National Heritage Bill [H.L.]

HL Deb 31 January 1983 vol 438 cc519-87

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 Birk

moved 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 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 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 Avon

moved 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 Avon

moved Amendment No. 48: Page 25, line 22, leave out from first ("chairman") to end of line 23. 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 Avon

moved 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 Whitley

moved 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 Avon

moved 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 Avon

moved 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 Ferrers

moved 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 Ferrers

moved 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 Ferrers

moved 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 Ferrers

moved 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 Ferrers

moved 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 Ferrers

moved 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 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. (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 Whitley

moved 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 Ferrers

moved 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 Ferrers

moved 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."). 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 Birk

moved 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 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 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 "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 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.

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 Royal

moved 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.

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 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 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 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 Avon

moved 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 Avon

moved 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 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 Kilgerran

moved 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 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, 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 Avon

moved 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 Sandford

moved 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. 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 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. 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 Strathcona

and 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 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 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 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 Sandford

had 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 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 Birk

moved 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 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 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 Kilgerran

moved 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 Birk

moved 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 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 Gladwyn

moved 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 Kilgerran

had 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 Beaulieu

moved Amendment No. 90: Page 17, line 22, at end insert— ("(5A) So far as practicable the Commission shall promote—

1. (a) the recruitment and training of craftsmen in the use of traditional materials for conservation purposes, and
2. (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- 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 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)—

1. (a) to secure the preservation of ancient monuments and historic buildings situated in England, and
2. (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—

1. (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;
2. (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;
3. (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—

1. (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
2. (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—

1. (a) enter into contracts and other agreements;
2. (b) acquire and dispose of property other than land;
3. (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;
4. (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 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 moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 91, Amendment No. 91A:

Leave out subsection (1) and insert— ("(1) It shall be the—

1. (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
2. (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 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" 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 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 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 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 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 Sandford

moved, 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 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 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 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 Sandford

moved, 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 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 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 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 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 Birk

moved, 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 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 Sandford

moved, 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 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 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, 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 Birk

moved, 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 Sandford

moved, 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 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 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 Sandford

moved, 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 Royal

moved, 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 Sandford

had 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") 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 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 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, 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 Sandford

moved, 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.