HL Deb 26 February 1985 vol 460 cc910-28

1. After Section 5(1)(b) of the 1953 Act (acquisition by Secretary of State of historic buildings, etc) there shall be inserted— (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 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 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 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 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 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—

  1. (a) the owner and (if the owner is not the occupier) the occupier of the garden or land; and
  2. (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 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 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. 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 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 moved Amendment No. 48:

Page 21, line 23, at end insert—

  1. ("( )(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—
    1. (i) any building which is situated in Scotland and which appears to the Secretary of State to be of outstanding historic or architectural interest;
    2. (ii) any land which is situated in Scotland and which comprises, or is contiguous or adjacent to, any such building; or
    3. (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.
  2. (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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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.

Back to