beg to move.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, this amendment brings forward a concept which we aired in Committee, that the commission should be more widely concerned in providing for the presentation of monuments to the public and for the provision of educational facilities rather than education. May I say to my noble friend that I think the amendment in one way goes too far and in another way not far enough—and I am not sure he was not critical about my own amendment for the same reason.
The amendment goes too far in that it seeks to require, albeit "so far as practicable", the commission to provide for the presentation of all monuments in England, in particular by way of facilities for education and interpretation. The commission will be able to advise on the presentation of other people's monuments but it would not, in the Government's view, be a sensible use of the commission's resources for it to provide—I accentuate the word "provide"—for such presentation.
Conversely, the amendment does not go far enough in that it talks only of the provision of educational facilities and services for the use of students. The implications of that phrase are that accommodation and materials only should be provided by the commission, but bricks and mortar surely are not enough. The commission will represent the largest source of expertise in this field and it must surely be right that it should be able, if it so wishes, to provide a teacher as well as the facilities. After all, every other body of expertise provides training and education in its specialities and I do not believe that the commission should be an exception to this.
My noble friend, in introducing the amendment, as he did on some of his previous amendments, went through it in some detail. Again, perhaps I can assure him that we will read very carefully what he said, and particularly his comments about the agricultural side, and ensure that our own amendment does, in fact, cover all that he wishes.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu: My Lords, in thinking about this subject will the noble Earl consider the possibility of putting in somewhere the word "interpretation", because that covers everything that we are talking about?
Lord Sandford: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord. We need to think about this a little more

581
carefully and I hope that when the Bill goes forward it will prove possible to do that. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment to the amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Sandfordmoved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 91, Amendment No. 97:
In subsection (2), after paragraph (c) insert—
("(d) may promote or undertake publicity relating to the functions of the Commission").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment calls for the function of publicity to be added to those for which the commission will be responsible. As I said in Committee, this is an area in which I think the Ancient Monuments Board in particular has been weakest in the past and it is a function in which the Historic Buildings Council of England has had no real activity at all; but that it is necessary is something I do not think any of us would doubt. The question is whether the addition of these words is necessary in view of the fact that we already have in subsection (1) (b) the duty of the commission:
"to promote the public's enjoyment of, and advance their knowledge of, ancient monuments",
which might at first sight he thought to be enough; and we have in subsection (5) (d) the ability to do all:
"such other things as the Commission think necessary or expedient".
I submit that this amendment is necessary despite that, because this is such an integral and fundamental function of the new commission. Publicity is needed in order to put before the public at large the mere existence of these properties, the various possibilities of enjoying them, the value of visiting them and so on and so forth. Once the public and the children are there, all the other functions such as the one about which we have just been talking, can be exercised. But publicity is needed on a scale far greater than anything we have seen so far, if these other functions of promotion are to be properly discharged. I do not see that it would do any harm. I think that it is necessary and I look forward to hearing my noble friend's reaction to this amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Geoffrey-Lloyd: My Lords, I believe that the noble Earl will be able to tell us that the Bill as drafted makes proper provision for the commission to engage in proper publicity. I personally think that to over-emphasise the question of publicity—if I may say so with deference to my noble friend in regard to his amendment—would be a mistake, because at the moment there is almost too much emphasis being put on publicity as being the one factor in successful entrepreneurial management. I believe that that is not the case: the real point is that it is the quality of the product—the way in which the house is kept up and maintained and the real educational interest and other aspects of the house—which is most important and which in the end will produce success. Therefore, I should like to suggest to my noble friend that he does not press this amendment, because I am sure that publicity is taken care of in the Bill in a proper way, but it should not be over-emphasised.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, before anyone else takes away the points that I have listed in front of me—my noble friend Lord Sandford mentioned half of my reasons when he moved his amendment and my noble friend Lord Geoffrey-Lloyd has just made the other point that I have in front of me—I should like to make a few comments. Their powers to provide information, to advise any person and to do such things as they think necessary or expedient for the purpose of exercising their functions are more than sufficient to enable them to promote or undertake publicity. As to drawing the commission's attention to this part of the work, as my noble friend Lord Sandford says, their duty to promote the public's enjoyment and knowledge seems to be very clear. With that understanding I hope that I have helped my noble friend and that he will feel the point has been adequately covered.
Lord Sandford: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment to the amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.53 p.m.
Lord Strathcona and Mount Royalmoved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 91, Amendment No. 98:
In subsection (2) after paragraph (c) insert—
("(d) may set up a charitable fund and receive and deposit therein voluntary contributions and such other monies (including profits arising from commercial operations) and endowments received under section 8A of the Ancient Monuments and Historic Buildings Act 1953 as the Commission may decide and the income or capital of the fund may be expended to meet the cost of any expenditure incurred by the Commission;
(e) may make use of voluntary services where it thinks it appropriate to do so;")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 98. I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us that this amendment is largely answered by the comments that he made about the tax régime of the commission when he was dealing with Amendment No. 74. He then expressed the intention that the commission should have a status equivalent to that of a charitable body in regard to the receipt of donations—I hope that I am paraphrasing him correctly—and that is the purpose of the amendment. But one has again to ask—particularly in view of the fact that he said that these intentions were to be given expression in a Finance Bill rather than in this Bill—would it not be wise to express the intentions on the face of the Bill in clear language that everybody can understand, in one piece of legislation, rather than having to refer to some other complicated piece of legislation?
I am slightly reinforced in putting this to the noble Earl the Minister in view of the fact that, in his redrafting of Clause 30, we have now lost subsection (5), which stated:
"The Commission may receive voluntary contributions towards the cost of any expenditure incurred by them".
That particular point is missing from the new clause which is set out in Amendment No. 91, which my amendment seeks to amend. I beg to move.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, so far as my noble friend's comment about the Finance Bill is concerned, I will look into the point but, as I understand it, some of the tax amendments that we are putting forward or are considering would only be practical in a Finance Bill. However, I quite take my noble friend's point: there may be other matters which we could co-opt into the Bill, and I shall, indeed, look into it.
The charitable fund approach is, we think, rendered unnecessary by the decision on the tax status of the commission, to which I have already referred. The advantages of a charitable fund will, under the régime we propose, be available to the commission themselves. We also intend to bring forward an amendment—and this was the point of my noble friend Lord Montagu—enabling the commission to set up a trading subsidiary. This is being drafted with a view to its being ready for Third Reading. I equally understand the point made by my noble friend Lord Strathcona on voluntary contributions. But here again we now believe that it is unnecessary. The power of the commission in the new Clause 30 to do such things as they consider necessary or expedient covers this and the receipt of donations and all the et ceteras.
On investment, as I believe I indicated in Committee, the commission will be able to invest as they see fit without any provision being required in the Bill. I should point out that the Government do not envisage that there will be any great need for other than very short term investments. However, the commission's financial needs will he catered for through the grant in aid. Voluntary contributions are likely to be aimed at specific projects rather than given for general purposes. To the extent that the commission receives other income, that, too, will be expected to be used rather than saved.
I think I mentioned earlier that voluntary contributions will not count against the grant-in-aid. Again, I have given my noble friend a number of assurances and, I hope, clarified the picture for him sufficiently to enable him to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu: My Lords, I am sure that that is a most helpful statement and it certainly contains some very interesting information which I am sure the House will be very pleased to hear—indeed. it may save some time later on this evening. I hope that my noble friend Lord Strathcona will agree with me in thinking that we should withdraw the amendment in view of the assurances that we have had from my noble friend Lord Avon.
Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl and I am sure that my noble friend is right. We hope to see an amendment addressing at least some of these points at Third Reading. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment to the amendment. by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Sandfordhad given notice of his intention to move, as an amendment to Amendment No. 91, Amendment No. 99:
In subsection (5), line 3 at end insert ("with local authorities and other bodies")
584
The noble Lord said: My Lords. having got, as it were, what I wanted on Amendment No. 80, I do not need to move this amendment.
[Amendment No. 99 not moved.]
Lord Sandford Lord Sandford moved Amendment No. 100:
In subsection (5) after paragraph (c) insert—
("(cc) establish committees to advise them in the performance of their functions or to discharge such functions as may be delegated to them by the Commission with the approval of the Secretary of State.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 100. I spoke earlier. when we were dealing with Schedule 3, about the establishment of committees but only to make the point that it was my belief—and I think the belief of a number of other noble Lords—that the important business of laying upon the commission the duty to establish committees to advise them on the performance of their functions was better stated on the face of the Bill—that is to say in the Government's new clause—than left in the schedule.
We have heard my noble friend express his views upon that and, if that were all there were to it, I would therefore withdraw this amendment. But there are more people concerned with this concept than I, including the noble Lords, Lord Dacre, Lord Blake and Lord Beloff, who had tabled an amendment—Amendment No. 101 A—which has been withdrawn, I think because they saw the possibility of making the points they wanted to make on my amendment. Therefore, I will not say anything more on this amendment but will give other noble Lords an opportunity to do so. I beg to move.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Renton): My Lords, I understand that the noble Lord seeks leave to withdraw the amendment?
Lord Sandford: My Lords, no, I do not. I have moved the amendment to give other noble Lords an opportunity to put forward their comments; I have nothing further to say myself.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, Amendment No. 101A would have repeated an amendment which, in rather different words, I moved unsuccessfully in Committee on behalf of the British Academy, urging upon the Government the institution of an advisory council. Because of the views that the House expressed at an earlier stage, I think my noble friends felt that it was unlikely that this amendment would be successful. Also, the amendment that we are now considering would, to a large extent, meet the feelings of the Academy. As I understand them, briefly, they are that, however well the Secretary of State goes about the task of appointing members of the commission, the field which it covers is so wide that issues may always arise or problems may arise where it would be necessary to seek additional expertise from specialists in the particular field of historic buildings, ancient monuments or archaeology, as the case may be. Although I suppose that the Minister may well answer that the establishment of committees is normally something which statutory bodies can do anyhow, I think that it would

585
probably reassure those concerned with the provision of expert advice if this was added to the Bill at this stage.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, to some extent, indeed, we covered this ground when I spoke to the amendments of the noble Baroness, Lady Birk—Amendments No. 84A, 84B, and particularly Amendment No. 84C. As we have heard, this amendment seeks to empower the commission to establish committees to discharge functions of the commission. It generally covers the same ground as we discussed in relation to Amendment No. 84C, although with precautionary provisions. As I said then, in the Government's view, we have set up the committees so that they look after, first, strong management by the board and, then, access to specialist advice through committees. We believe that the committees should have an advisory role and should stop short of actually delegating functions. We said at that stage that it was entirely up to the commission how they set up their committees, and we believe that they would wish to have advisory ones and should not be bound by having to have statutory ones.
My noble friend Lord Beloff also spoke about Amendment No. 101A, which, as he rightly said, was put forward by the Academy. They put forward an advisory council, which we discussed in Committee, where I believe I may rightly say it failed to generate any support. As I said, one of the major benefits of setting up the commission is amalgamation of the currently separate advisory and executive functions. We think that what my noble friend proposes is unnecessary and we should much prefer to leave it to the commission to set up their own advisory committees, making use of as much expertise and good knowledge as they can.
Lord Sandford: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend, but I am not entirely reassured. Perhaps I may just recapitulate on the discussions we have had on this business of establishing committees. The first point which we want to make—and many noble Lords have made it—is that this is an important duty, which my noble friend has not denied, and it is in its best place if it is on the face of the Bill and not tucked away among the various arrangements that are required for the internal working of the commission. That is the first point.
The second point is that this formulation entirely meets the criticism which he levelled against Amendment No. 83 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, in that it does not prescribe in advance what particular roles each committee should have. So it is not open to that criticism.
Furthermore, it includes in it the requirement to have the approval of the Secretary of State, so that he can take care of the important requirement that there should not be overlap and duplication with outside bodies.
The last point I want to make—and nobody has thought to contradict this—is that we really require this heritage commission to operate in a less centralised form than it has in the past: to work through committees, to decentralise its functions and its activities. I know that the noble Lords, Lord Dacre,
586
Lord Blake and Lord Beloff, speaking on behalf of the British Academy, and others concerned with the importance of getting a really strong scholarly input into this commission, feel strongly about this, and for that reason I want to press this particular amendment.
On Question, amendment to the amendment negatived.
7.7 p.m.
Lord Sandfordmoved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 91, Amendment No. 101:
leave out subsection (6) and insert—
(" (6) The Commission may make such charges and payments as they may from time to time determine in respect of anything provided under subsection(2)(a) or given under subsection (2)(b) or promoted or undertaken under subsection (2)(d) to any person or body other than a Minister of the Crown.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a much less substantial point. I think that we are all glad to see in the new clause at subsection 2(c) the first reference to research being a function and a duty of the commission and, linked with that, the power of the commission to defray or contribute towards the cost of research. That is admirable. Amendment No. 101 seeks to extend that power to make charges and payments from the limited field of research to the other matters included in subsection (2)(a) and (2)(b).
I would hope that my noble friend might think that what is appropriate for research is appropriate for advice and bodies giving advice, and appropriate to support the provision of education, educational facilities, and so on. Presumably the power to do such other things as the commission think necessary or expedient is not adequate to enable them to contribute towards the cost of research, and therefore the power has to be included in subsection (2)(c). 1 would submit that it ought to be included in subsection(2)(a) and (2)(b), as my amendment seeks. In passing, perhaps I could say that it is just this sort of power which, if included, would enable the commission, for example, to give grants to the owners of smaller private houses who found a way of using their properties for educational purposes. Without it, I do not think that they would be able to give such financial assistance. Perhaps my noble friend would answer those points. I beg to move.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I think I have understood my noble friend correctly. This amendment seeks to enable the commission to employ other bodies to provide for the presentation of their monuments including publicity and educational facilities. If so, I can assure my noble friend that the power to do this is fully covered by the commission's powers to enter into contracts and other agreements. Nothing further is required. In fact, this amendment would go further than this in that it would empower the commission to pay for the presentation and promotion of the monuments outside their control, and this the Government think would be going too far. Once again as with other amendments of my noble friend to Amendment No. 91, may I look at all the details of what he said and again come back to him if I find that we have not covered the points he has made?
Lord Sandford: My Lords, I would be most grateful. I think the principle would be introduced by what the noble Earl has already put in in subsection (2)(c). I do not want the words:
"contribute towards the cost of, research"
taken out, because I think that is an advance. I just want the principle extended to a number of other functions. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment to the amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Amendment No. 91 agreed to.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, this seems to be an appropriate moment to break for dinner. I therefore beg to move that further consideration on Report on this Bill be now adjourned until 8 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Juries (Amendment) Bill [H.L.]
7.12 p.m.
Lord Wigoder: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill he now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a third time.—(Lord Wigoder.)
On Question, Bill read a third time.
Clause 1 [Disqualification of certain convicted persons for jury service]:
Lord Wigodermoved Amendment No. 1:
Leave out line 6, and insert ("indictable offence").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is purely a drafting amendment. The words "indictable offence" are defined in the Interpretation Act 1978 as being an offence triable on indictment in the case of an adult, and it is therefore neater to substitute that expression for the one in the Bill, but it has precisely the same effect. I beg to move.
The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, amendment proposed: to leave out line 6 and insert "indictable offence". The Question is, that Amendment No. I be agreed to? As many as are of that opinion will say "Content".
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, it may be a convenient moment if one raises on this amendment a matter of general principle in regard to the Third Reading itself.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Elton): My Lords, I think that the amendment has just been decided, has it not?
The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, I was in the process of putting the Question on Amendment No. 1, which formally I am obliged to put. May I try again? The Question is that Amendment No. 1 be agreed to?
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord the Minister for what was a perfectly proper
588
intervention, but I am also obliged to the noble Lord who is sitting at this moment on the Woolsack for his kindness in allowing me to have a second chance at making this speech. It may be a convenient moment to take this as the opportunity to talk about the quandaries that one is in in regard to this Bill as such, and how one should react either to this amendment which the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, has said is a purely technical one, or indeed to the amendment which I understand is later to be moved by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell.
We all know what is the present position. It is that in respect of life imprisonment, an indeterminate sentence, or one for imprisonment for more than five years, there can be a life disqualification, and there can further be a disqualification under the 1974 Act if there has been a sentence of three months imprisonment. All of us are aware that there are difficulties in regard to that position being allowed to stand as it is without our having another look at it in the light of different circumstances largely caused by the non-custodial sentence being encouraged, largely caused, too, by suspended sentences, and so on.
Both at Second Reading and at Committee stage we listened to speeches which were very well informed and which dealt with such unfortunate circumstances as jury nobbling, and so on, which has become rather more frequent than it ever was before. The difficulty that so many of us are faced with, whether we agree to this technical amendment or go on to consider any further amendments—
Lord Wigoder: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord will forgive me for one moment? His observations are obviously very welcome and clearly made, but I cannot help asking whether they have any relevance to what is purely a drafting amendment, to substitute for words in a Bill other words which mean exactly the same thing. His observation may be highly relevant on Lord Campbell's amendment, or on the Question, That the Bill do now pass, which hopefully we shall come to reasonably shortly.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, the last thing I would want to do is to hold up the business of the House purely because a speech that I might make is more suitable for a later stage than at the stage at which I am now making it. I am perfectly content to reserve my speech for a later stage, if that be the will of the House.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
7.17 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Allowaymoved Amendment No. 2:
Line 6, at end insert ("not being an offence on any such occasion in respect of which the court shall only have imposed a fine of less than £50 or shall have granted an absolute or conditional discharge.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move this amendment. It is a qualifying amendment which is designed to serve four objects: first of all, to relate dis- qualification to sentence as distinct from any type of offence, thus restoring the concept of Part II, paragraphs (i) and (ii) of Schedule 1 to the Act of 1974 which this Bill seeks to supplement. One gets a different drift of concept unless one relates

589
disqualification back to sentence as distinct from type of offence. Secondly, to avoid the introduction by this Bill of automatic disqualification by commission of an offence within a wide amorphous category of time without regard to the circumstances in which such offence was committed, this being again in conflict with the concept of the master Act, the Act of 1974, and in submission unreasonable and somewhat unnecessary. The third object is to trim off trivia which, without this amendment, would serve to activate disqualification to no good purpose. The fourth object is to use the sentencing discretion of judges, recorders and magistrates to regulate whether the circumstances in which any particular offence was committed are such as to warrant disqualification.
The reason for detaining your Lordships at this hour, and I shall be brief, is that, as the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, said a moment ago, the mood of this House on Second Reading and at Committee stage was that the Bill in its present form was not quite right, and that somehow we might be able to get it right. It is only in that spirit that I move this probing amendment, and, having said that, may I acknowledge the defects that lie within my draft. First, "any" in line 1 should read "either", and I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Elton for that correction. Secondly, the £50 provision would leave persistent minor offenders, such as shoplifters, free to serve on juries, which is wholly undesirable. Again, I am grateful to Lord Elton for that.
Thirdly, the part of the amendment after the word "or" is, strictly speaking, otiose, declaratory, because Section 13 of the Criminal Courts Act 1963 in effect says that, and I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, for that. Fourthly, the whole concept that I have adopted, of drafting by proviso, is objectionable; it is a bad way of producing legislation, but I was saddled with the original draft. Fifthly, I think your Lordships must know that my whole concept of qualification does not commend itself to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Lane. I think I owe the House that duty of disclosure in such an important matter.
Having said that, the question is how to get the Bill right. How does one achieve a fair, reasonable, practicable and intelligible draft which can serve the most urgent needs of society? It is in that spirit that I beg to move.
Lord Rawlinson of Ewell: My Lords, until my noble friend said, "I beg to move", I was not sure on which side he was, for having moved it, he went on to explain how certain of the points in it were otiose and how others were incorrect, but nevertheless he was presenting it as a probing amendment. I see his difficulty and share his dilemma, because while I support very much what the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, had in mind in presenting the Bill, it seems that we are trying to achieve our objective in a way which we are not capable of doing—I say that with respect to either a noble Lord or an individual in another place—and it ought to be done by the Government. This is an issue which the Government must take in hand. If they do not intend to take it in hand, we must support the Bill; and the Bill, with or without the amendment, serves the purpose of concentrating
590
the Government's mind carefully on the need for reform in the law in regard to juries.
I read my noble friend's remarks about what the Government have in mind. If that is so, that should be satisfactory, provided it is a Bill which deals with this problem. There is no doubt from all the reports one gets in relation to juries—and there are others in the House who probably know more about this matter—that the conduct and standard of juries in criminal courts is not as it should be. Therefore, while the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, has made a noble shot at doing something which must be done, and while my noble friend Lord Campbell has brought forward this remarkable, otiose and incorrect amendment in seeking again to highlight the fact that the subject must be dealt with, we must call on the Minister (as I am sure he will be prepared to do) to give us the lead on behalf of the Government, with all their resources, and say they will grasp this nettle and deal with the problem of juries. Having said that, I must make my decision as to whether to support this otiose and incorrect amendment. However, as my noble friend probably intends to withdraw it, I may not have to make that decision.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I supported the Bill on Second Reading, my Lords, because its general objective seemed to me to be absolutely right, and the grievance it sought to remedy is crying out for a remedy. On the other hand. I saw the force of the counter proposal, which he made perfectly clear, of the noble Lord, Lord Elton, and I think he answered in advance the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Rawlinson; the Government propose to legislate. On the other hand, I felt difficulties about the lines of legislation. An offence punishable with a sentence of imprisonment seemed acceptable, but it was to be one sentence of imprisonment which would disqualify, I think for 10 years.
The Minister mentioned some very serious offences, one perpetration of which, he submitted with considerable cogency, should disqualify: trespass with a firearm, a whole number of wounding offences, robbery, burglary and so on. I have been, without success, trying to find a compromise between those serious offences committed on one occasion and the theft of a single milk bottle on one occasion, which was canvassed on Second Reading.
The amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, as he frankly admitted, will not do as it stands, and the Bill would need redrafting. However, something on those lines might provide an intermediate line, acceptable to Parliament and public opinion, between the serious offences which the Minister mentioned and the milk bottle offence.
Lord Edmund-Davies: My Lords, confronted by an extremely difficult problem, the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, in my view, has attained as acceptable a conclusion in the matter as seems attainable. Whether it is absolutely right is another matter. I speak in relation to his amended motion and I do not, in the light of the cautionary qualification introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, propose to speak to his amendment, which I am, like the noble and learned Lord, Lord Rawlinson, not at all sure is still extant or has been withdrawn.

591
The Government view, on the other hand, as revealed on Second Reading and in Committee, seems to me—and since I do not know whether there has been any change of mind by the Government, I must, for present purposes, proceed on the basis that it remains unaltered—is a view that goes much too far: all are disqualified for jury service who, on even a solitary occasion during the last 10 years, have been convicted on any offence punishable by imprisonment of any length and even though no sentence of imprisonment was actually imposed.
The word "draconian" springs to mind, but it has become so threadbare of meaning by over use that I purposely avoid it. I content myself by saying that the proposal of the Government, as indicated on Second Reading, is unacceptably wide. Unlike all acceptable notions of penology, it appears for present purposes to be unconcerned about the degree of heinousness which led to conviction, it makes no differentiation between offenders with past criminal records and first offenders, and it draws no distinction between crimes of great gravity and those far less threatening to law and order.
On the one hand, ruthless and wicked criminals and. on the other hand, the feckless and deeply repentant who, through a misfortune, may have slipped into crime on a solitary occasion are alike to be disqualified from jury service. While fully understanding the Government's deep desire to ensure immaculacy in criminal trials, in my judgment such a policy goes much too far and ought to be resisted, if persisted in. Accordingly, I urge support for the Bill with the amendment which has been proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, and which has already been carried.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I am sure that we are all grateful to my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway for precipitating a very useful discussion of some important principles in the Bill; and the discussion ensued despite the very diffident manner in which he moved his amendment. He described its intentions as authoritative, and I should not wish to add to that. but I think that I should explain the Government's view on the various aspects of the amendment.
As the House knows, the Government share to a considerable degree the aims of the sponsors of the Bill, although they differ from them as to means. We should prefer a wider disqualification, triggered by any conviction of an imprisonable offence within the last 10 years. But our approach is not a rigid one, and I can tell the noble and learned Lord, Lord Edmund-Davies, that we fully accept that there may be circumstances when a court is able to view an offender's conduct very leniently indeed, and to reflect that in the grant of an absolute or a conditional discharge. In such cases, even if the category of offence is a serious one, the offender's culpability is clearly minor in relative terms, and we agree that he should not automatically be disqualified from jury service. My noble friend is right to want to trim off the trivia (as he put it) in this direction.
However, I fear that, despite my noble friend's persuasive advocacy, we cannot accept his amendment in another respect, because we cannot
592
take the same view in relation to offenders who are fined less than £50. The reason is simply this. The size of a fine is not related solely to the seriousness, or otherwise, of an offender's conduct; it must also be consonant with what he is thought to be able to pay, though not necessarily at once. Therefore a fine may be reduced below £50 simply because an offender is impecunious. It would surely be odd, as would undoubtedly happen if the amendment were accepted, for offenders to be eligible for jury service because they were poor enough to merit a small fine. Then, again, fines, unlike orders for conditional or absolute discharge, are quite likely to be used repeatedly for some offenders for whom imprisonment is not apt.
Therefore the noble Lord's amendment could well mean that repeated offenders who clearly did not accept the values of our criminal justice system were still eligible to serve as jurors.
It follows that our view of the policy contained in the amendment is fairly mixed. I also have to say—1 think that I have already warned my noble friend that I should have to do this, and he has alluded to it—that there are defective elements in the amendment, and he has I think tallied all of them. However, as drafted, the amendment would appear to mean that an offender has to receive a discharge or a fine of less than £50 for only one of his convictions to make him eligible for jury service, no matter how many convictions subsequently follow. But I do not think that we are concerned with the technical perfections or im-perfections of the amendment. All I wanted to point out was that we are not entirely solid on saying that it must be simply for conviction on a particular category of offence. There may be ways of trimming off the trivia which we would not resist, but since the amendment is not effective, we would not support it as it stands.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I shall be very brief. With the greatest of respect to my—
Lord Wigoder: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord will agree that, before he winds up the discussion on the amendment, I may say a few words about it. First. I should like to say that I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, for stimulating this discussion. Secondly, I entirely agree with the noble and learned Lord. Lord Rawlinson of Ewell, that this should be a matter for Government legislation. The Government are aware of the gravity of the problem and they are aware, too, of the urgent need to do something about it. They have made that abundantly clear in various comments that they have made over the last six months or so. It was only when, in response to the repeated suggestions by the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, and myself, the Government made it clear that they were not going to be able to take any initiative in this Session of Parliament, that, with very great reluctance, it was decided to proceed by way of a Private Member's Bill, in the hope that some pressure could be put upon the Government either to take over the Bill, or to initiate legislation of their own.
What was intended in the Bill was that there should be made ineligible for jury service, for a limited period

593
of time, those who on more than one occasion have shown that they disregard the criminal law, that they are prepared to commit serious criminal offences. It was intended to be a moderate proposal that would appeal in general terms to sensible public opinion. As your Lordships know, the Government have taken the other view: that is, that one, single imprisonable offence would suffice. I can only say that I myself do not regard it as acceptable to public opinion that a person who, on one isolated occasion, has failed to provide a breath specimen, for example, should find himself disqualified from jury service. Yet that would be the effect of the Government view as it stands.
We have put forward this moderate proposal, and the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, has sought to moderate it a little further. I entirely sympathise with what he seeks to do. He has sought to moderate it a little further by saying that if there is a not very important instance of what on the face of it is a serious offence, it ought not to count for this purpose. In regard to the noble Lord's proposal, I was going to comment that the fine of less than £50—it is the same point that the Minister has made—would disqualify the wealthy and allow the poor to serve, though each might have committed precisely the same offence, and indeed have committed it together, for that matter.
There is the further aspect that limiting the position by way of a fine as an indication of triviality is perhaps not altogether ideal. There are, for example, many occasions when a not very serious instance of an apparently serious offence is dealt with by a supervision order or a community service order. Whether such a course is followed, or whether a fine is imposed, does not really reflect the gravity of the offence.
Thirdly, as your Lordships will know, with inflation proceeding as it does, limits on fines are inevitably revised every few years, and the result will be that in the course of a few years' time £50 will be raised to £60, £70, or £80, and as time goes by it will become more and more difficult to look back at someone's criminal record in order to decide whether or not he is eligible for jury service.
Whatever is finally decided upon as the criterion of ineligibility, it is very important that it should be administratively practical, and I venture to suggest to the noble Lord that his helpfully intended proposal might in fact lead to certain complications in that way.
Having said that, I believe that so far the debate has served a very useful purpose, because it has enabled noble Lords to express their views about the criterion that is being suggested in the Bill. I have no doubt that the views that have been expressed in all parts of the House will be considered very carefully by the Home Office when, as inevitably it must, sooner or later, it comes to take action on the problem that is presented by the Bill. In the circumstances I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, will consider that his amendment has served a genuinely useful purpose, even though for the reasons that I have indicated it might be better to allow the Bill to go through without further amendment.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, for the kind words he has
594
spoken. With respect to my noble and learned friend, Lord Rawlinson, I made it plain to the House that this was a probing amendment, why it was a probing amendment and why I did not propose to divide the House. Furthermore, with respect, the Government intend to legislate and have said so: Official Report, Vol. 436, No. 7, col. 619, lines 10 to 15. The Government have stated in those lines that they intend to legislate. The problem—and this arose on Second Reading and on Committee stage; it arises now and will continue to arise—is not that the Government do not expect to legislate; but that the basis on which they have stated, through my noble friend the Minister, in that passage of Hansard, that they propose to legislate is that of one indictable offence only and not two—which, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Edmund-Davies, said just now, goes much too far. With the utmost respect, I agree with him, and on previous occasions other noble Lords have agreed with him. That is the problem.
It was in the hope, as I sought to make plain, that this amendment would serve as a catalyst for discussion to deal with that problem that I moved this probing amendment. I only search the intermediate line, as adverted to by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon. Whether that is the right search or not, it is at least the search which I respectfully adopt, which was adopted by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, previously, and has been adopted by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, and by certain others of your Lordships' House who have spoken.
Having sought to identify the problem, we are all indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, for having made it possible to have this debate on a subject that requires the most urgent attention. I agree totally that whatever is devised must be practicable with the type of computer facilities that are now available for the records that are brought before those who have to empanel jurors; and that considerable thought needs to be given before we can get that Bill right. I agree with my noble and learned friend, Lord Rawlinson, that it is beyond the capabilities of a mere individual to come to grips with this and that what we need is the help—the urgent help—of the Government. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7.43 p.m.
Lord Wigoder: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
In doing so, may I express the very fervent hope that the discussions that we have had at various stages on this Bill will not turn out to be an empty exercise but will stimulate the Government into dealing with this very real problem. I say that it is a very real problem because there is widespread concern that the present law is inadequate, and inadequate largely because of the growth of non-custodial sentences in the years since the Juries Act was first passed, as a result of which many people with very long criminal records are now not ineligible for jury service by the terms of the existing law. Of all the people who have spoken, not one has suggested that the present law is satisfactory. That includes noble and learned Law

595
Lords, a noble and learned former Lord Chancellor, a former Home Office Minister, distinguished Queen's Counsel, a distinguished solicitor, and a distinguished lay person in the form of Lady Faithful.
All are agreed that the law is inadequate and all, I think, are agreed that the matter is one of very considerable urgency. It is of considerable urgency because it is quite obvious that the present law is distorting our criminal procedures by enabling people with long criminal records to sit on juries in judgment upon their fellow citizens in circumstances where common sense shrieks aloud that justice is not going to be done. And it is equally urgent because of the very substantial amount of evidence forthcoming in the last year or two of approaches to jurors for the purposes of nobbling them. where again it is perfectly clear that it is those jurors with criminial records who are most at risk and most likely to take part in perverting the course of justice. Not only is the course of justice perverted but the vast expense to the country of having to provide for some of the lengthy retrials as a result of attempted jury nobbling in recent times is such that, even on purely monetarist grounds, there is a strong case to be made for this Bill.
The real question—and I do not propose to repeat what we debated a few moments ago on the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell—is precisely how to strengthen the present law. There is much evidence that a moderate proposal would be generally acceptable, one broadly on the lines of this Bill—and I do not seek for one moment to justify every single word or nuance as a criterion laid down in this Bill—but one that does not go to the extent that the Government are advocating.
Perhaps I ought to read to your Lordships at this stage what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, who regretfully cannot be here this evening, has written to me and told me that I may read:
"I should like you to know that I support most strongly the principle of the Bill but would repudiate totally the Government's proposals as being far too extreme. I have not finally made up my mind as to whether the Bill has got it quite right, but I far prefer the Bill's provisions to the Government's proposals".
When I read that letter from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Diplock, earlier this afternoon, he said at once that he would very much like to be associated with that expression of opinion.
In these circumstances, the real question now for the Government is whether they are prepared to do anything about this matter, and, if so, what? It is known that there is a Private Member's Bill in another place. It is known that its Second Reading is due towards the end of February. The noble Lord the Minister indicated to me and to the House on Committee stage here that, as soon as that Bill was drafted, he would inform me and the House of its contents. It is clear, therefore, that that Bill has not yet been drafted, and the Government, therefore, are still in considerable doubt as to how to proceed.
I can only say, as I have said on a previous occasion, that if the Government, through the means of that Private Member's Bill in another place, seek to proceed on the lines they have so far indicated, with remarkably little support inside or outside your
596
Lordships' House, then that Bill in another place would be doomed to failure. I hope in these circumstances that the Minister will accept that the proper course is either that the Government should take on this Bill and find time for it in another place, or should take on the Private Member's Bill in the other place, and ensure that time is found for it and that the contents of the Bill that the Government bring forward are broadly in line with the contents of the Bill that is in your Lordships' House at this moment. In other words, we seek to stop people serving on juries who on more than one occasion have made it clear that they are prepared flagrantly to break the criminal law. In those circumstances, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Wigoder.)
[The Lord Wells-Pestell sat Deputy Speaker.]
7.51 p.m.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, on an earlier occasion, I badly wanted to address your Lordships on certain aspects of this Bill. The House has been spared what might have been a lengthy speech of mine by the points which have been raised on the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway. I noted with envy how speakers upon that amendment managed to give general expression to their views upon the Bill as a whole and the difficulties created by it. The envy, I assure your Lordships is a moderate one, and from my point of view I have no criticism whatsoever of those who suggested that I might speak later.
We are in a difficulty, and the difficulty, shortly, is this: all of us agree that something ought to be done regarding the 1974 Act. Something ought to be done to stop those whom your Lordships and I might well call villains for the purpose of this exercise from serving on juries and having a villainous influence upon those juries. This is even though we now have the happy situation of not having to have a unanimous verdict; of course a verdict of 10 out of the 12 will, in certain circumstances, suffice. That does not mean that there cannot be a very bad influence upon a jury decision.
What worries me is this: if one is going to reform something which is inadequate, if one is to better the law, there must be a consensus of opinion that one is doing it by something which is acceptable. The problem we face—we faced it at Second Reading, Committee stage and in the amendments we discussed earlier—is that nobody has come out with a formula which is acceptable to your Lordships and which is acceptable to absent and noble and learned Lords of the reputation and status of the noble and learned Lords, Lord Diplock and Lord Scarman. When one listens to the noble and learned Lords, Lord Edmund-Davies and Lord Simon of Glaisdale, both of them so much respected in this House, they too are in some doubt about the right formula. Certainly we have heard a most powerful speech that the Government formula is no good. and we are in doubts about the formula of the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder. I can remember a notable speech by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, who gave instances of what circumstances

597
would result from the minor offences that one person might commit on two occasions in the course of 10 years.
So this is an unhappy situation. I do not think that your Lordships will be any happier, either, in regard to the Bill that we are now looking at when one remembers the contribution made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning. He reminded us of the committee presided over by someone much lamented in this House who contributed so much to it: Lord Morris. His committee pointed out that the phrase "indictable offence" would not be a way of dealing with the 1974 Act for one reason—apart from the others which have been mentioned—and that is this. What layman knows what is an indictable offence so that he can truthfully say that he either is or is not competent to sit upon a jury? The committee of Lord Morris said that there were many cases in their recommendations where matters were dealt with summarily and the person concerned might well think, "I was dealt with in a magistrates' court; that cannot be an indictable offence". We have already heard the objections to the use of "imprisonable offence".
A lot more consideration has to be given before one reforms a law if one really, after all the deliberation in our Lordships' House, comes to the conclusion that there is no really good formula which adequately reforms the law. So, I merely say this: it is not usual for this House to leave it to another House—especially on matters of law—without any guidance from this place. Although this Bill should now pass, I think that the guidance ought to be that, unless there is a formula which is not too light or too heavy—and your Lordships, with all the talent available to this House, have not been able to find such a formula—the Bill should not find its place on the statute book because, in endeavouring to reform the law, we should not have improved it. We might have walked into very many difficulties which even the present law does not afford.
7.57 p.m.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I ventured on Second Reading to give my reasons for supporting this Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, said quite rightly that this Bill had highlighted a situation which calls for urgent action. The only legislative action that is before your Lordships is the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder. There is a proposal—not a legislative one—by the noble Lord, Lord Elton, which he gave on Second Reading, which has been described by my noble and learned friends Lord Diplock. Lord Scarman and Lord Edmund-Davies, and a number of others of your Lordships, as going far too far. It is true that the noble Lord, Lord Elton, resiled slightly from that today and indicated that there might be some flexibility. But his objection to this Bill is that it does not go far enough. If there is, as the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, said, a situation calling for urgent action, surely a step which does not go far enough is better than no step at all. If therefore the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, presses this Motion, I for one shall support it.
Lord Rawlinson of Ewell: My Lords, what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, has brought to our attention is that what we are debating
598
is whether we now pass this Bill—and only this Bill. Therefore what he has said, I should have thought, commends itself very much to practically every noble Lord in the Chamber. I am aware, I tell my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway, whose leg I tried to pull, that there were statements by the noble Lord the Minister regarding legislation. I want to see something very much greater than what he said, but not in that respect. I want to see the Government address the problem of challenges to juries. I want to see them address the problem of the actual composition of juries and from whom juries should be drawn. I think we have got it wrong at the present time and therefore urgent attention is needed by the Government to look at jury trial and at the selection of juries. I can see the advantages of what has been put forward, of having one short, sharp cut, but it is a very severe cut indeed and there is something to be said—despite the wealth of distinguished noble and learned Lords who have expressed a difference of opinion—if a person does offend, for making part of the punishment which is inflicted upon them the fact that thereafter they are unable to exercise judgment on their fellow citizens because they have committed a particular offence. That may he too extreme, too grave, but I can see that there is some sense in it.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, said—and I repeat it—that what we have before us is this Bill, and this Bill goes in the right direction so far as I can see. I still call upon the Government either to say that they intend to legislate, although of course they have not got much time, or that there is a Private Member's Bill coming up in which such matters are raised. All these are matters which are raised by Governments of all complexions over the years. I trust that they realise how grave is the situation with regard to juries and how important it is to have a really comprehensive look at it and to deal with jury legislation at an appropriate opportunity.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I wish very briefly to support what my noble and learned friend Lord Rawlinson has said. This is an urgent matter. We are only at the 31st January, and there should be plenty of time, if this Session were to run its full course, for at any rate a modest measure, even though it did not go quite so far and so comprehensively as my noble and learned friend Lord Rawlinson has suggested. But if the Government are not going to introduce any legislation of their own, I feel quite sure that the very cautious and moderate proposal which the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, has put before us should be allowed to pass and should be given a fair wind in another place.
8.4 p.m.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I have already made clear the Government's position on the Bill as a whole and therefore I will seek not to detain your Lordships for long. As I said at Second Reading, we very much welcome the opportunity it affords to debate an issue of increasing concern and of an importance, which many of your Lordships have underlined this evening, to all involved in the administration, and indeed the receipt, of justice. However, we do not think that this Bill goes wide enough in disqualifying from jury

599
service those who by their way of life have shown that they reject the values of our criminal justice system.
As the House will be aware, broadly speaking, we believe that anyone convicted of an imprisonable offence within the last 10 years should be excluded from jury service. That is a view we have maintained consistently, and the House will be well aware already of the arguments on both sides and of the extent to which I was able to moderate our position on that a moment or two ago. At the same time, I have made it clear that we do not wish to oppose the noble Lord's Bill, with whose aims we have great sympathy. in its passage through this House. We have welcomed the discussion of the issues involved and the chance to gauge the feelings of your Lordships' House on these and on their detailed implications. and indeed of the importance of the Bill as a whole and of the subject with which it deals. The amendment of my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway provided a particularly valuable opportunity for this.
During the Committee stage on this Bill the noble Lord. Lord Wigoder, suggested that the formula in his Bill was a moderate one which would not arouse vehement opposition —I think he had particularly in mind the views that might be expressed in another place—and that it would be right for the Government to accept the Bill as a compromise solution, and that the Government should accept the arguments for finding time in another place for a Bill of this nature.
As to our views on the merits of the proposals in the Bill, your Lordships are familiar with them and it is clear that there is a difference of view in what, in an ideal world, is desirable. I accept that we must also take into account the acceptability to Parliament as a whole of our respective sets of proposals. This is one of the reasons why the debate in your Lordships' House has been so valuable. I must say with regret. however, that the noble Lord has himself underestimated the practical difficulties. In the Government's view, any proposal to alter the present provisions on jury disqualification are likely to meet with opposition from interests with a perfectly proper concern for civil liberties. This applies as much to the noble Lord's proposals as to the Government's.
As a matter of political judgment, therefore, I really do not think that the proposals in this Bill could reach the statute book unopposed. The noble Lord feels that the Government should simply provide time in another place for such a Bill. It would, however, be quite wrong for me to hold out any prospect of that. We have in any case a natural preference for the Bill which an honourable Member proposes to introduce in another place, and in that connection I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, that the drafting I offered to make available to him is in fact in preparation, though it is not yet complete.
I am sorry that I cannot be more forthcoming, particularly as the Government entirely share the objectives enshrined in the Bill, even though they may disagree with the noble Lord on the best way of achieving them. However, your Lordships' discussions have helped to clear some of the brushwood from the path of any such legislation. They have also, in the words of my noble and learned friend Lord Rawlinson, concentrated the Government's mind on the subject; and this
600
has not been an empty exercise. We do wish to legislate at the earliest suitable opportunity. The discussions which the noble Lord has so eloquently led will be an invaluable source of informed views in that process which will, I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. have to pass through this House of Parliament as well as through the other. That will surely be the occasion for the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, and others to seek to modify it.
My noble and learned friend Lord Rawlinson has also placed other important considerations in the same field before your Lordships. These are all for consideration. Your Lordships have not wasted your time. What you have said about the Government's approach to this problem, which we all recognise to be a matter of very great concern, has been and will be noted in the proper quarters. I think I have already made our position clear on the actual progress of the Bill beyond this point.
Lord Wigoder: My Lords, may I make three very short observations in conclusion. First, the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, about an indictable offence, can, I think, very easily be met by a simple procedure under which the court would notify a defendant after conviction that he had, or had not, committed an indictable offence which was a disqualifiable offence under this Act. I see no administrative difficulty about that at all.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I am sure the noble Lord will not mind my intervening, if only in order to make him smile, and nothing else; but I cannot imagine that such a notification is one that will be so precious to the person who receives it that he will retain it for 10 years.
Lord Wigoder: No, my Lords; but it will no doubt remind him when he gets a notice for jury service. Again, I do not think there would be any difficulty about that. The second point that I should like to make is this. There are an infinite number of possible formulae or criteria, as has been made clear. They grade from the very, very mild to the severe, such as the one that is proposed by the Government. I would hope that minor disagreement as to the precise nature of the formulae will not lead as a result to nothing being done. I think it is the Government's duty to decide now, in the light of the debate in your Lordships' House, what is the appropriate formula and to proceed to do something about it.
When the noble Lord the Minister says that the civil liberties organisations and those who are concerned with civil liberties—and I am sure that all of us who have spoken in this debate are concerned, with civil liberties—would object equally to the formula proposed in this Bill and the formula proposed by the Government, I respectfully suggest to him that that is quite wrong and that the formula proposed in the Bill is certainly very much more likely to be generally acceptable.
Finally, may I make the simple point that there is an urgent matter to be dealt with, and the Government recognise it. It involves a one clause Bill that could not conceivably take more than half a day on Second

601
Reading in another place and two days at the most in the Committee stage in another place. It is quite idle of the Government to pretend there is no time to legislate this session if they want to do so. I hope that passing this Bill will stimulate them to do so.
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

National Heritage Bill [H.L.]
8.10 p.m.
Report stage resumed.
Baroness Birk Baroness Birk moved Amendment No. 102:
After Clause 30, insert the following new clause:
("Transfer of functions: Royal Palaces.
.—(1) Her Majesty may by order in Council provide for the transfer to the Commission of any functions, including management, exercisable by the Secretary of State with respect to any Royal Palace, or part thereof, not in the occupation of a member of the Royal Family.
(2) An Order under this section may contain such incidental, consequential and supplementary provisions as may be necessary or expedient for the purpose of giving effect to the Order.
(3) No Order shall be made under this section unless a draft of the Order has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the subject of this amendment was brought out in the consultation paper without the Government coming to any conclusion about it. It was discussed on Second Reading and in Committee. This is to do with the transfer of the functions of the Royal palaces. Our thinking on this is that no decision need be made at the moment. Indeed, I think it would be quite wrong if it were made too quickly, because the new heritage commission will have to dig itself in and find its own way around a great mass of stuff. Because of the merging of the Ancient Monuments Board and the Historic Buildings Council, and the fact that it is an independent body away from the giant umbrella of the Department of the Environment, means that it will, quite frankly, have enough on its hands already without taking on the management of the Royal palaces. Nevertheless, it is all part of our conservation fabric and the environment, with all the problems of promotion, interpretation and education.
What the amendment does is to seek to include it in the legislation so that there is no need to move new legislation which can be picked up when it is agreed that the time, the expertise, the amount of understanding, is there and then the functions can be transferred. There is no commitment, either immediate, or even long term, but there is the opportunity and it would probably start with the palaces not in the occupation of a member of the Royal Family. It would enable orders to be laid. It seems this is the best way of doing it. I have quite deliberately left out the Royal parks, because, for the time being, I personally feel that the parks are happier left where they are.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu: My Lords, in supporting the amendment, I do not think it is any secret that there was considerable heart searching by the Government as to whether Royal palaces should be included. As the Bill progresses it is becoming more and more
602
obvious that, unless the Royal palaces are included, in due course the whole concept and the whole future of the commission will be very much in doubt.
As a noble Lord said earlier, talking about the income derived from DOE property, the two jewels in the crown, Hampton Court and the Tower of London, will be excluded. When one considers the management and the promotion of these monuments, it will be absurd if the commission is publicising, promoting and managing some of the monuments and a completely different agency, such as the Department of the Environment or whatever, will be carrying out such matters for the other buildings. The duplication would be quite ridiculous.
Let us take the question of season tickets, advertising, souvenir buying or what other service it may be. Here is an enabling clause which surely is harmless to anything at the moment, but it will enable a future Government, when the time is right, not to have to go through all the paraphernalia of an Act of Parliament. I cannot see any reason why this should not be accepted, although there are probably very good arguments why at the present time it may not be desirable to burden the new commission with everything all at once. But surely there is absolutely no reason why an enabling clause with built-in safeguards, particularly mentioning the word "management" which is so important, should not be included in the Bill as it stands.
Lord Elton: My Lords, as the noble Baroness explained, the amendment is to enable the functions of the Secretary of State in respect of the Royal palaces not in the occupation of a member of the Royal Family to be transferred by Order in Council to the commission. In response to a slightly similar amendment moved in Committee, I gave a clear statement why the Government decided against including functions in respect of Royal palaces. I pointed out that all buildings with the status of a Royal palace are in a very real sense Royal. People regard such places as Hampton Court Palace and the Tower of London as closely connected with our national heritage and with the Monarchy. It is, indeed, to an immeasurable extent, the Royal linkage with these places which makes them such attractions.
The Government fully accept that the commission will have a role in the maintenance and historic fabric of all palaces. Expertise in respect of archaeological and historical questions can and should be provided to the department by the commission through its general advisory role, but to delegate to the commission the work of maintaining these buildings would, in the Government's view, be to divorce themselves too far from the sensitivity surrounding them. That work should remain directly within the Secretary of State's control and be carried out, as at present, by skilled departmental staff, advised, as I have said, by the commission.
I also mentioned at the Committee stage the importance of security in the palaces. I need not expand on that again tonight. It is also argued that the commission will have tourist expertise in the presentation and commercial management of these properties. It should have the benefit of these money spinners. There is truth in this, but I am sure noble

603
Lords will agree that the commercial presentation of Royal palaces ought not to be the first consideration. What is important about such properties is their histories, their status, and their relationship to the Monarchy. The Government have in mind to look to the new commission for advisory expertise in the presentation of such properties to the public with the constraints of their Royal status. I should add, in respect of the noble Baroness's concern at the Committee stage about incentives, that there is a great deal of scope for better presentation and increased revenue at other sites. And, indeed, they perhaps represent a greater challenge and incentive to the commission because of their geographical spread and because their presentational potential has been far less explored in the past than that of the palaces. The Government have reached these decisions after much thought and believe they represent the right way forward for these important and sensitive properties.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, I think that is a very disappointing response. In fact, when we look at Hansard, with all due reference to the noble Earl's measured diction, we will find a lot of gobbledegook. He rolls out in sonorous tones about what the public expects of connection with the Royal Family. However, I suspect that it is not like that at all. I suspect that the public likes Royal connections but in the public's mind, as in the minds of a lot of us when we are not concentrating on this Bill, the whole concept of the town, or the state and the Royal Family are all fairly mixed up.
On Commissions, or Royal Commissions, we do not always find it easy to get it right. I would be much happier if the Government would produce some really strong, sound, practical reasons as to why they have decided to oppose this particular move. I see why they have decided not to take on the responsibility, but I do not see why they are against allowing this permissive amendment, which would merely enable them to move the matter on when they wanted to do so. We ought to press the Government in this House to a stage where we manage to get some sense out of them. I do not think we have received sense at this moment, and I do not think that the arguments which have been put up by the noble Earl really stand up to examination.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, I cannot make out why the Government should think that the people will think that a Cabinet Minister of this party, or that, is a more suitable manager for Royal palaces than the commission which we are setting up.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, I entirely agree with what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, and the co-signatory of the amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Montagu. I find the position quite extraordinary. It seems to me, thinking back to our earlier debates, that the Government's line has hardened. This is pinpointing the whole dichotomy of the Government over the heritage commission. The evidence is there. It is not the noble Earl's fault. It is just the way in which the Government are now running.
The position was very much more wide open in the consultation papers. The Government also talked very
604
strongly about the importance of presentation about the importance of entrepreneurial skills and about the possibility of getting better receipts. But what do they do? They do not accept the clause, which would enable them to take account of the change in people's attitudes and in the conservation climate, and to see how the commission manage and what kind of success they have. They could do this by order if they wanted, or they could leave it, but they have even put that out of court.
We hear the Tower of London and Hampton Court talked about as though the immediate Royal Family were living there and people were interrupting their breakfast every day. That is absolutely ludicrous. When I was the Minister responsible at the department for conservation, one of my ideas, for which we did not have the money, was to use some of the many empty apartments in Hampton Court and turn them into luxury flats for visiting foreign dignitaries. In earlier days, they used to pull up baskets filled with food, and I even had the idea that we could pull up hot croissants and Brioches, and that people could pay an enormous price for living in that delightful primitive way.
There are an enormous number of ideas which need the capital, the input and all the things which are now being put into the Bill. But what do we hear? We hear about what could be one of the most lucrative forms of income for the new heritage commission, and learn, at the same time, that the commission will be concerned with conservation and preservation. But the Minister himself said on an earlier amendment that we do not need to put in "primary" and "secondary", because they are equal and it can be taken for granted.
The Earl of Avon: What has that to do with it?
Baroness Birk: My Lords, it has a lot to do with it, because against this amendment the Minister has been arguing that one has to be so careful about the palaces and about their environmental state. He then went on to the question of security and said that we would need tested people. Security can apply in just the same way as it does at the moment. Presumably, the commission would be dealing with many people who were ex-civil servants and had been transferred. It is very interesting that there has been this hardened line and that the Government will not accept what is only an enabling clause. Like other noble Lords, I am quite amazed about this.
Lord Geoffrey-Lloyd: My Lords, nobody in this House wishes to embarrass the Government, but everybody wants to see the new commission being a great success. Am I unduly naïve in putting it in this way? The fact is that the Government are only transferring to the new commission about £2 million worth of revenue, whereas they are keeping in the department about £6 million-worth of revenue from what I describe—I must admit to a slightly vulgar phrase—as the great money-spinning palaces. One would feel, to move the metaphor, that they might be a great flywheel for the development of the entrepreneurial process and, we hope, for the success of the new commission. The Government are asking us to believe, at the same time, that they are performing some important movement towards an

605
entrepreneurial system, which they believe to be of benefit, but which, in the end, turns out to be only 25 per cent. in money terms of the income, as it at present exists, from the ancient monuments and historic buildings under the administration of the Department of the Environment.
I approach this from the point of view of somebody who has been a Minister for 16 years, in both peace and war, under Winston Churchill, and I do not want to get involved in this question of the difficulties of the Royal palaces. I am sure that there are such difficulties, but I am equally sure that, if somebody like Winston were in charge, and if he thought it was sufficiently important to the entrepreneurial future of the management of the historic buildings, a solution would be found.
Does a solution need to be found, if I may depart a little from the position of the noble Baroness in the direction of my noble friend, in terms of the amendment that she has moved? Is it not possible within the terms of the Bill, as it is, for the Government to arrange that, in practice, the management of the two great palaces is in the hands of the commission, although the ownership and certain important procedural aspects are arranged to stay in a way which does not embarrass the Government or anybody else? The important point is that the entrepreneurial work of the commission should comprise both those houses which are deemed to pass to the commission, and those which at present the Government think should not pass. It does not really matter whether they pass. The question is: can an effective arrangement be made for the unified entrepreneurial management? That is the question which I ask the Government to consider.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I had not intended to reply, as I do not have much to add, but my noble friend has stung me to answer. First, I should like to say that in my opening remarks I said that the advisory role of the commission would be totally there, in order to support the Royal palaces. But my noble friend then mentioned Winston Churchill, and suggested what Winston Churchill would have thought about this. I think that Winston Churchill would have been horrified at the idea of the Royal palaces being put into a commission. I may be quite wrong, but Winston Churchill had a great sense of history and history is in being Royal and, as such, I think that they should be treated separately. I cannot say whether the Historic Buildings Council and the Ancient Monuments Board thought that when this new commission was set up they would have control of the Royal palaces, and I have to leave it to the House to decide. But I should be very surprised if that were one of their ambitions.
Lord Geoffrey-Lloyd: My Lords, if my noble friend will permit me, I expressly said to him that it was not necessary that the ownership should pass. I said that I thought it was important from the point of view of the management, and he did not deal with that.
8.30 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 102) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 30; Not-Contents, 53.

DIVISION NO. 2

CONTENTS

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Birk, B.

[Teller.]

Bishopston, L. [Teller.]

Nicol, B.

Blease, L.

Peart, L.

Chorley, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Crathorne, L.

Ross of Marnock, L.

David, B.

Seear, B.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Shackleton, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Howie of Troon, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Jeger, B.

Stone, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Kennet, L.

Underhill, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Winstanley, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Adeane, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Avon, E.

Lane-Fox, B.

Bellwin, L.

Long, V.

Beloff, L.

Lucas of Chiworth, L.

Belstead, L.

Lyell, L.

Boardman, L.

McFadzean, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Caithness, E.

Margadale, L.

Camoys, L.

Orkney, E.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Perth, E.

Cathcart, E.

Portland, D.

Coleraine, L.

Renton, L.

Craigavon, V.

St. Davids, V.

Croft, L.

St. Just, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Saltoun, Ly.

Digby, L.

Sandford, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Skelmersdale, L.

Elton, L.

Swinton, E. [Teller.]

Ferrers, E.

Trumpington, B.

Fortescue, E.

Tryon, L.

Gainford, L.

Vickers, B.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Vivian, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Windlesham, L.

Grafton, D.

Wynford, L.

Greenway, L.

Young, B.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
Schedule 4 [The Commission: Amendments]:
8.38 p.m.
The Earl of Avonmoved Amendment No. 103:
Page 35, leave out lines 36 to 46.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this amendment is consequential on Amendment No. 91 to which we spoke before the adjournment. If I may make a brief observation, I had intended at that stage to reply to one point concerning Amendment No. 91. However, with his customary aptitude the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, realised that we were straying from the point, so in the event I did not have time to reply. My noble friend Lord Geoffrey-Lloyd asked about manor houses and was supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Airey of Abingdon. The new clause certainly gives to the commission a very wide advisory power covering all buildings of historic or architectural interest. I am sure that they will pay close attention to

607
the comments made today about the claims for small manor houses, which I would happily endorse. Amendment No. 103 deletes from Schedule 4 an advisory power in relation to the Secretary of State's functions under the 1953 Act. I beg to move.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, before the amendment is accepted or rejected, I wonder whether I could follow the example of the noble Earl, Lord Avon, by going a little wide of the particular amendment which is before us and making a remark about Amendment No. 91 as a whole which was agreed to with such exemplary speed immediately before we rose for dinner. If any noble Lord thinks that I should not do so at this moment I hope he will let me know, otherwise, without any objections from the House, I shall proceed for a couple of minutes.
Amendment No. 91—this major amendment produced by the Government—was, as the noble Earl said, in response to the doubts expressed during the Committee stage about the incomprehensibility of Schedule 4. My opinion is that the Government are to be much congratulated on having seized the bull by the horns and on making a full and quite satisfying statement on the general functions and duties of the commission. For that they have earned the gratitude of all parts of the House. It was necessary to do it because Schedule 4 was incomprehensible.
The other side of that coin—the other side of the complimentary face which I have just presented—is that Schedule 4 is still incomprehensible. We must for a moment ask ourselves, who will benefit from the clear new Clause 30 and who will suffer from the continuing incomprehensibility of Schedule 4? The answer is quite clear. The public at large will greatly benefit from the new Clause 30 and will for the first time know what it is all about: they will know what sort of animal the commission is intended to be.
Now that we can all see the commission's general outline through the mist. we can all be satisfied that it is the right sort of animal. But those who will continue to suffer from the incomprehensibility of Schedule 4 will be all those concerned professionally with the functioning of the new commission. I suggest that the new commissioners themselves will suffer, as will local authorities, civil servants in the department, local amenity societies and trustees. In other words, although much of the harm that would have been done by the total incomprehensibility of one schedule to the Bill has been circumvented by the new clause, yet the harm itself is still there. There should not be an incomprehensible schedule to any Bill.
I want to take this opportunity to ask the noble Earl what the Government intend doing to make Schedule 4 more comprehensible. At an earlier stage there was discussion on the possibility of the Government publishing a document which I called a "kippered Keeling". That document is in itself a very difficult one to understand; perhaps the second most difficult in the law of preservation as a whole. If the Government can put this in the "kippered Keeling" and can undertake to make it available everywhere the Bill is available, to everyone to whom the Bill is available, and at a price which will not greatly increase that which everyone has to pay for the Bill, then the House should rest content.
608
On the other hand, if the Government cannot give us that clear undertaking at this stage, it may be necessary to come hack to the continuing evil of the incomprehensibility of one schedule to this Bill at another stage and, perhaps, even later in another place.
The Earl of Perth: My Lords, Lord Kennet has commented on the difficulties of Schedule 4. It is a very difficult schedule but, to the extent that this amendment leaves out 10 of the lines, we should be grateful—more particularly because, as the noble Earl, Lord Avon, has told us, it is covered in his Amendment No. 91, which was moved before we went to have our dinner. I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, that Clause 30 is now subject to one or two changes, but we know now what the commission are to do. This is stated so clearly, not only for our purposes but also for the public generally, that we are all very indebted to the noble Earl for having done that. It was that point that worried me most of all—what was it all about? Now we know.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords for the kind things they have said. With regard to the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, about the form of publication, I do not have the exact words before me, but, so far as I know, there is no change on the statement I made at Committee stage. However, I will make sure that we give a full statement at Third Reading which will spell it out quite clearly.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Avonmoved Amendment No. 104:
Page 36, line 1, leave out ("At the end of section 2 of the 1953 Act") and insert ("In the Historic Building and Ancient Monuments Act 1953 (the 1953 Act") at the end of section 2").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this amendment makes some drafting changes to paragraph 2 of Schedule 4, which will become the first paragraph of Schedule 4 as a consequence of the deletion of paragraph 1, which itself is the consequence of the new Clause 30. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Strathcona and Mount Royalmoved Amendment No. 105:
Page 37. line 11. after ("garden") insert (", park, designed landscape").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in this amendment —and I shall endeavour to cover the points of Amendment No. 106 at the same time—we refer to the question which was raised by my noble friend Lord Digby at Committee stage. At that time the amendment was received with what I might call reserved sympathy by my noble friend the Minister. Amendment No. 106 is a little different from the amendment moved in the Committee, because seemingly it created problems for the Government by importing the concept of scientific interest. In so doing, it created a conflict of interests with the responsibilities of the Countryside Commission, which was not the intention.
The Historic Buildings Council have not, perhaps, achieved all that we hope they might because basically

609
they have been starved of money. But they have the task of preserving parks and landscapes. Indeed, it is clearly in their remit because they advise the Secretary of State on the question of exemption from capital transfer tax in respect of those areas. What we have done in revising Amendment No. 106 is to place emphasis on the word "artistic" as opposed to the word "historic". My noble friend Lord Digby made the point at Committee stage that artistic achievements are indeed represented by the great gardens, be they large gardens or be they small gardens.
Also, I want to make the point that artistic gardens are still being created. Certainly in my lifetime we have seen the Crown Commissioners create the Savill and Valley Gardens at Windsor, which constitute a major artistic achievement by the eminent gardener after whom the gardens have been named. In using the word "artistic", we are seeking to distinguish between the national landscapes which are the responsibility of the Countryside Commission and artistic creations such as gardens to which we have referred in these two amendments. I beg to move.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for the brevity with which he has moved this, the first in a series of amendments designed to extend the responsibilities of the commission and the Secretary of State to include parks, designed landscapes, and other land of outstanding architectural and artistic rather than just historic interest. Although specific points in the amendments vary, their general principle is the same and therefore I would like to direct my remarks to the principle behind them all.
When your Lordships discussed similar but even more wide-ranging amendments at Committee stage, my noble friend Lord Avon drew attention to the fact that the proposals were trespassing into the remit of the Countryside Commission. In the light of that discussion, he undertook to investigate whether there was any loophole between the powers given to the new commission in this Bill and the existing powers of the Countryside Commission, which might mean that gardens, parks, landscapes and so on could not be in principle helped by grants. Due to the recent changes in portfolios, and fulfilling his pledge, I have met the Countryside Commission and I can confirm to the House that there is absolutely no loophole in the powers that were, are and will he available.
The issue, therefore, becomes one of interpretation and demarcation. The House will appreciate that there are some difficulties in interpretation; for example, what on earth is "a designed landscape". There are many different kinds of landscapes most of which have the imprint of man's hand upon them. They could range from a view of the Cotswolds to a view of Central London, to a formal park with or without a garden landscape by, say, Humphrey Repton or Capability Brown. The real answer here is demarcation. The department and the Countryside Commission at present have an administrative understanding which can most easily be expressed in terms of the ha-ha, with the building side of the ha-ha falling to the department and the other side to the Countryside Commission. There is close co-operation on the grey areas which inevitably exist. The
610
Countryside Commission will, I know, be very ready to co-operate similarly with the new commission on whatever basis is most appropriate.
My noble friend spoke particularly of the artistic achievements and of what he described as the natural achievements, and he described the natural achievements as being the responsibility of the Countryside Commission. I can assure the House that it is not quite as he has stated, but due to my devilling around on this particular issue, which I know causes wide concern in landscape circles, I can say that the position is as I have just stated it.
Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal: My Lords, I beg leave to withdrawn the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 106 not moved.]
Lord Winstanley Lord Winstanley moved Amendment No. 107:
Page 37, line 39, at end insert—
("( ) A grant or loan under this section for the purpose of securing public access to the whole or part of the property shall only be made on condition that provision is made for disabled people to have access insofar as is in the circumstances reasonable and practicable.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a simple amendment which I think noble Lords will recognise is very much along the lines of a group of amendments moved by my noble friend Lord Beaumont of Whitley at an earlier sitting on Report on this Bill, a group designed to require that the various bodies with which we are concerned in this Bill should disclose what they have done on behalf of the disabled in relation to the various premises which they manage. The noble Earl was gracious enough to indicate the Government's general support for that group of amendments. and I understand the Government themselves will be introducing something along those lines.
This amendment, the noble Earl may think, goes a little further. Maybe it does. All that it seeks to do, however, is to require that before grants or loans are given for premises that will be open to the public they be linked in some way with the making of appropriate provisions for disabled people. That link may be particularly important in the field of ancient monuments and historic buildings, where the strict access requirements are less easy to apply than in, say, a new supermarket or a new office block or something of that kind. I think there is perhaps a danger because of the difficulties of doing everything needed in relation to premises of this kind. That is the assumption that, because it is difficult to do everything, we cannot do anything.
I would assure the noble Earl that this amendment is not very onerous. It merely requires that before a grant or loan is given for the purpose of securing public access it shall be a condition that provision is made for disabled people to have access; and it goes on,
"insofar as is in the circumstances reasonable and practicable".
In other words, it merely requires that thought should be given to the rights of the disabled with regard to access before loans or grants are made. That seems to me not a very onerous requirement, and it is one that I very much hope the Government will accept.

611
I am absolutely certain that the Government are as anxious as we are that the momentum gained during the International Year of Disabled Persons should not be impeded and should not be lost. I think there is a danger that it might be. Tremendous enthusiasm was generated during the International Year, and I think it behoves those of us who were very much concerned with that Year to do what we can in relation to legislation on a continuing basis to see that that momentum is maintained. I really do say that this is not an onerous requirement. This should only be done in so far as it is both reasonable and practicable. It merely requires that thought should be given to the possibility of providing access for the disabled before grants or loans are made for the purpose of this particular clause. I beg to move.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, as the noble Lord has explained, this amendment is designed to ensure that access conditions for disabled people are imposed by the commission when making historic building grants for general public access with conditions attached to them. I think there is a very real problem in seeking to do this. Although public access to historic buildings is something which should be looked for and encouraged by the commission, the scope for special provision for disabled, or any other persons is very limited. Preservation of the past does not allow the historic fabric to be altered to provide special facilities.
The real scope for meeting the needs of disabled people lies in making sure that new facilities, such as toilets, restaurants and car parks, cater for them. The commission will not be able to make grants towards the cost of these new facilities. They will be limited, as the Secretary of State is now, to funding the repair and maintenance of the historic fabric. I do not believe it would be right to impose conditions on private owners of these houses which would require expenditure which could not be met. at least in part, by grants. In any case, the kind of facilities to be provided must be a matter for the owner, who will himself be subject to the provisions in the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970, which mirrors very closely the wording of the amendment.
The Government have accepted amendments moved by the noble Lord and by his noble friend Lord Beaumont with the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, on this subject, including an amendment requiring the commission to include in their annual report a statement of action taken to further the enjoyment of ancient monuments and historic buildings by disabled people. This provides an explicit place for the purpose of this amendment and will, we believe, ensure that their needs are met so far as is reasonable and practicable.
I should perhaps add that a great deal is already done for the disabled at the Department of Ancient Monuments within the very real constraints of this kind of site. I hope that because we have undertaken to accept the other amendments, not only in the spirit of last year being the Year of the Disabled but also in the spirit that we believe them to be totally correct, and in the light of what I have said, the noble Lord might not wish to press this amendment.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl. I have listened most carefully, and I think I can say at once that I do not disagree with a single word the noble Earl has said. At the same time. I cannot see why the words he has said should in some way lead him to believe that he cannot accept the amendment. He has said that there will be done precisely what is required in the amendment. The amendment is not onerous; it does not place a specific obligation on anybody. It merely requires that the needs of the disabled should be thought about. In so far as I understood the noble Earl's words to indicate that that would be the position. I am reassured. I would have slightly preferred to see something written into the Bill. But, in the light of the noble Earl's remarks and his clear assurance that it is his desire that what I have in mind will in fact happen, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 108 not moved.]
9 p.m.
Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal moved Amendment No. 109:
Page 38, line 25, at end insert—
("(c) any land which is situated in England which appears to them to be a garden, park, designed landscape or other land of outstanding historic or artistic interest").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we return to the same point as on Amendments Nos. 105 and 106. Perhaps I may ask the noble Lord a couple of questions on this. Again, this is a permissive power which we would be giving to the commission. Are the Government saying that if we give this power to the commission we are in danger of creating a conflict with the Countryside Commission, and that they do not particularly want to address the problem of how that conflict would be resolved? Are they saying that they want to stick rigidly to what they call the ha-ha outside historic buildings? If we do that, is there not a danger that, in the event that an artistic whole is wanted by the commission, one could end up with the Countryside Commission being interested in one bit and the new commission being interested in another? Is this not a totally unnecessary complication? If the park belongs with the building, would it not be a good idea to keep the two together as an entity?
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, before the noble Earl replies, I should like to add a word to what has been said. As a former chairman of the Countryside Commission I have, of course. no right at all to speak on behalf of the Countryside Commission as it now is, but I am bound to say that from my reading and my study of the amendment I cannot see any reason why the Countryside Commission would not welcome an amendment of this kind. It is, of course, a fact that the Countryside Commission has frequently been involved in gardens in one way or another: not the creation of the gardens or the management of them, but the fundamental part of the Countryside Commission's statutory obligations is that it must do what it can to promote access to the countryside. It often uses that definition "countryside" to include gardens of the kind that the noble Lord has in mind—access to the countryside for the purpose of

613
open air, informal, recreational activities. In the light of that particular statutory duty, the Countryside Commission has, in fact, given very many grants to assist access to gardens and to assist with certain parts of the gardens themselves—for example, tree planting at Beaulieu. and there are very many other examples I could give. I merely add, in case there is some kind of misunderstanding, that as a former chairman of the Countryside Commission I cannot myself see any reason why the countryside commissioners at the moment should have any objection to the amendment.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I think it is important to consider once again the commission's major and priority task, which the Government are convinced must be to fulfil its main duties in respect of buildings and monuments. Within that task it is right and sensible that gardens should be included, and that land associated with an historic building or ancient monument, perhaps itself long disappeared, should also be included.
Outside that, I rest my case on my belief that the function of the Countryside Commission—the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, with his great experience of these matters will correct me if I am wrong—is to provide the expertise, financial and other encouragement for what one might call the more distant areas. Between the two commissions all that is historically and artistically important can, as I said in answer to my noble friend's first barrel, be covered.
Although I should be perfectly happy to take further advice on this point, I think that the danger in this particular amendment is to open up such a lacuna that there will be land that will fall into the gap. In other words, it will not be grant aided by anyone. I do not say that that will happen, but I see it as a danger that could occur. That is one thing that nobody wants. Further to that, it would perhaps be in the interests of the House if I ask my noble friend to withdraw his amendment at this stage, and perhaps we can come back to it in private discussions before the next stage.
Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal: My Lords, one cannot possibly refuse an offer such as the noble Lord made at the end of his intervention. May I take just a couple of points on what he said before I withdraw the amendment. He talked about a gap. What I thought he would be fearful of was an overlap. Gaps are not what this is about. I accept that an overlap is a danger. What I think I am saying is that if it seems sensible for the landscape to go with the building, then so be it, let it do that. The noble Lord talked about the co-operation and the good sense that exists between the two commissions. Indeed, he referred to the two commissions.
What I am a little concerned about is that it is, in any case, pretty complicated doing a deal with the Government on any of these things, and if one can possibly avoid having it dealt with by two separate commissions, surely it would be better for the Countryside Commission to be able to say to the new commission: "This looks like your principal interest, you deal with it and have the lot." The idea of splitting this at the ha-ha and dealing with two commissions
614
fills me with a great deal of misgiving. I do not want to waste the time of the House and I come back to the hopeful words of the noble Lord at the end of his intervention. I happily withdraw the amendment, in the hope that we can reach a satisfactory conclusion.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Avonmoved Amendment No. 110:
Page 38, line 28, leave out from ("which") to ("in") in line 29 and insert ("it would (within the meaning of subsection (5) of this section) be historically appropriate to keep")
The noble Earl said: My Lords, with permission, I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 110 and 114 together. In Committee I was, happily, able to accept in principle an amendment put down by my noble friend Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal and moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, which would enable the commission to acquire not only objects which are, or have been, ordinarily kept in the building in their ownership or management. but also objects historically appropriate to such buildings.
Amendment No. 110 amends a current drafting and provides that the commission may purchase or accept as a gift any objects which it would be historically appropriate to keep in the buildings. Amendment No. 114 goes on to provide a definition of "historically appropriate". It covers any object which
"is or has been ordinarily kept in the building,"
or any object which is,
"historically associated with the building or connected with a person or event historically associated with the building."
For example, this would cover the purchase of articles which have long been associated with the resident of a particular building but never actually kept there—a point which I believe concerned my noble friend Lord Digby.
The Duke of Grafton: My Lords, I should like to say a few words on this subject because I am not sure that the Government have really realised what was intended. Amendment No. 103D was accepted in principle in Committee. It would have made the Bill at page 38, line 27, read:
"power to purchase by agreement, or to accept a gift of, any objects which arc historically appropriate to, or have been ordinarily kept in".
I feel that the Government have still missed the point, which had in fact been very clearly made by Amendment No. 103D and by my noble friend Lady Birk, who moved it.
Objects that are historically appropriate to a building would not necessarily pass the test under the Government's amendment; only those of the type mentioned by my noble friend Lord Digby would pass it and they might conceivably have missed the old test as historically associated anyway. The type of situation envisaged by the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, is not met by the Government. I speak as a member of the Historic Buildings Council for England which has to deal with very difficult cases of historic houses which we are trying to rescue without one single stick of furniture. I quote one case in particular—the beautiful Montacute House in Somerset, which was rescued in the 1920s, when not one single bit of historic furniture belonging either to the Phelips family, who built it, or

615
to Lord Curzon, who had lived there for 10 years, was in it.
I suggest that the proposed amendment would allow another collection to be built up of similar objects of furniture which would be suitable furnishings for Montacute House. In fact the National Trust, with great assiduity over many years, has begged, borrowed and stolen furniture and tapestries. I ought to withdraw "stolen", but it has furnished it with very great difficulty.
I see the situation happening again. I do not think that the present amendment actually covers this point. One has only to think of the pathetic empty houses in France to realise that this is surely not what we want.
The Earl of Perth: My Lords, if I understand the problem here, it arises from the word "historically". I understood the noble Duke to say that if one had an empty house and another collection that was wholly appropriate, then it was right that it should be included as part of the whole of that particular house. I would go along with that. But, if we interpret "historically" as being actually associated with the house in one way or another, then I am unhappy about the situation. So I hope that there is no confusion and that the noble Earl when he inserts the word "historically" does not mean that these items have literally got to be part of the history of that house in some way or another. That is my worry. If he were to leave out the word "historically" so that it just said "appropriate to" I should be totally happy.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, I think that we should get one point quite clear. As I understand it, the Minister spoke about his amendment. Did the noble Duke then move the amendment to which some of us have attached our names? There is an amendment in his name. Are we discussing that amendment?
The Duke of Grafton: My Lords, I hoped that we were.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, perhaps I may clarify the point. The amendment moved is amendment No. 110, which is my amendment. The noble Duke will have to wait until his amendment is called.
Lord Digby: My Lords, I should like to come to the rescue of my noble friend Lord Avon because it seems to me that "historically appropriate" here means not necessarily historically attached to the house; it could well mean things that are historically appropriate to the period of the house. Therefore, I believe that it is a wide definition. However, I should like the Minister's confirmation of this wider interpretation because I am most grateful to him for bringing forward this amendment.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, I should like to make my point on this amendment. I also am grateful to the Minister for what I am sure is the intention to meet what a number of us—particularly the noble Lord, Lord Digby, and myself—were concerned about in Committee. The noble Earl, at column 964 of the Official Report for 21st December 1982, said:
616
"The Government agree that historically appropriate objects are highly relevant to the overall conservation of the building and we are happy to accept the amendment in principle".
He went on to say that he would prefer not to commit himself to the precise form of words. It is a pity because, on the face of it, the amendment appears to have done the trick, but I do not believe it really has. It reads:
"historically appropriate to keep in a building if—

(a) it is or has been ordinarily kept in the building; or

(b) it is historically associated with the building or connected with a person or event historically associated with the building".

It seems to me that it does not include objects or pieces of furniture or other things which could be brought into the house at a later stage, which would be historically appropriate but which nevertheless would not come under the criteria of having been:

"(a) … ordinarily kept in the building; or

(b) … historically associated with the building or connected with a person or event".

though they could be of the right period; they could be absolutely right.
It took me some time to fathom this out. At first I was convinced, because I knew the intention was there. We were all pleased and accepted in Committee that this was so. But I think that, through some error or through something that happened, it does not meet the point, certainly the point I made in Committee about this. The amendment in the name of the noble Duke. the noble Lords, Lord Montagu and Lord Strathcona, and myself—Amendment No. 114A —deals with this particular point.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, very briefly, perhaps I may just run through again what I think this amendment includes, because it seemed to me that we had covered virtually everything. Amendment No. 110, using the words:
"it would … be historically appropriate to keep",
in the buildings concerned, covers any object which is or has been:
"ordinarily kept in the building".
or any object which:
"is historically associated with the building or connected with a person or event historically associated with the building".
For example, this would cover the purpose of memorabilia which were associated with the resident of a particular building but never actually kept there. I take the point made by my noble friend the Duke and I should like to have a very close look at what he has suggested—particularly the case he mentioned—to make sure that what he has suggested is covered. I hope that he will let me do that.
The Duke of Grafton: My Lords, I should be very grateful if my noble friend would do that.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
9.17 p.m.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu Lord Montagu of Beaulieu moved Amendment No. 111:
Page 38, line 44, at end insert—
(" (3A) The Commission may acquire any listed building together with any other adjacent property in a group with two or

617
more listed buildings for the purpose of repairing, restoring or improving it, or them. prior to disposing of it, or them, by sale or otherwise under a "revolving fund".").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with this amendment I should like to speak to Amendment No. 113. Noble Lords will recall that in Committee an amendment was tabled on similar lines, but I believe that the Government thought that the amendment was only specially designed to allow country houses to be purchased, repaired and sold. But this was not the purpose and perhaps it was our fault that the amendment was not clearly understood. It was very much wider: it was to ensure that the commission should and could do much humbler work in towns, cities and villages, particularly on small groups of buildings and small buildings themselves, on the "revolving fund" principle, which is well-established and working very well in some areas.
I am sure that your Lordships will appreciate the great merit of such revolving funds—that they are a very cheap way of using a relatively limited amount of money and, of course, using it over and over again. Alas! although this has been very successfully operated in Scotland for many years, especially by the National Trust for Scotland, it has not been adopted widely in England. There are still far too many areas where local authorities and others have not yet adopted revolving fund principles. It is to fill this void that I believe the commission needs to have a clearance and, if necessary, the powers in the Bill.
This amendment differs in various ways from the amendment tabled at the Committee stage. First, the words "together with … adjacent property" have been added so that schemes can cover occasionally even unlisted buildings when they are in a group. Secondly, the term "revolving fund" has been specifically written in to remove all doubt as to what is intended. This amendment is also linked to Amendment No. 113 and sub-paragraph (4) is amended to bring revolving fund activities under the control of the Secretary of State. If this is the price to be paid, perhaps it is the best price to be paid.
Therefore, I am asking for an assurance that the commission can be involved in revolving fund work and that the grant-in-aid will be sufficient to allow considerable borrowing for revolving fund purposes. Finally, perhaps my noble friend would make it clear how grants to other organisations setting up revolving funds to provide them with capital purchases are to be divided between, for example, the Civic Trust and others that pass on their funds to various charities. I beg to move.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, when we discussed this idea at Committee stage, I said that with one difference the activities provided for by this amendment, acquiring, repairing, improving and reselling historic houses, were already provided for under Section 5A of the 1953 Act. That difference was the need to get the Secretary of State's consent to acquisition. As we have heard from my noble friend, Amendment No. 113 takes this on board and makes acquisition for the revolving fund subject to such consent.
However, I must go back to what I said then. This does not alter the basic and most important issue, which is that, under the Government's proposal, the
618
commission will have the necessary powers to operate a revolving fund. I would gladly give my noble friend that reassurance. He asked me about a grant. I am not sure what the answer is to that, but I shall let him know in the near future.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu: My Lords, in view of that assurance, and I am delighted to hear once again that it confirmed that the commission will be able to operate revolving funds, I am happy to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.21 p.m.
The Earl of Avonmoved Amendment No. 112:
Page 38, line 46, leave out ("or(2)")
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this amendment will remove the need for the commission to obtain the Secretary of State's consent to acquiring or accepting as a gift any historical object for the buildings in its care. This question of the need of the Secretary of State's consent was a recurring theme during our discussion on Schedule 4 at Committee stage. In relation to this paragraph, paragraph 8 of Schedule 4, it was suggested that it was not sensible for the commission to be required to get consent before requiring or accepting objects, or before accepting gifts of property. We have accepted the first of these suggestions, which is now embodied in this amendment. Perhaps I may explain why we can accept this but not the other idea. Briefly, it is that taking on an historical building involves continuing bills for repair, maintenance and management. These are often substantial. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 113 not moved.]
The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 114:
Page 38, line 48, at end insert—
("(5) For the purposes of section (2) of this section, an object is one which it would be historically appropriate to keep in a building if—

(a) it is or has been ordinarily kept in the building; or

(b) it is historically associated with the building or connected with a person or event historically associated with the building.")

The noble Earl said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this. I beg to move.
The Duke of Graftonmoved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 114, Amendment No. 114A:
At end insert ("or is similar to such an object; or
(c) it is of the same date or style as the building or part thereof and appropriate thereto")
The noble Duke said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this. I beg to move this amendment.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, since this has been formally moved, although it has been thoroughly thrashed out in your Lordships' Committee, I did not think that the noble Earl in replying to it had totally taken on board the strength of the desire to include in this objects which are not necessarily connected with the building or with persons connected with the building. It is an extension of the Bill that we are searching for here. I am sure it is a right one. I hope

619
that he will come back at Third reading with an amendment to this, or can tell us why not, because even if he does not, I think that the rest of us would probably want to bring it forward. This is an important amendment.
Amendment to the amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
9.25 p.m.
The Earl of Avonmoved Amendments Nos. 115 and 116:
Page 39, line 4, at end insert ("or 119(1)(b) or (c)"). line 6, leave out ("section").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, Amendment No. 115 will enable the commission to grant aid in respect of local authority acquisitions of historic buildings where these are made by agreements. In Committee, when we discussed Amendment No. 103J in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, I was able to assure the Committee that we intended to widen the commission's powers beyond the grant-aiding of compulsory acquisitions. Under this amendment, they will be able to give grant to any local authority which has acquired by agreement any building appearing to them to be of special architectural or historical interest, and any land adjoining such a building which appears to the Secretary of State to be necessary for preserving the building or its amenities. Amendment No. 116 makes a drafting change to reflect the fact that the paragraph now refers to two sections, rather than one, of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal moved Amendment No. 117:
Page 39, leave out lines 13 to 15 and insert—

("(a) buildings which are situated in England and which appear to the Commission to be of outstanding historic or architectural interest together with any land which is contiguous or adjacent thereto: and

(b) land which is situated in England and which comprises a garden, park, designed landscape or other land which appears to the Commission to be of outstanding historic, or artistic interest.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 117 goes to the new paragraph 5A in Schedule 4, and No. 119, if I may speak of that at the same time, broadens the provision to Scotland and Wales. In the presence of my noble friend the Duke of Grafton, I say that perhaps he should be moving this as it is a National Trust one. We have talked about artistic merit, gardens, parks and designed landscapes. This goes back to the same fundamental issue that we do not want to separate the buildings from their surroundings. There seems no good reason why grants should not be given to the National Trust under these two provisions in the Bill so that buildings are not separated from the amenity lands which go with them. Amendment No. 119 attempts to do the same for Scotland and Wales. We are possibly in difficulty over the Long Title of the Bill regarding Scotland and Wales. I hope the Minister will not take refuge behind that because, if he accepts the principle, it would be simple to introduce an amendment to the Long Title.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, this gun is obviously rather modern—having considerably more than two barrels—but let us see how we get on with it as we proceed. These amendments seek to extend the commission's and the Secretary of State's power to make grants to the National Trust, as we have already heard, towards the cost of acquiring property. The current powers cover only buildings of outstanding historic and architectural interest. The amendments would also cover parks and so on.
As I understand it, the grants to the National Trust in respect of a unit—by "unit" I mean a garden with its associated land—would be covered already by the Bill, so I do not see that my noble friend has any cause to worry on that score. My noble friend also preempted what I was going to say about seeking to extend the powers to the Secretaries of State for Wales and Scotland, which is outside the present aims of the Bill. If we really needed to do that, I agree with him that there would not be any great problem in extending the Long Title.
Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal: Frankly, my Lords, I found my noble friend's response difficult to understand. As for the last point he made, we read in paragraph 9(4) of Schedule 4:
"This section applies only where the property or buildings are situated in Scotland and Wales",
which in itself seems to be outside the Long Title anyway, although that is already in the Bill.
So far as the other point is concerned, if the noble Lord really is saying that it is covered, clearly that is something that we must accept, if it comes from so authoritative a source. But the strange point is that, as I understand it, that is not the way that most people would read the Bill. Nevertheless, I think that the best thing we can do is to withdraw the amendment at present and seek confirmation from the noble Lord that he really is right in what he is saying: and no doubt he is exceedingly well briefed. If the experts on the other side are not satisfied, I suppose that we shall have to return to the matter at Third Reading. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.31 p.m.
Baroness Birk Baroness Birk moved Amendment No. 118:
Page 39. line 15, at end insert—
("Commission: major conservation schemes.
5C. Subject to the consent of the Secretary of State the Commission may initiate, carry out, co-ordinate or participate in a "major conservation scheme" for the conservation, repair, enhancement and improvement of any outstanding group of scheduled monuments or buildings listed as being of special historic or architectural interest together with other buildings and land in conservation areas or otherwise, including schemes in partnership with local authorities, charities, housing associations and any other bodies or persons with commercial or noncommercial interest therein as the Commission thinks fit."
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, we discussed a somewhat similar amendment in Committee. We are trying to deal with those cases where major schemes need to be put through, often with the help of local authorities or other bodies, or both. Until now the matter has been left to the Department of the Environment and it has not always faced up to the situation and got on with the job. As a result, schemes have not

621
been put into being by anyone else, things have slid from bad to worse, buildings have been lost, and the cost of saving those that have been saved has risen all the time.
The need is to give the commission powers to get things to move. In the context of Government property being vacated, where local authorities are under no real obligation to go in and spend their ratepayers' money, Chatham's historic dockyard would be a present-day example. Woolwich Arsenal is another, and there may soon be even more, as the services pull out of their historic premises as their needs change. It seems wrong that the commission should have the flair and entrepreneurial skills, yet not have the power to use them where they are most needed.
At the Committee stage the Minister said that he thought that the amendment was drawn rather too widely. Well, this kind of amendment has to be drawn rather widely. So that large and open-ended commitments are not taken on without the Secretary of State's knowledge and approval, this point is now written in, even though by making the power subject to the Secretary of State's consent, we have to accept that caution could act as an obstruction. However, we hope that that will not be so. The amendment provides the opportunity—it seems very difficult to find any other way to do it—to enable major conservation schemes to be carried out by the new heritage commission. I beg to move.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, since we discussed a very similar amendment to this one at the Committee stage, I have had the opportunity to reconsider the question of whether or not the commission should have specific powers to organise partnership schemes, with a wide range of bodies or persons, for the conservation of historic buildings and areas. I have to say that, despite the arguments advanced then and now, I do not believe that these powers are really necessary.
As I said in Committee, the commission will have wide grant-making powers, and in respect of any of these, if it thinks it right, it will be able to agree with any other person or body how best the resources might be used. The commission will also have very wide ranging advisory powers, and within its general duty of preservation described in the new Clause 30 it will have ample scope to foster the preservation of important buildings and groups of buildings through encouragement, expert advice, and commitment, as well as through grant resources. I believe that we all agree that that is the real role for the commission. The extent to which it involves itself will be for it to decide, but as was suggested in The Way Forward, it will be expected to be a powerful voice for conservaton. All the powers that the commission should need to foster and assist the kind of conservation schemes envisaged in the amendment are already in the Bill.
The amendment includes a reference to a "major conservation scheme', a term which at the moment is left undefined, though of course we could get round that. But the schemes could extend to the conservation, repair, enhancement and improvement of any outstanding group of buildings, together with other buildings and land. We believe that in this case the
622
commission would need the consent of the Secretary of State, but not it seems of the owners or occupiers of the buildings involved. I did not intend to go into the technical aspects of the amendment, and I hope that, with my added reassurance as to what the Bill at present covers, the noble Baroness will feel that it is adequate.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that explanation. I am not sure at the moment that I feel that it is adequate. I will read what he has said about it, look at it again and, in the meantime, beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.36 p.m.
Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal moved Amendment No. 119:
Page 39, leave out lines 16 and 17 and insert—
("9.—(1) Section 6 of the 1953 Act (grants for acquisition of historic buildings) shall be amended as follows—
(2) In subsection (2) leave out "buildings which appear" to the end of the subsection and insert—

"(a) buildings which appear to the Secretary of State to be of outstanding historic or architectural interest together with ony land which is contiguous or adjacent thereto; and

(b) land which comprises a garden, park, designed landscape or other land which appears to the Secretary of State to be of outstanding historic or artistic interest."

(3) At the end of that section there shall be inserted—")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment, and I now beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal moved Amendment No. 120:
Page 39, leave out lines 20 and 21 and insert—
("10.—(1) Section 8 of the 1953 Act shall be amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (l)—

(a) in paragraph (c) leave out "building" and substitute "monument";

(b) at the end of paragraph (c) insert—

"or

( ) any land comprising, or adjacent to, any such building or monument; or

( ) any land appearing to the Secretary of State to be a garden, park, designed landscape or other land of outstanding historic or artistic interest.";

(c) for "upkeep of any such building together with" substitute "upkeep of any such building, monument, garden, park, designed landscape or other land together with".

(3) At the end of that section there shall be inserted—")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is on the same general issue, but it gets a little more complicated because it refers back to previous legislation, as so often happens in this Bill. As I understand it, the situation will be that the 1953 Act will be amended in respect of endowments—Section 8 by the Secretaries of State for Scotland and Wales in the future, and Section 8A by the commission in respect of English properties. The new Clause 8A is presumably modelled on the old Section 8, but one looks in vain to find powers for the Secretary of State to accept endowments for scheduled monuments or land contiguous to the buildings, because the 1953 Act was not amended in the 1974 Act, as perhaps it should have been.
My understanding is that the old section says:
"a building of which at that time the Secretary of State is or shortly will be the guardian under the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Act 1979,"
and goes on to say that the endowment can be for or towards the upkeep of any such building together with other property. But are we going to refer to a scheduled monument as a building? If only scheduled monuments can be taken into guardianship, is this quite good enough? I suppose that one could argue that a building can be a monument; but a monument is not necessarily a building. I do not want to get into a great semantics argument at this hour in this House, and I am sure noble Lords would not wish me to do so.
Then we go on to talk about contiguous land. Here again, we are talking about endowments in respect of buildings together with other property. Is that really what we intend? It seems to refer more to items like pictures or furniture than to land or landscapes. Then, finally, we go back again to the question of outstanding landscapes and gardens.
Similarly, Amendment No. 121 is intended to put right the uncertainty in these two sections, sections 8 and 8A, as to whether a monument is a building or not. That is what paragraph (c) is about. I hope that this rather obscure moving of this amendment will be sufficient for your Lordships.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, in speaking to No. 120, I, too, should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 121 and 122. The first part of the first two of these amendments is concerned to ensure that endowments can be accepted in respect of both monuments and buildings, and that the present wording of the relevant section of the Historic Buildings and Ancient Monuments Act 1953 does not preclude associated land. I am happy to say that these amendments are not necessary. They are already covered by the existing wording of the legislation. There is, however, one gap which my noble friend identified in paragraph 11 of Schedule 4, where the new section of the 1953 Act does not presently cover endowments in respect of monuments or buildings in the commission's guardianship. A Government amendment will be brought forward to cover that point. I cannot guarantee that it will be in this House; it could well be in another place. But I give the assurance that one will come forward.
The other effect of the amendments covers ground already discussed on the designed landscape front, on Amendment No. 105. I hope that my noble friend will agree that we need not discuss the principle again. As to whether "monuments" include "buildings" or "buildings" include "monuments", I have a horrible feeling that we may be getting this discussion in the amendments which are sure to be brought forward at the next stage, continuing on the theme of what the new commission should be called. Perhaps my noble friend will be content to leave the matter until then.
Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal: My Lords, the noble Lord is clearly trying to meet us so far as he can. I get nervous when we are at Report stage and talking about things being done at a later stage or in another place. This Bill will not be discussed in another place.
624
We all know that if the Government choose to do so, they have total whipping power in another place, and this Bill is not suitable to be discussed in another place. I sincerely hope that the noble Lord will exercise every bit of pressure that he and his noble friend have used so successfully to see that these matters come forward at the Third Reading in this House. With the greatest respect to another place, I honestly believe that we will be in grave danger if we leave anything to them. With the helpful suggestion of the noble Lord, I am glad to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 121 and 122 not moved.]
9.42 p.m.
Baroness Birk Baroness Birk moved Amendment No. 123:
Schedule 4, page 40, line 32, at end insert:
("Commission to advise on Government's scheduled monuments and listed buildings.
8B. The Commission shall be the adviser to the Secretary of State on the proper maintenance, repair, conservation and alteration of, or addition to, and demolition of scheduled monuments and listed buildings in the ownership, occupation or management of all bodies entitled to Crown exemption from the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Acts (including Health Authorities, Industrial Estates Corporations and the Receiver for the Metropolitan Police District) and he shall cause—

(a) all such monuments and buildings to be inspected by the Commission from time to time: and

(b) reports to be made on them by the Commission to him from time to time: and

(c) advice to be given to him by the Commission on any—

(i) proposal dealt with under the provisions of Circular 7/77 and analogous instructions or advisory notes;

(ii) improvement that can reasonably be made in their maintenance, repair or conservation and in the appropriateness of their use to their being scheduled monuments and listed buildings.").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment is a different version of the one that I moved in Committee, which was rather sharper about the Property Services Agency. This is a very much softer approach to the same problem. There was, nevertheless, considerable support round the Committee and murmurs of agreement and even some surreptitious nods from the Front Bench opposite. Naturally, I do not include the Minister among those who nodded. It was a pity that the amendment was not taken to a Division then. However, I felt also that one should try a rather more tender approach towards the PSA than the one I followed in Committee.
It is important that something is done about what is a real problem—and from time to time everybody admits it is—though the defence put up by the Minister was quite natural. There was a certain amount of truth in it. I said it was true that the PSA does very well in many ways and in many places—particularly in the spotlight at Westminster. But the picture can be very different in the provinces, and Government departments are often notorious in their neglect of the good buildings that they own. I repeat that one of the troubles is that they are left too much on their own and without sufficient control.
Something which also causes great distress is where there is mismanagement of buildings—for instance, in a conservation area. I still have in mind the dreadful

625
post office in Chichester which is right in the middle of that marvellous city—a beautiful conservation area. There are other examples which one can put forward. On the other hand, what has been done at Somerset House has been superb. The only trouble is that Somerset House is still not in use, and that is a great tragedy.
It may well be that the PSA, as a creature of the Department of the Environment, when dealing with buildings in its own estate will consult with the heritage commission freely and constructively. It is also true that the PSA often gets blamed for the iniquities of other Government departments which do not themselves take enough care of the buildings within their own estate. But this amendment now is really just saying that the commission shall be the adviser to the Secretary of State on the proper maintenance, repair and so on, and that they shall cause reports to be made and monuments to be inspected by the commission from time to time.
Therefore, it would seem to me that now it has become quite an acceptable form of amendment which gives this new commission the chance to do what it should do, which—let us face it—has not always been done by the Department of the Environment under all Governments in the past: that is, to make sure not only to consult with, but to keep an eye on the work of, the PSA and to exercise some control; also to make sure that there is adequate consultation and discussion with them and to make sure that they oversee what is being done.
We went into this quite deeply in Committee and I hope now that the Minister will be able to say—because the Government are aware and everybody is aware of this problem—that, in view of this different approach to the matter and this amendment, which I should have thought would be quite acceptable and which seems to be free of all criticism, now would be the chance—and it is very important with this new commission being set up—to ensure that there shall be a proper working liaison because of what the PSA is concerned with in its building work, the restoration and rehabilitation of buildings. There should be this sort of supervisory control, and so on, because of the commission being the adviser to the Secretary of State. I would have thought that that would certainly be welcomed by the commission and should be welcomed by the Secretary of State. Whether it would be welcomed immediately by the PSA, I must be honest and say that I would perhaps doubt; but I think they would quite soon get used to it and, with the new commission being set up, now seems the time to do it. I beg to move.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, we had a good discussion in Committee on the principle which underlies this amendment, and it is clear from the redrafting, as the noble Baroness says, that some of the points made in that discussion have indeed been taken. I have to say, however, that the Government remain of the opinion that a power of this sort could be counter-productive. As I said before, we believe it would be far better for the commission to proceed by advice and persuasion, being seen to be reasonable and responsible while still pressing the conservation case.
626
That is one reason why clause 30 contains such wideranging advisory powers which catch all bodies without exception.
In order to move a little towards what the noble Baroness has been saying, may I say that the Government recognise the point she has made and are therefore proposing to include in Circular 7/77 a requirement that the commission be notified of all relevant proposals dealt with under the provisions of that circular. For those in the House, like myself, who are unclear as to what is meant by Circular 7/77, I should briefly explain that it sets out the procedures governing all—and I say again, "all"—Government departments and those other bodies mentioned in the amendment who are exempt from the statutory obligation to submit planning applications and listed building consent applications. The procedures in the circular very largely mirror the statutory procedures, although they, and the views of the local planning authorities, do not in these cases have the force of law.
The Government are convinced that the powers of notification and advice and persuasion in this situation are the best way to make progress in this area. I hope that my obvious assurance that we have moved a long way towards the noble Baroness in our undertaking to include these requests in the circular, will in some way enable her to withdraw her amendment.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu: My Lords, although some of us are disappointed that the Government cannot accept this amendment, I certainly recognise that they have gone some way towards meeting the points. There is no doubt that the PSA has at times done a very good job; however, in the past it has not always done so and one does not always know what will happen in future. I should have thought that the PSA would warmly welcome close connections with the new commission and if that is to be encouraged, so much the better.
Perhaps the only thing to do now is to see how things will work out, particularly in view of the assurances that the noble Earl has given. Certainly some of us will keep a very close eye on the PSA's operations to make quite sure that it carries out overall Government policy on the conservation of historic buildings, even those in Government care.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, naturally, like the noble Lord, Lord Montagu, I should have been happier if the Government had found it possible or decided to accept the amendment. I think they should have done, because it is something that at some point some Government has to grapple with. Every year an enormous amount of money is spent by the PSA, more than the sum spent by all the other property companies one can think of put together. Therefore, there is not only an aesthetic and visual side, but an important financial side to it.
It is obvious that at this time of night, even if I called a Division, I should certainly not win it on this. Nevertheless, I am grateful to the Minister for having moved a bit towards the line we want, although it is not as strong as I should have liked; but he has undertaken that guidelines will be put out. May I ask if they could be extremely firm and if the connection between the new commission and the PSA could be

627
understood on both sides as meaning that the long sleep is ended and that Sleeping Beauty must wake up and take responsibility for what she has done or not done? Then we shall have moved but a little way forward, although nothing like as far as many of us
628
would hope. Indeed, everyone who spoke when we discussed this in Committee expressed the same point of view from every side of the House. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.53 p.m.
Lord Strathcona and Mount Royalmoved Amendment No. 124:
Page 40, line 32, at end insert—
(" "8B.—(1) The Commission shall compile a register, with plans, to show such gardens, parks, designed landscapes and other lands as appear to them to be of special historic or artistic interest and may amend such register and plans as seems appropriate to them.
(2) Before the Commission makes any entry in such register it shall consult the owner of any land which it then intends to show in that register, so that any representations that he may make may be taken into consideration before the entry is made.
Register and designation of gardens etc.
(3) The Commission shall designate under this section any land comprising an entry in that register and award such grade thereto as seems appropriate to them and may amend any such designation or grading.
(4) The Commission shall publish any designation or grading that it makes under this section, or amendment thereto, and shall notify the owner of any land so designated and all local authorities concerned therewith of such designation, grading or amendment thereof.
(5) The designation of any land under this section shall be for the better information and guidance of all Government departments, local authorities and other bodies proposing development in or near any such designated land or in its setting.
(6) The Commission shall be notified of, and consulted on, any development by any Government department or local authority affecting any such designated land or its setting.
(7) Any local authority shall notify the Commission of, and consult it on, any application made to that local planning authority for planning consent affecting any such designated land, or its setting.
(8) The Commission shall be consulted by the Secretary of State and advise him (whether or not lie has consulted them) on the desirability, or otherwise, of any proposed development which in their opinion affects any land designated under this section or its setting." ").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a follow-up of an amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Digby in Committee. The amendment has, I think, been considerably improved and tidied up. The first point to make is that it now refers to a register rather than to a list. This is more important than at first might appear because the notion of listing of buildings inevitably makes people a little nervous. It make owners nervous and it makes the department nervous as to the amount of work it might be taking on. We are now talking of a register, and I hope that that stills any fear that anyone may have about all sorts of powers being implied or imposed by doing that.
It also refers to the importance of consultation before gardens are put on to the register. Obviously, the purpose of this amendment is to make sure that the commission indeed identifies the gardens, parks, designed landscapes and so on which are of especial interest, historic or artistic.
One of the purposes lying behind that is that it would ensure that the commission were consulted in good time before any proposed development comes about, be it a motorway, a sewage works or a private development. Then they could advise, where appropriate, how the development might affect a registered garden. I do not think that I need to labour the point—we have discussed this so much already—about the limitations and the possibility of overlap between other bodies. Much the same argument applies here. But it seems clear that this is a duty which the commission should have laid upon
630
them, and it would be appropriate for them to perform it at a moment when they thought fit and when they had the capacity to do so. I beg to move.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu: My Lords, the noble Lord must, surely, be aware of the intense feeling about this in garden circles. Although I appreciate the technical problems about the word "listing", and the comparison with buildings, there is an urgent need for a proper register—a sort of Domesday Book—of gardens to be compiled before many more are lost, because, unlike a building, a garden can disappear extremely quickly if neglected. I hope that something can be done along these lines.
It may well be that my noble friend will say that the commission already have these powers: but I know that it would give enormous pleasure and satisfaction to those who are interested in gardens and landscapes, if a register were compiled as officially as possible and as soon as possible. The difficulties which arc sometimes put up, such as that it is impossible to describe a garden in words, can surely be got over. I remember that many years ago there was a great discussion about how you could write down choreography in ballet, but a means evolved and is now in common use. So I hope that the Government will consider an amendment along these lines, if not this one.
Lord Digby: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Avon wrote to me after I raised this subject at Committee stage, and I should like to take up two points which he made. First, he said that while circulating a list to local authorities would certainly advance their knowledge, it would do nothing explicitly to protect such gardens. Of course, it is quite true that there would be no teeth with this register, but this view ignores the effect that a statutory register would have on members of planning committees. The object of the register is not to introduce a new set of controls, but to bring forcefully to the attention of' planners and public bodies, who are planning roads and other things, the value of these gardens and landscapes.
The second point has been dealt with mainly by my noble friend Lord Strathcona. My noble friend Lord Avon said that it might be a precursor to statutory restrictions, and that owners of gardens would be very frightened of this. That is precisely why we have said "register" rather than "lists", as "lists" mean listed building controls to so many people. But controls of that type would be quite inappropriate to gardens. The object of this register is to protect gardens and landscapes, rather than to control their development.
I admit that I would be quite happy if the word "may" rather than "shall" was in this amendment, and I am assured by my noble friend that, in fact, the commission have this power, anyway. But it would act as a spur if it were in the Bill. A lot of work on this matter has already been done by ICOMOS—and I have a preliminary and interim list of gardens—so that it would not entail a vast amount of further work and would not be such a monumental task as people might think. I hope that the Government can accept this amendment.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, I find the arguments most persuasive. Is it not the case that what is proposed

631
would be analogous to—in fact, almost identical with—the status of areas of outstanding natural beauty? They are statutorily designated and they are shown on a map, but once that has happened nothing else happens. The planning system continues to function within them exactly as it functions outside them. Nevertheless, whenever a planning decision is taken within an area of outstanding natural beauty everybody thinks about it just that little bit more; there is just that little bit more publicity; just that little bit more advice is sought, and, one may hope, sometimes taken. In fact, the area of outstanding natural beauty has affected the situation. Therefore one may hope that a statutory register of gardens, even if unaccompanied, at least at this stage, by any powers based upon it, might affect the situation.
Baroness Airey of Abingdon: My Lords, I support this amendment, particularly so far as the planning of roads is concerned. If there were such a register which included important landscapes as well as gardens—possibly designed by such designers as Capability Brown—it might influence the planning of a road which could spoil a landscape.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, this is another but rather more complicated amendment, based on the principle that the commission should be responsible in some way for protecting important gardens, parks and other landscapes, although it represents a change from a similar amendment which was discussed in Committee. As my noble friend Lord Avon said at that stage, and possibly earlier, even though this amendment provides no enforcement procedure to assist the protection of these gardens, such a procedure—the mandatory requirement to produce a register—would potentially form a major distraction for the new commission in their early years from what the Government see as their major tasks, a point which I have already made this evening. In particular, the Government would not want to see anything slow up the programme of the accelerated listing resurvey which is now getting well into its stride. The amendment envisages that the commission will have a major consultative role to play, but the wide range of notification requirements would lead to a very considerable, if not impossible, practical difficulty for the commission and a very considerable extra burden on limited resources.
Besides this, as my noble friend Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal has argued, the existence of a list might well lead some owners to believe that formal protection powers would follow and thus lead to the destruction of the very thing which it is sought to preserve. This is certainly, and unfortunately, a consideration in respect of buildings being considered for listing. It may well be less applicable to gardens, but it would be better to leave the commission to make their own judgment about whether lists are needed without the implication which statutory controls would at this moment inevitably carry with them.
As we have said before, the commission will have the necessary powers to compile lists of historic gardens. if they wish, and, under their advisory powers which we have now widened in the new Clause 30, to circulate such lists to anybody they choose. It may well
632
be that they will wish to compile a list to assist them in deciding upon applications for grants under Section 3A of the 1953 Act, but I strongly believe that we should leave them to decide whether or not to do this themselves. I know that the Garden History Society and the Historic Buildings Council have done some work in this field and that the Countryside Commission have also taken an interest.
The new commission will wish to consider all these issues and to discuss them with the Countryside Commission, which, as has been said before, have wide powers and interests in this field and which, I know, would be very happy to participate. I think it best to leave it to the two corn missions to decide what should be done and how to do it rather than to lay down these detailed and burdensome procedures whose effect may not result in being as helpful as is intended.
I have no doubt that the new commission will note the warm interest of the House in the matter and will do, as I have sometimes said on other occasions, the decent thing. With this somewhat lengthy but I trust satisfactory explanation, I hope that my noble friends will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
The Earl of Perth: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord who has just spoken, particularly in relation to gardens. Gardens are live things. Gardeners today may be creating something which will be thought to be of great artistic merit, or they may want to change what they have started. If it is to be made mandatory that a garden which is being created or which has been created by somebody who is living today has to be listed, many of the people who are doing this work may be very worried about it. I wonder whether we are wise to try to go further than the provisions which, as we have heard, are already in the Bill at the present time.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, I am sure that I am not the only Member of your Lordships' House to be disappointed by the answers given by the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale. I personally felt that the answers he gave were very much the kind of answers which were given by those who resisted the introduction of the designation of areas of outstanding beauty, to which the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, very properly referred. The noble Lord is entirely right: the designation of an area of outstanding beauty does not in some way freeze an area; nor does it introduce new planning controls. The fact remains that, once an area has been designated as an area of outstanding natural beauty, it has a remarkable effect on the attitude of Ministers from time to time when different departments have to take certain decisions. It is not a statutory matter, but the very fact that a place has been designated in that kind of way has alerted those with responsibility in other fields to the importance of the particular area. I believe that this kind of register would have the same effect.
I am glad that the noble Lord mentioned the Countryside Commission in the way he did, because he made it clear that the commission is a body with many responsibilities similar to those which the noble Lord perhaps has in mind in moving this amendment. It is right to emphasise once again that the Countryside Commission has worked very closely with other

633
bodies and not in conflict with them at all. If I did not make this point clear when supporting the noble Lord, Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal, I will do so now, because what I meant to say was, there is no conflict. I have known of many cases where the Countryside Commission has given grant aid for various functions, such as Housesteads Camp at Hadrian's Wall, which was very much a matter for those who deal with historic buildings and ancient monuments.
The commission has often been involved in a grant-aided function and advisory function, which are perhaps of more interest to the Nature Conservancy Council because they are matters concerning the protection of wild life. The Countryside Commission's job has been to grant aid in order to allow people to go there.
The noble Lord the Minister is therefore entirely right in saying that the Countryside Commission will be happy to work very closely with the new commission in doing a job such as this, and would not take the view that by this new commission being given the responsibility of developing a register it was somehow being brought into conflict with another commission having similar duties. It is regrettable that we do not put something of this kind in the Bill. I am sure it will not necessarily mean that one commission shall have a register that is the inevitable precursor to the introduction of some kind of planning regulation and all sorts of Utopian measures of that kind. It merely changes the climate of opinion among those who wield power in Government, local government and in many other bodies where people can take decisions which might be deleterious to the particular gardens we all want to protect. I have every sympathy with the purposes of the amendment, and I am glad for the assurance that the kind of thing which is envisaged in the amendment will in fact be done, but I would have liked to see something such as this written into the Bill.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, by leave of the House, I gree with most of what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley. I do not see any conflict, nor do the Countryside Commission, with whom I have discussed this matter. It may be that they will come to an agreed designation system between themselves which would draw attention to the problems of those gardens on the list. But surely this is a matter for interaction between them, and not something we should make statutory as a leading responsibility and duty on a new commission from the outset.
10.9 p.m.
Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal: My Lords, I have to echo the opinion of many other noble Lords who regard the response of the Front Bench as being disappointing. It was what one might call a dreary smoke screen. My noble friend spoke about statutory controls and about the details of burdens and procedure, and then turns round and says he hopes that his reply is satisfactory; it is not satisfactory at all. The noble Lord, Lord Montagu, and the noble Lord, Lord Digby, have both described how a great deal of this work has already been done. It is not particularly difficult work. The noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, quite rightly says that you can affect the whole climate by
634
doing a thing like this. Naturally, one will hope that the commission will do it.
We had hoped that by putting it into the Bill it would give them a little extra encouragement and would concentrate their minds and also create a slightly extra safeguard. The noble Earl, Lord Perth, rightly said that gardens can very quickly disappear. I agree with him. Many gardens have disappeared. Many gardens have been created. Surely it would be valuable to everybody to be able to see what had been done, to make sure that every step was taken at the earliest stage to prevent any possible damage to them. I simply cannot believe that this would be a particularly burdensome procedure.
I hate to suggest that the House should divide on an issue of this sort: I do not think it is fundamental to this Bill; certainly it is late at night. I have to say to the noble Lord, however, that I feel he is throwing away the goodwill of the House in not agreeing something as desirable and as inessential as this. Nevertheless, having said that, I believe the right thing to do is to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Kennetmoved Amendment No. 124B:
Page 40. line 32, at end insert—
("" Commissions advice on scheduled monument and listed building consents and evidence.

(1) The Secretary of State shall seek advise from the Commission on any application made for scheduled monument consent.

(2) The Secretary of State shall seek advice from the Commission on any application for listed building consent referred to him by a local authority which is minded to give consent thereto.

(3) In the event of a scheduled monument consent application or a listed building consent application being called in for the Secretary of State's own decision, or the decision on such an application being appealed against and that appeal being dealt with by written representations or heard at a Hearing or Public Inquiry (as the case may be). the Commission shall be so informed by The Secretary of State and may—

(a) make written representations where the matter is dealt with by written representations; or

(b) appear at any Hearing or Public Inquiry, being represented and calling witnesses to give evidence, or otherwise, whether or not that Hearing or Public Inquiry is held by an Inspector with powers to decide the matter himself.")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, if the House would be so good as to cast its collective eye backwards to Amendment No. 91, the all-important Government amendment setting out the purposes of the commission, subsection (4) of that says:
"the commission may advise the Secretary of State with regard to the exercise …
of various functions by him.
"whether or not they have been consulted".
The appearance of this phase is in itself a proof of the worthwhileness of Amendment No. 91.
It was quite impossible, unassisted, to deduce from Schedule 4 whether or not the commission might advise, should advise, whether the Secretary of State should seek advice, need not seek advice or whatnot, on the various categories of functions which are now united in this useful Amendment No. 91. The amendment has brought it out that, though the commission may advise, the Secretary of State is under no duty to let them know when a case has arisen upon which they might exercise their right to advise. It

635
is no use giving them the right to advise, whether asked or not. if they remain in ignorance that the occasion for advice has arisen. My amendment simply seeks to rectify this and to bind the Secretary of State to let the commission know when there is a case coming along on which they have a right to advise. I beg to move.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, as the noble Lord says, this amendment attempts to set out in detail part of the advisory role of the commission. This role is a vital one and I can assure the House that the commission will have all the necessary powers to undertake it successfully. I hope I can persuade the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, that the amendment is in large part unnecessary. The new Clause 30, which we have already discussed, gives the commission the widest possible advisory powers. Under it they may give advice to any person in relation to historic buildings and ancient monuments situated in England, whether or not they have been consulted. They also have a specific power to advise the Secretary of State on any of his functions under the 1953 Act and the 1979 Act. So clearly they have the power to offer advice on applications for listed building consent and scheduled monument consent, among a wide range of other matters.
The Secretary of State is also required to consult the commission about scheduled monument consent applications, so there is no question but that they will have an opportunity to put their views to him. If there is an inquiry or hearing the commission will be tree to decide, if they wish, to make their views known. All this is already provided for.
We also intend that the commission should be kept informed of all except the most minor applications for listed building consent, and we shall be making the appropriate amendment to the relevant town and country planning regulations. I believe that in this way we shall have given the commission sufficient power to advise as and when they think necessary, and have provided the appropriate mechanisms for keeping the commission informed so that they may do so. We believe that to spell out in the detail of this amendment what is only part of the commission's advisory role could do harm by casting doubt on the commission's scope to advise on other things.
I hope that I have said enough to assuage the noble Lord, Lord Kennet's worries on this subject, and that he will not have to press the amendment.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, the noble Earl's answer was directed chiefly to assuring the House that the commission have a sufficient right to advise. Nobody doubts that. My amendment is directed to ensuring that the commission are informed of the existence of a particular case in all the categories concerned where their right to advise is exercisable. The noble Earl has run through a number of cases where he tells the House that under the Bill the Secretary of State already has a duty to inform the commission that a specific case has arisen where they have the right to advise. I followed him closely and I shall look at that in Hansard tomorrow.
However, I can already ask him one question. He was quite categorical and inclusive about ancient
636
monment permissions, and that the Secretary of State already has a duty to inform the commission when such cases arise. I think he satisfied me about listed building consent cases which were going to a hearing or public inquiry; that is to say, that the commission would inevitably know that a hearing or public inquiry was coming about. But some listed building consent cases are handled by written procedure, without a hearing or public inquiry, and I ask the noble Earl to give a direct answer: under the Bill as it stands, is the Secretary of State obliged to inform the commission of every particular case that comes to him for listed building consent which is going to be dealt with by written procedure?
It may be for the convenience of the House if I expand for a moment on the difference between written procedure and public inquiry. On the one hand, letters are written and exchanged and reports are submitted and considered. On the other hand, a room is booked and an inspector is appointed. All those with an interest in the case are enabled to come before the inspector and state their views. The inspector then writes a report and later, as is well known, the Secretary of State makes his decision.
Perhaps the noble Earl is now in a position to let us know the answer on the particular point of written procedure on listed building consent applications.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I can confirm that it is intended that an amendment will be made to existing regulations to ensure that the commission are informed of all listed building consent applications.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Earl and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
10.19 p.m.
The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendments Nos. 125, 126, 127, 128 and 129:
Page 40, line, 47 leave out ("After subsection (1)(a)") and insert ("In subsection (1) after paragraph (b)")
Page 40,line 48, leave out (" (aa)") and insert (" (c)")
Page 41,line 4, after ("into") insert ("and carry out")
Page 41,line 8, at end insert—
(" (d) where a redundant building or any pan thereof is situated in England and is vested in the Redundant Churches Fund in pursuance of a redundancy scheme or a pastoral scheme to which section 47 of this Measure applies. the Fund may enter into and carry out an agreement with the Commission for Ancient Monuments and Historic Buildings for England for the acquisition and preservation by the Commission of the building or part with or without other land so situated and so vested:
and for "the next two following subsections" there shall be substituted "subsections (2) and (3) of this section".")
Page 41,line 12, leave out (" (aa)") and insert (" (c) or (d)")
The noble Earl said: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I move all these amendments together.
The most important of these amendments is Amendment No. 128 which empowers the Redundant Churches Fund to enter into agreement with the commission to transfer to it a redundant church. The church will then be wholly the commission's responsibility. The amendment, minus the existing provision in the Bill which covers such transfers from diocesan hoards of finance, will thus give both the

637
boards and the fund the choice of transferring redundant buildings either to the commission or to the Secretary of State.
Under Amendment No. 129 transfers from the Redundant Churches Fund to the commission, like those from the diocesan boards of finance, will, for resource reasons, be subject to the Secretary of State's consent. Amendments Nos. 125 and 126 are minor redraftings, and Amendment No. 127 amends the wording of a provision already in the Bill, to bring it into line with the wording of the pastoral measures. I beg to move these five amendments en bloc.
Lord Sandford: My Lords, I have been watching this part of the Bill as a church commissioner and as a member of the Ecclesiastical Committee of both Houses of Parliament. I am able to say that these amendments entirely meet the points that the General Synod of the Church of England was making to the department at an earlier stage. So it is entirely satisfactory and I am grateful to my noble friend for the amendments.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, in Committee I raised the question of why it was that the Redundant Churches Fund did not have to get the Secretary of State's approval to accept a redundant church, but that the commission will have to get the Secretary of State's approval. If I remember correctly, I have been made aware from correspondence with the noble Earl—or at any rate I have been made aware in one way or another—that the reason why the Government make the distinction is that the Redundant Churches Fund gets a five-yearly grant allocation and is left to spend it over a five-year period in accordance with its own discretion, but that the commission is not going to get that and, therefore, cannot be allowed the same discretion to do what it thinks fit with redundant churches.
I must say that I regret the fact that the commission, which will be a major feature in the landscape, is not to enjoy the same liberty as the Redundant Churches Fund, which is a very minor feature in the landscape. It is regrettable, and the Goverment should have had the courage to trust the larger animal as much as they trust the smaller one.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 130:
Page 42, line 10, leave out ("is") and insert ("are")
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I am delighted to say that this is a very minor amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
10.23 p.m.
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 131:
Page 43, line 11, at end insert—
("(lA) In paragraph (aa) to subsection (1) after "of a" insert "scheduled monument or ".)
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment and Amendment No. 132 can be taken together. They differ substantially from the one amendment—which was debated in
638
Committee—Amendment No. 104G. The new amendments derive in fact from Amendment No. 104GA, which was not moved in Committee. Of the first amendment it should be said that it simply adds scheduled monuments to listed buildings as having settings with respect to which notice is given if the settings are significantly affected by planning applications.
How large the setting of an individual scheduled monument may be, and whether or not it will be significantly affected by a particular application, is left entirely to the discretion of the local authority. Obviously it is right to insert scheduled monuments in Section 28 in this fashion. It is difficult to see why it has not been done before.
The second main part of the amendment no longer refers to scheduled monuments: it now only refers to listed buildings, but it does bring in those that are in Grade A, as well as those in Grade I. Grade A listed buildings are few in number—in effect, they are a few important churches, those that have not yet been regraded into the main numerical system. Even so, the potential number of notifications under the amendment is much reduced by the omission of most scheduled monuments, versus the slight increase in Grade A listed buildings.
Scheduled monuments have been left out in this context only because they are ungraded, so that the most important cannot be readily identified for notification purposes, as is possible with listed buildings. Perhaps it should be that scheduled monuments are graded in future, and, were that done, then the top grade could be inserted into this provision later to heighten the degree of protection as is appropriate. But the most important differences between the old debated Committee amendment and this one lie in paragraphs (a) and (b). The effects of these are yet further to reduce the number of notifications.
Paragraph (a) has been tightened and refers only to there being intervisibility from a ground floor doorway or window of the listed building to the building to be built or the extension to be built on any existing building under the application in question. It also refers to "at any time", in order to cover leafy summer versus bare winter situations. In paragraph (b), the viewpoint for the observer has to be publicly accessible, perhaps for payment, not just anywhere. It also now has to be within the 500 metre radius, whereas it could have been outside under the old amendment, No. 104 GA.
There are further restrictions in the fine print. The 500 metre radius is now to be drawn from the edge of the listed building rather than from the edge of the curtilage. As was and still is made abundantly clear by the wording:
"without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) above",
and:
"not less that 500 metres radius",
there can be no question of the 500 metre radius being treated as "both a maximum and a minimum", as the noble Earl, Lord Avon, suggested it would be.
But, all this apart, if this amendment is accepted, there will be no
"major alteration to existing planning legislation",

639
as the noble Earl, Lord Avon, suggested there would be in the debate on Amendment No. 104G. All that is now set out in the amendment is that there will be a little more certainty that notice will be given when planning applications are made that affect the settings of important listed buildings. A few more notifications will be made—not many—to add to those that will be made anyway, and made to the commission, at that.
The criticisms which the noble Earl, Lord Avon, made on Amendment No. 104G have been met by both excluding scheduled monuments from the main amendment and by bringing in the intervisibility or covisibility requirements. None the less, the purpose of the amendment is still achieved, and all this without imposing an impossible burden on local authorities. It is no more of a burden than that which they should carry anyway if they are diligent. I beg to move.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, the first amendment moved by the noble Baroness—Amendment No. 131—seeks to widen the category of planning applications which have to be publicised to include those which would affect the setting of a scheduled monument as well as those which would affect the setting of a listed building.
This is one of those difficult questions on which I can see at first sight the attractions of what is proposed. But these have to be weighed against the problems. The chief of these is the extra work that this would cause for local authorities and the extra delay that could result for these planning applications. We should also consider whether in some ways this would not be using a hammer to crack a nut. For the vast majority of scheduled monuments the same considerations do not apply to their setting as apply to listed buildings. Most are not in dense urban settings, where they may be particularly badly affected by a nearby development, but are in rural, often isolated, settings; many are unroofed structures or actual ruins. Some dominate their setting to such an extent that it could be held that no development could really affect them or that all development in the area affected them. The Government remain unconvinced that the requirements imposed by this amendment are justified, especially since any local authority will in any case be free to approach the commission for advice about a difficult application and the commission will undoubtedly wish to encourage them to do so. We certainly hope that relations between local authorities and the commission will be such that they will have no hesitation in seeking and giving expert assistance.
The noble Baroness moved on to the next amendment. As I understand it, this is an attempt to define the term "setting" of a listed building in relation to the requirements on local authorities to publicise applications for planning permission which they consider could affect the setting of a listed building.
As the noble Baroness mentioned, we discussed a similar amendment at the Committee stage. I believe that this version attempts to take into account what was then said. I am informed that it is an alteration to existing planning legislation, and the noble Baroness said that it was not. That is my brief, but I shall confirm that to her.
Our advice to local authorities set out in the
640
Department of the Environment Circular 23/77 is to be flexible in their interpretation of "setting", and we recommend that where there is doubt the local authority should publicise. I still believe that it is much better to allow for flexibility than to enshrine in statute a limit which often, however worded, gets treated as both a minimum and a maximum.
There are also one or two problems with the terms of the amendment which I feel I should draw to the attention of the House. I am not sure that one can have a radius from the often irregular outline of the exterior of a building, but maybe the intention is to have a zone extending at least 500 metres from the building. Secondly, the descriptions of the categories of application which are to be regarded as affecting the setting of a listed building seem to me to be far too wide. If we take the case of a listed building on a hill or rise overlooking a village, under paragraph (a), as I understand it, virtually every building in the village might be caught because it could be seen from one of the ground level windows of a listed building.
I mention these points not out of any desire to be difficult but to show the problems there are when one has to define sensibly what we want to catch in this sort of provision, while ensuring that we do not catch so much that the system is swamped and defeats its own purpose. This perhaps illustrates the advantages of a flexible approach such as we adopt at the moment and I think we would wish to see in the future.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, the noble Earl is showing a most implausible innocence in this matter. Does he really think that the Beverley district council would go anywhere near the commission unless it was compelled to?
The Earl of Avon: No, my Lords. Does the noble Lord think that this will make any difference?
Lord Kennet: Yes, my Lords; it would force the Beverley district council to seek the commission's advice on any application for planning consent within a 500 metre radius of any building from which any part of that can be seen, and such a building would of course be Beverley Minster.
Lord Sandford: My Lords, it is not a very good practice to use examples like that for designing legislation. As my noble friend has been good enough to accept my Amendment No. 80, which secures the influence of local government within the commission itself, I think I can, and indeed must, give him an assurance that that is a far better way of dealing with matters such as those raised by these two amendments and the next three or four, all of which, if accepted, would add quite considerably to the burdens on local government and the exchange of paperwork and the general building up of bureaucracy between local government on the one hand and this commission on the other.
It is far better to have a voice within the commission which can remonstrate with districts such as the one that the noble Lord has just mentioned, and influence all of them through their associations so as to develop a good practice in matters such as this, which cannot be achieved satisfactorily by the imposition of the

641
inflexibilities of statutory control. I would join the Government in resisting this and the subsequent amendments.
Baroness David: My Lords, I should like to thank the Minister for his full reply. I am doubtful about the amount of extra work that would be involved. I shall look forward to his letter about whether planning would be affected. The best thing is to read what is in Hansard tomorrow and consider whether more action should be taken. For the moment, I withdraw this amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Kennet Lord Kennet had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 132:
Page 43, line 11, at end insert—
(" ( )After subsection (1) there shall be inserted—
"(1A) For the purposes of subsection (1) above the setting of a listed building which is graded "Grade I "or "Grade A "shall be taken as extending to not less than 500 metres radius from the exterior of the listed building, and a planning application shall be regarded as significantly affecting its setting if, without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) above, any building proposed to be built or significantly extended falls within the setting so described and—

(a) there is intervisibility at any time as between and ground level doorway or window of the listed building and any part of a building to be built, or the extension to be built onto any existing building, under the application; or

(b) can be seen at any time with the listed building, in whole or part, by an observer standing at any place that is publicly accessible (whether by payment or not) anywhere within the 500 metres radius setting so described.".")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, speaking on behalf of the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, and others, if the noble Earl is able to help us we may be able to save the time of the House a good deal, on this and the next amendment. If he were able to say right away without discussion that he would be prepared to amend regulations, or pass regulations, under the Act which would have the effects set out in these two amendments. I would be happy to withdraw them without further ado.
The Deputy Speaker (Earl Cathcart): Amendments 132 and 133 proposed en bloc.
Lord Kennet: Proposed en bloc, with the leave of the House, yes.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I have got slightly out of phase because I thought that the noble Baroness, Lady David, spoke to 132.
Baroness David: I spoke to 132 when moving 131. I intended to withdraw both of them.
Lord Kennet: My mistake, my Lords. I meant to speak to Nos. 133 and 134. I have nothing to say to 132. Perhaps we had better start again.
[Amendment No. 132 not moved.]
10.35 p.m.
Lord Kennet Lord Kennet moved Amendments Nos. 133 and 134 en bloc:
Page 43, line 16, at end insert (" "and on the Commission's request to the local planning authority the Commission shall be furnished with a copy of the application and with a copy of any or all plans and other documents submitted with it that they may request."
(3) After subsection (3) there shall be inserted—
"(3A) Where subsection (2A) above applies, subsection (2) shall he read with the word "all" substituted for the word "both" and with the following inserted after paragraph (b)—
"and
(c) a period of twenty-one days beginning with the date on which the copy of—

(i) the notice required to be sent to the Commission;

or

(ii) any application, plan or other document requested by the Commission;

was received by it unless the Commission has requested that such twenty-one day period be extended so that they can make representations and if so such a period as the Commission may request, not exceeding two months from the date of that request, and that request shall be deemed to have been made by the Secretary of State.".")
(3B) During any period mentioned in subsection (3A) above if the Commission indicates that a planning application noticed to it has their approval the local planning authority may. in respect of the Commission's interest therein, determine the application with or without such conditions as the Commission may approve.".")
Page 43, line 16, at end insert—
("16A. After section 34 of the 1971 Act there shall be inserted—
"Commission to receive copies of local authority planning applications re its listed buildings.
34A.—(1) Where a local planning authority makes application for planning consent with respect to any listed building in its own ownership, occupation or management it shall send a copy of the application together with copies of all plans and documents in support of that application to the Commission for Ancient Monuments and Historic Buildings for England and shall not determine that application within twenty-one days from the date on which the Commission received the copy of the application and all supporting plans and documents.
(2) Where the Commission so requests within the twenty-one day period referred to in subsection (1) above the local planning authority shall not determine an application in the affirmative for up to two months from that request, to allow time for the making of representations on the application by the Commission to either the local planning authority or the Secretary of State.
(3) This section shall also apply to applications made to a local planning authority by others with respect to listed buildings owned, occupied or managed by that local planning authority.
(4) During any period mentioned in this section. if the Commission indicates that a planning application of which they have been provided with a copy has their approval the local planning authority may, in respect of the Commission's interest in the application, determine the application with or without such conditions as the Commission may approve.".")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, would the Minister undertake to put the effect of these amendments into regulations under the measure later on? If so, I think there will be no need to discuss them. The general outline of these amendments is to improve communications between local authorities and the commission.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I see that since we discussed these matters in Committee, some redrafting

643
has been done to try to reduce the impact these amendments would have on local authorities. Of course, the commission should be kept informed of such applications, and that is why we have provided in the Bill for copies of notices to be sent to them. But I can only repeat that what is suggested in the amendments is the sort of burden the Government have sought to avoid. If, on receiving notification of a planning application from a local authority, the commission decide they would like copies of the relevant documents, they should of course be able to obtain them. In the vast majority of cases it will, I am sure, be a simple case of co-operation. If there is, unfortunately, any lack of co-operation, then a visit to the civic offices will be better, we believe, than using statutory powers. They will then be able, if they wish, to study the papers, form a view and get in touch with the local authority very swiftly if they consider there are important issues involved on which their expert voice should be heard. That voice and their influence on local authorities in these cases will depend greatly on the relationship that develops.
Amendment No. 134 is addressed to two matters: first, that of ensuring that the commission is kept informed of applications made by local authorities themselves for planning consent relating to a listed building in their own control and, secondly, that of allowing the commission a statutory period in which to comment. We have discussed the second principle in relation to Amendment No. 133. I can only say again that the Government do not consider it right that the commission should be able to delay the planning system in this way. However, we are seized of the importance of the first point—that the commission should be kept informed of a local authority's intentions towards a listed building in their care. The procedures to be followed by local authorities in seeking planning permission for their own listed buildings are set out in the Town and Country Planning and General Regulations, and the Government propose to insert in those regulations a requirement for local authorities to inform the commission of their own proposals. I am not sure whether that was the only assurance the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, wanted. The commission will be able to advise local authorities or the Secretary of State, if they see fit, but as with so many aspects of the work, the influence they are able to exert will, and should, depend on the good relations they are able to build up with local authorities.
Lord Kennet: We all hope that will be so, my Lords, but many of us live in a world in which we know it is not so. There are local authorities which will do all they can to ignore and tacitly to deceive the commission. That should be recognised on all sides of the House; a tiny minority, but it is partly to look after the case of that tiny minority that such legislation as this is needed. On the question of sending in supporting documents and so on, improving the sending in of forms, I am more than prepared to accept what the noble Earl said, and will beg leave to withdraw the amendments to see if we can come, by drafting, to a less onerous form of words—that is, less onerous on the local authorities though the Government will agree
644
that it will, therefore, be more onerous on the commission.
Regarding the statutory period during which the local authority should not proceed, until it has received the agreement—or otherwise, indeed—or some answer from the commission, I do not think I can he quite so accommodating. If there is an authority whose advice ought to be sought, it is absurd not to provide that those seeking that advice must wait for a set period until they have received it. Otherwise, if I correctly read the Bill as presented, it is open to a local authority to write to the commission one day, stating. "We would like your advice on the following demolition proposal in a conservation area", and a week later to give consent before it has received any answer.
It should not, I think, be beyond the will of the Government to give effect to a provision that there must be a three-week delay, or in special cases where the commission seeks it from the local authority. a two-month delay, in order to allow things to be sorted out. At this stage I should like to inform the noble Earl that we shall later bring forward another amendment to that effect, but at the moment I am prepared to withdraw the present amendment, in order to reconsider the part about the passing of documents and the information. I beg leave to withdraw the amendments.
Amendments, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Birkmoved Amendment No. 135:
Page 43, line 31, at end insert—
("17A. After section 56A of the 1971 Act there shall be inserted—
"Listed building consent applications: reference to the Commission.
56B.—(1) Notwithstanding any provision in any enactment, where a local planning authority in England is minded to approve an application for listed building consent made with respect to—

(a) a listed building which is graded "Grader I". "II*". "A" or "B", or

(b) the demolition in whole or part of a listed building which is graded "Grade II": or

(c) a "Grade II" listed building or any unlisted building in a conservation area which is owned by the local planning authority or with respect to which it is an intending purchaser:

it shall forthwith refer the application to the Commission for Ancient Monuments and Historic Buildings for England for its consideration and not determne the application in the affirmative for two months from the date of such reference without the Commission having first indicated its approval thereto.
(2) Where the Commission so requests a local planning authority in England shall not determine in the affirmative any listed building consent application for consent to—

(a) alter a "Grade II" listed building: or

(b) demolish an unlisted building in a conservation area which is not owned by that authority:

which has been made to it but shall forthwith refer it to the Commission for their consideration and shall not determine any application so referred in the affirmative for two months from the date of such reference unless the Commission indicates its approval thereto.
(3) Where on consideration of any such application referred to it under subsections (1) and (2) of this section the Commission so advises the Secretary of State the application shall be deemed to have been called in by him for his own decision." ")
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, an amendment rather similar to this one was tabled at the Committee stage, but it was neither moved nor debated. The amendment is concerned with the vast majority of the

645
applications for listed building consents made to local planning authorities, and which are determined by them. However, those that affect Grade I and II* buildings, or that involve demolition of any listed building, and even demolition of an unlisted building in a conservation area, are referred to the department, but only if, and when, the local planning authority is "minded to consent".
In the slightly different context of scheduled monument consent, The Way Forward, in, I think, paragraphs 16 to 20, put up as a real possibility the sensible idea that the commission might determine such applications, subject of course to appeal and call-in. I should have thought that what made good sense with scheduled monuments consents (even though the department has not taken that option in the Bill) should make equally good sense here, with listed building consents, to which local planning authorities are "minded to consent".
The practical way of proceeding in order to avoid duplication of staff and endless consulting here and there—and that will be one of the dangers in the new commission—is to have the applications referred to the commission, and let it ask for lesser applications to be referred to it as well, just as the department now does.
The Minister indicated the Government's likely response when he very kindly wrote to me to give me an indication of what the Government would have said had the earlier amendment been moved. The burden of his letter was that an appointed body should not be allowed to give directions to an elected local authority. So in order to cover that point the amendment now provides that the commission may only request, rather than demand, that lesser cases are referred to it: and it could be said that those requests shall be deemed to be directions from the Secretary of State.
The commission is being set up to do an important job, and to do it responsibly as, in effect, the Secretary of State's agent—and it is answerable to him; he controls the purse strings. In that context it seems absurd that the Secretary of State should shy away in fright from giving the job over properly, of course, with due safeguards as to call-in and appeal. If a lot of thought has gone into this point, it seems to have resulted in something of a damp squib. It is time for more thought to be given and for a sensible conclusion to be reached, as is posed by the present amendment.
I hope that in the light, both of the earlier amendment being reconsidered and the very helpful letter that I received from the Minister, we have now got the proposal right, and that it can be accepted. Due to the time factor I have moved the amendment briefly, in a kind of shorthand, but I am sure that the Minister has got the main points. I beg to move.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, the amendment would change the basis of the present system for determining listed building consent applications. As the noble Baroness said, currently these are the province of local authorities, with a right of appeal to the Secretary of State, who may also call in important cases for his
646
decision. The proposal before us would require local authorities to consult the commission in a large number of cases and, moreover, as I understand it, would empower the commission to direct local authorities to refer any application to it for consideration. In either case, the authority would have to wait two months before making a decision.
Finally, the commission would be able to decide that any of the applications referred to it should be decided by the Secretary of State so that, in effect they would decide which cases should be called in. This is a fairly wide-ranging amendment to the system, which I am not at all sure it is right to consider in the context of the Bill. However, the noble Baroness has brought it to our attention.
I do not believe that it is right that an appointed body should be given such powers as these to direct democratically-elected local authorities. Nor do the Government think that we should give such a body, however important its task, powers which are now exercised only by a Secretary of State. We have given considerable thought to these questions and believe that the proposals embodied in the Bill are the right way to proceed. We have previously discussed the difficult questions of relations between the commission and local authorities. We believe that this is another occasion when, in spite of the persuasiveness of the noble Baroness, we feel that what is proposed in the amendment is not the way to ensure a good working relationship.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his clear reply. I am very disappointed by it because, as I said, this has been tempered down to the commission's requests. I still fail to see that what is possibly done on scheduled monuments cannot be done with listed buildings. It again raises what is a basic question. We raised the point over the Royal palaces and other instances throughout the Bill.
If this new commission—the heritage commission, as the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, and I have now named it—is not to have the real independence that it should have, and is not going to be able to take over properly so many of the functions that we understood it was to take over from the department, it will be a commission without bite; and there will have to be a tremendous amount of duplication of both resources and staff in the department and in the commission, and the whole thing just will not be worth while. It is making many of us, as we go through this Bill, really begin to wonder whether this is really going to be on. Is it going to be worth all the effort, upheaval and expense involved if at every point we meet with the fact that the powers on anything that really matters are cut down by the Government. I will not at this stage pursue it further. I will read what the noble Earl has said and reserve the right to come back at the next stage. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 136 not moved.]
10.48 p.m.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu Lord Montagu of Beaulieu moved Amendment No. 137:
Page 43. line 31, at end insert—
(" 17A. Section 58 of the 1971 Act (building preservation notice in respect of building not listed) shall he amended by the insertion after subsection (1) of the following—
" (1A) The Commission for Ancient Monuments and Historic Buildings for England may serve building preservation notices under this section.".")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is an identical amendment to one tabled at Committee stage but not moved or debated. Basically, the existing legislation allows local authorities to serve what are known as building preservation notices. The service of such a notice—a BPN, in short—has the effect of listing a building but only up to six months. During that period the Secretary of State may formally list it when his officers have had time to visit it, look up its history and come to a balanced view of whether or not it can be formally listed with all the long-terms effects that result; or they can decide not to list it and that will be the end of the matter. In practice, the Secretary of State can also stop list a building. They do this when they are convinced of the merits of the building and the reality of the threat of a demolition. In real life, authorities may be slow to move or not be prepared to move for political reasons or, in fact, just not be interested in conservation matters.
What is needed is perhaps a power for the commission to serve their own BPNs, with a short effect, of course. Obviously, they would not need to use the procedure with good local authorities or with an open-and-shut case where stop listing was appropriate and where the Secretary of State's officers were available and easily persuaded. However, in certain cases if they had this power, they might be able to stop the bulldozers coming in. It would also perhaps reduce the need for the Secretary of State to keep people on the ground to do these things at short notice. Investigation prior to stop listing might become increasingly difficult for the department to undertake in a hurry. Therefore, I beg to move this amendment in the hope that it might be able to save a few Firestone buildings, and that type of structure with which we have had problems in the past. If six months is considered too long, maybe a shorter period will be agreed by the Government. I beg to move.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I have sympathy with my noble friend's reasons for moving this amendment. The amendment would enable the commission as well as local authorities to serve building preservation notices. As has been explained, these are notices which prevent private owners of buildings from undertaking any works without consent for six months or until the Secretary of State has decided whether to list the building in question. The Government consider that it would be inappropriate for an appointed body such as the commission to exercise powers which impose restrictions on the right of private property owners. Such functions are only properly exercised by elected representatives.
The general issue of constitutional propriety does not in our feeling outweigh any advantages of speed. It will be open to the commission to make represent-
648
ations to local authorities if they so wish. Even more important, I suggest, will be the commission's relationship with the Secretary of State which should enable speedy spot listing decisions to be taken. As I said in my opening remarks, I have nothing against the idea which my noble friend has produced, but the general constitutional issue prevents me from being able to accept his amendment.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu: My Lords, I appreciate the point that the noble Earl has made as he made it on other amendments this evening. I take the point that obviously a close relationship between the chairman of the new commission and the Secretary of State may well be the best solution of all. Perhaps, therefore, it will be appropriate for me to withdraw this amendment at this stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Birk Baroness Birk moved Amendment No. 138:
Page 44. line 48, at end insert—
("( ) In subsection (4) for "this section" substitute "subsection (1) of this section".
( ) In subsection (5) after "Secretary of State" insert "or Commission", after "above" insert "or to an member of any of the Commission's Committees (as the case may be)" and after "his" insert "or their".")
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment is to do with the payment of members of any of the commission's committees who deal with Section 10 of the 1972 Act under which members of the Historic Buildings Council may be paid if they render services in connection with grants made under that section. No amendment has been made so that the commission can pay anybody such as the members of a committee that it might set up to look after Section 10 grants, a committee that would be equivalent of the committee of the Historic Buildings Council which now looks after these things. I am making a division between the payment of the commissioners generally and those who will be serving, presumably on a similar committee, to do the work that is being done now by a committee of the Historic Buildings Council. It seems wrong that no provisoin has been made in this Bill to allow payment for services beyond the call of duty as a committee member, because this section is in the 1972 Act.
It is not intended that the amendment should provide a back door method of paying committee members who, as paragraph 9 of Schedule 3 provides, may be paid expenses but no more. These are not people, presumably, who will be paid a salary or loss of earnings as the commissioners are. But as there is provision for the relevant committee on the HBC, it seems to make common sense and equity for this to be followed through for people who are to do the same work on a committee of the new heritage commission. I beg to move.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, as the noble Baroness describes, this amendment attempts to provide for any member of the committee to be remunerated who is involved in advising the commission on the exercise of its powers. The House will be aware that we are not in favour of remunerating members of the commission's advisory committee, and I do not believe there is any

649
particular reason to change that view. The payments referred to in Section 10 are for services rendered, but these committees will be purely advisory. If there are any services to be rendered, as we understand it, they should be rendered by members of the commission themselves. They will, of course, be paid.
The first part of the amendment attempts to remove the requirement for the Secretary of State to consult about conservation area grants he makes in England. This is quite unnecessary, for under paragraph 19 of Schedule 4 his power to make such grants in England is removed. There will, therefore, be no occasion for him to consult about their making.
I thought the noble Baroness made an interesting point about the Historic Buildings Council at the moment, that people might he worse off. I should like to have a look at that, but I hope very much that that is not the case, because obviously it is not the intention. Of course members on the committees will get expenses and that sort of payment, but not a salary.
Baroness Birk: I should like to thank the Minister for that reply. I am glad that he is going to look at this, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 139 not moved.]
10.57 p.m.
Baroness Birk Baroness Birk moved Amendment No. 140:
Page 48, line 16, at end insert—
"(2A) After subsection (1) there shall be inserted—
(1A) The Secretary of State shall not make any order under subsection (1)of this section affecting scheduled monuments in the Commission's ownership or management until a draft of the order has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.
(1B) The Commission shall keep a register for each of the monuments in its ownership, guardianship or management of all works which it proposes to carry out under a scheduled monument consent granted under an order made under subsection (1) of this section and shall as may be and in any case not later that seven days from the making of an entry in that register give notice of such changes or additions in or to that register and allow 42 days therefrom for representations to be made.
(1C) Such notification shall he made to the—

(a) Local authorities:

(b) Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings;

(c) Georgian Group;

(d) Victorian Society;

(e) Ancient Monuments Society; and

(f) Council for British Archaeology;

and the Commission shall by the commencement of the 42 day period also display (and use its best efforts to maintain for that period) at a publicly accessible place at or adjacent to the building concerned a notice setting out and explainiing the works covered by the change or addition to that register and shall publish that notice in a local newspaper.
(1D) The Commission shall not proceed with any such work until after the expiry of the 42 day period allowed for representations.
(1E) Representations arising from notifications as above may be made to the Secretary of State and any made to the Commission shall be passed to him by them for his consideration.
(1F) Where any such representation is made the Secretary of State shall, if he thinks appropriate, direct that the scheduled monument consent previously granted by order and covering the works against which that representation may have been
650
made shall not have effect, such that the Commission must obtain a scheduled monument consent from him before the works may be carried out.
(1G) Where the Secretary of State considers that works that the Commission proposes to carry out under a scheduled monument consent previously granted by order under this section are likely to be considered to be contentious he shall withdraw the consent made under that order with respect to the proposed works, such that the Commission must formally apply to him for and obtain the necessary scheduled monument consent before it proceeds with the works." ")
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this is for the other side of Amendment No. 136, which was not moved. That concerned the listed buildings consent which the commission may need. This amendment concerns the scheduled monuments consent that the commission is certain to need, for such consents are required every time even straightforward repairs are carried out on a scheduled monument. The commission is to manage them by the hundred and, not being a Government body, it needs consent. The consents can be issued under Section 3 of the 1979 Act, and it is understood that the issue of such a class consent is contemplated. So the commission, in effect, will be absolved thereafter from obtaining consent. There will be every attempt to cut down the paper work involved, and a modicum of notification and monitoring is appropriate. This holds true here, as it would for listed consents as well.
The amendment, quite properly, places a degree of restraint and supervision on the commission that is needed to keep its standards high and to make it act responsibly. On a minor point of detail, it may be said that the Georgian Group and Victorian Society cannot, almost by definition, be involved in ancient monuments, and that they are sounds almost like a contradiction in terms. But, thanks to the extraordinary way in which the scheduling system works, quite recent buildings can be scheduled, provided they are not occupied domestically by more than a caretaker. Most of the buildings in Chatham's historic dockyard are scheduled and are of either Georgian or Victorian days. Where the same list is used, it may be better not to put names into the statute but rather to do the job by way of an amendable regulation or circular. I beg to move.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, with the agreement of the noble Baroness, I will direct my remarks backwards to Amendment 136 as well as to No. 140. I must confess that when I read them, these amendments made me pause for a considerable time, because the noble Baroness has been castigating me somewhat for not trusting the commission. But as I understand these two amendments, they would indicate, first, that the commission is not to be trusted to undertake any works to buildings or monuments in its ownership without the consent of the Secretary of State; and, secondly, that comments or criticisms from local authorities and a wide range of amenity bodies, made to the Secretary of State, are required if the commission is to operate effectively, and that the commission cannot be trusted to listen to any comments without a statutory provision.
I do wonder about this approach, and perhaps I have it wrong. On the one hand, there are a large number of amendments which seem to emphasise a central focus on the expertise the body will provide—a

651
body in which the largest group of experts in these fields will reside. On the other hand, it is suggested now that, in respect of its own buildings and monuments, it would be incapable of undertaking the very sort of work it has been set up, as the expert, to advise others on. It seems strange, when the Secretary of State sets up a body to manage monuments and buildings on his behalf. and also to act as his expert advisers on ancient monuments and historic buildings, that he should also decide that his creation is not to be trusted to do one of these jobs without statutory watchdogs.
As has been said in the discussions on the Bill, if we are to set up an appointed body we trust it to do the job it is set up for. I have no doubt that both local authorities and the amenity groups mentioned will make their views known to the commission, and that the latter will treat this with its usual respect. The commission will want close links with these kind of bodies and, no doubt, too, advisory committees will draw from their expertise.
Imposing statutory restrictions such as these amendments propose, would, I believe, be counterproductive. I shall, of course, read what the noble Baroness says and, if I have misinterpreted her, I will come back to her again.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, these are very complicated amendments, I agree, and perhaps shorthanding them did not really help. But the first paragraph of Amendment 140 reads:
"The Secretary of State shall not make any order under subsection (1) of this section affecting … monuments in the Commission's ownership … until a draft of the order has been laid before … each House of Parliament."
That does not put the commission under restraint from the Secretary of State.
On the part of the amendment that refers to notification, although the bodies have been spelt out in that way, if this matter was to be considered by the Government, I personally would prefer to see "certain bodies" or something like that and I do not think we need to have them spelled out as they are.
What I have tried to do is to strike a balance between the commission having the right over scheduled monuments, but, at the same time, not going beyond a certain route so that it can be said that it is exceeding its own brief. This is, however, I agree, extremely complicated, and as I did not move Amendment No. 136, a hit more confusion has been added.
For the moment, I will read what the Minister has said; perhaps he will read what I have said. If we understand each other, perhaps we can come back to this again. In the meantime, I beg to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 141 not moved.]
Baroness Birk Baroness Birk moved Amendment No. 142.
Page 53, line 18, after (" (1) ") insert (" for "or guardianship" substitute", guardianship or management" and")
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this has to do with management of the commission, which is to
652
manage many monuments but which initially holds none in its guardianship. It also may not have to admit the public to them.
Amendment No. 143 inserts "management" into subsection (2): without it the commission seems to be unable to set opening times and so on, though this is something which, according to the Notes on Clauses, is to be left to the commision.
Amendment No. 144 addresses a different problem. Here it so happens that "management" has not been inserted into the new subsection (4A), which itself was inserted by Government amendment in Committee.
The result now is that the Secretary of State cannot make regulations under what seems to be the subsection designed to cover the commission with respect to the monuments it is to manage. The ensuing result is that he will have to use the power in subsection (3) which, in its turn, seems to be the wider power probably intended to be used only in Scotland and Wales, which, of course, does not come within the purview of this Bill.
Be that as it may, why must it be that the Secretary of State makes regulations in connection with monuments in the commission's management? Would it not be much simpler and also cheaper and just as responsible to let the commission make its own regulations as the law provided when first printed rather than have the added check that the regulations must be approved by the Secretary of State, who is therefore made fully accountable for the imposition of penalties? This would again cut out a lot of consulting and redrafting, and a lot of the personnel involved, because the regulations would be written by the people actually concerned rather than by those who may not know the day-to-day problems and idiosyncracies of each monument.
Amendment No. 144 returns to the need to put in "management", or the commission will be unable to refuse admission to a monument to those whom they have reasonable cause to think will be likely to damage it. Altogether, it seems to me that Section 19, as already amended, still needs further attention. It may well be that the department has plans to bring forward amendments to put these matters straight if those now tabled are not acceptable. I should be grateful if the Minister could comment on that on the grounds that the present situation is not correct, and if he could say what are the Government's plans to deal with the matter. I beg to move.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, if I may, I should like to speak first to Amendments Nos. 142, 143 and 145. These three amendments seek to extend the powers to control public access under Section 19 of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979 to monuments under the commission's management. The noble Baroness will be pleased to hear that we have no quarrel with the principle of the proposal.
The House will recall that the Committee agreed a Government amendment. No. 111, which empowered the commission to undertake functions on behalf of the Secretary of State, where he so directed, in respect of monuments under his guardianship. That amendment provided for the Secretary of State to delegate functions to the commission, including those

653
relating to public access. In that respect, there is no need, therefore, for these amendments.
There are, however, two other categories of monument in the Secretary of State's care—monuments in his ownership and those otherwise under his control or management. It will be necessary for the Government to table further amendments to cater for those categories in an analogous way to the provision covering guardianship of monuments. There are technical drafting problems which have prevented us from tabling the amendments up to now. I hope that, with those assurances, the noble Baroness will be able to withdraw Amendment No. 142, and not to move Nos. 143 and 145.
If I may come to Amendment No. 144, to which the noble Baroness also spoke, the nub of this amendment appears to be the concept that the commission should be empowered to make regulations with the Secretary of State's approval. The Bill at present empowers the Secretary of State to make regulations after consulting the commission. This is purely presentational and we were advised by our lawyers on the wording. It is the Government's very clear view that it would not be right for a non-Crown statutory body to have the power to create offences, and that formal power to make regulations must rest with the Secretary of State. This follows some earlier comments that I made to my noble friend Lord Montagu.
It is for that reason that the power rests with the Secretary of State, but he must consult the commission before making regulations, thus ensuring that their views are fully taken into account. We believe that this is a better approach. I hope that the noble Baroness will feel satisfied with my comments on Amendments Nos. 142, 143 and 145, and may also be prepared not to move Amendment No. 144.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, I should like first to thank the Minister for what he said about Amendments Nos. 142, 143 and 145, and secondly to ask him whether he is expecting to bring forward the amendments by Third Reading. I thank the noble Earl for indicating that he will. As has been said before, it is very important that we should get as much of this amended as possible before the Bill leaves here and goes to another place.
So far as Amendment No. 144 is concerned, if this is a matter of presentation, it seems to me that it should be turned the other way round and we should let the commission make the regulations with the consent of the Secretary of State, because we are now up against the question of the commission not being in as authoritative a position as they should be. They are the body which should be managing the monuments and deciding about refusals of admission and so on. I do not think I can take this any further tonight. Maybe the Minister will also have another look at it. We will see whether I can come back on Third Reading, perhaps with a different version, or, if he has a change of heart, perhaps he will. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 143 to 145 not moved.]
The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 146:
Page 54, leave out lines 35 to 43.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this amendment is consequential as a result of the new Clause 30. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
11.10 p.m.
The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 147:
Page 55, line 1, leave out ("23B") and insert ("23A")
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is a renumbering amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu Lord Montagu of Beaulieu moved Amendment No. 148:
Page 55, line 20, at end insert—
("(4) The Secretary of State shall, within twelve months of the day appointed for the bringing into force of this section, make a direction such that the Commission shall thence manage all monuments then in his ownership or guardianship.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the noble Earl may find it rather difficult to understand why I have felt it necessary to put down this amendment. Your Lordships will remember that in the debates during the Committee stage the Government stressed time and time again that it was the management, not the guardianship of the monument, or its ownership, which would be given to the commission. Nothing was said, however, about how soon this management function would be transferred. If the management is not transferred to the commission reasonably speedily, the Secretary of State will be left—most unfortunately, probably—with the management of numerous properties and monuments and will inevitably have to run a duplicate organisation to the commission.
The amendment lays down a timetable for making directions under another amendment which was made during the Committee stage. In other words, the amendment simply stitches a timetable, as an additional subsection, to that new section. I beg to move.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, it has always been the Government's intention that the commission should take over the day-to-day management of the monuments in the care of the Secretary of State. We stated it in The Way Forward, and I am happy to state it firmly once more. We envisage that far from waiting a year to make a direction under Section 23B transferring management to the commission, the Secretary of State will transfer the management of many of the monuments in his care to the commission on the day they take over their functions under the Bill. I believe, however, that we should leave to the Secretary of State the flexibility to decide on timing and, although such cases will be very rare indeed, the freedom to decide whether all monuments should be included in a direction. So far as the guardianship of monuments is concerned, I am not aware of any that would not be managed by the commission; but again I believe that it would be wrong to force the issue, as proposed by the amendment.

655
I hope that, with my assurance that it is the Secretary of State's plan at the moment to make a direction regarding monuments in his care on the day that the commission take over their functions under the Bill, my noble friend will feel content.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu: My Lords, the noble Earl has perhaps reassured me, but I am sure he appreciates the reason why I put down the amendment. It would be most unsatisfactory if one had a dichotomy between the Department of the Environment and the new commission over many properties. However, in view of the assurance which I have just heard, I am happy to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
11.14 p.m.
Baroness Birk Baroness Birk moved Amendment No. 149:
After Clause 31, insert the following new clause:
("Royal Commission on Historical Monuments (England).
—(1) The Secretary of State, the Commission and the Royal Commission on Historical Monuments (England) shall consult together as to the desirability, or otherwise, and how the responsibilities of the said Royal Commission can be assumed by the Commission.
(2) The Secretary of State shall present a report to each House of Parliament on these consultations and, if the report so recommends. Her Majesty may by Order in Council provide for the Royal Commission on Historical Monuments to cease to exist and for the new body to be set up under any necessary statutory provisions.
(3) An Order under this section may contain such incidental, consequential and supplementary provisions as may be necessary or expedient for the purpose of giving effect to the Order.
(4) No Order shall be made under this section unless a draft of the Order has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.
(5) The consultations referred to in subsection (1) above shall be begun within twelve months from the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State shall lay his report before both Houses of Parliament within twelve months from the commencement of those consultations and if his report recommends in the affirmative the draft Order in Council referred to in subsection (2) above shall be the subject of debate by, and resolution of, both Houses of Parliament within a further six months."
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, while moving Amendment No. 149, I should like to discuss Amendments Nos. 152 and 153. They are all concerned with the Royal Commission on Historical Monuments.
Amendment No. 149 is very similar to the amendment which was debated at the Committee stage. However, a timetable has been added to this amendment. The Committee debate rehearsed the various arguments for bringing the Royal Commission and the new commission very much closer together but without putting pressure on the Royal Commission as to what it decides to do in the future. It enables the commission to pick this up, if it wishes to do so after consultation.
The real problem about finding some method of merging to a certain extent is the essential point about the need for the National Monuments Record to be readily accessible to the new heritage commission. Without it, the heritage commission would have to set
656
up a parallel architectural and archaeological library at very considerable expense. At the moment the National Monuments Record is located in Fortress House, with the Ancient Monuments Division and the Historical Buildings Division immediately opposite across the road. It is more than likely that in the course of time the commission will have to move to different premises. The problem one is faced with is that it will need to work closely with the National Monuments Record, and the need to do so is a geographical one as well.
The amendment states quite specifically that,
"The Secretary of State, the Commission and the Royal Commission on Historical Monuments (England) shall consult together as to the desirability, or otherwise,"
and if it is found to be "otherwise", then there would have to be some other solution found in attempting to have the National Monuments Record, so to speak, in two places at once. I do not pretend to have a solution at this stage. Under this amendment, the Secretary of State,
"shall present a report to each House of Parliament on these consultations",
and so it goes on, as the amendment at Committee stage did. The only real change is in subsection (5), where it is stated that consultations shall begin within 12 months and a timetable for consultations is laid down.
The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Sandford—that is, Amendment No. 152—refers to the use of a statutory instrument to make such arrangements for the future relationships of the two commissions as may be necessary. In their Amendment No. 153, the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, and the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, refer to the Secretary of State reviewing such relationships when he sees fit and to making regulations and publishing guidelines. I will hastily say that this is a very tricky and difficult subject, and the Government have, understandably, sat back and let the matter float around. Frankly, I do not feel that either of these other two amendments really gets to the point of responsibility for the National Monuments Record.
It is certainly felt by the Ancient Monuments Board and the Historic Buildings Council, who will be doing the work of the new commission, that this should be assumed by the commission. It is probably doubtful that statutory instruments or regulations—even if the latter were the subject of an affirmative resolution of both Houses—could provide for anything like the transfer of the National Monuments Record from the Royal Commission to the new commission. It seems to those of us who have our names to this amendment that the use of an enabling clause would be the best way of dealing with this matter. I beg to move.
Lord Adeane: My Lords, as the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, has said, this is an extremely tricky matter and by no means obvious. Before launching into the question of the National Monuments Record, which is of great importance, as the noble Baroness has said, there is one point that I ought to make first. Subsection (1) of Amendment No. 149 contains an implication which may not be obvious to all noble Lords but which

657
does affect the meaning of the whole clause. We ought to be clear about this. I quote:
"The Secretary of State, the Commission and the Royal Commission on Historical Monuments (England) shall consult together as to the desirability, or otherwise, and how the responsibilities of the said Royal Commission can be assumed by the Commission."
This hypothetical consultation assumes that these responsibilities—that is to say, the work and the staff which carries it out—can be simply picked up as a working machine all in one piece and dumped somewhere in the new commission. I can assure your Lordships that this cannot be done; at any rate, it cannot be done without causing such damage to the original body that it would be unrecognisable. I cannot say how many of the staff would accept a change such as this, nor how many commissioners would—perhaps not many. What would result would not be assumption but dissolution.
To come to the National Monuments Record, perhaps it is not altogether clear what its status is. There seems to be an impression that it is just something run by the Royal Commission. It is not; it is part of the Royal Commission. There used to be something called the National Buildings Record and that went into liquidation in 1964, and it was resurrected as an integral part of the Royal Commission under the name of the National Monuments Record. It is a public archive; it is freely available to everybody, to the public, the Government, and indeed to the new body, from 10 till 5.30 every day, and no doubt for longer if necessary.
It is not, of course, only concerned with architectural matters; it is also and equally concerned with archaeological matters. It is the focal point for records from all over the country; public authorities, societies and private individuals working in the field of archtecture and archaeology all send their contributions. This results in the National Monuments Record maintaining a total of 250,000 records which are added to at a considerable annual rate. So you can see that those of us who are concerned with the Royal Commission are also very much concerned with the National Monuments Record, particularly as it absorbs the work of 30 per cent. of our staff. I am afraid I added that to the debate as a piece of information, but in view of position of the record, and in view of what I said at the beginning of my speech, I cannot myself hope that this amendment will be supported.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu: My Lords, I am afraid I am in the position of supporting this amendment. I think it is generally known by many people concerned with this Bill that this is the hottest potato of all. I think it is a pity somebody has to be prepared to pick it up, and I understand they do not want to get their fingers burned. The fact is that this problem is not going to go away, and what I find very difficult to understand is why the Royal Commission, whose work we very much admire and whose chairman, in the Chamber, has been of tremendous help to us in this debate, is not prepared even to discuss the matter. What are they afraid of, I ask? What are they trying to hide? Is there some reason why discussion cannot go on as to the
658
desirability or not? If they can put up a good case perhaps it will be clear that it should not be.
I cannot understand why a simple enabling clause like this, to ask for discussions, with an enormous number of safeguards built in, cannot be accepted. It may never happen, but all I know is that the question will have to be solved eventually, because as the commission grows the problem of the use of the record by the commission is going to get more and more acute. It may be that administratively it will work well, and therefore the amalgamation may not be needed. If we do not grasp it now, I prophesy that it will have to be dealt with some time in the next five years.
The Duke of Grafton: My Lords, I echo the words of the noble Lord, Lord Montagu of Beaulieu. As a member of the Historic Buildings Council I know that our work to date would have been extremely difficult if we had not had very close liaison with these two bodies. With the noble Lord, Lord Montagu of Beaulieu, I cannot see why there is such nervousness about it.
11.25 p.m.
Lord Beswick: My Lords, I have listened to the discussions on the points involved this evening and in Committee. Certain points seem to have emerged which were pretty soundly based and had wide support when there were more people here to give them support. The first was the proposition put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, who said that we should not put words into an Act of Parliament unless it was necessary to do so. The second point, made convincingly by the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, was that we should not amalgamate for the sake of amalgamation. There is much evidence to suggest that that is a sound and wise proposition. The third point, made more than once and made again by my noble friend Lady Birk, is that there is no criticism of the work of the Royal Commission on Historical Monuments. No one has criticised it; all have paid tribute to the work that it has done. With those three propositions before us I do not see that we should support the amendments now being moved.
There is no evidence at all that the work of the Royal Commission would be done better in any way if it was part of this new amorphous body, which has yet to make its position felt or its achievements known. There is no evidence that it will be better within a new body. There is no evidence, either, that the work of the Royal Commission could not be widened or could not be redirected if consultation suggests that that is the course to adopt. It is not necessary to put in an Act of Parliament that there should be consultation. I am surprised at this idea that something is being hidden. My impression is that there is every intention and belief that there could be the widest possible consultation, if that was decided, without that going into the Bill. Those assurances having been given, I hope very much that it will not be necessary to amend the Bill.
Lord Sandford: My Lords, it will be for the convenience of the House, as I have Amendments

659
Nos. 152 and 153 on the Marshalled List in my name which bear on this matter, if I joined in the debate on this amendment, and I shall then have less to say when we reach my own amendments. It is a pity that this issue has polarised around the question of whether the Royal Commission should be in the heritage commission or outside it, as though that was the only issue to be decided. It is also unfortunate that the Government have not seen fit to give the House a lead or any indication of what their opinion is on this matter.
I have come to the view that in the present circumstances, with a Royal Commission established 75 years ago, with its work clearly set out and proceeding on lines which everyone approves of, the Royal Commission should not now be disturbed to the extent of being abolished and absorbed into the new heritage commission, which is not yet in existence. On the other hand, I cannot agree with the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, and others like him, who feel that, if that is not what is to be done, everything can be left as it is. The fact of the matter is that the work of the new commission, as indeed the work of the existing Historic Buildings Council, depends crucially on the co-operation between these two bodies. That is a pattern of partnership, the details of which will have to be worked out as the new commission comes into being and its members are appointed and it plans for itself the way in which it is going to set about its work.
I know, because the director of the Royal Commission has told me, and so has the chairman, that the details of this partnership are being planned, envisaged and worked out at the moment, and that is satisfactory. But there is no indication yet, and there will not necessarily be for a long time—and there may never be—that this pattern of co-operation will lead in the end to the Royal Commission being taken into the new commission and abolished. That is why I cannot support Amendment No. 149, because it starts with that presupposition, as the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, has said.
On the other hand, I am quite certain that we cannot leave matters as they are, with Parliament entirely in the dark as to how the future relationships are to develop and whether they are ever to be made public. I have been speaking from time to time bearing in mind the needs of the local authorities, the county councils and city councils. The County Council of Hampshire put the point to me that they have to deal on the one hand with the Royal Commission and on the other hand with the new heritage commission in the way they deal now with the Historic Buildings Council. They have their archive department, for instance, which has close working relationships with the Royal Commission. They have their planning department and their conservation department, which have close working relations with the Historic Buildings Council. It is quite impossible for a body like that to operate effectively with the Royal Commission on the one hand, and the heritage commission on the other hand, if it has no public knowledge of what the formal working relationship between these two national bodies is supposed to be.
Therefore, sooner or later the detailed working relationships which are being worked out at the moment by officials must be brought before Parlia
660
ment and exposed for all to see. That is what my Amendment No. 152 sought in the first instance, and what my Amendment No. 153 seeks now in rather more explicit terms. I hope that, when we get to it, the chairman of the Royal Commission will be able to express his view on which of these two amendments finds favour with him. What we need more than anything else is an expression from the Government as to how they see the matter being handled.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I am afraid I am still in the position of having no firm Government view to give to the House regarding the future position of the Royal Commission on Historical Monuments. As my noble friend Lord Montagu would say, I am still throwing the hot potato up in the air and I am trying not to catch it!
As I promised, we have reflected very carefully on the debate on this subject in Committee and in particular the valuable remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Adeane. My impression at that stage, like the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, was that many noble Lords had sympathy with what he was saying. I wonder, however, whether the House will regard Amendment No. 149 as reflecting his wishes, judging by the tenor of the debate in Committee.
The amendments, as the noble Lord, Lord Adeane, pointed out, seem implicitly to be looking to how, rather than whether, the RCHM should be absorbed, and laying down the necessary mechanics and a timetable. I wonder really whether this is a direction in which the House wishes to go. I personally believe that it would be better to avoid a firm indication at the moment.
The amendments of my noble Lord Sandford are, of course, of a much gentler quality—if I may use that word. In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Adeane, made clear that the Royal Commission was very ready to co-operate from an independent position with the new commission. That seems to be a most helpful and constructive position on the part of the Royal Commission, for, on the scenario of a separate Royal Commission it indicates that there would naturally be the kind of discussions of the relationship for which these amendments offer statutory backing. Given that sort of goodwill, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, spoke well when he said in Committee that consultations and a proper working agreement can be reached over the lunch table and this will not be a situation for which legislation is really appropriate. I am sorry that I cannot be more constructive or helpful. Perhaps I should say that my right honourable friend the new Secretary of State is anxious to reach a view as quickly as possible; that he himself, as it were, had to start from scratch.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, after that Government reply, it is almost impossible to carry the discussion very much further. I very much went along with a great deal of what the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, said about this problem. I quite understand the Government deciding that they do not want to push the Royal Commission into a position where it is subsumed by the heritage commission, because one is royal, and I have not yet suggested calling the heritage commission the royal heritage commission and upgrading it to that extent. So there is a problem here.

661
Speaking personally, I am not absolutely and irrevocably wedded to the amendment that I was moving. It was an amendment to try to get us out of the morass into which we had fallen, or the cul de sac down which we had gone, and to give us an enabling Bill. At the moment, although this is a pretty thin House, it is quite clear that is not finding much favour with anybody. However, I should have liked to hear from the Government—and this is the crux of the matter as regards the bodies and their work—whether there is a connection with the National Monuments Record. We have had no lead on how this could be worked out in order that they could still retain their own identity but with the work continuing. There is a great deal of concern that the access to the National Monuments Record may be cut off or it may not work, and it is a very practical point. I do not see it as a question of prestige or of trying to merge the Royal Commission into the new heritage commission, but more a question of how the actual work is to take place. This can be worked out.
Why should any upheaval be necessary at all? If the Government are setting up a new commission and bringing forward this Bill—and, as I understand it, to have very close links with the National Monuments Record is essential and an integral part of it—then the Government must come out of the closet over this and at least say how they feel, or produce some line of thought, or some way in which they think it could work out in practice, rather than just leaving it as it is and saying nothing, with us all going round in circles trying to find some way out of this. That will just continue and we shall get nowhere.
I hope that even tonight the Minister may be able to come down to the basic practical point which is causing all the anxiety of how there can be a link up —or will it be able to continue in its present form?—with the National Monuments Record.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, by leave of the House, as I understand it, it would continue in its present form. Of course, I appreciate the concern of the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, and I actually had runners standing by right up to 10 o'clock this evening in case I could get a decision, but at the moment I do not have it. and until I do there is very little more I can add.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, in these circumstances, I think it would be quite wrong, even if it were feasible at this time of night, to press this amendment at all. At this stage I think we have to hand it back to the Government in order to try to start some sort of working relationship or have more talks, or to say, "You do not have to do anything about this at all; we have been able to make arrangements and to consult about this, and not put it on any statutory basis at all." I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
11.40 p.m.
Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal moved Amendment No. 150:
After Clause 31, insert the following new clause:
("Powers of investment.
.—(1) The Commission may invest any monies it may receive by way of voluntary contributions towards its expenditures,
662
profits from its trading activities, sponsorship or endowment of any of the properties in its ownership care or management in accordance with this section.
(2) Any such sums shall be invested in accordance with the Trustee Investments Act 1961; and sections 1, 2. 5, 6, 12 and 13 of that Act shall have effect in relation to such sums, and in relation to any investments for the time being representing such sums, as if they constituted a Trust Fund and the Commissioners were the trustees of that fund.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, at the Committee stage the noble Earl, Lord Avon, responded to Amendment No. 113E, but did not deal with what was to be done with voluntary contributions or any profits that the commission made on any of the operations it was engaged in. I am not clear whether the noble Earl said when dealing with Amendment No. 98, which seems 100 years ago but was four or five hours ago, that the commission already had these powers, or whether they would have them under provisions to be made in a new Finance Act.
In either case, following the thread which has gone through so much of this debate, we want to make the commission flexible and responsible, so surely they must have a power of investment. One thing is certain: nobody is going to give money to a commission which is simply going to put the money on deposit. Incidentally, I suppose that to put money on deposit is a form of investment, although in a rather restricted form. I hope that the noble Earl will be able to confirm that these powers either already exist or will exist. I beg to move.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, the power of the commission in new Clause 30 to do such things as it considers necessary or expedient covers the question of voluntary contributions and also the receipt of donations. Voluntary contributions which will not count against the grant-in-aid are likely to be aimed at specific projects rather than given for general purposes, and to the extent that the commission receives other income that too will be expected to be used rather than saved. The establishment and use of a capital fund we are not encouraging in this case.
May I come on to investment. The commission will be able to invest without any formal provision. We would rather like to leave it with that sentence because if we put in any amendment along the lines of my noble friend's thinking we must be careful not to restrict the rather more general terms which I have just mentioned and which I shall repeat: the commission will be able to invest without any formal provision.
Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal: My Lords, that seems to be a wholly satisfactory state of affairs. I am grateful to the noble Earl. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu Lord Montagu of Beaulieu moved Amendment No. 151:
After Clause 31, insert the following new clause:
("Additional grants for establishment, equipment, and provision of facilities
—the Secretary of State shall consult with the Commission and additionally pay such grants as may be necessary for the proper establishment and equipment of the Commission and for the reasonable improvement or provision of facilities for the public at monuments and buildings in its ownership care or management.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I do not want to take up too much of the time of the House at this stage of the evening. I simply wish to try to get from the noble Earl an assurance that the new commission will start off with sufficient funds to establish itself in the early days. It will have problems of administration, of offices, and all sorts of other things, and one does not want it to start in a starving position from which it will not recover for many years. I understand that there is goodwill on the part of the Government to see that the commission does get off to a good start; nevertheless, I give this opportunity to the noble Earl to confirm that tonight.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I think I can give my noble friend that assurance. The powers of the Secretary of State to pay grant are, of course, covered in Clause 39. The Government have made it clear in The way Forward, and I emphasised in Committee, that the setting up and administrative costs of the commission will be met as a separate part of a grant-in-aid. The opportunity for improvements in presentation and facilities mentioned in the amendment is, of course, one of the underlying reasons for establishing the commission. When the commission have worked out what they wish to do, which inevitably must be a gradual process, these proposals and their costs will form an important part of successive annual grant negotiations. The Government do not intend to starve their creation of the resources to do the job, and I assure my noble friend that the points he made have been, and will continue to be, very much to the forefront of their mind.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu: My Lords, with that encouraging reply to an important point, I am happy to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 32 [Dissolution of certain bodies]:
11.45 p.m.
Lord Sandford Lord Sandford moved Amendment No. 152:
Page 18, line 5, at end insert—
("(3) the Secretary of State may by statutory instrument subject to an affirmative resolution of both Houses of Parliament make such arrangements for the future relationships of the Royal Commission on Historical Monuments (England) and the Commission for Ancient Monuments and Historic Buildings for England as may be necessary.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, while I do not want to say much about the substance of the amendment, I must say that we cannot possibly leave the relationship between the new commission and the Royal Commission in the unsatisfactory state in which we find it. It seems that we have three alternatives to offer the Minister. One is for him to undertake to come back with the Government's thinking on this matter resolved by way of an amendment in time for Third Reading. The second alternative is for him to accept whichever amendment—No. 152 or No. 153—is acceptable to the House; and I think your Lordships would welcome the guidance of the chairman of the Royal Commission on those two, neither of which presupposes the demise of the Royal Commission.
664
The third alternative, if neither of those is acceptable is the recommitment of this part of the Bill when the Government are ready with their conclusions. I hope the Minister can make a choice between those three alternatives.
Lord Adeane: My Lords, I do not have another speech to make, the House will be relieved to hear. I was absolutely delighted to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, said when we were discussing Amendment No. 149, when he spoke of the future of an informal consultation between the Royal Commission and the new commission, whenever it is ready to take on such consultation. The Royal Commission stand ready at any time to do that—over the luncheon table, over the breakfast table or over any table—and naturally, when some conclusion has been reached, we shall be ready for it to be published by the Government, by ourselves or by anybody else. Everything the noble Lord said on that could only give one great pleasure.
As for Amendments Nos. 152 and 153, on which the noble Lord was good enough to ask me to indicate the way ahead, I can only say that I find the same difficulty with this as he finds; this is something about which we have to look to the Government, and I hope that at some stage before the Bill leaves this House the noble Earl, Lord Avon, may be able to tell us what we have to do next. That is what we want to know.
The Earl of Perth: My Lords, I have listened to the debate on this series of amendments with great care and it seems to me that it is perhaps difficult for the Government to give their view until breakfast or lunch between the commission, when it has been established, and the Royal Commission has taken place. So I must confess that it seems to me that Amendment No. 153, which leaves everything open until after the famous meal has taken place, is probably the amendment that we should go for. It indicates that at a proper time, when the Secretary of State is satisfied that it is expedient to review the relationship, something may happen. But to expect an answer now would be wrong, and one should not press even the Government for it.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, my noble friend gave me three options. Of course, I could accept any of them, but unfortunately they have to be accepted by my colleagues as well, so I must be careful. I think that the best I can say to my noble friend is that I shall of course undertake to make a statement on this subject on Third Reading, with an amendment, if appropriate. My noble friend mentioned his own amendments. Personally, I believe that they would both be a little short of the issue if we did so wish to include the Royal Commission: they would fall a little short of what we would want.
I am sorry that I cannot be more helpful to the House. I think that the noble Earl, Lord Perth, put his finger on the matter when he said that all the discussions that we are now having are being weighed up as well. They will be taken into account by my right honourable friend, and to that extent I am grateful to the House for discussing the matter in such detail at this very late hour. I shall do my best in order to make sure that something is before your Lordships at Third Reading.
Lord Sandford: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Adeane, and to my noble friend Lord Avon for their response to what I had to say on the two amendments. As the noble Earl, Lord Perth, has suggested, it is of course quite unreasonable to require the Government to say here and now what should be the future working relationships between the heritage commission and the Royal Commission. But neither of the amendments is asking for that. All that is asked for is a statement from the Government as to how they are going to handle in the Bill the relationships between the Royal Commission on the one hand and the heritage commission on the other, and any other bodies involved. That is all that either of the amendments seeks to do.
However, if I may say so, my noble friend has taken the first option that I offered him. I asked that he should give us an undertaking to make a statement setting out the Government's position by way of an amendment at Third Reading, and my understanding of his response was that he said he would do precisely that. If that is what he is going to do, I should be delighted to withdraw the amendment, and the third option, of having a recommitment of the Bill, remains available to us should we not find that the Government are able to be forthcoming when the time of the Third Reading is reached. So in all those circumstances I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 152.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 153 not moved.]
Schedule 5 [Minor and consequential amendments]:
11.53 p.m.
Lord Strabolgimoved Amendment No. 154:
Page 60, leave out lines 29 and 30.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 154, to which I spoke in Committee. I beg to move the amendment formally.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I listened to the arguments put forward in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, and in view of their inability at this time to make extensive revisions to Schedule 1 to the National Gallery and Tate Gallery Act, the Government recognise and accept the desirability of preserving the procedure of the 1954 Act. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, will understand that, while the Government accept his amendments in principle, I should prefer to allow the draftsman the opportunity to make any consequential revisions, particularly to Schedule 5. For this particular amendment that may seem rather hard work, but it is really because of Amendment No. 155, to which I am to make the same kind of response, that I feel that I should like the draftsman to have another look at the matter, so as to move our own Government amendment at the next stage.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl, but I was moving only Amendment No. 154. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Strabolgi Lord Strabolgi moved Amendment No. 155:
Page 60, line 32, at end insert—
(" ( ) In Schedule 1 to the National Gallery and Tate Gallery Act 1954 (which lists Museums and other Institutions to which transfers may be made under sections 3 and 5 of that Act) there shall he added in the appropriate places;

The Trustees of the British Museum (Natural History).

The British Library Board.

The Board of Trustees of the Armouries.")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 155, which seeks to add three institutions to Schedule 1 to the National Gallery and Tate Gallery Act 1954. At present transfers to the Schedule 1 list, with the addition of the Ulster Museum, which has been added by order, can be made by the National Gallery, in the case of gifts only, for which no special provision has been made under Section 3, and by the Tate Gallery trustees, who, under Section 5, have power to transfer any work of art vested in them.
There is some inconsistency between these two powers, and I hope that this will receive the attention of the Government. It would be an advantage, I suggest, to give the National Gallery the wider powers of transfer enjoyed by the Tate. At present, certain paintings from the National Gallery are on loan only, because they cannot be transferred. The National Portrait Gallery, for example, has on loan from the National Gallery over a hundred portrait drawings of prominent people from the first half of the last century. These are by a minor artist but are of great historical interest because of the people portrayed. The National Portrait Gallery has also on loan from the National Gallery 35 portrait miniatures which are of no interest, I understand, to the National Gallery and of no relevance to its collections. All these should be transferred. Both bodies of trustees want to do this but are prevented from doing so by present legislation.
Transfers cannot be made by the National Gallery or the Tate Gallery to the British Museum (Natural History) or to the British Library Board or to the board of trustees of the Armouries; although the Victoria and Albert Museum will be able to make transfers to these institutions under Clause 5(4) of this Bill, which attempts to bring the list up to date in a limited way, at least as far as the V and A is concerned. This is because the first two institutions were not in existence in 1954 and therefore did not appear in the schedule; and they have not since been added to the 1954 Act by order. They should have been; but for some reason they have not been added. My amendment seeks to remedy this.
In conclusion, I should like to pay a tribute, if I may, to Mr. Denis Mahon, the distinguished art historian, who is also a former trustee of the National Gallery. Mr. Mahon, working in an entirely voluntary and private capacity, has brought to light by most diligent research various anomalies and omissions in the relevant legislation. I am particularly indebted to him for much information and advice and for bringing these lacunae to our attention. I beg to move.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, for his introduction to this amendment. The Government are in sympathy with the objective of the noble Lord's amendment. However, we cannot accept his amendment outright

667
because to do so would render otiose similar, though not identical, provisions in Clause 5(4), Clause 12(4) and Clause 16(4). If the noble Lord is content, the Government are happy to bring forward an amendment of their own for the purpose of this amendment and to make the consequential amendments. With that commitment, I hope that the noble Lord will be able to withdraw.
Lord Strabolgi: I am most grateful to the noble Earl and I look forward to the Government's amendment at the next stage of the Bill.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendments Nos. 156 and 157:
Page 60, line 40, at end insert (", Kew")
Page 61, line 8, at end insert (". Kew")
The noble Earl said: If I may, I will move Amendments Nos. 156 and 157 together. My noble friend Lord Ferrers has already spoken to these. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Strabolgi Lord Strabolgi moved Amendment No. 158:
Page 61, line 8, at end insert—
("British Museum Act 1963 (c. 24)
( ) In section 9(1) to the British Museum Act 1963 (which allows transfers to other institutions) there shall be added at the end "the National Gallery Trustees, and the Tate Gallery Trustees".")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 158. This is another tidying-up amendment, to repair omissions in previous legislation. It is relevant, I suggest, to this Bill as it relates again to the National Gallery and Tate Gallery Act 1954, which is included in the Long Title. Section 9 of the British Museum Act 1963 allows transfers to any institution listed in the first schedule to the National Gallery and Tate Gallery Act; but the draftsmen forgot that the National Gallery and Tate Gallery are not listed in the schedule, for the reason that it is a schedule to an Act relating to these two institutions.
The Government of the day should have added the National Gallery and the Tate Gallery at the end of Section 9, to make the list complete. Somebody must have woken up to the omission when drafting the Museum of London Act 1965, since in Section 7 of that Act, dealing with transfers, the two institutions, the National Gallery and the Tate Gallery, have been included at the end of the section; and of course the same thing has been done in this Bill in Clause 5(4).
The effect of this oversight in the drafting of the British Museum Act means that the British Museum can transfer to any museum or other institution listed in the schedule except to the National Gallery and Tate Gallery themselves, which of course was not the intention of the 1963 Act. I beg to move.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, indeed Lord Strabolgi's amendment on face value is very reasonable, and it is difficult to see, as he says, why the provisions in the British Museum Act 1963 do not
668
permit transfers of objects to the National and Tate Galleries. However, before the Government feel that they can accept this amendment or consider it in principle, I should like to be sure that there is no underlying legal impediment which prevented the appropriate provisions from being included in the British Museum Act 1963. The noble Lord's amendment, as I understand it, would also extend the scope of the Bill, and possibly require an amendment to Long Title. Subject to these caveats, the Government would be prepared to bring forward an amendment of their own later on to achieve a similar effect. Perhaps the noble Lord would allow me to keep in touch with him as we progress in this particular matter.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Earl. I do not think that the Government need be inhibited about amending the Long Title. They have already amended it by inserting the word "Kew", and for that we are very grateful. In view of what the noble Earl has said, and the commitment that he has made, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 6 [Repeals]:
Lord Strabolgi Lord Strabolgi moved Amendment No. 159:
Page 61, line 17, column 3, leave out ("Section 3(4).")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is consequential on Amendment No. 154. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 160:
Page 61, line 18, column 3, leave out ("In section 4, subsection (2).") and insert ("Section 4(2).")
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this amendment simply corrects a minor drafting inconsistency. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 34 [Commencement]:
[Amendment No. 161 not moved.]
Lord Jenkins of Putneymoved Amendment No. 162:
Page 18, line 13, at end insert (" .but no order shall be made unless and until the staffs of the establishments to be affected by it shall by simple majority in a secret postal ballot have expressed their support for the issue of such an order.
Subject to the foregoing an order may be made bringing into effect only those sections of this Act governing a specific establishment or establishments where staff support has been given.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I may be out of order for a moment if I say that I regret that I was not in the Chamber this afternoon when Amendment No. 66 was moved, which I mistakenly thought was going to be taken at this stage in the proceedings rather than at an earlier stage. Consequently, that amendment was not moved. It is my hope that it will be picked up, either at a later stage in this House or possibly in another place.
If I may turn to the amendment which I wish particularly to press upon the Government, it is Amendment No. 162, rather than No. 161. I do so

669
with some confidence that the Government will save me the necessity of pressing the matter at this late stage by accepting this amendment, which I think will be more in line with their general philosophy than Amendment No. 161, which is clearly just a delaying amendment. Amendment No. 162 is entirely in accordance with the Government's general philosophy in these matters.
The Government are very much addicted to secret ballots, and what this amendment seeks to do is to give the staff the opportunity to express their views on this fundamental change to their whole way of life and terms and conditions by means of a secret ballot. The Government's belief in secret ballots is in my view somewhat mistaken. I think that recent events have shown us that a secret ballot can have consequences other than those which the Government might imagine would flow from them. It is sometimes the case that the rank and file of a trade union are substantially more militant, intransigent, or whatever word one might care to use, than the negotiators, as I think is probably being found in the case of the water dispute.
So a secret ballot, to my mind, is not the be-all and end-all of everything but it is the Government's idea and therefore, as this amendment says that no order to bring the Act into being,
"shall be made unless and until the staffs of the establishments to be affected by it shall by simple majority in a secret postal ballot have expressed their support for the issue of such an order",
it seems to me that the Government will have no difficulty in accepting the amendment. If it is right for the staff to express their view in a secret ballot before a strike takes place, if it is right for them to express their view in a secret ballot before they elect a trade union leader, surely it is right for them to express their view in a secret ballot before a fundamental change is made by an active order in the contractual terms of employment. They arc at the moment civil servants. They have not been fully consulted: the views of only the top layer of people in the museums and other establishments have been taken into consideration. It is true that the top layer, by and large, are in favour of these changes. This is not the case lower down the scale and it is by no means certain that the staff concerned arc in favour of these changes. It is my hope that the Government will see that it is right that their views should be consulted and that this fundamental change in their terms and conditions of employment shall not be imposed upon them until their views in the matter have been sought. I beg to move Amendment No. 162.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu: My Lords, I find this a completely staggering amendment. Perhaps it is light relief at the end of a very long debate. It was my impression that our national museums belonged to the nation and were run for the nation by the staff. It appears from the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, that they are owned by the staff, who have to be consulted about every move that goes on. Perhaps the new security guard who comes in the day before the ballot is taken will know a great deal more about running museums than the director and his senior staff, who have all expressed the opinion that they would like these changes to he made. It really is so absurd that I am very surprised that it can be moved seriously.
670
Perhaps it is not being moved seriously; but from my consultations with the trade unions in these musems, they are content. I think the Government have gone out of their way to make quite sure that the staff conditions are right; and all this nonsense about their ceasing to be civil servants is absolutely absurd. However, I go back to my point: I was under the impression that these were national museums, to be run for the benefit of all our people and not run for the benefit of the staff, which unfortunately in the past has happened too much.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I think I have said to the House on a number of occasions, both now and at Committee stage, that there have been wide discussions with the staff and with the unions. Recently there have been some press reports. The Government have inquired into these and I should like to reassure the House that the claims of staff support for the petition appear to be unsubstantiated. The directors have held meetings with their staff and have been unable to trace the source of the petition. The staff have assured the directors of their support, given the undertaking that the Bill is based in broadly its present form, including staff safeguards. I can see no point in a secret ballot. The Government cannot accept the amendment as it stands, which would also effectively subjugate the wishes of Parliament. I am sure the noble Lord will not wish to press it.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, I would be ready not to press the amendment if the noble Earl had felt able to be a little more forthcoming than he was in his answer. But it is the fact that many of the staffs of these museums will remain civil servants and there are considerable problems as to where the line shall be drawn at that level. Some of the staffs will remain civil servants and will be transferred to other branches of the Civil Service. There is no alternative given to the others: they are to be given an offer, and if they refuse that offer there is no alternative in the Bill as to what will be the result.
There is certainly provision for some sort of individual negotiation on dispute. If the noble Earl were able to say, without giving the staffs a veto on the position, that he will make sure that there would not be enforced upon the staff by Act of Parliament a breach in their contractual relationship with the Government, I think that would be sufficient for me not to press the matter, I hope the noble Earl will feel able to go that far.
The Earl of Avon: I do not think I can go quite that far. As the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, is well aware, we had some discussion on earlier amendments about the no-worsening situation, whereby civil servants at the museums can have a no-worsening clause built into their contracts, which as far as I know they themselves welcome, too.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, having regard to that more specific assurance, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Avonmoved Amendment No. 163:
In the Title, line 3, after ("Gardens") insert (",Kew,").

671
The noble Earl said: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Ferrers has already spoken to this. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
House adjourned at eleven minutes past midnight.