Lords Sitting of 12 February 1985

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

Overseas Aid
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government why since 1979 the proportion of GNP they devote to overseas aid has fallen to half the minimum figure of 0.7 per cent. recommended by the United Nations and whether they will increase the amount during the coming year to not less than the minimum recommended.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Young): My Lords, it has not been possible to exempt aid from the general need to control public expenditure. At 0.35 per cent. of GNP our aid performance was close to the average for all Western donors. Progress towards the 0.7 per cent. target will depend upon developments in the economy and other claims on resources.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, the Government have for years said that the economy is recovering; so why is aid not being included in their success? Instead of that the proportion of GNP going towards aid is declining compared with that in countries such as the Netherlands and France, which have reached the United Nations target. Can the Government not do better than this?
Baroness Young: My Lords, our recent performance has been very close to the OECD donor average. It is true that of the major donors we are below France and Germany, but we are ahead of the United States, Japan and Italy.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, does the noble Baroness the Minister agree with her colleague Lord Belstead, who on 23rd May last year told the House that British overseas aid was directly linked to British overseas trade? If she agrees with the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, is it not obvious that a reduction in aid such as the Government have executed over these five years leads to a direct reduction in British overseas trade, thereby damaging the British economy and increasing unemployment?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I am not prepared to comment on a quotation from my noble friend Lord Belstead of which I have not had notice, and I do not have the entire statement in front of me. I should like to say to the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, that there is some benefit to trade from aid and we believe in supporting British industry where we can in our aid projects.
Lord Oram: My Lords, when the Minister says that Britain is close to other European donors, does she not mean that we are close to those who are at the bottom? Do not the figures from the Development Assistance Committee of OECD reveal that whereas during the 1970s we were well placed compared with other European donors, last year we were bottom? It may be that we have crept just above Italy, but we are very much at the bottom of the league table.
Baroness Young: No, my Lords; in absolute terms we have the fifth largest programme and, within the European Community, the third largest.
Lord Bauer: My Lords, should not the scale of our aid programme depend on its efficacy, the needs of third world people, and the conduct of recipient governments, rather than on a completely arbitrary figure plucked from the air several decades ago?
Baroness Young: My Lords, there may be a lot of truth in what my noble friend Lord Bauer says in his supplementary question, but I suspect that that point would be better dealt with in a general debate. As it is, the Question relates to a target which has been established by the United Nations.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, can the noble Baroness explain why the Government advocate the topping-up of IDA and at the same time seem to be against the World Bank programme?
Baroness Young: My Lords, the issue of the World Bank facility is another question. The noble Lord's noble friend Lord Oram has down a Question on that subject for Thursday, when I will try to answer it.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree at least with the thesis that aid is connected with trade? Will she answer the second part of my first supplementary question as to whether the reduction in overseas aid does not necessarily mean that there will therefore be a reduction in British overseas trade?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I am not prepared to follow that line of reasoning propounded by the noble Lord, Lord Hatch. As I indicated in my earlier answer to him, I can say that we are committed to the United Nations' target, but, like the previous Government, we are not yet prepared to set a date for achieving it.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, I must ask the noble Baroness not to be dismissive of my question and not to refer me to some other Question on Thursday. My question is perfectly relevant to the Question on the Order Paper and I again ask her to answer it. Why do the Government favour IDA, but not the World Bank programme? Will she be good enough to answer that now, please?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I did not mean any discourtesy to the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn. There is a Question down on the Order Paper for Thursday concerning the World Bank special facility. If I may say so, the IDA facility is too wide of the present Question.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, will the noble Baroness be good enough to address her mind to this point? Since the Government's aid is apparently severely limited, why do they direct so much of it to countries such as Turkey, which has an appalling record on human rights, but which nonetheless has received £20 million in aid over the last two years? The Foreign Secretary is apparently having talks there at the moment. Does he intend to raise the question of human rights while he is in Ankara?
Baroness Young: My Lords, the whole matter of my right honourable friend's visit to Turkey is quite wide of the Question; but as a matter of fact about two-thirds of our bilateral aid goes to sub-Saharan Africa and the Indian sub-continent, and £26 million has been allocated in aid to Ethiopia.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, I should like to have a little clarification, if I may, on this point. In giving aid do the Government pay any consideration to the human rights records of the countries in receipt of it? That is the point I am trying to make. Turkey's record is very bad.
Baroness Young: My Lords, the Government's position on the violation of human rights is quite clear. We have deplored such violations wherever they have occurred.

UNESCO Programmes: Participation
2.44 p.m.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government how, if they leave UNESCO, they propose to continue to participate in the four major international scientific programmes under its auspices and the six major international non-governmental organisations which it subsidises.
Baroness Young: My Lords, the possibilities for participation by non-members of UNESCO in the four programmes will become clearer when the Executive Board considers the implication of the United States withdrawal later this week. Participation in the non-governmental organisations should not be affected if we ceased to be a member of UNESCO.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, does this mean, in effect, that we shall be able to benefit from knowledge of the United States' mistake, if mistake it turns out to be?
Baroness Young: My Lords, our preliminary view as to the effect on the scientific programmes of withdrawal from UNESCO is that it should be possible to continue to participate in two of the four major international scientific programmes, the International Oceanographic Commission and the International Geological Co-operation Programme, but that it would not be possible to continue to be directly involved in the International Hydrological Programme and the Intergovernmental Programme, Man and the Biosphere.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, can my noble friend say whether, since the United States left nearly a year ago and since we gave notice that we might wish to leave, UNESCO has mended its ways? Has it got fewer bureaucrats employed in Paris? Is it less highly politicised than it was? Is there a sign that we may reconsider our position, or are we now intending to leave?
Baroness Young: My Lords, the position of our Government is that we have given notice of withdrawal which, unless rescinded, will become effective on 31st December 1985. As regards my noble friend's first supplementary, the reforms within UNESCO are still being considered by that organisation.
Lord Oram: My Lords, is it not one of the major and perhaps most justifiable criticisms of UNESCO that, as the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, has just said, it is top-heavy and a preponderance of its expenditure is on its headquarters in Paris? On the other hand, is it not the case that the scientific programmes to which the Question on the Order Paper refers include a large number of very useful projects in the field? Therefore, would it not be a tragedy if that work in the field, rather than in Paris, was brought to an end? Can the Minister assure the House that in the remaining months of this year the Government will give careful reconsideration to their announcement of withdrawal from UNESCO, and, instead of meekly following the Americans in this matter, will make every effort to ensure the continuance of the good parts of the work of UNESCO?
Baroness Young: My Lords, the Government's view of UNESCO was set out in a letter from my right honourable friend the Minister for Overseas Development as long ago as April 1984, and the reasons set out include the fact that there is excessive centralisation of management.
With regard to the Government's consideration of withdrawal, before taking the decision to give notice we in fact consulted the interested bodies, including the Natural Sciences Advisory Committee of the United Kingdom National Commission for UNESCO, the Royal Society and Government departments.

Ministry of Defence: Civilian Manpower
2.48 p.m.
Lord Sandys: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government by what number civilian manpower has been reduced in the Ministry of Defence since May 1979 and what further reductions are planned between now and 1988.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces (Lord Trefgarne): My Lords, from 1st May 1979 to 2nd January this year Ministry of Defence civilian manpower was reduced by 76,000. Further reductions of some 8,000 are planned by 1988.
Lord Sandys: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that informative reply. Can he tell us how the reductions have been achieved?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, these reductions have been achieved by a combination of improving efficiency, privatisation, contracting out and dropping or curtailing functions.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, could the noble Lord say how far this is a genuine reduction in defence manpower? Has he any figures for the number of people now classified as civilians who are in fact doing the same work as they did when employed by the Ministry of Defence?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, all the people I have referred to were, and so far as I know continue to be, classified as civilians, although it is true to say that some of the personnel involved are now working for other organisations doing the same work.
Lord Boston of Faversham: My Lords, can the Minister put these figures into a little better perspective, perhaps, by saying what proportion of the total manpower of the Ministry of Defence they comprise?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the total number of civilians remaining on 2nd January, which was the second date I gave in the original Answer, including locally engaged civilians overseas, was 207,560.

Trident: Costs
2.50 p.m.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will appoint a specialist committee to examine, and report on, the costs of the Trident nuclear deterrent system.
Lord Trefgarne: No, my Lords. The Select Committee on Defence of another place and the Public Accounts Committee already have the power to examine the Trident programme, including its costs, and both have done so recently.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, may I thank the noble Lord the Minister for that not surprising Answer? Is he aware that if there had been a specialist committee it would probably have revealed, as people in all parties now agree, that the Trident programme could be the most appalling waste of public money in this century; that it would cause a grave hindrance to the development of British conventional forces, and that it could in the end prove to be a dent in the NATO defence? Will he therefore consider his Answer and go back to the Secretary of State and ask whether this should at least be looked at?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Lord takes that view. Needless to say, I profoundly disagree with him.
Lord Boston of Faversham: My Lords, does the noble Lord the Minister agree that it is time that a more accurate figure was given for the cost of Trident, and that Her Majesty's Government should no longer go on stating the cost as though the exchange rate of the pound was still 1.38 dollars? Is it not the case that a growing body of opinion, including expert and service opinion, hopes that this project will be cancelled because of the way that it is preventing us from making a much more effective conventional contribution?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am afraid that the noble Lord is mistaken in imagining that this will have some dramatic effect upon our conventional capability, because the cost in comparative terms is apparently fairly small. As I ventured to indicate the other day when we discussed this matter, all we could actually acquire for this sum of money is, for example, a very small number of armoured divisions which, in comparison with the preponderance which already exists on the central front, would hardly make any difference.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, is it not true that in a static defence budget going into the future the increasing cost of Trident is bound to have a restricting effect on conventional weapons?
Lord Trefgarne: No, my Lords, I do not think that is true at all. It is not necessarily the case that the cost of Trident is going to increase, as the noble Lord suggests. The noble Lord, Lord Boston, asked me for an accurate prediction of the cost. If the noble Lord can give me a precise indication of what the exchange rate will be in five or six years' time, I shall be happy to do that.
Lord Boston of Faversham: My Lords, that will not do, if I may say so to the noble Lord. Is it not the case that a very simple arithmetical calculation could be made immediately by bearing in mind that the exchange rate is no longer 1.38 dollars to the pound but is, at the moment, approximately 1.10 to the pound?
Lord Trefgarne: Yes, my Lords. But the bulk of the expenditure is not being met at the moment. The bulk of the expenditure will not be met for some years yet. If the noble Lord can tell me what the exchange rate will be at that time, I shall be happy to do the arithmetic for him.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, does the noble Lord recall statements in this House and elsewhere that Trident would not take more than 3 per cent. of the defence budget over a procurement period of 15 years? How does this square with the recent statement that it would take 3 per cent. of the defence budget over a procurement period of 20 years? Is he not aware that this is, for practical purposes, an increase in the percentage of the defence budget taken by Trident?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am afraid that the noble Lord is mistaken. We have never said that the procurement period for Trident—certainly not Trident II—was 15 years, although we at one time

107
indicated that that would be the procurement period for Trident I. We are now embarked upon Trident II, as the noble Lord will be aware, and we have always maintained that the procurement period for that system would be about 18 years.
Lord Molloy: But, my Lords, is the noble Lord not aware that over the past four years the cost of Trident has almost doubled, and that we are very far away from the peak period? Is he further aware that the Moscow criterion (as that yardstick is so called) is now completely ruled out by everybody who has a great interest and knowledge in the defence of this nation, because Polaris will do exactly the same thing? Is the noble Lord aware that there are two real dangers in continuing this programme? That is why a committee should be set up to examine it: it could damage the British economy and it could dent the NATO shield. Is that not a serious situation?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am afraid that the noble Lord made a number of mistakes in that supplementary question. First, it is not the case that Polaris will continue to be an effective weapon system into the distant future. By the mid-1990s or thereabouts, the effectiveness of Polaris will be declining sharply, particularly because the submarines on which they are carried will be wearing out. In any event, it is not the case either that the cost of the Trident II programme has materially increased over the period that the noble Lord suggests. In real terms it has not increased; on the contrary, it has rather declined.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that we understand that he must support the Government's current position on this matter; but how long does he think it will take the Government on this occasion to come over to the view—which I think they will eventually—that the Opposition's opinion about this matter is right?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, on the contrary, I anticipate converting the noble Lord to my view.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, may the House just get this matter clear? Did the noble Lord say that the real cost of Trident estimated ahead has, over a certain period in the recent past, declined?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I was saying that a number of savings have been effected at various points in the development of the Trident system. If the noble Lord would like me to let him have details, I shall be happy to do that.

Business
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 this afernoon my noble friend Lord Caithness will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on University Hospital, Wales. This will be followed by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor who will, again with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement on the decision to prosecute Mr. Ponting.
Bath City Council Bill [H.L.]
Read a second time, and committed to an Unopposed Bill Committee.
British Railways (Trowse Bridge) Bill [H.L.]
Read a second time, and committed to an Unopposed Bill Committee.

Enduring Powers of Attorney Bill [H.L.]
2.57 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 1 [Enduring power of attorney to survive mental incapacity of donor]:
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone)The Lord Chancellor (Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone)moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, line 3, leave out ("while paragraph (b) above applies") and insert ("if and so long as paragraph (b) above operates to suspend the donee's authority to act under the power")
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I rise to move the first amendment standing in my name. This is a drafting amendment. It became apparent that it is possible to interpret Clause 1(1)(c) so that it confers protection on both attorneys and third parties acting in the period before registration, even if they have acted outside the limits imposed by Clause 1(1)(b) and Clause 1(2). This amendment makes it clear that the protection given by Section 5 of the Powers of Attorney Act 1971 extends only to those transactions where the attorney is acting within the limit prescribed by Clause 1(1)(b) and Clause 1(2). I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 2, line 12, at end insert—
("(3) Where the attorney purports to act as provided by subsection (2) above then, in favour of a person who deals with him without knowledge that the attorney is acting otherwise than in accordance with paragraph (a) or (b) of that subsection, the transaction between them shall be as valid as if the attorney were acting in accordance with paragraph (a) or (b).")
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, during the Committee stage of this Bill, I gave notice that I would bring forward further amendments that I considered necessary for the protection of third parties who deal with attorneys holding enduring powers, and this is the first of these amendments. As a matter of history, it was brought to our attention by the Bank of England.
When a third party deals with an attorney who holds an ordinary power of attorney—that is, a power of attorney other than an enduring power—he may rely upon the authority contained in the instrument, provided that the transaction is clearly within the bounds of that authority and that he does not have notice of any revocation of the power. This is the doctrine based on what is called ostensible authority.
Clause 1(2) gives the attorney power to deal with the donor's property after the donor has become mentally incapable but before the power has been registered, without the direction or authorisation of the Court of

109
Protection. But this authority to act is limited to action necessary to maintain the donor or his estate, or to maintain the attorney himself, or other persons, if the donor might have been expected to provide for the attorney or such other persons.
A third party who deals with the attorney during this period cannot rely upon the doctrine of ostensible authority; the attorney's authority will derive entirely from the statute once it is passed. After registration the third party may rely upon the face of the instrument and upon the protection given to both attorneys and third parties under Clause 9 and Schedule 2. But before registration of the power a third party dealing with the attorney would have to make extensive inquiries to assure himself that the attorney was in fact acting for the very limited purposes of Clause 1(2). This amendment relieves him of the necessity to make extensive inquiries; the attorney's confirmation that he is acting within the authority conferred on him by Clause 1(2) will suffice, unless of course the third party knows that this is not the case.
This protection is conferred on third parties only; the attorney will remain liable to the donor and to the donor's estate if he exceeds his authority under Clause 1(2). I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 2 [Characteristics of an enduring power]:
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 3, line 17, leave out ("he") and insert ("the donor").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the House will remember that this is a Bill, and a very useful Bill, which deals in the main with the question of those who have failing mental powers or who in some other way are disturbed and are unable to look after their business affairs. So, instead of going through the rather troublesome and expensive procedure—however helpful they always are—of going to the Court of Protection for the affairs of such a person to be administered, there is a possibility of the registration of an enduring power of attorney. That has safeguards written into the Bill, so that the person granting that enduring power is properly protected.
At Committee stage, having said that this amendment had the full support of the Law Society, I ventured to draw attention to the clause which deals with minors—may I say at once that the word is spelt "minor"—and it was therefore, from my point of view, an uncontroversial reference to minors. The point about it was that it is not an effective power and it cannot be registered as an enduring power unless both the person granting the power and the attorney execute the document. What appeared from the Bill was that the deed, the power of attorney, could be executed by the person who wanted to grant the power while the attorney was still a minor.
It might be months and it might be years before the time came when the person ceased to be a minor and then, and then only, would the power be effective because the person would then execute it, no longer as a minor but as an adult. That seemed to the Law Society, and if I may humbly say so, certainly to me, to be a most unfortunate state of affairs, with this power remaining in limbo, as it could do. Furthermore, it seemed to be an undesirable feature in regard
110
to the very powers we are talking about where we are dealing in the main possibly with elderly people and with people who have some kind of mental disturbance.
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor replied to the earlier amendment by saying, first, that he could not quite see the difficulty and that it might well be desirable for a minor to be appointed—a young child of the person concerned. Secondly, he was good enough to tell the Committee that he had referred the matter to the Law Commission and the Law Commission saw no objection to the wording of the Bill as it stood. I have had time to consider the reply of the noble and learned Lord to that amendment—incidentally, following that reply I withdrew the amendment at the Committee stage—and those advising me have expressed disappointment and, to some extent, surprise, at what the noble and learned Lord said. That is why I bring the matter before your Lordships again.
The reason that those advising me have expressed surprise is that they could not quite see that it was desirable that a donor should be able to appoint a minor attorney under a potentially enduring power even though the appointment was not to be effective unless the attorney executes the power, thereby conferring it and converting it to an enduring power until majority. The noble and learned Lord said, at column 439 of the Official Report for 17th December 1984:
"It may very well be in the donor's interest to appoint an attorney as young as possible, particularly if the power is not to come into force until many years later."
That ends the quotation, and as I have said, the noble and learned Lord stated that the matter had been referred to the Law Commission.
Having said that, it is possibly not very desirable, in my submission, that a minor should be considered in the majority of cases where we are dealing with people who are elderly and people who are suffering from mental disability. What amazes me is that the Law Commission should find that this clause is acceptable and that the amendment, presumably is not—and I have now had an opportunity to look at its report and in particular at paragraph 4.9. With your Lordships' leave, I shall quote from it:
"So far as minors are concerned,"—
says the Law Commission—
"we feel it would be unrealistic to expect them to undertake the responsibilities of managing the donor's property and affairs. Admittedly, the disability of minority might have been removed by the time the donor became incapable. On the other hand, many donors would be likely to grant EPAs at a time when, although capable, they were already starting to feel the need for assistance straightaway—not in a few years' time. In any event, however, we do not feel that the appointment of a minor attorney reflects reality. We would envisage that a donor appointing a family attorney would normally appoint a spouse or adult offspring".
That ends that part of the quotation.
If I may, I should like to give another short quotation:
"As with minority"—
this refers to bankruptcy—
"it might be the case that the disability would be cured by the time the donor lost capacity. Again as with minority, however, many donors would be relying heavily on the attorney from the moment the EPA was executed".

111
It seems, if I may say so, that the Law Commission was arguing the very point of my amendment. That is that the date of the minority or adulthood should obviously be the date of the execution of the deed, that that is the time when the deed should become effective and be capable of registration, and that there should not be this lacuna, this gap, as there might be with somebody, possibly mistakenly, appointing a person who is a minor aged about 15, with nothing happening until he reaches 18 years of age. I therefore beg to bring this amendment before your Lordships again. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am afraid I cannot give the noble Lord who has brought this amendment forward again a very different answer from that which he received on the last occasion. I am sorry to disappoint him in this way, but the arguments are the same and the views of the parties, including, for what it is worth, myself, also remain the same.
I do not think that the quotations from the Law Commission add anything to the argument as it was then presented. There may be reasons why a donor in fear of his own supervening incapacity wishes to appoint as his enduring attorney a person who at the moment of the appointment is a minor. What is clear is that under the Bill as it stands he will not achieve that object unless the proposed enduring attorney executes after the end of his minority. The Law Commission and, for that matter, those advising me—and I myself—see no reason why in some cases this should not be both permissible and useful. There will, of course, be many cases where it is neither useful nor effective, but that is not a reason for rejecting the right in the donor to make that particular arrangement in cases where it is appropriate.
I drew the attention of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, on the previous occasion to what I assumed to be an unintentional danger in the amendment. It allows the possibility of a bankrupt attorney to represent the donor, which on any view is unattractive and unacceptable. The reason is that the amendment as drafted allows the possibility of a bankrupt attorney to represent the donor because the proposed attorney could be solvent when the donor executes the instrument but bankrupt when executing it himself. The matter has been referred back to the Law Commission, as I said, and it agrees with the text of the Bill as drafted. I am sorry that I cannot take the argument any further. It is clearly a difference of opinion between us and I do not want to say anything discourteous to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, who never says anything discourteous to me.
Lord Mishcon: And, my Lords, would not on this occasion, either. I think the argument has been brought before your Lordships, and it was right that it should be. If the noble and learned Lord will forgive me, I still see a great defect, especially in regard to this special power of attorney and the special circumstances, in having a gap of this nature between the date of the execution of the power of attorney, when there is a minor involved, and his attaining his majority.
112
I repeat: I have put the argument before the House, the noble and learned Lord has resisted that argument, and all that I ought to do now is very respectfully to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.15 p.m.
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 3, line 25, leave out from ("successor") to end of line and insert ("shall only be valid as an enduring power so long as the attorney originally appointed by the donor himself acts as such attorney.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, here again I am bringing forward an amendment that I brought forward at Committee stage. I can be rather more brief on this occasion. At present the Bill provides that if an attorney, under the power of attorney, seeks to delegate because he has the power to do so—or, if I may put it more clearly than that, if the power of attorney contains a clause which enables the attorney to delegate—then it is an invalid power from the point of view of the Enduring Powers of Attorney Bill.
On the last occasion I submitted, and I submit again, that it is a very heavy step indeed to make a power completely invalid, especially one which is drawn in the circumstances that the Bill seeks to cover, merely because there is a clause in a deed and even though that clause is never invoked. Therefore, what I tried to say in my amendment at Committee stage was that it should become invalid only if the attorney attempts to exercise that power.
The noble and learned Lord had a very logical answer, as one would expect, to my amendment, and that logical answer was, first, that it was objectionable to have such a clause in, and, secondly, that if my amendment were carried, however desirable it might be, it could be ineffective in certain cases because no one who was in authority would know that the attorney had delegated his power. That was the main thrust of the noble and learned Lord's argument, except that he also brought in the fact that a third party would not know of the effect of the attorney's passing over of the administration, or some part of it, to someone else to whom he had delegated authority.
I have looked at those disadvantages very carefully indeed, but to me—and I again respectfully say that this is also the view of the Law Society—all those disadvantages, if added together (and they are rather hypothetical), do not equal the grave disadvantage of the automatic cessation of a power of attorney given in these circumstances, the automatic invalidity of that power, so that nobody could set it right—no action for rectification, no application to the court, as I understand it, could put it right. The power of attorney that this man or woman thought he had given at a time which was a very trying one in their lives is gone merely because there is a clause in it.
I therefore ask the House to reconsider this, as, indeed, I hope courteously, I ask the noble and learned Lord to reconsider the arguments he put forward on the last occasion having regard to the great disadvantage this provision might have. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, again I am afraid we are in disagreement with one another. The subsection sought to be amended is line 25 of page 3, which provides that:
"A power of attorney which gives the attorney a right to appoint a substitute or successor cannot he an enduring power."
The noble Lord, I think inadvertently, slightly misrepresented the effect of his amendment. The effect is to delete from the word "successor" to the end of the line, and insert:
"shall only be valid as an enduring power so long as the attorney originally appointed by the donor himself acts as such attorney."
The argument is still unacceptable. In addition, parliamentary counsel is concerned that the effect of the amendment would be to interfere with the registration of instruments during those periods when a substitute was acting. It also defeats the intention behind the scheme that the attorney's powers and responsibilities should be apparent from the face of the document, as should registration.
At Committee stage I drew the attention of your Lordships to the possible dangers inherent in this amendment. I have not changed my view. Indeed, a provision which purports to rely on an attorney to appoint a substitute calls into doubt the whole registration scheme. Third parties would be in difficulties if presented with a substitute attorney, and there would be the question whether registration applied to an instrument during the period when the substitute acted. Moreover, it should be clear from the face of the instrument who the attorney is, and whether or not it is registered, and the amendment runs contrary to that important principle.
I therefore must ask the House to continue in the adherence to the Bill as drafted. Again I am sorry, but we do not agree about this. I had the advantage of the support of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, in Committee. I hope he has not changed his mind either.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I too have read with customary respect what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, said on the last occasion, and I was bold enough to think that 1 had not made myself sufficiently clear in my amendment, and therefore in moving my amendment, but that if I did so on this occasion, having made myself more clear, I might have his support and not his opposition. But it does not seem that my optimism was justified.
I still feel, if I may put it in one sentence, that a provision in the Act showing that this was a clause that could not be invoked would be a sufficient notice to all parties concerned, and that means of course very particularly the attorney, and that ought to be the proper sanction. Indeed, the invalidity ought to occur only if the attorney did what I have said in my amendment, which would make the power of attorney invalid.
Once again I have brought the arguments before the House. I think that they should have been brought before the House, and, having heard the answer of the noble and learned Lord, with some dismay I nevertheless ask the leave of the House to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 4 [Ditties of attorney in event of actual or impending incapacity of donor]:
Lord Denning Lord Denning moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 5, line 8, leave out subsection (7).
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this is an amendment which was put forward by my noble and learned friend Lord Elwyn-Jones and the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, on the last occasion. It raises a point of nice legislative draftsmanship. Let me tell you how it arises. Under the old law, if a man gave a power of attorney, that was good, but it failed altogether if he became mentally incapacitated.
The object of this Bill is to give an enduring power of attorney, so that if he becomes incapacitated it still goes on and the attorney can act under it. But there is this qualification. He has to apply to register this power of attorney and it becomes valid and operative once it is registered. The Law Commission saw that some unscrupulous or dishonest attorneys might register it wrongly. They might put in false statements in the application for registration, and for that reason the commission suggested that it should be a criminal offence for an attorney in his application for registration to put in something which he knew to be false. Clause 4(7) as it stands states:
"Any person who, in application for registration, makes a statement which he knows to be false in a material particular shall be liable",
to certain punishment.
My point is this. This kind of false statement in any document which is authorised or required by a public Act of Parliament, is already dealt with by a general public Act of Parliament; namely, Section 5(b) of the Perjury Act 1911. All such false statements and such documents as this are already covered by Section 5(b) of the Perjury Act 1911, and that ought not to be duplicated in a small Act like this dealing with another matter. Section 5(b) of the Perjury Act 1911 reads:
"If any person knowingly and wilfully makes (otherwise than on oath) a statement false in a material particular, and that statement is made [in] a report, return, or other document which he is authorised or required to make … by any public general Act of Parliament for the time being in force, he shall be guilty of a misdemeanour".
That section already covers this kind of application for registration because it is a document which the attorney is authorised or required to make by public Act of Parliament. I suggest that it is wrong draftsmanship to put in this separate little clause here. But further may I say, to take an illustration, that if you make a false statement in your income tax return there is not a special section dealing with the income tax Acts to deal with it. It has to be dealt with under that Perjury Act of 1911. Indeed a case has been before the courts, the case of The King v. Bradbury in 1921. So if there is a false statement like this in an official document you proceed under Section 5(b) of the 1911 Act, and it is therefore a mistake to have a special small section in this particular Act when it is already covered.
However, there is an even more important point. In the Perjury Act the words are:
"knowingly and wilfully makes".
The words, "wilfully makes" bring in, according to the cases, a guilty mind. It has to be done dishonestly.

115
That has been brought out in many cases already in the courts. The word "wilfully" means it has to be dishonest; otherwise it might be innocent, and under Clause 4(7) as we have now got it that word "wilfully" is omitted. I could go through all the cases, but there are many of them. This statement might be made innocently. A person might describe in his application of registration somebody as a wife when she was really a woman living with him. I suggest that either this clause be amended as it stands by bringing in the word "wilfully", which covers the word "dishonestly", which the Law Commission recommended, or, much better, that this matter should not be a separate clause but should be left to the general Act which covers all these false statements made in official documents. I beg to move.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, the House will have noted what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, said—namely, that on the last occasion this was an amendment which I moved and which he graciously supported. I am waiting to see the tactical effect of having removed my name from the amendment on this occasion and seeing alone the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning. I think it is going to work miracles!
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, has again placed before us the same amendment. He still has only one reason that I have been able to discern for his support of the amendment, even though he, rather than the formidable team on the Opposition Front Bench, has now gone into bat first. It is, that the matter is already covered by Section 5(b) of the Perjury Act, and this would really clutter up the statute with an unnecessary offence. Naturally enough, faced by such an abnormally distinguished battery of legal talent, I have done a little homework since, and I find that the noble and learned Lord is not likely to be entirely right.
3.30 p.m.
To begin with, as to the reference to the tax return the offence is not caused by the Perjury Act but by Taxes Management Act 1970. But I took the trouble to look up Archbold under Section 5 of the Perjury Act. I think that the noble and learned Lord might be interested to see what the editor of the Forty-First Edition says about Section 5(b) of the Perjury Act 1911. He said:
"It seems probable that this section will eventually be replaced by a more comprehensive provision, embracing all false statements made on oath otherwise than in judicial proceedings in a statutory declaration or in any oral or written statement required or authorised by or under or in pursuance of an Act of Parliament".
Then comes this pregnant sentence:
"The form in which Section 5 is cast"—
that is to say, the present form on which the noble and learned Lord relies—
"has led to subsequent proliferation of statutory offences of making false statements".
I am advised that the statute book in fact has a number of such false statement offences, including the one in the Bill as drafted, precisely because of the criticism of Section 5(b) to which the learned editor has drawn
116
attention. I am told that one such example is Section 38(2) of the Restrictive Trade Practices Act, paragraphs (a) and (b) of which would, on the noble and learned Lord's assumption, be covered by Section 5(b) of the Perjury Act.
Parliamentary counsel also puts forward this argument, of which I was again previously unaware when I resisted the amendment before. There was in the passage from Archbold to which I drew the noble and learned Lord's attention and that of the House this possibility—that documents initiating legal proceedings might be excluded from the Perjury Act altogether; and he refers to a case which I am sorry to say I have not verified called In re F (Publication), which is reported in 1976, 3 Weekly Law Reports, page 307. It shows that the word "proceedings" included applications however informal. The class of documents set out in Section 5(b) of the Perjury Act is very wide but includes no documents which initiate legal proceedings. In the case of a criminal offence, the statute might be strictly construed, and on this basis Section 5(b) might be held not to include the application for registration under the Bill.
Like my noble and learned friend Lord Denning, I do not wish to see the statute book cluttered up with unnecessary prohibitions, but if I accept this amendment there is a distinct possibility that a dishonest attorney who makes a false statement in an application for registration under this Act will be able to get away with it with impunity, and this of course would not be acceptable either to my noble and learned friend or to myself. I am faced with choosing the lesser of two evils. I prefer therefore to retain the subsection so as to be certain that a dishonest attorney will not escape the sanctions of the criminal law.
I hope that with this explanation I have satisfied the House that, although Section 5(b) of the Perjury Act seems to be very wide, there are serious doubts as to whether it is appropriate to rely on it for the purposes of this Enduring Powers of Attorney Bill any more than in some of the other sections where the parliamentary draftsman in relation to other enactments has thought it right to introduce a special offence.
I am hound to add this, though this is, I think, an argument of less weight because it comes from myself. I should prefer actually not to use a steamhammer—namely, the Perjury Act—to deal with the particular offence which is dealt with under this rather modest little law reform measure which I am proposing.
Lord Denning: My Lords, I was aware of the passage in Archbold. I would suggest that the Perjury Act 1911 ought to be revised and reconsidered as suggested in Archbold. But in the circumstances, if this offence is going to be just for this particular thing, let it be there, and I will not press the amendment.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am obliged to my noble and learned friend.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, do I understand from my noble friends that the Statement is now ready?
Baroness Trumpington: No, my Lords.
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 6:
After Clause 8, insert the following new clause:
("Tux returns.
. Notwithstanding the provisions of section 72 of the Taxes Management Act 1972 when an instrument has been registered under section 6 of this Act the Inland Revenue shall recognise the attorney acting pursuant to such instrument as the duly authorised representative of the donor for the purpose of signing any tax returns.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is the third occasion on which I rise. Although the previous amendment did not carry with it the miracle for which I hoped, this one may have a happier connotation. On the last occasion I raised the point in my amendment that the statutory provision was that a taxpayer had to sign his returns himself and make himself responsible for them. Having regard especially to what was said by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, about tax returns, one can imagine the sense of that provision. The Revenue obviously wants to be able to go for somebody who signs a document if it is alleging that there was a misstatement in the return.
The Revenue exercises a certain amount of discretion where, for example, a taxpayer is ill or for a similar reason somebody signs the tax return on his behalf. I brought to the attention of the Committee of your Lordships' House on this Bill the position that obviously one ought not to have to rely on the discretion of the Revenue, and that in a case where the enduring power of attorney had been registered with all the safeguards, the attorney ought obviously to have the right and the power to sign a tax return on behalf of the person who had granted what had now become the enduring power of attorney.
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said that he saw some sense in that amendment and that he would consider the position and possibly discuss it with the Revenue authorities. He was gracious enough to write to me in certain terms, but I think that it is much more suitable that I merely move the amendment at this stage, and possibly the House will hear what he has to say. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord for raising this question again. Indeed, I think that it was I who suggested in correspondence between us that it would be fair to do so. I rise really only to confirm what he has said and to tell the House, as I think the House is entitled to be told, that the Revenue has agreed to help in encouraging the establishment and use of enduring powers of attorney by so modifying its normal practice as to allow the acceptance of tax returns submitted on behalf of a donor by an attorney holding a registered enduring power.
However, it is important that attorneys appreciate that accuracy when completing returns is essential, and the Revenue will retain its existing powers to ensure accurate completion of payment at the due time. Moreover, Clause 8(4)(g) of the Bill provides that an unsuitable attorney may be removed, and in such circumstances the power will be revoked.
I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, for raising this matter again because it enables me to inform the House of what has passed between me and the Revenue and between me and the noble Lord.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I am sure the House will be gratified to hear of this communication from the Revenue. I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord for having procured it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 9 [Protection of attorney and third persons where power invalid or revoked]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 10, line 6, leave out ("power came into operation") and insert ("instrument was registered").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 7, which is in my name, deals with the protection of purchasers who purchase from the original third party to a transaction with the attorney. Under Clause 9(4)(a) of the Bill as it stands, purchasers who deal with such third parties are protected if the original transaction between the attorney and third party took place within 12 months of the date when the power came into operation. However, Clause 9 operates in circumstances where valid powers of attorney were never created at all. It therefore can be said that the power never did come into operation. It is therefore necessary to substitute another date. The most obvious and easiest to ascertain is the date of registration, because this will be apparent from the face of the instrument. It is with that object in mind that I rise to move this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 10, line 12, at end insert—
("( ) For the purposes of section 5 of the Powers of Attorney Act 1971 (protection of attorney and third persons where action is taken under the power of attorney in ignorance of its having been revoked) in its application to an enduring power the revocation of which by the donor is by virtue of section 7(1)(a) above invalid unless and until confirmed by the court under section 8(3) above, knowledge of the confirmation of the revocation is, but knowledge of the unconfirmed revocation is not, knowledge of the revocation of the power,").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I now reach the end of my pilgramage on this particular journey. It will ensure the protection of innocent attorneys and third parties. Clause 7(1)(a) of the Bill requires a revocation of an enduring power to be confirmed by the Court of Protection before it is valid. It could be argued that an attorney who receives a revocation of his power is thereby put on notice of a possible defect in his authority and should stay any transactions until the court has decided whether or not to confirm the revocation. A similar argument could apply to a third party who has notice of a purported but unconfirmed revocation of the power.
But, alas, if the donor's mental incapacity is such that he seeks, possibly even seeks frequently, to revoke the power, then the attorney—and any third party dealing with him—would be in an intolerable position if he had to wait each time for the court's decision before completing the relevant transaction. This amendment makes it clear that neither the attorney nor a third party has to take any notice of the purported revocation unless and until it is confirmed by the court. I beg to move this amendment.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, before the pilgrimage is finally terminated, may I indicate that my silence shows no disapproval—on the contrary, support—of this Bill which is still enduring.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, as Saint Thomas More said on a famous occasion,
"qui tacet consentire videtur".
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, that translated into Welsh means, "Diolch yn fawr". Thank you very much.
On Question, amendment agreed to.

University Hospital of Wales
3.44 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall repeat a Statement about the University Hospital of Wales which is now being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a Statement in view of a number of wild allegations that have been published on the subject of the defects at the University Hospital of Wales known as the Heath Hospital.
"The hospital was planned in the 1950s by the Board of Governors of the United Cardiff Hospitals. Messrs. S. W. Milburn and Partners were appointed architects and Messrs. W. S. Atkins and Partners engineers in 1961. F. G. Minter & Sons Ltd. were appointed principal contractors for the main works in 1966.
"The hospital was constructed between 1966 and 1972. Some faults, mainly arising from work carried out in the period 1966–1969, began to become apparent in December 1973, when the first piece of mosaic tile became detached, and in 1974. In the meantime the hospital had been handed over to the Welsh Hospital Board in October 1970 and became the responsibility of the new South Glamorgan Area Health Authority on reorganisation in 1974. The rights and liabilities of the Welsh Hospital Board passed to the Welsh Health Technical Services Organisation (WHTSO) at the same time. The architect signed the final certificate in November 1975.
"The issue of this certificate was an event of crucial significance as it precluded claims against the contractors in contract or in tort in respect of defects patent at the time. At that stage, WHTSO took no specific steps to protect its legal position and that of the taxpayer against the contractors, the architects, or any other party. Counsel notes that the AHA and WHTSO had become much concerned with the state of the concrete by 1976. In February 1977 a general property survey of the Heath complex by the South Glamorgan Health Authority also led to concern at the condition of the mosaic cladding. WHTSO commissioned Ove Arup & Partners to carry out a survey. While that report was awaited the only legal action that was in hand was the
120
defence by WHTSO of a claim by F. G. Minter Ltd. and subcontractors Drake & Scull Ltd. who were seeking to recover finance charges under the terms of their building agreements. Consideration was given to the inclusion of the mosaic defects as a counter-claim against Minters' finance charges claim, but counsel advised in July 1977 that such a counter-claim could not be sustained. Under the traditional conventions which have been strictly observed I have no means of knowing what consideration my predecessors gave to the problem of the Heath; but I have been informed that no other legal action was taken prior to 1979 to protect the interests of the taxpayer.
"Ove Arup's first report was received in November 1978, and having reported defects in the concrete during the course of their mosaic study they were further commissioned to carry out remedial and survey work on the concrete. The full extent of the mosaic defects having now been clearly identified, WHTSO commissioned Bickerdike Allen Partners in January 1979 to advise them on the specification, supervision and execution of mosaic and related works. Their first report in April 1979 was addressed to these matters.
"This report identified for the first time a possible claim against the architects (S. W. Milburn Partnership). The first reference to counsel was on 12th July 1979 when, among other matters, the question of limitations was considered. Following that meeting with counsel Bickerdike Allen prepared a further report which was received in November 1979 and was concerned with responsibilities and liabilities. Meanwhile, counsel had been instructed in October to settle a draft writ and statement of claim against the Milburn Partnership, and in the instruction to counsel the need for urgency was emphasised. Counsel settled notices of arbitration and an endorsement for the writ by telex on 17th December 1979 and the writ was issued the same day.
"Allegations have been made that the writ was out of time. The limitation period for a claim in contract was and is 12 years and the writ was clearly in time in this respect. The limitation period for a claim in negligence was and is six years. At the time of issue of the writ this six-year period was regarded as running from the date when damage was discovered or was reasonably discoverable by the plaintiff: and on this basis the writ was in time for the claim in negligence also. The Pirelli decision of December 1982 moved the commencement of the six-year period back in time from the date of occurrence of damage, regardless of the date of discovery, and on that basis the claim in negligence would have failed if it had been pursued.
"I turn now to the outcome of the legal action, details of which were given on 6th February in an answer to my honourable friend, the Member for Cardiff Central. I shall deal with the allegation that there has been some kind of cover-up and the suggestion that in settling the action at about £300,000 the taxpayer has been negligently left with a liability for work costing £4 million—or, as is further alleged, as much as £8 million. The total cost of remedial works is £4 million of which about £2·8 million was attributable to structural defects other

121
than the mosaic cladding. The department's Accounting Officer reported to the PAC as long ago as 14th November 1983 counsel's advice that legal action about this should not be pursued. He had previously been cross-examined in some detail about this matter by the PAC on 17th March 1982.
"The settlement that was finally reached on the mosaics will be reflected in the summary of losses and compensation that forms part of the summary accounts of health authorities that are published every year as a House of Commons paper, and it was always the position that the department's accounting officer would provide the PAC with any further information that it requires. There has therefore been no cover-up, nor indeed could there have been. But, in view of the outrageous statements that have been made on this subject in recent weeks, I have made available to the House, and my Permanent Secretary has passed to the PAC, a very great deal of material both about the settlement and about the events of the years that preceded it.
"I turn now to the relationship between the Secretary of State and WHTSO. WHTSO is a special health authority established under the NHS Acts. It is a body corporate with separate legal indentity; and it is entitled in the conduct of litigation to act,
'in all respects as if it were acting as a principal'
It is not required to seek my approval to settlements of legal actions in which it may be engaged. It is perfectly normal for WHTSO and other health authorities to engage in litigation and to reach settlements without reference to Ministers but, given the public and parliamentary interest in this particular case and the particular terms of the non-disclosure clause, I think it would have been better had I personally been informed, particularly since one of my officials was a member of the WHTSO board. I regret that this was not done; and I am sure that in these exceptional circumstances I was right immediately to arrange that the fullest information should be given to Parliament.
"I will now deal with the suggestion that the cost of putting right the defects at the University Hospital of Wales may amount to as much as £8 million. As my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary said in answer to a Question on 1st February this year, the total cost of the remedial work is expected to amount to a little under £4 million. Of this, £2.7 million has already been carried out and the remainder will be completed during the next two years. Once again, the accounting officer has already given evidence on this matter to the PAC and the information was also given to the House in a parliamentary Answer on 19th April 1982. A joint working party of the Welsh Office, WHTSO and the health authority agreed on the works that were necessary and did not accept all the recommendations of the Ove Arup report.
"I regret that the honourable Member for Pontypool who has been responsible for most of the wilder allegations made did not at any stage communicate with me or attempt to check the facts with my department.
"I have had to answer this afternoon for events
122
involving a hospital conceived in the 1940s, planned in the 1950s, largely built in the 1960s before I entered the House and completed under a previous Conservative Government. I have had to report on the absence of any protective legal measures during the whole period of the last Labour Government, on the outcome of complex legal actions that were initiated very soon after we came into Government and on measures to repair the damage that will be a burden on the health service for several years to come. I will accept such responsibility as is mine. I trust that others will accept theirs as well".
My Lords, that concludes my right honourable friend's Statement.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, this Statement really discloses an outrageous state of affairs. It in no way allays one's anxieties about the events and about the role of WHTSO—the Welsh Health Technical Services Organisation. But we note that at least the Secretary of State accepts that the chapter of mistakes will place a burden on the health service for several years to come and that he also acknowledges that he accepts such responsibility as is his.
The Statement clarifies one or two issues. We now know that WHTSO and the area health authority became concerned with the state of the concrete at the hospital in 1976 and with the condition of the mosaic cladding by February 1977. But 20 months went by before WHTSO obtained expert professional advice from the well-known firm of Ove Arup and Partners. We have not seen that report. But does it not indicate that there were possible grounds for a breach of contract action or grounds for an action in negligence? Another eight months go by before counsel is asked to advise. So the writ is issued, eventually, in respect of the defective cladding, claiming about £1 million; and because the writ was issued out of time, it is settled for £300,000.
However, is it not true that if a writ had been issued in time, there would also have been a claim for £2·8 million in respect of the other defective works at the hospital? I should be grateful if the Minister would confirm my understanding of the position that a writ was issued in respect of defective cladding, claiming £1 million, and settled for £300,000 and that there are other defective works that will cost £2·8 million to remedy, but that no writs have been issued in respect of the other defective works.
There is also concern in the Principality that the settlement agreement was confidential to the parties, who were prohibited from publishing its provisions. There is considerable concern that the Secretary of State for Wales was kept in ignorance of this secret deal. I consider the Statement to be unsatisfactory where it deals with the relationship between WHTSO and the Secretary of State. Very well; I accept that it is a body corporate with separate legal identity and that in the conduct of litigation it is entitled to act in all respects as if acting as a principal. But is it not true that WHTSO is also an agent of the Secretary of State for Wales? Indeed, the Secretary of State for Wales appoints one of the directors of the WHTSO board from among the officials at the Welsh Office. The Statement is totally silent about the role of this representative at WHTSO board meetings.

123
I understand that, at the relevant time, there were three Welsh Office officials as members of the WHTSO board. What line did they take when the recommendation came before the WHTSO board that there be a settlement for £300,000? Did they report back to the Secretary of State? Indeed, were the terms of the proposed deal discussed in a conference of Welsh Office officials? Was there discussion in a joint conference of Welsh Office officials and WHTSO officials? We are left with a decision taken somewhere or other within the Welsh Office that the agreement should not land on the desk of the Welsh Secretary of State, that he should be shielded from this agreement. If that is so, we fear that the Welsh Office officials were, if I may say so, Mr. Pontings in reverse.
In the light of this costly experience which, in the words of the Minister, has placed on the NHS in Wales what will be a heavy burden for several years to come, we want to know what measures are being taken at WHTSO and the Welsh Office—WHTSO was looking to the legal department of the Welsh Office for advice—to ensure that writs are issued in time and to ensure, too, that a substantial claim against a third party will not be settled by WHTSO, will not be abandoned by WHTSO, without the Secretary of State for Wales being given an opportunity to object to the terms of the settlement or the abandonment of the claim.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, does the noble Earl appreciate that the Statement today, and the response that it has evoked, make a formidable case for devolution? Does not the lamentable state of affairs disclosed by the long Statement add up to this, shed of its verbiage: that the taxpayer has to find over £4 million for the results of the incompetence and neglect in the building of a new hospital, and that the story revealed by the Statement shows that there was incomplete control, negligence in issuing of writs, failure to call in specialist advisers, and so on?
In the end, it comes to this: there has been a writ issued and damages of £300,000, obtained by means of a settlement, which was not even referred to the Secretary of State. The important question for the House to consider is this: has WHTSO learnt its lesson? I ask that because there are reports reaching me that there are serious defects at the Royal Gwent Hospital and at the Gwynedd Hospital in North Wales, which have been built subsequent to this hospital, and a lamentable state of affairs is disclosed. What does the Secretary of State intend to do about it?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I think that there are still a number of misconceptions in the minds of the two noble Lords who have responded to the Statement for the opposition parties. I should like to deal first with these two matters. The first is the question of the writ being out of time. The writ was not out of time. At the time the writ for negligence was issued the law was that it had to be done within six years of the date the damage was notified. The writ was put in by counsel within that six-year period. In regard to the other writ—that is, the one which can be issued
124
within 12 years—of course there was no question of its being out of the time limit if it could have been issued on counsel's opinion.
The second point on which I think there is a misconception in the minds of the noble Lords is that the problems faced by this hospital are unique to this building. This was a very bad period of building. I remember it well. I was being taught building at the time, and every day there seemed to be new ideas for stressed concrete or mosaic tiles which were going to solve the problems of builders. It was a bad design period. It was a very bad period of building in this country. Not only hospitals, but also office blocks and factories throughout the country are paying the price if they were built in that time. One of the reasons that the settlement was £300,000 rather than the £1 million or thereabouts claimed was that counsel's advice was that the mosaics were doomed, anyway. This was not known at the time the mosaics were used in construction, but it was found that it was going to be a defective building material and that in future there were going to be problems over the use of this building material. Therefore it could have applied not only to this hospital, but also to many other buildings which used it; in fact, it has applied to many other buildings.
Turning now to the question of confidentiality, I would point out that this was suggested by counsel for S. W. Milburn, as the solicitors, when they submitted the draft, claimed it contained a confidentiality clause. This was not resisted, but was amended by WHTSO to provide for the disclosure of information to the Welsh Office and, in confidence, to the PAC. This was a judgment made by WHTSO in order to obtain the best possible settlement. The value of such a clause was clearly limited, since it could not prevent the Public Accounts Committee from publishing it, if it so chose. When we are considering confidentiality clauses we have to take into account that a benefit of a confidentiality clause is that it enables the settling party to secure the best deal for the taxpayer. There was certainly not any negligence in issuing writs. All the necessary writs were issued, and advice was taken on counsel's opinion. They were submitted within the time limits.
As I have said, this problem, which has now raised its head again under this Government, stretches back to the previous Labour Government who were in power when the final certificate—that is the crucial date—was issued in 1975. That is the crucial point, as was said in the Statement. They were in power then, and I cannot tell the House what action they took at that time.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, although the next business has been called, I should like to make this response to the noble Earl. The Statement—
The Lord President of the Council (Viscount Whitelaw): My Lords, I apologise, but, with all respect to the noble Lord, I think that he really was out of time, unless there was something very important to pursue. I think he really was out of time, and I feel that I ought to stand by the rules of the House. I apologise to him.

National Heritage (Scotland) Bill
4.6 p.m.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Gray of Contin): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
This is an important Bill, which continues the measures in support of the national heritage which this Government have already taken in the National Heritage Acts 1980 and 1983. As your Lordships will recall, the latter of those measures established independent boards of trustees for a number of national institutions in England, including the Victoria and Albert and Science Museums. The present Bill extends that principle to the national museums and the Royal Botanic Garden in Scotland. It also makes a number of amendments to the statutes for the national galleries of Scotland, the National Library of Scotland and the Scottish Record Office.
In the forefront of the Bill—in Clause 1, in fact—is the creation of a new hoard of trustees for the national museums of Scotland. This follows the precedents I have mentioned, hut in the case of the Scottish national museums it breaks new ground as well and prepares the way for a major new initiative. The Bill provides for a new board to manage jointly two of the present Scottish national institutions—the Royal Scottish Museum and the National Museum of Antiquities of Scotland, together with their outstations. It goes on to provide a framework within which the new board will be able to operate. The framework is intended to be a broad one, within which the board will have a large degree of flexibility, but consistent of course with its pursuing the general functions which the Bill lays down for it, and with its remaining fully accountable to Parliament for the use of the resources which will be made available to it.
The setting up of the new board will allow a change of status for the Royal Scottish Museum and the board will be able to take forward the concept of a Museum of Scotland. This concept has aroused immense interest since it was first mooted in 1981 and it represents our major debt to the Williams Committee—the committee under Sir Alwyn Williams, principal and vice-chancellor of Glasgow University—which was asked to review all the national museums and galleries of Scotland and the report of which was published that year. The noble Earl, Lord Perth, was of course a valued member of that committee and he initiated a most helpful debate on the report in your Lordships' House in January 1982. Subsequently, in July 1982, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland indicated the Government's support for the concept of a Museum of Scotland, and, after full consultations with all the relevant interests, he announced in December 1983 that, in furtherance of that concept, he would as soon as possible set up one board of trustees to manage the two national museums. Finally, in April 1984 he appointed a Museums Advisory Board to advise him on how the Museum of Scotland was to be promoted within the new structure.
The Museums Advisory Board, which is under the chairmanship of the noble Marquess, Lord Bute, will later this year be offering recommendations on exactly what steps might be taken to take the Museum of
126
Scotland concept forward, but central to it are of course the collections of the National Museum of Antiquities. This museum has a long and distinguished history, having been established more than 200 years ago on the basis of collections formed by the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland. The museum has of course since the 1890s been housed in the building in Queen Street, Edinburgh, which it still shares with the Scottish National Portrait Gallery. There has for many years been general agreement that this building is now inadequate to accommodate the range of services associated with a modern museum and to permit the sort of displays the visiting public expects of a national museum.
Three years ago the museum was able to take over premises in the adjacent York Buildings which had been adapted for its requirements from a previous role as Government offices. These additional premises have gone some way to meet the requirements of displaying its fine collections. But it will undoubtedly be an important part of the remit of the new board to ensure that those collections are in due course able to be much better appreciated by the visiting public as well as by scholars and researchers. We believe that the framework established by this Bill will help them to do so. In anticipation of the developments to come, we have indicated that from 1985–86 an extra £330,000 (an increase of approximately 13 per cent.) will be available for the staffing and administrative costs of the national museums. This should enable the new board to make a good start in its important work.
Part I of the Bill covers the national museums, and I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to one or two points of particular interest. Clause 1 of the Bill establishes the new board of trustees. The title chosen for it is the Board of Trustees of the National Museums of Scotland. This title has deliberately been chosen on the recommendation of the Museums Advisory Board to reflect the broad terms of reference within which the trustees will need to operate. It will also parallel the title given to the Board of Trustees of the National Galleries of Scotland. No decisions have yet been taken on whether, and if so which, individual titles may be applied to particular parts of the new museums complex. We will be looking initially to the Museums Advisory Board for recommendations here.
The detailed provisions for the operation of the new board are contained in Part I of Schedule 1 to the Bill covering its status, organisation and procedures and the employment of its staff. I do not propose to deal with these matters in any great detail today. As now drafted (and after amendment in another place) they fully embody the assurances which we have given in consultations with the trade unions of both museums and will ensure that staff will be offered employment by the new board on terms no less favourable than those which currently apply to them.
Clauses 2 and 3 of the Bill set out the general functions and powers of the new board. In general these, too, follow the precedent of the 1983 Act. However, in Clause 2(1)(d) we have written in a specific reference to the board's powers to collaborate with other institutions in promoting the public's awareness and understanding of particular matters with which it is concerned. This reference was included in response to the strong support expressed in

127
another place about the value of the continuing role which the national museums play in relation to other non-national museums in Scotland. The clause as now drafted explicitly confirms what was implicit in the Bill from the outset: that the board may in furtherance of its policies collaborate widely, including with such institutions as the National Trust for Scotland. The exact nature of that collaboration will be for the board itself to decide.
Throughout consideration of this Bill the Government have attached importance to maintaining the historic links between the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland and the national museums—links which, I am sure, noble Lords will agree give the society a unique claim to recognition. Amendments to the Bill in the society's interest were made in another place. We had hoped that these amendments would have allayed any remaining concern. We have received representations, however, that the Bill needs further amendment to clarify the relationship of the society and the new board of trustees. Having discussed the position with my right honourable friend I can now announce that I shall introduce a Government amendment at Committee stage to deal with this remaining problem.
Part II of the Bill establishes a board of trustees to manage the Royal Botanic Garden in Edinburgh. In general, Clauses 9 to 14 follow the pattern of those for the national museums, with details of the board's operations and its accountability to Parliament set out in Part II of Schedule 1.
I recently had the pleasure of visiting the garden at Edinburgh, which dates back to 1670 and is therefore the second oldest botanic garden in Britain after Oxford. I was greatly impressed by the variety and depth of skills and activities which the garden encompasses, and which are reflected in the board's functions as described in Clause 10. This work continues at the outstations in Wigtownshire, Peeblesshire and Argyllshire, and of course overseas, where the garden has a unique reputation for its research and education.
Like nature itself, the garden's activities are constantly evolving. For example, it is now assuming the management of Inverleith House. We believe that the garden will operate more flexibly and effectively under the broader scientific and managerial oversight available from trustees. They will be able to take responsibility for the garden's budget and plan the use of their resources accordingly. The establishment of such a board has been generally welcomed in consultation and during debate on the Bill in another place, and I commend Part II to your Lordships as constituting an appropriate statutory base for the garden's future development.
I will now turn, a little more briefly, to the remaining issues covered by the Bill. It makes a number of amendments to the statutes governing three of our other great Scottish institutions: the National Galleries of Scotland, the National Library of Scotland and the Scottish Record Office. In each case we believe that the institutions are functioning well and we wish to do as little as possible to disturb their smooth operation.
128
In the case of the National Galleries of Scotland, what we are doing is providing a sounder statutory framework than presently exists for the continued operations of the galleries under their own independent board of trustees. The galleries have had an independent board since 1906, but in the intervening years the scope of the collections has very greatly expanded and with them the staff, resources and so on needed to care for them and display them.
The Williams Committee, in its report, recommended that, in recognition of this growth in their responsibilities, the size of the galleries' board should be increased. We have provided for that in the Bill, increasing the present fixed seven-member board to one which may have between seven and 12 members. At the same time we have taken the opportunity to bring the galleries Act more nearly into line with those which govern other such institutions. The galleries have expressed themselves in general content with these provisions.
Clause 17 deals with the National Library of Scotland. Here, too, we are making some amendments to the existing statute—in this case the National Library of Scotland Act 1925. Here, the amendments required to bring the Act into line with modern practice are relatively minor and principally consist of changes to the constitution of the trustees board itself. They reflect changes brought about by local government reorganisation and the growth in the number of Scottish universities. Here too the Bill has the general support of the library's trustees.
Clause 18 of the Bill introduces three amendments to the Public Records (Scotland) Act 1937. One of these allows for the appointment of an outside chairman of the Scottish Records Advisory Council: at present the chairman is the Keeper of the Records of Scotland ex officio. The other amendments give some additional powers to the keeper in relation to records held in the Scottish Record Office.
Most of the remainder of the Bill covers miscellaneous matters common to the principal institutions with which it deals. The exception is Clause 21, which will provide statutory powers for the payment of grants to bodies which:
"promote the development or understanding of cultural or scientific matters".
This power is required for a straightforward and specific purpose to give proper statutory authority for the grants which have for a number of years been paid to the Scottish Museums Council and the Royal Society of Edinburgh under the authority of the Appropriation Acts.
I said in my opening remarks that we regard this Bill as an important measure. We are fortunate in possessing in Scotland a number of fine national institutions which, in general terms, operate successfully with minimum interference from Government. We believe that to be a good pattern and one which this Bill will help to strengthen. It is particularly relevant in the case of the National Museums of Scotland which stand to benefit considerably from the measures this Bill provides. The collections in their care are fine ones by any standards and the increased influence which the new board of trustees will be able to command in managing an organisation which can

129
draw on the best traditions of both the existing institutions should ensure that they can face the future with increased confidence.
I look forward to the speeches this afternoon since I know how close an interest many of your Lordships pay to matters which concern our national heritage. I commend the Bill to the House. My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Gray of Contin.)

Mr. Clive Ponting
4.24 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I understand that this would be a convenient moment for the Statement to be repeated, and, if so, I shall now do so.
With the permission of the House, I shall repeat a Statement which has now been made by my right honourable and learned friend the Attorney-General in another place. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a Statement on my decision to prosecute Mr. Ponting. On 13th August 1984 certain facts were drawn to the attention of the Director of Public Prosecutions by the Ministry of Defence. In my absence the Director of Public Prosecutions consulted my honourable and learned friend the Solicitor-General the same day. On 16th August 1984 a report by the Ministry of Defence Police was sent to the Director of Public Prosecutions. My honourable and learned friend"—
that is of course the Solicitor-General—
"and the Director of Public Prosecutions considered that report on 17th August and both formed the view that this was a serious breach of duty and trust by a senior civil servant. They decided to consult me and I was telephoned on the same day. The facts as reported by the Director of Public Prosecutions were explained to me. The nature of the documents which had been communicated was described and I was told that the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Solicitor-General advised a prosecution. Having considered the facts myself I too decided that the case fell within my published guidelines and that there should be a prosecution.
Neither I nor the Solicitor-General nor any of my officials sought the view of or consulted any other Minister, nor was the view of any other Minister conveyed to us before the decision was taken."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement by my right honourable and learned friend.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for repeating the Statement of the learned Attorney-General in another place. Perhaps it is too early to hold an inquest on the Ponting case, with its vivid illustration of the independence of the jury in this country. But the case does give rise to many questions which call for an early answer.
One is the nature of the duties owed by Ministers and civil servants to Parliament itself. Another is the
130
question as to how long Section 2 of the Official Secrets Act should still be relied upon in prosecutions. In particular, why on earth was it relied upon in the Ponting case? First, the prosecution conceded in that case that no disclosure of information relating to security matters arose in the case at all. Secondly, none of the documents that were disclosed to the Member of Parliament by the civil servant was even classified at any material time. In those circumstances, why were Section 2 proceedings brought?
The discredited Section 2 of the Official Secrets Act has not been used for a very long time in cases with no security implication. Why was it dug up in this case? Has a change of policy been made by the present Administration in desperate response to a series of leaks? Was it intended as a process to bring civil servants to heel?
In the light of the outcome of the case, may we at least express the hope and indeed assume that no Section 2 proceedings will again be brought in cases with no element of risk to the national security? Better still, is it not now high time to introduce, in place of Section 2, a code of the kind which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor referred to in 1979 in introducing the Protection of Official Information Bill at that time, when he said:
"The object of this Bill is to get rid of Section 2 of the Official Secrets Act 1911 and to substitute a code which is more liberal, more intelligible, and even capable of enforcement"?—[Official Report, 5/ l 1/79; col. 608.]
Is it not high time that that change was made?
Lord Wigoder: My Lords, I have no doubt that all my noble friends on the Alliance Benches will have welcomed the verdict that was reached in the case yesterday. Having said that, may I make two observations that may not perhaps meet with the unanimous approval of all those who have been welcoming that verdict? First, I can see no reason why Mr. Ponting should be elevated to be some form of folk hero. There are many of us who want to see the abolition of Section 2 of the Official Secrets Act, or at any rate its drastic reform, who at the same time recognise that there is a place for the concepts of confidentiality and loyalty both in the Civil Service and throughout industry as well. What we query is the wisdom of seeking to enforce those concepts by means of the clumsy machinery of the criminal law.
Secondly, it would also be wrong to seek to paint the trial judge as the villian of the proceedings. It would be presumptuous of me to attempt to comment on the correctness of the trial judge's ruling as to the law; but I hope that I can be allowed to say that in all the Section 2 cases in which I have been involved I would have anticipated a direction of precisely that sort, and I venture to doubt whether if there had been a conviction yesterday much change would have been secured out of the Court of Appeal or your Lordships' House in due course.
Having said that, and perhaps because of the fact that it may well be that the judge's direction was correct yesterday, I would ask the noble and learned Lord whether that does not in fact underline the unhappiness of the decision to prosecute in this case. Not because of the result yesterday—that in a sense speaks for itself—but because had there been a

131
conviction yesterday the result would have been equally unhappy, in that a very large number of members of the public would have regarded the proceedings as contrary to all their sense of justice.
That underlines, too, does it not, the observation of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn -Jones, about the crucial role of the jury in this case? The noble and learned Lord will agree, I am sure, that one of the essential roles a jury plays is its right to act according to its common sense and according to its sense of justice irrespective of the state of the law as it is no doubt correctly explained to them. Perhaps that demonstration of that desirable role which the jury performed yesterday will be borne in mind by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Roskill, whose committee is at the moment inquiring into whether juries should be retained in long fraud cases.
One other matter arises in relation to the jury in yesterday's case. I do not know, of course, what took place in that part of the proceedings which took place in camera. I find it difficult to imagine that there could have been anything in the nature of the evidence, anything in the so-called "crown jewels papers", which warranted the Attorney-General in embarking upon the cumbersome and prejudicial procedure of jury vetting. I hope that that procedure will only be embarked upon in very rare cases in future.
Finally I should like to support what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, said about the miserable Section 2. I think it is now 12 or 13 years since my noble friend Lord Hutchinson of Lullington and I were in a case which finished with the trial judge saying that it was time that Section 2 was pensioned off. That was 12 or 13 years ago, and it is now too late to pension it off. It is, I believe, dead. I hope that the noble and learned Lord will be able to give us an assurance that it is now regarded as such, and that he will see that steps are taken to ensure that that section is repealed and replaced by something which is more in keeping with the demands of our time.
4.30 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord and the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, thanked me for repeating the Statement. I must say I was in some doubt as to whether constitutionally I ought to do so. I thought it had been established beyond doubt that when an Attorney-General instituted proceedings for any offence whatever he was acting in his official capacity—sometimes called quasi judicial, but, I think, unfortunately—as a Law Officer and that the Government had no responsibility.
He is liable to be interrogated in the House of Commons. This is clearly the constitutional practice. But I, speaking in your Lordships' House, have to speak on behalf of the Government. I therefore have grave doubts and reservations as to how much I ought to say in answer to noble Lords who have so far spoken, owing to the fact that they asked questions which were clearly outside the ambit of the Attorney-General's Statement, which was, if noble Lords will recollect, confined to the question as to why he instituted prosecution proceedings in a particular case —a matter upon which I can, as a member of the
132
Government, offer no further explanation than has been forthcoming from him. I should be disloyal both to him and to the constitution if I attempted to do so.
Having said that, perhaps I should say that it is of course quite true that ever since 1911 Section 2 of the Official Secrets Act—which was passed by a Liberal Government, and shows some of the love of verbiage for which certain Liberals are famous—has been under attack. It existed unaltered during the reign of about 15 Prime Ministers and 25 Home Secretaries, including the reign as Attorney-General of the noble and learned Lord who in his remarks so firmly asked for its abolition and replacement.
I had the privilege—if that is what it should be called—in 1979 (and I would not have mentioned it but for the fact that the noble and learned Lord mentioned it first) of introducing the Protection of Official Information Bill, which was going to do exactly what the noble and learned Lord now asks should be done. Unfortunately, like many law reforms of value, it was obstructed in your Lordships' House and had to be withdrawn. It was not obstructed by the members of the Government Benches, so that I do not know that anyone really comes very well out of that.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, may I ask the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack speaking as a member of the Government whether it is not the case that the evidence presented in the Ponting trial by both prosecution and defence, setting apart the verdict entirely, establishes the fact that Ministers of the Crown have deceived both Parliament and public in their account of the circumstances of the sinking of the Argentinian cruiser "Belgrano"?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I thought I had made it clear so that even the noble Lord would understand that the Statement related to the question of why prosecutions were instituted. If he thinks he is going to divert me into the King Charles's head of the sinking of the "Belgrano'', he is greatly mistaken. I am not such a fool as that.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord would be able to help us to reach a judgment on the merits of the prosecution if he could tell us whether Mr. Ponting had the courage to tell any Minister, or his Civil Service superior, what he intended to do with those documents, or did he merely let suspicion fall on other civil servants?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I think I can understand what has led my noble friend to ask that question. But I think I must pursue a policy of strict consistency in this matter. We are not dealing with the merits of the Ponting case but with why proceedings were instituted.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, within the strict ambit of the Statement, does this not give the impression of a decision taken in haste? In August, as I understand the Statement, a discussion took place between the Director of Public Prosecutions and the learned Solicitor-General. A communication was made to the learned Attorney-General, who, I understand, was then on holiday in France, and a decision was taken by him in France to proceed.

133
What was the haste? I think it was the noble and learned Lord, Lord Devlin, who said:
"Each jury is a little parliament, and the jury sense is the parliamentary sense."
In the light of the fact that it was so important constitutionally so far as the Government were concerned if there was an adverse verdict, what was the haste? Why was it necessary to take the decision when the learned Attorney-General was on holiday?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I do not go along with the noble Lord at all. The Statement shows that the case was very carefully considered in the light of a report from the Ministry of Defence police by the Solicitor-General and the Director of Public Prosecutions in consultation with one another. Of course since the Attorney-General's personal consent was required anyhow in a case of this importance—and I think explicitly, if my memory does not deceive me, under Section 2 of the Official Secrets Act—they communicated their advice to him with the material upon which they had arrived at it. I think that my right honourable and learned friend was positively entitled to rely upon that material in giving his authorisation as he said he did.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, in response to what the noble and learned Lord has said, may I make it clear—because perhaps his cheerful observations did not do so—that there is no opposition from this side of the House to the Protection of Official Information Bill. Discontent about Section 2 has gone on for a long time; I suffered under it myself as Attorney-General. Now, in the light of this experience in this trial, is it not an urgent necessity to get rid of the wretched thing and to put something more liberal and more effective in its place?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am concerned to reply only in relation to the Statement of my right honourable and learned friend. The obervations of the noble and learned Lord will obviously reach the ears of my right honourable friend the Home Secretary.
I remember the difficulties experienced by the noble and learned Lord when I was Opposition spokesman for the Home Office. I tried to help him all I could in the difficulties in which he then was, but I noticed that no satisfactory substitute for Section 2 emanated either from him or from his colleague in the Home Office, or rather the succession of colleagues at the Home Office at that time.
I am not sure that I can go much further than to say that changes in the criminal law are a matter for the Home Office. I agree with some of the remarks made from the Liberal Bench—that an impartial and loyal Civil Service is just as important a part of our constitution as is an impartial, loyal and upright Judiciary.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, although in the instant case the Cabinet had no part in the institution of these proceedings, as indeed it very rarely, almost never, does these days, I hope that it will not be accepted that the Cabinet is never entitled to have a hand in the institution of prosecutions. At the time of the Campbell case in 1924 Cyril Asquith, who was
134
subsequently a Member of your Lordships' House, pointed out that it was unthinkable that the Liberal Government before the Great War should have had no say in whether the leaders of the Ulster Party were or were not prosecuted for sedition—a decision on which the whole future of Ireland might depend.
So I hope that my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack will be able to assure your Lordships that, quite apart from questions of Ministerial collective responsibility, there might well be cases where the Cabinet is entitled to intervene, so long as it does so openly.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am grateful that my noble and learned friend on the Cross-Benches (who has the additional experience of having held a Law Officership under the Crown) should have raised this question. It was clearly established in the aftermath of the Campbell case that it was utterly unconstitutional for the Cabinet to attempt to intervene or to give directions either to prosecute or not to prosecute, or even to give instructions to the Attorney-General. I hope that any Government likely to occupy a responsible position in this country will adhere to that clear decision given at that time, which was followed by the Labour Government when Sir Hartley Shawcross, as he then was, made an important statement about the role of the Attorney-General during that Labour Government.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, I should be the last in this House to attribute foolishness to the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack. But as he has refused, as he is so entitled, to answer my question, and as I am quite sure that he is just as anxious as the rest of us to preserve the important principle of honesty between Ministers and Parliament and the public, can he advise me whether there will be another opportunity when and another Statement on which the conduct of Ministers, as revealed by this trial, will be open to questions by Members of Parliament?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, it is no part of my duties to advise the noble Lord.
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, it is a part of my duties so to do and I suggest to the noble Lord that there are many ways in which he may raise this matter; but now is not the occasion for one of them.
Lord Jacques: My Lords, before we close this matter will the noble and learned Lord, as a member of the Government, give us an assurance that there will be another occasion when we can ask more pertinent questions?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, it is not for me to give assurances of that kind; it is for my noble friend the Lord President of the Council.
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, I think that I have made it clear to the House that there are occasions when such matters can be raised. I think the noble Lord will have heard what I said, and I stand by it.

National Heritage (Scotland) Bill
4.47 p.m.
Second Reading debate resumed.
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, we now return to an important matter relating to Scotland, after the exodus has taken place. We are grateful to the Minister of State, Lord Gray of Contin, for his explanation of the Bill. One of the first things I should do is to give him a little good news. Unfortunately, one member of your Lordships' House, who would have liked to take part in this debate, Lord Perth, cannot be here. He left it to me to read a letter that he has written giving some of his ideas about the Bill. This is probably about the best time to do it, so that should cheer up, for a moment, the Minister of State.
Lord Perth states:
"I am sorry to be absent in the USA. The more so as it is in large degree a Bill giving effect to the Williams Committee Report, "A Heritage for Scotland" of which I was a member.
"It is rare that a Report is acted upon so quickly and so substantially by a Government and I know the chairman and others are glad and grateful.
"Our main recommendation was the creation of the Museum of Scotland based on the Museum of Antiquities. The Bill goes even further and proposes a single Board of Trustees to cover in addition the Royal Scottish Museum.
"This is a courageous decision but it is fraught with problems and it is good that a working party chaired by Lord Bute has been set up to help deal with them.
"At the Committee stage we will have to consider whether the single Board of Trustees should cover the two National Museums or whether there should be a single Museum of Scotland which at present would consist of the Museum of Antiquities and the Royal Scottish Museum, but later have associated with it in different parts of Scotland such museums as Industry, the Sea, Agriculture and so forth. The composition of the Board of Trustees and the scope of activities will also need very careful scrutiny".
That may please the Minister of State rather better than what I might say about the Bill. As he said, rightly, it is an important Bill.
Here we have an important part of the heritage of Scotland, but it is just a small part. The heritage of Scotland goes way beyond museums and art galleries. It is the whole land of Scotland and what we have done with it. It is the people of Scotland—the social, industrial and religious history. That is why I regret at times that this has been called the National Heritage Bill. It gives a misleading impression that outside this little matters; but I think that outside this so much matters.
When the Minister said that the Bill was based upon A Heritage for Scotland, Scotland's National Museums and Galleries, the Next 25 Years, a report issued under the chairmanship of Dr. Alwyn Williams—I stress Dr. Alwyn Williams—I wondered whether he had read it and read the statements made by the Secretary of State, because having made statements about the treasures we have, the heritage we have, the collection, preservation, display and interpretation of these treasures and opening them up to the rest of Scotland and the world, the committee had found great deficiencies—
"in the exhibition, storage and conservation of the very objects which reflect the uniqueness and genius of Scotland and confirm the importance of her contributions to western civilisation".
They found inadequacies as to accommodation and display. They said that this should be put right and
136
that even in times of stringency plans should be laid so that forward we could go.
"Our most fundamental recommendation is that the artifacts of Scottish culture should be the concern of a new institution, the Museum of Scotland, wider in scope than the present National Museum of Antiquities of Scotland, which it is intended to replace".
That was the first, and most important, recommendation. The next was:
"We are also convinced that a museum of industry should be established in the West of Scotland".
There are others as well. To a considerable extent, the Government have already overthrown the Williams Report. You would not find that out by looking at the Bill. It is what is not in the Bill that is, to my mind, more important than what is in the Bill.
We have had the advantage of seeing what happened in another place and we discover that the Museum of Scotland, the free-standing Museum of Scotland that was the committee's second recommendation, is now out. The Government have taken advice—I am not referring to the new advisory board which was set up: they took advice before even they set that up—and there was a change of attitudes in the museum world, and so the museum of industry is out. There has got to be—let me get the jargon right—
"a hard core of disciplines at the centre and there will be outreach in respect of the rest of Scotland".
Whatever that means, I do not know, but we shall have to learn all the new jargon. No wonder the Scottish Education Department does not get a very good mark from me in respect of some of the things it is doing at the present time. I feel the noble Earl should have told us that and also told us where the Museum of Scotland comes into it. I remember what the Secretary of State said in another place on 22nd July 1982, at col. 303:
"I share the Committee's view that our first priority must be to establish a museum of Scotland, which will be the prime repository for artifacts representing the cultural heritage of Scotland … I propose therefore at a convenient opportunity to introduce a Bill to constitute a new and widely representative board of trustees whose first task will be to create a major new institution."
There is no indication within this Bill that there is going to be a new institution. In fact we are told of the advice of the noble Marquess, Lord Bute, and his Committee. I do not think they could have picked a better man than Lord Bute to deal with the heritage of Scotland. He served as the chairman of the National Trust for over 12 years and I had the privilege of being his vice-chairman for a number of years. I know his quality; I know his interest and his dedication to the subject. That Committee used the name, "the Museums of Scotland".
What does that mean? We read Clause 1 and we are told that the museums of Scotland consist of those museums "formerly known as" the Royal Scottish Museum and the National Museum of Antiquities of Scotland. We are also told, when we read what has been said in another place, that these are only temporary titles. They have not made up their minds as to what the titles are going to be.
I am going to suggest that the first thing that should have happened is that this Bill should not have been brought forward when it was but should have been held back until the advice of the advisory board was given. Then, in their full knowledge, we should have had a Bill in respect of which we could have argued

137
without being in the dark—because any time you raise a question about titles you are told, "Oh, that will come later from the advisory board." You ask about the museum of Scotland—"Oh, that will come later from the advisory board". You ask about resources—"Oh, we can't say anything about that: that will come later from the advisory board."
I wonder what on earth the Williams Committee were doing with this report. One thing it does mean is that there will be considerable delay. I remember what A Heritage For Scotland says next: Scotland's National Museums and Galleries, the Next 25 Years. That was set up in February 1979. That was six years ago. Six of the 25 years have already gone and we do not even know what the Government are going to do. This is not good enough. May I be told right away: is there going to be the museum of Scotland which will subsume the National Museum of Antiquities of Scotland? And separate from that there is going to be the Royal Scottish Museum? These are the two national museums. If they are going to change the names, how are they going to do it? So far as I can understand from the powers in the Bill, there is not any way it is going to be done unless we are going to have some further advice from the advisory council before we have finished all the stages. Then we shall know what is going to happen.
I share the worries of the Society of Antiquaries for Scotland. Here was a body which set up this museum with £20 which was given them by the Earl of Buchan in 1780. They set up the Museum of Antiquities of Scotland. They handed it over to the nation about 60 years later. They actually ran it until about another 100 years—and they are being pushed aside; they are kept in the dark in respect of what is happening in relation to the museum, which is not moribund. They have been providing a library for that museum all these years, and still do—thousands of pounds per year they provide for it. They meet in the library and have their meetings in the museum. They have complained time and time again about the lack of accommodation. They have over a million artifacts, and not half of them can be shown.
When the Minister says that things have been going very well, I do not know whether he realises it but I think it was somewhere in the 1920s when it was suggested that they should have more accommodation—and remember that the accommodation was provided by the proprietor of the Scotsman, nearly 100 years ago. It was not the Government which supplied it. Report after report—the Phillips report and the rest of them—has given an indication that they should have had a new building, but we still do not know and the Government do not tell us.
I ask your Lordships to look at the financial effects of this Bill which read:
"The establishment of the new Boards of Trustees should not in itself give rise to additional public expenditure."
There is to be no further public expenditure. By the way, that £100,000 which the Minister of State mentioned was to the Property Services Agency in respect of the fabric of all the galleries. The Bill goes on:
"—and in particular the integration of some of their ancillary services—should result in savings in the long term."
138
We read A Heritage for Scotland by Alwyn Williams and it is a cry for more resources, not only to be able to display properly what we have, but also to interest people properly. It is resources and resources, but there is no indication about them here.
As regards the effects of the Bill on public service manpower, the Bill reads:
"The Bill is expected to reduce the number of staff working in the Scottish Office by about 320."
The Secretary of State will be able to say "We have got 320 fewer civil servants in Scotland."
That is the achievement of the Bill, but what about the Museum of Scotland? Where is it? When is it to be developed? When are we to get the report from the advisory board? It was supposed to be in the spring of this year: is it still to be in the spring of this year? We also have a report from the Commission on Museums—I think it is the Miles Report—in relation to local galleries. This is important, because they must knit together to give us a museum service worthy of Scotland. The last I have heard is that we shall not get that report until the autumn. So, once again, we are dealing with things on which we do not have the full and final information. That is why I consider the Bill to be rather stultifying of debate, certainly of creative debate.
The Williams Report was further referred to by the Secretary of State on 8th December, 1983, when he said:
"I have decided that the right course to enable flexible and integrated planning … of museums in the future, is to have a single board".
That was his decision, but that decision ran counter to the Williams Report. Then he said:
"As recommended in the Williams report, I propose to appoint a museum advisory board to advise me further." [Official Report, Commons, 8/12/83; col. 257.]
With all due respect, that was not in the Williams Report. The Williams Report suggested that there should be a commission which had executive functions, as well as advisory functions. What we have, as I understand it—and the noble Lord can correct me if I am wrong—is a transient advisory board, which will deal only with the transfer and the creation at the early stage of development of the museums of Scotland, so far as the Bill is concerned, and which will hand over to the new single board of trustees. The Williams Report was opposed to the single board of trustees. It was also opposed to changing the position of the Royal Scottish Museum from a museum which is a part of the Department of Education in Scotland, run by the department and controlled by the department, to giving it trustee status like the others.
May I say this about trustee status? A lot has been made of it by the Government, though certainly not in the debate so far, and it has been said that this is the right thing because it will keep them at arm's length from the Government. They will have far more freedom. But if you take the history of the two museums that we are dealing with, one—the Museum of Antiquities of Scotland—had trustee status and the one that was closest to the Government was the Royal Scottish Museum. The one that has fared best in the past 40 to 50 years has been the Royal Scottish Museum and not the Museum of Antiquities, which is the museum of Scotland. I think that a Minister in the

139
other place put it well, that the Royal Scottish Museum was Scotland looking at the world and the other one was the world looking at Scotland. It was the native museum of Scottish artifacts, Scottish history and Scottish culture. From that point of view, the Government have not done very well by us.
I now come to the actual board. Despite the close connection, we have waited till this point to be told that we are to get an amendment at the next stage of the Bill in relation to the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland. I do not know what it will be. It will probably give them one member of the board. The way the Government went ahead with this Bill and never even consulted the society is disgraceful. They did not know what was in the Bill until it was printed, despite all that they have done. There would have been no museum there, but for them. There have been generations of dedicated men.
In looking at the board itself, I look for consistency, and I am very glad to see that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate is with us. We have the National Museums of Scotland and the board is to consist of nine to 15 members selected by the Secretary of State. The National Library will have 32 members and it is laid down in the Bill who they are. I am sure that everyone will be delighted. That is on page 18, in Clause 17 of the hymn sheet.
Here are the people who will run the National Library: the Lord President of the Court of Session and, the Lord Advocate. Here he sits. I wonder how many meetings he has been at so far. Then there is the Secretary of State for Scotland. The man who is to provide all the money will be on the board ex officio. Is he on the board at the moment? I never remember being asked to go to a single meeting. Then there are the Dean of the Faculty of Advocates, the Minister of the High Kirk of St. Giles, Edinburgh. All this is in the Bill, but no indication is given in respect of the more important ones. This is just to run a library—32 members. There are the Member of Parliament for Edinburgh Central, the Lord Provost of Edinburgh, the Lord Provost of Glasgow, the Lord Provost of Dundee, the Lord Provost of Aberdeen and the Queen's and the Lord Treasurer's Remembrancer. What on earth are they doing running the National Library?
I know the history of the libraries connected with that, but I ask your Lordships to compare the treatment of them with the treatment of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland—the Lord President of the Court of Session, the Lord Advocate, the Dean of the Faculty of Advocates and five other persons appointed by the faculty. Not bad! They are powerful influences in Edinburgh. They used to have a Member of Parliament for Central Edinburgh as well, but they have not had that for a long time. This is one of the things that we shall have a look at in Committee. It will probably be one of the amusing aspects.
What about the Museum of Industry! Why has there been a change of mind on that? My noble friend Lord Carmichael will probably have a word to say on this, and I shall be surprised if other people do not as well.
What about the question of links with local
140
museums? Some of these local museums are quite important. Let me take the figures for visitors. Pollock House, the People's Palace, Kelvingrove and the Transport Museum had more visitors in 1983 than the National Galleries, and I ask your Lordships to remember that the National Galleries include the National Portrait Gallery and the Gallery of Modern Arts, as well as the National Gallery and the two museums. They happen to be in Glasgow, and I am sure that your Lordships will be interested to know that the Burrell Gallery, provided by Glasgow, maintained by Glasgow and not by the Government—though, admittedly, the Government paid half the capital cost—had more visitors in 1984 than all these national galleries in 1983. It had more than 1,180,000 visitors.
So the so-called local museums are important and there has to be a proper link-up of the galleries and museums of national status with those of local status. I am perfectly sure that some of my noble friends will take up that point, because it is important to have a Scottish galleries service and a Scottish museums service. We want to see mobile exhibitions and we want to see those local galleries run important exhibitions, too. They may be Scottish or they may be international. I remember that two years ago Glasgow had one of the finest exhibitions I have ever seen. Glasgow also was the only place outside the United States—I think, it went to New York, St. Louis and Cleveland, Ohio—where French paintings of the nineteenth century of the realist tradition were shown. I think about 120,000 visitors came to that exhibition in Glasgow, which shows exactly the concern and interest there is.
Do not underestimate the importance of the local galleries. I do not think sufficient is said within the Bill. The Williams Committee has affected the Bill to the extent that far more importance is laid in the functions of the museums and galleries on the question of education, although they admit that they do not have the staff. Once again, more money is required. It is a question of resources. It is a question of interpretation, of letting the public know what is going on and what keeps going on. I know that some of the galleries are doing very well, although one of these days I hope that the National Gallery, when it sends its literature to me, will catch on to the fact that the right honourable William Ross is not an MP, is not Secretary of State for Scotland and has not been so for some time. But at least it sends literature and lets us know what is going on in the gallery.
It is a disappointing Bill in many ways. The decision to entitle it the National Heritage (Scotland) Bill was the Government's. I think it is ill-judged, but they could improve if they took into account some of the things that were done for England in the National Heritage Bill 1983. If the Government are concerned to retain the title of this limited measure and plead that they are doing for Scottish museums only what was done for the national museums in England in respect of the organisation, let them do something in respect of giving us parity of powers for grant-aiding as was done for England, where power was taken in respect of grant-aiding the National Trust—the English one—in respect of buildings, in respect of lands and in respect of gardens.

141
Now, at that time the chairman of the National Trust for Scotland wrote to the Secretary of State—the chairman happened to be Lord Bute, who was chairman of the advisory committee; the Secretary of State happened to be Mr. Younger—suggesting that we get these powers, but Mr. Younger replied that the 1983 Bill was an English Bill and that this would require legislation. Well, here we have the legislation, so let it be worthy of its name and give us that parity which will enable us to do even more for our heritage than we can under the Bill as it stands.
On the whole, it gives an opportunity for examining fully in Committee all the ramifications of the heritage of Scotland and what is required. But the one thing that seems to be required more than anything else, to provide the accommodation, to provide the education and to provide the exhibitions, is resources. Are we going to get them? There is a sad story about this going right through the years. For the past 50 years our museums have been asking for these resources. There were times when it seemed that they were going to get ahead—one was when I gave permission for the buying of the site in Chamber Street. It was started and then in 1976 the Government of that day stopped it, and so hopes were again dashed. Let us build up and let us make the Bill much more worthy of the Williams Report, A Heritage for Scotland.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, I must start by acknowledging an interest in this Bill because my wife is a trustee of the National Museum of Antiquities. It must not be assumed, however, that everything I say is a direct echo of what she says. Secondly, I am sorry to say that I have to make an apology because I had not quite realised that we would be so much delayed by Statements, and it is conceivable that I may have to go to a meeting, which I undertook to attend long ago, before the end of the debate.
It is useful in considering any Bill to ask why it is necessary. Part I of the Bill is necessary because there is overlapping between the Royal Scottish Museum and the Museum of Antiquities. Indeed, there is some wasteful competition in acquiring objects and there is a good deal to be said for having one board of trustees for the two. But I am not so clear as to the reasons for setting-up trustees for the Royal Botanic Garden. In another place the Minister said that the reason was that it would make the administration of the garden "more flexible and more effective". Those are words which trip easily off ministerial lips but do not mean so much to the general public.
I had a good many dealings with the gardens at one time, when I was secretary for the National Trust of Scotland. We were given very great assistance by that excellent man, Dr. Cowan, who was then the deputy director. I never remember him complaining that his organisation was inflexible or, indeed, ineffective. There may be good reasons for changing the administration of the gardens, but I should rather like to hear a little more from the Government as to exactly what they are. With regard to the gardens, I wonder whether the Minister can tell us a little more about what is happening to Inverleith House. It is a very nice building, and since the pictures were taken out I am not quite certain what has happened to it.
142
The Bill involves the setting up of new quangos, which are said to be anathema to the Government. Like the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, I notice that there is to be a saving of 320 civil servants in the Scottish Office. I wonder whether the Minister could tell us a little more about what is going to happen to them. Are they going over to work under the boards of trustees, or what? Did it take 320 civil servants in the Scottish Office to administer the museums and the gardens before? It so happens, if I may digress a moment, that today I received a little history of the administration of the Sudan. At the height of the most effective British administration of the Sudan the whole thing was done by 350 civil servants. It takes 320, apparently, to administer two small museums. Like the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, I hope that we are not going to hear from the Government that they have saved 320 civil servants when they are in fact employed elsewhere.
If I may turn to the functions of the new board concerned with the museums, which are given in Clause 2, what strikes me as rather peculiar is that many things are mentioned, but not history. The board shall promote,
"archaeological, artistic, cultural, environmental, industrial, military, scientific and social"
interests, but there is no word of history. The same is true of the schedule; none of the trustees is to have any expertise in history or historical matters. Yet I should have thought that museums were primarily living history if they are carrying out their proper function. I do not believe that this is covered by "cultural", any more than it is by "archaeological".
I come now to the membership. Here I must say that I think the Government—I agree entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock—have behaved with extreme discourtesy to the Society of Antiquaries. It was the society which ran the museum and, indeed, founded it. It has, God save us!, a million objects in it, most of which are inherited from the Society of Antiquaries. The society was not consulted about the Bill, and it has now been given no representation on the board. To my mind there is everything to be said for at least having the president on the board and allowing the society to nominate at least one other member.
First, it is pure courtesy to the people who founded the museum and who looked after it until quite recently, and who, as the noble Lord said, still provide the library. Secondly, it will be a very good thing to have on the board some people who are knowledgeable and who would provide the expertise which is very much needed. They have some 2,300 members throughout Scotland, and, again, they will provide some contact with the rest of Scotland and prevent the board from becoming too centred upon Edinburgh. Further, if a few members of the board are ex officio it will slightly decrease the patronage of the Secretary of State for Scotland. He already has immense patronage, and he will get a lot more under this Bill. I also believe that there should be ex officio representatives on the board of the Scottish universities. They will provide much of the expertise on archaeology and history.

143
I am bound to compare the position of the board of the museums, which is entirely in the hands of the Secretary of State, with the board of the National Library. The noble Lord has already read out who are to be the members of the board of the National Library. Some nine of them are to be advocates. There is to be the Minister of the High Kirk of St. Giles—although why he is particularly expert on library matters I do not know, any more than I know about the Member of Parliament for Edinburgh, Central. This is not an Edinburgh library; it is the National Library of Scotland. It is perfectly true, of course, that it has a particular legal importance and it was originally the Advocate's library; but so, I point out, was the library and, indeed, the museum of the Society of Antiquaries, and they have no representation whatever.
If one is in this case to set out a whole number of people who are to be ex officio members, to my mind one should greatly reduce the number of lawyers. Surely the Dean of the Faculty, and possibly one other, will be quite enough. Incidentally, I take it that The Queen's and Lord Treasurer's Remembrancer is a lawyer. It is not the sort of office the lawyers would like to slip through their fingers. But why he is there, I do not know. One should have, for instance, if one is to have this type of board at all, a representative who knows something about Gaelic and Gaelic culture; conceivably a representative who knows about books—perhaps an author or even a publisher—and somebody who will ensure that the library is kept up to date in modern science and technology.
I now come to two matters which I think have not been mentioned so far. There is, of course, provision already for the museums and the galleries of Scotland to make a charge. That is repeated in the Bill. It can only be done with the assent of the Secretary of State. Personally, I welcome that because I believe that when all galleries throughout the continent charge it cannot be ruled out as a way of raising funds; and funds are absolutely essential as they are inadequate. There is also provision for disposals and, of course, acquisitions.
Here I must mention again St. Ninian's treasure which was removed (to use a polite word) from Shetland to the museums in Edinburgh. I hope that now that they have the power, albeit with the assent of the Secretary of State, the museums will seriously go through the various items they have taken from other parts of Scotland and consider whether they should not be returned, including St. Ninian's treasure. For one thing. it is notorious that there are masses of items in museums and galleries in Scotland which they cannot show. I make no complaint about archaeological relics which no doubt must be kept largely for research, and I believe there are large buildings in, for example, Leith, which are virtually warehouses in which such items are packed and not exhibited at all. However, I read in the debates in another place that it is alleged that there are considerable quantities of very beautiful Scottish furniture in the Royal Scottish Museum which are not open to view by the public. If that is the case, it strengthens the need for the museum to go through its acquisitions and its present wealth and to consider,
144
first, how it is to show them, and, second, how it can help other and provincial museums by giving them loans or by disposing of what they do not and cannot exhibit.
This brings me, finally, to the question of accommodation. Finance is, of course, extremely important, but so also is accommodation. I am afraid that the National Museum of Antiquities is not entirely free from blame in that it was offered, I believe, John Watson's, and hummed and hawed about it and was then upstaged, so to speak, by the Museum of Modern Art. But it is extremely cramped, and accommodation is, I should have thought, the most necessary aspect. With that goes finance, and all that must largely, if not entirely, come from the Government.
I hope very much that this is a mere paving Bill to the development of the Museum of Scotland and that when that comes—indeed, before it comes—the Government will provide the Scottish museums with adequate accommodation and that they will bear in mind that they are national museums and not Edinburgh museums. Again, if we are to have people nominated, as to the National Library, I should have thought that ministers from Glasgow were just as necessary as ministers of religion from Edinburgh. They might well consider these out-stations which are in existence and how far they can be strengthened as part of the National Museum. In fact, I hope this is not the beginning of further centralisation but the first step towards further decentralisation.
5.26 p.m.
Baroness Elliot of Harwood: My Lords, I have been very encouraged by the fact that we have this Bill here today, that it has been through the other place and that we are now debating it. I do not feel as depressed as the noble Lords, Lord Ross of Marnock and Lord Grimond. First, I like the title. I think the National Heritage (Scotland) Bill is a good title. I think that it can include everything that the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, talked about, and with which in many respects I agree. Therefore, I approve of the title. Equally I think that the Board of Trustees combining the Royal Scottish Museum and the National Museum of Antiquities is a good idea. One will get important people who are extremely keen and interested to be on that board and I think that it ought to be, and will probably be, a very good combination which will bring people together, to work together and to promote more successfully the things which are brought into the Bill and of which I am strongly in favour.
I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, about the Fellows of the Society of Antiquaries. They should have a bigger part in this Bill than has so far been given to them. We all know that the Society of Antiquaries is a most remarkable organisation. It is the oldest and, in some ways, the most important. Therefore, I very much hope that when we are discussing this we will be able to get into the Bill reference to the Society of Antiquaries and that we shall be able to give them as great a status on the Board of Trustees as the National Museums of Scotland.
I also think that all the libraries should be open to the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland or that all the

145
members, or Fellows, should be allowed to have free access to all the libraries covered by the Bill. It is also extremely important that in the reorganisation it will be clear that the trustees will guarantee the uniqueness of the history and culture of Scotland which gives the National Museum an international reputation, which is acknowledged and has been built up over 200 years and will continue with the new title of the Museums of Scotland.
I have no doubt that many Scottish peers have had letters from different interests in Scotland. I have had one or two. It is quite clear to me that they are all extremely keen that this should be a success and that there should be great co-operation in all these matters. I had a letter from the Heriot-Watt University, and I should like to quote from what a professor said:
"This purpose should not be made secondary to administrative convenience"—
that is the joint endeavour of the two interests—
"which might lead to little more than the establishment of a larger, amorphous and monolithic institution".
I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Gray, has no intention of allowing the new board to be described in that very unsatisfactory manner; and so I hope very much that this will not happen.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, on the subject of space, and in order that a great many of the lovely things that we want to look at in the museums are only shown for a short time, because they have not got enough room for them all. Space, and more showing room, is vital, and I hope very much that the Government will see that that can be attended to.
I had one very small experience of that, because a little while ago I donated to the National Museum of Scotland some rather beautiful costumes, because the museum were going to start a costume section. I received very nice letters of thanks, and the costumes were shown in the museum for a short time. They could show them for only a short time for the simple reason they had so many other things to show that they had to pass on to something else.
It seems to me that it would be a great help if, in the new reorganisation, one of the important things would be to have more space so that these lovely things are not hidden away until such time as they can be brought out, and then of course they have to be put away again. That is something which the board could certainly do.
I believe that it was the noble Lord, Lord Ross, who said that he wanted an industrial museum. Clause 2(d) of the Bill—I think the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, read some of it out—says in regard to general functions:
"Generally promote the public's awareness, appreciation and understanding of matters agricultural, archaeological, artistic, cultural, environmental, industrial, military, scientific and social".
I cannot think of anything that cannot be brought into that provision. It covers, in my interpretation, all the interests that one can have. And it is followed by the following paragraph:
"provide education, instruction and advice, and carry out research".
If one can do all that, if under this new Bill that is what is going to happen, then surely that will be excellent in every way. What is more, it would be easier, I think, to do it in that way than to start up
146
another museum. I would rather it be done within the ambit of the new arrangements which I think would be very good.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, on the subject of the board of the National Library, but I understood that this was an inheritance, and it would be rather difficult to get rid of some of these people. But I certainly think that if the matter is being looked at again, one should bear this in mind. The noble Lord has said that there is no one from Glasgow in the list and why should we have the Minister of the High Kirk of St. Giles, and not the Minister of the Cathedral in Glasgow? I think these matters could be looked at and I would personally agree that you do not want to accept what, when I was reading it through, I thought was probably the inheritance of the National Library of Scotland. They have always been like that but I do not see why it should continue to be so and I hope very much we might be able to alter some of those things.
I agree entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Ross, when he spoke of the great importance and the great beauty of our museums. I have had the opportunity in the course of my life of travelling in many parts certainly of Europe and seeing a great many museums, and I still find the national galleries of Scotland are just as beautiful as anything that can be seen anywhere else, and I hope also we will be able to continue to enlarge them.
After all, we were fortunate in having as one of our main donors the late Sir William Burrell. It is quite true that it took something like 20 years to find a place where the collection could be shown. But now we have got it, it is a magnificent collection, and it has attracted attention from all over the world; and that was a Scotsman leaving all that he had collected to Scotland. I hope that we shall still be able to get people in Scotland who have great collections, and who will leave them for the public and for the future.
I hope that the new plans will continue to attract those kinds of gifts, and also that the board will have enough money to buy when opportunity offers. I know that money is a very sore subject, because we are all short of it; but if there is money at any period, to be invested in the future, I think it can be invested in art and the galleries, and he certain of a remarkable return—better than almost anything else that one can think of. I support this Bill and I hope that it will be a great success.
5.37 p.m.
Lord Kirkhill: My Lords, my contribution, you will no doubt be pleased to learn, is not of lengthy duration, but is intended rather to invoke Ministerial response to an area of important activity about which the Bill is curiously silent. However, before I elaborate upon my criticism, I should say that the Bill is entitled to the consideration of a cautious welcome, and no Minister should expect to hear more than that.
As I see it, the main challenge confronting the national museums of Scotland, is to ensure that the public believe that the museums of Scotland are carrying out a national role. Obviously this means the preservation and presentation of collections of national and international importance. Presumably

147
we can all agree as to that. But should not the concept be further extended so that most areas of the country could benefit?
It is of course on this most important point, as my noble friend Lord Ross of Marnock has just mentioned, that the Bill is ominously silent. It omits any reference to the national museums relationships with local authority museums. If the national heritage is to be fully recognised and appreciated, commitment must be given to the establishment of links with local authority museums. The national museums service should have the potential and opportunity presently not available to help improve curatorial services throughout Scotland, and to develop touring exhibitions and loans of national material outwith Edinburgh. Indeed, it need not he a one-way service, else the people of Scotland generally might miss, under the imaginative direction of Mr. Ian McKenzie Smith, the artistic and aesthetic glories contained in the magnificent art gallery of my home town of Aberdeen.
The Secretary of State has recently said that the concept of the new museums extended: "beyond collections of the National Museum of Antiquities of Scotland to collections within the other national and major museums and collections in local museums and galleries."
The Bill makes no mention of this, so we can be fairly certain that as soon as allocation from restricted funds is made, what is available will be directed towards those purposes about which the Bill is specific. The Scottish Education Department and the future trustees in considering their priorities for funding will not and should not ignore this legislation. But that which has been omitted from the Bill—and I have just made reference to it—releases them from the major responsibility of developing appropriate links with the many local museums.
The House should demand firm ministerial commitment on this important matter, which has financial implications, of course, but surely they are of such a modest nature that set against the museum's total funding they would not be serious.
5.40 p.m.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Gray of Contin, among other things, told us that the framework which is proposed in this Bill will assist researchers. My attention was drawn to it not by anything written to me from Edinburgh but by an American researcher, Professor Maurice Lee, formerly of Princeton, who is one of the world's experts on 16th and 17th century Scottish history. He wrote to me from America saying that he over there had heard of the anxiety amounting to indignation among Scottish archaeologists and specialists in architectural history at the proposed treatment of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland to which both the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock and Lord Grimond, referred.
As I came to study the Bill I wondered, frankly, how much my noble friend, for all his great diversity of gifts and interests, could know about the magnificent collection at Queen Street, Edinburgh, that he would allow himself to be classed among the philistine iconoclasts of the 20th century. Did he know about
148
the Troaprain Treasure in Queen Street, with its Christian artefacts from 4th century Alexandria, containing one of the earliest examples of Christian pictorial art contempory with and illustrating the thinking of the councils of Nicea, Constantinople and Ephesus? My guess is that very probably he did not know very much about that, but never mind.
Did he know about the vast store of Scottish uniforms and clothing—my noble friend Lady Elliot has alluded to the great store that there is, too great to be put on show—most of which is hidden from view owing to lack of exhibition space, and it is held in the Queen Street museum storerooms. My noble friend may well know all about these things and others as well, but to the Society of Antiquaries goes the major credit for accumulating and protecting this remarkable collection.
So I can give no more than two cheers for the Bill, which has all the marks of Civil Service gestation and a curious blindness regarding archaeological and historical interest. I can perhaps give two and a half cheers for the fact that the Government consented, albeit only at the Report stage in another place, to accept an amendment to the first schedule to include archaeological expertise among the trustees' possible and desirable qualifications.
The Scottish Office originally listed all sorts of desirable criteria for the trustees, I note of course for a great historical and archaeological assemblage. They were to know about agriculture, or they might know about the arts, or they might know about culture, whatever that may mean. They might know about the environment, and of course that is the "in" word today. They might have industrial knowledge. That is natural enough since half of Scotland's population focuses on Glasgow anyway. They might have military, and they might have scientific, knowledge. They might even have knowledge of social matters. Your Lordships should note that this is all for trustees of a magnificent archaeological and historical collection.
They might have knowledge of management, which would be handy, I have no doubt. They might have knowledge of industrial relations, which I have no doubt is also very useful. They might have knowledge of administration. All I wonder is why the Scottish Office did not include knowledge of surrogate motherhood and embryology while it was about it. What an astonishing list of qualifications for trustees of great historical and archaeological treasures!
The Government's death-bed repentance on Schedule 1 and Clause 3(3) in another place—incorporating the term "archaeological"—is welcome as far as it goes. But the fact that that was only squeezed out of them at Report fuels suspicion of outright hostility toward archaeologists and historians. One learns that the Scottish Office consulted various bodies on the Williams Report. It consulted museums and galleries, the National Trust, the Heritage Memorial Fund, the Museums and Galleries Commission and the Arts Council. It consulted all those. Well done! But it did not consult—I repeat, it did not consult—the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland. That is the more suprising in the society had volunteered written evidence to the Williams Committee, though it

149
was not called upon to give oral evidence. For its oral evidence that committee heard some 17 bodies, of which no fewer than five consisted of civil servants. There was not a practising archaeologist among those whom it called in.
The standing of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland needs to be made absolutely clear. More than two centuries ago, in 1780, it founded the national museum. In the last century it presented the museum and its library to the nation. For 174 years—which is no yesterday—it managed the museum. For the past 30 years it has nominated five trustees. It has made donations year by year at a value in today's money of about £9,000 a year. Those are the people who now are not even consulted. Our colleagues in another place were told that they had been consulted in a letter from a Minister whose name I have for the moment lost: hut the letter was written in December after the Committee stage was over. A lot of consultation that was!
The Society of Antiquaries has already been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Ross. It has 2,300 Fellows. They embrace almost every professional Scottish archaeologist and most of Scotland's architectural historians. The common aim of the Fellows is to promote scholarship in, and understanding of, Scotland's cultural and historical heritage. But there is not much of that in the verbiage of this Bill, whose paramount theme seems to be a new trust which looks more like a city management trust for stocks or property.
Is it really so silly to urge the Government to think again and include among the trustees some nominated, or shall we say some proposed, by the Society of Antiquaries as hitherto at Queen Street? Or are the Government saying that they are no good? Either they are no good, which had better be said, or their work and tradition should be recognised. I know that one rather typical, if I may say so, Civil Service answer has been given on this matter: "Oh well, we don't want to open the board of trustees to representatives of sectional interests". But this is not a sectional interest. This is a body of high standing which founded the main museum, which ran it for most of its life, which is still flourishing and whose work and research are respected all over the world.
The fact that the Society of Antiquaries was not consulted in the drafting of the Bill is really shameful. The noble Lord, Lord Grimond, referred to discourtesy. I think it is worse than that; I think it is thoroughly insulting and disgraceful. I understand that it first learnt of the Government's intention to sever the society's link with the museum only last October when the Bill, if not finally drafted, was certainly well into its drafting stage.
It was Mr. Allan Stewart's statement in another place that there was consultation with it. Indeed, my noble friend Lord Gray referred to consultation with it. But when did it take place? Only after the Committee stage, in the shape of a letter written last 11th December. This is not good enough, and it is well that it should be said.
Naturally, therefore, we shall look forward with the greatest interest and a degree of sympathy to seeing what amendment or amendments the Government
150
will bring forward. I think two and three quarter cheers now for the fact that they are going to bring forward amendments, which we hope will go some way towards meeting the justified complaints of the Society of Antiquaries. We do expect rather better replies than have been given in another place. And perhaps I may be permitted to remind my noble friend, in the nicest possible way—we are old friends personally as well as politically—that of course this is not a House where the Government have a built-in majority to get whatever they like through without difficulty.
5.53 p.m.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, I, too, must apologise to the House for having to leave before the conclusion of the debate. I will consequently be very brief. I endorse most of the things that have been said. It must be a source of encouragement to the Minister to feel that there is not only so much interest in this matter but also so much concern about it and so much experience in this field. I think it is one of the delightful things about the former Secretary of State for Scotland, with his long experience of Scotland, that on his retiral from that important political post he devoted his time to the National Trust for Scotland as vice-chairman. His experience in that capacity can certainly be helpful to us in looking at this important matter.
All of us are concerned that what is done in this Bill—because it is not often that legislation of this kind emerges—is worthy of Scotland and worthy of the ambitions which are stated in the Bill. A great deal has been said about the composition of the various boards of trustees. I am sure that that will be dealt with by amendment at Committee stage. I, too, am concerned about it. I will not elaborate the criticisms that have been made. But I suggest that, when we are talking about trustees, we should try to ensure that the regions are well represented so that these do not become two Edinburgh-centralised establishment bodies. The regions have a very important part to play in this, because many of the separate regions have their separate traditions.
Quite near my home is the Paisley Museum. It is a very excellent museum which tells the story of the textile trade of Paisley and which tells the history of the Paisley shawl and the Paisley pattern. All of this is important to local schools and to people in the local community. It encourages their interest and also their concern for the local area.
I very much support the idea that was proposed in the Williams report that there should be a museum of industry. I recall the story of the Glasgow Exhibition of 1901, when the people came up from the shipyards with the marks of industry still on their dungarees and on their faces because they were proud to go up to that exhibition and show that it was they who built the ships, it was they who had contributed to making Glasgow the second city at that time. I do believe that if you had a museum of industry it might be possible for some people to recognise how important it is to have pride in industry. I am sure that that would be encouraged by a museum of this kind.
I am also concerned that we should look at the history of the labour movement and provide some

151
kind of centre—perhaps a library as well as a museum —for some of the relics of the great traditions of the labour movement in Scotland. I am approached frequently, from various trusts with which I am involved, for assistance to help in this area. It is quite inadequately catered for. But I think it is good for the people of Scotland to know that in the Co-operative movement and in the labour movement in general they have something of which they can be proud and which, in these days, they might even cherish. These are areas where we must be looking outward.
May I again emphasise what has also been said tonight? That is that we have so many good things and riches to display. When the Government give assistance to the National Theatre, they do it with some undertaking that the National Theatre will undertake to visit the regions. This applies to the Scottish National Orchestra in Scotland, Scottish Opera in Scotland and the National Theatre here in London. They have a responsibility to show their talents, not simply in London or in Glasgow, but also in the regions. I do believe that we should do much more to exhibit some of the beauties and the great things we have in Scotland and to build them up and make them exciting and interesting. Perhaps I may mention the Burrell Collection. The fact that more than one million people visited the Burrell Collection in a year is attributable not only to the greatness of the collection and to interest in that collection, but also to the fact that the media made it exciting. They had programmes about it on television. They even took the programme "Mastermind" up to it for two sessions the other day. All this stimulates interest. I think that in the presentation of travelling exhibitions, which we in Scotland should encourage, we should incorporate a greater degree of enterprise and imagination.
There is one final point. I am sure we shall return to it in due course. It was touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Grimond. It is the question of whether we should charge for entry to these museums. It is a matter on which I myself am not totally dogmatic. Perhaps we may return to this matter at the Committee stage. I know that it will be left to the local boards to make the decision. I know that many people become very excited about it, but, provided you have exemptions for old-age pensioners. the unemployed and students, I do not think there is any good reason why we should not pay to see the Burrell Collection.
I remember that the Glasgow museums and art galleries had a very inventive head, the late Tom Honeyman. He actually spent £8,000 buying a picture. It was a matter of great concern and letters were written to the papers about this extravagance. The picture was Salvador Dali's The Christ, which I am sure is known to many of you. Tom Honeyman had to recover his position by putting that picture in a special room in the Glasgow Art Gallery and charging people one shilling to see it. The picture paid for itself inside a year and a half and the Glasgow art galleries and museums have derived a very considerable contribution each year from the Christmas cards which reproduce that famous picture, which are sold all over the world. So I do believe that there is nothing wrong in looking at this question of payment to see some of these great pictures and the great things that
152
we have to show. But this is a matter to which we shall no doubt return. In general, I welcome the fact that the Bill is attracting interest and concern in your Lordships' House and is not treated entirely as a party political matter.
6 p.m.
Baroness White: My Lords, I hope that a brief intervention from Wales will not be considered inappropriate on this occasion because in some respects our problems are similar to those of Scotland. At any rate, they are sufficiently similar to have persuaded the chairman of the advisory board, the noble Marquess, Lord Bute, and his colleagues, to pay a most welcome visit last October to our National Museum in Cardiff. Our connection with the Bute family is of long standing. Indeed, the brochure on our Welsh Industrial and Maritime Museum, which I have with me, names the second Marquess of Bute in the first half of the 19th century as "the creator of modem Cardiff'. That the chairman of the committee which in 1981 reported to the Secretary of State on A Heritage for Scotland, Sir Alwyn Williams, is a Welshman, reinforces the connection.
Our National Museum of Wales dates from 1907. Since that date a large number of local museums have been established in the Principality supported by local authorities or voluntary organisations. But at national level it has been clear that the initiative lies with the National Museum of Wales. Accordingly, in addition to sustaining the main museum in Cardiff and organising a number of educational activities, including a schools service—the reference to that by the Parliamentary Secretary during the Committee stage in the other place was not quite correct, for it is part of the museum's activities—the National Museum has taken steps to establish under its own jurisdiction two major museums and seven smaller museums in various parts of Wales.
The first major effort was the establishment of the Welsh Folk Museum, opened at St. Fagan's Castle in Glamorgan in 1948, followed by the Welsh Industrial and Maritime Museum, opened adjacent to the West Bute Dock in Cardiff in 1977. The other enterprises include seven smaller centres under the direct control of the National Museum, including archaeological and environmental centres in west and north Wales, the Welsh Slate Museum in Gwynedd, and the Woollen Industry Museum in Dyfed. For the Coal Industry Museum in Blaenavon, in Gwent, the National Museum is a joint trustee with the National Coal Board and the Wales Tourist Board. The museum has provided most of the professional services but the trust pattern seems, for various reasons, advantageous, not least for obtaining cash resources from the European Community.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, that is a good point.
Baroness White: My Lords, the Scots might perhaps take note of that. We have as a separate institution the National Library of Wales at Aberystwyth. We lack, however, a national gallery. This is where Scotland scores, although we have in the National Museum in Cardiff probably the finest collection of French Impressionist and post-Impressionist paintings in

153
Britain, and many other treasures. Were resources available, I have little doubt that we should establish a separate National Gallery for Wales, in that respect following the Scottish example.
In looking at the Bill, named the National Heritage (Scotland) Bill—it is not for me to comment on whether or not that is an appropriate title—one asks oneself how far the proposals in the Bill cater for some of the major areas of public interest in Scotland. There seem to be one or two striking lacunae. From the proceedings in another place as well as the speeches made in your Lordships' House today, it is clear that there is great concern over the lack of a museum specifically dedicated to the history and achievements of Scottish industrial enterprise and experience.
We are—or should be, at any rate—hurtling into the third industrial revolution. But the remains and the records of the first and second industrial revolutions are disappearing or crumbling around us at an alarming speed. Unless immediate and energetic steps are taken to select and preserve appropriate examples, including, in some cases, buildings, and to trace and collect the already shrivelling records and archives of industrial enterprises in Scotland, future generations will be deprived of the knowledge that they should possess of one of the most significant elements in the Scottish heritage.
I know that various efforts are being made locally in Scotland. I am informed by Sir Alwyn Williams himself that the University of Glasgow is doing its best to collect and preserve such industrial and commercial archives as it can lay its hands on. No doubt other universities—they are among the most valued and valuable museum allies—will be doing the same in their own areas. But the impression that I have from the inquiries I have made is that, in the matter of a truly national industrial museum for Scotland, there is no firm purpose in the mind of the Secretary of State. There appears to be no determined sense of direction. There seems, on the contrary, to be the feeling that this is a matter that should be picked up by those who are interested but without additional public resources. If that is true, it is no recipe for success. Of course one looks for co-operation to industrialists, to local authorities and to other organisations, including groups of enthusiasts for their own local history or with a particular passionate interest in steam engines or whatever other enterprises in the industrial field take their imagination.
Our own national museum in Wales has many links with such groups. But one cannot produce a truly national centre without an adequate national focus. Our Welsh pattern has, on the whole, worked well, with one national museum directing the strategy. But whether it is part of a national network, which I believe has advantages, or whether it is free-standing, it must have some national resources to get it going and properly established. The location could well be in the historic, industrial heartland rather than in, or near, Edinburgh; but it should surely be a national enterprise from the outset, and recognised as such.
The other apparent omission, to someone looking from outside, seems to be the equivalent of our Welsh Folk Museum at St. Fagan's. The name "folk museum" has a Scandinavian flavour. It goes so much better into Welsh as Amgueddfa Werin Cymru.
The Earl of Lauderdale: What is that, my Lords?
Baroness White: My Lords, Amgueddfa Werin Cymru. "Werin" in Welsh sounds so much better than "folk" in English. But the concept of a display that brings to life the habits and habitats of our forebears in town and, even more, in country evokes tremendous interest and enthusiasm. It stirs the imagination of child and grown-up alike. It is an active display, much of it outdoors, including buildings that have been appropriately reconstructed on the site of the Folk Museum. To go to the museum is an occasion. It is a day out, and a memorable event. No doubt there are many suitable exhibits already in the Museum of Antiquities and in other museums in Scotland. But it is the concept and its realisation that matter.
Of course, one needs the other, more conventional museums, with their exhibits of cultural, scientific and archaeological interest of nationally and, if possible, internationally acclaimed excellence. But the concept in the Williams Report of a Museum of Scotland that displays the essence of Scottish life and the history of Scotland's own past, of her own people and of the lives that they have led, is surely worth striving for. It must be a national institution. I cannot quite find it in this Bill. I hope I am mistaken. I hope the Minister may be able to reassure us, but it does not seem to me to be there.
What I have said is not intended to denigrate in any way the value of the local museums, some of which are very fine indeed. The Burrell Collection is of course of international status, as has already been stressed. Nor does it detract in any way from the importance of the work of those concerned with the Association of Independent Industrial and Heritage Sites in Scotland. For example, as the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot, knows, I have a very special interest in one of these industrial sites; namely, the prestigious one at New Lanark. Here, many of the buildings constructed in the early 19th century by the renowned industrialist, educationalist and social reformer, Robert Owen, are gradually being put to use. He came from Newtown in Mid-Wales, and returned there at his end. But the work for which he is internationally famous was started and largely accomplished in New Lanark. We have our own very modest Robert Owen Museum in Newtown, but we advise a pilgrimage to New Lanark, which is in Scotland's care and responsibility and which could do with greater support than it has previously had from public funds.
I hope that my remarks have at least demonstrated that concern for the Scottish heritage is not exclusive to Scots, proud though they must be of their own inheritance. I have spoken because I sense anxieties among my Scottish friends and acquaintances. They have been served with reports, with advice, with committees. The times are unpropitious for the action and the resources which are now so urgently needed, particularly with the industrial museum. It is long since that it was observed that bricks cannot be made without straw. One cannot just decree a major reorganisation of national institutions without recognising that certain additional resources are essential if this reorganisation is to be successfully brought about. One needs to will both the end and the means. I trust that the Secretary of State for Scotland

155
will grasp the possibilities and the necessities before him in securing due appreciation of the heritage of Scotland.
6.13 p.m.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I am sure the Minister who opened the debate, the noble Lord, Lord Gray, will have listened with great interest to the various points which were made in the debate. They were all meant to be helpful. However, the general tenor that came through most of them was that perhaps it would have been better if the Bill had awaited the outcome of the report of the advisory board instead of being rushed forward. This came out very clearly, particularly in the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, that consultation with many groups before the Bill was printed had been quite inadequate. Of course it makes it a great deal more difficult for a Government to do anything really radical to a Bill once it has actually been printed. One wonders why it was rushed. Was there a gap in Scottish legislation where the Government thought they could get something in, or were the draftsmen working on this Bill a bit more efficient than those working on another Bill and therefore were able to put this Bill quickly into a slot for Scottish legislation?
The point about the speed with which the Bill was introduced is very clearly illustrated, not merely by the way in which the Society of Antiquaries was treated, which I regard as shameful and insulting, but also in regard to the staff. The Bill was well on the way through Committee before agreement had been reached and proper consultation had taken place with staff.
Here I must mention the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, when he talked about the reduction in the number of civil servants—the 320 civil servants at St. Andrew's House who are going to be struck off the list. Of the two museums which are going to be set free, or put on their own, one has a staff of 163 and the other has a staff of 59. That comes to 222, which means there must be something like 98 people at the Royal Botanic Gardens in Edinburgh. I wonder whether gardeners are included in this, and where this figure comes from. Perhaps at some point the Minister will let us know where these 320 civil servants are coming from. This is important to the extent that we are told that the number of civil servants has been reduced, whereas in actual fact they have merely been shuffled around and their number has not been reduced.
We should welcome the fact that my noble friend Lady White took part in this debate today. She certainly had a considerable amount to offer us. She is a Celt herself, and perhaps that made it that bit easier for her. Among the connections with Wales which she described was the noble Marquess, Lord Bute. Many tributes have been paid in the debate today to his zealousness in preserving Scottish history and Scottish culture. He of course has Welsh connections as well, as also has Dr. Williams, who produced what I think is a very clear and a very good report. It was interesting to hear how the National Museum of Wales works, particularly in respect of the local museums of Wales.
156
Perhaps we may be able to discuss that in a few minutes when we come to consider the question of local museums.
The noble Baroness, Lady Elliot, suggested there was plenty of scope in the Bill for a museum of industry. She is quite correct; there is scope for almost anything in the Bill. However, Alwyn Williams urged quite specifically that there should be a museum of industry in Scotland because of the very important role that industry has played in the growth of Scotland. It is quite true that to many people in many parts of the world the Scottish heritage is just as much a Scot in the engine room—perhaps a Clydesider in the engine room, an Orcadian on the bridge, and Lewismen or Harrismen on the deck; or perhaps the other way round, in case we offend anyone—as the kilted warrior we see so often. Alwyn Williams and his committee were quite clear that an industrial museum of Scotland was of very great importance, but we have had no really definite and positive decision on this by the Secretary of State, though the Under-Secretary did make noises in the Committee as to the attitude the Secretary of State had towards the starting of a museum of industry.
One of the points which the Williams Committee emphasised very strongly was the importance of making available, fairly urgently, storage facilities for gifts and donations from industry all over Scotland in order that they may be kept in some sort of storage, in many cases perhaps even in the open air, or they could perhaps be kept in large sheds until the time of stringency has passed. One assumes that that will not be until after the next election, at least. We need somewhere to put the collections which are beginning to come from yesterday's industry and which are an essential part of the Scottish heritage.
My noble friend Lady White mentioned New Lanark. This is a place which I visit very frequently; I am familiar with New Lanark. It is an incredible piece of Scottish history, with its links with the New World and the Old World, as well as with Wales. It is frequently visited by people from America and Canada. It has done immensely well with very small resources, though one or two industrial firms in the West of Scotland have given it great help. However, it could do with much closer links with the central Scottish museums and perhaps with the Scottish Office.
An important aspect is the great help which New Lanark has received from local associations and other interested bodies. Indeed, that leads me to wonder about the cumbersomeness of perhaps having too big a central control. I know that when one speaks from Glasgow it always appears that one is anti-Edinburgh. But there is the feeling that there is an Edinburgh establishment which may—if the Bill goes through in its present form—be extremely overpowering; and there is the feeling that if there is too big an input from the centre some of the impetus given by local bodies to help local museums could be lost.
In my view, some of the greatest work has been done—and I think that the noble Baroness, Lady White, explained this as regards Wales as well—through the Friends of the People's Palace and the Friends of New Lanark. I am sure that the same

157
applies to the Western Isles and various museums such as the Mining Museum and the Fishing Museum in Aberdeen which was discussed in Committee in another place and of which very little has been heard. Indeed, the idea of a textile museum was mentioned by one of the honourable Members. The Thread Museum in Paisley is probably one of the greatest centres—perhaps the greatest centre—of thread in the whole world. The silk industry of Dunfermline certainly should be recorded in some way because of the great pioneering work done in weaving which took place in areas like Dunfermline. We have an incredibly rich heritage and we should be encouraging interest in it as much as possible.
We are not satisfied—and many of these points are Committee points—that the structure suggested is ideal. We await the report of the Committee of the noble Marquess, Lord Bute, to see just what advice it can give. It is a pity that we now have a printed Bill, because that makes the position a little more difficult—it ties the hands of the Secretary of State, even if he were willing to make important changes in view of the work of the Bute Committee.
I am particularly interested in local museums and the relationship of local museums to the national museums of Scotland. Whenever I go to any part of Scotland, if I have any time to spare, I like to go into the local museums. Some of them are very small and most of them are sustained by local enthusiasts and have very few permanent staff. I am thinking of the museum down in Dumfries, with its camera obscura, and the West Highland Museum at Fort William, which only goes part of the way towards what we want for the western part of Scotland, quite apart from what we want for the Western Isles themselves. The western mainland is very important.
As the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, said, the Campbeltown Museum is fascinating, as is the Paisley Museum. We have the museums in Glasgow, the Kelvingrove Art Gallery, and the Transport Museum. It is interesting that when Kelvinhall is ultimately given up as an exhibition centre when the new Scottish Exhibition Centre opens in Glasgow, part of Kelvinhall will be given over to the Transport Museum. I am convinced that there will be a great increase in attendance there, because there will be two museums side by side and therefore the tendency will be to move from one museum to the other.
Another museum in which I am extremely interested is the People's Palace. Although it appears to be rather out of the way for many people who come to Glasgow, it is not all that far out of the way. The People's Palace is not considered to be one of the major museums, but last year it still managed to attract 200,000 people, which is a fair number for any local museum. It is a museum that has developed enormously in the last few years, and it is well worth looking at if you want to learn something not only of the history of Glasgow, but even of the history of the last 20, 30 or 40 years and see some of the domestic appliances that we all perhaps remember from our childhood days.
The last point that I wish to make—and this will certainly be brought out again in Committee—is the unease that seems to have been expressed by two noble
158
Lords who have spoken—namely, the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, and the noble Lord, Lord Grimond. I agree that both noble Lords said that they had an open mind—and I hope that they keep a very open mind—on the question of admission charges, which is a very serious matter. When my honourable friend Mr. Buchan was speaking about museum charges in another place, he referred to Lady Stair's House in Edinburgh. He said that when there were admission charges the attendance at that place in 1972 was 263. However, after the abolition of the charges, the attendance rose to 898. He gave the figures for various years and he gave the figures for the Cannongate Toll Booth. From the figures, it appeared that roughly four times as many people went through the museum after the charges had been abolished.
No one objects to there being a charge for a special exhibition. For example, Dr. Honeyman, who has already been mentioned, brought the Picasso/Matisse Exhibition to Glasgow and people were willing to travel a long way and pay a little extra in order to see that exhibition. Such an exhibition is quite different from the museum or art gallery which people casually visit. If one has half an hour to spare in Edinburgh, it is very important to be able to nip into the National Gallery and have a walk round, but one might hesitate if one had to pay 25p or 50p in order to do so. Whereas many of your Lordships would not find 25p or 50p or even £1 too difficult to come by, it has been emphasised—and this was brought out in Committee in another place—that for a family to go to a museum, bearing in mind bus fares, the entrance fee to the museum and perhaps a cup of tea or something like that for the kids in a restaurant, one would be talking about £10, £.15 or perhaps £20 for a single day out, and that is really beyond them. I hope that we shall be able to discuss this matter at some length when we come to the Committee stage of the Bill.
I think that the way in which the Government have left the situation is just not satisfactory. Merely to say that it will be left to the museum authorities to decide whether there shall be a charge or not is not really good enough, because the Government would always be able to cut off the supply of funds to the museum and say, "Well, you have an alternative: you can charge". We should have a slightly more definite lead from the Government; they should say that museum charges will not be permissible unless—as was said in Committee—there is permission from the Secretary of State and that permission would only be given if there were a special exhibition or if there were very special reasons.
I hope that the Minister will look at some of the points that we have made. I look forward to a very interesting Committee stage. If what has been said by those who have taken part in our debate today is anything to go by, it would seem that the Bill that will leave this House will be considerably better than the one that we are considering at present.
6.29 p.m.
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, we have had a very interesting and very useful debate. I am encouraged by the number of noble Lords who have participated. There is no doubt at all that this Bill has raised a great deal of enthusiasm in Scotland. During my period in

159
another place and, indeed, since I came to your Lordships' House, I have had dealings with many lobbies, but I do not think that I have found a more effective lobby than that which is acting on behalf of the Society of Antiquaries for Scotland.
Indeed, my noble friend Lord Lauderdale, in an impassioned plea on behalf of the Society of Antiquaries, made many points with which I am bound to say I found it very difficult to disagree. As the society is bound to crop up from time to time during our discussions, I should like the whole House to know that the Government hold the Society of Antiquaries in the highest regard and respect, and if it thinks that it has in any way been slighted, that is a matter of very great regret and if indeed any such thing took place, there was certainly no such intention.
I hope that, by my announcement in my opening remarks, at this very early stage in the discussions on the Bill, of my decision to move an appropriate amendment at the Committee stage, your Lordships will be reassured of my strong feelings and the strong feelings of the Government on this matter.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, will the noble Lord give way? He has referred twice to the amendment which he intends to move. Will that amendment give the Society of Antiquaries representation on the board? Is that what the amendment says?
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, the amendment will ensure that there will be representation for the Society of Antiquaries on the board. It will not give the society itself the right to appoint a fellow to the board. I would suggest that the noble Lord waits until he sees the amendment, but I think he will find that it will go a long way towards achieving what he and his friends have in mind.
I feel that the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, who is never slow to be critical of proposed Government legislation, was struggling a little—that is, for him, anyway—when he spoke this evening. There is not the sort of objectionable content in the Bill which he hopes to find in any Bill which comes in for his scrutiny. I felt that the noble Lord was a little pushed to find matters to which he could take exception.
The noble Lord suggested that the Museum of Scotland should be free-standing. One of the other topics we are bound to spend a certain amount of time discussing as we go through the Bill is the Museums Advisory Board. The noble Lord, Lord Ross, said that the Bill should have been held back until such time as the board had completed its deliberations, and the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, said the same.
However, it is because there has been a degree of uncertainty over the future of the national museums that we are anxious to make early progress to establish the new trustee board. In any case, the Bill provides only the broad framework within which the new board will operate. I think that the noble Lord was wrong to assume that the Government will decide on how the museums should be developed in the future. That will be for the museums board itself to determine, bearing in mind the recommendations which will come from the Museums Advisory Board.
160
To some extent the Museums Advisory Board is very important. That I accept. But I do not think it is in any way a disadvantage that, to some extent, we are presenting an enabling Bill which will be used to interpret the recommendations of the board in due course. It is much better that we proceed that way than sit back and wait until such time as the board considers—
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, will the noble Lord give way?
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, I shall give way to the noble Lord with pleasure. We cannot win with the noble Lord. If we had sat back and waited until all those deliberations were completed, he would then have accused us of wasting time and asked us why we were not getting on with it. I give way to the noble Lord with pleasure.
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, I would never do a thing like that. It is all very well having an enabling Bill, but what will it enable us to do? We are not in the dark, we are in limbo until this board reports. While I am on my feet, perhaps I could raise one other matter. The noble Lord said something about the Museum of Scotland being free-standing. I hope that we shall not be told that it will not be free-standing Was that the implication of the noble Lord's remark?
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, no. The noble Lord should have stopped at the end of his first comment and allowed me to proceed because I was just coming to that very point. However, I shall deal with it now. The title "Museum of Scotland" was one which was suggested by the Williams Committee. However, it has not been adopted in any way for formal purposes. It will be for the Museums Advisory Board to recommend whether separate titles are required for individual parts of the new museum structure. As I have already indicated, at the moment we regard the Museum of Scotland as a concept rather than as anything as concrete as the name of a particular part of the museum's complex or even a particular building. The advisory board will also be offering recommendations on exactly how that concept should be taken forward. That is why I specifically mention the advisory board at this stage.
The noble Lord also mentioned the museum of industry. The noble Baroness, Lady White—who I would like to welcome most warmly to a Scottish debate and say how much we appreciated and enjoyed the contribution she made—also referred to this matter. The Williams Committee's recommendation was for a free-standing national museum of industry administered by a separate trust body. As I have already indicated, the Government take the view that all national museum developments should take place within the framework of the national museums which this Bill will establish.
The basis for a national museum of industry to some extent already exists within the collections of the existing national museums, and it will be for the board of trustees to determine what further developments may be desirable or practicable to provide a focus in the national museums on the history of industrial and

161
related developments in Scotland and what links might be established with industrial heritage sites in Scotland. The Museums Advisory Board is studying the position closely and we shall await its recommendations. However, as I have indicated, museum opinion has in general moved away from the Williams Committee's proposal for a free-standing museum of industry.
The noble Lord, Lord Ross, mentioned the figure of £100,000 available, not to museums, but to the PSA for fabric. In my opening speech I referred to the extra sum of £330,000 which will be available to the national museums for 1985–86. That is in addition to extra resources which my right honourable friend has made available for the fabric of the museums buildings through the PSA.
The noble Lord also asked about accommodation. The Government have said that they will give priority to the needs of the national museums in the direction of funds from the capital programme for the national institutions over the coming years. However, before we can make any commitment to specific developments or to a starting date for construction or adaptation work, we need a full assessment from the Museums Advisory Board of the accommodation requirements of the museums, taking into account the new museum structure which the board will be recommending.
The noble Lord, Lord Ross, also asked me when the advisory board report will be available. I can tell the noble Lord that we anticipate it will be available by May of this year. As to the report which is to be produced by the working party of the Museums and Galleries Commission under Professor Miles, that is an investigation into the non-national museums and galleries in Scotland and therefore is not directly relevant to what we are discussing in this Bill.
Lord Ross of Marnock: But when?
Lord Gray of Contin: I cannot give the noble Lord the date for that. I have given him the answer to the first question he asked me, which was May of this year. The noble Lord, Lord Grimond, asked about trustees and what changes are expected at the Royal Botanic Garden. The establishment of trustees under the Bill does not represent a policy to alter radically the excellent work carried out by the garden. We are concerned primarily with an appropriate structure, embodied in statute for the first time in the garden's history, which is efficient and flexible and offers the garden more control over its own affairs. We hope that this will lead to policy initiatives from the new board which reflect the areas of expertise and experience which trustees can contribute to the garden's continued development.
The noble Lord also asked me about Inverleith House. The decision by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland to place Inverleith House under the management of the Royal Botanic Garden is extremely important for the latter's functions of providing education and amenity. There is to be an exhibition relating to the centenary of the Scottish Office held there during the summer of 1985, but thereafter the trustees will promote standing exhibitions concerning their work and related matters.
162
There will also be room for occasional exhibitions promoted by others. This is one of the areas where I expect the trustees to bring imaginative ideas, especially when we consider that the Inverleith Garden is in the top three most visited attractions in the whole of Scotland.
The noble Lord, Lord Grimond, also asked me about St. Ninian's Treasure, and the treasures which could be returned to local museums. I can confirm to him that the Bill provides powers under which the National Museum's Trustees may loan, or possibly transfer, such items to museums in the areas with which the items are especially associated. The noble Lord asked me what will happen to civil servants who are transferred. This point was also raised by the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, and I think the noble Lord, Lord Ross.
The noble Lord, Lord Grimond, is correct in thinking that the civil servants presently running the Royal Scottish Museum and the Royal Botanic Garden will be expected to transfer to the employment of the new boards of trustees. We have included in the Bill provisions to safeguard the rights of those staff. Most, if not all of them, we expect will transfer. There are presently 169 staff employed at the Royal Scottish Museum and 150 at the Royal Botanic Garden. They are not, as the noble Lord seemed to imply, general administrative civil servants inside the Scottish Office but principally specialists who will move with the jobs.
The noble Lord, Lord Ross, asked me about the need for more aid to local museums. I would add to what I have previously said that on the general question of relief to local museums we have announced an increase of 40 per cent. in the funding for the Scottish Museums Council which offers help and advice to non-national museums and galleries throughout Scotland, and that is for 1985–86.
The noble Lord, Lord Grimond, and my noble friend Lady Elliot raised the question why was "historical" not included among the list of interests. This point was also raised by my noble friend Lord Lauderdale. We are satisfied that historical interests can be properly covered by the existing list in paragraph 3(3) of Schedule 1. This was never intended to be an exhaustive list, and we are content that there is no need to make any further amendment here, although I make it clear to your Lordships that I am prepared to look at this carefully and consider what may develop at the next stage of this Bill.
My noble friend Lady Elliot also raised the question of the importance of the Society of Antiquaries, about which I have already spoken. I do not think that I need say more about that at the moment except that I shall be tabling an appropriate amendment to deal with the point which is still causing them some concern. The noble Baroness also asked about the loss of Scottish identity in any new structure, and the need for more space. I can assure the noble Baroness that there is no danger whatsoever that the Museum of Scotland concept will be lost sight of when the two existing national museums are brought together. We have made it clear that our commitment to this concept is absolutely central to the action we are taking in relation to the museums, and the Museums Advisory Board is also well aware of the priority we attach to this.

163
The noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, to whom I was indebted for being as good as his word and making a brief contribution—and I am particularly glad that he made a contribution because I know that he has a fellow feeling with me, having done this very job during the period of the last Labour Government—asked about the need to extend the concept to areas outwith the central belt, and the need for links with local authority museums. He felt that the Bill was silent on that point. The noble Lord was not quite correct in saying that no reference is included in the Bill to the work of the national museums and their attitudes to local museums. An amendment was made in another place to Clause 2(1)(d) to clarify the powers of the new board in this area.
My noble friend Lord Lauderdale asked me about the treatment of the Society of Antiquaries, and I have dealt with that point. I felt that he was a little harsh on the Government in his comments, but since he has left his place I shall not say any more than that at this moment. The noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, who indicated to me that he would have to leave early, spoke about the geographical spread of trustees from the regions of Scotland. The question of geographical balance will be taken into account among other matters considered when my right honourable friend comes to appoint the trustees of the new board.
The noble Baroness, Lady White, to whom I referred a little earlier, gave the example of the National Museum of Wales and told us a little about that. She was right to draw the attention of your Lordships' House to the example of the National Museum of Wales in setting up a number of specialist outstations throughout the Principality. This is in many ways an admirable example to follow. I am sure that both the Museums Advisory Board and the Trustee Board which follows it will take full account of what has happened in Wales when they come to consider what developments they might pursue in Scotland. I am grateful to her for drawing our attention to what has taken place there.
The noble Baroness also asked why there was no Scottish folk museum. I can tell her that there is already a substantial collection of artefacts relating to both town and country life in Scotland held in the National Museum of Antiquities. The museum already runs a specific agricultural museum on the Royal Highland Showground at Ingliston near Edinburgh. The new board of trustees will certainly be able to use these collections as a basis for some sort of parallel with the admirable Welsh Folk Museum, to which the noble Baroness referred.
The noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, in his now accustomed position of winding up the debate for the Opposition, made a number of comments. As so often happens on these occasions, many of them I have already touched upon because in his wind-up he was picking up points that had been raised during the debate. He was particularly concerned about civil servants, which also concerned the noble Lord, Lord Grimond. I hope that he is satisfied with what I said in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, about the way in which civil servants will be handled.
164
In closing, I should like to revert to my earlier remarks about the framework we are producing in this Bill for the National Museum of Scotland. It is particularly important to ensure that the framework we create will stand the test of time. We believe that this Bill has that quality. I am grateful to noble Lords for contributing to the debate.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Scottish Electricity Boards (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1985
British Gas Corporation (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1985
Water Undertakings (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1985
British Alcan Aluminium Limited and Lochaber Power Company (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1985
British Railways Board (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1985
British Waterways Board (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1985
Glasgow Underground (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1985
British Telecommunications plc (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1985
6.52 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness rose to move, That the eight draft orders laid before the House on 15th January be approved.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, with the leave of the House I should like to move the eight Motions standing in my name on the Order Paper en bloc. Although the orders before us today are fairly technical measures their purpose is comparatively straightforward. I hope it will be for the convenience of the House if I describe their main elements together.
Five of the orders before us relate to public utility undertakings with extended national networks. A sixth—that relating to telecommunications—also concerns a national network. In each case the relevant order deals with the valuation of the operational lands and heritages which, in common with nearly all other heritable property, are in principle subject to rating valuation but are not capable of satisfactory conventional valuation since the value of all parts of the network depends on the existence of the other parts. It makes only sense, therefore, to deal with these on a national basis. In most cases these undertakings have been subject to formula valuation already for many years, and these orders are only necessitated by this year's Scottish general revaluation. The two orders dealing with localised undertakings are required to ensure that these are treated in a similar manner to their nearest comparators which are national networks.
Formula valuation basically prescribes a cumulo rateable value and the manner of its annual

165
adjustment and apportionment, and thereby produces rateable values for each undertaking in each district or islands area at the tone of the current valuation roll. These three stages are covered in detail in the orders. It follows that at a time of revaluation it is necessary to revise the formulae at least to provide a new cumulo rateable value at the tone of the new valuation roll. This is the primary reason for bringing these orders forward at this time. They provide new valuations according to the level of values which will be entered in the new valuation rolls to take effect from 1st April this year. The opportunity has also been taken to review the detail of the formulae that have operated since 1978, and make improvements where they have been found desirable.
We have had extensive consultations with the interested parties; namely, the bodies running the undertakings and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. With only a few exceptions they are content with our proposals.
We fixed the new cumulo rateable values at the tone of the new valuation rolls which come into effect in April, in consultation with the interested parties, primarily by reference to turnover. We established what we believe would have been a fair rateable value given current circumstances at the tone of the current 1978 valuation roll, and the resultant figures were then uprated to the new level of values by multiplying the resultant figures by a revaluation factor derived from the local assessors' formal estimates of the increase in value for all subjects which they value.
I shall deal with any matters that are raised, but perhaps I should say a word on the implementation of these orders. The two orders relating solely to localised undertakings entirely within one valuation area will be implemented by the relevant local assessors according to the same procedural requirements as for other subjects. Responsibility for the implementation of the other orders, which relate to national networks or, in the case of water undertakings, which mostly extend to more than one region, will lie with the Assessor of Public Undertakings for Scotland. I commend these orders to the House because I do not believe them to be controversial, and I beg to move.
Moved, That the eight draft orders laid before the House on 15th January he approved.—(The Earl of Caithness.)
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Earl for the trouble he has taken with these orders. I will not ask him if he understood them all. In fact, to my knowledge there was only one Member of Parliament who was able to understand these public undertakings rateable value formulae. He retired and is now dead, so that leaves us in the Schleswig-Holstein situation that no one understands them at all.
To take the rating valuation order which is called the Water Undertakings (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1985, I defy even the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, to understand, not the determination of the aggregate of rates but the apportionment of rateable value. That takes two pages and would take a university mathematician, after a lot of study, to go through. I am very sorry that the noble Earl was left with this.
166
The point is that these orders come because there has been a revaluation in Scotland. This is something that no one in England understands because there has not been a rating revaluation here for years and years. Some day they may have one. It is supposed to happen every five years.
Having had a revaluation, we then get a tone of assessment in the new roll. That gives us three new factors—residential valuations, commercial valuations and industrial valuations. What the Government mean by "tone" is the balance of one against the other. I should like an explanation here. It is probably unfair to ask a junior Minister to give an explanation, but why, under these new valuations, has the tone changed? Industry will pay less; commercial subjects will pay less; but residential subjects, who were to be freed by this Government from paying any rates, will pay more.
What I have said is a fact. I have not received my valuations yet. I am waiting for a chance to appeal when I get them. From all I hear, the tone is so changed that the balance has swung against residential ratepayers. Industry will pay less—so much so that the Government, I understand, are to reduce the statutory relief that industry receives in respect of its rates. Commerce will pay less, but those in residential accommodation will pay more. I am sorry if this is bad news for any noble Lord who has property in Scotland.
There will also be awful rows when the rates go up, not due to anything that has been done by local authorities but by the change in the revaluation procedures. This is only the first order. We have another seven to come. But we are taking them all together; and knowing the importance of the business coming afterwards and the impatience of those who are anxious to get to it, I will not delay your Lordships for very long.
However, how does it happen that in the determination of the aggregate rate we get a clear figure? Is that reflecting purely and simply the fact that they are not going to be so much rates as they would if they had all gone up on the same ratio, by the same multiplier, as in the last valuation roll? This is the reason for it. And of course I will not ask for an explanation of the determination, apart from the determination of the initial rateable values when there is a clear sum of money. That is fixed by juggling the figures to ensure that the public undertakings get the benefits that are going to the industrial undertakings generally. But of course it is going to leave residential ratepayers to pay more if we are going to be easier on these public undertakings: water, electricity, gas and so on. That is the only point that I wish to raise.
Lord Wilson of Langside: My Lords, I shall not delay your Lordships for more than one or two minutes. I want only to say that I share the fascination of the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, with these diverting formulae in accordance with which the aggregate amount of the rateable values are apportioned among the rating areas in Scotland. I wonder whether the noble Earl could say a further word or two about the nature and extent of the consultations which have taken place on these instruments. I gather from what he said that there were some reservations among tthe bodies. Can he tell us a a little more about that?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, is much more experienced in the question of rateable values, lands and heritages than I am, and it would be foolish of me to cross swords with him at this particular time on such matters. When it comes to the tone of the list, my understanding is that the "tone" means the general average level of values in cash terms. It is not about the balance of the list. As to what the future holds for residential property, vis à vis commercial or industrial property, that is something we have to wait for and which we should know in the not too distant future.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilson of Langside, asked me about consultation. Extensive consultations through officials were conducted with all the interested parties, prior to the Secretary of State finalising his proposals. All parties were formally consulted in December 1984 on the final proposals prior to these orders being laid before Parliament.
He also took me up on one point that I raised concerning the one order which was not unanimously agreed and that was in regard to electricity, where the two electricity boards in Scotland made a very strong case for a reduction in their rateable value, whereas in England it is considerably higher. We found that when one had to re-assess the rateable value as at the 1983–84 financial year, their case was not as strong as it would have been had it been argued today, because there have been substantial changes which have to be taken into account in rating.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Charities Bill [H.L.]
7.4 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 2 [Resolution by trustees of old charity to alter objects]:
[Amendment No. 1 not moved.]
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Aylestone): Amendment No. 2, page 3, line 26. The word "transferor" is deleted and therefore the words to be inserted are, "founder of the charity".
Lord Airedale Lord Airedale moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 3, line 26, leave out ("donor") and insert ("founder of the charity").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 2 and perhaps we can discuss Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 together because the same point is involved.
Amendment No. 3: Clause 3, page 5, line 20, leave out ("donor") and insert ("founder of the transferor charity").
I should apologise to the House for the manuscript amendment, which strikes out the word "transferor" from Amendment No. 2, though not out of Amendment No. 3. I think it is agreed that the "donor" in subsection (3) and the "founder" in subsection (4) are the same person; and it is surely important in a single statute that the same person should be described by the same words: otherwise
168
people will strain to find a difference where no difference exists. That is the purpose of these two amendments, and I beg to move.
Viscount Colville of Culross: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, has always been very good at English and at logic. He is absolutely right and I am happy to accept the amendments, one in manuscript form.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 3 [Power for certain charity trustees to transfer whole property to another charity]:
Lord Airedale Lord Airedale moved Amendment No. 3:
[Printed above.]
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Airedale Lord Airedale moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 5, line 27, leave out ("charity").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment, to leave out the word "charity" in the Charities Bill, is not intended to be a wrecking amendment. It is simply that Clause 3(1) refers to the trustees of a registered charity and subsections (2), (3) and (4) refer to them simply as "the trustees", in accordance with good drafting practice. However, subsection (5) goes back to square one and calls them "the charity trustees". The word "charity" at this point is, I submit, quite unnecessary and ought to be left out. I should say that it was not I who spotted this but the noble Viscount. I am merely taking some of the workload from his shoulders. I beg to move.
Viscount Colville of Culross: Yes, my Lords; but it was the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, who spotted the point in the first place, and I think he should have the credit for it. I am very happy to accept the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 4 [Power for very small charities to spend capital]:
Lord Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon Lord Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 7, line 3, leave out ("£25") and insert ("£l00").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 5. It may be for the convenience of your Lordships if at the same time we discuss Amendment No. 6, which quite clearly hangs together with it.
Amendment No. 6: Page 7, line 7, leave out ("£5") and insert ("£l0").
I do not wish to go over in wearisome detail the same arguments which were deployed in Committee. It is, I think, well known that Clause 4 in this Bill and my amendment to it spring from the original Small Charities Bill, which was carried without amendment through another place with the support of the Home Office and the Government. It was then, together with the Bill sponsored by my noble friend Lady Faithfull, sent to a Select Committee of your Lordships' House, which discussed on a fairly wide-ranging basis the various reforms which might be made in charity law.
It seems to us that on Clause 4 the Select Committee has behaved in a rather peculiar way. The Select Committee said that they were much impressed by the evidence submitted to them, that there were many people who objected in principle to the idea that any charity ceased to exist and that the capital of the charity should be spent as income. It is a fact that this was a recommendation made first by the Goodman Committee and then by the Select Committee of another place and it was then, as I said, with the support of the Government, carried through in a Bill in another place.
The Members of the Select Committee gathered in serried ranks at Committee stage to attack this amendment which my noble and learned friend and I put forward; and I see quite a few of them gathered here today. I suggest, however—in case your Lordships should think that, because there may be half-a-dozen of them and only two or three of us, this represents a considerable number of independent judgments by noble Lords—that they are of course all, quite rightly, defending a collective decision which was made by a Select Committee and, to use a popular phrase, "If you've heard one, you've heard 'em all."
The arguments which were adduced—and, since I concede that much the same ammunition is likely to be deployed today, I should like to try to defuse some of it in advance—were several. First, we were accused of not having taken sufficient account of the provisions of Clause 3 of this Bill, which would enable small charities to offer themselves to be taken over by a larger charity. Of course, we did take account of this, which is why the original capital figure off £1,000 in the Small Charities Bill was reduced in this amendment to £100, which seems to us a reasonable figure.
But it still seems to us that the Select Committee's figure will leave a considerable number of small charities, dealing with only minuscule sums, who might find it extremely difficult, in view of their terms of reference, the terms of the trust and the nature of their assets, to find a larger authority who would be willing to absorb them. It therefore seems to us that some more charities should be brought within the ambit of Clause 4 than the very restrictive figures of £25 capital and £5 income would allow.
The Members of the Select Committee said that they were enormously impressed by the weight of evidence, which suggested that there was violent disagreement with the principle of the expenditure of capital, but what they did as a result seems to us to have been very strange. It is, of course, a fact that much evidence was produced by individuals and various bodies to the Select Committee, which was in favour of the expenditure of capital for very small charities, and some of them actually said that they would have liked to see a small charities Bill introduced and carried. But the point is that, though they were impressed by the weight of the evidence against it, they nevertheless decided to ignore this and to breach what was alleged to be the principle that no charity should be allowed to die and its capital to be expended. Having breached the principle, they then proceeded to make this concession virtually ineffective by fixing figures which it seemed to us were far too low.
Perhaps the most superficially attractive argument which was produced in the Committee stage was that of the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, who said that because the £10 Christmas bonus was a significant and welcome addition to the income of old-age pensioners, a £10 figure from a charitable trust was equally significant and equally to be preserved. But this analogy is absurdly wide of the mark, because the noble Lord was talking of an operation through which millions of old-age pensioners receive £10 at Christmas, simply because somebody programmes a computer in Newcastle to add £10 to a cheque which they were going to receive anyway, using a machinery which is in use all through the year and where there is no extra administrative hassle involved in adding a £10 Christmas bonus.
I do not think the noble Lord, or any other noble Lord, would really suggest that it would be a cost-effective operation, if every one of these millions of old-age pensioners had to get his £10 through the operation of a separate trust which had to manage a small endowment to produce £10 a year, and if each one of these hundreds of separate trusts then had at the end of the year to prepare accounts, to send copies to the Charity Commissioners and to the local authority and to publish the accounts. It is quite obvious that we are talking about two quite different things.
This brings me, finally, to the point which is really at the basis of this amendment. As it stands, the Bill condemns hundreds, perhaps more, of small charities to go on with the paraphernalia of a trust fund, with the management of a very small endowment, with the preparation of accounts each year, with sending them to the Charity Commissioners and to local authorities, with the publication of the accounts and so on. I had always thought that the object of this Bill was to simplify the operation of the law of charities, to simplify the work of the Charity Commission, to remove unnecessary work and to make it easier for small charities to be absorbed, and so on. But the Bill as it stands will condemn these hundreds of small charities to go on working under extreme difficulties to very little effect.
I hope, therefore, that the House will be willing to accept this amendment, even though I fear that my noble friend who is responsible for the Bill may not feel inclined to accept it. Nevertheless, since we received some support from the Government at the Committee stage, I hope that if the House decides to reject this amendment the Secretary of State may nevertheless feel when the Bill becomes law that he could take an early opportunity by statutory instrument, using the powers which are in this Bill, to increase the figures to a reasonable sum. My Lords, I beg to move.
Viscount Colville of Culross: My Lords, I wonder whether it would be to the convenience of the House if I said a word now, although I quite appreciate that I shall then not be able to answer any other speeches. The fact of the matter is that my noble friend Lord Maude has not left me feeling very defused, and I have to tell him more in sorrow than in anger that he is quite right. I do not think I can accept this amendment, and we shall have to take the view of the House upon it. But I should like to give the reason, because it is not a

171
matter of antagonism; it is a matter of judgment, and it is quite an important matter of judgment, as I hope I shall be able to persuade the House in a moment.
Yes, my Lords, the figure is very small and it is small for a reason. For instance—and this is on page 10 of the report of the Select Committee—we have some figures for the end of the last decade, 1978–79, for the charities for the relief of the poor in Oxfordshire. Of a total of 288, 64 had an income of less than £5, which was 22.2 per cent. of all of them. If one puts that up to the £10 income that my noble friend is suggesting, it brings it up to more than 30 per cent. of all the charities for the relief of poverty in Oxfordshire. It is a matter of judgment; 22 per cent. is not an insignificant figure and some might think that 30 per cent. is going a rather long way.
The whole of this Bill is a trial run. For instance, the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, wanted to extend it in the way which his amendment would have done if he had moved it, and I have great sympathy with this; but the fact of the matter is that, had he moved it, I should have had to talk about resource indications and the probable death of the Bill at the hands of my noble friend Lady Trumpington. But there will be other opportunities to look at the ways in which these various provisions work once the Bill, as I hope it will, gets on to the statute book and starts to be used.
This is a trial run. The figure that we are fixing is a matter of judgment. It is not immutable. If this proves to be the wrong figure. it can be changed. But the point is that, although I have to agree with the noble Lord that there is an illogicality in having Clause 4 in the Bill at all—perhaps some might have said that it would have been better to leave it out—in the figures that the Select Committee chose we are talking about a sum of money which is so small that trustees might legitimately say to themselves "It is not worth going through the rigmarole of trying to alter the objects or trying to amalgamate with another charity".
The great difference between the situation when my noble friends Lord Maude and Lord Renton took the Small Charities Bill through Parliament and the present day is that in this Bill we have the two alternative routes, at least with regard to charities for the relief of poverty, in that they can change their objects under Clause 2 or amalgamate under Clause 3. Those alternatives were not in the Bill that went through Parliament before, up to the stage that my noble friend mentioned. They are in this Bill and one of the things that impressed me as a member of the Select Committee was that there was a great deal of evidence to show that charitable money can still be put to very good use indeed to meet needs which are not being met by the Welfare State and by other methods of dealing with poverty and other deprivation. In other words, there is a very real mischief which charitable money can go to meet and there is therefore a substantial argument for minimising the amount of capital that is going to be dissipated through the machinery in Clause 4.
So there is an arguable case for keeping this figure low, at any rate to start with, in order to see to what extent it will be used. If it is put high it might be very attractive to the trustees to think, "Oh, it is much easier just to allow our capital to be used as income;
172
wind the whole thing up", rather than to go through even the modest do-it-yourself provisions of Clauses 2 and 3. Then the money would be lost to charity and I quite see that there could well be people who would object to that as a matter of principle.
A Private Member's Bill going from this House to another place is a fragile vessel. This is no exception. If it is objected to in another place, it will be dead. I have indications that the higher figure is more likely to cause objections in another place than the figure that is in the Bill at the moment. I happen to know because I have discussed it with them that neither of my noble friends behind me agrees; but that is the information I have and I consider that to be of significance which I ought to impart to the House. This was a compromise. There were members of the Committee who were against the whole question of capital being used for income and spent in that way. In the judgment that we collectively exercised, we thought that these figures were the correct figures for the trial that we now envisage ensuing.
My noble friend said, "If you hear one of us, you hear us all." But that is the nature of a compromise that had been agreed after a good deal of discussion. I should have thought that it gained weight because many points of view were put forward and they all came together in the figures that are in the Bill. As I say, it is not a matter of antagonism but, according to my own judgment, it would be better to leave it as it is.
Lord Denning: My Lords, I hope that your Lordships will support this amendment. Running through this report of the Select Committee is the stress they lay on their principle that a charity established in perpetuity should continue to exist in perpetuity. Just think of the founder of the charity two or three hundred years ago. He founded the charity with, let us say, £200, which would be a substantial sum in those days, the income from which was to be used for the relief of the poor year after year. Now, he would not have in mind at all the position today when that £200, not having been invested properly, as many charities have not, has been reduced to 20p.
In other words, the principle is wrong. It is not right that a charity established in perpetuity should continue to exist in perpetuity because, if one looked at the intention of the original founder, one would see that he would never have intended it to apply when it became ridiculously small. So, in a way, the principle should be invaded to do away with all these small charities which were never intended at the beginning. Indeed, the original proposal—the Bill of my noble friends Lord Maude and Lord Renton in the Commons—supported by the Government, supported by all the local associations and the Churches and passing as it did, through the Commons, would have enabled all those small charities up to £1,000 to be dealt with.
Now the Bill reduces the figure to the insignificant level of £25 permanent endowment and £5 income. That is ridiculously small—de minimis non curat lex, it is said; de minimis non curat this Bill. Sensible figures, very small in terms of the figures given in the amendment, of £100 and £10 are much more realistic than those which are already inserted. I would support the amendment.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, I wish to support the amendment. In my view—and it is a question of judgment—the figures even in the amendment are still extremely modest and small. In fact at the Committee stage, I moved an amendment which proposed considerably larger figures but I do not think that if we accepted the present figures in the amendment this Bill would in any way be imperilled in another place—quite the contrary, I believe. I think there is much greater danger of the Bill being objected to in the Commons because, although in Clause 4 the principle is accepted that small charities shall be entitled to spend capital, the limits imposed by the Bill as it is at present drafted are ludicrous. What we are talking about in the clause as it is presently drafted is the power to spend capital where,
"the value of the endowment is £25 or less and … the charity's gross income in the preceding accounting period was £5 or less".
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, must be absolutely right that the original donors never envisaged the value of money falling to this extent. At least we ought to try to put a realistic base to this clause.
Lord Renton: My Lords, this is a very narrow point, and I shall therefore not detain your Lordships for long. May I say that I entirely agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, has said about reactions in another place. I agree with my noble friend Lord Colville that we should keep the figure low, but, goodness me, the figures proposed in these two amendments are as low as I would have thought judgment and conscience would allow. I feel that a gross annual income of £5 for a charity is so small as to be absurd. It is the sort of sum for which now no solicitor would write the simplest letter. It is the sum for which most skilled workers would be just about willing to agree for one hour's work. For us to say that if we agree with the principle of this clause we will have it operative at a level of endowment of £25 a year only, which does not apply to an endowment in land, and a gross income of £5 a year, does not seem to be within the realms of reality.
I hope that my noble friend will divide the House on this amendment. It is important that we should have a decision and I am quite convinced in my own mind that it would be more acceptable in another place if we had the slightly higher figure, which is still, I submit, far too low.
Lord Brightman: My Lords, may I add one word against this amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Maude, said, if I heard him correctly, that the effect of Clause 4 would be to condemn hundreds of small charities to a useless existence. Under Clause 3 the trustees of every small charity are open to transfer their tiny fund to another larger and effective charity. I suggest that it is preferable that small charities should be encouraged to transfer their funds to a large charity rather than that we should give them the power to disperse their funds and thus lose them to charity.
Lord Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord for giving way. I did not say that it would condemn dozens of charities to uselessness because they could not take
174
advantage of Clause 3. I said that there would be a number of charities with endowments and incomes so small that either because of the nature of their trust deed or the nature of their assets they would find it very difficult to get a larger charity to take them on. I am convinced that is true.
Lord Brightman: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord for having misunderstood him. In my respectful submission there would be no difficulty in a small charity, however small, transferring its funds to a large charity. The small fund which is transferred is not, under the terms of the Bill, kept as a separate fund. It becomes an accretion to the existing fund. From the point of view of accounting it is lost forever. It causes no trouble whatever to the transferee charity. I suggest that the figure which appears in Clause 4 should be left as it is. There is really no reason to raise the level in Clause 4 as it stands.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, there is very little that I can add but I should like merely to support what the noble Viscount and what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, have said. From my way of seeing it, the figure was set by the Select Committee after a very great deal of consideration. It was in two minds as to whether to keep this clause in at all, and therefore the very fact that it arrived at this figure gives it, in my view, a considerable strength.
I am also very impressed by what the noble Viscount said, that this Bill is a trial run. Therefore, surely the figure arrived at by the Select Committee must be the one that is the best for a Bill which is having its trial run.
Finally, I agree with the noble Viscount that the Bill in its present form has the most hope of survival. Therefore, those of us who believe in the usefulness of the Bill and in the general purpose it is trying to carry out will wish it to survive and to prosper. Therefore, is it worth risking its being blocked merely for this very small sum of £75? I oppose the amendment.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, I wish to resist the amendment. There is one argument in support of Clause 4 which has not been mentioned this evening. We have heard about the intentions of the donor, perhaps 100 years ago, and we have heard about the role of the trustees, but we must also have regard to the beneficiaries and the potential beneficiaries of a charity, however small it may be.
I happen to know of a small charity in a rural parish in Gwynedd which gives away no more than £5 a year but there are parishioners in that parish who know that the money is being donated every Christmas. Therefore, it will be interesting to know how, if trustees rely on Clause 4, the beneficiaries and potential beneficiaries will respond to the exercise of this power if they wake up one day and find that their charity, without consultation with beneficiaries and potential beneficiaries and without consultation with a local authority or public notice, has suddenly wound itself up. I should have thought that if we give this measure five years' trial we shall see how people will

175
respond. It might be that our judgment is mistaken, but I believe that we should move cautiously, as has been indicated in the Bill.
Lord Airedale: My Lords, I follow very much what the noble Lord has just said. I want to be brief because I am conscious of having spoken very much on this point, both in Committee and at Second Reading.
The Select Committee was impressed by evidence that a great many of these old charities were established in memory of some person or some event. They might have stuck up a stone memorial, and if they had they could have been certain, or reasonably certain, that it would last virtually for ever. However, in many cases—and I think that today we would have applauded them for this—instead of putting up a memorial of stone they established a charity to do good works: but they hoped that the charity would be as perpetual a memorial to the person or event as a memorial in stone.
Therefore, before we interfere at all with one of these old charities we have to ask ourselves what the founders would have said about our proposals had they been here today. Let us suppose that the founders could be brought here today. It would have to be explained to them that the welfare state has taken over a great deal of the charitable work which used to fall upon charities but that the welfare state does not provide everything and that here and there in the villages there are deserving cases of poor people who need comforts of one kind or another which the welfare state is not able to provide. It would then have to be explained to them that their endowment had fallen to £100 and that this might produce £10 a year. I would say to them, despite being in trouble with the noble Lord, Lord Maude, that an example of what can be done with £10 today is that £10 is an accepted Christmas present for an old-age pensioner in 1985. One must then ask them this question: are you happy, with £ 10 a year to spend, that this is worthwhile? And are you happy that the charity be wound up and the memorial element shall disappear? I cannot believe that one can say with any certainty at all that the founders would have been happy about that. I believe that many of them have said. "Let it carry on". When it gets down to a £25 endowment, I can understand that they might well say, "It's too much trouble to go on with this very small figure": but they would not say that with a figure of £100. For that reason, I oppose this amendment.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, as I explained in Committee, the Government take the view that the limits in Clause 4 could, without serious disadvantage, be raised. However, the Government would not wish to take such a strong position on this issue so as to place in jeopardy the Bill itself—a Bill whose provisions the Select Committee worked so hard to achieve and whose provisions the Government fully support. Now that we have heard that if an amendment to increase the limits is passed by your Lordships' House, it will mean that the Bill will be challenged in another place—and of course we cannot anticipate what will happen there—I have to say that the proper course for me would be to abstain on this issue.
176
To turn to the final point made by my noble friend Lord Maude with regard to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State raising the limits at a later date, I must reply that he can increase the value only in line with inflation as in Section 5(2) of the Bill.
Lord Melchett: I have not had an opportunity to take part in earlier debates on this Bill, which I regret because I was a member of the Select Committee. I felt very strongly that the provision for winding up charities was wrong in principle. It seemed to me that the important part of a charitable gift was that it was going to last in perpetuity, and we would be justified in interfering with that in only the most exceptional circumstances. I was persuaded by colleagues on the Select Committee that for a number of reasons we would be justified in including the clause which is in the Bill, allowing such a winding up and the spending of capital, but only for cases where the amount of money to be spent was very small.
It seems to me that two arguments have not been taken into account in supporting this amendment. First, the views of the potential donors to charity. I have no doubt that the fact that charitable trusts exist in perpetuity is an important factor with potential donors. That point has been made in other ways, and I do not think that those who suggest supporting this amendment have taken that point on board or indeed attempted to argue against it. The second point—and the noble Lord, Lord Maude, in an intervention raised this—was the question of transferring funds to another charity. I cannot believe that that would be more difficult than finding a worthy cause on which to spend the capital of a very small charity whose objects were almost by definition seriously out of date.
It is clearly going to be much easier for trustees in practice to find the name and address of a larger charity whose objects subsume that of the small charity, and transfer their capital to that charity. That is the route that the Select Committee believe that most small charities will take. It will be simple, easy, and the funds will be retained for charitable expenditure in future. It is one of the things which the original donors clearly intended when they made the donation. That is something that I believe should weigh very heavily with your Lordships' House, as well as I believe the very real risk of serious opposition to this Bill if the amendment is carried. Certainly, for my part. the Bill would cease to he one which I could support, and I hope that Members in another place will share that view and the Bill will not make further progress if the amendment is carried.
On Question, amendment negatived.
[Amendment No. 6 not moved.]

Leicestershire Bill [H.L.]
Reported from the Select Committee on Unopposed Provisions with amendments.
House adjourned at sixteen minutes before eight o'clock.