Lords Sitting of 26 February 1985

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Chichester.

Personal Statement by The Lord Elton
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Elton): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall make a short personal Statement. In the course of my reply to the debate last Thursday on the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1984 (Continuance) Order 1985 I said that the timing of the publication of the annual report of the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights for Northern Ireland was decided by the commission itself and not by the Government. The precise timing of publication is, however, a matter for the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland as Section 20 of the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973 requires him to lay the commission's annual report before each House. I very much regret that I was not aware of this at the time that I spoke. I apologise unreservedly for misleading the House as a result.

Agricultural R & D: Funding
2.37 p.m.
Lord John-Mackie: 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 where they intend to apply the proposed reductions in expenditure on agricultural research and development, and what representations they have received on these proposals.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Lord Belstead): My Lords, my right honourable friend has asked the Priorities Board for Research and Development in Agriculture and Food to advise on how the research effort might be adjusted to take account of the overall reduction in planned expenditure. We shall be taking our decisions in the light of that advice and of our assessment of the scope for greater industry support for research undertaken by the public sector. The reaction to these proposals will emerge more clearly as our consultations progress.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, in thanking the Minister for that reply, may I say that he has not told us very much? Can I put it to him and is he really aware—
A noble Lord: Ask a question!
Lord John-Mackie: I have, my Lords. Is the Minister aware that if efficiency in farming is to be maintained in the face of falling prices, agriculture
830
needs more research and development, not less? Is he also aware that if he reads the letter in The Times today written by the director of the Plant Breeding Institute, who makes this point, he will appreciate that question? Does he also realise that the AFRC, if it has to bear the major part of these cuts, will probably have to do away with another two institutes over and above the Letcombe Laboratory and the Weed Research Organisation? Does he not realise that this demoralises research workers to a degree that affects their work immensely? The noble Lord mentioned—
Noble Lords: Too long!
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, I should like to ask the noble Lord whether he is aware that if the industry is to give help to research, it will need more time to organise? Will he see that the cuts are phased over a longer period to allow this to happen?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the noble Lord says in his first question that the efficiency of the agricultural industry is all important. That of course is why the total expenditure on agriculture, fisheries and food in the United Kingdom is over £200 million a year—a figure which compares very favourably with other major OECD countries. The Government have said that we believe that the industry ought to take a share in that funding and in the decisions on R & D. We are consulting the priorities board on those issues. The noble Lord asked me specifically about the AFRC institutes and about the timing of decisions. I give the noble Lord an assurance that we shall aim to give guidance on our future recommendations from the Ministry of Agriculture as soon as we can. But of course the management of the institutes is a matter for the AFRC.
Lord Harvington: My Lords, will my noble friend also bear in mind that much of the money involved over the past 25 years has been spent on trying to isolate the virus in the disease of scrapie in sheep? Is he aware that as a result, to the great loss of our sheep breeders, it has not been possible to export pedigree sheep from this country to New Zealand or Australia? Will he try to ensure that some money is left for the continuation of what has been going on rather unsuccessfully for the past 25 years?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, my noble friend makes an important point. It will undoubtedly be taken into account by the priorities board in giving its advice to my right honourable friend on the priorities that it foresees in the future for R & D. I shall also draw my right honourable friend's attention to what my noble friend has said.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, will the noble Lord confirm what is common knowledge—that the announcement of these proposed cuts has caused considerable dismay not only to the farming community, to the agricultural colleges and to the university departments where they teach agriculture, but also in the AFRC itself? Will he also confirm that this research is of value not only to the farmers of this country but also to the third world? Will he agree with Sir Ralph Riley that these cuts, if carried out, would

831
bring this country down to the level of Greece and Italy?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, it is because the research work in this country, as the noble Lord knows very well, is of such importance that the expenditure amounts to over £200 million. The decision has been taken by the Government that they will not make any change to that rate of funding for another year; but after that there will be a reduction in commissioned research of £10 million in 1986–87, and another £10 million in 1987–88. I do not agree with the last question that the noble Lord put.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, will my noble friend confirm that I was right in the impression I received from his first Answer that in the future there will probably be rather more of a fair share for food processing research than there has been in the past?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, we are putting more emphasis on food research in the future. This, of course, is a response to the report, made about two years ago, of the Select Committee of another place.
Baroness White: My Lords, can the Minister confirm that the money which was allocated to the Agricultural and Food Research Council for restructuring is being safeguarded? I ask this because there will be considerable expenditure on reorganisation.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I do not think I can go further than simply to say that within the total budget which the AFRC has, which of course comes from both my right honourable friend's department and the Department of Education and Science, it will be for the AFRC to decide how it runs its institutes.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, can my noble friend make it clear to the industry whether this expenditure on research and development is aimed at an increase in production in this country, or at a reduction? That is where we have felt the pinch over the past year.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, this is perhaps one of the most important points which need to be looked at, and I have no doubt at all that it is a point which at this moment is being looked at by the priorities board.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, is the Minister aware that he made a mistake in saying that the figure for 1987–88 was £10 million? It is £20 million.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I am glad to clarify this, because, like the noble Lord, I think one could draw the wrong conclusion from statements that have been made. The correct figures are that there will be no change in funding in the next financial year, which is 1985–86; there will be a £10 million reduction in the following year, and a £10 million reduction in the year after that.

Ordnance Factories and Shipyards: Privatisation
2.45 p.m.
Lord Davies of Leek: 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 when they expect to privatise the Royal Ordnance factories and the warship building yards of British Shipbuilders.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces (Lord Trefgarne): My Lords, we expect to introduce private capital into Royal Ordnance plc as soon as it makes sound commercial sense to do so, but it is too early in the life of the company to determinate a date. British Shipbuilders have been asked to make substantial progress towards privatisation of their warship building yards by 31st March 1985, and to complete it by 31st March 1986.
Lord Davies of Leek: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his usual talented Answer. I should like to ask him, first, whether the British Docks Board is to be included. Secondly, is the noble Lord aware that what really is happening under this massive move towards privatisation is that hard-nosed Toryism is now growing repugnant to the old traditional British Tory Party?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the British Docks Board, to which the noble Lord referred, is not part of the arrangements to which I have been referring. The noble Lord will not be surprised to hear that I disagree profoundly with the observation in the second part of his supplementary question.
Lord Shinwell: My Lords, is the noble Lord the Minister aware that one of the firms likely to be affected by this possibly substantial change in management and organisation is the firm of Yarrow's, on the Clyde? Is he aware that this firm has been engaged for a long time in building warships, not only for the British Navy but for other navies? There have never been any restrictive practices in operation there, and very rarely has there been an industrial dispute. Why make any change at all? Why not leave it to proceed as it has been doing for many long years, to the satisfaction of the country and the British Navy?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, again, I am afraid, I do not wholly agree with the noble Lord. I believe that when Yarrow's and the other companies come into private ownership they will be much better placed to compete in world markets than they have been recently in public ownership; and I look forward very much to that.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether it is the case that the disposal of British Shipbuilders is now open to competitive bids? Will the Minister accept that it is common commercial practice, when assets are exposed for competitive tender, for a reserve price to be placed on the assets? In this case, will the Minister observe the same commercial practice on the disposal of this national asset?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, it is British Shipbuilders specifically who are seeking bids for the companies concerned. The noble Lord will be aware that they have asked for bids for Yarrow's, Brooke Marine and Hall Russell, and it is for them to determine the detail of the arrangements that they are now putting in hand. I do not think I can go further than that.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether he is satisfied that, when these proposals have borne fruit, the needs of the armed forces—the army and the navy—will be met by the resulting companies in an emergency situation, bearing in mind the sort of situation the Government are now creating, where profit and not need is the prime motive?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am indeed satisfied that the future arrangements will prove satisfactory. It is perhaps worth remembering that 90 per cent. or more of our defence requirements have always been provided from the private sector.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, as a former medical officer at one of these establishments, may I ask the noble Lord whether he is now satisfied, or perhaps whether the employees are now satisfied, with the employment and pensions arrangements for staff in these establishments? Are there at the moment any unresolved disputes upon which discussions are continuing?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I think the noble Lord is referring to the Royal Ordnance factories. In regard to the terms governing the transfer, final agreement with the trades unions has still to be reached on the pensions scheme for transferred staff. Discussions are continuing on the basis of Government proposals, and I hope that these will be concluded soon.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, is the Minister able to tell the House something about the security arrangements at Ordnance factories in the event of the substantial changes that were presaged in the earlier part of his original Answer? Is the Minister able to assure us that full and fruitful discussions are taking place with the Ministry of Defence Police Federation in respect of adequate staffing at Ordnance factories? Will the Minister give us an assurance that there will be sufficient police in place, and that we shall not have a situation where some are taken from one factory in order to ensure that another factory is up to standard, thus leaving the first factory undermanned?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, with respect I fancy that that question goes a little wide of the Question on the Order Paper. Nonetheless, I can assure the noble Lord that whatever arrangements are appropriate will be made.
Lord Shinwell: My Lords, arising out of my supplementary question, is the Minister aware that his reference to the prospects for the Yarrow Shipbuilding Yard is based upon an assumption that things will be better under privatisation? I point out that that is just an assumption. I am dealing with facts and the Government should do the same. Yarrow's is one of
834
the best firms in the country, and indeed one of the best warship building firms in the whole world. Why interfere with it? Why not let it go on in the same way? Why base the change merely on an assumption that things will be better?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the noble Lord has asked me to refer to facts. I am afraid that the facts are that Yarrow's and the other British warship building yards have not been particularly successful in world markets recently. I hope that their transfer into the private sector will change that situation.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is it not true that Her Majesty's Government have not so far been able to produce any convincing and detailed reasons as to why the warship yards should be privatised? Is the noble Lord further aware that the Government have still to prove the substantive point that a mere change in ownership results in any greater degree of efficiency? Is it not also true that the real reason why Her Majesty's Government wish to privatise the warship yards is that they know perfectly well that profitablility rests very largely upon cost-plus calculations for the purposes of determining their profit—this has been admitted in open debate—and that what it really amounts to is that they are handing over a plum to their political friends?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am afraid that I view these matters from a diametrically opposite point of view to that of the noble Lord. The noble Lord says that no argument has been advanced as to why these firms should be returned to the private sector. I say that there was no single argument why they should have left the private sector in the first place. They should now be returned.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that in the case of Yarrow's, which was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, most of its long history of success took place during the years when it was in private hands, before 1977?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am indeed aware of that fact. That was why I was obliged to remind the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, that that firm and the others have not been particularly successful in international markets in recent times.

Freight Transport
2.53 p.m.
Lord Gainford: 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 what measures are being taken to encourage companies to use rail and canal transport rather than road transport to carry their bulk freight.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, it has been the policy of this and previous Governments that industry should be free from intervention to choose the most

835
suitable and cost-effective freight transport. At the same time, it has been recognised that heavy flows of lorry traffic on unsuitable roads can be damaging to communities. For this reason the Government have made full use of their grant powers under the Freight Facilities Scheme to encourage the use of rail and inland water transport where it makes good environmental sense. So far 158 grants totalling £51 million have been approved. This has had the effect of removing more than 20 million tonnes of freight a year from unsuitable roads since the scheme was introduced in 1975.
Lord Gainford: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for that Answer. If the transfer of freight from roads to water transport is successful, are the authorities aware that there may be more canal mileage in London than there is in the City of Venice? As regards the existing canals, will there be opportunities for more employment? I am thinking of maintenance and the reactivation of other canals.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am afraid that I do not have comparative figures as regards the length of the canals in London and Venice. However, there is potential for the development of canals. Indeed, that has recently been exemplified by what has taken place on the Sheffield and South Yorkshire Navigation Canal which has been developed and has attracted grants from the European Regional Development Fund and the local authority. Her Majesty's Government have approved borrowing from the National Loan Fund on the normal investment criteria and, following the improvements to the canal, a grant under Section 36 was later awarded to one of the users of the new facilities.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, is not the Minister rather complacent about the figure which he gave? I believe that he mentioned 158 schemes. Is it not a fact that, since the passing of the 1981 Act regarding the freight facilities on waterways, only two schemes have been approved? Does that indicate a lack of publicity? Is there any scheme of direct marketing in order to encourage firms to move into these freight facilities?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the noble Lord is almost right. The grants as regards waterways have, indeed, got off to a slow start. In fact, only three schemes have been approved. It is up to industry to make more use of the scheme. I quite take the point that perhaps we should do more to advertise the scheme.
Lord Harvington: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend to what extent the Government have improved the inland waterways for use by commercial undertakings during the last two or three years? My information seems to be that they have not done very much.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, as I said I think in my original Answer, we do not give any financial assistance to favour any of the freight sectors, all of which are expected to operate commercially and in competition. Investment in the British Waterways
836
Board needs to meet Government investment criteria including a minimum 5 per cent. real rate of return. Other navigation authorities or the private sector do not, of course, require Government approval but will need to meet their usual commercial investment criteria.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, before we leave the question of the waterways, will my noble friend tell us what percentage of freight, nationally, travels on the waterways? Is it less than 1 per cent? If that is so, would he therefore be very careful about how much public money he pours into the waterways? Is he aware that most of our waterways are far too small to carry freight traffic and that they can only do so to a very limited extent? Would it not be far better to put some extra money into coastal shipping, which carries quite a deal of freight, rather than into the waterways themselves?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I do not have with me a figure for the percentage of freight which is carried by the waterways. If I can find such a figure I shall certainly write to my noble friend about it. As to the question of extending the grant to coastal shipping, I believe that that matter goes rather beyond the scope of the Question. However, I can say that we are considering proposals from the General Council of British Shipping along those lines and that we shall be responding soon. I should point out, however, that even if the percentage of goods conveyed by waterways were very small, there is still potential for savings as regards the environment to be made in this area. The recent grant which we made of £61,000 to a company in Rotherham will result in the removal of up to 10,000 lorry movements a year.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, will the Minister agree that, in addition to the environmental damage, we are in the terrible dilemma of knowing full well that the carriage of materials by heavy freight lorries is essential to the economy but at the same time it causes grave social nuisance to very many people? Successive Governments have looked at what can be done to our existing canal waterways. Therefore, should it not be a matter of top priority to carry out a thorough investigation so that we can make full use of our canals? As the noble Lord, Lord Gainford, has said, there are more canals in London than there are in Vienna—
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I should have said Venice. Moreover, there is a bigger river in London than there is in Vienna; and neither is full. That being the case, could we not resolve the two problems, as the noble Lord, Lord Gainford, has pointed out—and I am referring now to the social damage and the environmental damage—and make at the same time a magnificent contribution to our economy and full use of reorganised canal systems?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I think that I have covered most of the points which the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, raised. However, I should point out that the scheme also covers rail transport and in that field

837
there has been quite a considerable take-up; of 91 schemes since 1979, 18 have been in the last year. Since 1979 we have spent £34 million on this.

Opposition Parties: Exchequer Assistance
3 p.m.
Lord Diamond: 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 much the Exchequer contributes at present towards the finance of each opposition party in each House of Parliament, excluding remuneration of individual Members of either House.
The Lord President of the Council (Viscount Whitelaw): My Lords, in accordance with a resolution passed by the House of Commons on 23rd January 1985, the present maximum annual amounts of financial assistance payable, as from 1st January 1985, to each opposition party in that House are as follows:

£

Labour Party

440,355

Liberal Party

88,641

SDP

62,562

Scottish National Party

7,977

Plaid Cymru

4,878

Ulster Unionists

20,397

Democratic Unionist Party

6,789

This provision is made to assist opposition parties in carrying out their parliamentary business generally. It is for the party concerned to decide whether to make any allocation towards the costs of carrying out their parliamentary business in this House.
Lord Diamond: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Viscount for that very full explanation of the amounts paid under what I think is generally called "Short" money, in which all the parties in the other House share on the basis of both seats won and votes gained. However, the noble Viscount has not told me what amounts, apart from salaries, the Treasury bears in regard to this House. If the answer is, none, I should want to ask the noble Viscount why there is this enormous discrepancy between the two Houses.
Furthermore, as it is well known that payments are made by the Exchequer to individuals in this House (with which we are not concerned, either as to names or amounts) does the noble Viscount propose to ensure that those payments are more wide-spread, having regard to the constituent membership of your Lordships' House and the fact, for example, that there are 85 Members of your Lordships' House who take the whips of either the SDP or the Liberal Party?
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, the best of all possible reasons that I can give the noble Lord for not being able to tell him how much the Treasury contributes to this House is that I do not know. I do not know for the best of all possible reasons, that I am not supposed to know; because it is for the parties themselves to decide what they give to this House for their parties in this House to conduct their business.
838
That is none of my business, and because it is none of my business I am delighted to say that I do not know it. For that reason I cannot answer the noble Lord.
However, I can say that the formula on which this money is given to the various parties takes account of the number of seats which each opposition party won at the last General Election and, indeed, the number of votes that it received. Every effort is made to make this apportionment as fair as possible, and I hope that the noble Lord and his party think that they receive what they ought to receive from their party in another place. If they do not, they must attach the blame for that to their party in another place and, for once, thank goodness, not to me.
Lord Shinwell: My Lords, does the noble Viscount's answer mean that if I started a small political party—it does not matter what name I care to give it or anyone else cares to give it—I could receive some of the cash?
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, I would not underestimate the capacity of the noble Lord to start a party on his own and to attract considerable support. However, he would have to win the votes at a General Election and gain some seats. If he won neither seats nor votes, he would not get any money. I suspect that the noble Lord would get both votes and seats and probably receive some money, but he will have to wait for the next General Election before he does that.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, does the noble Viscount recollect that the conditions under which this money is paid and the formula were discussed with all the parties in the other place at that time and agreed by them? Secondly, is the noble Viscount aware that the transitory nature of our achievements in public life are such that the press now write the word "Short" with a small "s"?
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, I gladly recognise the part which the noble Lord, Lord Glenamara, (when his name was different) played in another place in what I believe to be a reasonable arrangement for the work of the parties both in another place and in this House. I was of course associated with the noble Lord in that particular endeavour at that time, and indeed belonged to a party that was a recipient of some of the money for which, contrary to what might sometimes be said, at that time we were extremely grateful. It helped us to conduct our business in another place, as it did other parties. I believe that it is a reasonable arrangement and that it makes sense. As to how this House is served, I must continue to say that that is a matter for the parties themselves.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, will not the noble Viscount agree that, quite apart from the "Short" money—which we obviously all welcome and in regard to which we pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Glenamara, for his signal contribution—there is also a discrepancy between the assistance given to individual Members of this House and those in another place, in that Members of another place get their postage paid whereas we do not? Is it not unfair that noble Lords who engage in a large volume of correspondence because of their work in politics should have to pay for it out of their own pockets?
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, I spend my time trying to curtail the length of Questions in this House. I constantly remind my colleagues on the Front Bench that they should not answer questions which are outside the remit of the original Question. The Question that I was originally asked explicitly said:
"excluding remuneration of individual Members of either House".
Therefore, I believe that I would be totally outside my own rulings if I did other than say that I do not think that that particular supplementary question came within the Question that I was originally asked. If I said anything else, my noble friend the Chief Whip, would remind me that it is high time that we passed on to other business, but as I am myself answering, I shall not do that.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that I was not asking about remuneration; I was asking about reimbursement of expenses legitimately incurred as a Member of this House?
Viscount Whitelaw: Yes, my Lords, and in my simple way I perhaps regarded the words:
"excluding remuneration of individual Members of either House"
to include reimbursement of their expenses. Perhaps I was incorrect in that, but I thought that the Question was directed to what the parties receive and not to what individuals receive in any capacity. If I was wrong, I apologise to the noble Lord, but, frankly, in my own mind I do not think that I was wrong.

Business
3.9 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 this afternoon my noble friend the Leader of the House will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement to be made in another place on the Prime Minister's visit to the United States of America.
It may be for the convenience of the House if I announce that, subject to the progress of business, the Committee stage of the National Heritage (Scotland) Bill may be adjourned at approximately 7.30 p.m. for a short period. In that event the Third Reading of the Milk (Cessation of Production) Bill and Motions to approve three potato orders will be taken in the break.

Leicestershire Bill [H.L.]
3.10 p.m.
Read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

Cinemas Bill [H.L.]
The Lord Advocate (Lord Cameron of Lochbroom): My Lords, on behalf of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a third time.—(Lord Cameron of Lochbroom.)
On Question, Bill read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

Highland Region (Kinlochbervie) Order Confirmation Bill
Considered on Report.

Enduring Powers of Attorney Bill [H.L.]
3.12 p.m.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: My Lords, on behalf of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill now be read a third time.—(Lord Cameron of Lochbroom.)
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, while the House will obviously welcome the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate in moving the Third Reading of this Bill, we also very much regret that the main pilot of it, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, is unwell, and we obviously wish him better. Is it a coincidence that the report of the Law Commission upon which this Bill is based is entitled The Incapacitated Principal? This is a welcome Bill upon which it will not be necessary to deliver a long speech at the Third Reading stage. I would merely say that the legal profession, and certainly the Law Society, campaigned for a long time about the unfair and indeed unreasonable situation which was created by the fact in law that upon a person who had granted a power of attorney becoming mentally incapacitated, that power of attorney immediately became an invalid and unenforceable document just at the time, your Lordships may feel, when it was most needed.
Therefore the recommendation was made, which was taken up by the Law Commission, that there should be a power, a capacity, for somebody who had entered into a power of attorney to have an enduring power registered with various safeguards which are incorporated in the Bill. This Bill therefore is to be welcomed. The fact that amendments were moved to it in order to deal with certain rather minor points does not make this Bill any less welcome. On behalf of my noble friends I should like to express the appreciation that we feel for the way in which our various amendments were courteously dealt with, even if all of them were not accepted.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: My Lords, I must thank the noble Lord opposite for the kind words that have fallen from him. As I think was previously said by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor in the course of the passage of this Bill through this House, this Bill will have important implications particularly for many elderly persons in the country. It will make a useful contribution to the way in which people arrange their affairs by enabling them, by a relatively simple and cheap means, to provide for the administration of their estates when they themselves are no longer able to do so.
On behalf of my noble and learned friend, I should like to thank your Lordships, and in particular the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, for the patience which has been shown during the passage of the Bill through this House and the diligence with which its provisions have been examined. I am well aware that although this is

841
a short Bill it is a complex one and it has required careful attention. It is only appropriate that I should, on behalf of my noble and learned friend, tender thanks for the manner in which it has been looked at in its passage through the House.
On Question, Bill read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

National Heritage (Scotland) Bill
3.15 p.m.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Gray of Contin): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Gray of Contin.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD ABERDARE in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Establishment of Board of Trustees]:
Lord Ross of Marnock Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 8, leave out ("National Museums of Scotland") and insert ("Scottish National Museums").
The noble Lord said: I think we can take with the first amendment Amendments Nos. 2 to 5, 16, 17, 43, 45, 50, 51, 63 to 68, 70, 71, 73 and 76.
Amendment No. 2: Page 2, line 1, leave out ("National Museums of Scotland") and insert ("Scottish National Museums").
Amendment No. 3: Page 2, line 1, leave out from ("are") to first ("the") in line 2 and insert ("(a)").
Amendment No. 4: Page 2, line 2, after ("and") insert ("(b)").
Amendment No. 5: Page 2, line 3, after ("Scotland") insert ("hereafter to be known as the Museum of Scotland").
Amendment No. 16: Clause 3, page 3, line 21, after the second ("the") insert ("Scottish").
Amendment No. 17: Clause 6, page 4, line 36, after ("institutions") insert ("presently").
Amendment No. 43: Clause 19, page 21, line 2, leave out ("National Museums of Scotland") and insert ("Scottish National Museums").
Amendment No. 45: Clause 20, page 21, line 14, leave out ("National Museums of Scotland") and insert ("Scottish National Museums").
Amendment No. 50: Schedule 1, page 22, line 7, leave out ("National Museums of Scotland") and insert ("Scottish National Museums").
Amendment No. 51: Page 22, line 7, at end insert ("or of the Museum of Scotland").
Amendment No. 63: Page 23, line 4, leave out ("National Museums of Scotland") and insert ("Scottish National Museums").
Amendment No. 64: Page 23, line 5, after ("Scotland") insert ("or of the Museum of Scotland").
Amendment No. 65: Page 23, line 18, leave out ("National Museums of Scotland") and insert ("Scottish National Museums").
Amendment No. 66: Page 23, line 19, after ("Scotland") insert ("or Museum of Scotland" ").
Amendment No. 67: Page 23, line 24, leave out ("National Museums of Scotland") and insert ("Scottish National Museums").
Amendment No. 68: Page 23, line 25, at end insert ("or the Museum of Scotland").
Amendment No. 70: Schedule 2, page 31, line 29, after ("Scotland") insert ("or the Museum of Scotland" ").
Amendment No. 71: Page 31, line 36, at end insert ("or the Museum of Scotland".").
Amendment No. 73: Page 31, leave out lines 37 to 40 and insert—
("The Capital Transfer Tax Act 1984 (c. 51)
4. In Schedule 3 for the words "The Royal Scottish Museum" there shall be substituted the words "The Scottish National Museums".").
Amendment No. 76: In the Title, line 4, after ("Scotland") insert ("or the Museum of Scotland").
The Committee will appreciate how helpful I intend to be in respect of this Bill, and nowhere more helpful than with the first five amendments. Clause 1 creates for the first time a board of trustees to deal with two important national institutions in Scotland, two museums, the Royal Scottish Museum and the National Museum of Antiquities of Scotland. Their present structure of administration goes and one board of trustees take over. We are dealing with a new name, the National Museums of Scotland. My first amendment is to change that title to the Scottish National Museums. I shall explain why later. Secondly, in Amendment No. 5 after the word "Scotland" (that is, the National Museum of Antiquities of Scotland) I say insert:
"hereafter to be known as the Museum of Scotland".
The whole spur and basis of this Bill is this report. This committee was chaired by Dr. Alwyn Williams, the Principal of Glasgow University. My noble friend Lord Perth was a member of that committee, as were other distinguished Scots and people concerned with the heritage of Scotland. They produced a report which was debated in this House just about two years ago. I shall read the most important of their recommendations. It is at Chapter 9.5:
"The Government should quickly introduce legislation to establish a new museum, called The Museum of Scotland, based on the existing collections of the National Museum of Antiquities of Scotland. The new Museum should be the prime repository for artifacts, other than books, paintings and industrial and technological objects, representing the cultural heritage of Scotland".
You see at once the difficulty. If we are going to have a museum at some time to be called the Museum of Scotland how does that fit in with what the Government have already said that these two museums presently existing are to be called the Museums of Scotland? I cannot think of any better recipe for confusion than this: the Museums of Scotland, and then one of them, according to this recommendation, is to be called the Museum of Scotland. What is the other one to be called? We do not know.
I ask the Committee to consider the wording of Clause 1. There is reference to the two museums we now know, and they are referred to as "presently known as". Does that mean that they are going to be known as something else in the future? Are they going to be Museums of Scotland A and B, or Museums of Scotland 1 and 2? There is confusion on this point. Where did it come from, this name Museums of Scotland? It came from a committee set up to advise the Government on how to achieve a Scottish museum, the Museum of Scotland. This was the concept that the Secretary of State got excited about—so he said, anyway. He wanted to further it and get the whole thing developed. If one wishes to create a Museum of Scotland, one does not start by ruling it out of order by creating an overall body called the Museums (plural) of Scotland. That is my first point.
My second point is that there is no mention anywhere in the Bill of the Museum of Scotland, which was the central theme of the Williams Committee Report. The Committee said that it would be based on

843
the existing artefacts and collections of the National Museum of Antiquities of Scotland, which was founded in the year 1780 with £20 given by the Earl of Buchan. Indeed, he gave his house over for the first museum. Eventually, the whole of that was handed over to the nation. It was later housed in what is now the Royal Scottish Academy in Princes Street. When that became too small, a new building was provided by the proprietor of The Scotsman in Queen Street in Edinburgh. But there are over one million pieces in the collection, the great majority of which are never seen because the museum has been overcrowded. They cannot display them all, and those that they do display they cannot display properly. They cannot fulfil their proper functions of a modern museum because of accommodation difficulties.
This was the basis for the creation of a new Museum of Scotland, not a Scottish Museum. The British Museum is not a Museum of Britain. If it were, the Elgin Marbles would not be there and a lot of other things would not be there. The Museum of Scotland is to be the repository of all those artefacts through which people can trace and understand the whole history and development of Scotland. It is of Scotland: that is why the word "of" is important.
This is confusing and wrong. I do not think for one minute that it came spontaneously from the Bute Committee. If one wants to muddle anything in Scotland, get the education department into it! They were the people who ran the Royal Scottish Museum. It is a department of the Scottish Office, or the Department of Education. The Minister of State probably comes new to this field. I do not know whether he appreciates just what it pre-empts. If one is to call the new board that governs the two bodies the National Museums of Scotland, one virtually rules out the creation of a museum to be called the Museum of Scotland. So I am being helpful in suggesting that we get rid of this ill-chosen title of the Museums of Scotland and make them the Scottish National Museums.
What we have suggested in Amendment No. 5, which was accepted by your Lordships when we debated it, is to change the name "National Museum of Antiquities of Scotland" to "The Museum of Scotland". We can then go on from there. I am not interfering with the role of the new board of trustees, but I am setting things right for the future.
It has been said—and one gleans this information by going through the debates in the other place—that titles and names can come later. In this context, titles and names cannot come later unless we have another Bill—and we do not want another Bill. I am being helpful to the Government and to the Secretary of State, feeding his ambitions, to create in Scotland what we need—a new Museum of Scotland. I fear that if this concept is turned down we shall be left with what we have had for a long time, because the new building to house the Scottish National Museum of Antiquities was started about 50 years ago, and it is not there yet. It is about time that we took seriously our heritage in Scotland. Let us have a Museum of Scotland written into the Bill, and the development and build-up of it will come later. I beg to move.
The Earl of Perth: On Amendments Nos. 1 and 2, I go along with the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock. On the other amendments, I am in some difficulty because I have an amendment following, Amendment No. 6, which, owing to a typographical error, does not make very good sense as it stands. I wonder whether the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees would like to make the point on my Amendment No. 6 before I speak further. For the purposes of your Lordships' Committee, it is difficult to understand what I am proposing, which has a relationship to what the noble Lord, Lord Ross, has been saying about a Museum of Scotland. Having said that, I support Amendments Nos. 1 and 2.
Lord Gray of Contin: I have studied the noble Earl's amendment and there is no reason, as far as I can see, why, while answering the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, with his grouping of amendments, I could not deal, as the amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Perth, relates to the same principle, with Amendment No. 6 as well. On behalf of the Government, I would have no objection to the noble Earl speaking to his amendment at this time.
The Earl of Perth: Would that be agreeable to the noble Lord, Lord Ross, and others?
Lord Ross of Marnock: It would be agreeable to me, but it will mean another speech!
The Earl of Perth: If I may, I will speak to Amendment No. 6, but I wish to speak to it in an amended form.
Amendment No. 6: Page 2, Line 4, at end insert—
("( ) If the Board so decide thay may with the consent of the Secretary of State form the "National Museum of Scotland" of which the National Museums of Scotland shall be an integral part and with which other museums or institutions may become part or may be associated.").
The amended form is to delete the word "National" from the second line. It should read:
"If the Board so decide they may with the consent of the Secretary of State form the 'Museum of Scotland' of which the National Museums of Scotland shall be an integral part";
or, if we were to accept the first two amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Ross, it would read:
"of which the Scottish National Museums shall be an integral part".
If my amendment were accepted, with the amendment go the consequential Amendments Nos. 51, 64, 68, 70, 71 and 76. In all those the wording is correct. They speak of the Museum of Scotland, and not of the National Museums of Scotland.
I much regretted that I could not be present at the Second Reading debate, but in reading the speeches through most carefully I was struck by three things in the general run of what everybody thought in your Lordships' House. The first was that your Lordships wanted a Museum of Scotland now, not the concept of a museum to come later. The second was the need to bring new and other museums into the concept. I have in mind when I say that such museums as a Museum of Industry or a Museum of the Sea or what you will, all within the complex of a Museum of Scotland.
3.30 p.m.
The third matter which attracted a great deal of attention at Second Reading was the call for more housing now, for more building now, for new building at once. I did not see how to introduce that into any amendment but, so far as the other two are concerned, I think they are covered by the amendment which I propose. I am asking that we do not await the advice of Lord Bute's advisory board but go for the Museum of Scotland now. Let us have it established, as the noble Lord, Lord Ross, has said, that there is to be such a body and that it is to be now. Otherwise, as I read this Bill, it will mean new legislation and more delay before we can have a Museum of Scotland if the board of trustees or Lord Bute's advisory board wish it. That surely is both unwise and wrong.
My key recommendation—and it was the key recommendation, as the noble Lord, Lord Ross, pointed out, of the Williams Committee—is that we should have a Museum of Scotland. At that time, we said it should be the Museum of Antiquities reborn, rehoused and with a new set-up. But when, with the now Sir Alwyn Williams, I went first to see the Secretary of State to put forward this proposal on behalf of our committee, I remember his enthusiasm. He thought that it was something really exciting that we should have a Museum of Scotland, and we were much encouraged; hence our recommendation. Now we have some weasel words: the concept of a Museum of Scotland.
It is true that our recommendation was that it should be a Museum of Scotland based on the National Museum of Antiquities. But what changed my view—and I know that I am also speaking for Sir Alwyn Williams in this—was, if I may put it in this way, the courage of the Secretary of State when he said, "No, we will have a board of trustees to cover not only the National Museum of Antiquities but also the Royal Scottish Museum. We will have also one director for the two museums". Frankly, when we considered this in committee, we funked it. We funked—I was about to say "attacking" but that is the wrong word—tackling the Royal Scottish Museum because it was something that we felt would probably put at risk our getting anything because of the opposition it might arouse.
But, in practice, the Secretary of State for Scotland has grasped the nettle and, that being the case, I think it is a good thing that it should happen, provided—and this is my point—that both the museums (that is, the Royal Scottish Museum and the National Museum of Antiquities) are known in the future as, and are part of, the Museum of Scotland. They have one board of trustees, one director. Let us call it from the start the Museum of Scotland.
When I was in Washington last week, I took the opportunity of finding out something about the Smithsonian Institution, because I felt that perhaps we might learn something from its set-up. It has a board of regents. I like the word "regents". We might think about it some time instead of a board of trustees. That board of regents is variously appointed, partly by Congress, partly by right and so forth. All the funds are centred in the Smithsonian and these funds come from three sources. They come from Congress, they come
846
from endowments and gifts and they come from the energy and enterprise of the Smithsonian itself in such things as the Smithsonian Magazine, which has continent-wide distribution and makes a great deal of money. Under the umbrella of this board are to be found the most important museums (with the possible exception of two) in Washington: the National Air and Space Museum, the Museum of Natural History and the Museum of American History. And not only are they to be found at the Hirshhorn or the Smithsonian Institution itself or the Freer Gallery, nor are they to be found only in Washington: they also have other museums—for example, the Cooper Hewitt in New York—and they have outstations throughout the country. Not only that, but they help museums throughout the United States of America on questions of conservation, on questions of how best they can exhibit items and on general matters, and they not only send travelling exhibitions elsewhere but also on occasion even provide them with money.
As I have said, I have gone into this in detail because I think that the pattern of it may be of some value to us in what we are trying to create in Scotland—a top museum under which we have the Royal Scottish Museum, the Museum of Antiquities, new museums such as the Museum of Industry, and others. We need not, as I see it, have a top-heavy Museum of Scotland. I think that the Museum of Scotland itself—and I have this as my own personal vision; and I know that one or two other people, including, I think I can say, Sir Alwyn Williams, who would support me, have too—need have only one great showroom. And, dare I say it? the right showroom would be that splendid, soaring building now the entrance hall to the Royal Scottish Museum, which all your Lordships will know. That single building would be the sort of place where visitors would go to learn a little of Scotland and its people from the earliest times.
Having seen this, the visitors would then decide, "Oh well, we ought to go and look in more depth and detail at, for example, the things in the Royal Scottish Museum; at, for example, the things in the Museum of Antiquities; at, for example"—if it is to be established—"the things in the Museum of Industry and other museums all over the country". It will be the centre from which things will flow. Let us remember that it is already accepted by the Secretary of State that the two museums at present should have one board and one director. Let us get on with it and do it from the start.
I feel that, if this is an acceptable complex, those who came to Edinburgh would find that to visit it would be an absolute "must". They would have to go there to learn where they could see what Scotland is about. It seems to me that if by some extraordinary chance Sir Walter Scott, that great supporter of all things Scottish, were alive, this is the kind of thing he would have gone for. It may take time to achieve—I recognise that; but my amendment is permissive and not obligatory. I say that because it seems to me difficult to have it all done at one stroke. But to accept this amendment as it stands would show the advisory board, which is chaired by the noble Marquess, Lord Bute, and the trustees the direction in which I believe we should go. I hope that others of your Lordships will agree with me and help me with this amendment.

847
Whether it is in exactly the right form is another question; but it seems to me that the guts of it, if I may use that expression, are immensely worthy of support.
Lord Gray of Contin: I am glad that we have had this early opportunity to consider one of the fundamental points in the Bill, which is the title that has been chosen for the new national museums' board. As I explained during my opening remarks on second reading, the title National Museums of Scotland, which we have adopted, was that which was specifically recommended to us by the Museums Advisory Board. The advisory board saw this as an extremely important point and therefore gave it thorough consideration very early in its deliberations. It took account of a wide variety of possible titles, including the retention of Royal Scottish Museum to be applied to the whole of the new structure and the use of the titles Scottish National Museums and National Museum of Scotland, which noble Lords have suggested here today. Another possible variant was Royal Museum of Scotland, an attractive compromise based on one of the existing names but with a change of emphasis to reflect the nature of the two bodies being brought together.
Eventually, however, the advisory board settled upon National Museums of Scotland as a title which was both seen to be all-embracing (in much the same way as that of the National Galleries of Scotland covers all the separate galleries in that structure) and as one which was not in any way associated with either of the present institutions. It also had the advantage that it could be employed where the new board of trustees wished to retain, within the new structure, two, or more, relatively separate institutions which might retain separate titles of their own, or provide for a much greater degree of co-ordination and indeed integration of the existing museums. The new trustees' decision will be based on very thorough consideration of the alternatives by the Museums Advisory Board, whose report, as I have said, is due in May. Clearly, however, nothing is going to be done in unnecessary haste. With two such long-established institutions as these two museums, the process of change, however it is eventually directed, will be a gradual one; of that there is no doubt. In these circumstances it makes even more sense to adopt a title such as National Museums of Scotland, which will give the new board of trustees the maximum flexibility to decide how it wishes to operate, consistent with the needs of the collections and the requirements of the museums' users.
Although we have indicated our broad agreement to the concept of a Museum of Scotland being based on the collections of the National Museum of Antiquities of Scotland, what I have said will, I hope, indicate why we do not believe that it would be appropriate to make a specific reference in the Bill to that title as applying to the existing National Museum of Antiquities of Scotland in the way proposed in Amendment No. 5, put down by the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock. Such a reference would tend to give too strong an impression that the Museum of Scotland will be simply the present National Museum of Antiquities of Scotland under another name, whereas in fact it is likely that in furthering the Museum of Scotland
848
concept the new board will want to draw more widely than simply on the collections of the National Museum of Antiquities of Scotland or the Royal Scottish Museum.
3.45 p.m.
That brings us to the point which the noble earl, Lord Perth, made about other museums or institutions becoming part of, or being associated with, the national museums. I can assure the noble Earl that as the Bill is drafted there will be absolutely no bar to that taking place. Clause 1 of the Bill, which establishes the new trustee board, defines the National Museums of Scotland as,
"the institutions presently known as the Royal Scottish Museum and the National Museum of Antiquities, together with any establishment owned, controlled or occupied by either of them".
It is necessary to have in the Bill that definition of the status quo, as it were—the situation as it will be on vesting day, when responsibility will pass to the new trustee board. But that does not mean that the situation will then be frozen and that no further change will be possible. The functions and powers given to the new board in Clauses 2 and 3 make it plain that the board will be able to do whatever they think necessary or expedient to discharge their functions, subject of course to the provisions of the Act and the usual necessary checks and balances on such an organisation. In another place, in response to the discussion there was of the role of the national museums in relation to the non-national museums and similar organisations in Scotland, we wrote in an amendment which made specific reference to the board's power to collaborate with other institutions in promoting.
"the public's awareness, appreciation and understanding"
of the matters within its general functions. I hope that gives sufficient recognition of the importance which we see for this role in the future of the national museums. We will expect the new trustees to ensure that the Museum of Scotland concept acquires a truly national dimension by recognising the riches which lie outwith the ambit of the national museums themselves and in continuing the pastoral role which the national museums have traditionally played in relation to other institutions in Scotland.
I hope that, with that explanation, noble Lords will be better placed to see how, in a general way, we foresee the development of the national museums in the future. It is fundamental to the Government's approach that we regard matters of organisation as the responsibility of the new trustee board itself. This is why we favour the title which the Bill provides for the new board. I hope that noble Lords will agree to withdraw their amendments.
Before I sit down, perhaps I may say, since mention was made by both noble Lords of the Williams Committee, that there is no question of the Williams Committee's report being ignored. The concept of a Museum of Scotland is being pursued. It is one of the aspects to which my right honourable friend has asked the advisory board to pay particular attention. But, to some degree, matters have moved on since Williams, which recommended that the existing status of the Royal Scottish Museum should remain broadly unchanged; in other words, as part of a Government

849
department. In that respect, it is true, we have not followed Williams, and there seems to be a broad measure of agreement that we were right to follow that course. The decision to have one trustee board followed from that, and here, too, we have had to make difficult choices, but the basic recommendation which the Williams Committee made about the need for an increased profile for the National Museum of Antiquities of Scotland collections is not being ignored. It will undoubtedly form a major plank of the new board's work. I trust that that clarifies the position, which may have been in some doubt—
Lord Grimond: Will the noble Lord give way? I am greatly obliged to him. I have been listening with great care to his explanation of why the present title has been chosen. I fully follow his reasoning against talking of the Museum of Scotland at the present; but, as I understand it, the amendment moved by the noble Earl is permissive. It does not write this into the Bill now, but merely gives power to the board, with the concurrence of the Secretary of State, to assume this title or to set up a Museum of Scotland, if in the future the Secretary of State should wish to do so. If I may say so, ably as he has dealt with the present situation, I do not feel that the Minister has convinced me that this permissive power should not be written into the Bill now, so that if the trustees and the Secretary of State feel, as recommended by the Williams Committee, that a Museum of Scotland should be established, they can get on with it at once.
Lord Gray of Contin: I listened carefully to what the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, said, but it would be a very unusual step if we did not write the name of the new board into the Bill which is creating them. I can accept the noble Lord's wish to have a certain flexibility and there are areas within the Bill in which this will be possible. But in this instance we have to decide now what is to be the name of the new body. I am glad that the noble Lord felt that I had made the case for accepting the recommendation of the advisory committee. That really was the principal reason for our choosing this name. There were a number of possibilities, as I explained, but if you set up an advisory committee and it strongly recommends a particular line, especially on an issue such as the name, we felt it right that we should take account of its recommendation. I trust that noble Lords might be prepared to withdraw their amendment.
Lord Home of the Hirsel: I am inclined to agree with the advice of the advisory committee and of the Minister. I think the anxiety here is that if we do not have some permissive form in the Bill, the name "Museum of Scotland" will gradually fall out of the picture and indeed, as I understand it, it will need legislation. Can my noble friend confirm whether or not the change of name will need legislation in the future?
Lord Gray of Contin: As I understand it, the name which we are adopting today will be the permanent name. The concept of the Museum of Scotland is certainly very much in the forefront of our thinking. But I would have to take advice before I could say whether that would need further legislation. I cannot answer that question without referring it.
Lord Ross of Marnock: I do not know whether it is clear to noble Lords who have not studied this matter very carefully or for very long, but it is certainly not clear to me as to what the Government are after. I am not being rude, but the Minister of State keeps talking about the concept of the Museum of Scotland and the concept has to have a national dimension. What we want is not a concept; we want a museum and that is the one thing we are just not going to get.
I know the Scottish Office very well and I also know what will happen. We shall get a board of trustees of the National Museums of Scotland and the Royal Scottish Museum and the National Museum of Antiquities of Scotland will carry on. They presently are co-operating. Quite a lot of stuff has been given from one to the other. We may get some sort of hybrid development of something new. But the one thing we are not going to get is the Museum of Scotland.
I do not know whether the Minister of State has read all the reports of the debates in Committee in another place. One of the Under-Secretaries—I do not know which—made a very perspicacious remark. He said that the Museum of Scotland was people looking at Scotland and that the Royal Scottish Museum, which is just a museum, was Scotland looking at the world. There is a limit to the integration that you can get there, with a coherent concept and a national dimension and all the rest of it.
I do not know whether the Minister knows what he is talking about. We already have out-stations. We already have the agricultural museum at Ingleston, we already have the Museum of Costume at Dumfries coming under the umbrella and there is the Museum of Flight at East Fortune. I have been very kind to the Government so far, because one of the other recommendations of the Williams Committee was a Museum of Industry. It has become a concept, too. I have got off all the jargon. It will be a hard core of disciplines and then there will be museums all over Scotland, but we are not going to get a national one. I am not satisfied.
May I say to the noble Earl, Lord Perth, that his is not the same concept. His concept is going way beyond this. I do not think it is a concept that was properly discussed within the Williams Committee and I hope that it may be discussed within this advisory committee. Here is one of our troubles. We are talking about a board that are to make decisions, but the board have not yet been set up. We are talking about advice coming from an advisory committee, but it has not yet reported. I believe that the Houses of Parliament, both Chambers, should occasionally decide something and not leave it to unnamed boards of two advisory committees. We just cannot write blank cheques like that. But we know what the Williams Committee said and what it wanted and we know what we want in the discussions. Unfortunately, the other place did not have a debate on the report of the Williams Committee.
The amendments which I am suggesting are not world shattering, but they change that concept into an actual museum and the development of the Museum of Scotland will be a matter for the new board when it is set up. I cannot understand why the Government jib at this, because it is a mistake to call them the Museums of Scotland. If you are going to have the title

851
"Museums of Scotland" you will get into confusion if ever you start to think of calling one of them the Museum of Scotland. It just does not fit in. It is what I would expect from the Scottish Education Department. They have enough on their plate just now, with school strikes, lack of pay reviews and the rest of it. I hope that between now and the next stage the Minister of State himself will give all his attention to this matter. It is far more important than it would seem to be, because it enshrines the concept of the heritage of Scotland.
It will be no news to the noble Earl, Lord Perth, that I do not like the words,
"If the board so decide they may with the consent of the Secretary of State form the 'National Museum of Scotland'.".
It will be a very different Museum of Scotland, because the Museum of Scotland that he envisages will be a Smithsonian institution with all sorts of others under it. It is a very different concept, if I may use that word, from that which is in the Bill or towards which my amendments lead us. As a legislator, I do not like leaving a board whom we do not know to decide, even though they have the consent of the Secretary of State for Scotland. This is a matter which the House should decide and that is why I insist that we should get rid of the confusion by changing "National Museums of Scotland" into "Scottish National Museums" and then put into line 3, on page 2, the words,
"hereafter to be known as the Museum of Scotland",
replacing the National Museum of Antiquities of Scotland on which the new museum should be based. The changes will not take place within a week or a month, but if we leave matters as they are we shall never have them. That is what I feel.
4 p.m.
Viscount Eccles: As an Englishman, perhaps I may say just a few words. I went through this business of "national" or not "national" in the title when the British Museum library was split off from the British Museum. A great bulk of opinion said that we ought to set up a national library, which of course we need. But I would not have it called a "National Library" because I thought "British Library" was much better. One does not want to be confined to one national outlook now—one wants to get help from America and so on. One wants to call it "Museum of Scotland". If one calls it "National Museum of Scotland", it will appear a smaller thing. I do not quite know why, but it will. It would have appeared to be a smaller library if we had called it our National Library and not the British Library.
There appears to me to be nothing in the Bill which gives the new body the power to make grants to smaller museums in Scotland. That will be essential because, now that services are very expensive, you will want to have a central place to teach you how to conserve items. The smaller museums need grants to get their collections in order. It is far better to have the central museum in charge of that than to give it to a lot of civil servants at St. Andrew's House.
Lord Boothby: Perhaps I may add just a few words to what the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, has said. I
852
agree with him entirely that the word "national" should be left out. It is not in accordance with the best Scottish traditions. We governed the world.
Lord Gray of Contin: I am grateful to my noble friends for their late interventions. I have listened very carefully to what they have had to say and I think I can give them some reassurance. I am glad that I did not try to answer my noble friend Lord Home without taking advice because I can now answer his query as well.
The situation regarding the Bill is that the name which has been given to the trustees of the National Museums of Scotland could only be changed by law after this Bill has passed, but the new board has the power to call an institution "The Museum of Scotland", and that would not require further legislation.
Lord Home of the Hirsel: Thank you very much.
Lord Gray of Contin: The point raised by my noble friend Lord Eccles is well taken. Indeed, later on in the Bill we shall be discussing some of the points which he raised. The question of the relationship between the national museums and the smaller museums within Scotland will be discussed, and indeed there are amendments down which cover that.
I was grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, for his contribution with his great experience of representing for so many years and with such distinction a Scottish constituency. I am sure that we are all delighted that he is here and participating in Scottish legislation. With those remarks, I trust that the noble Lords concerned may be prepared to withdraw their amendment.
The Earl of Perth: I am afraid that I am more confused than ever about the position. The noble Lord, Lord Home, asked a question. We are told that there is some possibility of having trustees who can set up a Museum of Scotland, but can they be the trustees of the Museum of Scotland and not the trustees of the other two bodies? Is it not clear to me. I ask the noble Lord, Lord Gray, to think again and, having listened to all our discussions here, to consider whether the Government cannot accept the permissive amendment which I have put down here.
I must say that I was rather distressed at his answer. It was clearly written without any knowledge of what I was going to say, and no thought was given to what I did say. I am not altogether blaming the noble Lord but I am saying that between now and Report stage it is essential that he and those who are concerned should give real thought to this, because it is not good enough as it stands. If we are told that it is within the legislative powers to introduce, if the board thinks fit, a Museum of Scotland, but we never can get rid of the other, the National Museums of Scotland, what confusion!
Let us come out straight and square. Let us have the permissive power. Think about it, please, before Report stage. Remember what the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, and the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, said—get rid of the word "national", and let us get on with it. If the noble Lord will accept that, I am prepared to withdraw, but not otherwise.
Baroness Gaitskell: May I ask the noble Lord the Minister this question? What possible objection is there to calling it "The Museum of Scotland"? What objection is there to that? What are the reasons for not doing this? It seems so simple. The Scots are very proud of themselves. Why should they not call it "The Museum of Scotland"?
Lord Gray of Contin: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her intervention. There is no reason why it should not be called "The Museum of Scotland"; nor is there any reason why it should not be called one of half a dozen other suggestions, each and every one of which makes a lot of sense. But the advisory committee which was set up advised the Government that its choice of name was "National Museums of Scotland", and that is the name which has been given to the trustees; but in due course the trustees themselves can call the museum "The Museum of Scotland". However, it is not one museum that we are talking about; it is an umbrella which will take in two museums initially, and perhaps more museums. That is why.
I am sorry to come back to what the noble Earl, Lord Perth, has said, but I could not, even if I was minded to, accept his amendment, because he has changed his amendment and therefore we should be unsure of what we were actually accepting. But in any case I shall be perfectly frank with the noble Earl. I do not agree with the—
Lord Ross of Marnock: Concept?
Lord Gray of Contin:—principle which he is suggesting in his amendment anyway. I believe that the recommendation of the advisory committee is the most satisfactory we have received. I feel that while there are other things within the Bill which we shall be discussing this afternoon which I may well be prepared to be persuaded to take away and look at again, on the issue of the name being given to the trustees, I have not heard anything this afternoon which convinces me that any of the other suggestions is better than what we are putting forward.
The Earl of Perth: Will the noble Lord please answer the question? Would it be possible for the trustees to become trustees of the Museum of Scotland, or not, under the Bill as it stands now?
Lord Gray of Contin: I did explain before that, under the Bill as it stands now, the trustees are being called "the trustees of the National Museums of Scotland". In due course, if they care to call the whole umbrella the "Museum of Scotland", then they will be able to do that. No legislation is required for that, so they would continue to be trustees of the new concept, as the noble Lord, Lord Ross—
Lord Ross of Marnock: That is not a concept, it is just a name.
The Earl of Perth: I am sorry but I really do not understand. Would the trustees then become "trustees of the Museum of Scotland", or not?
Lord Ross of Marnock: Perhaps I may say a few words here. The Minister of State has further confused us because he has given us two possibilities of what requires legislation. His answer to the direct question which was asked just now, according to the advice he gave us, should have been, "No". He said, "Yes, it could be". Now that is quite wrong. What we do require is time to think about this. Between now and the next stage I hope that the Minister of State will go into this question of legislation again, because we do not want to pass a Bill only to discover that we need to have another one, and wait for about five or six years and then have the Secretary of State say, "I can't devote resources to that because we have not even decided on names". So let us leave that point.
The other matter that worries me concerns the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, and the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles. I did not think I would find myself worrying about them and about what they were going to say on this matter. Will we see proper amendments to Clause 17 from the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, and the noble Lord, Lord Boothby? Clause 17 deals with the National Library of Scotland, and if we do not like the word "National"—and the noble Lord, Viscount Eccles, does not like it in relation to libraries—then we shall have to get rid of that word, if we are to have a happy House of Lords. That is by the way.
For the moment I am far from satisfied with the explanation that has been given. I shall certainly take another look at this matter to see whether I can meet the Government and ensure that we get the Museum of Scotland into this. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Perth: If noble Lords—
Noble Lords: Order!
The Earl of Caithness: Amendment No. 1 has been withdrawn.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Nugent of Guildford): I must tell the noble Earl, Lord Perth, that the only amendment before the Committee was Amendment No. 1.
The Earl of Caithness: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Prime Minister's Visit to the USA
4.11 p.m.
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall make a Statement on the visit which I paid to the United States from 19th to 21st February, accompanied by my right honourable friends the Foreign and

855
Commonwealth Secretary and the Secretary of State for Defence.
"In the course of my visit I delivered an address to a joint meeting of the United States Congress. I had a meeting with President Reagan, and meetings with eight members of the US Cabinet, and with other senior members of the Administration, as well as with the chairman of the Federal Reserve Board. I also met leading members of the Senate and House of Representatives.
"My colleagues and I were guests at a luncheon at the White House and the President and Mrs. Reagan came to a dinner at the British Embassy to mark the 200th anniversary of diplomatic relations between the United Kingdom and the United States.
"The principal themes discussed in my talks with the President and other members of the Administration were East-West relations and arms control, economic issues and the Middle East.
"On East-West relations and arms control, we agreed that the West's objective in the negotiations which will open in Geneva on 12th March should be a sizeable and verifiable reduction in nuclear weapons, which would allow us to maintain security at a lower level of weaponry and at lower cost. In our discussions on the Strategic Defence Initiative, we reaffirmed the four points agreed during my visit to Camp David in December and, in particular, that research, as permitted under the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, should go ahead but that eventual deployment of a defensive system in space would be a matter for negotiation under the terms of that treaty. I expressed the hope that British scientists would be associated with research into the Strategic Defence Initiative.
"In our discussion of economic issues I explained the concern in Europe at the continued rise of the US dollar against other currencies. I found this concern widely shared within the United States Administration, not least because of the adverse effect on their own agricultural and manufacturing industries, but it was recognised that no easy remedy existed. The President and I agreed that the best contribution the United States could make to a long-term solution lay in a reduction of their budget deficit. The President has put specific proposals to Congress to this end. I argued strongly against protectionist measures as a way of dealing with the trade effects of the high dollar on the United States economy. I was assured that the Administration was not contemplating such measures.
"On the Middle East, the President and I both felt that the time was propitious for fresh efforts to arrive at a solution of the Arab-Israel problem. We both expressed our support for King Hussein's endeavours to arrive at a common position among moderate Arab Governments and I welcomed the result of King Fahd's recent visit to Washington. The President confirmed that his proposals of September 1982 remained on the table and that the Administration was ready to pursue them with the parties.
"Our talks also dealt with Central Africa; with co-operation against terrorism; and with Northern
856
Ireland—where I thanked the President and members of Congress for their efforts to discourage the donation of funds to organisations which promote and sustain violence. In addition, I raised a number of bilateral issues, in particular the case for more American purchases of British defence equipment and the matter of unitary taxation.
"The visit enabled my right honourable friends and me to convey the British point of view on current issues, as well as the extent of Europe's contribution to the NATO Alliance and Britain's particular contribution to the defence of Western interests worldwide."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Viscount for repeating that Statement. We are also glad that the Prime Minister was well received in the United States and that she was able to discuss most of the matters which are of urgent concern to our country at this time. Is the noble Viscount aware, however, that on economic issues we must be disappointed that the pressing matter of the world economic crisis which threatens to upset the balance of international politics was not dealt with convincingly? How does the noble Viscount reconcile the President's remarks mentioned in the Statement with the real position; that is, that today the exchange rate is hovering around one dollar five cents; parity looms large along with other matters; and there are high interest rates? Why were strong representations not made to the President?
Is it not the case that soon after the Prime Minister left the United States the President announced that he would not be taking positive measures to repress the strengthening dollar? How does the noble Viscount reconcile the Prime Minister's confidence with the President's pessimistic remarks?
We welcome the assurance that the United States accepts that although research into Star Wars is permissible, deployment remains a matter of negotiation. Are the Government confident that those negotiations will take place prior to any attempt at deployment? With regard to the Statement's reference to the Geneva talks, can the noble Viscount explain to the House how the cause of international peace is forwarded by statements such as the following, which the Prime Minister made when she addressed Congress? She said:
"Wars are not caused by the build up of weapons; they are caused when an aggressor believes he can achieve his objectives at an acceptable price".
Does not the noble Viscount agree that support for Western nuclear and conventional build-up, in conjunction with the assumption that the potential aggressor exists, waiting to pounce, is not conducive to calm and constructive negotiation and could in fact be harmful to its success?
Further, is the noble Viscount aware that many regard it as deplorable that the Government, in the person of the Prime Minister, used this opportunity to criticise New Zealand, while the same opportunity to criticise President Reagan's involvement against the Nicaraguan Government was apparently missed? However, we welcome some of the matters mentioned

857
in the Statement; for example, the Prime Minister's initiative in respect of the Arab-Israeli problem.
Finally, and to end on a more constructive note, we welcome the Prime Minister's appeal to restrict the flow of aid to Northern Ireland terrorist groups. Can the noble Viscount expand on what concrete proposals were made to ensure the success of that policy?
4.19 p.m.
Lord Diamond: My Lords, we on these Benches thank the noble Viscount for repeating this important and full Statement on the Prime Minister's recent visit. We welcome such visits; they must obviously be of benefit. We congratulate the noble lady on the number of important persons in American life whom she was able to meet. We hope that the noble Viscount will be good enough to convey to the noble lady—
Noble Lords: The right honourable lady.
Lord Diamond: The right honourable lady the Prime Minister, my Lords—our congratulations on the great energy she displayed in putting forward the Government's views. I say the Government's views because, of course, we do not share all the views expressed in the Statement—certainly with regard to SDI, where we have the greatest reservations for the reasons already given. Although I note that every time the Government refer to SDI they also refer to the fact that research is permitted under the ABM treaty, I wonder whether that is for self assurance or whether it is a statement of fact. There are those who have hesitation on this topic and there are certainly many of us who believe that, although it might be just within the legal framework of the treaty, it is certainly not within the spirit of the treaty and it could be setting a most unfortunate precedent for the future.
With regard to what is called the continued rise of the dollar against other currencies—and that, of course, means, in particular, against sterling, which I believe now stands at only three cents above parity—was the Prime Minister told of the statement that the President was going to make to the effect that there was very little that he or Congress could do at present and that we would be better off looking to our own economic policies, by which he meant changes that might be relevant and appropriate? Does not the way that currencies have behaved since the Prime Minister's visit—and sterling in particular—indicate that there is some deeper malaise and that we would be well advised to rely not on temporary attempted interference with the markets but on a closer examination of the policies that we have been pursuing in this country, to see whether they are conducive to the growth of the wealth of this country?
Lest I be thought to be unduly critical I give the warmest welcome to what is called in the Statement the Prime Minister's "strong argument". We can all imagine that when the Prime Minister makes a strong argument, it is indeed a very strong argument. We therefore very much welcome that she argued strongly against protectionist measures, which the present difficulties of American exporters would naturally lead America to try to adopt. We feel that protectionism could be extremely damaging to world trade and to
858
this country in particular. We therefore very much welcome that expression of strong views.
I have just one question on the Middle East. Did the Prime Minister represent the view that the best method in trying to seek a solution to the Arab-Israel problem is one which would lead to the parties who are directly involved getting round a negotiating table?
Then, if the noble Viscount has a note about unitary taxation, I am sure that a word of explanation would also be welcome there.
Finally, may I ask whether there was any discussion between the President and the Prime Minister on the little local difficulty that the United States is having with New Zealand? Did the President ask that the Prime Minister of this country should publicly lecture the Prime Minister of a Commonwealth country? If not, what on earth is the explanation of that extraordinarily undiplomatic outburst? Do we not desire that there should be a 200th anniversary of diplomatic relations with the Commonwealth of New Zealand?
4.24 p.m.
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords for their reception of the Statement. I am also grateful for the kind but limited messages of congratulation to the Prime Minister. They were kind but limited in the case of the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, who said he was pleased that she was well received: to which I reply that with a performance such as she gave, no wonder she was well received! But that is for me to say, and I can understand why the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, did not say it.
The noble Lord, Lord Diamond, praised the Prime Minister's great energy. No one who knows the Prime Minister is surprised that she displayed that energy. It was a remarkable achievement. I think it would be fair for me to say in answer to both noble Lords that many people who heard and saw on their television screens her address to Congress—whether or not they agreed with all the matters concerned in it, and I can quite understand if they did not—would still admit that it was a remarkable performance.
I now turn to the particular points raised by the noble Lords. First, the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, obviously raised the pressing issues of the dollar and President Reagan's statement shortly after the Prime Minister left. It is important to differentiate between two matters. One, of course, is whether any action that the United States could take urgently on the exchange rate would benefit the position of many other countries—I shall come back to that when answering the noble Lord, Lord Diamond—and whether, in the long term, the United States cannot do best by seeking to reduce their budget deficit. In the Statement I made it quite clear that the President had said that the United States would be very keen and determined to seek to reduce the size of their budget deficit. I think it is fair to President Reagan to say that in his immediate comments afterwards he was referring to immediate action which could possibly be taken on the exchange rates at this moment. It is fair to say that the two are somewhat different matters.
The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, referred to the NATO deterrent position. As regards the Prime Minister's remarks on deterrence and on the NATO

859
deterrents, I should have thought it was fair to say, as she pointed out in her speech, that as regards the work of NATO and the maintenance of our deterrents over the years, whatever may be the criticisms that some people may have, no one can deny that it has preserved peace in the world for a considerable time. As has been said by many people, against that background we would be very unwise to let down our guard in any way.
Both noble Lords criticised the Prime Minister's remarks on what the Prime Minister of New Zealand has done. It is only fair to say that, yes, in the Commonwealth we speak plainly, and must speak plainly. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister made perfectly clear her anxieties on the position taken by New Zealand over nuclear issues, which I believe she was perfectly entitled to do. Some of these Commonwealth countries from time to time feel perfectly able to criticise this country when it suits them, and I do not see why it is unreasonable for the Prime Minister to make clear our anxieties which affect the alliance generally and the New Zealanders' position.
I am grateful to both noble Lords for their remarks about the Middle East. While progress is very slow, I believe that constructive attitudes were taken.
The noble Lord, Lord Diamond, made one other remark to which I should refer. He said that the surging rise of the dollar was particularly affecting the pound. I hesitate to enter into any economic discussion with the noble Lord at any time, but I think it is fair to point out that over the past week the dollar has risen by 5 per cent. against sterling but by 4 per cent. against the Swiss franc and 4 per cent. against the Deutschmark. Therefore, when he says "particularly the pound", that should be put in reasonable perspective.
I have done my best to answer the fairly long points put by the noble Lords. I hope I replied to most of them.
Lord Home of the Hirsel: My Lords, while echoing my noble friend's words about the Prime Minister's speech and admiration of it, may I ask him whether he agrees that the Prime Minister and the President—particularly the latter—established something of real significance in terms of the disarmament negotiations about to proceed; in other words, that the Star Wars research would continue but that before testing and before deployment the results would be used in negotiation with the Soviet Union? It seems to me that to have established that is of considerable significance.
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to my noble friend for what he has said, particularly for his kind remarks about my right honourable friend the Prime Minister. As one would expect, he states totally correctly the position about research and development and their relationship to the disarmament negotiations. In stressing that, he has perhaps repaired an omission in my original reply to the other two noble Lords if I did not refer to that aspect sufficiently.
Lord Gladwyn: My Lords, as I am hoping that we shall shortly have an opportunity in his House of discussing whether the public pronouncements—and I repeat the phrase "public pronouncements"—of President Reagan on the subject of Star Wars are fully in accord with what we understand to be the spirit at least of the Camp David agreement, might I at this point merely inquire whether the Government are satisfied that British participation in research on this, as I think, totally misguided project will not result in a brain drain or at any rate in the deflection of British scientists from the study of what I believe to be much more profitable and important defence projects?
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, I think that I am right in saying to the noble Lord that of course my right honourable friend referred to the agreement at Camp David and felt that what was being discussed and what was being said followed through clearly from what had been agreed at Camp David. As to the participation of this country in the research involved, I think that my right honourable friend made it perfectly clear that this was something which we were very well prepared to do and which we should like to do. Of course, the details of exactly how that can be done will clearly have to be worked out further on. But that was her view. I do not see why it should lead to a brain drain as the noble Lord suggests.
Lord Chelwood: My Lords, may I put a very brief question to my noble friend about the Middle East? While it was encouraging to hear that the time is considered propitious for a fresh initiative to try to solve the long-running—almost 40 years—Arab-Israel dispute, is it not very worrying that there is such a wide gap between American thinking on the basic principles on which any peaceful settlement has to be based and our own, supported by all our European Community partners and indeed by King Hussein, whom my noble friend mentioned? Can he possibly say whether any progress was made in persuading the United States Government, and in particular the White House, that our thinking is correct and that theirs is fundamentally wrong?
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, in answer to my noble friend I do not think that I can go beyond what was said in the terms of the communiqué, that both my right honourable friend and the President expressed their support for King Hussein's endeavours to arrive at a common position among moderate Arab Governments and welcomed the result of King Fand's recent visit to Washington. Of course, that support and that welcome cover some clear arguments which have been conducted on the exact way in which such a settlement could be reached. But I think that both recognised that it was through supporting moderate elements in the Middle East that the best hope lay.
Lord Boothby: My Lords, I only want to ask one question of the noble Viscount and it arises out of his reference to the Middle East. Can he give us an assurance, in view of the agreement reached between the Prime Minister and the President, that Her Majesty's Government will now join with the Government of the United States in following up the initiative since taken by the Prime Minister of Egypt

861
for a conference to be held as soon as possible and containing representatives of every country in the Middle East, including the Palestinians of the West Bank and Israel? The combined influence of the United States and the United Kingdom on this matter would be very great. May I finally ask the noble Viscount whether he is aware that most of the people in this country listening to the Prime Minister's speech in the Congress of the United States felt momentarily proud to be British?
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord for what he said about my right honourable friend's speech to Congress. On his point about the Middle East and the initiative of the Egyptian Prime Minister, I think that it would be wrong for me, as I am not fully informed, to go anywhere beyond the communiqué which was set out at the end of my right honourable friend's visit.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, those of us who are proud to be British more than momentarily and do not need the Prime Minister to remind us would perhaps direct your Lordships' attention to that part of the Statement referring to Central America, co-operation against terrorism and Northern Ireland. While I support the efforts that the right honourable lady made to persuade Americans not to supply arms and finance to the IRA, may I ask what pressure she put on President Reagan in relation to terrorism in Central America? When they were talking about terrorism in Central America, to whom were they referring? Was the Prime Minister taking the President's view, for instance, that the Sandinistas in Nicaragua are the terrorists and the Contras are on the side of peace and light, or, as many of us would wish to believe, the other way round?
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, I am afraid that I cannot enlighten the noble Lord on that. I think that I must stick to the terms of the communiqué. On the position so far as Northern Ireland is concerned, I am grateful to the noble Lord for what he said. I think that it was very important that the Prime Minister got that message very plainly across.
Having answered that, as the point came in the same paragraph, I should perhaps say to the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, that I have no note on unitary taxation and, unless I had, I should be quite incapable of referring to it!
4.36 p.m.
Lord Annan: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Viscount is aware that many people have greatly admired the Prime Minister's negotiating ability in Europe and the way in which she stood out against the rest of the Community and got the rights of this country to the rebate recognised by the Community, as we well know. Would it not have been possible for her to adopt something of that tone with the President in private as regards American interest rates and to have pointed out that, as the value of the pound falls, and as the United States is able to get Europe to finance its enormous deficit, it really would be possible to argue that we can no longer afford to purchase at very great cost to ourselves such highly sophisticated weapons as Trident and that we need some kind of rebate so long as those high interest rates stand?
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, while I understand very much what the noble Lord says and respect his point of view, I think that it would be wrong for me to go any further or to get committed any deeper than the communiqué. As the noble Lord will appreciate, I have of course a little knowledge of what the Prime Minister said to the President but not a great deal, and some of what I have I obviously should not communicate publicly.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that there will be a warm welcome for his assurance that in the view of the Government the development of the SDI will be a matter for negotiation not only under the anti-ballistic missile treaty, as the Statement said, but also in the current Soviet-American arms negotiations? Can he say whether the Prime Minister gathered that that is also the view of the United States? Is there not a serious danger of some division here between the views of this Government and other European Governments on the one hand and the views of the United States Government on the other?
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, with all respect to the noble Lord, I do not think that I quite said what he interpreted I had said. In truth, I believe I said that of course how we were to co-operate in research and the research side of it would necessarily be a matter of discussion and negotiation between the two Governments. I did not say that the whole question of the handling of the disarmament negotiations, on which of course there have been discussions between the two Governments, would necessarily be a matter for further negotiation. I did not say that.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, I wonder whether I might just ask a supplementary question on that. It is a very important point. I think that everyone agrees that the launching of the SDI led to the Soviet Union resuming negotiations on a wide field of nuclear disarmament. I believe that it is also the view of the Government and certainly of European Governments that this should be a matter for serious bargaining in the Soviet-American negotiations. Can the noble Viscount assure the House that that is the position?
Viscount Whitelaw: Oh, yes, my Lords, that most certainly is the position. That of course was in the communiqué. On that I can certainly assure the noble Lord. The whole question will be part of the very serious negotiations. That was made perfectly clear in the communiqué.

National Heritage (Scotland) Bill
4.40 p.m.
House again in Committee on Clause 1.
[Amendments Nos. 2 to 5 not moved.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Nugent of Guildford): Is Amendment No. 6 in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Perth, not moved?
The Earl of Perth: Did the noble Lord the Chairman call Amendment No. 6?
The Deputy Chairman: It has been debated.
The Earl of Perth The Earl of Perth moved Amendment No. 6:
[Printed earlier.]
The noble Earl said: I wish to make three points briefly. I am not clear what is the legal position in regard to the trustees being able to assume the name "trustees of a Museum of Scotland". I hope that this can be clarified, if not today then at Report stage. My second point is that advisory boards can be wrong. My third point is that I shall study most carefully what the noble Lord, Lord Gray, said about the fact that under the existing Bill other museums or institutions may become part of, or be associated with, the museums. In that respect, I assume the noble Lord means that a Museum of Industry could be set up by them.
Lord Home of the Hirsel: I should like to clarify matters in my own mind, if not in the mind of anyone else, on this amendment. The concept, if I may use the word, of a great many of us is that the Museums of Scotland, as they are now known, will gradually at some future time be turned into the Museum of Scotland. We have established, I believe, that this does not require legislation—in other words, that the trustees can do it. We have progressed so far. The question now perhaps arises that at some future stage of the Bill it might be possible to forecast that this should be done by using the phrase "Museum of Scotland" in the Bill. I am not sure that one can forecast in a Bill in that way. There are great difficulties in doing so. Nevertheless, I suggest that we wait until another stage for that.
Lord Gray of Contin: The noble Earl, Lord Perth, has asked one or two more questions. We have had such a prolonged exchange of views that I should really like to study Hansard carefully to see what both of us have said. I can perhaps in due course write to the noble Earl clarifying the final points that he has made.
The Earl of Perth: I would be happy with that solution. I hope that the noble Lord, in writing to me, will pay particular attention to what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Home. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [The Board's general functions]:
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 7;
Page 2, line 9, after ("to") insert ("and interpreted for").
The noble Lord said: It will perhaps be convenient if your Lordships accept that Amendments Nos. 8, 9, 10 and 12 are taken together in a block.
Amendment No. 8: Page 2, line 14, after ("archaeological") insert ("architectural").
Amendment No. 9: Page 2, line 14, after ("environmental") insert ("historical").
Amendment No. 10: Page 2, line 15, after ("scientific") insert ("Scottish").
Amendment No. 12: Page 2, line 29, at end insert—
("( ) In regard to the foregoing functions the Board shall have special regard to all matters concerned with Scotland.").
The purpose of the amendments is to secure that objects are not merely exhibited but that there is sufficient back-up and expertise provided by the board to enable them to be interpreted for the population in whichever museum they are displayed. The whole question of the layout of the exhibition and the amount of information given to the public is important in order to ensure that the museum shall be a live museum permitting the knowledge within it to be readily absorbed by those who visit.
In respect of Amendment No. 8 the Under-Secretary of State, dealing with the Bill in Committee in another place, said that if he had thought of it himself he would have included "architectural" as well as "artistic" in the list in paragraph (d) of subsection (1). He added that it could be assumed that "architectural" would be subsumed—that was the word that he used—for the purposes of the Bill, into "artistic". Our purpose in this amendment is to insert the word "architectural" and not to leave it to be subsumed into the word "artistic".
It is frequently true that if too many things are detailed in a Bill or an Act, other things, which might have been included had they been thought of at the time, are excluded. As the law is interpreted, if too many things are included, everything else is considered to be excluded. It would be a pity if, at some future date, the courts, unaware of what had been stated in Committee in another place, failed to agree that architectural merit could be subsumed in artistic merit and decided that, as architecture was not included, they must assume it was excluded. This is a small amendment but it clarifies the situation and leaves the wording much better than it is at present. I beg to move.
Lord Kirkhill: I should like to support my noble friend Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove in all that he says in respect of Amendment No. 7. I am an occasional visitor to the Tate Gallery as I pass along the Embankment to come here. I have become increasingly impressed by the considerable extension of interpretation, using modern aids, that is available to visitors. I concede that the trend is noticeable in galleries everywhere. However, it would be a positive virtue to firm up the Bill at this point.
Baroness Elliot of Harwood: I support the amendment strongly. It proposes what in fact happens in a great many museums and places of interest. There is often an interpretative brochure available or an explanation displayed on a wall giving a background history of the exhibit or what it means. The amendment simply brings matters up to date. It is being done continually. I support the amendment strongly.
Lord Gray of Contin: The noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, when introducing the amendment, emphasised the importance of interpreting items in museum collections to the public. This is now generally agreed to be an absolutely central part of the role of museums. It was especially highlighted in the Williams Committee report. The Bill, as it stands, in Clause 2(1)(d) requires that the board shall,
"generally promote the public's awareness, appreciation and understanding",

865
of certain matters by means of, inter alia, its collections. The Bill also, in Clause 2(1)(e) requires that the board shall,
"provide education, instruction and advice".
These seem to us sufficient safeguards to ensure that the need to interpret the collections is given due prominence. However, in the light of what the noble Lord has said, and in the light of the comments which have been made by the noble Lord opposite and by my noble friend, I think that, just as a token of good will towards the Committee, I would be prepared to accept this amendment.
The noble Lord spoke also to Amendments Nos. 8 to 10. First of all, I should make it clear that I do not think it is quite correct to say that any commitment was given in another place that the word "architectural" would be included in the list. My honourable friend who was dealing with the amendment in another place spent some time talking about the list, but I am quite certain that he did not give any commitment that that word would be included. There is a strong inter-relationship between all the amendments which have been put down to Clause 2(1)(d) and those which have been laid in regard to paragraph 3(3) in Part I of Schedule 1. The two lists—the one listing the matters on which the board will have a general function of improving the public's "awareness, appreciation and understanding", and the other noting the criteria, knowledge or experience of which will be among the desirable factors for the Secretary of State to consider when appointing trustees—are of course closely intermeshed.
I should like at the outset to make the point that these lists are not intended to be exhaustive. The list in Clause 2(1)(d) is intended to give a number of broad subject headings indicating the general areas in which we believe it would be appropriate for the board to direct its work. A number of detailed matters in which the existing museums are active are therefore subsumed under broad headings; for instance, natural history under "environmental" and to some degree under "scientific". The list in paragraph 3(3) of Part I of Schedule 1 mirrors that list, but it also notes,
"knowledge or experience of … management, industrial relations, or administration".
as desirable criteria for consideration. These matters figured also in the similar lists which appeared in the Natural Heritage Act 1983 in respect of the Victoria and Albert and Science Museums. The relevant paragraph of Schedule 1 adds the rider,
"or of any other subject, knowledge or experience of which would be of use to the Board in exercising their functions".
We have already, in another place, agreed to the inclusion of two extra words in both lists. One is, "artistic", which we were persuaded was necessary by the arguments of the party of the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, though we believed that the all-embracing word, "cultural", was sufficient. The other is, "archaeological", which we acknowledged to be an aspect which needed to be highlighted in the list, particularly in view of the long tradition of archaeological research associated with the Society of Antiquaries and the National Museum of Antiquities of Scotland. During the debate we had on Second Reading it was strongly argued by, among others, my noble friend Lord Lauderdale, who has left us for the
866
moment, that the word "historical" should also be included. I promised then that I would consider this point. It is dealt with in Amendment No. 9, and also in Amendment No. 58 which we shall discuss later. At the moment we are dealing with Amendment No. 9. Therefore I can advise your Lordships' Committee that I am happy to accept that amendment; that is, the amendment which appears in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Grimond.
The noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, referred to the possible inclusion of "architectural" in the lists. These amendments have now been laid; Amendment No. 8 has been laid to this effect. I have seriously considered this point as well, but I have to tell the noble Lord that I am not convinced the arguments here are quite as strong. There are other institutions which might be considered to be better suited to pursuing an expertise in architectural matters, and I therefore believe that it would be wrong to highlight it in these lists. However, this will not prevent the national museums from, for instance, putting on exhibitions on broadly architectural topics or involving in them an architectural element if they think it is right to do so, bearing in mind the generality of their functions. I am happy to have been able to give what I hope will be considered to be a helpful reply to these amendments. I hope that this will be to the satisfaction of your Lordships' Committee.
Lord Howie of Troon: I am greatly interested in the Minister's reply to my noble friend Lord Carmichael, especially on the matter of artistic, architectural and cultural things. I happen to be a member of the party of the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock; I mean that in the very narrowest possible sense. I think that possibly the party was mistaken in preferring to dilute the word "cultural" for narrower things. In so far as these narrower matters alluded to artistic things, they were sound but they narrowed the field rather far.
My noble friend Lord Carmichael is right when he argues that things which are not in lists are often thought to be out; if they are not included, they are therefore thought to be excluded. That raises a great difficulty. It is an argument for having very short lists with a general addendum such as, "and other things", at the end. It may be that this list is not too short but is too long, and that a short list with an addendum of a general kind would be much better.
It would be a mistake to assume that architectural matters are necessarily subsumed in artistic ones, because although architectural people often have artistic talents and artistic qualities and often approach their work from the point of view of art, it is not always safe to assume that the works of architects are works of art and can be included as works of art under any heading. The Pompidou Centre in Paris is a building which I admire greatly. It is a very substantial, noble, prominent and important work of architecture, but it could scarcely be described as a work of art. It would be better described as a work of engineering. I speak as an engineer, and I think that is a noble kind of architecture. There would be a good deal to be said for the noble Lord the Minister perhaps reconsidering what he has said and either widening the scope of the list to include architecture specifically or narrowing it in such a way as to include architecture by inference.
The Earl of Kintore: Can my noble friend the Minister answer one question? Does the amendment which he has accepted include the provision of tapes in Common Market languages so that visitors, whom we try to attract, would, by pressing a button, have an explanation of an exhibit in their own language?
5 p.m.
Lord Gray of Contin: Perhaps I may first deal briefly with the point made by my noble friend Lord Kintore by saying that, yes, it would; I can give an assurance to that effect.
The noble Lord, Lord Howie, asked me if I would think again about "architectural". It is difficult always to get this absolutely right. We have given a good deal of thought to the list. I personally have the feeling, having accepted two out of three amendments in this particular grouping, that I have made a fair gesture towards the will of the Committee.
I have to reiterate what I said a little earlier; namely, that I am not convinced that the arguments which can be used for the inclusion of, for example, "historical" or the arguments which were used for the inclusion of "archaeological", could necessarily be used to support "architectural". I am not prepared to accept that at the moment. However, what I would say to the noble Lord is that this is a matter to which, between now and Report, I shall give further thought without any commitment whatever—and I must emphasise that point. However, I shall think further about the matter, and if I decide in the affirmative I shall bring something forward at a later stage, but I say that without any commitment.
Lord Ross of Marnock: The point made by the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, is well made. If we are to have a long list, it is very difficult to turn things down. I am going to press "architectural" on the noble Lord. After all, all living—in the sense of abiding and residing—is dependent very much on the development of architecture, and we should view it as such. Moreover, we have something to be proud of in the way of architecture. If you go to the USSR and look at the Summer Palace you will find that it was designed by a Scotsman called Cameron, who is probably better known outside Scotland than within it. We have the Adams brothers—I nearly said the Adams family, but that might have been mistaken for something else. There are also Robert Lorimer, Playfair and Rennie Mackintosh. We have been very slow to recognise the value of our architects. There are some outstanding examples of architecture.
Moreover, architecture affects our lives. We might as well face up to the fact that it is a blot on the landscape when one can travel throughout Scotland and see a house and immediately say that it is a local authority house. I think the same architect designed the lot. It is part of our history, but not the proudest part. There was a lack of flexibility and a lack of imagination which was probably determined by finance.
I am glad that the Minister is going to have a look at the matter again. As regards interpretation, the noble Earl, Lord Kintore, raised a very valid point. It is no good having our institutions proudly displaying what
868
we have to show and so on, if, when people wander around, they do not know at what they are looking.
We must have interpretation. Indeed, that was the first recommendation of the Williams Report. That report wanted education to be not just some adjunct to the institution, to the museum, but a special part of it. That matter has been pushed aside, and that is why that report mentioned interpretation as its first recommendation. When our arguments are so good and when everyone is so persuasive, please do not let us be told that we shall be given a quota as regards what is accepted by the Government. Do not let us be told that they will accept two out of the four. The best is yet to come. Remember what I told the noble Lord about the education department. Pay no attention to them. I hope the noble Lord will depend on his common sense.
Lord Stodart of Leaston: I should like to make a special plea to my noble friend—and it relates to something which the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, has just said. The noble Lord mentioned the name of Lorimer. Sir Robert Lorimer's middle name was "Stodart", and I make the special plea that a cousin of mine was a famous architect, and I therefore ask my noble friend to please think favourably about including the word "architectural".
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 8 not moved.]
Lord Grimond Lord Grimond moved Amendment No. 9:
[Printed earlier: col. 863.]
The noble Lord said: I am in the happy position of having my amendment accepted before I have moved it. I am very much in favour of this procedure in your Lordships' House, and I have no intention of looking any gift horses in the mouth. I was taught during my brief career at the Bar that, once the judge had shown that he agreed with you, you should never go on talking. Therefore, I merely thank the noble Lord the Minister very much indeed.
I raised this matter on Second Reading. It is obvious that if museums are associated with anything, they are associated with history. There are one or two other points that I should like to make very briefly about this clause, but I think it more appropriate to make them during the debate on the clause stand part, and I understand that that would be in order. Therefore, with thanks to the Minister, I beg to move Amendment No. 9
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 10 not moved.]
Lord Ross of Marnock Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 2, line 27, leave out from ("direct;") to end of line 29.
The noble Lord said: This amendment leaves out—
The Earl of Perth: I ask the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees whether we should not take Amendment No. 12 before Amendment No. 11. What happened was that, again, some gremlin found its way into the amendments that I tabled. My Amendment No. 12 should have read, "Page 2, line 20", not "line 29". Therefore, it comes before—
The Earl of Caithness: With due respect to the noble Earl, we shall be coming to Amendment No. 12. We are dealing with Amendment No. 11. We have to deal with the amendments in chronological order; I believe that that is the custom of the Committee.
Lord Ross of Marnock: I think that we really want them to be taken in chronological order. What the noble Earl, Lord Perth, is saying is that when he first put his amendment down, and when I first saw it, I understood it to read, "Page 2, line 19", and not "line 29". Therefore, we would be taking it in chronological order if we took it now, before I deal with my amendment, Amendment No. 11. However, it does not matter very much.
I beg to move Amendment No. 11, which arises at page 2, line 27, and leaves out from "direct" to the end of line 22. The Secretary of State, directing the board to exercise powers—
The Earl of Caithness: Will the noble Lord clarify a point? Did he say, "to the end of line 22"?
Lord Ross of Marnock: It is to the end of line 29.
The Earl of Caithness: You said, "to the end of line 22".
Lord Ross of Marnock: It is on the Marshalled List as, "to end of line 29", and I am not objecting to it. I beg to move the amendment on the Marshalled List. The noble Earl can read it for himself.
Lord Gray of Contin: May I interrupt the noble Lord for one moment? I should just like to be sure that we are both in the same game. I understand that Amendment No. 23 is being taken with this amendment. Is the noble Lord speaking to Amendment No. 23 as well?
Lord Ross of Marnock: I think it is exactly the same. When we come to Amendment No. 23, I shall move it or not move it. The arguments are exactly the same.
Amendment No. 23: Page 7, line 26, leave out from ("direct;") to end of line 28.
In subsection (2) the Secretary of State is given power to direct the board to exercise functions. But then it says:
"but nothing in this subsection authorises the Board to exercise a function of making regulations or other instruments of a legislative character".
Nowhere in the Bill is the board given the power to do that. The only person who can direct the board to exercise any of his functions is the Secretary of State. So please do not let us take a stick and chastise the board and say that it must not exercise any functions: it is the Secretary of State who must refrain from asking the board to exercise any such functions.
In any case, I do not think the words are needed because I do not think that any Secretary of State would go to the point of asking the board to exercise what are legislative functions which only he can rightly exercise. If we have to include such a provision, it shows a very low regard for the qualities of the present Secretary of State. But if we are to do it, let us not blame the board. Let us say:
870
"but nothing in this subsection authorises the Secretary of State to allow the board to exercise a function of making regulations or other instruments of a legislative character".
I beg to move.
Lord Gray of Contin: The exclusion of the words contained in lines 27 to 29 of Clause 2, subsection (2), would have the effect that the National Museums Board could be empowered to make regulations or similar statutory orders on the Secretary of State's behalf. I am sure that the committee will recognise that this would not be an appropriate function for the new board. The inclusion of this subsection, which is in exactly the same terms as provisions relating to the Victoria and Albert and Science Museums in the National Heritage Act 1983, is to allow the national museums to continue to operate the local museums purchase funds on behalf of the Secretary of State. These funds, which are currently administered by the Director of the Royal Scottish Museum, give valuable help to local authority and independent museums in Scotland to enable them to purchase items for their collections. The proposed amendment to Clause 10 is equally inappropriate for the Royal Botanic Garden.
Lord Ross of Marnock: Yes, but the board can only exercise any powers, which are the Secretary of State's powers, if the Secretary of State directs it so to do. Therefore, if we must have this provision, it indicates a failure to trust the Secretary of State. He alone can give the board that power. The subsection begins:
"If the Secretary of State directs the Board to exercise functions",
then we tell the board. If the Secretary of State asks it to exercise a function, it may say that it cannot do so because it would be making a regulation or other instrument of a legislative character. If we are to ban the board from doing so, then we should ban the power of the Secretary of State to ask the board to do it.
I hope the Minister of State appreciates this point. The board cannot do this, which is so terrible, unless the Secretary of State directs it to do it. But it is not the board which is making the mistake: it is the Secretary of State who is making the mistake by asking the board to exercise the function. If it is not included in the clause, I do not think it would take anything away from the powers of the Secretary of State. It would just mean that the Secretary of State will continue to be careful that he only asks the board to do what is lawful. The clause says:
"but nothing … authorises the Board to exercise a function".
The only person who can authorise the board is the Secretary of State. Let us go after him if it is necessary, but I do not think it is necessary. I do not think that the words add anything at all.
No one wants to interfere with the desirable functions that the Royal Scottish Museum exercises in respect of making grants, which relates to a question that was asked earlier by a noble Lord opposite. But this comes about because we have made the change. The Secretary of State can do that at any time himself. In fact, he does it presently because the Royal Scottish Museum is a part of the Scottish Office; it is a part of the Department of Education. This is to be included simply because we have divorced it from the Scottish Office and have made it subject to a board of trustees,

871
which of course will be appointed by the Secretary of State.
I hope that the noble Lord the Minister will have another look at this. I do not believe that it is necessary; and, if it is necessary, there should be a proviso to ensure that the Secretary of State does not try to delegate functions that he has no right to delegate.
Lord Gray of Contin: Perhaps I could point out to the noble Lord something of which I am quite sure he is aware anyway, but which there is no harm in going over again. A number of situations might require the use of this power in the future. For example, the Secretary of State may wish the board to include under its management an area of land gifted to him and suitable for the purpose; or to participate in certain aspects of public education. This is a power normally placed in legislation founding new fringe bodies which depend on Exchequer funding. For example, it is also applicable in respect of the Royal Botanic Garden at Kew. That is just one example where the Secretary of State might require this power. I think it is as well to remember that. I would not agree with the noble Lord that it is not necessary. I think that it is necessary to have it in the Bill.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Ross of Marnock: If the Minister is now arguing that the board can do this although it is legislative, he had better take this out of the Bill because there is a complete bar on the board. It says:
"nothing in this subsection authorises the Board to exercise a function of making regulations or other instruments of a legislative character".
That is a blanket prohibition. Now the noble Lord says that we should include it. I do not know why he wants to include it when it bars the board from doing something that he now says it might want to do. I think that the Minister should take this back and read it and have a talk with his advisers about it. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Perth The Earl of Perth moved Amendment No. 12:
[Printed earlier: col. 863.]
The noble Earl said: I am sorry to have spoken out of turn on this amendment but, as I said, it was a matter of lines ahead of the previous amendment. I am impressed by all the functions which the board is to fulfil. We have had them enlarged upon today, and they were enlarged upon in another place. But in any of these functions there is no hint that they are specially to do with Scotland. That would not matter if the functions of the museum were concerned purely with Scotland, but they are not. The Royal Scottish Museum has a large collection of works which has nothing at all to do with Scotland. Therefore, it seems to me that we should have an amendment in the terms that I have tabled here to indicate to one and all that all these aspects—whether they concern agriculture, the environment, the sciences or other matters—should have a special connection with Scotland. It is on that basis that I beg to move this amendment.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I should like to say how much I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Perth, on this point. It may seem strange to insert in a Scottish Bill a provision relating to the importance of Scottish material being included in the national museum but there is sometimes a tendency for museum keepers to follow particular trends rather than a particular locality. I believe that Scotland has sufficient culture, even in the scientific, environmental, industrial and military fields, to ensure that plenty of purely Scottish material is included. This does not mean that the museum would be filled with Scottish things only, but there should be an emphasis on Scottish material, or at least a powerful mention of Scottish material, in any Scottish museum.
One would expect visitors coming from abroad and the people at home to be able to find anything worthy of going into a museum and created in Scotland, or pertaining to Scotland, in a Scottish museum. This is another inclusion which should be put in the list in subsection (1)(d). Although I accept the difficulty of a long list, I think in a Scottish Bill we ought to include the word "Scotland", and I support the amendment.
Lord Kirkhill: So far Amendment No. 12 is concerned, no Scottish Office Minister of State could ever justify refusal of this insertion; he might try but he could not do so satisfactorily. When the board is beginning to dither, which is an almost inevitable occurrence given the numbers proposed to constitute the board, the then secretary will be able to direct their attention to what will be by then part of the relevant Act. I predict that it will lead to an immediate concentration of mind which can only be of benefit to Scottish arts on the whole.
Baroness Elliot of Harwood: I should like to support this amendment. It would seem strange in a Scottish Bill that you should have to put in these words, but the point of the whole thing is that we want to have as much as possible of our Scottish heritage preserved, and we need as much help as we can get and we need to give as much publicity to it as we can; and it is important that these words should be put into the Bill. I support the amendment.
Lord Gray of Contin: The noble Earl, Lord Perth, supported by the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, and the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, and my noble friend Lady Elliot have appealed strongly on behalf of this amendment. I appreciate the feeling which the noble Earl expressed that the needs of these collections are especially strong at the present time. The Williams Report, not for the first time, highlighted the extent to which the National Museum of Antiquities of Scotland's collections have suffered from successive disappointments in the search for new accommodation. They now form a powerful resource which, except for the displays in the Queen Street Museum and occasional special exhibitions, are little known to the general public, and in some cases are inaccessible even to scholars without a great deal of difficulty.
We have promised that the accommodation needs of those collections will be given priority in the allocation of capital resources from the overall museums and galleries programme. Equally I have

873
already explained that my right honourable friend is giving priority to the development of the Museum of Scotland concept, and this will clearly be a major concern of the new board of trustees. The National Museum of Antiquities of Scotland's collections, and indeed the purely Scottish aspects of those of the Royal Scottish Museum, are of great importance, and we all want to see them given more prominence. But of equal importance in many ways are some of the international collections of the Royal Scottish Museum. The amendment suggested by noble Lords would tend to work to the detriment of those collections.
I find myself in a little difficulty so far as this amendment is concerned for the simple reason that I know that those of your Lordships who have spoken in support of this amendment feel that they want to see the very best for Scotland so far as this Bill is concerned. I, too, want to achieve that objective, but I do not want in any way to make this into an argument that we must turn aside from everything else which is in the possession of our Scottish museums. Nevertheless, I have listened carefully to what has been said and I am prepared to take this away and give it further thought. Again, as is usual on such occasions, I shall take this away without commitment and give it further thought, and we can deal with this at a later stage.
The Earl of Perth: I am grateful for the support I have received from all quarters on this amendment. I am also grateful that the noble Lord, Lord Gray of Contin, is going to have another look at it. I was careful not to exclude other objects. I know well that the Royal Scottish Museum and other museums have very fine things from all over the world, and that is as it should be, but there is nothing in this Bill, or in this list, which shows that we should pay special attention, have special regard, to things Scottish.
The only purpose of this amendment is to say that. It is not ruling out something else. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Gray, noting the support I have had, and having listened to what I have just now said, will in the end come out, if not with this amendment then with something to the same effect, in which case I shall be happy. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 2 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Grimond: As I indicated earlier I wish to say a word or two on this clause, particularly on sub-section (1)(d). We have had a rather important statement from the Minister. He has said—and he will correct me if I am wrong—that the list set out in Clause 2(1)(d) is not exclusive. I think his phrase was that they were broad subject headings under which other things could be subsumed. I am not sure that this is a sound principle of legislation. No doubt the lawyers would look at this. I understood that if you listed things in a Bill, then you excluded what was not listed. We need to be certain about this.
The noble Lord also mentioned in particular—and this seemed somewhat contradictory—that some things were not put in because it was so well known
874
that, for instance, the Museum of Antiquities had a large collection of them, while other things, such as archaeology, were put in because it was so well known that the Museum of Antiquities had a large collection of them. I am not sure whether things are left out because it is well known that a museum has them, or whether they are put in because a museum has them. That is my first point.
Secondly, the noble Lord mentioned particularly natural history. I am not certain that natural history would be included in this list. I am quite certain that architecture, which has been mentioned, would not. There is also the question of services. Industry is mentioned but there is no mention of services. However, the most striking omission is fishing. The noble Lord may argue that fishing is an industry. One sometimes talks of the fishing industry. However, we talk of the agricultural industry; but agriculture is specifically mentioned. I had thought until today that the reason fishing was not mentioned was that there is already a fishing museum, and that it was to exclude these two museums with which we are concerned from dealing with fishing matters that it had been left out of the list, because the Government were going to build up the fishing museum. Is that so?
May I have the Minister's attention because I should like an answer to this question. Is it the intention of the Government that anything to do with fishing which is worthy of being maintained in a museum should be sent to the fishing museum, and that the two museums with which this Bill deals should exclude anything to do with fishing from their collections?
5.30 p.m.
Lord Howie of Troon: I should like to return to the question of this list in Clause 2(1)(d). I think the list should be rethought almost entirely. I do not think that it fulfils its function. The Long Title mentions "cultural and scientific purposes" and in Clause 2(1)(d) "cultural and scientific purposes" have become more numerous. They have become more numerous in a rather odd way. There is a strange mixture of specific and general items. I think that is an error. There are general items such as cultural and social matters which are to be promoted and there are other more specific items which are:
"matters agricultural, archaeological, artistic, cultural, environmental, industrial"—
and so on.
The weakness is that if the general merely had been left the specific might have been included in the general. But when the specific are itemised one by one we must necessarily conclude that only those items in the Bill are those which matter and those which are excluded should not count. We have already discussed architecture and have noted the substantial contribution to Scottish culture made by architects, particularly Lorimer, though more particularly by Charles Rennie Mackintosh, as noble Lords will probably agree.
I should like to draw attention to yet another quite startling omission, when we consider that this is the National Heritage (Scotland) Bill: that is the Scottish heritage in engineering. We have enumerated a number of architects but I need merely mention

875
Thomas Telford; at least three Rennies; William Fairbairn; James Watt; seven or eight Stevensons, who were mainly cousins, fathers, uncles and grandfathers of Robert Louis Stephenson, the novelist who himself took a degree in civil engineering at Edinburgh University, though he did not put it to use. I might add that even noted Englishmen like Robert Stephenson, son of George Stephenson, and George Bidder studied civil engineering at Edinburgh University in the 1820s. It is extraordinary that the engineering heritage should be omitted from a list of this nature.
It might be argued that the mechanical engineering bit is subsumed under the general heading of "industrial", or that the civil engineering bit is included under "environmental" or that all of engineering is included generally under "scientific". But engineering is not the same as "scientific". Engineering has to do with science, but it has to do with the application of science in the same way as "industrial" has.
I think that this list is almost entirely useless, for the best possible reason. It is intended to be an educational guide of some kind. It has fallen into the trap of mentioning those matters which are of interest to the draftsman who drew up the Bill. Such matters as engineering and architecture, of which he has never heard, have been left out.
I think that this part of the Bill should be completely rewritten and should be reduced to something quite small, such as "cultural, social and industrial". It should be almost left at that, but it would probably be wise to put in some saving phrase such as,
"and such other matters as might be deemed relevant"—
or however the draftsman would phrase such a thought. As it stands it will not do.
I sincerely hope that the Minister will have a close look at it, think it over with his normal care and courtesy, and bring back something a good deal more relevant at Report stage.
Lord Wilson of Langside: As something of a silent observer of and listener to the debate so far on this Bill, I rise only to say that I do not know whether the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, and the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, have impressed the noble Lord, Lord Gray, but they certainly impressed me. I hope that the Minister will take a careful look at this matter with his lawyers and others.
Lord Ross of Marnock: I rise to ask one simple point. The clause provides:
"the Secretary of State directs the Board to exercise functions [which are] exercisable by him".
Can the Minister of State list the functions that are likely to be exercised by the board delegated thereto by the Secretary of State? Is this the only way that the local museums, the private museums and others receive finances? If they are to receive finance or gifts in future through this new board, how will they be differentiated, in respect of the general monies going to this board, for their own particular museum purposes so that Parliament will know exactly what is being spent on each purpose?
Lord Kirkhill: I make one brief intervention to remind the Minister that the point which the noble Lord, my good friend Lord Ross of Marnock, made is the point that I tried to emphasise at Second reading. Although I know the noble Lord the Minister gave me a reply, upon reading Hansard subsequently I could not say that I was satisfied with what he said to me.
Lord Gray of Contin: The interesting, if short, debate which we have had on Clause 2 stand part highlights just what a productive afternoon we have had in discussing the amendments which related to the first two clauses.
I should like to try to deal with some of the points made on Clause 2 stand part, particularly those by the noble Lords, Lord Grimond and Lord Howie, regarding the list. It is thought that any legitimate area of concern from museums would be covered by the broad subject in the list: for example, natural history would be covered by "scientific"; "environmental" could cover various other particular areas; "architectural" would be covered by "cultural"; "industrial" could cover certain aspects of fishing, about which the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, was concerned. While mentioning fishing it is felt that the presence of the Scottish Fisheries Museum at Anstruther, which is an independent museum, is vitally important to the subject. We do not necessarily exclude some focus on fishery matters in the national museums.
These would be matters principally for the board to decide, but some concern has been expressed about the list particularly by Lord Howie. If the Committee is concerned about the matters left out of the list, it would perhaps be better to take out "artistic" and "architectural" than to put in more. It is a matter which is debatable one way or the other. We believe that to take them out would be a mistake. The list—as we have compiled it with the additions which we have agreed to include—covers most areas and ultimately, we hope, all areas of concern to museums.
Lord Ross of Marnock: The Minister says that he is not going to take out "architectural". Does that mean he is going to put it in?
Lord Gray of Contin: I think I made the position clear to the House. This is an area to which we will give some further consideration bearing in mind what others have said.
The noble Lords, Lord Ross and Lord Kirkhill, albeit at Second Reading, asked me one or two questions. To the noble Lord, Lord Ross, I would say that most local museums have some local sources of finance for purchases. These may be topped up by the local museum purchase funds, which will be operated by the board under Clause 2(2). Another source of finance is the Scottish Museums Council, which, of course, is grant-aided.
The points which have been raised have mostly centred round the question of the list, and I think that the indication which I have given is that we shall look further at the list before the next stage. However, I doubt whether we shall go down the road suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon. As the noble Lord, Lord Ross, pointed out in a earlier intervention, when you have a large number of subjects included in

877
your list it makes it difficult to refuse others. I think that what Lord Howie is suggesting is that we slash the list and have it very narrow indeed. I think that that perhaps would be a mistake; but we shall certainly be looking at the whole question of the list before the next stage of the Bill.
Lord Howie of Troon: I do not want to slash the list and make it very narrow: I want to slash the list and make it very broad. By that, I mean that we should leave out the fairly large number of specific items, which could be lengthened, page after page, to include them all. That would be a mistake. I think that we should slash the list by including only the general items, which could then be thought of as subsuming (the word which Lord Grimond used) the specific items. If that were done I think the Committee would be satisfied, and certainly the people to whom these specific items were of interest would be satisfied as well.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 3 [General powers of Board]:
5.45 p.m.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 2, line 31, after ("admission") insert ("to special exhibitions").
The noble Lord said: Noble Lords will recall that at Second Reading we had a considerable debate on the principle behind this particular amendment. The principle behind it is that no charges shall be made for admission to the national museums of Scotland, or whatever name we ultimately decide upon. No admission charges will be made, and they will not be permitted except when there is a special exhibition, apart from the normal display of the museum. This is a point that was raised during Second Reading here and repeatedly in another place on Second Reading and in Committee, and it is a point that we take very seriously indeed. We think that it is one of great concern. We are very concerned that the Government make the decision by putting it into the Bill that the only charges that will be permissible will be those for special exhibitions, and that it will not be left to the board of the museum.
The Committee may recall that on the last occasion on which we discussed this I quoted figures showing the differences between attendances when charges were made and after they were taken away. I gave two examples—and there are many of them. I gave the examples of Lady Stairs House and the Cannongate Toll Booth. In both cases the numbers of people who visited the exhibitions when there was no charge went up by a factor approaching four. I am sure that in the interval the Government will be able to find other examples, but I shall be very surprised if they find any examples to contradict the general trend that I have suggested, which is a factor of a 2–1, 3–1 and perhaps 4–1 rise in attendances when admission charges are removed.
I was sorry, on re-reading the Second Reading debate, to be reminded that the noble Lords, Lord Grimond and Lord Taylor of Gryfe, both felt that it was not terribly important, that it was not something
878
that they thought was of great consequence, and that they had (I think these were the words they used) an open mind about whether charges should be made. I hope that they have been approached since by the various museum authorities and people concerned about museums and about art, history and culture generally, and are not now just open-minded but have realised that it is too serious a subject to be completely open-minded about.
I think it is a subject where one must be stubbornly opposed to any charges for examining and partaking of our culture. I know that there are arguments about continental museums, but they have quite different beginnings from ours. Their genesis is quite different from ours, and they have different cultural backgrounds. Although I have visited very many of them, I wonder whether (particularly in the smaller museums) the money does more than cover the salaries of those collecting the money. If that is all the payment can bring in, I do not think it is enough to warrant creating an impediment to knowledge and understanding, and to an improvement in the quality of life of people.
The noble Earl, Lord Perth, mentioned that he had been in America and that he had been round the Smithsonian. I was taken to the Smithsonian by my host when I was in America, but I cannot remember whether they had a charge there. I do not recall that there was any payment to get in to the Smithsonian in America. I hope that there never will be, and I hope that our museums will also remain free. Our museums were started by liberal philanthropists and some very forward-looking local authorities. They were considered (and, I hope, still are considered) a general part of the Scottish attitude and reverence for education. There was, of course, the big start that was given by another Scottish philanthropist, Andrew Carnegie, by setting up libraries and giving very large sums of money to set up libraries all over Scotland.
One of the points that was made about charging, and which is always made, is that if you allow exemptions and are careful about the exemptions, that will take away most of the problem. The exemptions would obviously need to be for (I do not know) children, unemployed and pensioners. This is pushing more and more people with poor earning power into the role of second-class citizens. This is a very important point in itself. It is also important when you realise that there is still a large group of people who would perhaps not qualify in this way: the young people, the young boys and girls in their teens and pre-teens, who probably make at least as much use of the museums and art galleries as any other group.
I, myself, at pre-teen age, spent a lot of time in a children's museum, a sort of elementary natural history museum, at Tollcross Park, which was near me. I visited the People's Palace often. I agree that in many cases it was just a place to go because there was very little money about and one went to these places. But had the admission charge been as low as three pence it would have been quite impossible for me to go there. I and many of my friends, by going to these museums, picked up a lot; and in many cases particular interests were kindled in people who perhaps had no original idea of being particularly concerned, involved or engrossed in the contents of the museum.

879
But they went there, they went back, they went more and more, and many of them became very involved in the whole question of the heritage, which gave them a new light on history and, particularly in terms of art galleries, a new outlook on art.
I firmly believe that a very vital principle is involved in the amendment and we still do not know what are the Government's real intentions. Can the Minister give any assurance that there will be no pressure from the Government to make the new board charge entrance fees, directly or indirectly? By "directly" I mean by the Government ordering them to do it in the new climate that we are told about. By "indirectly" I mean that perhaps the grant will be cut and the members of the board may be told to make it up; they may be told that it is up to them, but if they wish to make up the grant, they would need to charge. I should like to know whether the Minister has any specific ideas as to whether this is likely to happen or whether it is part of the Government's thinking.
We believe that it would be the thin end of the wedge. If national museums, which up to now have been freely available, were to start charging fees, it could ultimately lead to the assumption that local museums and art galleries could do the same. I think this is one of the most serious parts of the Bill. It may seem rather a small part of it, but it is absolutely fundamental to the whole attitude that the people of Scotland will have towards their museums. I hope that the Government will give it very serious thought and be willing to agree to the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Kirkhill: I should like to lend my support to that which has just been said by my noble friend Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove. The use of the phrase "special exhibitions" perhaps does slightly beg the question, if you assume (as I do) that it is at least open to debate as to what would or would not constitute a special exhibition. But in my view such a phrase, or a similar one, yet to be devised, should be inserted in the Bill at this point. It is wrong in principle to leave the board an absolute discretion over the requirement of payment for admission. Considerable restrictions should be placed on the board, in this regard, I believe, and my noble friend Lord Carmichael has enunciated these points with great clarity.
Baroness Elliot of Harwood: I, too, should like to support this point very strongly indeed. If I remember correctly, some years ago the then Chancellor of the Exchequer suggested that there should be charges for museums in England. That had to be withdrawn because it was so very much opposed, though I cannot remember the details. I think it would be a big mistake to charge for ordinary admission to a museum, though I am strongly in favour of charging for special exhibitions. That practice is going on the whole time; there is at this moment in one of the galleries the Renoir exhibition and one has to pay to go into it. I am sure special exhibitions should be charged for. But we want the public to use museums; we are doing all this because we want the museums to be more attractive and we want more people to go to them, and so they should be free. Special exhibitions should be charged for.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: During an earlier stage the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, and I said that we had an open mind on this subject. However, I must say that despite the persuasive speeches of the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, and the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot, I am not convinced that there should be a prohibition on the trustees of the museums charging for entry to museums, galleries and what-have-you. I say this for a number of reasons. I know that there is a tradition in Scotland that these places should be free, and these traditions die hard. But we are seeing changing times, changing experience and changing standards, and the mere fact that people are prepared to pay more than £1 for a packet of 20 cigarettes is indicative of the kind of change that is taking place.
I want to see these museums succeed and I want them to have access to revenues not only from Government sources but also from people who want to pay for them and, indeed, are prepared to pay for them. I go to the National Gallery in London and I pay to get in to see the Chagall exhibition and the Renoir exhibition—the Chagall, I think is at the Hayward Gallery; but to have to pay to go into the gallery does not discourage me; in fact. I enjoy it all the more, and I get my money's worth. I recall from previous experience during the war when I did relief work that if you let people pay for something it was not a bad thing for them. They felt rather proud of the fact that they were able to contribute something. I suggest that we want to be proud of these museums, and the local people might wish to pay.
The Burrell collection is quoted as a great example; there have been large attendances at that wonderful exhibition. It is free, but it is being maintained by the local authority, Glasgow District Council. Glasgow District Council has to make very harsh decisions in its day-to-day management as to whether to spend less on social services, on home helps and so on; and I do not think it is a bad thing if the local authority decides that if people want to visit the Burrell collection, they should pay. People travel up specially from London to see that collection, and it is quite wrong to say that they would be discouraged if they had to pay.
I would certainly make an exemption for people who were unable to pay; I would make an exemption for students, old age pensioners—a reduction of that kind—but I would not restrict the powers of the authority to charge for access. We must remember that on the Continent it is common practice to pay to get into museums and galleries. That is not a bad thing. There is the realisation that these things cost money to keep them going. Heating has to be paid for and wages have to be paid to people, and you cannot always just throw that cost on to the Government, to the local authority or the new trustees. Therefore, having thought a great deal about this question and having realised that it is in conflict with the great traditions of free galleries and museums in Scotland, I think that the changing times justify some freedom being given to the authorities to ask for a payment for entry.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I, too, should like to oppose the amendment. Most of the points I was going to make have been made very much better than I

881
could have made them by the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe. I think the most important point of all is the experience on the Continent, where it is completely accepted practice in most places to pay. Indeed, one actually sees students—not only visiting students, but students of the country concerned—paying. One sees schoolchildren paying; and to suggest that by asking people to pay to see it, we in Scotland would love our culture less than would people in Italy, France, Germany or wherever, seems to me utterly ludicrous.
I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, that in fact all the signs are that people pay really a surprisingly high sum in the European museums to look at their precious possessions, and they understand that they are doing it in order that those possessions should be well looked after. They are actually playing a part in caring for the things that they treasure so much. But, quite apart from that, the vast numbers of tourists who now go through our museums in Scotland are absolutely astonished to learn that in effect we pay for them to see them. They find it completely extraordinary; and although the Bill is not saying that charges must be made but only that charges may be made, I think that to rule out charges would be the very greatest mistake.
6 p.m.
The Earl of Perth: I think that the noble Lord, Lord Gray, is in luck. He now has three people who are going to oppose the amendment. Despite the eloquence of the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, I believe that it is reasonable to have the power to charge for admission. He asked me a question about the Smithsonian. The Smithsonian is free, as are all the museums under it. The great Metropolitan Museum in New York has what it calls voluntary contributions. However, if you try to enter and do not put anything into the pot, as it were—it ought to be as much as four dollars so you must put in at least one or two dollars, which is now 1 or £2—you will find it most unpleasant. So that method of being voluntary does not work because it is only voluntary in inverted commas. If there are to be admission charges—forget the special categories—it is essential that it is known that on at least one day in the week admission is free for one and all.
The noble Baroness, Lady Elliot, referred to the debate of long ago in this House. I remember it well because at that time I also spoke in favour of charges and found myself in great trouble with many of your Lordships. I have not changed my mind so I think that the Government are right to make this aspect permissive. That does not mean that they must do it at once, and if a charge is made then care should be taken to ensure that those who cannot afford to pay are able on some occasions to enter free of charge.
The Earl of Kintore: I want to make it clear that I agree that the power of making a charge must be left in this Bill. There is no reason why there should not be one or two free days during the week. However, those who do not want to have quite such a scrum and want to be able to see exhibits by paying, should be able to reserve the opportunity and also add to the funds of the museum by so doing.
Lord Howie of Troon: I should like to support my noble friend Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove because he does something quite sensible here; that is he distinguishes between special exhibitions and permanent collections. The two things are quite distinct. None of us objects at all to paying for special exhibitions because we know that they have had to be gathered together at special cost, with travelling expenses, and so on, being incurred.
All that has to be paid for. We understand that, and we make these payments without too much cavil. The permanent collection is slightly different.
I should like to dissent a little from the noble Earl, Lord Perth. He quite rightly drew attention to the fact that in many of the galleries in the United States—and he specifically mentioned the Metropolitan Museum—there is a voluntary arrangement. That is more admirable than he suggests. It has not been my experience that the custodians of the pay boxes are unpleasant if I demur at paying four dollars; but then I have a slight advantage over many people, in that when I demur I merely show my National Union of Journalists' card and get in for nothing, which is very enjoyable. However, there is no reason why a voluntary system should be accompanied by a form of arm twisting or even of genteel coercion. A voluntary system with the voluntary rate pitched low would meet the objections of my noble friend Lord Carmichael to statutory charges and would also deal with the underlying problem of providing sufficient funds to maintain these collections, of which we are all aware. My noble friend Lord Carmichael ought to be supported in this matter; but at the same time we should have in mind some system such as that used in the United States in terms of voluntary subscriptions at the turnstile.
Lord Gray of Contin: We have had a very useful debate on this subject. It was debated at some length in another place, and the amendments which have been put down in this House, presumably drafted by the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, show an improvement at least on those which were put down in another place. That is hardly surprising with his experience of drafting amendments. But the sentiment behind the amendments shows an improvement as well because (at least in the amendments which we are studying tonight) the noble Lords, Lord Ross of Marnock and Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, recognise the important fact that national institutions should be able to charge for entry to the special exhibitions which from time to time they mount—very often at considerable cost. At least they recognise that those exhibitions should to some extent be expected to contribute to their costs. That view was very forcefully expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, by the noble Earl, Lord Perth, and by my noble friends Lady Carnegy of Lour and Lord Kintore.
Nevertheless, what these amendments fail to do is to recognise that the powers for institutions to levy admission charges are contained in the Museums and Galleries Admission Charges Act 1972. The reference here, to which the noble Lords have taken such exception, is merely included for clarification of the board's powers. We should note that the powers in the

883
1972 Act, to which the Labour Party appears to take such exception, remained unamended on the statute book throughout the whole period of the last Labour Government, during part of which time the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, was a member of the Cabinet. Clearly, he and his colleagues saw no objection to these powers then, and it is therefore hard to see why they have now performed such a volte face, so far as the subject is concerned.
In case there is any doubt in the minds of any of your Lordships about what the Government have in mind, perhaps I could repeat the assurances which my honourable friend gave in another place. There is no question of the Government forcing institutions to impose admission charges for entry to their collections. As has already been pointed out, many do institute such charges for special exhibitions. None of the Scottish national institutions has, as yet, suggested the institution of such charges for entry to the permanent collections, nor am I aware of any proposals for such a thing in the future. But we believe—and this point was made by many speakers in the debate—that it is right that these matters should be left to the judgment of individual boards. They will be in the best position to determine what is right for their institution, taking account of all the relevant circumstances which exist in the different locations.
We would of course expect them to discuss with us, as part of the discussions which take place on a regular basis, the way in which receipts from any charges might be put to use; but other than that we believe this to be a matter for the discretion of the boards under the general powers available to them in the 1972 Act. I felt during the debate that most of those who spoke highlighted the necessity to have this included in the Bill, so that the boards can decide for themselves what is best in each set of circumstances. Therefore, I cannot accept this amendment, and in view of the opinions which have been expressed during the debate, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, will consider withdrawing his amendment.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I am grateful for the statement that the Minister made and for the assurance he gave that nothing of which he is aware is likely to make the Government force the board to charge for admissions. Of course, as with the 1972 Act, as he will find—he probably did find—and as with many Acts passed by Governments, promises are made to repeal but because of the struggle with the parliamentary timetable legislation is not repealed. But there is another consideration. I think the noble Lord will agree that the climate has changed in a great many ways since the days of 1972. The noble Baroness, Lady Elliot, made reference to the earlier attempts to impose charging. I think the Minister will remember that various senior Ministers had their wrists severely slapped by the public at large for even daring to think of charging.
I am disappointed at the general acceptance that it is not a bad thing to charge for the ordinary museums. At Second Reading I gave the example of the Picasso-Matisse exhibition in Glasgow and many others, and said that no one objected in those cases. The exhibition had been brought at considerable expense
884
and it was a great opportunity to see something. No one objected to that, but the idea that there should be a charge to see the general standard of material in museums, probably paid for by the people of Scotland or gifted to the people of Scotland, is certainly wrong.
Perhaps I may say this to the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, and to the argument that people enjoy things better if they pay for them. I first heard that when I was very young. I was reading some of Freud—probably long before I should have. Psychiatrists said that you did not get the benefit of a good psychoanalysis unless the fee was enough to hurt your pocket. Psychiatrists became very rich on that nice piece of philosophy. This was certainly done. I also remember reading that Bernard Shaw always maintained that you should never give anyone a book. They would not read it if you gave it to them, so you should make them buy it. But Bernard Shaw did not suggest that we should close down libraries or that we should start charging people to go to libraries. This is where I find great disappointment in the statement of the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe.
I object in principle, except for very special categories, to the business of exemptions. I think there are certain areas in which you can make exemptions. Transport is a good example of where certain people can be given inducements to travel at certain times or to use facilities at certain times because they happen to have the leisure time for it. That is the only exemption I really like; otherwise I think that where possible people should have enough money to be able to stand up with the rest of society and do more or less the same things as the rest of society.
I do not believe that one would have anything like 1·1 million visitors to Burrell if one was dependent on foreign tourists. It is local people, Scottish people, who are going time and again to see Burrell. I think it would be a factor if they had to start paying £4 as the noble Earl, Lord Perth, suggested. I think one would be very far short of 1·1 million visitors if one charged anything even approaching that and I think the numbers would go down greatly.
It is quite true that the continental museums—I tried to deal with this—do charge because their experience is quite different. Many of the German museums do not charge; whether there is a greater affinity there I do not know. The noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, suggested that tourists were astounded at being able to get into our museums cheaply or for nothing. I think it is nice to astound tourists occasionally and from all the stories I hear they are also sometimes astounded at the rest of our tourism, although it is improving greatly. There are ways to recover money from them other than by charging.
6.15 p.m.
I am disappointed that we are not taking a harder line in this. I think it is something about which we have to be very careful. We should not get meshed into the sort of society where everything is paid for on the spot. I think that society, in order to educate people and in order to increase their standard of living and their quality of living, must be willing to pay in a general way so that people can benefit if and when they want these opportunities. One of the great things about

885
Scotland is that, because of some of our heritage, people have benefited. Many people from very lowly beginnings have been able to be entranced, inspired and excited by some of our museums and galleries, and particularly by our libraries. I think that that is a heritage which we ought not to let go easily. However, because of the points that the Minister made and the part assurance he gave me, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Earl of Perth: Before the noble Lord withdraws his amendment, may I just have the record straight? I did not suggest that we should charge £4. I said that the charge in the Metropolitan voluntary contribution is indicated at four dollars, which is virtually £4.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I did not intend to suggest that, but whatever figure was charged, I think £4 would obviously be impossibly high. I am sorry if I have misled the Committee on that point. I certainly did not intend to.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Grimond Lord Grimond moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 2, line 34, leave out from beginning to ("for") in line 39.
The noble Lord said: The amendment concerns Clause 3 which defines the general powers of the board. Under Clause 3(1)(c) the board are given exceptionally wide powers. In fact the board can do anything which they think is necessary or expedient,
"for the purpose of discharging their functions".
The only point of my amendment is that that seems to me to cover subsection (1)(a) and (b), which is a list of specific things that they can do. Those paragraphs seem to be unnecessary because it would all be covered by subsection (1)(c). I beg to move.
Lord Gray of Contin: The noble Lord sought an explanation for the necessity of including the words contained in Clause 3(1)(a) to (c). These words define the general scope of the board's powers and as such are necessary to prevent the board from carrying out actions which are not related to the functions which Clause 2 sets out for it. The powers are in any case drawn in very wide terms so that there is no danger that the board will be under unnecessary restrictions. But it is important that the board's powers should not be entirely unfettered.
Lord Grimond: I am grateful to the Minister but I am not sure that he has understood my amendment. Perhaps I have drafted it wrongly. My amendment, I hope, leaves in subsection (1)(c) which, as the noble Lord says, gives the board very wide powers, but it does limit them to powers necessary for the discharge of their functions. The whole purpose of my amendment is that that seems perfectly adequate. I am not in favour of leaving out subsection (1)(c) but of leaving out subsection (1)(a) and (b). I wonder whether the noble Lord could deal with that point.
Lord Gray of Contin: I thought I explained when I answered the noble Lord, but perhaps I could go over it again in case I missed anything. Subsection (2) sets out for the purpose of clarity some of the specific powers which the board will have. These are all
886
encompassed under subsection (1) as drafted but they would not be sufficient on their own to define the extent of the board's powers which must be related directly to its functions set out in Clause 2. This clause as a whole is modelled on the provisions contained in Section 2(3) of the National Heritage Act 1983. There has been no suggestion that the directly parallel definitions which that Act contains were unduly restrictive or unsatisfactory. I hope it will be agreed that we ought not to make an amendment that implies otherwise.
Lord Grimond: In the light of that further explanation—which I still found rather unsatisfactory—I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Grimond Lord Grimond moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 3, line 12, after ("land") insert ("or buildings")
The noble Lord said: This amendment need delay us for an even shorter length of time. I want to know why buildings arc not included together with land. I take it that the answer is that in law land includes buildings. I just want to make sure that that is the case. I am rather puzzled if it does, because in Scottish law one can still feu land separately from buildings. I should just like to have the Minister's explanation as to why buildings are omitted from subsection (1) and whether they are covered by the word land.
The Earl of Caithness: The noble Lord, Lord Grimond, is correct. In law, a reference to land is taken to encompass also any buildings on that land.
Lord Grimond: I am totally convinced by that argument and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 16 not moved.]
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clauses 4 and 5 agreed to.
Clause 6 [Certain gifts vesting on or after vesting day]:
[Amendment No. 17 not moved.]
Clause 6 agreed to.
Clause 7 [Acquisition and disposal of objects]:
The Earl of Perth The Earl of Perth moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 5, line 17, after ("opinion") insert (", having notified the Secretary of State,").
The noble Earl said: Let me first make clear that I am speaking in a personal capacity. I make that point because I am a trustee of the National Library of Scotland and what I shall say does not necessarily represent the views of that institution. I would ask that Amendments Nos. 28 and 32, which cover exactly the same point, be considered together with this amendment:
Amendment No. 28: Clause 15, page 12, line 38, after ("opinion") insert (", having notified the Secretary of State").
Amendment No. 32: Clause 17, page 18, line 15, after ("Board") insert ("and after notifying the Secretary of State").
My concern is that subsection (3) states:
"The Board may not dispose of an object the property in which is vested in them"
and then specifies certain conditions. The board are allowed to sell items if they think it wise to do so, subject to certain conditions. I am worried by that provision. We can all recall what happened in the case of the Tate Gallery, for example, many years ago. They thought it wise to dispose of some of the works of the French Impressionists, and did a swap to acquire something else. Ever since, they have wished that they had not done that.
I am therefore seeking to find what one might call a second line of defence, although not barring totally the idea of any goods being sold. I propose the words
"having notified the Secretary of State".
Perhaps those words do not go quite far enough. I do not intend to press this amendment to a Division tonight, but at Report stage I may well prefer to use the words,
"after the approval of the Secretary of State"
or,
"with the approval of the Secretary of State".
My only purpose is to ensure that items are not lightly disposed of. I know that trustees are very responsible people, but sometimes they can be wrong—even the best of trustees. If there could be a second line of defence—namely, the consent of the Secretary of State—I would feel that much happier. I beg to move.
Lord Gray of Contin: I can clearly see that the noble Earl has in mind further safeguards. I appreciate his concern on this matter, but we believe that it is unjustified. Clause 7(3)(b) for the national museums, and the parallel power for the national galleries in Clause 15, gives the board powers along the lines of those which have been provided for other national institutions in earlier statutes; for instance, for the Victoria and Albert Museum and the Science Museum in the National Heritage Act 1983.
The powers will enable them to dispose of objects from their collections by sale, exchange or gift where, in their opinion, the objects are,
"unsuitable for retention in their collections and can be disposed of without detriment to the interests of students or other members of the public".
Those are fairly restrictive conditions and I anticipate that there will be few instances in which the boards will wish to use them.
It is right that the boards should be free to exercise their own judgment in these matters—advised by the experienced, specialist staff who will be helping them. A need for notification to relevant Ministers has not been found necessary in the case of other national institutions, and it does not seem appropriate to make an exception in this case. In the case of the National Library, we are replacing a provision in the 1925 Act which requires the library to seek the Secretary of State's approval before disposing of books or articles which are not duplicates.
That amendment has the approval of the library's board and its staff, which have found the present requirement unnecessarily restrictive. It seems right to
888
us that here too the board's freedom of action should be consistent with that of its counterparts. I am satisfied that the restrictions built into the statutes on disposals generally are sufficiently strong to ensure that the boards will not exercise their powers in a way which may harm the national collections in their care, and that further requirements to notify the Secretary of State are not necessary in these instances. I hope that in view of the explanation I have given the noble Earl is prepared to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Ross of Marnock: The noble Lord the Minister is making rather heavy weather of this. We are not asking for the Secretary of State's views or for his approval, but that he should be notified and informed of what the board are doing. It may be said that this is far too light a burden to place on the Secretary of State in respect of the disposal in this way—by the sale, exchange or gift—of an object by the board. Many people may think that this amendment does not go far enough. Subsection (1), referring to the board, uses the words
"in their opinion".
That is placing a lot of responsibility on the board. I believe that this is a reasonable amendment. It is only seeking that the Secretary of State be notified, and then it will be up to him to take any action he sees fit—however, it may be a long-stop position in that respect.
Certain situations have arisen in the case of some museums and galleries in respect of the disposal of items which they probably thought were not very suitable or very valuable—but which later turned out to be otherwise than that. I view this amendment with some measure of support, but do not know how the noble Earl feels about the Minister's reply.
The Earl of Perth: I am grateful for the explanation which has been provided by the noble Lord, Lord Gray, but I am even more grateful for the support of the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock. As the noble Lord, Lord Gray, said, my purpose is to introduce one more safeguard. I note his opinion that the existing provision is adequate. I can only say, in withdrawing the amendment at this stage, that I hope the noble Lord is right.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Ross of Marnock Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 5, line 24, leave out paragraph (d).
The noble Lord said: Here we have another one. Subsection (3)(d) states that.
"the disposal is made with the approval of the Secretary of State"
when the object goes to an institution that is not a national institution such as the National Gallery or the Tate Gallery. If it goes outside those institutions listed, the Secretary of State has to give his approval. That is the importance of it. However, I do not think that the power should be there at all. As I understand it, the trustees will have the power to give items on loan, and "loan" means virtually permanent loan. However, if you dispose of something, there is no doubt that the people to whom you have disposed of it can themselves dispose of it without anyone else's

889
approval. I think the Government should look at this. Do the Government want to burden the Secretary of State with this power of approving a disposal, bearing in mind what that disposal may lead to?
It is a dangerous power and it would be far better to remove it so that if the trustees want to give an item to another institution, they give it on loan and, therefore, retain the ultimate sanction of saying "No" if that institution wants to dispose of it. Indeed, the trustees could end the loan and bring back the item. I do not know whether this disposal power in the Bill is in the English Act. That has been quoted at us once or twice, but I doubt very much whether it is in it. In fact, it is much more firm on the point that there should not be disposal to outside institutions. I beg to move.
Lord Gray of Contin: The amendment draws attention to a power which did not appear among the generally parallel provisions made for the Victoria and Albert and science museums in the National Heritage Act 1983. Clause 7(3) gives the national museums' board powers to dispose of an item in its collections under certain clear conditions. Either the item must be an exact duplicate of an item already in the collections; or it must be one which the board considers, for whatever reason, to be unsuitable for retention in its collections and which can be disposed of without detriment to the interests of any of its users; or it must be one which because of damage or deterioration has become useless for the board's collections. A further alternative is that the item is to be disposed of to one of the national institutions listed in Schedule 1 to the National Gallery and Tate Gallery Act 1954. Here subsection (3)(d) introduces a further power enabling the board similarly to make a disposal to any other institution, subject to the specific consent of the Secretary of State. A parallel power has been included in the case of the National Galleries of Scotland under Clause 15.
As was explained when this subsection was debated in another place, we wish to provide for the possibility of items which have at one time entered the national collections being transferred to collections in local museums. This is something to which the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, also made reference in his speech at Second Reading, giving as an example the St. Ninian's treasure. The national museums have, of course, been able to make such transfers on long-term loan in the past. But I know that there are strong views in some quarters that in certain exceptional cases the national museums should consider returning items from their collections permanently to institutions in the areas particularly associated with them. That is what this additional power provides. Of course, such transfers could be made only if the national museums board was thoroughly satisfied that all the circumstances at the potential recipient institution were suitable; that would involve, no doubt, consideration of environmental and security conditions and of the long-term future of the institution concerned. Because this is a new power—which is not, of course, the case with the other powers in Clause 7(3)—we felt it right that the boards should seek the Secretary of State's approval before effecting any disposal under it.
The Earl of Perth: This all seems rather complicated to me. I see that in subsection (3)(b) the board can
890
dispose, if it wishes; so why do we have to take it any further? If we are not going to make the board require the Secretary of State's approval in the one case, why ask for it now? The noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, made a very good point when he said we should have a long-term loan and asked why was it not covered in subsection (3)(b). I do not see the point of subsection (3)(d) at all.
Lord Gray of Contin: The noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, raised a further point which I did not answer. He asked whether the recipient institutions could dispose of items. Suitable conditions could be applied to any disposal under this subsection. That is one reason why here there is a need for the Secretary of State's approval. That would be another reason which the noble Earl, Lord Perth, might accept as the necessity for this. As I explained earlier, this is a new power, and that is one of the principal reasons why we feel that the approval of the Secretary of State should be sought.
Lord Ross of Marnock: Yes, it is a new power, and so we have to be careful about it. The Bill does not say that it is with the approval of the Secretary of State, with or without conditions. If that was included, there might be less suspicion on our part that we are doing something unwise.
I can see the point of returning items to a local area; items which they would like to have. We have done that on loan and have probably done it on permanent loan. Perhaps the noble Lord remembers the arguments about the St. Ninian's treasure. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, remembers that. I think it finished up with a replica of that treasure being sent north. This was, of course, an important matter—the question not of replacement or its intrinsic worth, but of its historic value and, following from that, the security offered in the local museum and the question of whether one could allow something so invaluable to Scotland to be left in places that would be less secure. I think the fact that one can make long-term or virtually permanent loans avoids the need to make an ultimate disposal.
There is no guarantee about approval and there is nothing said about conditions. If the Minister wants to accept this, he should come along at a later stage with an amendment concerning conditions. But I think that we do not need this, even to do what the Government say they want to do. One could send an item back to a place, be it Ayr or anywhere else, on permanent loan and it would remain there. People would not worry about that. However, if the Government are not going to move, I shall certainly withdraw the amendment, but I inform the Government that I shall put down an amendment on Report dealing with the question of conditions—
Lord Gray of Contin: With the leave of the Committee, before the noble Lord sits down, may I say this? The noble Lord talks of conditions. As an example, if the board did not put in suitable conditions, the Secretary of State would not approve the proposal. We do not need to spell out the matter completely. It is covered by that point.
Lord Ross of Marnock: It is not.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 20 not moved.]
Lord Grimond Lord Grimond moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 5, line 42, at end insert ("or for improving or extending the display of the collection.").
The noble Lord said: This is a simple amendment. Under Clause 7(6),
"Money accruing to the Board by virtue of a disposal",
can apparently be used only for,
"the acquisition of objects to be added to their collections".
Many of these museums have far more objects than they can display. We know in particular that the Museum of Antiquities has an enormous collection which has never seen daylight. I have no objection where it is necessary to add the money to their buying funds, but I think that museums should also be allowed to improve their premises, and so on, so that they can display their collections better. I do not see why they should not expend this money on improving or extending the display of their existing collections. I beg to move.
Lord Gray of Contin: The noble Lord has suggested that the national museums should have greater flexibility in the use of any sums that they raise as a result of the decision to sell any of the items in their collections, as provided under Clause 7(3). In particular, he has made reference to property and to spending money on improvement of properties where the exhibits are displayed.
First, let me say that we expect the instances of such disposals to be very rare. We believe that it is right that under the circumstances listed in Clause 7(3) the board should have a right to decide such matters for itself. Indeed, with the exception of Clause 7(3)(d)—to which we shall come in due course—the Bill provides powers for the new board parallel to those which have been provided for other national museums and galleries. But—and past experience has confirmed this—these are powers which the board is likely to want to use only in exceptional circumstances. For that reason, among others, I am concerned at the implications which seem to underlie the noble Lord's amendment.
If the amendment were accepted, the board would have powers which it could use specifically to improve its accommodation or displays at the expense of particular items of value which might have formed part of its collections for many years. It might in turn feel tempted in certain circumstances to sell off notable treasures in order to finance accommodation costs. Although such a sale could take place only as provided for in Clause 7(3), I am sure that your Lordships' Committee will agree that that would not be a desirable development and that the board should not be in a position where it was even tempted to take such action.
For those reasons I am afraid that I cannot accept the amendment, and I hope that the noble Lord might consider withdrawing it.
Lord Grimond: I am rather surprised at the suspicious nature which the Minister of State has shown. The idea that the board will flog expensive
892
items so that it can improve its accommodation shows, I think, a rather suspicious view of the board. In any case, its powers are hedged about, as we know, under this clause. So I do not really think that the Minister's fears are justified. But it is a matter of opinion, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 7 agreed to.
Clause 8 [Lending and borrowing of objects]:
Lord Grimond Lord Grimond moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 6, line 18, leave out from ("condition") to end of line 28 and insert ("only with the approval of the Secretary of State.").
The noble Lord said: As I understand it, this clause deals with lending and borrowing. The point at issue is that, as I understand the clause, the board may lend in contravention of the conditions upon which objects have been left to it, subject to certain conditions. I only wanted to add to those conditions that it must have the approval of the Secretary of State. My semi-Presbyterian conscience is slightly alarmed by the prospect of the board, even in the case of loans, breaking express undertakings. If it does not like the undertakings, it perhaps should not accept the object. I do not think that this is a matter of great importance, but I thought that an extra safeguard would not come amiss in the circumstances. I beg to move
6.45 p.m.
Lord Gray of Contin: The noble Lord has expressed his concern and his desire to have an additional safeguard here. He therefore proposes that in all such cases the board should seek the specific approval of the Secretary of State before making the loan. We believe that this would be unnecessarily restrictive. The conditions which Clause 8(3) applies are on exactly the same lines as those which have been applied in the legislation governing other national institutions; for instance, the National Gallery and Tate Gallery Act 1954, the Imperial War Museum Act 1955, and the National Heritage Act 1983. I am not aware of any instance where there has been a complaint from a donor or his representatives that the statutes thus provide too great a power for the institutions' boards to override their wishes. Here we are talking about loans, not about outright disposals, and it is surely right that after a certain length of time—25 years is the period which has been accepted as reasonable—the board should be able to exercise its own untramelled judgment over what constitutes a suitable loan. I trust with that explanation that the noble Lord might be prepared to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Grimond: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 8 agreed to.
Clause 9 agreed to.
Clause 10 [The Board's general functions]:
[Amendment No. 23 not moved.]
Clause 10 agreed to.
Clause 11 agreed to.
Clause 12 [Limitations on Board's powers]:
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 24:
Page 8, line 26, leave out subsection (2).
The noble said: This is partly a probing amendment, and I think that I almost know the answer—because we are talking about a Royal park, the Secretary of State must have some control over it. However noted and however special the park is, it is still a public park, and so it seems rather strange that we have to go all the way to get the Secretary of State to decide when it shall open and close. In regard to other parts of the Bill the Minister has been only too pleased to leave much greater powers, I should have thought, to the board members, and so I should like an explanation of this from him.
I think that it would also be convenient to take with this amendment Amendment No. 25.
Amendment No. 25: Page 8, line 29, leave out from ("not") to ("fix") in line 30.
This amendment takes us back to the old question of charges. Here the Secretary of State is again brought in, although in this case it is a park, not a museum. Presumably people can look from the outside through the gates or railings to see in, but if they want to go in, there must be the consent of the Secretary of State before a charge can be made. Of course the Secretary of State is not even mentioned in the question of possibly charging for museum entry.
The amendment would omit certain words, so that the subsection would read:
"The board shall not fix … any fees chargeable to members of the public for such entry".
Many of the arguments that I have used earlier apply here. The only park that I know for which there was a charge was Kew Gardens and in the old days of turnstiles that charge was very low. I have not been there for some time now and I am sure that the turnstiles have gone long ago. It cost something like a penny or tuppence to get in. It is not worth the candle, if that is the kind of amount which the Minister is thinking of charging. The cost of organising such a charge for entrance to a public park would be so great that it would be quite extraordinary.
These are probing amendments. I should like the Minister to give the Committee some explanation of why, in this case, because it is a public park—a Royal park, perhaps, but public nevertheless—the Secretary of State is brought in so frequently and with so much power. I beg to move.
Lord Gray of Contin: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, for so succinctly setting out his concerns over the amendments. I am glad to explain our thinking behind the provisions. I am unable to accept the amendments both because they would contradict the policy objectives of establishing trustee boards and because they do not reflect the proper role of the Secretary of State. Without subsection (2), which Amendment No. 24 seeks to remove, the trustees would be able to reduce the opening hours at Inverleith Gardens for reasons which may be eminently sensible from an operational point of view but which may act against the public interest.
894
The Secretary of State's involvement is therefore appropriate to bring a wider perspective in this regard.
The amendments proposed for subsection (3) are not surprising in view of the Opposition's attempts during this Bill to force a non-charging policy on all the boards concerned. We have already explained that nothing in the Bill encourages the boards to introduce or increase charges. I would have expected noble Lords to welcome the Secretary of State's consent as a safeguard against unreasonable proposals, particularly when we consider that the power to charge at Inverleith has existed under the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1972 for some 15 years without repeal by the Opposition when in Government.
However, we are legislating for the long-term, and it would be wrong for those of us here today to determine the merits or otherwise of any admission charge at Inverleith without the facts before us. The Bill, as drafted, allows the trustees to consider the matter in the first instance, and if they see fit to recommend an entry charge for the Inverleith Gardens, the Secretary of State will take a decision having regard to the wider public interest. That is consistent with the establishment and functions of the board under this Bill and I urge the Committee to support subsection (3) as drafted. Perhaps, in view of that explanation, the noble Lord will consider withdrawing his amendment.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I have no intention of forcing a vote and I shall withdraw the amendment. I wonder, however, whether the noble Lord the Minister can help. Can he give an example—I am genuinely seeking information here—of why the wider perspective in the public interest is served by the Secretary of State deciding the opening hours as though there was a likelihood of the authorities wanting to open at ridiculous times? I have the feeling that if I was reading the noble Lord's speech in Hansard, as I always do, I would be saying, "Dash it. I should have asked for a fuller explanation of this".
Lord Gray of Contin: Yes, I can answer the question that the noble Lord has raised. It is because this is a public park given under strict conditions of public access that the Secretary of State's approval to admission charges is required.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: The question about which I was concerned related to opening hours.
Lord Gray of Contin: The same would apply. Certain hours are laid down for the opening of the park. The Secretary of State's approval would be required if they were restricted.
Lord Ross of Marnock: Have they at any time been restricted? Have the public been refused access? I recall the Commonwealth Games. If my memory is correct, a garden party was held there. I was not there. In fact, I was not even Secretary of State, believe it or not. I missed it by a month. Having arranged the Commonwealth Games, I was not even asked to go to them. However, these are the things that happen in political life.

895
I am interested in the matter. I am sorry that we have to have subsection (3). I do not think that there has ever been any question of any Secretary of State, when he had direct control, charging for a public park. Even the good people of Edinburgh would be horrified to think that the Government are putting this into the Bill from the long-term point of view. No doubt the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, is dying to pay for these facilities. I wonder how he would have reacted, when a member of Glasgow Town Council—a very Left-wing member, if I may say so—to any thought of charging for entry to any park of Glasgow. I should like some assurance about this in relation to the variation and the alteration of the hours.
The board contains the people who have to act. The Secretary of State cannot. He can only stop them from doing something. What happens if the Secretary of State wants to alter the hours and the board says, "No. Mind your own business. This is entirely within our powers to initiate"? What will happen then? There may be the occasion when you want to alter the hours or to retain a part of the park for a specific purpose. Is that covered in this legislation?
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 25 to 26 not moved.]
Clause 12 agreed to.
Clauses 13 and 14 agreed to.
Clause 15 [Purposes of Board of National Galleries]:
[Amendments Nos. 27 to 29 not moved.]
Clause 15 agreed to.
Clause 16 [Further provision as to Board of National Galleries]:
[Amendment No. 30 not moved.]
Lord Ross of Marnock Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 31:
Page 17, line 25, after ("in") insert ("and the effect or).
The noble Lord said: This is not exactly the same point as admission fees. The amendment relates to a report that has to be made. The Bill says:
"The Board shall make to the Secretary of State a report on the exercise of their functions".
It says:
"Each report shall include a statement of the total amount received by the Board by way of admission charges in the period covered by the report, and shall include information (in such detail as the Board think fit) about rates of, exemptions from and reductions in admission charges".
I want the board to make an assessment of the effect of the charges; in other words, whether there has been a reduction in the number of visitors as a result of the introduction of charges. I beg to move.
Lord Gray of Contin: The noble Lord has in mind the intention that the board should be obliged to report the consequent effects in the reports that they make to the Secretary of State and to Parliament. I do not for a moment think that the amendment is necessary to achieve that.
The Bill already requires that, in such reports, the board shall,
"include a statement of the total amount received … by way of admission charges"
896
together with,
"information … about rates of, exemptions from and reductions in admission charges made by the Board".
The board is hardly likely to produce such figures without any commentary if points of significance arise. But if the noble Lord's interest lies, as I suspect, in the extent to which total visitor numbers may increase or decrease as a result of admission charges it will be perfectly possible to infer these "effects" from the information which the galleries regularly publish. Nevertheless, I believe that the noble Lord has a point here. I am prepared to show that I would never dream of discriminating against the noble Lord when giving an amendment to his noble friend. I am therefore prepared to accept the noble Lord's amendment. I am sure he is very surprised to hear that.
7 p.m.
Lord Ross of Marnock: No, I am not surprised. You see, I was counting the quota—what we had already received. I had already made up my mind how many more we were to get. Even though, on this occasion, I had not the help of the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot, all the same, I am grateful to her because she was looking daggers at the Minister in case he did not accept this one.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 16, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 17 [Provisions as to National Library of Scotland]:
[Amendment No. 32 not moved.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Alport): In calling Amendment No. 33, I have to inform your Lordships that if it is agreed to I shall not be able to call Amendment Nos. 34 to 41.
Lord Ross of Marnock Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 33:
Page 18, line 34, leave out subsection (5).
The noble Lord said: I do not think there is very much fear of that happening, bearing in mind what happened on the last amendment. This is a rather important amendment, because here we are trying to bring things up to date with a new Bill and a clean sweep of things. This clause deals with the board of the National Library of Scotland. We have been told that the whole of the museum structure in Edinburgh can be dealt with by a relatively small board, but what have we got for the National Library of Scotland? Subsection (5) says:
"The Board shall consist of thirty-two members, of whom eleven shall be ex-officio members, sixteen shall be appointed as hereinafter provided, and five being persons of eminence in literature or public life"—
I suppose that leaves us all out—
"not otherwise members of the Board, shall be co-opted by the Trustees".
So the trustees have a power of co-option.
Then we have a wonderful list of the ex-officio members of the National Library of Scotland. It starts with the Lord President of the Court of Session, and he is followed by the Lord Advocate. Where is he? I know he is around somewhere. He is probably away studying the whole business of the National Library, getting

897
ready for the next meeting. I doubt if he has ever been there! Next comes the Secretary of State. Now we know what has been taking up the time of the Secretary of State for Scotland: it is his membership of the board of the National Library of Scotland! I was Secretary of State for eight years. I never once received an invitation, or was told about this important duty that I had. Do we need this? How often has Mr. Younger been to this library?
I appreciate the weakness of my amendment. If this amendment is approved, then the present state of affairs remains. But this is not the final stage of the Bill. What I want to get is the feeling of this crowded Committee as to how modern and how right is this way of dealing with the National Library of Scotland. After the Secretary of State we have the Dean of the Faculty of Advocates. I know that the basis of the National Library is probably the advocates' library. Mind you, they sold it. It was bought, and presented to the nation. Later on there is provision for five persons appointed by the faculty. The legal men look after themselves and retain their interest in this bit of the establishment of Scotland.
Let us hasten on. Another of the ex-officio members is to be the Minister of the High Kirk (St. Giles), Edinburgh. What is he doing there? He should be away preparing his sermons, unless of course he visits the National Library in order to get a few ideas—some new ideas, or, rather, some old ideas—about what he should be putting forward. Then there is the Member of Parliament for Edinburgh Central. Edinburgh Central used to be Edinburgh Central, but Edinburgh Central now goes out as far as Murrayfield, though it probably still takes in the site of the National Library of Scotland.
Other ex-officio members are to be the Lord Provost of Edinburgh, the Lord Provost of Glasgow, the Lord Provost of Dundee and the Lord Provost of Aberdeen. There used to be the Lord Provost of Perth. In fact, if we wipe out this subsection by accepting my amendment, the Lord Provost of Perth will be in. It might be a loss if they did not have the Lord Provost of Perth. I understand that the noble Earl, Lord Perth, is one of the present members. I am safeguarding his position, because he will remain a member and he will have the company of the Lord Provost of Perth if we can get rid of this subsection. I wonder how often the Lord Provosts of Edinburgh, Glasgow, Dundee, Aberdeen and Perth have ever been to this library. Why should it be necessary or desirable to have this provision?
The next person to be appointed is the Queen's and Lord Treasurer's Remembrancer. I started to make my list of the people who should be there, and of those who should not be there. He is the one person I thought should be there, because he is the man in charge of treasure trove and the man to whom, if a person dies intestate and no heirs can be traced, all the belongings ultimately go; so he might be a good man to have there, bearing in mind that he might have it in mind to gift many things to the National Library.
There are also to be on the board five members appointed by Her Majesty on the recommendation of the Secretary of State, and at least one of these is to be a representative of organised labour. That provision is already there, and has been working for the past 50
898
years. I am surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, wishes to wipe this out. I wonder whether the noble Lord appreciates exactly what happened in the drawing up of this Bill, which is going to affect considerably the lives and the rights of many of the people employed in, say, the Royal Scottish Museum. They are presently civil servants, but after the passing of the Act they will not be civil servants. That is the reason why we are going to reduce the number of civil servants by about 320. It is not a mark of great efficiency by the Government, but simply the administration of this measure. The Government really should have been compelled themselves to have representatives of organised labour. It would have saved them from having to put in some clauses at the Report stage in the Commons and from the mistakes they made in respect of the rights of organised labour.
There are also to be five persons appointed by the faculty, and four persons appointed jointly by the Scottish universities. There will be no great improvement there, because we have two new universities. We have more than two; we have three new universities: we have Strathclyde, we have Heriot-Watt, and of course Dundee as well. They all used to be mentioned by name, but in this Bill we are getting to the point of shorthand.
Two of the ex-officio members are to be appointed by the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. Of course, one who is left out is Sir Alexander Grant. I believe he was made a baronet about 1924 or 1925. He was the man who purchased and gave to the nation the advocates' library, and also a sum of money in respect of the building of the extensions for the National Library. He or his nominee were members for life. He is dead, and I do not know whether or not there are any heirs. I think that, if he had heirs, some of them would have as much right to be there as the Secretary of State, the Lord Advocate or the Lord Provost. We welcome the Lord Advocate to the Committee. It is a pity he was not present earlier. I was convinced he was away studying the agenda for the next meeting of the National Library, which he attends so faithfully!
This subsection is rather a nonsense when we are trying to bring matters up to date. It is over 50 years since the National Libraries Act 1925. I should have thought that we could have had something a little better than this and disposed of the long list of 32 members. If we can run all the National Museums of Scotland with this new board, which is dealt with in Schedule 1, then we do not need a quarter of those people to run the National Library. I beg to move.
Lord Gray of Contin: Perhaps it would be helpful if I explain again why we have taken the attitude that we have towards the reconstitution of the library board. Following local government reorganisation it was recognised that some amendment would be required to the 1925 Act which provided for representation by the old local government organisations, which have been superseded by the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. It was also desirable to amend the Act in respect of the university representation, since only the older Scottish universities had a right to make appointments—although in practice they have consulted the four younger universities before making

899
such appointments. The question of a wider review of the constitution arose and in 1980 we consulted all those who appeared to have an interest in the workings of the library to establish what support there might be for change.
The replies we received reflected very many different points of view, but there was no consensus in favour of major change. In addition, it was very evident that the vast majority of those who responded were satisfied that the library operated very well and satisfied their interests. We therefore considered carefully whether there was a case for interfering in more than a very marginal way with a structure which, although on the face of it apparently rather cumbersome, had served, and appeared to be continuing to serve, the library well. We took account here too of what the board itself told us about how it operates. The board itself acts as something more akin to a university senate—or indeed to the governing body of the National Library and National Museum of Wales, about which the noble Baroness. Lady White, spoke so eloquently in our Second Reading debate. It meets only once a year as a full body, and the main executive business of the library is carried out by a more compact group of trustees who meet on a more regular basis. The ex-officio trustees (to which the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, has taken such exception) are therefore not in general expected to play any part in the day-to-day running of the library, but are regarded as persons whose influence and involvement may be called upon in particular cases of need.
The amendments which have been laid by the noble Lords opposite are therefore not acceptable to us. The amendment by the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, would do no more than return the constitution to that provided under the 1925 Act, with its representation for the local government organisations and the universities unaltered, and with the reference to the defunct position of the Lord Provostship of Perth unamended. I am sure that your Lordships will agree that this would not be satisfactory.
The amendments which the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, has tabled are considerably more thoughtful and would produce a very different type of board from that which the library currently has. The library's trustees would presumably have to adapt to a rather different role from that which a good many of them currently play. That might be considered in some circles to be not a bad thing, but I have to say that we have seen no evidence to suggest that such a change is strongly desired. Lord Grimond's amendments could in any case not be adopted as they stand, because they take no account of the consequential need there would be to alter the preamble to Paragraph 1 of the schedule which states the number of trustees (which would be reduced from 32 to 24). However, for the reasons that I have outlined I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, may be prepared to withdraw his amendment.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Fraser of Tullybelton: I should like to make a few comments on this matter in relation to the position of the Faculty of Advocates. It was rather
900
suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Ross, that five members from the faculty were too many. He seemed to object to the presence of the Lord President, the Lord Advocate and the Dean as members of the board. Your Lordships will know that the National Library of Scotland comprised the main part of the Advocates' Library until 1925. The noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, said that it was purchased in that year. That may have been technically so, but it was purchased for a very low figure in relation to the real value of the library. It is hardly unfair to say that it was made over by the Faculty of Advocates to the public and there it has remained ever since.
Therefore, because of the historical origins of the library, I submit that it is right and proper that the faculty should be largely represented in the governing body of the library. It does in fact take considerable interest in the library. The National Library is housed in what could be described as an appendix to the Parliament House where the Faculty of Advocates functions. Members go in there quite often and use it freely. Those who were members of the faculty in 1925 and who are still alive—of whom the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate must know at least one, but there are a few others—still have borrowing rights from the National Library. Unfortunately the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate and I were too late in coming; we do not have those rights. However, the links between the faculty and the National Library are historically very close and still remain very close in feeling. It would be a very great pity if anything were done to sever those links.
I am not sure whether what I have said leads me to support the amendment or to oppose it. Either way, so far as I can see the effect would be that the Faculty of Advocates would have the same representation as it has at the moment; it would not make any difference. The only thing that would really make a difference would be if later on the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, moved one of his amendments. When the time comes I hope that I shall be here to oppose it, if necessary. For the moment I would, on the whole, be inclined to suggest that the amendment should not be accepted because it is really aimed at substantially cutting down the board of the National Library.
The Earl of Perth: I am not sure whether I should go into this matter because I am a member of the board of the National Library. I certainly do not want any change which means that I cannot continue as such. I do not think that that is envisaged. What I would say is that, although it is in many ways archaic, in my view it works extremely well. In particular, the Lord President and others of the advocates play a really important part in the work of the library. I point out to the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, that it would be a great pity if the Lord President, who is also a member of the executive committee and functions frequently and valuably, were not a part of it.
So let us for once carry on in large degree with tradition. All right, the Minister of the High Kirk may not come or the Member of Parliament may not come, but it does not matter. What matters is that the board functions, and functions well.
The Lord Bishop of Norwich: I hope that it will not be inappropriate for an English bishop to enter into

901
this largely Scottish debate. However, as we are the Parliament of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, I think it not inappropriate to bring a small ecumenical shaft of light into the discussion and to say that, if it is of any help to Her Majesty's Government, I am willing to vote for them if we become impassioned about this amendment and if the Opposition Front Bench move it. I am opposed to the noble Lord, Lord Ross—
Lord Ross of Marnock: I moved the amendment. In fact, we could not talk about it unless I had moved it.
The Lord Bishop of Norwich: If it is inappropriate I shall not go further. However, in order to save the Committee time, I point out that I should have liked to have made reference to the matter when Amendment No. 36 is moved. I could put both my two fairly lengthy speeches into one if it would help in moving forward in this Committee stage. I shall wait upon the Committee's pleasure; but I just put down the marker that I hope to speak on Amendment No. 36.
Lord Ross of Marnock: The point has been made that the Faculty of Advocates merits what it got because 50 years ago it sold its library. It was bought by Sir Alexander Grant. That is why he was specifically mentioned in this statute of 1925. Of course, he did more than that; he also gave a sum of money in respect of new building that was necessary. I am very glad that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser of Tullybelton, made the remark that he did because he reminded me that it was not just the five members from the faculty. There are eight, and eight out of 32 is not too bad. The lawyers can look after themselves; but the lawyers did not look after the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland, who are the people who created the National Museum of Antiquities of Scotland. They were not even mentioned when it came to taking over the whole of that museum and including it in the National Museums of Scotland, which is referred to in Clause 1.
That is why lawyers tend to be blinkered. They look at matters that concern their own profession. To my mind this is a far more valid case. They handed this over to the nation and for a long time they actually ran the museum. They also provided periodicals worth several thousands of pounds for years and years, and still do so. But they were completely ignored by the Government when it came to being included on the board of trustees, which would encompass the museum that meant so much to them.
Therefore I make no apology for this. We have already been told that all these ex-officio members might be influential and might be asked on the board. No one ever asked me. As Secretary of State, I suppose that I was not influential. Of course, I was influential enough to have the right to appoint five members to this body. It really is a nonsense that in bringing something up to date with a much smaller body we could not have the historical rights of the advocates still included—and the same applies to the universities and to local government—without this rigmarole of ex-officio members.
When I moved the amendment I said that if it was accepted, it would still take us back to an unsatisfactory position, but I wanted to hear just exactly what noble Lords had to say because I shall
902
return to this matter at the next stage. That being so, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Grimond Lord Grimond moved Amendment No. 34:
Page 19, leave out line 3.
The noble Lord said: Very often I find myself in the curious position of having had my amendments replied to before they have been moved. I do not want to weary the Committee by going over some of the arguments that have already been advanced, but I want to put forward some concrete suggestions. I wish to reassure the Faculty of Advocates that no one admires them more deeply than I do. The only question at issue is how many advocates we have. I believe that we must bear in mind that this is now a National Library—it is not a law library—and therefore I propose to cut down the number of advocates.
I do not intend to go through Amendments Nos. 34 to 41 one by one.
Amendment No. 35: Page 19, leave out line 5.
Amendment No. 36: Page 19, leave out line 7.
Amendment No. 37: Page 19, leave out line 8.
Amendment No. 38: Page 19, leave out line 13.
Amendment No. 39: Page 19, line 17, leave out from ("State") to end of line 18.
Amendment No. 40: Page 19, leave out lines 19 and 20.
Amendment No. 41: Page 19, line 24, at end insert—
("One shall be appointed by the Royal Society of Edinburgh, One shall be appointed by An Comunn Gaidhealach." ").
If I may, I shall speak in general about the amendments.
I propose a reduction in the number of lawyers; and then I want to look at the rest of the board from the point of view of the National Library. I do not think that the Minister of the High Kirk (St. Giles) is the appropriate clergyman. If we are to have a clergyman, we might have the Moderator. Excellent though he is, I do not think that the Member of Parliament for Edinburgh Central is a suitable trustee. I remain unconvinced that organised labour should be represented ex-officio on a library.
Therefore, I look at this from the point of view of the nation, and I think that the time has come to prune out this excellent body. Until quite recently the right reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury was a member of the Board of Trade. No doubt he did no particular harm, but neither did he do any particular good, and he was eventually removed without much loss to the nation. Therefore, these valuable old boards could be kept going for a certain time, but I think occasionally should be looked at again.
I do not think that there is a case for having the Secretary of State on the board. Considering that one of the purposes of this Act is to put these institutions at arm's length from the Government, it would seem quite contrary to the Government's own policy to put the Secretary of State in charge of the National Library. At the end of my list of amendments I suggest, in all seriousness, that it might be a good thing to have a Gaelic expert. The Gaelic speakers are rather worried about this Bill and it seems to me that it might be a good move to appoint one of them as a trustee of the library. I also put in a word for the Royal Society

903
of Edinburgh, which is a national body of the sort which should be represented as in charge of the National Library.
Therefore, please do not think that I am unaware of the importance of this library to the advocates; nor that I want to remove the advocates entirely from it. But I am sure that, as fair a minded man as a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary will agree, at the moment they are rather heavily represented, that it might be that their numbers should be reduced, and that in place of them we might have people who represent national interests which are at present not represented on the board. I beg to move.
The Lord Bishop of Norwich: I should just like to speak to Amendment No. 36 on the Marshalled List, and because I want to oppose it, at least to agree fully with the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, about the Gaelic representative. Over our home we still have: "Cáed mile fáilte" to welcome everybody in, and I have enough blood in my veins to feel that that is a right and good suggestion.
However, I should like to stand up firmly for the Minister of the High Kirk (St. Giles) Edinburgh. As we do not have moderators in your Lordships' House, I think that it is suitable that an English bishop should take upon himself this task in an ecumenical and magnanimous way. Obviously we cannot have the Moderator because unfortunately the Established Church in Scotland has not yet come round to accepting bishops on a permanent basis, but only moderators on an annual basis. Therefore, he would only just read himself in to this task when he was read out again. Therefore, I do not think that it should be the Moderator.
However, I want to stand up for the Minister of the High Kirk because surely among years gone by, among all these illustrious names here, he was probably—and it is the Scottish libraries that we are talking about—the only person who actually could read in those earlier days. Therefore, to keep that tradition of learned reading going is good.
I am reminded of that famous Minister, Tom Allen—
Lord Ross of Marnock: He only started in 1925.
The Lord Bishop of Norwich: Yes, but the quotation with which I hope to sway your Lordships goes back three years earlier; the quotation goes back to the great statement by the then Rector of St. Andrews, J. M. Barrie, who said:
"You come of a race of men, the very wind of whose name has swept the ultimate seas".
Men who can say those sort of things with such beauty and men of his ilk and like—I think the Committee will agree that the Minister of the High Kirk (St. Giles) is of that timbre and of that tradition—should not be axed by this rather bureaucratic amendment which has been moved by the noble Lord, Lord Grimond. Therefore, I wish to oppose the noble Lord.
Lord Gray of Contin: I sympathise with the noble Lord, Lord Grimond. The grouping of the amendments were such that on two occasions today
904
we dealt with his amendment before he had had an opportunity to move it. Therefore, I am sure that he would not wish me to weary the Committee by going over once again the reply which I gave. However, I would just reiterate that the noble Lord's amendments could not in any case be adopted as they now stand because they take no account of the consequential need that there would be to alter the preamble to paragraph 1 of the schedule.
However, I should like to deal very quickly with the point which the noble Lord makes about the possibility of a Gael being a member. The National Library recognises its responsibilities towards the written heritage of Gaelic, as indeed it does towards all aspects of Scotland's literary heritage. It is perfectly possible for the library to ensure specific representation of Gaelic interests among the co-opted trusteeships for which the present constitution makes allowance, or for this to be a factor in the appointment of Crown trustees.
Indeed, one of the present trustees is a Gaelic speaker. However, I am not convinced that a specific right of representation for any particular Gaelic organisation would be helpful and common. If, for example, An Comunn Gaidhealach and Comunn Na Gaidhlig were to merge at some stage—a possibility which the Government would wish to encourage—a further amendment would be needed. For that reason I think the situation is already adequately catered for.
I am delighted that the right reverend Prelate should take part in a Scottish debate. We welcome him very much. I shall not be led down the path of commenting on the benefits of having bishops or otherwise. In the Church of Scotland we do not have bishops, and I am sure that if they were all like the right reverend Prelate in the Church of England a great deal of relief would be expressed; but that is not a matter into which I feel I should be drawn. It is good of him to make comment about ecclesiastical representation in Scotland. Of course, there is no reason why that could not be achieved, and no doubt his words will be noted. With those comments I would invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Grimond: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 35 to 41 not moved.]
Clause 17 agreed to.
Clause 18 agreed to.
The Earl of Caithness: I think this is a good time to move that the House do now resume. I would confirm that we shall not come back to our deliberations on this Bill until half-past eight.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Milk (Cessation of Production) Bill
Read a third time, and passed.

Potato Marketing Scheme 1955
7.32 p.m.
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead rose to move, That the draft amendments laid before the House on 20th December 1984 be approved. [7th Report from the Joint Committee.]
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the draft amendments to this scheme, and, with the agreement of your Lordships, I would speak also to the two statutory' instruments which follow on the Order Paper.
The Potato Marketing Board is a producer organisation constituted by the Potato Marketing Scheme made under the Agricultural Marketing Act 1958. Although the board is independent of the Government, your Lordships will know that the Government act jointly with the board over market support arrangements.
The system of support for potatoes is based on powers contained in the Agriculture Acts 1947 and 1957 to provide guaranteed prices or assured markets. Our current arrangements are founded essentially on the annual determination of a guaranteed price and the making of a deficiency payment if the price received by producers falls below the level of that guaranteed price.
As your Lordships may remember, at the end of 1982 the Government decided to conduct a review against the background of the Potato Marketing Board being in severe financial difficulties resulting from its inability to raise sufficient income from producers to meet its full share of market support costs, and the consequent need for the Government to provide additional funding to help the board meet the costs of its 1982 crop support operations.
A year ago the Government's conclusions on the review were announced. First, we decided against a free market for potatoes. This season, for example, main crop yields are 8½ tonnes per hectare higher than last season, and we concluded that a sudden switch to a free market would significantly increase the chances of price instability.
Our second conclusion was that stabilisation of the potato market within a limited managed market would help to avoid disruption, would retain producer confidence in the crop, and would thus give consumers some assurance of supplies at reasonable prices. We also made clear that the Government's aim would be to reduce their commitment to the costs of market support by the end of a five-year running-in period for the new arrangements. We felt that a greater responsibility should be placed on producers for meeting the costs of market support in years of average surplus, and that the Government should contribute to such costs only when exceptional surpluses arose. As a first step towards achieving this aim the board agreed to increase its levy on producers to around twice the current level. For their part the Government agreed to help the board along the path to financial self-sufficiency by making grants to meet any shortfall in producer funding of market support during the five-year running-in period.
There are two further elements in the financial package. My right honourable friend the Minister
906
announced in another place on 24th June 1983 that the Government were making loans of up to £7.4 million available to enable the Potato Marketing Board to meet its 1982 crop support obligations. In the event, only £5.9 million of this facility was drawn upon. If your Lordships approve the package of measures now before the House we shall be making appropriate arrangements to have that amount written off.
The final element in the package is that the House is being asked to approve the discontinuation of the deficiency payment arrangements, which are extremely open-ended, applying as they do to about two-thirds of a crop, and impose a potentially very high commitment on the Government. Instead, we shall provide assured markets for less than 600,000 tonnes of potatoes in the United Kingdom and will re-draw the cost-sharing formula to bear more heavily on producers in seasons of average surplus. Related changes will apply to Northern Ireland.
Perhaps I may say a word about the procedures which led to the presentation to the House of these amendments to the scheme. The Potato Marketing Board formally consulted potato growers in March of last year. About 500 registered producers demanded a poll on submission of the proposals, and others demanded a poll on the revocation of the scheme itself. This represented about 2 per cent. of all registered producers and fell considerably short of the statutory minimum requirement of 1,000 necessary to force the board to hold a poll. The board therefore submitted its proposals to the Government.
As required by the Act, the proposals were then published, allowing a period of some six weeks during which people could make objections and representations. As a result Ministers decided to hold a public inquiry. The report of the inquiry was submitted to Ministers on 22nd October, and was accepted in full. The modifications to the amendments suggested by the chairman were formally put to the board, which accepted them on 20th November.
The scheme amendments are contained in the rather lengthy document which I am formally moving first. Laying the draft in this way is a fairly unusual procedure, but one which is required by Section 2(7) of the Agricultural Marketing Act 1958. Subject to the approval of the House, the next step would be for an order to be laid approving the amendments in terms of this draft.
The draft falls into three parts: the first is a brief resume of the effect of each of the amendments; the second is in the form in which any subsequent order would be made; and the third shows in bold type how the amendments fit into the existing paragraphs of the scheme. Let me say just a word about the two most important amendments, Nos. 10 and 11. It is they which set a new base rate of £75 per hectare for 1985 which will also be used for determining the rate of producer levy for subsequent seasons. These amendments also link future rates of levy to the level of producer returns and provide that the levy cannot be reduced from one year to the next. Amendment No. 12 is also important because it reduces the minimum number of producers required to demand a poll, and their respective aggregate potato area, in line

907
with the recommendation of the chairman of the public inquiry.
If I may, I will now say a brief word about the two succeeding orders: the first, the Potatoes (Assured Markets) Order 1985, simply enables guaranteed prices to be set for potatoes which have been grown for sale for human consumption and the quantity of such potatoes which may be bought with Government financial assistance. I know that this is familiar to the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie. There is one new feature as regards the support arrangements in this order in Article 4(3), which deals with direct intervention. If producers fail to take up contracts with the board up to the quantity determined by the Government, the board will be permitted to use the balance for market support if that would be likely to save money.
The other order, the Potatoes (Protection of Guarantees) Order 1985, largely repeats the provisions of the 1959 order which it supersedes, in requiring certain categories of growers and merchants to provide information about their trade in potatoes. This enables the Government to monitor the extent and cost of market support and to ensure proper accountability over the commitment of public funds.
This order contains one new feature under Article 7 on the misuse of stockfeed. There have been cases of misuse of potatoes which have been purchased under market support arrangements and, having been dyed, were scheduled for livestock feeding. The misuse has involved these potatoes either being sold for human consumption or planted as seed. Such cases have been difficult to pursue in the absence of specific legislation designed to deal with the matter. Although instances of misuse have been rare, it seemed right that we should close this loophole.
The amendments to the scheme and the two orders before the House form an integral package designed to update our support arrangements and to ensure greater financial viability for the future. I formally beg to move the amendments to the scheme.
Moved, that the draft amendments laid before the House on 20th December 1984 be approved.—(Lord Belstead.)
7.42 p.m.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, for putting these orders before us and for his good and commendably brief speech in doing so. I no longer grow potatoes, but I could not agree with him more about the free market in potatoes. I suffered from it from 1926 onwards. There is no question about it, the Potato Marketing Board has been a boon to farmers. I know that recently, as the Minister said, there has been unhappiness about it from some sections, but, on the whole, the National Farmers' Union is happy with the orders and the draft amendments. Indeed, I know that because there has been no lobbying about them, which is unusual.
I have not much to say about the orders, but I cannot remember how this "average surplus" is arrived at. What is an "average surplus" nowadays? We are grateful for the write-off of the monies given to
908
relieve the situation after the big crop of 1982. I presume that it has been worked out that inflation has doubled since 1955 because I note that all the fees have doubled in the new draft.
Sometimes in looking through this document—I think I have put this point to the noble Lord before—I wish that some shorter version could be put before the farmer or the grower because of the difficulty of the language. I have complained about it before, especially Paragraph 11, which is an important paragraph. It reads:
"The actual rate of ordinary contribution in respect of any calendar year shall not exceed the formula rate which shall be calculated for every calendar year subsequent to 1985 by multiplying the formula rate for the previous calendar year by the total of the returns per hectare of the earliest three of the previous four calendar years divided by the total of the returns per hectare for the earliest three of the previous five calendar years, provided that if the formula rate so calculated is less than the formula rate for the previous calendar year, then the formula rate shall be the formula rate for the previous calendar year".
I appeal to the drafters of this sort of thing! I know that when it is worked out it is probably simple, but on the face of it it looks like a fantastic paragraph of official language.
When I said that I was dealing with these orders and the new amendments to the potato marketing scheme somebody asked me whether the potato futures market would have any effect on the Potato Marketing Board. I wonder whether the Minister would care to comment on that.
As the Minister said, the two orders are simply bringing things up to date. It is only right that the question of stockfeed potatoes should be tightened up because there have been many malpractices there. It is a difficult problem even if they are coloured. I remember when I used to farm in Lincolnshire and we bought stockfeed potatoes. The first thing the staff did was to help themselves for their own eating. I have never heard of anybody planting them, but I suppose it has been done. With those few remarks, may I say that we are happy to see these orders go through the House tonight.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for welcoming the fact that we have gone for the continuation of a limited managed market. I am glad that the noble Lord feels, with his experience of the industry, that the industry now is content that this is the right way to go forward.
The noble Lord asked me how the "average surplus" is arrived at. It is arrived at by looking at the surpluses over the last five to six seasons. The new arrangements, which I did not really spell out in my opening remarks, are that the Government are now saying that they will pick up 50 per cent. of expenditure on the surplus between the parameters of 200,000 to 300,000 tonnes and will take total responsibility for the final 200,000 tonnes of surplus which brings the total to 600,000 tonnes, with the industry taking the responsibility for the first 200,000 tonnes.
The noble Lord welcomed the two orders. I am grateful to him for that and for allowing me to speak to all three. I think I ought to write the noble Lord a line about the futures market. The fact is that it is to some extent a help or a hedge in the way in which the

909
market works, but I should like to put something down on paper about it, if the noble Lord will allow me to do so.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Potatoes (Assured Markets) Order 1985
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the order laid before the House on 23rd January be approved. [9th Report from the Joint Committee.]—(Lord Belstead.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Potatoes (Protection of Guarantees) Order 1985
7.46 p.m.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the order laid before the House on 23rd January be approved. [9th Report from the Joint Committee.]—(Lord Belstead.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do adjourn during pleasure until 8.30 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7.47 to 8.30 p.m.]

National Heritage (Scotland) Bill
House again in Committee.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe Lord Taylor of Gryfe moved Amendment No. 42:
Before Clause 19 insert the following new clause:
Amendment of Historic Building and Ancient Monuments Act 1953.
(" .—(1) The Historic Buildings and Ancient Monuments Act 1953 ("the 1953 Act") shall have effect with the amendments specified in Schedule (Amendments of Historic Buildings and Ancient Monuments Act 1953) to this Act.
(2) Nothing in the amendments of the 1953 Act referred to in subsection (I) shall impose any charge on the people or on public funds, or vary the amount or incidence of or otherwise alter any such charge in any manner, or affect the assessment, levying administration or application of any money raised by any such charge.")
The noble Lord said: This is a somewhat complex amendment which is related to a number of subsequent amendments which have the same purpose, which I am sure will be clear to the Minister, if not to all Members of the Committee. I move the amendment with the support and understanding of the National Trust for Scotland. I am sure that the Minister will accept that no body of any kind in Scotland has done more to preserve and conserve the national heritage than has the National Trust for Scotland, based on individual effort, and including the not so recent acquisition and support of the former Secretary of State for Scotland who is in his place tonight. The National Trust for Scotland has been seriously concerned about the objectives of the Bill and has practised its concern.
The purpose of this amendment is related to a number of amendments. The National Trust for Scotland advises me, and its parliamentary advisers tell me, that the purpose of this series of amendments is to confer on the Secretary of State for Scotland new powers similar to some of those given to the Historic Buildings and Ancient Monuments Commission for England by the National Heritage Act 1983. Like the 1983 Act, certain of the amendments would alter the text of the Historic Buildings and Ancient Monuments Act 1953 and while this approach may have the effect of making the amendments somewhat hard to follow, it is considered appropriate to adopt this course so as to achieve consistency with the changes in the law in England made by the Act of 1983.
The National Heritage Act 1983, which created the Historic Buildings and Ancient Monuments Commission, gave that commission certain powers in England which the National Trust for Scotland wished at that time to be made available in legislation for Scotland. The 1983 legislation was completed just before the General Election and the attempts of the National Trust for Scotland at that time to obtain parity of treatment for Scotland met with no success. These amendments which I shall move are designed to rectify that situation.
The fact that there is no similar commission in Scotland does not prevent the power provided in the 1983 legislation being made available and implemented by the Secretary of State through an obviously different infrastructure. There is, for example, a division within the Scottish Office dealing with matters similar to the commission in England. So the series of amendments which appear in my name have the effect of harmonising the Scottish law with the English law that is incorporated in the Act of 1983.
Amendment No. 42, which I am now moving, would give effect to the new schedule in which the amendments to the 1953 Act are set out and certain of these would involve public expenditure. Subsection (2), for example, of the new clause is included to avoid any infringement of the privilege of the House of Commons in matters of taxation and expenditure. If the new clause is accepted, it will be amended by the procedural device of the Commons disagreeing with subsection (2), which accordingly will be deleted. I feel in the name of the National Trust for Scotland that these amendments—and I simply move No. 42 at the moment—are desirable. I beg to move.
The Earl of Caithness: I am not quite clear as to the position and perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, can advise the Committee to which amendments he is referring. As I understood it, he was going to refer to Amendments No. 42 and No. 69. Do I take it from what he is saying that he is also referring to Amendments Nos. 44 and 48?
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: I have moved Amendment No. 42 and I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 69.
Amendment No. 69: After Schedule 1 insert the following new schedule—

National Heritage (Scotland) Bill
  SCHEDULE

    AMENDMENTS OF HISTORIC BUILDINGS AND ANCIENT MONUMENTS ACT 1953
    1. After Section 5(1)(b) of the 1953 Act (acquisition by Secretary of State of historic buildings, etc) there shall be inserted—

    911
    "(c) any building which is situated in Scotland and in an area designated as a conservation area under section 262 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1972 and which appear to the Secretary of State to be of special architectural or historic interest;
    "(d) any garden or other land which is situated in Scotland and which appears to the Secretary of State to be of outstanding historic interest but which is not contiguous or adjacent to any building such as is mentioned in paragraph (a) or (c) above."
    2. In section 6(2) of the 1953 Act (grants to the National Trusts) for the words "the said National Trusts" there shall be substitued the words "the National Trust for Places of Historic Interest or Natural Beauty".
    3.—(1) Section 8 of the 1953 Act (Power for Minister to accept endowments of historic buildings) shall be amended as follows.
    (2) After paragraph (c) of subsection (1)(c) there shall be inserted—
    "(d) any garden or other land in Scotland acquired or accepted by the Minister under section 5 of this Act, or which the Minister proposes so to acquire or accept."
    (3) After the words "for or towards the upkeep of any such building" in subsection(1) there shall be inserted the words "or garden or other land."
    (4) After the words "the building" in the first and second places where they occur in subsection (4) there shall be inserted the words "or the garden or other land".")
    Amendment No. 69 is a consequential amendment, which would amend the grant-making powers of Section 6 of the 1953 Act by confining them to the English National Trust. If the amendment to Clause 21 is made, there will be no need for Section 6(2) to continue to apply to the National Trust for Scotland.
    The Earl of Caithness: I am grateful to the noble Lord for clarifying that. As the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, has said, the new clause is only a paving clause for a proposed new schedule which seeks to make a series of amendments to the Historic Buildings and Ancient Monuments Act 1953. Subsection (2) in Amendment No. 42 to which he referred contains a related financial provision that the extended powers which would be created by the amendments should be exercised without effect on public funds or revenues. In view of the nature of the powers, such a restriction would be unrealistic and would severely restrict the application in practice. I shall need to seek advice (which I hope to receive shortly) on the question of the noble Lord's procedural point regarding the other place. The main impact of the amendment comes in his subsequent amendment, which is Amendment No. 69.
    Lord Taylor of Gryfe: Perhaps I may say a word about Amendment No. 69. Sub-paragraph (1) would extend Section 8 of the 1953 Act (which relates to the power for the Minister to accept endowments of historic buildings) to enable the Secretary of State to accept the endowment of gardens or other lands acquired under Section 5 of the Act as proposed in the extended paragraph 1 of the new schedule. This is rather an important matter in terms of the National Trust for Scotland and I would wish to press it.
    The Earl of Caithness: We have looked in detail at the proposal of Amendment No. 69 and the history in Scotland since the 1953 Act and the powers given to the Secretary of State under Section 5. We find it has been used very sparingly; in fact, since 1953 only three
    912
    times. Therefore, to give a further extension to the Secretary of State's powers related to acquisition, as proposed, is very unlikely to have any practical effect and might lead people to believe that the powers would be used with some regularity, whereas they have not been so used to date.
    Paragraph 2 of the proposed new schedule is purely drafting, consequential on the amendment to Clause 21. Paragraph 3 is drafted in such a way that the amendment is intended to correspond with Section 8(1)(b) and (c) of the 1953 Act, which applies only in England, as inserted by paragraph 10 to Schedule 4 of the 1983 Act. The power conferred by Section 8 has never been used in Scotland; and so, again, the amendments would not have any practical effect.
    I accept that, as a result of the National Heritage Act 1983, the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission for England has powers which in some respects go beyond those conferred on the Secretary of State for Scotland under the Historic Buildings and Ancient Monuments Act 1953, but I do not think there would be any practical advantage in supplementing the powers available in Scotland in the way that the noble Lord has said. As I have just commented, the existing powers in the 1953 Act have been used very sparingly north of the Border and I find it difficult to conceive of a situation in which the extended powers, as proposed, would ever be used.
    I think we should be very cautious about creating new statutory powers in advance of real need. The argument that the powers should be created in Scotland simply because they exist in England is, if I may say so, rather a thin one. I cannot say that I find it particularly appealing, and I hope that the noble Lord will reconsider his thoughts on this matter and withdraw the amendment.
    Lord Ross of Marnock: I hope the noble Lord will not accept that argument and withdraw the amendment. This matter was raised when the 1983 Act was going through Parliament. The chairman of the National Trust at that time was the Marquess of Bute, and he has risen very high in the opinion of the Secretary of State because he has made him chairman of the Advisory Committee. I quoted on Second Reading part of the correspondence that passed between the Secretary of State and the chairman of the National Trust for Scotland at that time.
    The arguments that the noble Earl has given us just did not appear at all. In fact, if anything, it appeared, reading that, that there were certain doubts in the Scottish Office that they already had the power to do what was going to be done. That would equally have applied to the Minister in England. What happened in England was the creation of a commission, which is the kind of thing we are doing for the museums; and the commission was given power to provide these monies in respect of buildings, gardens and so on.
    I do not think it is good enough for the noble Earl to say, "It is very thin, simply because they have this power in England, to say that we should have it in Scotland". Quite frankly, when it comes to supporting the heritage, we in Scotland want all the powers that they have in England. The heritage is exactly the same—the kind of buildings, of gardens, of stretches of

    913
    coastline and the mountainous areas which the trust has already taken over. It is very important to consider paragraph 3(1) of the new schedule:
    "any garden or other land in Scotland acquired or accepted by the Minister under Section 5 of this Act, or which the Minister proposes so to acquire or accept";
    and to consider not just the getting of the actual piece of ground, garden or what-have-you, but also being able to get money for upkeep. The National Trust in England and, I am sure, in Scotland as well, will not accept anything that is going to be a burden on its existing finances. It insists on having the property well endowed so that the trust can maintain it without any further burden. The fact that upkeep is mentioned here is also important.
    We have not had very much chance to see the extent to which in England the new commission has been supported by the Government. But supposing the provision that is made is used only once, that is enough for me. We want to be able to use it, and of course we should remember that the initiative rests still with the Secretary of State. It may well be that in many cases it is important that we should take for the nation in trust certain areas that the Secretary of State himself might wish to give over. I hope that the Minister will look at this point again.
    8.45 p.m.
    A promise was virtually given that the matter could not be dealt with in the English Bill, and the same Secretary of State, Mr. Younger, said that it would need to wait for a Scottish Heritage Bill. Here it is, and we are not going to get another chance. The noble Earl has not proved to us why it should not go in. It is not good enough to say that this has been used only sparingly and that it is a very thin argument to say that because it is available in England it should also be available in Scotland. The fact that it is available in England, to my mind, proves that it should be available in Scotland, too.
    The Government must have thought the matter was important because they brought in a Bill—it was not a Private Member's Bill—and they gave this power to support the English National Trust. What we want in Scotland is parity of treatment. It is not much to ask for and I am surprised that any Minister even remotely related to Scotland or the Scottish Office should get up and say, "We are not concerned about this". We used to be very concerned about it.
    The Earl of Caithness: I would totally refute that last remark. We are indeed very concerned, and have been. I think it would be worth while just to look back at the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission for England. I think it is also worth remembering that the National Heritage Act of 1953 established the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission for England to undertake functions in relation to ancient monuments and historic buildings formerly undertaken by the Department of the Environment. Consideration was given at the time to the establishment of a similar commission in Scotland; but following widespread consultations in Scotland, which indicated that the overwhelming body of opinion was against the idea of a new body, the Secretary of State for Scotland announced in June
    914
    1982 that he would not be setting up a new commission. It is fair to point out that the Secretary of State for Wales reached a very similar decision.
    I think I ought to answer one other point made by the noble Lord, Lord Ross: that there were doubts in the Scottish Office about the need for legislation. There were no such doubts in the minds of the Scottish Office. What was said in the correspondence which was referred to was that the Secretary of State would set up a gardens register without legislation; and perhaps we could leave that point at this stage because it refers to Amendment No. 44 which we are due to come on to in a few moments. That is the main plank of my argument and the additional points were ancillary.
    Lord Ross of Marnock: With all due respect, I have got a good memory, too. I do not know whether the noble Earl was concerned with the argument as to whether or not we should have in Scotland a commission instead of the advisory committee that we have got for historic monuments and historic houses. The National Trust in Scotland decided that we did not want it; but that was in 1982. We did not get the Bill until after that, and when the Bill appeared and we discovered that England was given these additional powers of support in respect of what is as much the task of Scotland as it is of England, then the position changed. We did not want the new structure in Scotland but we wanted the same kind of support for the heritage in Scotland that now was being given or made possible for England.
    That is the main point, and it was on that that there was certain argument as to whether or not the Secretary of State could act, anyway. I was not convinced that he could do it, but, as the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, has already said, that was overtaken; holding up that Bill might have lost it at that time. Therefore we let it go, but it was understood in the correspondence that if there was heritage legislation for Scotland, which we now have, then the matter would be reconsidered. I do not think that the Government have looked at it at all.
    The Earl of Perth: I find this a very difficult and complicated issue, but two things occur to me. One is that I do not believe it is a good argument to say that there have been only three cases, or that a case has not yet arisen. It may arise at any moment, and, therefore, I do not like that negative approach. The second point is that if the National Trust for Scotland feels that it is important to put it on a par with the English legislation, I would back the National Trust for Scotland.
    Lord Taylor of Gryfe: I hope the Government will not be difficult about this. As the noble Earl, Lord Perth, said, no one can do other than respect the deep concern of the National Trust for Scotland in these matters, and they certainly feel that if powers similar to those proposed in the amendment can be conferred on the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission for England, there appears to be some justification for similar powers being made available to the Secretary of State for Scotland to acquire buildings in conservation areas which are of special architectural or historic interest, and also gardens and

    915
    other land which are of outstanding historic interest but do not necessarily adjoin a building which is of historic interest or is situated in a conservation area.
    This concern of the National Trust for Scotland arises from their experience, and, while it is said by the noble Earl that these powers will be rarely used, if it were necessary to insert them in the English Act I cannot find any logical reason for precluding them from the Bill that we are discussing. As the noble Lord, Lord Ross, has just said, there are not many opportunities in this Parliament for changing the law on this subject, and now is an opportunity. I suggest to noble Lords opposite that they might consider taking this back and having a look at the representations of the National Trust for Scotland.
    On Question, amendment negatived.
    Clause 19 [Exemption of Boards from rates]:
    [Amendment No. 43 not moved.]
    Clause 19 agreed to.
    Lord Taylor of Gryfe Lord Taylor of Gryfe moved Amendment No. 44:
    After Clause 19, insert the following new clause:
    ("Register of gardens.
    .—(1) The Secretary of State may compile a register of gardens and other land situated in Scotland and appearing to him to be of special historic interest.
    (2) In the exercise of his power under subsection (1) the Secretary of State shall consult the Historic Buildings Council for Scotland and may consult such other bodies as he deems appropriate.
    (3) The Secretary of State shall, as soon as practicable after including in the register an entry relating to any garden or land, notify the persons mentioned in subsection (4) and send them a copy of the entry.
    (4) the persons are—

    (a) the owner and (if the owner is not the occupier) the occupier of the garden or land; and

    (b) any general planning authority, and any district planning authority, in whose area the garden or land (or any part of the garden or land) is situated.").

    The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 44 is self-explanatory and concerns a register of gardens. I hate to say it, but there is a provision in Section 8C of the 1953 Act, inserted by Section 33 of, and Schedule 4, paragraph 10, to, the 1983 Act, which provides for the English Commission's powers to compile a register of gardens. I do not know whether this commends itself to the noble Earl, but it seems to me to be completely logical that, if there is a register of gardens which are worth preserving as part of the national heritage of England, it is logical for a similar register to be compiled in Scotland. I hope that the Government will see the wisdom of this logic. I beg to move.
    The Earl of Caithness: I totally agree with the logic of the noble Lord, Lord Taylor. It is an absolutely logical argument, and that is why I am happy to tell him that it is already open to the Secretary of State to compile a register of historic gardens if he thinks that it would be useful to do so, and to engage the advisory functions of the Historic Buildings Council for Scotland if that is appropriate. Therefore, there is no need to seek the specific power which is in the noble Lord's amendment.
    Lord Ross of Marnock: Can the Minister go further and tell us whether the Secretary of State is doing this? I understood that he was.
    The Earl of Caithness: At the moment I cannot tell the noble Lord, but I will certainly find out and reply to him in detail. I think he will be aware that the Secretary of State has instituted a survey which will be completed in about two years' time. This will be of considerable benefit to Scotland, and it goes a lot further than just producing a register of gardens.
    Lord Taylor of Gryfe: With that assurance, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause 20 [Finance]:
    [Amendment No. 45 not moved.]
    Clause 20 agreed to.
    Clause 21 [Power of Secretary of State to make grants]:
    Lord Ross of Marnock Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 46:
    Page 21, line 23, after ("of") insert ("Gaelic,").
    The noble Lord said: This is a very simple amendment and I notice that Amendment No. 47, set down by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, raises virtually the same point. When the Secretary of State takes this power to make payments,
    "to any body whose activities appear to him to be likely to promote the development or understanding of cultural or scientific matters",
    we should recollect and make statutory provision for the importance of Gaelic culture. This amendment is to insert the word "Gaelic," after "of", so that the subsection will read "Gaelic, cultural or scientific matters". These are separate matters and not related purely to the word "Gaelic", and it would be worthwhile doing this. I shall not speak about the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, which is more or less the same. I beg to move.
    Lord Campbell of Croy: I think it would be convenient, if the Committee agrees, if my Amendment No. 47 were discussed at the same time.
    Amendment No. 47: Page 21, line 23, at end insert ("including matters related to indigenous cultures such as Gaelic (Gaidhlig).").
    Indeed, following procedures which were followed earlier, we may find my noble friend the Minister replying to my amendment at the same time anyway, so I should like to speak to No. 47.
    The chief difference between my amendment and the one which has just been moved is that mine assumes in its wording that Gaelic is a culture as well as a language. My purpose is to obtain an assurance from the Government that indigenous cultures, including Gaelic, will be within the scope of this clause; that is to say, it will be among the cultural matters in line 23. To my mind, the best way of making this completely clear would be by way of a small addition to the wording of this clause, and my amendment is drafted with that end in view.
    I say that Gaelic is a culture because to many, myself included, it embraces more than a language; for example, a wealth of music besides the heritage of literature, and, in particular, the music of the choral works sung by Gaelic choirs at the mod and elsewhere illustrates and reminds those who can hear them in person, or those who can listen to records, that Gaelic

    917
    is indeed a culture. I should make it clear that there is no intention in my amendment that it should be exclusive. There are other linguistic traditions and indigenous cultures in Scotland.
    I am very glad to note that in recent years, for example, a Buchan Association has been flourishing. One of its aims has been to preserve the characteristics and the traditions of the Doric—the vernacular and the means of expression and communication in and around the Aberdeenshire area. I am sure that, besides the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, the noble Lords, Lord John-Mackie and Lord Mackie of Benshie, would approve of what they are doing. I think they would also confirm my experience that Scots from other parts of Scotland, particularly the south of Scotland, find it exceedingly difficult to follow when they hear the Doric and to understand what is being said. But because Gaelic is a separate indigenous language—the only one in Scotland—I believe that it deserves special attention.
    9 p.m.
    Lord Kirkhill: I hope that when the Minister replies he will be able to give the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, the assurances he seeks. For my part, I believe that in a Bill of this type there should be a positive discrimination in favour of that which can be described as Gaelic. I give the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, my full support.
    Lord Gray of Contin: I am very glad that we have had this opportunity to make clear the position of Gaelic bodies under the Bill. First, let me say, for the clarification of any doubt, that we are fully satisfied that the powers which are provided in Clause 21 are sufficient to enable grants to be given to bodies concerned with the promotion of the Gaelic language and culture. To that extent we take the view that neither of these amendments is necessary.
    It is principally to give statutory backing to grants to the Scottish Museums Council and the Royal Society of Edinburgh, which have for many years been paid under the authority only of the Appropriation Acts, that this clause is included in the Bill. These amendments are undesirable in that by making specific reference to,
    "matters related to indigenous cultures such as Gaelic",
    as does the amendment of my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy, they give the impression that we would necessarily wish to use this power for giving grants to such bodies. It may be that in certain circumstances, as I have indicated, this would be appropriate and, as I say, the Bill allows it. For some years, however, we have funded Gaelic bodies under the Further Education (Scotland) Regulations 1959 and I see no need to imply that change is necessary.
    The Government have a very proud record on Gaelic. Indeed, I recall very well that in the days when my noble friend was Secretary of State for Scotland he was the means of having the grant to An Comunn substantially raised when it had not been raised for some considerable time. The Government support Gaelic language and culture. Since 1965 the Further Education (Scotland) Regulations 1959 have been used to provide grant aid to An Comunn Gaidhealach.
    918
    This has continued and currently stands at £69,300. Since 1975 grant aid has been provided to Sabhal Mor Ostaig, the Gaelic college on Skye, under the same powers, the current level being £11,750.
    Last year, as the Committee will know, we authorised the Highlands and Islands Development Board to provide grant aid to the new Gaelic Council. This aid amounted to no less than £200,000 over four years. Taken together with the other central Government funding for Gaelic bodies (the Gaelic Books Council funded by the Scottish Arts Council and other grants paid by the Highlands and Island Development Board), central Government support for Gaelic bodies currently stands at about £4·25 per head of the Gaelic speaking population.
    So I do not think there is any danger that the Government are not fully aware of the desirability of funding appropriately the promotion of the Gaelic language. But I do not see this Bill as being the appropriate vehicle to further that support. We already have plenty of opportunity for supporting the Gaelic language, which we seize on every available occasion. I welcome the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, and my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy, should use this opportunity to try to seek even more for the Gaelic language, but on this occasion I think that I have adequately demonstrated that there are plenty of opportunities for doing so without this Bill.
    The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, asked me whether Doric would be covered by Clause 21: the answer is, yes. That is perfectly in order and it would be covered by Clause 21. In view of what I have said, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, will be prepared to withdraw his Gaelic amendment.
    Lord Ross of Marnock: it was not Gaelic.
    Lord Campbell of Croy: Before the noble Lord speaks, perhaps I may say in reply to points to me that of course I had not intended that the normal grants to the Gaelic language and culture should in any way be affected by this, but it is very important that the Minister should have given the assurance which he has that the Gaelic culture will be included in Clause 21.
    Lord Ross of Marnock: We are very grateful for what small assurances we have in respect of this. We have tried very hard to get the word "Scotland" into this; we have tried very hard now to get "Gaelic" into it. We have not had a great deal of success. If we are not going to deal with matters of Gaelic culture in a heritage Bill, in what kind of Bill are we going to deal with them?
    I know that other matters are involved. We could raise very much wider issues because the heritage report referred to the need for a museum in the Highlands and, indeed, in the Western Isles. We have had not a word about that from the Government. Here was the chance for them to tell us what more they were going to do and how they were going to support with resources from the centre any such effort that was being made. I know efforts are being made. I remember a friend of mine, a school-master, who ran a small museum. It would look nothing at all to someone from Edinburgh or to any of the usual

    919
    visitors, but to that small community it meant an awful lot; it contained relics of the area. I do not know whether it will be supported in this way or whether it will depend on local government support or on the Council for Museums.
    We could say an awful lot more about the need to support our indigenous culture. I think that the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, was better than mine because it went far wider than just Gaelic itself. We have heard what the Minister has had to say. We need to go through this Bill again to see how we can further amend it in order to impress on the Government the importance of Gaelic. May they not weary in well-doing. They may be doing something, but never enough. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    [Amendment No. 47 not moved.]
    Lord Taylor of Gryfe Lord Taylor of Gryfe moved Amendment No. 48:
    Page 21, line 23, at end insert—

    ("( )(a) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1), the Secretary of State may make grants to the National Trust for Scotland for Places of Historic Interest or Natural Beauty for the purpose of defraying in whole or in part any expenses incurred by them in the acquisition of—

    (i) any building which is situated in Scotland and which appears to the Secretary of State to be of outstanding historic or architectural interest;

    (ii) any land which is situated in Scotland and which comprises, or is contiguous or adjacent to, any such building; or

    (iii) any garden or other land which is situated in Scotland and which appears to the Secretary of State to be of outstanding historic interest but which is not contiguous or adjacent to a building which appear to the Secretary of State to be of outstanding historic or architectural interest.

    (b) Nothing in this subsection shall impose any charge on the people or on public funds, or vary the amount or incidence of or otherwise alter any such charge in any manner, or affect the assessment, levying, administration or application of any money raised by any such charge.").

    The noble Lord said: This is an important amendment because it deals with the power of the Secretary of State to make grants. Its purpose is to enable the Secretary of State to assist the National Trust for Scotland in acquiring outstanding buildings and adjoining land and also gardens or other land which is of outstanding historic interest but does not necessarily adjoin such buildings as are identified. The existing grant-making powers of Section 6(2) of the 1953 Act apply only to buildings. Paragraph (b) of the new subsection is a privilege amendment in terms similar to that of subsection (2) of the new clause.
    This would again bring the Scottish provisions into line with the comparable English law. The 1983 Act authorises the English commission to make grants to the English National Trust for the acquisition of outstanding buildings and adjoining land—and also other land that is of historic interest but does not necessarily adjoin such buildings. It is because of the limiting factor of identifying buildings outside of land that does not necessarily adjoin such buildings that this additional provision is considered necessary by the National Trust. Not only does it consider this provision necessary but it seriously supports this particular amendment. I beg to move.
    Lord Grimond: As an executor of the National Trust of Scotland I should like to support this amendment and the general tenor of the amendments moved by my noble friend Lord Taylor of Gryfe. I do not mean to go over the arguments again but, to my mind, we still lack an explanation as to why the National Trust in Scotland is not put on a par with the National Trust in England. I hope that Ministers will not rely on the argument that the National Trust in Scotland has been getting on quite well without these powers, or that these powers are seldom used. If these powers are considered necessary for England—as I believe they are—it would seem to me to place a very heavy onus on the Government to explain why they should not be extended to Scotland.
    The Earl of Caithness: I must first apologise to the Committee. If I remember correctly my remarks in respect of an earlier amendment, I believe I said that the Secretary of State had commissioned a two-year study. I meant to say—and apologise for misleading the Committee—that it was the Historic Buildings and Monuments Directorate of the Scottish Development Department and the Countryside Commission for Scotland jointly which have commissioned that study, and not the Secretary of State.
    Turning to Amendment No. 48, powers already exist for the making of grants to the National Trust for Scotland towards the cost of acquiring historic buildings, although in practice assistance has been concentrated on the subsequent repair and maintenance of properties acquired without grant assistance. It is of course open to the National Trust to apply to the National Heritage Memorial Fund for assistance towards acquisition costs, as happened recently when the trust acquired Fyvie Castle.
    As to the acquisition of land or gardens, whether or not contiguous or adjacent to historic buildings, and given the fund-raising capacity of the trust, grants towards acquisition costs do not appear to be the most effective use of government money. In addition, until more is known about the relative merit, location, condition and scale of historic gardens, it would be premature to consider powers for grant assistance.
    One ought to bear in mind the two-year study, and that once the in-depth study of the most important Scottish gardens is complete in about two years' time, we shall be better placed to consider the need for powers to grant aid the acquisition of historic gardens and land—and then to seek such powers if necessary. Given that assurance, I hope that the noble Lord will reconsider his position.
    Lord Taylor of Gryfe: At this late hour, I hate to strike a discordant note but the statement just made by the Minister is totally unacceptable. It suggested that the Government will reconsider this matter in two years' time and if they feel that powers are necessary, presumably they will introduce an amendment, or some powers, or a statutory order or new legislation.
    We are asking only for these powers for the purposes stated in the amendment. Those powers will be exercised if the review finds it necessary so to do. When the noble Earl considers that he is the Minister responsible for the Scottish Office, it is his duty to encourage the National Trust for Scotland and not to

    921
    fly in the face of it or to find difficulties in supporting their reasonable propositions. He should try to encourage a great national institution which is achieving by means of voluntary subscriptions some of the objectives of this Bill without Government support.
    When the National Trust appeals to the Minister to include this additional area within the provisions for grant assistance, it is churlish indeed to refuse. I would ask the Minister to reconsider his attitude. He is presumably reading a brief from the Scottish Office, and this is not good enough. The Minister must feel for the situation in the way that the National Trust suggests. I recommend that he considers this matter again before we reach Report stage, otherwise I shall feel compelled to press a Division on this matter.
    The Earl of Caithness: I shall always consider, as will my noble friend the Minister of State and my honourable and right honourable friends in another place, what has been said in this House. We are very sympathetic towards the needs of the National Trust. We do not intend to fly in the face of what it requires or wishes. We have considered the matter logically, and I do not think I can add anything to what I have said except that we shall immediately consider what has been said when we receive the Official Report to see if there is anything to be done. I cannot guarantee that we can do anything, but we shall look at it.
    Lord Taylor of Gryfe: I ask the noble Earl to observe the fact that provision is made in English law for what we are suggesting. This was not provided in English law because of some idiosyncracies of English attitude or temperament. It was provided because it was felt necessary. I cannot for the life of me understand why a similar provision, even if it is not used extensively, should not be in this Bill. This is the moment to insert it, when we are changing the law in relation to this matter, and I cannot find any logic for resisting the provision of similar legislation for Scotland as exists in England. I find it difficult to accept the proposition of the Minister on this matter.
    9.15 p.m.
    The Earl of Caithness: I am sorry that the noble Lord finds it difficult to accept that I will take it back and look at it again, as I said earlier.
    Lord Ross of Marnock: When the noble Earl looks at it again, will he remember that everything he mentioned—the National Heritage Memorial Fund helped the National Trust of Scotland with Fyvie Castle and also with Canna, and other places—is equally available in England? If he had been reading his papers he would have seen that there are three historic and worthwhile buildings which have been supported by the Memorial Fund within the past fortnight. That is available for England; but this power, particularly in respect of gardens, is not available in Scotland. I doubt whether it is available even to the Secretary of State in statute.
    The noble Earl mentioned what the Historic Buildings Council had done in Scotland, and we in the National Trust are very grateful for the support we are given in respect of Brodick Castle, Culzean Castle and
    922
    similar places. But when he says, "We know how good they are at raising funds", my goodness, how tired we are at times of raising funds! When a wall falls down in the historic garden at Culzean, we are faced with a tremendous burden. Help could be given in that way.
    I am very glad that the noble Earl is to look at it again, and I hope that if he has any doubts he will consult the National Trust for Scotland. I am sure he will find it much more reasonable than I am at this time of night.
    The Earl of Perth: When the noble Earl looks at this again will he remember that these things can arise suddenly, and that one has no time for legislation? Therefore, it is essential that one should have provision from the start, rather than saying, "In a year or two we shall put in a provision if it is necessary". None of us knows what may suddenly arise and be absolutely critical, and which there will be no time to handle because there is no suitable legislation. I ask the noble Earl to take that point into consideration along with everything else.
    The Earl of Caithness: Of course I will.
    Lord Taylor of Gryfe: In view of the assurance by the noble Earl that he will have a further look at this matter, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    [Amendment No. 49 not moved.]
    Clause 21 agreed to.
    Remaining clauses agreed to.
    Schedule 1 [The Boards]:
    [Amendments Nos. 50 and 51 not moved.]
    Lord Ross of Marnock Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 52:
    Page 22, line 25, after ("members") insert ("of whom two shall be ex-officio members").
    The noble Lord said: Here we come to membership of the board of the National Museums of Scotland, which is to take control of the two constituent museums—the National Museum of Antiquities of Scotland and the Royal Scottish Museum. According to the Government,
    "The Board shall consist of not less than 9 and not more than 15 members".
    That is very different from the National Library, with its 32 members. That is fair enough; but I suggest that of these members—and the Government have plenty of scope for appointing anything between 9 and 15—two shall be ex-officio members. Amendment No. 54 is consequential.
    Amendment No. 54: Page 22, line 26, at end insert—
    ("( ) The ex-officio members shall be the President and another nominated member of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland.").
    I shall say no more about how unfairly the society has hitherto been dealt with by the Government both in the matter of consultation and also in the matter of consideration when it came to its long historic links with one of the constituent museums of the national museums of Scotland. I notice that the Government have down an amendment. We are delighted to see

    923
    that, but I am going a little bit further than the Minister is. I am suggesting two members and that they should be ex officio. I beg to move.
    Lord Grimond: To obviate the danger that I have an answer before my amendment has been moved, it might be convenient for the Committee if I spoke to Amendment No. 53, which is very much on the same subject, if that is agreeable to your Lordships.
    Amendment No. 53: Page 22, line 26, at end insert ("of whom:—
    Two shall be Fellows of the Royal Society of Antiquaries appointed by the Society;
    One shall be a Fellow of the Royal Society of Edinburgh appointed by the Society;
    Two shall be appointed jointly by the Scottish Universities for their Knowledge of Scottish history and archaeology.
    The remainder shall be appointed by the Secretary of State for Scotland.").
    I would not want to go over the very powerful arguments for representation of the Royal Society of Antiquaries on the board. Those were rehearsed by many noble Lords at Second Reading and they are very compelling. It is quite clear that the Royal Society should be represented on the board, and the Government now agree to that. The only question at issue is how the representatives are to be chosen and how many there should be.
    I think that there should be two. Bearing in mind the number of advocates that are on the National Library, two does not seem excessive. Furthernore, it is always possible that one may not be able to attend meetings, whereupon the society will still be represented. I understand that the Government propose one, but I think that one is inadequate. I am told by the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, who is not here, that two would be acceptable to the society. I believe that they should be appointed by the society, or I would accept that they should be ex officio, the president and one other member. I say that principally because I am against increasing the patronage of Ministers. They have enormous patronage and this Bill increases it still further. I think where possible that should be avoided. I see no reason why the representatives should not be the president and one other member, or two members chosen by the Royal society itself.
    My amendment also suggests that there should be a fellow of the Royal Society of Edinburgh. That would seem to me appropriate. In addition, at least two should be appointed by the Scottish universities. Here again that means that some patronage will be taken out of the hands of the Secretary of State. It may well be argued that he would appoint such people, but I would rather see it written into the Bill and the power of appointment lodged with the Royal society and the Scottish universities.
    My principal reason for making all these suggestions about the board is that I think that it must have adequate expertise and that a knowledge of Scottish history and archaeology are really essential for the proper conduct of the board's business. I am perfectly willing then to allow the remainder to be appointed by the Secretary of State.
    While I am grateful to the noble Lord for his amendment, I hope that we may persuade him to go a bit further and to appoint two fellows of the Royal society and also other representatives who will be
    924
    learned and expert in the matters with which the museum has to deal.
    Lord Gray of Contin: We now come to the amendments which deal with the possible representation of various bodies among the trustees of the national museum and in particular the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland. In my opening remarks at Second Reading I indicated that it was the Government's intention in recognition of the unique relationship between the society and the National Museum of Antiquities of Scotland, whose collections it founded and over which it presided for so many years, to introduce an amendment to clarify in the Bill the continuing involvement that we agree that the society should have in the working of the national museums.
    I have now put down an amendment to that effect which would guarantee the society's right to have a fellow among the trustees of the national museums. This means that the very particular concerns which the society and its supporters have put to us will be covered among the interests represented on the new board. I hope that noble Lords will agree that this is the right way to proceed.
    However, first, perhaps I can add a few words about the other amendments on the subject which other noble Lords have put down. Amendment No. 54 to which the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock has spoken, would create two ex-officio trusteeships for the society. But since it specifies that the two should be the president of the society and another member nominated by the society, it would introduce an element of nomination which we consider would be undesirable in principle and which, in this case, would be likely to unbalance what is bound to be a relatively small board.
    The same objection applies in the case of Amendment No. 53 of the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, which would not only introduce two representatives of the society but would also introduce appointees of the universities in areas of expertise which, if the noble Lord's amendment on the addition of "historical" to the list is accepted, will also be covered among the general list in paragraph 3(3), and a representative of the Royal Society of Edinburgh which, although a worthy body, does not have any historical association with the national museums of the kind that we have acknowledged in the case of the Society of Antiquaries.
    The noble Lord, Lord Grimond, suggested that this was further patronage to the Secretary of State. I would suggest that this is not the type of patronage which we normally associate with criticism of patronage. This is no sinecure. This is not a paid appointment. These appointees by the Secretary of State will be dedicated people who are certainly not seeking benefit for themselves by what they are doing. Therefore, I do not know that we could necessarily look on this in the normal way that we look on patronage. I think that I know what the noble Lord had in mind, and I put that point to him.
    I suggest that the amendment that I have tabled is adequate to cover the representation which I assured noble Lords I would seek to include when I spoke on

    925
    Second Reading. I realise that the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, wants to go very much further than what I have in mind and to introduce the whole question of nomination. I do not consider that this would be moving in the right direction. The noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, also, I believe, wants to go rather further than what I have in mind. It has been suggested to me on a number of occasions today that I study Hansard and what has been said on different amendments. I suspect that if noble Lords are prepared to consider the relative merits of the case that we are discussing, they will decide that the amendment that I have put forward adequately covers the situation we all want to see. I would therefore, with respect, suggest to noble Lords that they withdraw their amendments.
    Lord Ross of Marnock: I follow what is said from one amendment to another. When I hear the Minister of State complaining that this would be unbalanced and would introduce the element of appointment, I go back to Amendment No. 33 when I drew attention to the fact that the National Library of Scotland had 32 members. According to the Bill:
    "Five shall be persons appointed by the Faculty".
    This is where I say that the lawyers are very good at looking after themselves. It is all right for lawyers to appoint five. That is very democratic. That is not unbalancing anyone. The Bill also states:
    "Four shall be persons appointed jointly by the Scottish universities".
    That makes nine. Then the Bill states:
    "Two shall be persons appointed by the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities".
    So we progress from five, to nine and then to eleven appointees out of 32. It should be remembered that five are appointed by the trustees. We should stop talking about balance, or lack of balance, when we suggest that there shall be one person appointed apart from the president of the Society of Antiquaries. I think they are entitled to more than one.
    9.30 p.m.
    If the number on the board had been nine, there might have been some merit in what the Minister says. But the Secretary of State is not limited to nine; it is anything from nine to 15—not more than 15. So he has plenty of scope for all the other imaginative and delightful appointments that he is going to make to this board, which certainly is unpaid but is very prestigious. This is going to be part of the Edinburgh establishment, and that is important in Edinburgh, if nowhere else. I am perfectly sure that the people who are so appointed will take it as a matter of pride that they have been asked to do this, and that they will all do a first-class job. But, in regard to the number, surely the Society of Antiquaries, with the history of its connection with one of the museums—the one that we hope will be the basis of the Museum of Scotland—should be entitled to two.
    Lord Grimond: I cannot resist saying that I shall tell my wife, who is a member of the board, about the very complimentary things that have been said about her. The Minister has assured us that she is a highly public-spirited woman and that she sweats her guts out in the
    926
    national interest, for no reward. The noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, has assured her that she is now a member of the Edinburgh establishment. That may come as a shock to her. I want to say—
    Lord Ross of Marnock: She will be, if she is on this new board.
    Lord Grimond: I see. The old board is down-market, compared with this one? I want to say that I do not find the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Gray, wholly convincing, bearing in mind the contrast between this board and the one which is going to preside over the National Library. While we are grateful for his recognition of the claim of the Society of Antiquaries to be represented, I hope he will look again at this matter and possibly increase its representation, and also give us some assurance that the board will really have an adequate number of highly-qualified people to control its activities.
    Lord Ross of Marnock: In view of what the Government themselves propose to do, and in the hope that they will have a look at this again to see whether they can do even better than they are doing, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    [Amendments Nos. 53 to 57 not moved.]
    Lord Grimond Lord Grimond moved Amendment No. 58:
    Page 22, line 32, after ("environmental") insert ("historical").
    The noble Lord said: I do not want to waste time over this amendment because I take it that it will be accepted by the Government. Earlier today they accepted the word "historical". Can I have the Minister's assurance that he will accept this amendment, too?
    Lord Gray of Contin: I am very happy to confirm for the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, that I have pleasure in accepting his amendment.
    On Question, amendment agreed to.
    [Amendment No. 59 not moved.]
    Lord Grimond Lord Grimond moved Amendment No. 60:
    Page 22, line 33, leave out (", industrial relations.").
    The noble Lord said: I do not want to waste much time over this amendment. I want to ask whether it is really necessary to write in "industrial relations" in this context. Of course they are immensely important, but the total number of employees is going to be only a few hundred and we assume that the board will be made up of sensible and humane people. In this Bill about the national heritage, do we really need to put in a special injunction drawing the attention of trustees to the importance of good industrial relations? I do not want to press the matter too strongly, but I should have thought that this could well be deleted. I beg to move.
    Lord Gray of Contin: It seems to us right that this area should be one of those to which attention should be given when trustees are chosen. Industrial relations, in the widest sense, play an important part in the work of any major organisation and the national museums are not likely to be an exception. It may, therefore, be

    927
    helpful if from time to time the board were to contain a member who had special experience in this important area. It is, of course, unlikely that a trustee would be chosen for this aspect of his experience alone, but it might be an important factor in deciding among a number of possible trustees.
    The parallel lists in respect of the Victoria and Albert and Science Museums in the 1983 Act contain this provision, and we believe that it is right to include it here. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord will consider withdrawing his amendment.
    Lord Grimond: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    The Earl of Perth The Earl of Perth moved Amendment No. 61:
    Page 22, line 35, at end insert ("In regard to the appointment of one of the Trustees the Secretary of State shall consult the President of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland.").
    The noble Earl said: In the light of Amendment No. 62, I do not think that there is any point in my speaking to this amendment except to make one point. We have been hearing a little about this matter and from Amendment No. 62 we know that there is to be among the trustees a fellow of the Society of Antiquaries. Would the noble Lord consider adding the words, "at least" one member? That might help all of us who have been talking about whether there should be one or two. There is no obligation, but I should hope that when the noble Lord gives general consideration to the matter, the point which I have raised will also be considered as a possibility.
    I now beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Lord Gray of Contin Lord Gray of Contin moved Amendment No. 62:
    "Page 22, line 35, at end insert—
    " ( ) The Secretary of State shall include amongst the trustees a Fellow of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland.").
    Lord Ross of Marnock: I wonder if at this stage we could have an answer to the question raised by the noble Earl, Lord Perth, about adding, "at least one member"?
    Lord Gray of Contin: I thought that it was too much to hope that the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, would let that one go. I certainly give an answer to the noble Earl, and the answer is, yes.
    On Question, amendment agreed to.
    [Amendments Nos. 63 to 68 not moved.]
    Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.
    [Amendment No. 69 not moved.]
    Schedule 2 [Amendments and Repeals]:
    [Amendments Nos. 70 and 71 not moved.]
    Lord Gray of Contin Lord Gray of Contin moved Amendment No. 72:
    Page 31, leave out lines 37 to 40 and insert—
    ("The Capital Transfer Tax Act 1984 (c. 51)
    4. In Schedule 3 (which relates to exempt transfers), for the words "The Royal Scottish Museum" there shall be substituted the words "The National Museums of Scotland." ").
    The noble Lord said: This amendment does nothing to change the effect of the Bill. It is necessary because the Finance Act 1975 was consolidated in the Capital Transfer Tax Act 1984 which came into operation on 1st January 1985. The existing reference was therefore correct when the Bill was introduced although it is now necessary to change it.
    The effect of this amendment, as with the existing paragraph 4 of Schedule 2, is to substitute the name of the new trustee board—The National Museums of Scotland—for that of the Royal Scottish Museum which is presently contained in the legislation, so that gifts or bequests may be made without involving liability for payment of capital transfer tax and capital gains tax. I beg to move.
    Lord Ross of Marnock: I think that we can congratulate the Government on having moved this amendment and on having anticipated Amendment No. 73, which I have tabled and which is in the same words, except for one important change.
    On Question, amendment agreed to.
    [Amendments Nos. 73 and 74 not moved.]
    Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to.
    [Amendments Nos. 75 and 76 not moved.]
    House resumed: Bill reported with the amendments.
    House adjourned at nineteen minutes before ten o'clock.