National Heritage Bill [H.L.]

HL Deb 31 January 1983 vol 438 cc601-71

8.10 p.m.

Report stage resumed.

Baroness Birk moved Amendment No. 102: After Clause 30, insert the following new clause:

("Transfer of functions: Royal Palaces.

.—(1) Her Majesty may by order in Council provide for the transfer to the Commission of any functions, including management, exercisable by the Secretary of State with respect to any Royal Palace, or part thereof, not in the occupation of a member of the Royal Family.

(2) An Order under this section may contain such incidental, consequential and supplementary provisions as may be necessary or expedient for the purpose of giving effect to the Order.

(3) No Order shall be made under this section unless a draft of the Order has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the subject of this amendment was brought out in the consultation paper without the Government coming to any conclusion about it. It was discussed on Second Reading and in Committee. This is to do with the transfer of the functions of the Royal palaces. Our thinking on this is that no decision need be made at the moment. Indeed, I think it would be quite wrong if it were made too quickly, because the new heritage commission will have to dig itself in and find its own way around a great mass of stuff. Because of the merging of the Ancient Monuments Board and the Historic Buildings Council, and the fact that it is an independent body away from the giant umbrella of the Department of the Environment, means that it will, quite frankly, have enough on its hands already without taking on the management of the Royal palaces. Nevertheless, it is all part of our conservation fabric and the environment, with all the problems of promotion, interpretation and education.

What the amendment does is to seek to include it in the legislation so that there is no need to move new legislation which can be picked up when it is agreed that the time, the expertise, the amount of understanding, is there and then the functions can be transferred. There is no commitment, either immediate, or even long term, but there is the opportunity and it would probably start with the palaces not in the occupation of a member of the Royal Family. It would enable orders to be laid. It seems this is the best way of doing it. I have quite deliberately left out the Royal parks, because, for the time being, I personally feel that the parks are happier left where they are.

Lord Montagu of Beaulieu

My Lords, in supporting the amendment, I do not think it is any secret that there was considerable heart searching by the Government as to whether Royal palaces should be included. As the Bill progresses it is becoming more and more obvious that, unless the Royal palaces are included, in due course the whole concept and the whole future of the commission will be very much in doubt.

As a noble Lord said earlier, talking about the income derived from DOE property, the two jewels in the crown, Hampton Court and the Tower of London, will be excluded. When one considers the management and the promotion of these monuments, it will be absurd if the commission is publicising, promoting and managing some of the monuments and a completely different agency, such as the Department of the Environment or whatever, will be carrying out such matters for the other buildings. The duplication would be quite ridiculous.

Let us take the question of season tickets, advertising, souvenir buying or what other service it may be. Here is an enabling clause which surely is harmless to anything at the moment, but it will enable a future Government, when the time is right, not to have to go through all the paraphernalia of an Act of Parliament. I cannot see any reason why this should not be accepted, although there are probably very good arguments why at the present time it may not be desirable to burden the new commission with everything all at once. But surely there is absolutely no reason why an enabling clause with built-in safeguards, particularly mentioning the word "management" which is so important, should not be included in the Bill as it stands.

Lord Elton

My Lords, as the noble Baroness explained, the amendment is to enable the functions of the Secretary of State in respect of the Royal palaces not in the occupation of a member of the Royal Family to be transferred by Order in Council to the commission. In response to a slightly similar amendment moved in Committee, I gave a clear statement why the Government decided against including functions in respect of Royal palaces. I pointed out that all buildings with the status of a Royal palace are in a very real sense Royal. People regard such places as Hampton Court Palace and the Tower of London as closely connected with our national heritage and with the Monarchy. It is, indeed, to an immeasurable extent, the Royal linkage with these places which makes them such attractions.

The Government fully accept that the commission will have a role in the maintenance and historic fabric of all palaces. Expertise in respect of archaeological and historical questions can and should be provided to the department by the commission through its general advisory role, but to delegate to the commission the work of maintaining these buildings would, in the Government's view, be to divorce themselves too far from the sensitivity surrounding them. That work should remain directly within the Secretary of State's control and be carried out, as at present, by skilled departmental staff, advised, as I have said, by the commission.

I also mentioned at the Committee stage the importance of security in the palaces. I need not expand on that again tonight. It is also argued that the commission will have tourist expertise in the presentation and commercial management of these properties. It should have the benefit of these money spinners. There is truth in this, but I am sure noble Lords will agree that the commercial presentation of Royal palaces ought not to be the first consideration. What is important about such properties is their histories, their status, and their relationship to the Monarchy. The Government have in mind to look to the new commission for advisory expertise in the presentation of such properties to the public with the constraints of their Royal status. I should add, in respect of the noble Baroness's concern at the Committee stage about incentives, that there is a great deal of scope for better presentation and increased revenue at other sites. And, indeed, they perhaps represent a greater challenge and incentive to the commission because of their geographical spread and because their presentational potential has been far less explored in the past than that of the palaces. The Government have reached these decisions after much thought and believe they represent the right way forward for these important and sensitive properties.

Lord Beaumont of Whitley

My Lords, I think that is a very disappointing response. In fact, when we look at Hansard, with all due reference to the noble Earl's measured diction, we will find a lot of gobbledegook. He rolls out in sonorous tones about what the public expects of connection with the Royal Family. However, I suspect that it is not like that at all. I suspect that the public likes Royal connections but in the public's mind, as in the minds of a lot of us when we are not concentrating on this Bill, the whole concept of the town, or the state and the Royal Family are all fairly mixed up.

On Commissions, or Royal Commissions, we do not always find it easy to get it right. I would be much happier if the Government would produce some really strong, sound, practical reasons as to why they have decided to oppose this particular move. I see why they have decided not to take on the responsibility, but I do not see why they are against allowing this permissive amendment, which would merely enable them to move the matter on when they wanted to do so. We ought to press the Government in this House to a stage where we manage to get some sense out of them. I do not think we have received sense at this moment, and I do not think that the arguments which have been put up by the noble Earl really stand up to examination.

Lord Kennet

My Lords, I cannot make out why the Government should think that the people will think that a Cabinet Minister of this party, or that, is a more suitable manager for Royal palaces than the commission which we are setting up.

Baroness Birk

My Lords, I entirely agree with what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, and the co-signatory of the amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Montagu. I find the position quite extraordinary. It seems to me, thinking back to our earlier debates, that the Government's line has hardened. This is pinpointing the whole dichotomy of the Government over the heritage commission. The evidence is there. It is not the noble Earl's fault. It is just the way in which the Government are now running.

The position was very much more wide open in the consultation papers. The Government also talked very strongly about the importance of presentation about the importance of entrepreneurial skills and about the possibility of getting better receipts. But what do they do? They do not accept the clause, which would enable them to take account of the change in people's attitudes and in the conservation climate, and to see how the commission manage and what kind of success they have. They could do this by order if they wanted, or they could leave it, but they have even put that out of court.

We hear the Tower of London and Hampton Court talked about as though the immediate Royal Family were living there and people were interrupting their breakfast every day. That is absolutely ludicrous. When I was the Minister responsible at the department for conservation, one of my ideas, for which we did not have the money, was to use some of the many empty apartments in Hampton Court and turn them into luxury flats for visiting foreign dignitaries. In earlier days, they used to pull up baskets filled with food, and I even had the idea that we could pull up hot croissants and Brioches, and that people could pay an enormous price for living in that delightful primitive way.

There are an enormous number of ideas which need the capital, the input and all the things which are now being put into the Bill. But what do we hear? We hear about what could be one of the most lucrative forms of income for the new heritage commission, and learn, at the same time, that the commission will be concerned with conservation and preservation. But the Minister himself said on an earlier amendment that we do not need to put in "primary" and "secondary", because they are equal and it can be taken for granted.

The Earl of Avon

What has that to do with it?

Baroness Birk

My Lords, it has a lot to do with it, because against this amendment the Minister has been arguing that one has to be so careful about the palaces and about their environmental state. He then went on to the question of security and said that we would need tested people. Security can apply in just the same way as it does at the moment. Presumably, the commission would be dealing with many people who were ex-civil servants and had been transferred. It is very interesting that there has been this hardened line and that the Government will not accept what is only an enabling clause. Like other noble Lords, I am quite amazed about this.

Lord Geoffrey-Lloyd

My Lords, nobody in this House wishes to embarrass the Government, but everybody wants to see the new commission being a great success. Am I unduly naïve in putting it in this way? The fact is that the Government are only transferring to the new commission about £2 million worth of revenue, whereas they are keeping in the department about £6 million-worth of revenue from what I describe—I must admit to a slightly vulgar phrase—as the great money-spinning palaces. One would feel, to move the metaphor, that they might be a great flywheel for the development of the entrepreneurial process and, we hope, for the success of the new commission. The Government are asking us to believe, at the same time, that they are performing some important movement towards an entrepreneurial system, which they believe to be of benefit, but which, in the end, turns out to be only 25 per cent. in money terms of the income, as it at present exists, from the ancient monuments and historic buildings under the administration of the Department of the Environment.

I approach this from the point of view of somebody who has been a Minister for 16 years, in both peace and war, under Winston Churchill, and I do not want to get involved in this question of the difficulties of the Royal palaces. I am sure that there are such difficulties, but I am equally sure that, if somebody like Winston were in charge, and if he thought it was sufficiently important to the entrepreneurial future of the management of the historic buildings, a solution would be found.

Does a solution need to be found, if I may depart a little from the position of the noble Baroness in the direction of my noble friend, in terms of the amendment that she has moved? Is it not possible within the terms of the Bill, as it is, for the Government to arrange that, in practice, the management of the two great palaces is in the hands of the commission, although the ownership and certain important procedural aspects are arranged to stay in a way which does not embarrass the Government or anybody else? The important point is that the entrepreneurial work of the commission should comprise both those houses which are deemed to pass to the commission, and those which at present the Government think should not pass. It does not really matter whether they pass. The question is: can an effective arrangement be made for the unified entrepreneurial management? That is the question which I ask the Government to consider.

The Earl of Avon

My Lords, I had not intended to reply, as I do not have much to add, but my noble friend has stung me to answer. First, I should like to say that in my opening remarks I said that the advisory role of the commission would be totally there, in order to support the Royal palaces. But my noble friend then mentioned Winston Churchill, and suggested what Winston Churchill would have thought about this. I think that Winston Churchill would have been horrified at the idea of the Royal palaces being put into a commission. I may be quite wrong, but Winston Churchill had a great sense of history and history is in being Royal and, as such, I think that they should be treated separately. I cannot say whether the Historic Buildings Council and the Ancient Monuments Board thought that when this new commission was set up they would have control of the Royal palaces, and I have to leave it to the House to decide. But I should be very surprised if that were one of their ambitions.

Lord Geoffrey-Lloyd

My Lords, if my noble friend will permit me, I expressly said to him that it was not necessary that the ownership should pass. I said that I thought it was important from the point of view of the management, and he did not deal with that.

8.30 p.m.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 102) shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 30; Not-Contents, 53.

DIVISION NO. 2
CONTENTS
Beaumont of Whitley, L.	Montagu of Beaulieu, L.
Birk, B.	[Teller.]
Bishopston, L. [Teller.]	Nicol, B.
Blease, L.	Peart, L.
Chorley, L.	Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.
Crathorne, L.	Ross of Marnock, L.
David, B.	Seear, B.
Fisher of Rednal, B.	Shackleton, L.
Houghton of Sowerby, L.	Stewart of Alvechurch, B.
Howie of Troon, L.	Stewart of Fulham, L.
Jeger, B.	Stone, L.
Jenkins of Putney, L.	Strathcarron, L.
Kennet, L.	Underhill, L.
Kirkhill, L.	Wells-Pestell, L.
Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.	Winstanley, L.
McIntosh of Haringey, L.

NOT-CONTENTS
Adeane, L.	Home of the Hirsel, L.
Airey of Abingdon, B.	Hornsby-Smith, B.
Avon, E.	Lane-Fox, B.
Bellwin, L.	Long, V.
Beloff, L.	Lucas of Chiworth, L.
Belstead, L.	Lyell, L.
Boardman, L.	McFadzean, L.
Brougham and Vaux, L.	Mackay of Clashfern, L.
Caithness, E.	Margadale, L.
Camoys, L.	Orkney, E.
Campbell of Alloway, L.	Perth, E.
Cathcart, E.	Portland, D.
Coleraine, L.	Renton, L.
Craigavon, V.	St. Davids, V.
Croft, L.	St. Just, L.
Denham, L. [Teller.]	Saltoun, Ly.
Digby, L.	Sandford, L.
Elliot of Harwood, B.	Skelmersdale, L.
Elton, L.	Swinton, E. [Teller.]
Ferrers, E.	Trumpington, B.
Fortescue, E.	Tryon, L.
Gainford, L.	Vickers, B.
Gardner of Parkes, B.	Vivian, L.
Glenarthur, L.	Windlesham, L.
Grafton, D.	Wynford, L.
Greenway, L.	Young, B.
Grimston of Westbury, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

Schedule 4 [The Commission: Amendments]:

8.38 p.m.

The Earl of Avon

moved Amendment No. 103: Page 35, leave out lines 36 to 46. The noble Earl said: My Lords, this amendment is consequential on Amendment No. 91 to which we spoke before the adjournment. If I may make a brief observation, I had intended at that stage to reply to one point concerning Amendment No. 91. However, with his customary aptitude the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, realised that we were straying from the point, so in the event I did not have time to reply. My noble friend Lord Geoffrey-Lloyd asked about manor houses and was supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Airey of Abingdon. The new clause certainly gives to the commission a very wide advisory power covering all buildings of historic or architectural interest. I am sure that they will pay close attention to the comments made today about the claims for small manor houses, which I would happily endorse. Amendment No. 103 deletes from Schedule 4 an advisory power in relation to the Secretary of State's functions under the 1953 Act. I beg to move.

Lord Kennet

My Lords, before the amendment is accepted or rejected, I wonder whether I could follow the example of the noble Earl, Lord Avon, by going a little wide of the particular amendment which is before us and making a remark about Amendment No. 91 as a whole which was agreed to with such exemplary speed immediately before we rose for dinner. If any noble Lord thinks that I should not do so at this moment I hope he will let me know, otherwise, without any objections from the House, I shall proceed for a couple of minutes.

Amendment No. 91—this major amendment produced by the Government—was, as the noble Earl said, in response to the doubts expressed during the Committee stage about the incomprehensibility of Schedule 4. My opinion is that the Government are to be much congratulated on having seized the bull by the horns and on making a full and quite satisfying statement on the general functions and duties of the commission. For that they have earned the gratitude of all parts of the House. It was necessary to do it because Schedule 4 was incomprehensible.

The other side of that coin—the other side of the complimentary face which I have just presented—is that Schedule 4 is still incomprehensible. We must for a moment ask ourselves, who will benefit from the clear new Clause 30 and who will suffer from the continuing incomprehensibility of Schedule 4? The answer is quite clear. The public at large will greatly benefit from the new Clause 30 and will for the first time know what it is all about: they will know what sort of animal the commission is intended to be.

Now that we can all see the commission's general outline through the mist. we can all be satisfied that it is the right sort of animal. But those who will continue to suffer from the incomprehensibility of Schedule 4 will be all those concerned professionally with the functioning of the new commission. I suggest that the new commissioners themselves will suffer, as will local authorities, civil servants in the department, local amenity societies and trustees. In other words, although much of the harm that would have been done by the total incomprehensibility of one schedule to the Bill has been circumvented by the new clause, yet the harm itself is still there. There should not be an incomprehensible schedule to any Bill.

I want to take this opportunity to ask the noble Earl what the Government intend doing to make Schedule 4 more comprehensible. At an earlier stage there was discussion on the possibility of the Government publishing a document which I called a "kippered Keeling". That document is in itself a very difficult one to understand; perhaps the second most difficult in the law of preservation as a whole. If the Government can put this in the "kippered Keeling" and can undertake to make it available everywhere the Bill is available, to everyone to whom the Bill is available, and at a price which will not greatly increase that which everyone has to pay for the Bill, then the House should rest content. On the other hand, if the Government cannot give us that clear undertaking at this stage, it may be necessary to come hack to the continuing evil of the incomprehensibility of one schedule to this Bill at another stage and, perhaps, even later in another place.

The Earl of Perth

My Lords, Lord Kennet has commented on the difficulties of Schedule 4. It is a very difficult schedule but, to the extent that this amendment leaves out 10 of the lines, we should be grateful—more particularly because, as the noble Earl, Lord Avon, has told us, it is covered in his Amendment No. 91, which was moved before we went to have our dinner. I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, that Clause 30 is now subject to one or two changes, but we know now what the commission are to do. This is stated so clearly, not only for our purposes but also for the public generally, that we are all very indebted to the noble Earl for having done that. It was that point that worried me most of all—what was it all about? Now we know.

The Earl of Avon

My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords for the kind things they have said. With regard to the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, about the form of publication, I do not have the exact words before me, but, so far as I know, there is no change on the statement I made at Committee stage. However, I will make sure that we give a full statement at Third Reading which will spell it out quite clearly.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

The Earl of Avon

moved Amendment No. 104: Page 36, line 1, leave out ("At the end of section 2 of the 1953 Act") and insert ("In the Historic Building and Ancient Monuments Act 1953 (the 1953 Act") at the end of section 2"). The noble Earl said: My Lords, this amendment makes some drafting changes to paragraph 2 of Schedule 4, which will become the first paragraph of Schedule 4 as a consequence of the deletion of paragraph 1, which itself is the consequence of the new Clause 30. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal

moved Amendment No. 105: Page 37. line 11. after ("garden") insert (", park, designed landscape"). The noble Lord said: My Lords, in this amendment —and I shall endeavour to cover the points of Amendment No. 106 at the same time—we refer to the question which was raised by my noble friend Lord Digby at Committee stage. At that time the amendment was received with what I might call reserved sympathy by my noble friend the Minister. Amendment No. 106 is a little different from the amendment moved in the Committee, because seemingly it created problems for the Government by importing the concept of scientific interest. In so doing, it created a conflict of interests with the responsibilities of the Countryside Commission, which was not the intention.

The Historic Buildings Council have not, perhaps, achieved all that we hope they might because basically they have been starved of money. But they have the task of preserving parks and landscapes. Indeed, it is clearly in their remit because they advise the Secretary of State on the question of exemption from capital transfer tax in respect of those areas. What we have done in revising Amendment No. 106 is to place emphasis on the word "artistic" as opposed to the word "historic". My noble friend Lord Digby made the point at Committee stage that artistic achievements are indeed represented by the great gardens, be they large gardens or be they small gardens.

Also, I want to make the point that artistic gardens are still being created. Certainly in my lifetime we have seen the Crown Commissioners create the Savill and Valley Gardens at Windsor, which constitute a major artistic achievement by the eminent gardener after whom the gardens have been named. In using the word "artistic", we are seeking to distinguish between the national landscapes which are the responsibility of the Countryside Commission and artistic creations such as gardens to which we have referred in these two amendments. I beg to move.

Lord Skelmersdale

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for the brevity with which he has moved this, the first in a series of amendments designed to extend the responsibilities of the commission and the Secretary of State to include parks, designed landscapes, and other land of outstanding architectural and artistic rather than just historic interest. Although specific points in the amendments vary, their general principle is the same and therefore I would like to direct my remarks to the principle behind them all.

When your Lordships discussed similar but even more wide-ranging amendments at Committee stage, my noble friend Lord Avon drew attention to the fact that the proposals were trespassing into the remit of the Countryside Commission. In the light of that discussion, he undertook to investigate whether there was any loophole between the powers given to the new commission in this Bill and the existing powers of the Countryside Commission, which might mean that gardens, parks, landscapes and so on could not be in principle helped by grants. Due to the recent changes in portfolios, and fulfilling his pledge, I have met the Countryside Commission and I can confirm to the House that there is absolutely no loophole in the powers that were, are and will he available.

The issue, therefore, becomes one of interpretation and demarcation. The House will appreciate that there are some difficulties in interpretation; for example, what on earth is "a designed landscape". There are many different kinds of landscapes most of which have the imprint of man's hand upon them. They could range from a view of the Cotswolds to a view of Central London, to a formal park with or without a garden landscape by, say, Humphrey Repton or Capability Brown. The real answer here is demarcation. The department and the Countryside Commission at present have an administrative understanding which can most easily be expressed in terms of the ha-ha, with the building side of the ha-ha falling to the department and the other side to the Countryside Commission. There is close co-operation on the grey areas which inevitably exist. The Countryside Commission will, I know, be very ready to co-operate similarly with the new commission on whatever basis is most appropriate.

My noble friend spoke particularly of the artistic achievements and of what he described as the natural achievements, and he described the natural achievements as being the responsibility of the Countryside Commission. I can assure the House that it is not quite as he has stated, but due to my devilling around on this particular issue, which I know causes wide concern in landscape circles, I can say that the position is as I have just stated it.

Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal

My Lords, I beg leave to withdrawn the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 106 not moved.]

Lord Winstanley moved Amendment No. 107:

Page 37, line 39, at end insert— ("( ) A grant or loan under this section for the purpose of securing public access to the whole or part of the property shall only be made on condition that provision is made for disabled people to have access insofar as is in the circumstances reasonable and practicable.")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a simple amendment which I think noble Lords will recognise is very much along the lines of a group of amendments moved by my noble friend Lord Beaumont of Whitley at an earlier sitting on Report on this Bill, a group designed to require that the various bodies with which we are concerned in this Bill should disclose what they have done on behalf of the disabled in relation to the various premises which they manage. The noble Earl was gracious enough to indicate the Government's general support for that group of amendments. and I understand the Government themselves will be introducing something along those lines.

This amendment, the noble Earl may think, goes a little further. Maybe it does. All that it seeks to do, however, is to require that before grants or loans are given for premises that will be open to the public they be linked in some way with the making of appropriate provisions for disabled people. That link may be particularly important in the field of ancient monuments and historic buildings, where the strict access requirements are less easy to apply than in, say, a new supermarket or a new office block or something of that kind. I think there is perhaps a danger because of the difficulties of doing everything needed in relation to premises of this kind. That is the assumption that, because it is difficult to do everything, we cannot do anything.

I would assure the noble Earl that this amendment is not very onerous. It merely requires that before a grant or loan is given for the purpose of securing public access it shall be a condition that provision is made for disabled people to have access; and it goes on, insofar as is in the circumstances reasonable and practicable".

In other words, it merely requires that thought should be given to the rights of the disabled with regard to access before loans or grants are made. That seems to me not a very onerous requirement, and it is one that I very much hope the Government will accept. I am absolutely certain that the Government are as anxious as we are that the momentum gained during the International Year of Disabled Persons should not be impeded and should not be lost. I think there is a danger that it might be. Tremendous enthusiasm was generated during the International Year, and I think it behoves those of us who were very much concerned with that Year to do what we can in relation to legislation on a continuing basis to see that that momentum is maintained. I really do say that this is not an onerous requirement. This should only be done in so far as it is both reasonable and practicable. It merely requires that thought should be given to the possibility of providing access for the disabled before grants or loans are made for the purpose of this particular clause. I beg to move.

The Earl of Avon

My Lords, as the noble Lord has explained, this amendment is designed to ensure that access conditions for disabled people are imposed by the commission when making historic building grants for general public access with conditions attached to them. I think there is a very real problem in seeking to do this. Although public access to historic buildings is something which should be looked for and encouraged by the commission, the scope for special provision for disabled, or any other persons is very limited. Preservation of the past does not allow the historic fabric to be altered to provide special facilities.

The real scope for meeting the needs of disabled people lies in making sure that new facilities, such as toilets, restaurants and car parks, cater for them. The commission will not be able to make grants towards the cost of these new facilities. They will be limited, as the Secretary of State is now, to funding the repair and maintenance of the historic fabric. I do not believe it would be right to impose conditions on private owners of these houses which would require expenditure which could not be met. at least in part, by grants. In any case, the kind of facilities to be provided must be a matter for the owner, who will himself be subject to the provisions in the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970, which mirrors very closely the wording of the amendment.

The Government have accepted amendments moved by the noble Lord and by his noble friend Lord Beaumont with the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, on this subject, including an amendment requiring the commission to include in their annual report a statement of action taken to further the enjoyment of ancient monuments and historic buildings by disabled people. This provides an explicit place for the purpose of this amendment and will, we believe, ensure that their needs are met so far as is reasonable and practicable.

I should perhaps add that a great deal is already done for the disabled at the Department of Ancient Monuments within the very real constraints of this kind of site. I hope that because we have undertaken to accept the other amendments, not only in the spirit of last year being the Year of the Disabled but also in the spirit that we believe them to be totally correct, and in the light of what I have said, the noble Lord might not wish to press this amendment.

Lord Winstanley

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl. I have listened most carefully, and I think I can say at once that I do not disagree with a single word the noble Earl has said. At the same time. I cannot see why the words he has said should in some way lead him to believe that he cannot accept the amendment. He has said that there will be done precisely what is required in the amendment. The amendment is not onerous; it does not place a specific obligation on anybody. It merely requires that the needs of the disabled should be thought about. In so far as I understood the noble Earl's words to indicate that that would be the position. I am reassured. I would have slightly preferred to see something written into the Bill. But, in the light of the noble Earl's remarks and his clear assurance that it is his desire that what I have in mind will in fact happen, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 108 not moved.]

9 p.m.

Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal moved Amendment No. 109:

Page 38, line 25, at end insert— ("(c) any land which is situated in England which appears to them to be a garden, park, designed landscape or other land of outstanding historic or artistic interest").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, we return to the same point as on Amendments Nos. 105 and 106. Perhaps I may ask the noble Lord a couple of questions on this. Again, this is a permissive power which we would be giving to the commission. Are the Government saying that if we give this power to the commission we are in danger of creating a conflict with the Countryside Commission, and that they do not particularly want to address the problem of how that conflict would be resolved? Are they saying that they want to stick rigidly to what they call the ha-ha outside historic buildings? If we do that, is there not a danger that, in the event that an artistic whole is wanted by the commission, one could end up with the Countryside Commission being interested in one bit and the new commission being interested in another? Is this not a totally unnecessary complication? If the park belongs with the building, would it not be a good idea to keep the two together as an entity?

Lord Winstanley

My Lords, before the noble Earl replies, I should like to add a word to what has been said. As a former chairman of the Countryside Commission I have, of course. no right at all to speak on behalf of the Countryside Commission as it now is, but I am bound to say that from my reading and my study of the amendment I cannot see any reason why the Countryside Commission would not welcome an amendment of this kind. It is, of course, a fact that the Countryside Commission has frequently been involved in gardens in one way or another: not the creation of the gardens or the management of them, but the fundamental part of the Countryside Commission's statutory obligations is that it must do what it can to promote access to the countryside. It often uses that definition "countryside" to include gardens of the kind that the noble Lord has in mind—access to the countryside for the purpose of open air, informal, recreational activities. In the light of that particular statutory duty, the Countryside Commission has, in fact, given very many grants to assist access to gardens and to assist with certain parts of the gardens themselves—for example, tree planting at Beaulieu. and there are very many other examples I could give. I merely add, in case there is some kind of misunderstanding, that as a former chairman of the Countryside Commission I cannot myself see any reason why the countryside commissioners at the moment should have any objection to the amendment.

Lord Skelmersdale

My Lords, I think it is important to consider once again the commission's major and priority task, which the Government are convinced must be to fulfil its main duties in respect of buildings and monuments. Within that task it is right and sensible that gardens should be included, and that land associated with an historic building or ancient monument, perhaps itself long disappeared, should also be included.

Outside that, I rest my case on my belief that the function of the Countryside Commission—the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, with his great experience of these matters will correct me if I am wrong—is to provide the expertise, financial and other encouragement for what one might call the more distant areas. Between the two commissions all that is historically and artistically important can, as I said in answer to my noble friend's first barrel, be covered.

Although I should be perfectly happy to take further advice on this point, I think that the danger in this particular amendment is to open up such a lacuna that there will be land that will fall into the gap. In other words, it will not be grant aided by anyone. I do not say that that will happen, but I see it as a danger that could occur. That is one thing that nobody wants. Further to that, it would perhaps be in the interests of the House if I ask my noble friend to withdraw his amendment at this stage, and perhaps we can come back to it in private discussions before the next stage.

Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal

My Lords, one cannot possibly refuse an offer such as the noble Lord made at the end of his intervention. May I take just a couple of points on what he said before I withdraw the amendment. He talked about a gap. What I thought he would be fearful of was an overlap. Gaps are not what this is about. I accept that an overlap is a danger. What I think I am saying is that if it seems sensible for the landscape to go with the building, then so be it, let it do that. The noble Lord talked about the co-operation and the good sense that exists between the two commissions. Indeed, he referred to the two commissions.

What I am a little concerned about is that it is, in any case, pretty complicated doing a deal with the Government on any of these things, and if one can possibly avoid having it dealt with by two separate commissions, surely it would be better for the Countryside Commission to be able to say to the new commission: "This looks like your principal interest, you deal with it and have the lot." The idea of splitting this at the ha-ha and dealing with two commissions fills me with a great deal of misgiving. I do not want to waste the time of the House and I come back to the hopeful words of the noble Lord at the end of his intervention. I happily withdraw the amendment, in the hope that we can reach a satisfactory conclusion.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Earl of Avon

moved Amendment No. 110: Page 38, line 28, leave out from ("which") to ("in") in line 29 and insert ("it would (within the meaning of subsection (5) of this section) be historically appropriate to keep") The noble Earl said: My Lords, with permission, I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 110 and 114 together. In Committee I was, happily, able to accept in principle an amendment put down by my noble friend Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal and moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, which would enable the commission to acquire not only objects which are, or have been, ordinarily kept in the building in their ownership or management. but also objects historically appropriate to such buildings.

Amendment No. 110 amends a current drafting and provides that the commission may purchase or accept as a gift any objects which it would be historically appropriate to keep in the buildings. Amendment No. 114 goes on to provide a definition of "historically appropriate". It covers any object which is or has been ordinarily kept in the building, or any object which is, historically associated with the building or connected with a person or event historically associated with the building. For example, this would cover the purchase of articles which have long been associated with the resident of a particular building but never actually kept there—a point which I believe concerned my noble friend Lord Digby.

The Duke of Grafton

My Lords, I should like to say a few words on this subject because I am not sure that the Government have really realised what was intended. Amendment No. 103D was accepted in principle in Committee. It would have made the Bill at page 38, line 27, read: power to purchase by agreement, or to accept a gift of, any objects which arc historically appropriate to, or have been ordinarily kept in". I feel that the Government have still missed the point, which had in fact been very clearly made by Amendment No. 103D and by my noble friend Lady Birk, who moved it.

Objects that are historically appropriate to a building would not necessarily pass the test under the Government's amendment; only those of the type mentioned by my noble friend Lord Digby would pass it and they might conceivably have missed the old test as historically associated anyway. The type of situation envisaged by the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, is not met by the Government. I speak as a member of the Historic Buildings Council for England which has to deal with very difficult cases of historic houses which we are trying to rescue without one single stick of furniture. I quote one case in particular—the beautiful Montacute House in Somerset, which was rescued in the 1920s, when not one single bit of historic furniture belonging either to the Phelips family, who built it, or to Lord Curzon, who had lived there for 10 years, was in it.

I suggest that the proposed amendment would allow another collection to be built up of similar objects of furniture which would be suitable furnishings for Montacute House. In fact the National Trust, with great assiduity over many years, has begged, borrowed and stolen furniture and tapestries. I ought to withdraw "stolen", but it has furnished it with very great difficulty.

I see the situation happening again. I do not think that the present amendment actually covers this point. One has only to think of the pathetic empty houses in France to realise that this is surely not what we want.

The Earl of Perth

My Lords, if I understand the problem here, it arises from the word "historically". I understood the noble Duke to say that if one had an empty house and another collection that was wholly appropriate, then it was right that it should be included as part of the whole of that particular house. I would go along with that. But, if we interpret "historically" as being actually associated with the house in one way or another, then I am unhappy about the situation. So I hope that there is no confusion and that the noble Earl when he inserts the word "historically" does not mean that these items have literally got to be part of the history of that house in some way or another. That is my worry. If he were to leave out the word "historically" so that it just said "appropriate to" I should be totally happy.

Baroness Birk

My Lords, I think that we should get one point quite clear. As I understand it, the Minister spoke about his amendment. Did the noble Duke then move the amendment to which some of us have attached our names? There is an amendment in his name. Are we discussing that amendment?

The Duke of Grafton

My Lords, I hoped that we were.

The Earl of Avon

My Lords, perhaps I may clarify the point. The amendment moved is amendment No. 110, which is my amendment. The noble Duke will have to wait until his amendment is called.

Lord Digby

My Lords, I should like to come to the rescue of my noble friend Lord Avon because it seems to me that "historically appropriate" here means not necessarily historically attached to the house; it could well mean things that are historically appropriate to the period of the house. Therefore, I believe that it is a wide definition. However, I should like the Minister's confirmation of this wider interpretation because I am most grateful to him for bringing forward this amendment.

Baroness Birk

My Lords, I should like to make my point on this amendment. I also am grateful to the Minister for what I am sure is the intention to meet what a number of us—particularly the noble Lord, Lord Digby, and myself—were concerned about in Committee. The noble Earl, at column 964 of the Official Report for 21st December 1982, said: The Government agree that historically appropriate objects are highly relevant to the overall conservation of the building and we are happy to accept the amendment in principle". He went on to say that he would prefer not to commit himself to the precise form of words. It is a pity because, on the face of it, the amendment appears to have done the trick, but I do not believe it really has. It reads: historically appropriate to keep in a building if—

1. (a) it is or has been ordinarily kept in the building; or
2. (b) it is historically associated with the building or connected with a person or event historically associated with the building".

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

1. "(a) … ordinarily kept in the building; or
2. (b) … historically associated with the building or connected with a person or event".

though they could be of the right period; they could be absolutely right.

It took me some time to fathom this out. At first I was convinced, because I knew the intention was there. We were all pleased and accepted in Committee that this was so. But I think that, through some error or through something that happened, it does not meet the point, certainly the point I made in Committee about this. The amendment in the name of the noble Duke. the noble Lords, Lord Montagu and Lord Strathcona, and myself—Amendment No. 114A —deals with this particular point.

The Earl of Avon

My Lords, very briefly, perhaps I may just run through again what I think this amendment includes, because it seemed to me that we had covered virtually everything. Amendment No. 110, using the words: it would … be historically appropriate to keep", in the buildings concerned, covers any object which is or has been: ordinarily kept in the building". or any object which: is historically associated with the building or connected with a person or event historically associated with the building". For example, this would cover the purpose of memorabilia which were associated with the resident of a particular building but never actually kept there. I take the point made by my noble friend the Duke and I should like to have a very close look at what he has suggested—particularly the case he mentioned—to make sure that what he has suggested is covered. I hope that he will let me do that.

The Duke of Grafton

My Lords, I should be very grateful if my noble friend would do that.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

9.17 p.m.

Lord Montagu of Beaulieu moved Amendment No. 111:

Page 38, line 44, at end insert— (" (3A) The Commission may acquire any listed building together with any other adjacent property in a group with two or more listed buildings for the purpose of repairing, restoring or improving it, or them. prior to disposing of it, or them, by sale or otherwise under a "revolving fund".").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, with this amendment I should like to speak to Amendment No. 113. Noble Lords will recall that in Committee an amendment was tabled on similar lines, but I believe that the Government thought that the amendment was only specially designed to allow country houses to be purchased, repaired and sold. But this was not the purpose and perhaps it was our fault that the amendment was not clearly understood. It was very much wider: it was to ensure that the commission should and could do much humbler work in towns, cities and villages, particularly on small groups of buildings and small buildings themselves, on the "revolving fund" principle, which is well-established and working very well in some areas.

I am sure that your Lordships will appreciate the great merit of such revolving funds—that they are a very cheap way of using a relatively limited amount of money and, of course, using it over and over again. Alas! although this has been very successfully operated in Scotland for many years, especially by the National Trust for Scotland, it has not been adopted widely in England. There are still far too many areas where local authorities and others have not yet adopted revolving fund principles. It is to fill this void that I believe the commission needs to have a clearance and, if necessary, the powers in the Bill.

This amendment differs in various ways from the amendment tabled at the Committee stage. First, the words "together with … adjacent property" have been added so that schemes can cover occasionally even unlisted buildings when they are in a group. Secondly, the term "revolving fund" has been specifically written in to remove all doubt as to what is intended. This amendment is also linked to Amendment No. 113 and sub-paragraph (4) is amended to bring revolving fund activities under the control of the Secretary of State. If this is the price to be paid, perhaps it is the best price to be paid.

Therefore, I am asking for an assurance that the commission can be involved in revolving fund work and that the grant-in-aid will be sufficient to allow considerable borrowing for revolving fund purposes. Finally, perhaps my noble friend would make it clear how grants to other organisations setting up revolving funds to provide them with capital purchases are to be divided between, for example, the Civic Trust and others that pass on their funds to various charities. I beg to move.

The Earl of Avon

My Lords, when we discussed this idea at Committee stage, I said that with one difference the activities provided for by this amendment, acquiring, repairing, improving and reselling historic houses, were already provided for under Section 5A of the 1953 Act. That difference was the need to get the Secretary of State's consent to acquisition. As we have heard from my noble friend, Amendment No. 113 takes this on board and makes acquisition for the revolving fund subject to such consent.

However, I must go back to what I said then. This does not alter the basic and most important issue, which is that, under the Government's proposal, the commission will have the necessary powers to operate a revolving fund. I would gladly give my noble friend that reassurance. He asked me about a grant. I am not sure what the answer is to that, but I shall let him know in the near future.

Lord Montagu of Beaulieu

My Lords, in view of that assurance, and I am delighted to hear once again that it confirmed that the commission will be able to operate revolving funds, I am happy to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

9.21 p.m.

The Earl of Avon

moved Amendment No. 112: Page 38, line 46, leave out ("or(2)") The noble Earl said: My Lords, this amendment will remove the need for the commission to obtain the Secretary of State's consent to acquiring or accepting as a gift any historical object for the buildings in its care. This question of the need of the Secretary of State's consent was a recurring theme during our discussion on Schedule 4 at Committee stage. In relation to this paragraph, paragraph 8 of Schedule 4, it was suggested that it was not sensible for the commission to be required to get consent before requiring or accepting objects, or before accepting gifts of property. We have accepted the first of these suggestions, which is now embodied in this amendment. Perhaps I may explain why we can accept this but not the other idea. Briefly, it is that taking on an historical building involves continuing bills for repair, maintenance and management. These are often substantial. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendment No. 113 not moved.]

The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 114:

Page 38, line 48, at end insert— ("(5) For the purposes of section (2) of this section, an object is one which it would be historically appropriate to keep in a building if—

1. (a) it is or has been ordinarily kept in the building; or
2. (b) it is historically associated with the building or connected with a person or event historically associated with the building.")

The noble Earl said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this. I beg to move.

The Duke of Grafton

moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 114, Amendment No. 114A: At end insert ("or is similar to such an object; or (c) it is of the same date or style as the building or part thereof and appropriate thereto") The noble Duke said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this. I beg to move this amendment.

Lord Beaumont of Whitley

My Lords, since this has been formally moved, although it has been thoroughly thrashed out in your Lordships' Committee, I did not think that the noble Earl in replying to it had totally taken on board the strength of the desire to include in this objects which are not necessarily connected with the building or with persons connected with the building. It is an extension of the Bill that we are searching for here. I am sure it is a right one. I hope that he will come back at Third reading with an amendment to this, or can tell us why not, because even if he does not, I think that the rest of us would probably want to bring it forward. This is an important amendment.

Amendment to the amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

9.25 p.m.

The Earl of Avon

moved Amendments Nos. 115 and 116: Page 39, line 4, at end insert ("or 119(1)(b) or (c)"). line 6, leave out ("section"). The noble Earl said: My Lords, Amendment No. 115 will enable the commission to grant aid in respect of local authority acquisitions of historic buildings where these are made by agreements. In Committee, when we discussed Amendment No. 103J in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, I was able to assure the Committee that we intended to widen the commission's powers beyond the grant-aiding of compulsory acquisitions. Under this amendment, they will be able to give grant to any local authority which has acquired by agreement any building appearing to them to be of special architectural or historical interest, and any land adjoining such a building which appears to the Secretary of State to be necessary for preserving the building or its amenities. Amendment No. 116 makes a drafting change to reflect the fact that the paragraph now refers to two sections, rather than one, of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal moved Amendment No. 117:

Page 39, leave out lines 13 to 15 and insert—

1. ("(a) buildings which are situated in England and which appear to the Commission to be of outstanding historic or architectural interest together with any land which is contiguous or adjacent thereto: and
2. (b) land which is situated in England and which comprises a garden, park, designed landscape or other land which appears to the Commission to be of outstanding historic, or artistic interest.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 117 goes to the new paragraph 5A in Schedule 4, and No. 119, if I may speak of that at the same time, broadens the provision to Scotland and Wales. In the presence of my noble friend the Duke of Grafton, I say that perhaps he should be moving this as it is a National Trust one. We have talked about artistic merit, gardens, parks and designed landscapes. This goes back to the same fundamental issue that we do not want to separate the buildings from their surroundings. There seems no good reason why grants should not be given to the National Trust under these two provisions in the Bill so that buildings are not separated from the amenity lands which go with them. Amendment No. 119 attempts to do the same for Scotland and Wales. We are possibly in difficulty over the Long Title of the Bill regarding Scotland and Wales. I hope the Minister will not take refuge behind that because, if he accepts the principle, it would be simple to introduce an amendment to the Long Title.

Lord Skelmersdale

My Lords, this gun is obviously rather modern—having considerably more than two barrels—but let us see how we get on with it as we proceed. These amendments seek to extend the commission's and the Secretary of State's power to make grants to the National Trust, as we have already heard, towards the cost of acquiring property. The current powers cover only buildings of outstanding historic and architectural interest. The amendments would also cover parks and so on.

As I understand it, the grants to the National Trust in respect of a unit—by "unit" I mean a garden with its associated land—would be covered already by the Bill, so I do not see that my noble friend has any cause to worry on that score. My noble friend also preempted what I was going to say about seeking to extend the powers to the Secretaries of State for Wales and Scotland, which is outside the present aims of the Bill. If we really needed to do that, I agree with him that there would not be any great problem in extending the Long Title.

Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal

Frankly, my Lords, I found my noble friend's response difficult to understand. As for the last point he made, we read in paragraph 9(4) of Schedule 4: This section applies only where the property or buildings are situated in Scotland and Wales", which in itself seems to be outside the Long Title anyway, although that is already in the Bill.

So far as the other point is concerned, if the noble Lord really is saying that it is covered, clearly that is something that we must accept, if it comes from so authoritative a source. But the strange point is that, as I understand it, that is not the way that most people would read the Bill. Nevertheless, I think that the best thing we can do is to withdraw the amendment at present and seek confirmation from the noble Lord that he really is right in what he is saying: and no doubt he is exceedingly well briefed. If the experts on the other side are not satisfied, I suppose that we shall have to return to the matter at Third Reading. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

9.31 p.m.

Baroness Birk moved Amendment No. 118:

Page 39. line 15, at end insert—

("Commission: major conservation schemes.

5C. Subject to the consent of the Secretary of State the Commission may initiate, carry out, co-ordinate or participate in a "major conservation scheme" for the conservation, repair, enhancement and improvement of any outstanding group of scheduled monuments or buildings listed as being of special historic or architectural interest together with other buildings and land in conservation areas or otherwise, including schemes in partnership with local authorities, charities, housing associations and any other bodies or persons with commercial or noncommercial interest therein as the Commission thinks fit."

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, we discussed a somewhat similar amendment in Committee. We are trying to deal with those cases where major schemes need to be put through, often with the help of local authorities or other bodies, or both. Until now the matter has been left to the Department of the Environment and it has not always faced up to the situation and got on with the job. As a result, schemes have not been put into being by anyone else, things have slid from bad to worse, buildings have been lost, and the cost of saving those that have been saved has risen all the time.

The need is to give the commission powers to get things to move. In the context of Government property being vacated, where local authorities are under no real obligation to go in and spend their ratepayers' money, Chatham's historic dockyard would be a present-day example. Woolwich Arsenal is another, and there may soon be even more, as the services pull out of their historic premises as their needs change. It seems wrong that the commission should have the flair and entrepreneurial skills, yet not have the power to use them where they are most needed.

At the Committee stage the Minister said that he thought that the amendment was drawn rather too widely. Well, this kind of amendment has to be drawn rather widely. So that large and open-ended commitments are not taken on without the Secretary of State's knowledge and approval, this point is now written in, even though by making the power subject to the Secretary of State's consent, we have to accept that caution could act as an obstruction. However, we hope that that will not be so. The amendment provides the opportunity—it seems very difficult to find any other way to do it—to enable major conservation schemes to be carried out by the new heritage commission. I beg to move.

The Earl of Avon

My Lords, since we discussed a very similar amendment to this one at the Committee stage, I have had the opportunity to reconsider the question of whether or not the commission should have specific powers to organise partnership schemes, with a wide range of bodies or persons, for the conservation of historic buildings and areas. I have to say that, despite the arguments advanced then and now, I do not believe that these powers are really necessary.

As I said in Committee, the commission will have wide grant-making powers, and in respect of any of these, if it thinks it right, it will be able to agree with any other person or body how best the resources might be used. The commission will also have very wide ranging advisory powers, and within its general duty of preservation described in the new Clause 30 it will have ample scope to foster the preservation of important buildings and groups of buildings through encouragement, expert advice, and commitment, as well as through grant resources. I believe that we all agree that that is the real role for the commission. The extent to which it involves itself will be for it to decide, but as was suggested in The Way Forward, it will be expected to be a powerful voice for conservaton. All the powers that the commission should need to foster and assist the kind of conservation schemes envisaged in the amendment are already in the Bill.

The amendment includes a reference to a "major conservation scheme', a term which at the moment is left undefined, though of course we could get round that. But the schemes could extend to the conservation, repair, enhancement and improvement of any outstanding group of buildings, together with other buildings and land. We believe that in this case the commission would need the consent of the Secretary of State, but not it seems of the owners or occupiers of the buildings involved. I did not intend to go into the technical aspects of the amendment, and I hope that, with my added reassurance as to what the Bill at present covers, the noble Baroness will feel that it is adequate.

Baroness Birk

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that explanation. I am not sure at the moment that I feel that it is adequate. I will read what he has said about it, look at it again and, in the meantime, beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

9.36 p.m.

Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal moved Amendment No. 119: Page 39, leave out lines 16 and 17 and insert— ("9.—(1) Section 6 of the 1953 Act (grants for acquisition of historic buildings) shall be amended as follows—

(2) In subsection (2) leave out "buildings which appear" to the end of the subsection and insert—

1. "(a) buildings which appear to the Secretary of State to be of outstanding historic or architectural interest together with ony land which is contiguous or adjacent thereto; and
2. (b) land which comprises a garden, park, designed landscape or other land which appears to the Secretary of State to be of outstanding historic or artistic interest."

(3) At the end of that section there shall be inserted—")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment, and I now beg leave to withdraw it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal moved Amendment No. 120:

Page 39, leave out lines 20 and 21 and insert— ("10.—(1) Section 8 of the 1953 Act shall be amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (l)—

1. (a) in paragraph (c) leave out "building" and substitute "monument";
2. (b) at the end of paragraph (c) insert—
• "or
• ( ) any land comprising, or adjacent to, any such building or monument; or
• ( ) any land appearing to the Secretary of State to be a garden, park, designed landscape or other land of outstanding historic or artistic interest.";
3. (c) for "upkeep of any such building together with" substitute "upkeep of any such building, monument, garden, park, designed landscape or other land together with".

(3) At the end of that section there shall be inserted—")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is on the same general issue, but it gets a little more complicated because it refers back to previous legislation, as so often happens in this Bill. As I understand it, the situation will be that the 1953 Act will be amended in respect of endowments—Section 8 by the Secretaries of State for Scotland and Wales in the future, and Section 8A by the commission in respect of English properties. The new Clause 8A is presumably modelled on the old Section 8, but one looks in vain to find powers for the Secretary of State to accept endowments for scheduled monuments or land contiguous to the buildings, because the 1953 Act was not amended in the 1974 Act, as perhaps it should have been.

My understanding is that the old section says: a building of which at that time the Secretary of State is or shortly will be the guardian under the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Act 1979, and goes on to say that the endowment can be for or towards the upkeep of any such building together with other property. But are we going to refer to a scheduled monument as a building? If only scheduled monuments can be taken into guardianship, is this quite good enough? I suppose that one could argue that a building can be a monument; but a monument is not necessarily a building. I do not want to get into a great semantics argument at this hour in this House, and I am sure noble Lords would not wish me to do so.

Then we go on to talk about contiguous land. Here again, we are talking about endowments in respect of buildings together with other property. Is that really what we intend? It seems to refer more to items like pictures or furniture than to land or landscapes. Then, finally, we go back again to the question of outstanding landscapes and gardens.

Similarly, Amendment No. 121 is intended to put right the uncertainty in these two sections, sections 8 and 8A, as to whether a monument is a building or not. That is what paragraph (c) is about. I hope that this rather obscure moving of this amendment will be sufficient for your Lordships.

Lord Skelmersdale

My Lords, in speaking to No. 120, I, too, should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 121 and 122. The first part of the first two of these amendments is concerned to ensure that endowments can be accepted in respect of both monuments and buildings, and that the present wording of the relevant section of the Historic Buildings and Ancient Monuments Act 1953 does not preclude associated land. I am happy to say that these amendments are not necessary. They are already covered by the existing wording of the legislation. There is, however, one gap which my noble friend identified in paragraph 11 of Schedule 4, where the new section of the 1953 Act does not presently cover endowments in respect of monuments or buildings in the commission's guardianship. A Government amendment will be brought forward to cover that point. I cannot guarantee that it will be in this House; it could well be in another place. But I give the assurance that one will come forward.

The other effect of the amendments covers ground already discussed on the designed landscape front, on Amendment No. 105. I hope that my noble friend will agree that we need not discuss the principle again. As to whether "monuments" include "buildings" or "buildings" include "monuments", I have a horrible feeling that we may be getting this discussion in the amendments which are sure to be brought forward at the next stage, continuing on the theme of what the new commission should be called. Perhaps my noble friend will be content to leave the matter until then.

Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal

My Lords, the noble Lord is clearly trying to meet us so far as he can. I get nervous when we are at Report stage and talking about things being done at a later stage or in another place. This Bill will not be discussed in another place. We all know that if the Government choose to do so, they have total whipping power in another place, and this Bill is not suitable to be discussed in another place. I sincerely hope that the noble Lord will exercise every bit of pressure that he and his noble friend have used so successfully to see that these matters come forward at the Third Reading in this House. With the greatest respect to another place, I honestly believe that we will be in grave danger if we leave anything to them. With the helpful suggestion of the noble Lord, I am glad to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 121 and 122 not moved.]

9.42 p.m.

Baroness Birk moved Amendment No. 123: Schedule 4, page 40, line 32, at end insert:

("Commission to advise on Government's scheduled monuments and listed buildings.

8B. The Commission shall be the adviser to the Secretary of State on the proper maintenance, repair, conservation and alteration of, or addition to, and demolition of scheduled monuments and listed buildings in the ownership, occupation or management of all bodies entitled to Crown exemption from the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Acts (including Health Authorities, Industrial Estates Corporations and the Receiver for the Metropolitan Police District) and he shall cause—

1. (a) all such monuments and buildings to be inspected by the Commission from time to time: and
2. (b) reports to be made on them by the Commission to him from time to time: and
3. (c) advice to be given to him by the Commission on any—
1. (i) proposal dealt with under the provisions of Circular 7/77 and analogous instructions or advisory notes;
2. (ii) improvement that can reasonably be made in their maintenance, repair or conservation and in the appropriateness of their use to their being scheduled monuments and listed buildings.").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment is a different version of the one that I moved in Committee, which was rather sharper about the Property Services Agency. This is a very much softer approach to the same problem. There was, nevertheless, considerable support round the Committee and murmurs of agreement and even some surreptitious nods from the Front Bench opposite. Naturally, I do not include the Minister among those who nodded. It was a pity that the amendment was not taken to a Division then. However, I felt also that one should try a rather more tender approach towards the PSA than the one I followed in Committee.

It is important that something is done about what is a real problem—and from time to time everybody admits it is—though the defence put up by the Minister was quite natural. There was a certain amount of truth in it. I said it was true that the PSA does very well in many ways and in many places—particularly in the spotlight at Westminster. But the picture can be very different in the provinces, and Government departments are often notorious in their neglect of the good buildings that they own. I repeat that one of the troubles is that they are left too much on their own and without sufficient control.

Something which also causes great distress is where there is mismanagement of buildings—for instance, in a conservation area. I still have in mind the dreadful post office in Chichester which is right in the middle of that marvellous city—a beautiful conservation area. There are other examples which one can put forward. On the other hand, what has been done at Somerset House has been superb. The only trouble is that Somerset House is still not in use, and that is a great tragedy.

It may well be that the PSA, as a creature of the Department of the Environment, when dealing with buildings in its own estate will consult with the heritage commission freely and constructively. It is also true that the PSA often gets blamed for the iniquities of other Government departments which do not themselves take enough care of the buildings within their own estate. But this amendment now is really just saying that the commission shall be the adviser to the Secretary of State on the proper maintenance, repair and so on, and that they shall cause reports to be made and monuments to be inspected by the commission from time to time.

Therefore, it would seem to me that now it has become quite an acceptable form of amendment which gives this new commission the chance to do what it should do, which—let us face it—has not always been done by the Department of the Environment under all Governments in the past: that is, to make sure not only to consult with, but to keep an eye on the work of, the PSA and to exercise some control; also to make sure that there is adequate consultation and discussion with them and to make sure that they oversee what is being done.

We went into this quite deeply in Committee and I hope now that the Minister will be able to say—because the Government are aware and everybody is aware of this problem—that, in view of this different approach to the matter and this amendment, which I should have thought would be quite acceptable and which seems to be free of all criticism, now would be the chance—and it is very important with this new commission being set up—to ensure that there shall be a proper working liaison because of what the PSA is concerned with in its building work, the restoration and rehabilitation of buildings. There should be this sort of supervisory control, and so on, because of the commission being the adviser to the Secretary of State. I would have thought that that would certainly be welcomed by the commission and should be welcomed by the Secretary of State. Whether it would be welcomed immediately by the PSA, I must be honest and say that I would perhaps doubt; but I think they would quite soon get used to it and, with the new commission being set up, now seems the time to do it. I beg to move.

The Earl of Avon

My Lords, we had a good discussion in Committee on the principle which underlies this amendment, and it is clear from the redrafting, as the noble Baroness says, that some of the points made in that discussion have indeed been taken. I have to say, however, that the Government remain of the opinion that a power of this sort could be counter-productive. As I said before, we believe it would be far better for the commission to proceed by advice and persuasion, being seen to be reasonable and responsible while still pressing the conservation case. That is one reason why clause 30 contains such wideranging advisory powers which catch all bodies without exception.

In order to move a little towards what the noble Baroness has been saying, may I say that the Government recognise the point she has made and are therefore proposing to include in Circular 7/77 a requirement that the commission be notified of all relevant proposals dealt with under the provisions of that circular. For those in the House, like myself, who are unclear as to what is meant by Circular 7/77, I should briefly explain that it sets out the procedures governing all—and I say again, "all"—Government departments and those other bodies mentioned in the amendment who are exempt from the statutory obligation to submit planning applications and listed building consent applications. The procedures in the circular very largely mirror the statutory procedures, although they, and the views of the local planning authorities, do not in these cases have the force of law.

The Government are convinced that the powers of notification and advice and persuasion in this situation are the best way to make progress in this area. I hope that my obvious assurance that we have moved a long way towards the noble Baroness in our undertaking to include these requests in the circular, will in some way enable her to withdraw her amendment.

Lord Montagu of Beaulieu

My Lords, although some of us are disappointed that the Government cannot accept this amendment, I certainly recognise that they have gone some way towards meeting the points. There is no doubt that the PSA has at times done a very good job; however, in the past it has not always done so and one does not always know what will happen in future. I should have thought that the PSA would warmly welcome close connections with the new commission and if that is to be encouraged, so much the better.

Perhaps the only thing to do now is to see how things will work out, particularly in view of the assurances that the noble Earl has given. Certainly some of us will keep a very close eye on the PSA's operations to make quite sure that it carries out overall Government policy on the conservation of historic buildings, even those in Government care.

Baroness Birk

My Lords, naturally, like the noble Lord, Lord Montagu, I should have been happier if the Government had found it possible or decided to accept the amendment. I think they should have done, because it is something that at some point some Government has to grapple with. Every year an enormous amount of money is spent by the PSA, more than the sum spent by all the other property companies one can think of put together. Therefore, there is not only an aesthetic and visual side, but an important financial side to it.

It is obvious that at this time of night, even if I called a Division, I should certainly not win it on this. Nevertheless, I am grateful to the Minister for having moved a bit towards the line we want, although it is not as strong as I should have liked; but he has undertaken that guidelines will be put out. May I ask if they could be extremely firm and if the connection between the new commission and the PSA could be understood on both sides as meaning that the long sleep is ended and that Sleeping Beauty must wake up and take responsibility for what she has done or not done? Then we shall have moved but a little way forward, although nothing like as far as many of us would hope. Indeed, everyone who spoke when we discussed this in Committee expressed the same point of view from every side of the House. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

9.53 p.m.

Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal

moved Amendment No. 124: Page 40, line 32, at end insert— (" "8B.—(1) The Commission shall compile a register, with plans, to show such gardens, parks, designed landscapes and other lands as appear to them to be of special historic or artistic interest and may amend such register and plans as seems appropriate to them. (2) Before the Commission makes any entry in such register it shall consult the owner of any land which it then intends to show in that register, so that any representations that he may make may be taken into consideration before the entry is made. Register and designation of gardens etc. (3) The Commission shall designate under this section any land comprising an entry in that register and award such grade thereto as seems appropriate to them and may amend any such designation or grading. (4) The Commission shall publish any designation or grading that it makes under this section, or amendment thereto, and shall notify the owner of any land so designated and all local authorities concerned therewith of such designation, grading or amendment thereof. (5) The designation of any land under this section shall be for the better information and guidance of all Government departments, local authorities and other bodies proposing development in or near any such designated land or in its setting. (6) The Commission shall be notified of, and consulted on, any development by any Government department or local authority affecting any such designated land or its setting. (7) Any local authority shall notify the Commission of, and consult it on, any application made to that local planning authority for planning consent affecting any such designated land, or its setting. (8) The Commission shall be consulted by the Secretary of State and advise him (whether or not lie has consulted them) on the desirability, or otherwise, of any proposed development which in their opinion affects any land designated under this section or its setting." "). The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a follow-up of an amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Digby in Committee. The amendment has, I think, been considerably improved and tidied up. The first point to make is that it now refers to a register rather than to a list. This is more important than at first might appear because the notion of listing of buildings inevitably makes people a little nervous. It make owners nervous and it makes the department nervous as to the amount of work it might be taking on. We are now talking of a register, and I hope that that stills any fear that anyone may have about all sorts of powers being implied or imposed by doing that.

It also refers to the importance of consultation before gardens are put on to the register. Obviously, the purpose of this amendment is to make sure that the commission indeed identifies the gardens, parks, designed landscapes and so on which are of especial interest, historic or artistic.

One of the purposes lying behind that is that it would ensure that the commission were consulted in good time before any proposed development comes about, be it a motorway, a sewage works or a private development. Then they could advise, where appropriate, how the development might affect a registered garden. I do not think that I need to labour the point—we have discussed this so much already—about the limitations and the possibility of overlap between other bodies. Much the same argument applies here. But it seems clear that this is a duty which the commission should have laid upon them, and it would be appropriate for them to perform it at a moment when they thought fit and when they had the capacity to do so. I beg to move.

Lord Montagu of Beaulieu

My Lords, the noble Lord must, surely, be aware of the intense feeling about this in garden circles. Although I appreciate the technical problems about the word "listing", and the comparison with buildings, there is an urgent need for a proper register—a sort of Domesday Book—of gardens to be compiled before many more are lost, because, unlike a building, a garden can disappear extremely quickly if neglected. I hope that something can be done along these lines.

It may well be that my noble friend will say that the commission already have these powers: but I know that it would give enormous pleasure and satisfaction to those who are interested in gardens and landscapes, if a register were compiled as officially as possible and as soon as possible. The difficulties which arc sometimes put up, such as that it is impossible to describe a garden in words, can surely be got over. I remember that many years ago there was a great discussion about how you could write down choreography in ballet, but a means evolved and is now in common use. So I hope that the Government will consider an amendment along these lines, if not this one.

Lord Digby

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Avon wrote to me after I raised this subject at Committee stage, and I should like to take up two points which he made. First, he said that while circulating a list to local authorities would certainly advance their knowledge, it would do nothing explicitly to protect such gardens. Of course, it is quite true that there would be no teeth with this register, but this view ignores the effect that a statutory register would have on members of planning committees. The object of the register is not to introduce a new set of controls, but to bring forcefully to the attention of' planners and public bodies, who are planning roads and other things, the value of these gardens and landscapes.

The second point has been dealt with mainly by my noble friend Lord Strathcona. My noble friend Lord Avon said that it might be a precursor to statutory restrictions, and that owners of gardens would be very frightened of this. That is precisely why we have said "register" rather than "lists", as "lists" mean listed building controls to so many people. But controls of that type would be quite inappropriate to gardens. The object of this register is to protect gardens and landscapes, rather than to control their development.

I admit that I would be quite happy if the word "may" rather than "shall" was in this amendment, and I am assured by my noble friend that, in fact, the commission have this power, anyway. But it would act as a spur if it were in the Bill. A lot of work on this matter has already been done by ICOMOS—and I have a preliminary and interim list of gardens—so that it would not entail a vast amount of further work and would not be such a monumental task as people might think. I hope that the Government can accept this amendment.

Lord Kennet

My Lords, I find the arguments most persuasive. Is it not the case that what is proposed would be analogous to—in fact, almost identical with—the status of areas of outstanding natural beauty? They are statutorily designated and they are shown on a map, but once that has happened nothing else happens. The planning system continues to function within them exactly as it functions outside them. Nevertheless, whenever a planning decision is taken within an area of outstanding natural beauty everybody thinks about it just that little bit more; there is just that little bit more publicity; just that little bit more advice is sought, and, one may hope, sometimes taken. In fact, the area of outstanding natural beauty has affected the situation. Therefore one may hope that a statutory register of gardens, even if unaccompanied, at least at this stage, by any powers based upon it, might affect the situation.

Baroness Airey of Abingdon

My Lords, I support this amendment, particularly so far as the planning of roads is concerned. If there were such a register which included important landscapes as well as gardens—possibly designed by such designers as Capability Brown—it might influence the planning of a road which could spoil a landscape.

Lord Skelmersdale

My Lords, this is another but rather more complicated amendment, based on the principle that the commission should be responsible in some way for protecting important gardens, parks and other landscapes, although it represents a change from a similar amendment which was discussed in Committee. As my noble friend Lord Avon said at that stage, and possibly earlier, even though this amendment provides no enforcement procedure to assist the protection of these gardens, such a procedure—the mandatory requirement to produce a register—would potentially form a major distraction for the new commission in their early years from what the Government see as their major tasks, a point which I have already made this evening. In particular, the Government would not want to see anything slow up the programme of the accelerated listing resurvey which is now getting well into its stride. The amendment envisages that the commission will have a major consultative role to play, but the wide range of notification requirements would lead to a very considerable, if not impossible, practical difficulty for the commission and a very considerable extra burden on limited resources.

Besides this, as my noble friend Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal has argued, the existence of a list might well lead some owners to believe that formal protection powers would follow and thus lead to the destruction of the very thing which it is sought to preserve. This is certainly, and unfortunately, a consideration in respect of buildings being considered for listing. It may well be less applicable to gardens, but it would be better to leave the commission to make their own judgment about whether lists are needed without the implication which statutory controls would at this moment inevitably carry with them.

As we have said before, the commission will have the necessary powers to compile lists of historic gardens. if they wish, and, under their advisory powers which we have now widened in the new Clause 30, to circulate such lists to anybody they choose. It may well be that they will wish to compile a list to assist them in deciding upon applications for grants under Section 3A of the 1953 Act, but I strongly believe that we should leave them to decide whether or not to do this themselves. I know that the Garden History Society and the Historic Buildings Council have done some work in this field and that the Countryside Commission have also taken an interest.

The new commission will wish to consider all these issues and to discuss them with the Countryside Commission, which, as has been said before, have wide powers and interests in this field and which, I know, would be very happy to participate. I think it best to leave it to the two corn missions to decide what should be done and how to do it rather than to lay down these detailed and burdensome procedures whose effect may not result in being as helpful as is intended.

I have no doubt that the new commission will note the warm interest of the House in the matter and will do, as I have sometimes said on other occasions, the decent thing. With this somewhat lengthy but I trust satisfactory explanation, I hope that my noble friends will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

The Earl of Perth

My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord who has just spoken, particularly in relation to gardens. Gardens are live things. Gardeners today may be creating something which will be thought to be of great artistic merit, or they may want to change what they have started. If it is to be made mandatory that a garden which is being created or which has been created by somebody who is living today has to be listed, many of the people who are doing this work may be very worried about it. I wonder whether we are wise to try to go further than the provisions which, as we have heard, are already in the Bill at the present time.

Lord Winstanley

My Lords, I am sure that I am not the only Member of your Lordships' House to be disappointed by the answers given by the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale. I personally felt that the answers he gave were very much the kind of answers which were given by those who resisted the introduction of the designation of areas of outstanding beauty, to which the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, very properly referred. The noble Lord is entirely right: the designation of an area of outstanding beauty does not in some way freeze an area; nor does it introduce new planning controls. The fact remains that, once an area has been designated as an area of outstanding natural beauty, it has a remarkable effect on the attitude of Ministers from time to time when different departments have to take certain decisions. It is not a statutory matter, but the very fact that a place has been designated in that kind of way has alerted those with responsibility in other fields to the importance of the particular area. I believe that this kind of register would have the same effect.

I am glad that the noble Lord mentioned the Countryside Commission in the way he did, because he made it clear that the commission is a body with many responsibilities similar to those which the noble Lord perhaps has in mind in moving this amendment. It is right to emphasise once again that the Countryside Commission has worked very closely with other bodies and not in conflict with them at all. If I did not make this point clear when supporting the noble Lord, Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal, I will do so now, because what I meant to say was, there is no conflict. I have known of many cases where the Countryside Commission has given grant aid for various functions, such as Housesteads Camp at Hadrian's Wall, which was very much a matter for those who deal with historic buildings and ancient monuments.

The commission has often been involved in a grant-aided function and advisory function, which are perhaps of more interest to the Nature Conservancy Council because they are matters concerning the protection of wild life. The Countryside Commission's job has been to grant aid in order to allow people to go there.

The noble Lord the Minister is therefore entirely right in saying that the Countryside Commission will be happy to work very closely with the new commission in doing a job such as this, and would not take the view that by this new commission being given the responsibility of developing a register it was somehow being brought into conflict with another commission having similar duties. It is regrettable that we do not put something of this kind in the Bill. I am sure it will not necessarily mean that one commission shall have a register that is the inevitable precursor to the introduction of some kind of planning regulation and all sorts of Utopian measures of that kind. It merely changes the climate of opinion among those who wield power in Government, local government and in many other bodies where people can take decisions which might be deleterious to the particular gardens we all want to protect. I have every sympathy with the purposes of the amendment, and I am glad for the assurance that the kind of thing which is envisaged in the amendment will in fact be done, but I would have liked to see something such as this written into the Bill.

Lord Skelmersdale

My Lords, by leave of the House, I gree with most of what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley. I do not see any conflict, nor do the Countryside Commission, with whom I have discussed this matter. It may be that they will come to an agreed designation system between themselves which would draw attention to the problems of those gardens on the list. But surely this is a matter for interaction between them, and not something we should make statutory as a leading responsibility and duty on a new commission from the outset.

10.9 p.m.

Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal

My Lords, I have to echo the opinion of many other noble Lords who regard the response of the Front Bench as being disappointing. It was what one might call a dreary smoke screen. My noble friend spoke about statutory controls and about the details of burdens and procedure, and then turns round and says he hopes that his reply is satisfactory; it is not satisfactory at all. The noble Lord, Lord Montagu, and the noble Lord, Lord Digby, have both described how a great deal of this work has already been done. It is not particularly difficult work. The noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, quite rightly says that you can affect the whole climate by doing a thing like this. Naturally, one will hope that the commission will do it.

We had hoped that by putting it into the Bill it would give them a little extra encouragement and would concentrate their minds and also create a slightly extra safeguard. The noble Earl, Lord Perth, rightly said that gardens can very quickly disappear. I agree with him. Many gardens have disappeared. Many gardens have been created. Surely it would be valuable to everybody to be able to see what had been done, to make sure that every step was taken at the earliest stage to prevent any possible damage to them. I simply cannot believe that this would be a particularly burdensome procedure.

I hate to suggest that the House should divide on an issue of this sort: I do not think it is fundamental to this Bill; certainly it is late at night. I have to say to the noble Lord, however, that I feel he is throwing away the goodwill of the House in not agreeing something as desirable and as inessential as this. Nevertheless, having said that, I believe the right thing to do is to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Kennet

moved Amendment No. 124B: Page 40. line 32, at end insert— ("" Commissions advice on scheduled monument and listed building consents and evidence.

1. (1) The Secretary of State shall seek advise from the Commission on any application made for scheduled monument consent.
2. (2) The Secretary of State shall seek advice from the Commission on any application for listed building consent referred to him by a local authority which is minded to give consent thereto.
3. (3) In the event of a scheduled monument consent application or a listed building consent application being called in for the Secretary of State's own decision, or the decision on such an application being appealed against and that appeal being dealt with by written representations or heard at a Hearing or Public Inquiry (as the case may be). the Commission shall be so informed by The Secretary of State and may—
1. (a) make written representations where the matter is dealt with by written representations; or
2. (b) appear at any Hearing or Public Inquiry, being represented and calling witnesses to give evidence, or otherwise, whether or not that Hearing or Public Inquiry is held by an Inspector with powers to decide the matter himself.")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, if the House would be so good as to cast its collective eye backwards to Amendment No. 91, the all-important Government amendment setting out the purposes of the commission, subsection (4) of that says: the commission may advise the Secretary of State with regard to the exercise … of various functions by him. whether or not they have been consulted". The appearance of this phase is in itself a proof of the worthwhileness of Amendment No. 91.

It was quite impossible, unassisted, to deduce from Schedule 4 whether or not the commission might advise, should advise, whether the Secretary of State should seek advice, need not seek advice or whatnot, on the various categories of functions which are now united in this useful Amendment No. 91. The amendment has brought it out that, though the commission may advise, the Secretary of State is under no duty to let them know when a case has arisen upon which they might exercise their right to advise. It is no use giving them the right to advise, whether asked or not. if they remain in ignorance that the occasion for advice has arisen. My amendment simply seeks to rectify this and to bind the Secretary of State to let the commission know when there is a case coming along on which they have a right to advise. I beg to move.

The Earl of Avon

My Lords, as the noble Lord says, this amendment attempts to set out in detail part of the advisory role of the commission. This role is a vital one and I can assure the House that the commission will have all the necessary powers to undertake it successfully. I hope I can persuade the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, that the amendment is in large part unnecessary. The new Clause 30, which we have already discussed, gives the commission the widest possible advisory powers. Under it they may give advice to any person in relation to historic buildings and ancient monuments situated in England, whether or not they have been consulted. They also have a specific power to advise the Secretary of State on any of his functions under the 1953 Act and the 1979 Act. So clearly they have the power to offer advice on applications for listed building consent and scheduled monument consent, among a wide range of other matters.

The Secretary of State is also required to consult the commission about scheduled monument consent applications, so there is no question but that they will have an opportunity to put their views to him. If there is an inquiry or hearing the commission will be tree to decide, if they wish, to make their views known. All this is already provided for.

We also intend that the commission should be kept informed of all except the most minor applications for listed building consent, and we shall be making the appropriate amendment to the relevant town and country planning regulations. I believe that in this way we shall have given the commission sufficient power to advise as and when they think necessary, and have provided the appropriate mechanisms for keeping the commission informed so that they may do so. We believe that to spell out in the detail of this amendment what is only part of the commission's advisory role could do harm by casting doubt on the commission's scope to advise on other things.

I hope that I have said enough to assuage the noble Lord, Lord Kennet's worries on this subject, and that he will not have to press the amendment.

Lord Kennet

My Lords, the noble Earl's answer was directed chiefly to assuring the House that the commission have a sufficient right to advise. Nobody doubts that. My amendment is directed to ensuring that the commission are informed of the existence of a particular case in all the categories concerned where their right to advise is exercisable. The noble Earl has run through a number of cases where he tells the House that under the Bill the Secretary of State already has a duty to inform the commission that a specific case has arisen where they have the right to advise. I followed him closely and I shall look at that in Hansard tomorrow.

However, I can already ask him one question. He was quite categorical and inclusive about ancient monment permissions, and that the Secretary of State already has a duty to inform the commission when such cases arise. I think he satisfied me about listed building consent cases which were going to a hearing or public inquiry; that is to say, that the commission would inevitably know that a hearing or public inquiry was coming about. But some listed building consent cases are handled by written procedure, without a hearing or public inquiry, and I ask the noble Earl to give a direct answer: under the Bill as it stands, is the Secretary of State obliged to inform the commission of every particular case that comes to him for listed building consent which is going to be dealt with by written procedure?

It may be for the convenience of the House if I expand for a moment on the difference between written procedure and public inquiry. On the one hand, letters are written and exchanged and reports are submitted and considered. On the other hand, a room is booked and an inspector is appointed. All those with an interest in the case are enabled to come before the inspector and state their views. The inspector then writes a report and later, as is well known, the Secretary of State makes his decision.

Perhaps the noble Earl is now in a position to let us know the answer on the particular point of written procedure on listed building consent applications.

The Earl of Avon

My Lords, I can confirm that it is intended that an amendment will be made to existing regulations to ensure that the commission are informed of all listed building consent applications.

Lord Kennet

My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Earl and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

10.19 p.m.

The Earl of Avon moved Amendments Nos. 125, 126, 127, 128 and 129:

Page 40, line, 47 leave out ("After subsection (1)(a)") and insert ("In subsection (1) after paragraph (b)")

Page 40,line 48, leave out (" (aa)") and insert (" (c)")

Page 41,line 4, after ("into") insert ("and carry out")

Page 41,line 8, at end insert— (" (d) where a redundant building or any pan thereof is situated in England and is vested in the Redundant Churches Fund in pursuance of a redundancy scheme or a pastoral scheme to which section 47 of this Measure applies. the Fund may enter into and carry out an agreement with the Commission for Ancient Monuments and Historic Buildings for England for the acquisition and preservation by the Commission of the building or part with or without other land so situated and so vested: and for "the next two following subsections" there shall be substituted "subsections (2) and (3) of this section".")

Page 41,line 12, leave out (" (aa)") and insert (" (c) or (d)")

The noble Earl said: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I move all these amendments together.

The most important of these amendments is Amendment No. 128 which empowers the Redundant Churches Fund to enter into agreement with the commission to transfer to it a redundant church. The church will then be wholly the commission's responsibility. The amendment, minus the existing provision in the Bill which covers such transfers from diocesan hoards of finance, will thus give both the boards and the fund the choice of transferring redundant buildings either to the commission or to the Secretary of State.

Under Amendment No. 129 transfers from the Redundant Churches Fund to the commission, like those from the diocesan boards of finance, will, for resource reasons, be subject to the Secretary of State's consent. Amendments Nos. 125 and 126 are minor redraftings, and Amendment No. 127 amends the wording of a provision already in the Bill, to bring it into line with the wording of the pastoral measures. I beg to move these five amendments en bloc.

Lord Sandford

My Lords, I have been watching this part of the Bill as a church commissioner and as a member of the Ecclesiastical Committee of both Houses of Parliament. I am able to say that these amendments entirely meet the points that the General Synod of the Church of England was making to the department at an earlier stage. So it is entirely satisfactory and I am grateful to my noble friend for the amendments.

Lord Kennet

My Lords, in Committee I raised the question of why it was that the Redundant Churches Fund did not have to get the Secretary of State's approval to accept a redundant church, but that the commission will have to get the Secretary of State's approval. If I remember correctly, I have been made aware from correspondence with the noble Earl—or at any rate I have been made aware in one way or another—that the reason why the Government make the distinction is that the Redundant Churches Fund gets a five-yearly grant allocation and is left to spend it over a five-year period in accordance with its own discretion, but that the commission is not going to get that and, therefore, cannot be allowed the same discretion to do what it thinks fit with redundant churches.

I must say that I regret the fact that the commission, which will be a major feature in the landscape, is not to enjoy the same liberty as the Redundant Churches Fund, which is a very minor feature in the landscape. It is regrettable, and the Goverment should have had the courage to trust the larger animal as much as they trust the smaller one.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 130: Page 42, line 10, leave out ("is") and insert ("are")

The noble Earl said: My Lords, I am delighted to say that this is a very minor amendment. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

10.23 p.m.

Baroness David moved Amendment No. 131:

Page 43, line 11, at end insert— ("(lA) In paragraph (aa) to subsection (1) after "of a" insert "scheduled monument or ".)

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment and Amendment No. 132 can be taken together. They differ substantially from the one amendment—which was debated in Committee—Amendment No. 104G. The new amendments derive in fact from Amendment No. 104GA, which was not moved in Committee. Of the first amendment it should be said that it simply adds scheduled monuments to listed buildings as having settings with respect to which notice is given if the settings are significantly affected by planning applications.

How large the setting of an individual scheduled monument may be, and whether or not it will be significantly affected by a particular application, is left entirely to the discretion of the local authority. Obviously it is right to insert scheduled monuments in Section 28 in this fashion. It is difficult to see why it has not been done before.

The second main part of the amendment no longer refers to scheduled monuments: it now only refers to listed buildings, but it does bring in those that are in Grade A, as well as those in Grade I. Grade A listed buildings are few in number—in effect, they are a few important churches, those that have not yet been regraded into the main numerical system. Even so, the potential number of notifications under the amendment is much reduced by the omission of most scheduled monuments, versus the slight increase in Grade A listed buildings.

Scheduled monuments have been left out in this context only because they are ungraded, so that the most important cannot be readily identified for notification purposes, as is possible with listed buildings. Perhaps it should be that scheduled monuments are graded in future, and, were that done, then the top grade could be inserted into this provision later to heighten the degree of protection as is appropriate. But the most important differences between the old debated Committee amendment and this one lie in paragraphs (a) and (b). The effects of these are yet further to reduce the number of notifications.

Paragraph (a) has been tightened and refers only to there being intervisibility from a ground floor doorway or window of the listed building to the building to be built or the extension to be built on any existing building under the application in question. It also refers to "at any time", in order to cover leafy summer versus bare winter situations. In paragraph (b), the viewpoint for the observer has to be publicly accessible, perhaps for payment, not just anywhere. It also now has to be within the 500 metre radius, whereas it could have been outside under the old amendment, No. 104 GA.

There are further restrictions in the fine print. The 500 metre radius is now to be drawn from the edge of the listed building rather than from the edge of the curtilage. As was and still is made abundantly clear by the wording: without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) above", and: not less that 500 metres radius", there can be no question of the 500 metre radius being treated as "both a maximum and a minimum", as the noble Earl, Lord Avon, suggested it would be.

But, all this apart, if this amendment is accepted, there will be no major alteration to existing planning legislation", as the noble Earl, Lord Avon, suggested there would be in the debate on Amendment No. 104G. All that is now set out in the amendment is that there will be a little more certainty that notice will be given when planning applications are made that affect the settings of important listed buildings. A few more notifications will be made—not many—to add to those that will be made anyway, and made to the commission, at that.

The criticisms which the noble Earl, Lord Avon, made on Amendment No. 104G have been met by both excluding scheduled monuments from the main amendment and by bringing in the intervisibility or covisibility requirements. None the less, the purpose of the amendment is still achieved, and all this without imposing an impossible burden on local authorities. It is no more of a burden than that which they should carry anyway if they are diligent. I beg to move.

The Earl of Avon

My Lords, the first amendment moved by the noble Baroness—Amendment No. 131—seeks to widen the category of planning applications which have to be publicised to include those which would affect the setting of a scheduled monument as well as those which would affect the setting of a listed building.

This is one of those difficult questions on which I can see at first sight the attractions of what is proposed. But these have to be weighed against the problems. The chief of these is the extra work that this would cause for local authorities and the extra delay that could result for these planning applications. We should also consider whether in some ways this would not be using a hammer to crack a nut. For the vast majority of scheduled monuments the same considerations do not apply to their setting as apply to listed buildings. Most are not in dense urban settings, where they may be particularly badly affected by a nearby development, but are in rural, often isolated, settings; many are unroofed structures or actual ruins. Some dominate their setting to such an extent that it could be held that no development could really affect them or that all development in the area affected them. The Government remain unconvinced that the requirements imposed by this amendment are justified, especially since any local authority will in any case be free to approach the commission for advice about a difficult application and the commission will undoubtedly wish to encourage them to do so. We certainly hope that relations between local authorities and the commission will be such that they will have no hesitation in seeking and giving expert assistance.

The noble Baroness moved on to the next amendment. As I understand it, this is an attempt to define the term "setting" of a listed building in relation to the requirements on local authorities to publicise applications for planning permission which they consider could affect the setting of a listed building.

As the noble Baroness mentioned, we discussed a similar amendment at the Committee stage. I believe that this version attempts to take into account what was then said. I am informed that it is an alteration to existing planning legislation, and the noble Baroness said that it was not. That is my brief, but I shall confirm that to her.

Our advice to local authorities set out in the Department of the Environment Circular 23/77 is to be flexible in their interpretation of "setting", and we recommend that where there is doubt the local authority should publicise. I still believe that it is much better to allow for flexibility than to enshrine in statute a limit which often, however worded, gets treated as both a minimum and a maximum.

There are also one or two problems with the terms of the amendment which I feel I should draw to the attention of the House. I am not sure that one can have a radius from the often irregular outline of the exterior of a building, but maybe the intention is to have a zone extending at least 500 metres from the building. Secondly, the descriptions of the categories of application which are to be regarded as affecting the setting of a listed building seem to me to be far too wide. If we take the case of a listed building on a hill or rise overlooking a village, under paragraph (a), as I understand it, virtually every building in the village might be caught because it could be seen from one of the ground level windows of a listed building.

I mention these points not out of any desire to be difficult but to show the problems there are when one has to define sensibly what we want to catch in this sort of provision, while ensuring that we do not catch so much that the system is swamped and defeats its own purpose. This perhaps illustrates the advantages of a flexible approach such as we adopt at the moment and I think we would wish to see in the future.

Lord Kennet

My Lords, the noble Earl is showing a most implausible innocence in this matter. Does he really think that the Beverley district council would go anywhere near the commission unless it was compelled to?

The Earl of Avon

No, my Lords. Does the noble Lord think that this will make any difference?

Lord Kennet

Yes, my Lords; it would force the Beverley district council to seek the commission's advice on any application for planning consent within a 500 metre radius of any building from which any part of that can be seen, and such a building would of course be Beverley Minster.

Lord Sandford

My Lords, it is not a very good practice to use examples like that for designing legislation. As my noble friend has been good enough to accept my Amendment No. 80, which secures the influence of local government within the commission itself, I think I can, and indeed must, give him an assurance that that is a far better way of dealing with matters such as those raised by these two amendments and the next three or four, all of which, if accepted, would add quite considerably to the burdens on local government and the exchange of paperwork and the general building up of bureaucracy between local government on the one hand and this commission on the other.

It is far better to have a voice within the commission which can remonstrate with districts such as the one that the noble Lord has just mentioned, and influence all of them through their associations so as to develop a good practice in matters such as this, which cannot be achieved satisfactorily by the imposition of the inflexibilities of statutory control. I would join the Government in resisting this and the subsequent amendments.

Baroness David

My Lords, I should like to thank the Minister for his full reply. I am doubtful about the amount of extra work that would be involved. I shall look forward to his letter about whether planning would be affected. The best thing is to read what is in Hansard tomorrow and consider whether more action should be taken. For the moment, I withdraw this amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Kennet had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 132:

Page 43, line 11, at end insert— (" ( )After subsection (1) there shall be inserted— (1A) For the purposes of subsection (1) above the setting of a listed building which is graded "Grade I "or "Grade A "shall be taken as extending to not less than 500 metres radius from the exterior of the listed building, and a planning application shall be regarded as significantly affecting its setting if, without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) above, any building proposed to be built or significantly extended falls within the setting so described and—

1. (a) there is intervisibility at any time as between and ground level doorway or window of the listed building and any part of a building to be built, or the extension to be built onto any existing building, under the application; or
2. (b) can be seen at any time with the listed building, in whole or part, by an observer standing at any place that is publicly accessible (whether by payment or not) anywhere within the 500 metres radius setting so described.".")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, speaking on behalf of the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, and others, if the noble Earl is able to help us we may be able to save the time of the House a good deal, on this and the next amendment. If he were able to say right away without discussion that he would be prepared to amend regulations, or pass regulations, under the Act which would have the effects set out in these two amendments. I would be happy to withdraw them without further ado.

The Deputy Speaker (Earl Cathcart)

Amendments 132 and 133 proposed en bloc.

Lord Kennet

Proposed en bloc, with the leave of the House, yes.

The Earl of Avon

My Lords, I have got slightly out of phase because I thought that the noble Baroness, Lady David, spoke to 132.

Baroness David

I spoke to 132 when moving 131. I intended to withdraw both of them.

Lord Kennet

My mistake, my Lords. I meant to speak to Nos. 133 and 134. I have nothing to say to 132. Perhaps we had better start again.

[Amendment No. 132 not moved.]

10.35 p.m.

Lord Kennet moved Amendments Nos. 133 and 134 en bloc:

Page 43, line 16, at end insert (" "and on the Commission's request to the local planning authority the Commission shall be furnished with a copy of the application and with a copy of any or all plans and other documents submitted with it that they may request." (3) After subsection (3) there shall be inserted— (3A) Where subsection (2A) above applies, subsection (2) shall he read with the word "all" substituted for the word "both" and with the following inserted after paragraph (b)— "and (c) a period of twenty-one days beginning with the date on which the copy of—

1. (i) the notice required to be sent to the Commission;
• or
2. (ii) any application, plan or other document requested by the Commission;

was received by it unless the Commission has requested that such twenty-one day period be extended so that they can make representations and if so such a period as the Commission may request, not exceeding two months from the date of that request, and that request shall be deemed to have been made by the Secretary of State.".")

(3B) During any period mentioned in subsection (3A) above if the Commission indicates that a planning application noticed to it has their approval the local planning authority may. in respect of the Commission's interest therein, determine the application with or without such conditions as the Commission may approve.".") Page 43, line 16, at end insert— ("16A. After section 34 of the 1971 Act there shall be inserted— Commission to receive copies of local authority planning applications re its listed buildings. 34A.—(1) Where a local planning authority makes application for planning consent with respect to any listed building in its own ownership, occupation or management it shall send a copy of the application together with copies of all plans and documents in support of that application to the Commission for Ancient Monuments and Historic Buildings for England and shall not determine that application within twenty-one days from the date on which the Commission received the copy of the application and all supporting plans and documents. (2) Where the Commission so requests within the twenty-one day period referred to in subsection (1) above the local planning authority shall not determine an application in the affirmative for up to two months from that request, to allow time for the making of representations on the application by the Commission to either the local planning authority or the Secretary of State. (3) This section shall also apply to applications made to a local planning authority by others with respect to listed buildings owned, occupied or managed by that local planning authority. (4) During any period mentioned in this section. if the Commission indicates that a planning application of which they have been provided with a copy has their approval the local planning authority may, in respect of the Commission's interest in the application, determine the application with or without such conditions as the Commission may approve.".")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, would the Minister undertake to put the effect of these amendments into regulations under the measure later on? If so, I think there will be no need to discuss them. The general outline of these amendments is to improve communications between local authorities and the commission.

The Earl of Avon

My Lords, I see that since we discussed these matters in Committee, some redrafting has been done to try to reduce the impact these amendments would have on local authorities. Of course, the commission should be kept informed of such applications, and that is why we have provided in the Bill for copies of notices to be sent to them. But I can only repeat that what is suggested in the amendments is the sort of burden the Government have sought to avoid. If, on receiving notification of a planning application from a local authority, the commission decide they would like copies of the relevant documents, they should of course be able to obtain them. In the vast majority of cases it will, I am sure, be a simple case of co-operation. If there is, unfortunately, any lack of co-operation, then a visit to the civic offices will be better, we believe, than using statutory powers. They will then be able, if they wish, to study the papers, form a view and get in touch with the local authority very swiftly if they consider there are important issues involved on which their expert voice should be heard. That voice and their influence on local authorities in these cases will depend greatly on the relationship that develops.

Amendment No. 134 is addressed to two matters: first, that of ensuring that the commission is kept informed of applications made by local authorities themselves for planning consent relating to a listed building in their own control and, secondly, that of allowing the commission a statutory period in which to comment. We have discussed the second principle in relation to Amendment No. 133. I can only say again that the Government do not consider it right that the commission should be able to delay the planning system in this way. However, we are seized of the importance of the first point—that the commission should be kept informed of a local authority's intentions towards a listed building in their care. The procedures to be followed by local authorities in seeking planning permission for their own listed buildings are set out in the Town and Country Planning and General Regulations, and the Government propose to insert in those regulations a requirement for local authorities to inform the commission of their own proposals. I am not sure whether that was the only assurance the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, wanted. The commission will be able to advise local authorities or the Secretary of State, if they see fit, but as with so many aspects of the work, the influence they are able to exert will, and should, depend on the good relations they are able to build up with local authorities.

Lord Kennet

We all hope that will be so, my Lords, but many of us live in a world in which we know it is not so. There are local authorities which will do all they can to ignore and tacitly to deceive the commission. That should be recognised on all sides of the House; a tiny minority, but it is partly to look after the case of that tiny minority that such legislation as this is needed. On the question of sending in supporting documents and so on, improving the sending in of forms, I am more than prepared to accept what the noble Earl said, and will beg leave to withdraw the amendments to see if we can come, by drafting, to a less onerous form of words—that is, less onerous on the local authorities though the Government will agree that it will, therefore, be more onerous on the commission.

Regarding the statutory period during which the local authority should not proceed, until it has received the agreement—or otherwise, indeed—or some answer from the commission, I do not think I can he quite so accommodating. If there is an authority whose advice ought to be sought, it is absurd not to provide that those seeking that advice must wait for a set period until they have received it. Otherwise, if I correctly read the Bill as presented, it is open to a local authority to write to the commission one day, stating. "We would like your advice on the following demolition proposal in a conservation area", and a week later to give consent before it has received any answer.

It should not, I think, be beyond the will of the Government to give effect to a provision that there must be a three-week delay, or in special cases where the commission seeks it from the local authority. a two-month delay, in order to allow things to be sorted out. At this stage I should like to inform the noble Earl that we shall later bring forward another amendment to that effect, but at the moment I am prepared to withdraw the present amendment, in order to reconsider the part about the passing of documents and the information. I beg leave to withdraw the amendments.

Amendments, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Birk

moved Amendment No. 135: Page 43, line 31, at end insert— ("17A. After section 56A of the 1971 Act there shall be inserted— Listed building consent applications: reference to the Commission. 56B.—(1) Notwithstanding any provision in any enactment, where a local planning authority in England is minded to approve an application for listed building consent made with respect to—

1. (a) a listed building which is graded "Grader I". "II^*". "A" or "B", or
2. (b) the demolition in whole or part of a listed building which is graded "Grade II": or
3. (c) a "Grade II" listed building or any unlisted building in a conservation area which is owned by the local planning authority or with respect to which it is an intending purchaser:

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

1. (a) alter a "Grade II" listed building: or
2. (b) demolish an unlisted building in a conservation area which is not owned by that authority:

which has been made to it but shall forthwith refer it to the Commission for their consideration and shall not determine any application so referred in the affirmative for two months from the date of such reference unless the Commission indicates its approval thereto. (3) Where on consideration of any such application referred to it under subsections (1) and (2) of this section the Commission so advises the Secretary of State the application shall be deemed to have been called in by him for his own decision." ") The noble Baroness said: My Lords, an amendment rather similar to this one was tabled at the Committee stage, but it was neither moved nor debated. The amendment is concerned with the vast majority of the applications for listed building consents made to local planning authorities, and which are determined by them. However, those that affect Grade I and II^* buildings, or that involve demolition of any listed building, and even demolition of an unlisted building in a conservation area, are referred to the department, but only if, and when, the local planning authority is "minded to consent".

In the slightly different context of scheduled monument consent, The Way Forward, in, I think, paragraphs 16 to 20, put up as a real possibility the sensible idea that the commission might determine such applications, subject of course to appeal and call-in. I should have thought that what made good sense with scheduled monuments consents (even though the department has not taken that option in the Bill) should make equally good sense here, with listed building consents, to which local planning authorities are "minded to consent".

The practical way of proceeding in order to avoid duplication of staff and endless consulting here and there—and that will be one of the dangers in the new commission—is to have the applications referred to the commission, and let it ask for lesser applications to be referred to it as well, just as the department now does.

The Minister indicated the Government's likely response when he very kindly wrote to me to give me an indication of what the Government would have said had the earlier amendment been moved. The burden of his letter was that an appointed body should not be allowed to give directions to an elected local authority. So in order to cover that point the amendment now provides that the commission may only request, rather than demand, that lesser cases are referred to it: and it could be said that those requests shall be deemed to be directions from the Secretary of State.

The commission is being set up to do an important job, and to do it responsibly as, in effect, the Secretary of State's agent—and it is answerable to him; he controls the purse strings. In that context it seems absurd that the Secretary of State should shy away in fright from giving the job over properly, of course, with due safeguards as to call-in and appeal. If a lot of thought has gone into this point, it seems to have resulted in something of a damp squib. It is time for more thought to be given and for a sensible conclusion to be reached, as is posed by the present amendment.

I hope that in the light, both of the earlier amendment being reconsidered and the very helpful letter that I received from the Minister, we have now got the proposal right, and that it can be accepted. Due to the time factor I have moved the amendment briefly, in a kind of shorthand, but I am sure that the Minister has got the main points. I beg to move.

The Earl of Avon

My Lords, the amendment would change the basis of the present system for determining listed building consent applications. As the noble Baroness said, currently these are the province of local authorities, with a right of appeal to the Secretary of State, who may also call in important cases for his decision. The proposal before us would require local authorities to consult the commission in a large number of cases and, moreover, as I understand it, would empower the commission to direct local authorities to refer any application to it for consideration. In either case, the authority would have to wait two months before making a decision.

Finally, the commission would be able to decide that any of the applications referred to it should be decided by the Secretary of State so that, in effect they would decide which cases should be called in. This is a fairly wide-ranging amendment to the system, which I am not at all sure it is right to consider in the context of the Bill. However, the noble Baroness has brought it to our attention.

I do not believe that it is right that an appointed body should be given such powers as these to direct democratically-elected local authorities. Nor do the Government think that we should give such a body, however important its task, powers which are now exercised only by a Secretary of State. We have given considerable thought to these questions and believe that the proposals embodied in the Bill are the right way to proceed. We have previously discussed the difficult questions of relations between the commission and local authorities. We believe that this is another occasion when, in spite of the persuasiveness of the noble Baroness, we feel that what is proposed in the amendment is not the way to ensure a good working relationship.

Baroness Birk

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his clear reply. I am very disappointed by it because, as I said, this has been tempered down to the commission's requests. I still fail to see that what is possibly done on scheduled monuments cannot be done with listed buildings. It again raises what is a basic question. We raised the point over the Royal palaces and other instances throughout the Bill.

If this new commission—the heritage commission, as the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, and I have now named it—is not to have the real independence that it should have, and is not going to be able to take over properly so many of the functions that we understood it was to take over from the department, it will be a commission without bite; and there will have to be a tremendous amount of duplication of both resources and staff in the department and in the commission, and the whole thing just will not be worth while. It is making many of us, as we go through this Bill, really begin to wonder whether this is really going to be on. Is it going to be worth all the effort, upheaval and expense involved if at every point we meet with the fact that the powers on anything that really matters are cut down by the Government. I will not at this stage pursue it further. I will read what the noble Earl has said and reserve the right to come back at the next stage. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 136 not moved.]

10.48 p.m.

Lord Montagu of Beaulieu moved Amendment No. 137:

Page 43. line 31, at end insert— (" 17A. Section 58 of the 1971 Act (building preservation notice in respect of building not listed) shall he amended by the insertion after subsection (1) of the following— (1A) The Commission for Ancient Monuments and Historic Buildings for England may serve building preservation notices under this section.".")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is an identical amendment to one tabled at Committee stage but not moved or debated. Basically, the existing legislation allows local authorities to serve what are known as building preservation notices. The service of such a notice—a BPN, in short—has the effect of listing a building but only up to six months. During that period the Secretary of State may formally list it when his officers have had time to visit it, look up its history and come to a balanced view of whether or not it can be formally listed with all the long-terms effects that result; or they can decide not to list it and that will be the end of the matter. In practice, the Secretary of State can also stop list a building. They do this when they are convinced of the merits of the building and the reality of the threat of a demolition. In real life, authorities may be slow to move or not be prepared to move for political reasons or, in fact, just not be interested in conservation matters.

What is needed is perhaps a power for the commission to serve their own BPNs, with a short effect, of course. Obviously, they would not need to use the procedure with good local authorities or with an open-and-shut case where stop listing was appropriate and where the Secretary of State's officers were available and easily persuaded. However, in certain cases if they had this power, they might be able to stop the bulldozers coming in. It would also perhaps reduce the need for the Secretary of State to keep people on the ground to do these things at short notice. Investigation prior to stop listing might become increasingly difficult for the department to undertake in a hurry. Therefore, I beg to move this amendment in the hope that it might be able to save a few Firestone buildings, and that type of structure with which we have had problems in the past. If six months is considered too long, maybe a shorter period will be agreed by the Government. I beg to move.

The Earl of Avon

My Lords, I have sympathy with my noble friend's reasons for moving this amendment. The amendment would enable the commission as well as local authorities to serve building preservation notices. As has been explained, these are notices which prevent private owners of buildings from undertaking any works without consent for six months or until the Secretary of State has decided whether to list the building in question. The Government consider that it would be inappropriate for an appointed body such as the commission to exercise powers which impose restrictions on the right of private property owners. Such functions are only properly exercised by elected representatives.

The general issue of constitutional propriety does not in our feeling outweigh any advantages of speed. It will be open to the commission to make represent- ations to local authorities if they so wish. Even more important, I suggest, will be the commission's relationship with the Secretary of State which should enable speedy spot listing decisions to be taken. As I said in my opening remarks, I have nothing against the idea which my noble friend has produced, but the general constitutional issue prevents me from being able to accept his amendment.

Lord Montagu of Beaulieu

My Lords, I appreciate the point that the noble Earl has made as he made it on other amendments this evening. I take the point that obviously a close relationship between the chairman of the new commission and the Secretary of State may well be the best solution of all. Perhaps, therefore, it will be appropriate for me to withdraw this amendment at this stage.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Birk moved Amendment No. 138:

Page 44. line 48, at end insert— ("( ) In subsection (4) for "this section" substitute "subsection (1) of this section". ( ) In subsection (5) after "Secretary of State" insert "or Commission", after "above" insert "or to an member of any of the Commission's Committees (as the case may be)" and after "his" insert "or their".")

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment is to do with the payment of members of any of the commission's committees who deal with Section 10 of the 1972 Act under which members of the Historic Buildings Council may be paid if they render services in connection with grants made under that section. No amendment has been made so that the commission can pay anybody such as the members of a committee that it might set up to look after Section 10 grants, a committee that would be equivalent of the committee of the Historic Buildings Council which now looks after these things. I am making a division between the payment of the commissioners generally and those who will be serving, presumably on a similar committee, to do the work that is being done now by a committee of the Historic Buildings Council. It seems wrong that no provisoin has been made in this Bill to allow payment for services beyond the call of duty as a committee member, because this section is in the 1972 Act.

It is not intended that the amendment should provide a back door method of paying committee members who, as paragraph 9 of Schedule 3 provides, may be paid expenses but no more. These are not people, presumably, who will be paid a salary or loss of earnings as the commissioners are. But as there is provision for the relevant committee on the HBC, it seems to make common sense and equity for this to be followed through for people who are to do the same work on a committee of the new heritage commission. I beg to move.

The Earl of Avon

My Lords, as the noble Baroness describes, this amendment attempts to provide for any member of the committee to be remunerated who is involved in advising the commission on the exercise of its powers. The House will be aware that we are not in favour of remunerating members of the commission's advisory committee, and I do not believe there is any particular reason to change that view. The payments referred to in Section 10 are for services rendered, but these committees will be purely advisory. If there are any services to be rendered, as we understand it, they should be rendered by members of the commission themselves. They will, of course, be paid.

The first part of the amendment attempts to remove the requirement for the Secretary of State to consult about conservation area grants he makes in England. This is quite unnecessary, for under paragraph 19 of Schedule 4 his power to make such grants in England is removed. There will, therefore, be no occasion for him to consult about their making.

I thought the noble Baroness made an interesting point about the Historic Buildings Council at the moment, that people might he worse off. I should like to have a look at that, but I hope very much that that is not the case, because obviously it is not the intention. Of course members on the committees will get expenses and that sort of payment, but not a salary.

Baroness Birk

I should like to thank the Minister for that reply. I am glad that he is going to look at this, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 139 not moved.]

10.57 p.m.

Baroness Birk moved Amendment No. 140:

Page 48, line 16, at end insert— (2A) After subsection (1) there shall be inserted— (1A) The Secretary of State shall not make any order under subsection (1)of this section affecting scheduled monuments in the Commission's ownership or management until a draft of the order has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament. (1B) The Commission shall keep a register for each of the monuments in its ownership, guardianship or management of all works which it proposes to carry out under a scheduled monument consent granted under an order made under subsection (1) of this section and shall as may be and in any case not later that seven days from the making of an entry in that register give notice of such changes or additions in or to that register and allow 42 days therefrom for representations to be made. (1C) Such notification shall he made to the—

1. (a) Local authorities:
2. (b) Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings;
3. (c) Georgian Group;
4. (d) Victorian Society;
5. (e) Ancient Monuments Society; and
6. (f) Council for British Archaeology;

and the Commission shall by the commencement of the 42 day period also display (and use its best efforts to maintain for that period) at a publicly accessible place at or adjacent to the building concerned a notice setting out and explainiing the works covered by the change or addition to that register and shall publish that notice in a local newspaper. (1D) The Commission shall not proceed with any such work until after the expiry of the 42 day period allowed for representations. (1E) Representations arising from notifications as above may be made to the Secretary of State and any made to the Commission shall be passed to him by them for his consideration. (1F) Where any such representation is made the Secretary of State shall, if he thinks appropriate, direct that the scheduled monument consent previously granted by order and covering the works against which that representation may have been made shall not have effect, such that the Commission must obtain a scheduled monument consent from him before the works may be carried out. (1G) Where the Secretary of State considers that works that the Commission proposes to carry out under a scheduled monument consent previously granted by order under this section are likely to be considered to be contentious he shall withdraw the consent made under that order with respect to the proposed works, such that the Commission must formally apply to him for and obtain the necessary scheduled monument consent before it proceeds with the works." ")

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this is for the other side of Amendment No. 136, which was not moved. That concerned the listed buildings consent which the commission may need. This amendment concerns the scheduled monuments consent that the commission is certain to need, for such consents are required every time even straightforward repairs are carried out on a scheduled monument. The commission is to manage them by the hundred and, not being a Government body, it needs consent. The consents can be issued under Section 3 of the 1979 Act, and it is understood that the issue of such a class consent is contemplated. So the commission, in effect, will be absolved thereafter from obtaining consent. There will be every attempt to cut down the paper work involved, and a modicum of notification and monitoring is appropriate. This holds true here, as it would for listed consents as well.

The amendment, quite properly, places a degree of restraint and supervision on the commission that is needed to keep its standards high and to make it act responsibly. On a minor point of detail, it may be said that the Georgian Group and Victorian Society cannot, almost by definition, be involved in ancient monuments, and that they are sounds almost like a contradiction in terms. But, thanks to the extraordinary way in which the scheduling system works, quite recent buildings can be scheduled, provided they are not occupied domestically by more than a caretaker. Most of the buildings in Chatham's historic dockyard are scheduled and are of either Georgian or Victorian days. Where the same list is used, it may be better not to put names into the statute but rather to do the job by way of an amendable regulation or circular. I beg to move.

The Earl of Avon

My Lords, with the agreement of the noble Baroness, I will direct my remarks backwards to Amendment 136 as well as to No. 140. I must confess that when I read them, these amendments made me pause for a considerable time, because the noble Baroness has been castigating me somewhat for not trusting the commission. But as I understand these two amendments, they would indicate, first, that the commission is not to be trusted to undertake any works to buildings or monuments in its ownership without the consent of the Secretary of State; and, secondly, that comments or criticisms from local authorities and a wide range of amenity bodies, made to the Secretary of State, are required if the commission is to operate effectively, and that the commission cannot be trusted to listen to any comments without a statutory provision.

I do wonder about this approach, and perhaps I have it wrong. On the one hand, there are a large number of amendments which seem to emphasise a central focus on the expertise the body will provide—a body in which the largest group of experts in these fields will reside. On the other hand, it is suggested now that, in respect of its own buildings and monuments, it would be incapable of undertaking the very sort of work it has been set up, as the expert, to advise others on. It seems strange, when the Secretary of State sets up a body to manage monuments and buildings on his behalf. and also to act as his expert advisers on ancient monuments and historic buildings, that he should also decide that his creation is not to be trusted to do one of these jobs without statutory watchdogs.

As has been said in the discussions on the Bill, if we are to set up an appointed body we trust it to do the job it is set up for. I have no doubt that both local authorities and the amenity groups mentioned will make their views known to the commission, and that the latter will treat this with its usual respect. The commission will want close links with these kind of bodies and, no doubt, too, advisory committees will draw from their expertise.

Imposing statutory restrictions such as these amendments propose, would, I believe, be counterproductive. I shall, of course, read what the noble Baroness says and, if I have misinterpreted her, I will come back to her again.

Baroness Birk

My Lords, these are very complicated amendments, I agree, and perhaps shorthanding them did not really help. But the first paragraph of Amendment 140 reads: The Secretary of State shall not make any order under subsection (1) of this section affecting … monuments in the Commission's ownership … until a draft of the order has been laid before … each House of Parliament. That does not put the commission under restraint from the Secretary of State.

On the part of the amendment that refers to notification, although the bodies have been spelt out in that way, if this matter was to be considered by the Government, I personally would prefer to see "certain bodies" or something like that and I do not think we need to have them spelled out as they are.

What I have tried to do is to strike a balance between the commission having the right over scheduled monuments, but, at the same time, not going beyond a certain route so that it can be said that it is exceeding its own brief. This is, however, I agree, extremely complicated, and as I did not move Amendment No. 136, a hit more confusion has been added.

For the moment, I will read what the Minister has said; perhaps he will read what I have said. If we understand each other, perhaps we can come back to this again. In the meantime, I beg to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 141 not moved.]

Baroness Birk moved Amendment No. 142. Page 53, line 18, after (" (1) ") insert (" for "or guardianship" substitute", guardianship or management" and")

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this has to do with management of the commission, which is to manage many monuments but which initially holds none in its guardianship. It also may not have to admit the public to them.

Amendment No. 143 inserts "management" into subsection (2): without it the commission seems to be unable to set opening times and so on, though this is something which, according to the Notes on Clauses, is to be left to the commision.

Amendment No. 144 addresses a different problem. Here it so happens that "management" has not been inserted into the new subsection (4A), which itself was inserted by Government amendment in Committee.

The result now is that the Secretary of State cannot make regulations under what seems to be the subsection designed to cover the commission with respect to the monuments it is to manage. The ensuing result is that he will have to use the power in subsection (3) which, in its turn, seems to be the wider power probably intended to be used only in Scotland and Wales, which, of course, does not come within the purview of this Bill.

Be that as it may, why must it be that the Secretary of State makes regulations in connection with monuments in the commission's management? Would it not be much simpler and also cheaper and just as responsible to let the commission make its own regulations as the law provided when first printed rather than have the added check that the regulations must be approved by the Secretary of State, who is therefore made fully accountable for the imposition of penalties? This would again cut out a lot of consulting and redrafting, and a lot of the personnel involved, because the regulations would be written by the people actually concerned rather than by those who may not know the day-to-day problems and idiosyncracies of each monument.

Amendment No. 144 returns to the need to put in "management", or the commission will be unable to refuse admission to a monument to those whom they have reasonable cause to think will be likely to damage it. Altogether, it seems to me that Section 19, as already amended, still needs further attention. It may well be that the department has plans to bring forward amendments to put these matters straight if those now tabled are not acceptable. I should be grateful if the Minister could comment on that on the grounds that the present situation is not correct, and if he could say what are the Government's plans to deal with the matter. I beg to move.

The Earl of Avon

My Lords, if I may, I should like to speak first to Amendments Nos. 142, 143 and 145. These three amendments seek to extend the powers to control public access under Section 19 of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979 to monuments under the commission's management. The noble Baroness will be pleased to hear that we have no quarrel with the principle of the proposal.

The House will recall that the Committee agreed a Government amendment. No. 111, which empowered the commission to undertake functions on behalf of the Secretary of State, where he so directed, in respect of monuments under his guardianship. That amendment provided for the Secretary of State to delegate functions to the commission, including those relating to public access. In that respect, there is no need, therefore, for these amendments.

There are, however, two other categories of monument in the Secretary of State's care—monuments in his ownership and those otherwise under his control or management. It will be necessary for the Government to table further amendments to cater for those categories in an analogous way to the provision covering guardianship of monuments. There are technical drafting problems which have prevented us from tabling the amendments up to now. I hope that, with those assurances, the noble Baroness will be able to withdraw Amendment No. 142, and not to move Nos. 143 and 145.

If I may come to Amendment No. 144, to which the noble Baroness also spoke, the nub of this amendment appears to be the concept that the commission should be empowered to make regulations with the Secretary of State's approval. The Bill at present empowers the Secretary of State to make regulations after consulting the commission. This is purely presentational and we were advised by our lawyers on the wording. It is the Government's very clear view that it would not be right for a non-Crown statutory body to have the power to create offences, and that formal power to make regulations must rest with the Secretary of State. This follows some earlier comments that I made to my noble friend Lord Montagu.

It is for that reason that the power rests with the Secretary of State, but he must consult the commission before making regulations, thus ensuring that their views are fully taken into account. We believe that this is a better approach. I hope that the noble Baroness will feel satisfied with my comments on Amendments Nos. 142, 143 and 145, and may also be prepared not to move Amendment No. 144.

Baroness Birk

My Lords, I should like first to thank the Minister for what he said about Amendments Nos. 142, 143 and 145, and secondly to ask him whether he is expecting to bring forward the amendments by Third Reading. I thank the noble Earl for indicating that he will. As has been said before, it is very important that we should get as much of this amended as possible before the Bill leaves here and goes to another place.

So far as Amendment No. 144 is concerned, if this is a matter of presentation, it seems to me that it should be turned the other way round and we should let the commission make the regulations with the consent of the Secretary of State, because we are now up against the question of the commission not being in as authoritative a position as they should be. They are the body which should be managing the monuments and deciding about refusals of admission and so on. I do not think I can take this any further tonight. Maybe the Minister will also have another look at it. We will see whether I can come back on Third Reading, perhaps with a different version, or, if he has a change of heart, perhaps he will. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 143 to 145 not moved.]

The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 146: Page 54, leave out lines 35 to 43.

The noble Earl said: My Lords, this amendment is consequential as a result of the new Clause 30. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

11.10 p.m.

The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 147: Page 55, line 1, leave out ("23B") and insert ("23A")

The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is a renumbering amendment. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Montagu of Beaulieu moved Amendment No. 148:

Page 55, line 20, at end insert— ("(4) The Secretary of State shall, within twelve months of the day appointed for the bringing into force of this section, make a direction such that the Commission shall thence manage all monuments then in his ownership or guardianship.")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, the noble Earl may find it rather difficult to understand why I have felt it necessary to put down this amendment. Your Lordships will remember that in the debates during the Committee stage the Government stressed time and time again that it was the management, not the guardianship of the monument, or its ownership, which would be given to the commission. Nothing was said, however, about how soon this management function would be transferred. If the management is not transferred to the commission reasonably speedily, the Secretary of State will be left—most unfortunately, probably—with the management of numerous properties and monuments and will inevitably have to run a duplicate organisation to the commission.

The amendment lays down a timetable for making directions under another amendment which was made during the Committee stage. In other words, the amendment simply stitches a timetable, as an additional subsection, to that new section. I beg to move.

The Earl of Avon

My Lords, it has always been the Government's intention that the commission should take over the day-to-day management of the monuments in the care of the Secretary of State. We stated it in The Way Forward, and I am happy to state it firmly once more. We envisage that far from waiting a year to make a direction under Section 23B transferring management to the commission, the Secretary of State will transfer the management of many of the monuments in his care to the commission on the day they take over their functions under the Bill. I believe, however, that we should leave to the Secretary of State the flexibility to decide on timing and, although such cases will be very rare indeed, the freedom to decide whether all monuments should be included in a direction. So far as the guardianship of monuments is concerned, I am not aware of any that would not be managed by the commission; but again I believe that it would be wrong to force the issue, as proposed by the amendment. I hope that, with my assurance that it is the Secretary of State's plan at the moment to make a direction regarding monuments in his care on the day that the commission take over their functions under the Bill, my noble friend will feel content.

Lord Montagu of Beaulieu

My Lords, the noble Earl has perhaps reassured me, but I am sure he appreciates the reason why I put down the amendment. It would be most unsatisfactory if one had a dichotomy between the Department of the Environment and the new commission over many properties. However, in view of the assurance which I have just heard, I am happy to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

11.14 p.m.

Baroness Birk moved Amendment No. 149: After Clause 31, insert the following new clause:

("Royal Commission on Historical Monuments (England).

—(1) The Secretary of State, the Commission and the Royal Commission on Historical Monuments (England) shall consult together as to the desirability, or otherwise, and how the responsibilities of the said Royal Commission can be assumed by the Commission. (2) The Secretary of State shall present a report to each House of Parliament on these consultations and, if the report so recommends. Her Majesty may by Order in Council provide for the Royal Commission on Historical Monuments to cease to exist and for the new body to be set up under any necessary statutory provisions. (3) An Order under this section may contain such incidental, consequential and supplementary provisions as may be necessary or expedient for the purpose of giving effect to the Order. (4) No Order shall be made under this section unless a draft of the Order has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament. (5) The consultations referred to in subsection (1) above shall be begun within twelve months from the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State shall lay his report before both Houses of Parliament within twelve months from the commencement of those consultations and if his report recommends in the affirmative the draft Order in Council referred to in subsection (2) above shall be the subject of debate by, and resolution of, both Houses of Parliament within a further six months.

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, while moving Amendment No. 149, I should like to discuss Amendments Nos. 152 and 153. They are all concerned with the Royal Commission on Historical Monuments.

Amendment No. 149 is very similar to the amendment which was debated at the Committee stage. However, a timetable has been added to this amendment. The Committee debate rehearsed the various arguments for bringing the Royal Commission and the new commission very much closer together but without putting pressure on the Royal Commission as to what it decides to do in the future. It enables the commission to pick this up, if it wishes to do so after consultation.

The real problem about finding some method of merging to a certain extent is the essential point about the need for the National Monuments Record to be readily accessible to the new heritage commission. Without it, the heritage commission would have to set up a parallel architectural and archaeological library at very considerable expense. At the moment the National Monuments Record is located in Fortress House, with the Ancient Monuments Division and the Historical Buildings Division immediately opposite across the road. It is more than likely that in the course of time the commission will have to move to different premises. The problem one is faced with is that it will need to work closely with the National Monuments Record, and the need to do so is a geographical one as well.

The amendment states quite specifically that, The Secretary of State, the Commission and the Royal Commission on Historical Monuments (England) shall consult together as to the desirability, or otherwise, and if it is found to be "otherwise", then there would have to be some other solution found in attempting to have the National Monuments Record, so to speak, in two places at once. I do not pretend to have a solution at this stage. Under this amendment, the Secretary of State, shall present a report to each House of Parliament on these consultations", and so it goes on, as the amendment at Committee stage did. The only real change is in subsection (5), where it is stated that consultations shall begin within 12 months and a timetable for consultations is laid down.

The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Sandford—that is, Amendment No. 152—refers to the use of a statutory instrument to make such arrangements for the future relationships of the two commissions as may be necessary. In their Amendment No. 153, the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, and the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, refer to the Secretary of State reviewing such relationships when he sees fit and to making regulations and publishing guidelines. I will hastily say that this is a very tricky and difficult subject, and the Government have, understandably, sat back and let the matter float around. Frankly, I do not feel that either of these other two amendments really gets to the point of responsibility for the National Monuments Record.

It is certainly felt by the Ancient Monuments Board and the Historic Buildings Council, who will be doing the work of the new commission, that this should be assumed by the commission. It is probably doubtful that statutory instruments or regulations—even if the latter were the subject of an affirmative resolution of both Houses—could provide for anything like the transfer of the National Monuments Record from the Royal Commission to the new commission. It seems to those of us who have our names to this amendment that the use of an enabling clause would be the best way of dealing with this matter. I beg to move.

Lord Adeane

My Lords, as the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, has said, this is an extremely tricky matter and by no means obvious. Before launching into the question of the National Monuments Record, which is of great importance, as the noble Baroness has said, there is one point that I ought to make first. Subsection (1) of Amendment No. 149 contains an implication which may not be obvious to all noble Lords but which does affect the meaning of the whole clause. We ought to be clear about this. I quote: The Secretary of State, the Commission and the Royal Commission on Historical Monuments (England) shall consult together as to the desirability, or otherwise, and how the responsibilities of the said Royal Commission can be assumed by the Commission. This hypothetical consultation assumes that these responsibilities—that is to say, the work and the staff which carries it out—can be simply picked up as a working machine all in one piece and dumped somewhere in the new commission. I can assure your Lordships that this cannot be done; at any rate, it cannot be done without causing such damage to the original body that it would be unrecognisable. I cannot say how many of the staff would accept a change such as this, nor how many commissioners would—perhaps not many. What would result would not be assumption but dissolution.

To come to the National Monuments Record, perhaps it is not altogether clear what its status is. There seems to be an impression that it is just something run by the Royal Commission. It is not; it is part of the Royal Commission. There used to be something called the National Buildings Record and that went into liquidation in 1964, and it was resurrected as an integral part of the Royal Commission under the name of the National Monuments Record. It is a public archive; it is freely available to everybody, to the public, the Government, and indeed to the new body, from 10 till 5.30 every day, and no doubt for longer if necessary.

It is not, of course, only concerned with architectural matters; it is also and equally concerned with archaeological matters. It is the focal point for records from all over the country; public authorities, societies and private individuals working in the field of archtecture and archaeology all send their contributions. This results in the National Monuments Record maintaining a total of 250,000 records which are added to at a considerable annual rate. So you can see that those of us who are concerned with the Royal Commission are also very much concerned with the National Monuments Record, particularly as it absorbs the work of 30 per cent. of our staff. I am afraid I added that to the debate as a piece of information, but in view of position of the record, and in view of what I said at the beginning of my speech, I cannot myself hope that this amendment will be supported.

Lord Montagu of Beaulieu

My Lords, I am afraid I am in the position of supporting this amendment. I think it is generally known by many people concerned with this Bill that this is the hottest potato of all. I think it is a pity somebody has to be prepared to pick it up, and I understand they do not want to get their fingers burned. The fact is that this problem is not going to go away, and what I find very difficult to understand is why the Royal Commission, whose work we very much admire and whose chairman, in the Chamber, has been of tremendous help to us in this debate, is not prepared even to discuss the matter. What are they afraid of, I ask? What are they trying to hide? Is there some reason why discussion cannot go on as to the desirability or not? If they can put up a good case perhaps it will be clear that it should not be.

I cannot understand why a simple enabling clause like this, to ask for discussions, with an enormous number of safeguards built in, cannot be accepted. It may never happen, but all I know is that the question will have to be solved eventually, because as the commission grows the problem of the use of the record by the commission is going to get more and more acute. It may be that administratively it will work well, and therefore the amalgamation may not be needed. If we do not grasp it now, I prophesy that it will have to be dealt with some time in the next five years.

The Duke of Grafton

My Lords, I echo the words of the noble Lord, Lord Montagu of Beaulieu. As a member of the Historic Buildings Council I know that our work to date would have been extremely difficult if we had not had very close liaison with these two bodies. With the noble Lord, Lord Montagu of Beaulieu, I cannot see why there is such nervousness about it.

11.25 p.m.

Lord Beswick

My Lords, I have listened to the discussions on the points involved this evening and in Committee. Certain points seem to have emerged which were pretty soundly based and had wide support when there were more people here to give them support. The first was the proposition put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, who said that we should not put words into an Act of Parliament unless it was necessary to do so. The second point, made convincingly by the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, was that we should not amalgamate for the sake of amalgamation. There is much evidence to suggest that that is a sound and wise proposition. The third point, made more than once and made again by my noble friend Lady Birk, is that there is no criticism of the work of the Royal Commission on Historical Monuments. No one has criticised it; all have paid tribute to the work that it has done. With those three propositions before us I do not see that we should support the amendments now being moved.

There is no evidence at all that the work of the Royal Commission would be done better in any way if it was part of this new amorphous body, which has yet to make its position felt or its achievements known. There is no evidence that it will be better within a new body. There is no evidence, either, that the work of the Royal Commission could not be widened or could not be redirected if consultation suggests that that is the course to adopt. It is not necessary to put in an Act of Parliament that there should be consultation. I am surprised at this idea that something is being hidden. My impression is that there is every intention and belief that there could be the widest possible consultation, if that was decided, without that going into the Bill. Those assurances having been given, I hope very much that it will not be necessary to amend the Bill.

Lord Sandford

My Lords, it will be for the convenience of the House, as I have Amendments Nos. 152 and 153 on the Marshalled List in my name which bear on this matter, if I joined in the debate on this amendment, and I shall then have less to say when we reach my own amendments. It is a pity that this issue has polarised around the question of whether the Royal Commission should be in the heritage commission or outside it, as though that was the only issue to be decided. It is also unfortunate that the Government have not seen fit to give the House a lead or any indication of what their opinion is on this matter.

I have come to the view that in the present circumstances, with a Royal Commission established 75 years ago, with its work clearly set out and proceeding on lines which everyone approves of, the Royal Commission should not now be disturbed to the extent of being abolished and absorbed into the new heritage commission, which is not yet in existence. On the other hand, I cannot agree with the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, and others like him, who feel that, if that is not what is to be done, everything can be left as it is. The fact of the matter is that the work of the new commission, as indeed the work of the existing Historic Buildings Council, depends crucially on the co-operation between these two bodies. That is a pattern of partnership, the details of which will have to be worked out as the new commission comes into being and its members are appointed and it plans for itself the way in which it is going to set about its work.

I know, because the director of the Royal Commission has told me, and so has the chairman, that the details of this partnership are being planned, envisaged and worked out at the moment, and that is satisfactory. But there is no indication yet, and there will not necessarily be for a long time—and there may never be—that this pattern of co-operation will lead in the end to the Royal Commission being taken into the new commission and abolished. That is why I cannot support Amendment No. 149, because it starts with that presupposition, as the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, has said.

On the other hand, I am quite certain that we cannot leave matters as they are, with Parliament entirely in the dark as to how the future relationships are to develop and whether they are ever to be made public. I have been speaking from time to time bearing in mind the needs of the local authorities, the county councils and city councils. The County Council of Hampshire put the point to me that they have to deal on the one hand with the Royal Commission and on the other hand with the new heritage commission in the way they deal now with the Historic Buildings Council. They have their archive department, for instance, which has close working relationships with the Royal Commission. They have their planning department and their conservation department, which have close working relations with the Historic Buildings Council. It is quite impossible for a body like that to operate effectively with the Royal Commission on the one hand, and the heritage commission on the other hand, if it has no public knowledge of what the formal working relationship between these two national bodies is supposed to be.

Therefore, sooner or later the detailed working relationships which are being worked out at the moment by officials must be brought before Parlia ment and exposed for all to see. That is what my Amendment No. 152 sought in the first instance, and what my Amendment No. 153 seeks now in rather more explicit terms. I hope that, when we get to it, the chairman of the Royal Commission will be able to express his view on which of these two amendments finds favour with him. What we need more than anything else is an expression from the Government as to how they see the matter being handled.

The Earl of Avon

My Lords, I am afraid I am still in the position of having no firm Government view to give to the House regarding the future position of the Royal Commission on Historical Monuments. As my noble friend Lord Montagu would say, I am still throwing the hot potato up in the air and I am trying not to catch it!

As I promised, we have reflected very carefully on the debate on this subject in Committee and in particular the valuable remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Adeane. My impression at that stage, like the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, was that many noble Lords had sympathy with what he was saying. I wonder, however, whether the House will regard Amendment No. 149 as reflecting his wishes, judging by the tenor of the debate in Committee.

The amendments, as the noble Lord, Lord Adeane, pointed out, seem implicitly to be looking to how, rather than whether, the RCHM should be absorbed, and laying down the necessary mechanics and a timetable. I wonder really whether this is a direction in which the House wishes to go. I personally believe that it would be better to avoid a firm indication at the moment.

The amendments of my noble Lord Sandford are, of course, of a much gentler quality—if I may use that word. In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Adeane, made clear that the Royal Commission was very ready to co-operate from an independent position with the new commission. That seems to be a most helpful and constructive position on the part of the Royal Commission, for, on the scenario of a separate Royal Commission it indicates that there would naturally be the kind of discussions of the relationship for which these amendments offer statutory backing. Given that sort of goodwill, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, spoke well when he said in Committee that consultations and a proper working agreement can be reached over the lunch table and this will not be a situation for which legislation is really appropriate. I am sorry that I cannot be more constructive or helpful. Perhaps I should say that my right honourable friend the new Secretary of State is anxious to reach a view as quickly as possible; that he himself, as it were, had to start from scratch.

Baroness Birk

My Lords, after that Government reply, it is almost impossible to carry the discussion very much further. I very much went along with a great deal of what the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, said about this problem. I quite understand the Government deciding that they do not want to push the Royal Commission into a position where it is subsumed by the heritage commission, because one is royal, and I have not yet suggested calling the heritage commission the royal heritage commission and upgrading it to that extent. So there is a problem here. Speaking personally, I am not absolutely and irrevocably wedded to the amendment that I was moving. It was an amendment to try to get us out of the morass into which we had fallen, or the cul de sac down which we had gone, and to give us an enabling Bill. At the moment, although this is a pretty thin House, it is quite clear that is not finding much favour with anybody. However, I should have liked to hear from the Government—and this is the crux of the matter as regards the bodies and their work—whether there is a connection with the National Monuments Record. We have had no lead on how this could be worked out in order that they could still retain their own identity but with the work continuing. There is a great deal of concern that the access to the National Monuments Record may be cut off or it may not work, and it is a very practical point. I do not see it as a question of prestige or of trying to merge the Royal Commission into the new heritage commission, but more a question of how the actual work is to take place. This can be worked out.

Why should any upheaval be necessary at all? If the Government are setting up a new commission and bringing forward this Bill—and, as I understand it, to have very close links with the National Monuments Record is essential and an integral part of it—then the Government must come out of the closet over this and at least say how they feel, or produce some line of thought, or some way in which they think it could work out in practice, rather than just leaving it as it is and saying nothing, with us all going round in circles trying to find some way out of this. That will just continue and we shall get nowhere.

I hope that even tonight the Minister may be able to come down to the basic practical point which is causing all the anxiety of how there can be a link up —or will it be able to continue in its present form?—with the National Monuments Record.

The Earl of Avon

My Lords, by leave of the House, as I understand it, it would continue in its present form. Of course, I appreciate the concern of the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, and I actually had runners standing by right up to 10 o'clock this evening in case I could get a decision, but at the moment I do not have it. and until I do there is very little more I can add.

Baroness Birk

My Lords, in these circumstances, I think it would be quite wrong, even if it were feasible at this time of night, to press this amendment at all. At this stage I think we have to hand it back to the Government in order to try to start some sort of working relationship or have more talks, or to say, "You do not have to do anything about this at all; we have been able to make arrangements and to consult about this, and not put it on any statutory basis at all." I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

11.40 p.m.

Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal moved Amendment No. 150: After Clause 31, insert the following new clause:

("Powers of investment.

.—(1) The Commission may invest any monies it may receive by way of voluntary contributions towards its expenditures, profits from its trading activities, sponsorship or endowment of any of the properties in its ownership care or management in accordance with this section. (2) Any such sums shall be invested in accordance with the Trustee Investments Act 1961; and sections 1, 2. 5, 6, 12 and 13 of that Act shall have effect in relation to such sums, and in relation to any investments for the time being representing such sums, as if they constituted a Trust Fund and the Commissioners were the trustees of that fund.")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, at the Committee stage the noble Earl, Lord Avon, responded to Amendment No. 113E, but did not deal with what was to be done with voluntary contributions or any profits that the commission made on any of the operations it was engaged in. I am not clear whether the noble Earl said when dealing with Amendment No. 98, which seems 100 years ago but was four or five hours ago, that the commission already had these powers, or whether they would have them under provisions to be made in a new Finance Act.

In either case, following the thread which has gone through so much of this debate, we want to make the commission flexible and responsible, so surely they must have a power of investment. One thing is certain: nobody is going to give money to a commission which is simply going to put the money on deposit. Incidentally, I suppose that to put money on deposit is a form of investment, although in a rather restricted form. I hope that the noble Earl will be able to confirm that these powers either already exist or will exist. I beg to move.

The Earl of Avon

My Lords, the power of the commission in new Clause 30 to do such things as it considers necessary or expedient covers the question of voluntary contributions and also the receipt of donations. Voluntary contributions which will not count against the grant-in-aid are likely to be aimed at specific projects rather than given for general purposes, and to the extent that the commission receives other income that too will be expected to be used rather than saved. The establishment and use of a capital fund we are not encouraging in this case.

May I come on to investment. The commission will be able to invest without any formal provision. We would rather like to leave it with that sentence because if we put in any amendment along the lines of my noble friend's thinking we must be careful not to restrict the rather more general terms which I have just mentioned and which I shall repeat: the commission will be able to invest without any formal provision.

Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal

My Lords, that seems to be a wholly satisfactory state of affairs. I am grateful to the noble Earl. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Montagu of Beaulieu moved Amendment No. 151: After Clause 31, insert the following new clause:

("Additional grants for establishment, equipment, and provision of facilities

—the Secretary of State shall consult with the Commission and additionally pay such grants as may be necessary for the proper establishment and equipment of the Commission and for the reasonable improvement or provision of facilities for the public at monuments and buildings in its ownership care or management.")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I do not want to take up too much of the time of the House at this stage of the evening. I simply wish to try to get from the noble Earl an assurance that the new commission will start off with sufficient funds to establish itself in the early days. It will have problems of administration, of offices, and all sorts of other things, and one does not want it to start in a starving position from which it will not recover for many years. I understand that there is goodwill on the part of the Government to see that the commission does get off to a good start; nevertheless, I give this opportunity to the noble Earl to confirm that tonight.

The Earl of Avon

My Lords, I think I can give my noble friend that assurance. The powers of the Secretary of State to pay grant are, of course, covered in Clause 39. The Government have made it clear in The way Forward, and I emphasised in Committee, that the setting up and administrative costs of the commission will be met as a separate part of a grant-in-aid. The opportunity for improvements in presentation and facilities mentioned in the amendment is, of course, one of the underlying reasons for establishing the commission. When the commission have worked out what they wish to do, which inevitably must be a gradual process, these proposals and their costs will form an important part of successive annual grant negotiations. The Government do not intend to starve their creation of the resources to do the job, and I assure my noble friend that the points he made have been, and will continue to be, very much to the forefront of their mind.

Lord Montagu of Beaulieu

My Lords, with that encouraging reply to an important point, I am happy to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 32 [Dissolution of certain bodies]:

11.45 p.m.

Lord Sandford moved Amendment No. 152:

Page 18, line 5, at end insert— ("(3) the Secretary of State may by statutory instrument subject to an affirmative resolution of both Houses of Parliament make such arrangements for the future relationships of the Royal Commission on Historical Monuments (England) and the Commission for Ancient Monuments and Historic Buildings for England as may be necessary.")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, while I do not want to say much about the substance of the amendment, I must say that we cannot possibly leave the relationship between the new commission and the Royal Commission in the unsatisfactory state in which we find it. It seems that we have three alternatives to offer the Minister. One is for him to undertake to come back with the Government's thinking on this matter resolved by way of an amendment in time for Third Reading. The second alternative is for him to accept whichever amendment—No. 152 or No. 153—is acceptable to the House; and I think your Lordships would welcome the guidance of the chairman of the Royal Commission on those two, neither of which presupposes the demise of the Royal Commission. The third alternative, if neither of those is acceptable is the recommitment of this part of the Bill when the Government are ready with their conclusions. I hope the Minister can make a choice between those three alternatives.

Lord Adeane

My Lords, I do not have another speech to make, the House will be relieved to hear. I was absolutely delighted to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, said when we were discussing Amendment No. 149, when he spoke of the future of an informal consultation between the Royal Commission and the new commission, whenever it is ready to take on such consultation. The Royal Commission stand ready at any time to do that—over the luncheon table, over the breakfast table or over any table—and naturally, when some conclusion has been reached, we shall be ready for it to be published by the Government, by ourselves or by anybody else. Everything the noble Lord said on that could only give one great pleasure.

As for Amendments Nos. 152 and 153, on which the noble Lord was good enough to ask me to indicate the way ahead, I can only say that I find the same difficulty with this as he finds; this is something about which we have to look to the Government, and I hope that at some stage before the Bill leaves this House the noble Earl, Lord Avon, may be able to tell us what we have to do next. That is what we want to know.

The Earl of Perth

My Lords, I have listened to the debate on this series of amendments with great care and it seems to me that it is perhaps difficult for the Government to give their view until breakfast or lunch between the commission, when it has been established, and the Royal Commission has taken place. So I must confess that it seems to me that Amendment No. 153, which leaves everything open until after the famous meal has taken place, is probably the amendment that we should go for. It indicates that at a proper time, when the Secretary of State is satisfied that it is expedient to review the relationship, something may happen. But to expect an answer now would be wrong, and one should not press even the Government for it.

The Earl of Avon

My Lords, my noble friend gave me three options. Of course, I could accept any of them, but unfortunately they have to be accepted by my colleagues as well, so I must be careful. I think that the best I can say to my noble friend is that I shall of course undertake to make a statement on this subject on Third Reading, with an amendment, if appropriate. My noble friend mentioned his own amendments. Personally, I believe that they would both be a little short of the issue if we did so wish to include the Royal Commission: they would fall a little short of what we would want.

I am sorry that I cannot be more helpful to the House. I think that the noble Earl, Lord Perth, put his finger on the matter when he said that all the discussions that we are now having are being weighed up as well. They will be taken into account by my right honourable friend, and to that extent I am grateful to the House for discussing the matter in such detail at this very late hour. I shall do my best in order to make sure that something is before your Lordships at Third Reading.

Lord Sandford

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Adeane, and to my noble friend Lord Avon for their response to what I had to say on the two amendments. As the noble Earl, Lord Perth, has suggested, it is of course quite unreasonable to require the Government to say here and now what should be the future working relationships between the heritage commission and the Royal Commission. But neither of the amendments is asking for that. All that is asked for is a statement from the Government as to how they are going to handle in the Bill the relationships between the Royal Commission on the one hand and the heritage commission on the other, and any other bodies involved. That is all that either of the amendments seeks to do.

However, if I may say so, my noble friend has taken the first option that I offered him. I asked that he should give us an undertaking to make a statement setting out the Government's position by way of an amendment at Third Reading, and my understanding of his response was that he said he would do precisely that. If that is what he is going to do, I should be delighted to withdraw the amendment, and the third option, of having a recommitment of the Bill, remains available to us should we not find that the Government are able to be forthcoming when the time of the Third Reading is reached. So in all those circumstances I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 152.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 153 not moved.]

Schedule 5 [Minor and consequential amendments]:

11.53 p.m.

Lord Strabolgi

moved Amendment No. 154: Page 60, leave out lines 29 and 30. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 154, to which I spoke in Committee. I beg to move the amendment formally.

The Earl of Avon

My Lords, I listened to the arguments put forward in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, and in view of their inability at this time to make extensive revisions to Schedule 1 to the National Gallery and Tate Gallery Act, the Government recognise and accept the desirability of preserving the procedure of the 1954 Act. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, will understand that, while the Government accept his amendments in principle, I should prefer to allow the draftsman the opportunity to make any consequential revisions, particularly to Schedule 5. For this particular amendment that may seem rather hard work, but it is really because of Amendment No. 155, to which I am to make the same kind of response, that I feel that I should like the draftsman to have another look at the matter, so as to move our own Government amendment at the next stage.

Lord Strabolgi

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl, but I was moving only Amendment No. 154. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Strabolgi moved Amendment No. 155:

Page 60, line 32, at end insert— (" ( ) In Schedule 1 to the National Gallery and Tate Gallery Act 1954 (which lists Museums and other Institutions to which transfers may be made under sections 3 and 5 of that Act) there shall he added in the appropriate places;

• The Trustees of the British Museum (Natural History).
• The British Library Board.
• The Board of Trustees of the Armouries.")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 155, which seeks to add three institutions to Schedule 1 to the National Gallery and Tate Gallery Act 1954. At present transfers to the Schedule 1 list, with the addition of the Ulster Museum, which has been added by order, can be made by the National Gallery, in the case of gifts only, for which no special provision has been made under Section 3, and by the Tate Gallery trustees, who, under Section 5, have power to transfer any work of art vested in them.

There is some inconsistency between these two powers, and I hope that this will receive the attention of the Government. It would be an advantage, I suggest, to give the National Gallery the wider powers of transfer enjoyed by the Tate. At present, certain paintings from the National Gallery are on loan only, because they cannot be transferred. The National Portrait Gallery, for example, has on loan from the National Gallery over a hundred portrait drawings of prominent people from the first half of the last century. These are by a minor artist but are of great historical interest because of the people portrayed. The National Portrait Gallery has also on loan from the National Gallery 35 portrait miniatures which are of no interest, I understand, to the National Gallery and of no relevance to its collections. All these should be transferred. Both bodies of trustees want to do this but are prevented from doing so by present legislation.

Transfers cannot be made by the National Gallery or the Tate Gallery to the British Museum (Natural History) or to the British Library Board or to the board of trustees of the Armouries; although the Victoria and Albert Museum will be able to make transfers to these institutions under Clause 5(4) of this Bill, which attempts to bring the list up to date in a limited way, at least as far as the V and A is concerned. This is because the first two institutions were not in existence in 1954 and therefore did not appear in the schedule; and they have not since been added to the 1954 Act by order. They should have been; but for some reason they have not been added. My amendment seeks to remedy this.

In conclusion, I should like to pay a tribute, if I may, to Mr. Denis Mahon, the distinguished art historian, who is also a former trustee of the National Gallery. Mr. Mahon, working in an entirely voluntary and private capacity, has brought to light by most diligent research various anomalies and omissions in the relevant legislation. I am particularly indebted to him for much information and advice and for bringing these lacunae to our attention. I beg to move.

The Earl of Avon

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, for his introduction to this amendment. The Government are in sympathy with the objective of the noble Lord's amendment. However, we cannot accept his amendment outright because to do so would render otiose similar, though not identical, provisions in Clause 5(4), Clause 12(4) and Clause 16(4). If the noble Lord is content, the Government are happy to bring forward an amendment of their own for the purpose of this amendment and to make the consequential amendments. With that commitment, I hope that the noble Lord will be able to withdraw.

Lord Strabolgi

I am most grateful to the noble Earl and I look forward to the Government's amendment at the next stage of the Bill.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Earl of Avon moved Amendments Nos. 156 and 157:

Page 60, line 40, at end insert (", Kew")

Page 61, line 8, at end insert (". Kew")

The noble Earl said: If I may, I will move Amendments Nos. 156 and 157 together. My noble friend Lord Ferrers has already spoken to these. I beg to move.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Lord Strabolgi moved Amendment No. 158:

Page 61, line 8, at end insert—

("British Museum Act 1963 (c. 24)

( ) In section 9(1) to the British Museum Act 1963 (which allows transfers to other institutions) there shall be added at the end "the National Gallery Trustees, and the Tate Gallery Trustees".")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 158. This is another tidying-up amendment, to repair omissions in previous legislation. It is relevant, I suggest, to this Bill as it relates again to the National Gallery and Tate Gallery Act 1954, which is included in the Long Title. Section 9 of the British Museum Act 1963 allows transfers to any institution listed in the first schedule to the National Gallery and Tate Gallery Act; but the draftsmen forgot that the National Gallery and Tate Gallery are not listed in the schedule, for the reason that it is a schedule to an Act relating to these two institutions.

The Government of the day should have added the National Gallery and the Tate Gallery at the end of Section 9, to make the list complete. Somebody must have woken up to the omission when drafting the Museum of London Act 1965, since in Section 7 of that Act, dealing with transfers, the two institutions, the National Gallery and the Tate Gallery, have been included at the end of the section; and of course the same thing has been done in this Bill in Clause 5(4).

The effect of this oversight in the drafting of the British Museum Act means that the British Museum can transfer to any museum or other institution listed in the schedule except to the National Gallery and Tate Gallery themselves, which of course was not the intention of the 1963 Act. I beg to move.

The Earl of Avon

My Lords, indeed Lord Strabolgi's amendment on face value is very reasonable, and it is difficult to see, as he says, why the provisions in the British Museum Act 1963 do not permit transfers of objects to the National and Tate Galleries. However, before the Government feel that they can accept this amendment or consider it in principle, I should like to be sure that there is no underlying legal impediment which prevented the appropriate provisions from being included in the British Museum Act 1963. The noble Lord's amendment, as I understand it, would also extend the scope of the Bill, and possibly require an amendment to Long Title. Subject to these caveats, the Government would be prepared to bring forward an amendment of their own later on to achieve a similar effect. Perhaps the noble Lord would allow me to keep in touch with him as we progress in this particular matter.

Lord Strabolgi

My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Earl. I do not think that the Government need be inhibited about amending the Long Title. They have already amended it by inserting the word "Kew", and for that we are very grateful. In view of what the noble Earl has said, and the commitment that he has made, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Schedule 6 [Repeals]:

Lord Strabolgi moved Amendment No. 159: Page 61, line 17, column 3, leave out ("Section 3(4).")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is consequential on Amendment No. 154. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 160: Page 61, line 18, column 3, leave out ("In section 4, subsection (2).") and insert ("Section 4(2).")

The noble Earl said: My Lords, this amendment simply corrects a minor drafting inconsistency. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 34 [Commencement]:

[Amendment No. 161 not moved.]

Lord Jenkins of Putney

moved Amendment No. 162: Page 18, line 13, at end insert (" .but no order shall be made unless and until the staffs of the establishments to be affected by it shall by simple majority in a secret postal ballot have expressed their support for the issue of such an order. Subject to the foregoing an order may be made bringing into effect only those sections of this Act governing a specific establishment or establishments where staff support has been given.") The noble Lord said: My Lords, I may be out of order for a moment if I say that I regret that I was not in the Chamber this afternoon when Amendment No. 66 was moved, which I mistakenly thought was going to be taken at this stage in the proceedings rather than at an earlier stage. Consequently, that amendment was not moved. It is my hope that it will be picked up, either at a later stage in this House or possibly in another place.

If I may turn to the amendment which I wish particularly to press upon the Government, it is Amendment No. 162, rather than No. 161. I do so with some confidence that the Government will save me the necessity of pressing the matter at this late stage by accepting this amendment, which I think will be more in line with their general philosophy than Amendment No. 161, which is clearly just a delaying amendment. Amendment No. 162 is entirely in accordance with the Government's general philosophy in these matters.

The Government are very much addicted to secret ballots, and what this amendment seeks to do is to give the staff the opportunity to express their views on this fundamental change to their whole way of life and terms and conditions by means of a secret ballot. The Government's belief in secret ballots is in my view somewhat mistaken. I think that recent events have shown us that a secret ballot can have consequences other than those which the Government might imagine would flow from them. It is sometimes the case that the rank and file of a trade union are substantially more militant, intransigent, or whatever word one might care to use, than the negotiators, as I think is probably being found in the case of the water dispute.

So a secret ballot, to my mind, is not the be-all and end-all of everything but it is the Government's idea and therefore, as this amendment says that no order to bring the Act into being, shall be made unless and until the staffs of the establishments to be affected by it shall by simple majority in a secret postal ballot have expressed their support for the issue of such an order", it seems to me that the Government will have no difficulty in accepting the amendment. If it is right for the staff to express their view in a secret ballot before a strike takes place, if it is right for them to express their view in a secret ballot before they elect a trade union leader, surely it is right for them to express their view in a secret ballot before a fundamental change is made by an active order in the contractual terms of employment. They arc at the moment civil servants. They have not been fully consulted: the views of only the top layer of people in the museums and other establishments have been taken into consideration. It is true that the top layer, by and large, are in favour of these changes. This is not the case lower down the scale and it is by no means certain that the staff concerned arc in favour of these changes. It is my hope that the Government will see that it is right that their views should be consulted and that this fundamental change in their terms and conditions of employment shall not be imposed upon them until their views in the matter have been sought. I beg to move Amendment No. 162.

Lord Montagu of Beaulieu

My Lords, I find this a completely staggering amendment. Perhaps it is light relief at the end of a very long debate. It was my impression that our national museums belonged to the nation and were run for the nation by the staff. It appears from the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, that they are owned by the staff, who have to be consulted about every move that goes on. Perhaps the new security guard who comes in the day before the ballot is taken will know a great deal more about running museums than the director and his senior staff, who have all expressed the opinion that they would like these changes to he made. It really is so absurd that I am very surprised that it can be moved seriously.

Perhaps it is not being moved seriously; but from my consultations with the trade unions in these musems, they are content. I think the Government have gone out of their way to make quite sure that the staff conditions are right; and all this nonsense about their ceasing to be civil servants is absolutely absurd. However, I go back to my point: I was under the impression that these were national museums, to be run for the benefit of all our people and not run for the benefit of the staff, which unfortunately in the past has happened too much.

The Earl of Avon

My Lords, I think I have said to the House on a number of occasions, both now and at Committee stage, that there have been wide discussions with the staff and with the unions. Recently there have been some press reports. The Government have inquired into these and I should like to reassure the House that the claims of staff support for the petition appear to be unsubstantiated. The directors have held meetings with their staff and have been unable to trace the source of the petition. The staff have assured the directors of their support, given the undertaking that the Bill is based in broadly its present form, including staff safeguards. I can see no point in a secret ballot. The Government cannot accept the amendment as it stands, which would also effectively subjugate the wishes of Parliament. I am sure the noble Lord will not wish to press it.

Lord Jenkins of Putney

My Lords, I would be ready not to press the amendment if the noble Earl had felt able to be a little more forthcoming than he was in his answer. But it is the fact that many of the staffs of these museums will remain civil servants and there are considerable problems as to where the line shall be drawn at that level. Some of the staffs will remain civil servants and will be transferred to other branches of the Civil Service. There is no alternative given to the others: they are to be given an offer, and if they refuse that offer there is no alternative in the Bill as to what will be the result.

There is certainly provision for some sort of individual negotiation on dispute. If the noble Earl were able to say, without giving the staffs a veto on the position, that he will make sure that there would not be enforced upon the staff by Act of Parliament a breach in their contractual relationship with the Government, I think that would be sufficient for me not to press the matter, I hope the noble Earl will feel able to go that far.

The Earl of Avon

I do not think I can go quite that far. As the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, is well aware, we had some discussion on earlier amendments about the no-worsening situation, whereby civil servants at the museums can have a no-worsening clause built into their contracts, which as far as I know they themselves welcome, too.

Lord Jenkins of Putney

My Lords, having regard to that more specific assurance, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Earl of Avon

moved Amendment No. 163: In the Title, line 3, after ("Gardens") insert (",Kew,"). The noble Earl said: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Ferrers has already spoken to this. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

House adjourned at eleven minutes past midnight.