§ 2. 59 p.m.
§ Report received.
§ Clause 1 [Establishment of Board of Trustees]:
§
Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, line 1, leave out ("the institutions presently known as")
§
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with permission, I think that with this amendment we should take Amendment No. 2, but not Amendment No. 3, which stands entirely on its own, irrespective of what happens to the first two amendments.
Amendment No. 2: Page 2 line 4, at end insert ("and any new national museum established with the consent of the Secretary of State").
§
We have been trying for some time to make progress with the Government towards meeting in some way the hopes that were raised with the publication of the Alwyn Williams report on Scotland's heritage over the next 25 years, the main recommendation of which was that there should be a new museum to be called the Museum of Scotland, based upon all the many artefacts and subjects held by the National Museum of Antiquities of Scotland. The one thing that we do not find in Clause 1 is the Museum of Scotland. We have reference to,
the institutions presently known as";
in other words, a new board is being created to take over for the present the Royal Scottish Museum and the National Museum of Antiquities of Scotland together with all its outstations.
§
In Amendment No. 1 I am suggesting that the words,
the institutions presently known as",
are quite meaningless and that we can drop them. The board of trustees is taking over the Royal Scottish Museum and the National Museum of Antiquities of Scotland. Amendment No. 2 would add a few words:
and any new national museum established with the consent of the Secretary of State".
We have been told by the Minister of State that it may well be the case that the board of trustees, either prompted by an advisory committee or by something it has thought of itself, or by something wished upon it by the Secretary of State, can establish a new national museum. I want to make it perfectly clear that that power is the board's.
§ We know this, not from what is in the Bill but from the Minister of State getting rather mixed up over Clause 1 and what the statutory obligations would be if it was wanted to change names. As Ministers often do, he sent us a letter. We have had a long letter from the Minister of State about Clause 1, and I have to thank him for it. He was rather muddled the first time; he has it right this time. But Ministers and their departments, each time they write, always give us a little information that we never had before.
§
I mentioned that the hopes of Scotland and others interested were that we were to have a new Museum of Scotland. As a matter of fact, I have all the statements made by the Secretary of State on the subject. This was his response on, I think, 22nd July:
I propose, therefore, at a convenient opportunity to introduce a Bill to constitute a new and widely representative board"—
that is the one about which we are talking—
whose first task will be to create a major, new institution on the basis of the collections which are at present held by the National Museum of Antiquities of Scotland".
He had about a year or more to think about that, and then he came out with:
The concept of a Museum of Scotland is an exciting one and its elaboration will be central to the advisory board's work".
We look for this exciting new departure, but it is nowhere in the Bill.
§ Then we read in the letter, "institutions can change". My Lords, we all know that. As a matter of fact, the Royal Scottish Museum was originally called the Industrial Museum of Scotland. That was in 1854. It remained that for 10 years and then became the Edinburgh Museum of Science and Art. Not until 1904, when it was taken over by the Scottish Education Department, did it become the Royal Scottish Museum. But it is nice to know that institutions can change.
§ The letter continues by saying that one of the reasons why it was thought that the title, "Museum of Scotland", would not be right for the new board was that that title, as they saw it, might indeed be applied to part of the overall structure, although not in the narrow sense recommended by the Williams Committee. It is nice to know that. These are the sort of extra words that we get in letters which give us information that we have never had before. The Government were at great pains to leak bits of information here and there during the Committee stage in another place, and are now doing it here by letter.
122§ What is meant by that? As far as I know, what the Secretary of State himself thought in December was an exciting new concept produced by the Williams Committee is now something entirely different. It is far too narrow, so let us forget all about it. I should like to know whether the Minister of State will enlarge upon his letter and tell us what he means by the new, less exciting concept of a Museum of Scotland, which had been welcomed in your Lordships' House.
§ The first amendment is pretty well a drafting amendment and the second one is to make sure that the power is there for the new board, with the consent of the Secretary of State, to establish "any new national museum". It might be the Museum of Scotland or it might be the Museum of Industry. That, too, has fallen by the wayside, although it was part of the Williams Report. Surely the Government will not miss the opportunity of taking this power to themselves and to the new board. These amendments are nothing other than helpful. I beg to move.
§ The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Gray of Contin)My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his desire to be helpful. I know that it is inherent in his nature, and he goes to great lengths not only to assist me in my day-to-day work but to correct me when I go wrong, and for that I am always very grateful indeed.
I can appreciate the reasons which have led the noble Lord to move these amendments. When we debated the question of titles in Committee the noble Lord took exception to the words, "presently known as", in Clause 1(3) as relating to the two existing national museums and suggested that some confusion existed in the possibility that they might be known as, "something else in the future". He has now tackled that point by seeking to exclude the words,
the institutions presently known as",in Clause 1(3) and by seeking to make any move by the board to adopt new museum titles subject to the approval of Parliament.This approach would introduce a degree of rigidity which noble Lords may agree would impose unnecessary constraints on the new board of trustees. It is most unlikely that the new board will wish to go on managing two national museums in exactly the form in which they currently exist. We know that it will attach priority to developing the Museum of Scotland and will need to have flexibility with the institutions it takes over. I have to say to the noble Lord that what he proposes, I am sure for the best of reasons, would run the risk of placing the new board virtually in a straitjacket. That is the last thing we want to happen. The board must be free to adopt solutions which are in the interest of all the collections in their care and which do not necessarily rely on pre-existing structures. The noble Lord's amendments would unacceptably constrain the board's freedom in that respect. I hope that in due course he might be prepared to withdraw them.
However, as I explained when we discussed this matter in Committee, these words appear in this place because what Clause 1(3) is doing is defining the status quo when the new board of trustees will take up their responsibilities. It therefore makes clear that it is the institutions presently known as the Royal Scottish Museum and the National Museum of Antiquities 123 which will pass under the responsibility of the new board from day to day. But, as I also explained, the clause does not freeze the situation as it presently stands. The powers given to the board in Clauses 3 and 4 give wide scope for the board to do whatever they think necessary or expedient to discharge their functions. This might include the establishment of a new national museum—for instance, a museum of industry—as appears to be envisaged in Amendment No. 2.
The objection to Amendment No. 1 is that it would freeze the position with respect to the Royal Scottish Museum and the National Museum of Antiquities and prejudice the new board's freedom to manage. I trust that the noble Lord might be prepared to withdraw his amendment.
§ Lord GrimondMy Lords, before the noble Lord withdraws his amendment, may I ask a question arising out of what the noble Minister has just said? May I first of all thank him very much for writing to us all about various matters concerned with this Bill. However, from what he has just said, do I understand aright that it will be within the power of the board to establish a totally new museum; not merely to amalgamate the Royal Scottish Museum and National Museum of Antiquities and call them by a new name, but to establish a totally new museum, whether it is a museum of industry or of anything else? That is my first question. If that is so, it would seem to me that that is one of the main purposes of the amendment that we are discussing. I am not quite certain why the Minister rejects it but he may feel it is unnecessary. Anyhow, that is the position.
The second point arising from that is this. The board of the two existing institutions, the Royal Scottish Museum and the National Museum of Antiquities, may also change the name of those museums. This is a quite different matter. Without altering the museums or finding new museums, I understand they can also designate these museums as the "Museum of Scotland", or anything else which comes into their minds as being useful. I should be grateful if I could have definite answers to those questions.
§ 3.15 p.m.
§ Lord Gray of ContinMy Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Grimond. I think I can answer him satisfactorily. Yes, the trustees will have the power to create a Museum of Scotland and within that Museum of Scotland there will be the Royal Scottish Museum, the National Museum of Antiquities of Scotland and any other which they care to create. The Museum of Scotland will virtually be the umbrella under which will be incorporated various other museums, existing and perhaps to be formed in the future.
§ Lord Ross of MarnockMy Lords, I am sure we are all duly enlightened that we will have another umbrella organisation. I thought the umbrella organisation was to be created in Clause 1; that is to say the new board that was to take over the presently existing museums, the Royal Scottish Museum and the National Museum of Antiquities. Now we are told that they can create another umbrella organisation. 124 Frankly, this just does not make sense. It is a great pity that we are at Report stage, because the Minister of State could have sent us another letter and we could have had another debate at the next stage. Bear in mind that we had a consultative paper on all these matters issued by the Secretary of State. I have it here. Believe it or not, he stopped talking about the "National Museum of Antiquities of Scotland" and started talking of that as the "Museum of Scotland". I do not know whether the Minister of State has had his attention drawn to this but the paper is there for him to see.
So minds have been changed all along the line. One of the matters about which I am concerned is that we in this House should know something about it. That is why I say that we give them power to change names but that we do so on the basis that it will be confirmed by order in the House. That is so that we will know what is going on when something eventually happens, and that we shall have the opportunity to say something about it.
I am sorry about the Minister of State's attitude. I think the Government have gone completely wrong here. Their original mistake was giving advice to the advisory committee who gave them the advice that the new board should be called the Board of Trustees of the National Museums of Scotland. As soon as they decided that, there was bound to be confusion whenever we came to create a Museum of Scotland. However, I do not think we will get much further. We may have another thought before the next stage.
The Earl of SelkirkMy Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, may I ask this question? My noble friend the Minister seemed almost to encourage the idea of changing names. Is that really what he wants? The fact is that people will not know where these museums are. Their names are at the moment perfectly well known. You can quite easily take a taxi and go to them. But if you change their names, people will not know which museum is which. Although it is a long time ago now, I must admit that I have always rather regretted the fact that they changed the name of the Advocates' Library to the National Library of Scotland. In all books of reference, the reference is to a book in the Advocates' Library, built up by the advocates over centuries. That is now no longer so. To change names only confuses people. After all, the Royal Scottish Museum could contain absolutely anything. It in no way designates what in fact is there. Unless you know where the building is, you will not be able to find it. I hope the noble Lord will discourage the changing of names unless there is a very real purpose for it.
§ Lord Gray of ContinMy Lords, I speak by leave of the House. I do not think my noble friend Lord Selkirk was with us during the Committee stage, when we had considerable debates on these issues. Perhaps I may just clarify the position by saying that it will be entirely a matter for the trustees to decide upon any new name. A Museum of Scotland: that will be a matter for the trustees; they certainly will have the power to create such a name if they so desire. I think it is generally envisaged that that is what they will do.
§ Lord Ross of MarnockMy Lords, with permission, may I continue my speech?
§ Lord Ross of MarnockMy Lords, I was coming to the point of withdrawing the amendments. I am very glad that the noble Earl has entered our debate because this is what we have been talking about all along. Why should we leave this matter to some board about which we do not even know? We do not know who will be on this board, but they will decide what the names of these institutions will be. One institution has had its name since 1904 and the other one since about 1790. These unknown, faceless men will come along and will decide what the names will be, no matter how nonsensical: 'Museum 1" and "Museum 2", or whatever else it may be.
We talked about this possible confusion at an earlier stage. That is why I suggest that before the board change the name, the matter should come here and so that, if we want to, we can say a word or two about it. After all, it is Parliament that is passing this statute. We should retain a certain measure of power for ourselves, just to know what is going on. However, I shall leave the matter there for the moment. I am grateful to noble Lords who have intervened, who have tried to persuade the Government that they should think again and a bit more clearly about this whole issue. However, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 1, and I will not move Amendments Nos. 2 and 3.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ [Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 not moved.]
§ Clause 2 [The Board's general functions]:
§
Lord Gray of Contin moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 2, line 15, after ("archaeological") insert ("architectural").
§
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with this amendment it may be convenient to take Amendment No. 16.
Amendment No. 16: Schedule 1, page 22, line 31, after ("archaeological") insert (", architectural")
§ These amendments follow amendments moved in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove. He argued that the inclusion of the word "architectural" in the lists in Clause 2(1)(d) and in Schedule 1, paragraph 3(3), would be helpful for the avoidance of any doubt that this word was subsumed under others in the lists; for instance, "artistic" and "cultural". I have, as I promised, looked again at this matter. Although I hold to the view that the addition of the word "architectural" to these lists does not have the same force as the addition of, for instance, "historical", which we agreed in Committee, I nevertheless acknowledge that for clarification these amendments should be made. I hope that noble Lords will be prepared to agree them.
§ Lord Carmichael of KelvingroveMy Lords, I thank the Minister for paying attention to what was said in another place on Report and in this place at Committee stage. The inclusion of the word "architectural" will certainly remove all ambiguity so far as this small group is concerned. There is always the problem, 126 of course, as mentioned by a noble Lord on the other side of the House, that in any Bill where so many things are named, the assumption is that anything that is not named is specifically excluded. It is partly because of that point that I am pleased that the word "architectural" has been included. I thank the Minister for his action.
§ On Question, amendment agreed to.
§ The Earl of Perth had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 5:
§
Page 2 line 21, at end insert—
("In regard to the functions outlined in paragraphs (a) to (e) above the Board shall pay special regard to matters concerned with Scotland.").
§ The noble Earl said: My Lords, I should like first to make the point that the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot, has also put her name to this amendment. She asks me to apologise for the fact that she has a very longstanding engagement in Scotland as a trustee of a foundation—the Carnegie Foundation, I think it is—and felt that the priorities were such that she had to be there. The great thing is to know that she is behind us on this subject.
§ I do not know whether it is necessary for me to develop very fully at this stage the purpose of my amendment. If your Lordships look at Amendment No. 6, to be moved by the noble Lord, Lord Gray of Contin, you will see that that amendment is very much on the same lines as mine. I think that if the two amendments are not to be considered together, it would be more convenient for the House as a whole if we perhaps concentrate on the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Gray. If that is acceptable, I shall not pursue my amendment, but I shall wish to speak at the right time on Amendment No. 6.
§ [Amendment No. 5 not moved.]
§
Lord Gray of Contin moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 2, line 21, at end insert—
(" (1A) In carrying out their functions the Board shall have due regard to the Scottish aspect of the matters mentioned in subsection (1)(d) above.").
§ The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Perth, for not moving his amendment. It is true that the two amendments are similar. The noble Earl has agreed that Amendment No. 6 should be preferred.
§ The amendment which stands in my name on the Marshalled List is intended to meet the points of concern which noble Lords expressed in our earlier debate. It is cast in positive terms and is sharply focused on the aspects of the board's work which your Lordships felt should be given Scottish emphasis. It avoids the danger of encouraging what I might describe as a chauvinistic approach which might lead the new board to neglect the international aspects of its work. I hope that noble Lords will agree that this amendment satisfactorily meets the point of substance which was raised at an earlier sitting. I beg to move.
§ The Earl of PerthMy Lords, for my part, this amendment meets our worries. I recall well how many of your Lordships at Committee stage were supportive of the thought that we should make it clear that all the items under subsection (1) (d) concerning matters 127 relating to museums should have, if I may so put it, a special Scottish flavour. The amendment that I proposed was perhaps too narrow. It could have run the risk that people would have said, "Oh well, we must only think about things Scottish". The words "due regard" are better. This wording gives just the right direction to the board of trustees as to what should be its responsibilities and worries. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Gray, for having first said that he would take away this matter and think about it in the light of representations made, and then, having thought about it, done what we all want.
§ On Question, amendment agreed to.
§
Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 2, line 29, after ("authorises") insert ('the Secretary of State to direct").
§
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a small point. Clause 2(2) states that if the Secretary of State directs the board to exercise functions that are normally exercised by him, it may do so. Then there is in the subsection the phrase—which has nothing to do with the Secretary of State—
but nothing in this subsection authorises the Board to exercise a function of making regulations or other instruments of a legislative character".
The board cannot exercise any function unless it is directed so to do by the Secretary of State, so the injunction should be laid not upon the board, but upon the Secretary of State. The provision would then read,
but nothing in this subsection authorises the Secretary of State".
to direct the board to do something that only he should do. I beg to move.
§ Lord Gray of ContinMy Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, has returned to the point which he made in Committee. Like the noble Lord, Lord Ross, I cannot think that any Secretary of State would wish to direct the board to exercise functions of this kind, and as the Bill stands he cannot do so because the board is prevented from exercising such functions. The noble Lord's amendment could, in fact, have a contrary effect. If, for example, the Secretary of State directed the board to look after a historic building owned by him, the board might think that the best way to regulate matters was by by-law. With the present provision it could not do so because by-laws are instruments of a legislative character.
If the noble Lord's amendment is accepted, the Secretary of State could not direct the board to make by-laws; but if he said nothing and simply left the board to administer the property, it would be able to do so. So the noble Lord's amendment would not achieve the object of the Bill which is to prevent the board from exercising functions of making regulations or other instruments of a legislative character which ought to be a function of the Secretary of State. For those reasons I hope that the noble Lord will perhaps be prepared to withdraw his amendment.
§ Lord GrimondMy Lords, as the position is surely rightly stated by the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, in that the board cannot make regulations or instruments of a legislative character, would it not 128 be easier to leave out the whole of the three lines from "but" to "character"? It seems to me that they preclude something that is illegal anyway and it is therefore unnecessary to include them in the Bill.
§ Lord Gray of ContinMy Lords, the Bill, as presently drafted, would prevent the new board exercising on behalf of the Secretary of State any function of making regulations or other instruments of a legislative character. This provision is precedented in the National Heritage Act 1983 in exactly the same wording in Sections 2(4) and 10(4) and in similar wording in Sections 24(4) and 34(4). It should also be noted that exactly the same wording is contained elsewhere in this Bill in Clause 10(2). Any change in this clause may suggest that it intends to achieve something different from these other provisions, and may cast doubt on their meaning, and that is not the intention.
§ 3.30 p.m.
§ Lord Ross of MarnockMy Lords, this is one of the usual things. We get draftsmen's adornments coming into Bills that do not really mean anything at all; and now we are told that because we allowed it in the 1983 Act—that was the English Act and unfortunately the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, was not here, and I do not take any great interest in English Acts—it was allowed to pass. But I believe Lord Grimond is right. It does not mean a thing. We could leave these words out altogether. Certainly, if it means anything it means that the Secretary of State has no right to direct them to do a certain thing which they have no power to do.
If the Government want to get into a mess with this and to allow these things to grow up, we shall get these unnecessary words in very many Acts of Parliament, and they just do not mean a thing. I should like to see a Minister in Scotland just telling a draftsman that this is nonsense and cutting these words out, but I do not propose to go any further than this. I have had my say and I hope the draftsmen will listen. I gather that we are to have a few more Acts of Parliament from Scotland. I hope we get a slightly better effort; and let us not have any English additions which are quite unnecessary in Scottish legislation. I beg to withdraw the amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§
The Earl of Perth moved Amendment No. 8:
After Clause 3, insert the following new clause:
§
("Museum of Scotland.
.—(1) The Board may form a "Museum of Scotland" and may include in that museum any or all of the objects which
(2) Subsection (1) above is without prejudice to the Board's power to form other museums, either as part of the Museum of Scotland or otherwise.")
§ The noble Earl said: My Lords, I attach the greatest importance to this amendment. In the Committee stage again and again one after another of your Lordships said how much they wanted to find the name "Museum of Scotland" somewhere in this Bill; and earlier this afternoon we heard the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, supported by others, making sure that it would be possible one of these days for the 129 board of trustees to get a museum named in this way. The purpose of my amendment is to get it into the Bill now as a signpost to the board in the future that what it should aim for, what it should try to achieve, is what the Williams Committee advised—admittedly for one part of the Museums of Scotland—and what, as we have already heard, the Secretary of State at one time or other said was a most exciting idea: namely, a Museum of Scotland.
§
I beg, therefore, to move this amendment, which lays out specifically a new clause in the Bill. It says:
The Board may form a 'Museum of Scotland' ",
and goes on to say that any of the objects which are already in the Royal Scottish Museum or the National Museum of Antiquities of Scotland may be a part in it. It goes on further in the second subsection to say that the above,
is without prejudice to the Board's power to form other museums, either as part of the Museum of Scotland",
or on their own.
§ I have to pay tribute to the parliamentary draftsmen, who helped me get an amendment which was neither restrictive nor too all-embracing; and I very much hope that in the form in which it now is it will be acceptable and will be a signpost, a flag indicating the direction in which your Lordships and indeed all of Parliament want the board to go—namely, in the direction of a Museum of Scotland. I beg to move.
§ Lord Ross of MarnockMy Lords, the House is indebted to the noble Earl, Lord Perth, for his persistence in respect of this matter. Between the Second Reading and Committee stage he went to the United States and spent most of his time in Washington getting in touch with the Public Bills Office here and myself in respect of his concern about the lack of any evidence of the Government producing the Museum of Scotland. I believe he has been very helpful to the Secretary of State. Such a reference should he here and I am very grateful that the draftsmen from the Crown Office have been as helpful to him—indeed probably more so—as they have been to the Secretary of State in respect of some of the words that are in the Bill; because after all it was the Secretary of State who said:
Our first priority must be to establish a museum of Scotland, which will be the prime repository of artifacts representing the cultural heritage of Scotland".—[Official Report, Commons: 22/7/82, col. 303.]This is what was in the mind of the Williams Committee, of which the noble Earl was a distinguished member. Here we have the words enshrined and it is sufficiently flexible, so far as I can see, to be based either purely on one museum or on two, and to take artifacts from each of the museums. This would give us the possible formation of a Museum of Scotland.It leaves a lot of questions unanswered, of course, but so does the whole Bill, as to how it is to develop, whether it is to be a completely new museum and whether it is to be in the centre of Edinburgh or outside Edinburgh. All these things are still to come, and advice will go to the new board from the advisory committee that was set up with that in mind. I 130 certainly commend this new clause and congratulate the noble Earl on its wording and I hope the Government themselves will accept it.
§ Lord RentonMy Lords, in case your Lordships should wonder why I venture to intervene in a discussion on a Scottish matter I am the son of a Scotsman and I have a foot across the Border, in that we have a family property in Scotland. I am interested in this amendment but a little puzzled by it because it would seem to assume that, even when a Museum of Scotland has been established, the Royal Museum of Scotland and the National Museum of Antiquities of Scotland will both continue to exist, although each will have been shorn of some of its contents. Possibly, I suppose, the best of their contents could have been creamed away. I should have thought that, if there is to be a museum of special importance in Scotland, the name of that museum would be significant; and, naturally, the name of the Royal Scottish Museum, already in existence, seems to me to represent what the noble Earl, Lord Perth, has in mind and would indeed seem to be most-appropriate for a museum specially related to Scotland.
If I am wrong—and perhaps I have not clearly understood this matter—I should be so grateful if the noble Earl, when he replies to this short debate, could explain what will happen to the Royal Scottish Museum.
§ Lord Gray of ContinMy Lords, perhaps I may join others of your Lordships in congratulating the noble Earl, Lord Perth, on the amendment in the form of a new clause which he has tabled. I am grateful to him also for acknowledging the assistance which he was given by the draftsmen, and I am glad that their efforts met with his approval. When the new board of trustees is set up, it will have to decide how to organise the museums which will be in its care and it may decide that it would be appropriate to take aspects of the existing museums, or all of them, and give them the title "Museum of Scotland". I may say that I was most interested that my noble friend Lord Renton should take part in our proceedings, because I know only too well his interest in Scotland. Perhaps I can explain a little more to him as I go along. I know that the noble Earl, Lord Perth, will also want to touch on what he has said.
The Bill in fact provides powers for the board to do that. There is therefore no strict requirement for an amendment to achieve this effect. However, I accept the importance of including in the Bill a suitable reference to the possible formation of the Museum of Scotland. Ever since the Williams Committee report this idea has attracted enthusiastic interest. An appropriate signpost in the Bill will reflect this interest and be consistent with the priority my right honourable friend attaches to the matter. I can therefore tell the noble Earl that I am delighted to accept his amendment, and I hope that other noble Lords will agree that the new clause should be added to the Bill.
For the benefit of my noble friend Lord Renton, I should like to say that at Second Reading and again at Committee stage we had considerable discussions about names. Indeed, a number of names were 131 suggested from various parts of the House. Any one of them might have been suitable for the purpose. But the reason we decided that the trustees should, in the meantime, be the trustees of the National Museums of Scotland was that this was the name suggested by the advisory committee set up under the chairmanship of the noble Marquess, Lord Bute. That committee went into those matters in great detail. It has gone to a lot of trouble to advise us on various subjects, and will continue to advise the trustees in the months and years ahead. So the name which the noble Earl, Lord Perth, is particularly interested in—the Museum of Scotland—is no doubt the name which the trustees will create in due course, as they will have every right to do. My noble friend suggested the name, "Royal Scottish Museum". This was one that was mentioned previously. Various of your Lordships supported one name or another, and, as I indicated, there were a great many candidates; but I think "Museum of Scotland" is the name which each and every one of us would like to see ultimately created.
§ Lord RentonMy Lords, before my noble friend sits down, can he say what will happen to the Royal Scottish Museum?
§ Lord Ross of MarnockMy Lords, nothing.
§ Lord Gray of ContinMy Lords, yes. The Royal Scottish Museum will become a part of the new Museum of Scotland; there is no doubt of that. There is no question of a take-over here. It is envisaged that the existing Scottish museums, and any other museums which may be formed within Scotland, will all become part of the new Museum of Scotland. This is a concept which many of your Lordships have had for a long time, and none more so than the noble Earl, Lord Perth. I commend the amendment.
§ The Earl of PerthMy Lords, this is a very exciting moment for me and for many of your Lordships, the Government having accepted the importance of getting these words into the Bill at this stage. If I may say so, the noble Lord, Lord Ross, is quite right: I have been very persistent. Indeed, between the Committee stage and the Report stage I have been having a lot of discussions with many people, including the noble Marquess, Lord Bute, and others, to try to explain just what we had in mind. I am particularly indebted to the Government for recognising what was the anxiety of so many of us.
The noble Lord, Lord Renton, asked "What will happen?". I am not sure that he was with us at the Committee stage, but at that time I illustrated how, in America, you have the Smithsonian and, under the Smithsonian, which is the umbrella, you have any number of leading museums, each bearing its own name, which continue more or less to function but do so under the umbrella, under the guidance and with the help of the Smithsonian. Probably in great degree we shall have exactly the same thing happening with the Museum of Scotland. That is my hope; it was the hope of the Williams Committee; and it is what the noble Lord, Lord Gray, has been saying today.
§ 3.45 p.m.
§ I have no more to say at this stage, save one thing; that is, that on Third Reading, this having been accepted (if your Lordships go along with it), we must discuss the question of the building problems. Without an extensive new building a lot of the work that we are doing will be put at naught. I shall not go into that today. I want to say "Thank you" to the noble Lord, Lord Gray, to the noble Lord, Lord Ross, and to all the other noble Lords who at other stages have supported this amendment. Now it is to be in the Bill. The signpost is there. Let us hope that the signpost will lead the way very quickly, after a short time, to where we all want to go.
§ On Question, amendment agreed to.
§ Clause 15 [Purposes of Board of National Galleries]:
§
Lord Gray of Contin moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 17, line 25, leave out first ("and").
§
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with this amendment it would be convenient to take Amendments Nos. 18 and 19, which are to Schedule 1. 1
Amendment No. 18: Page 26, line 24, leave out ("and").
Amendment No. 19: Page 26, line 25, after ("in") insert ("and the effect or).
§ In Committee we accepted the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Ross, which required the board of the National Galleries of Scotland to take account of the effect of admission charges in making their reports to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. In view of this I decided that, for consistency, a similar obligation should be placed on the board of the National Museums of Scotland, and that is the purpose of Amendments Nos. 18 and 19, to Schedule 1. I am sure that your Lordships will agree that this is entirely appropriate. Amendment No. 9 is intended simply to tidy up the drafting of Clause 15, page 17, line 25, by deleting the word "and" where it is unnecessary. I hope that noble Lords will accept this small amendment. I beg to move.
§ Lord Carmichael of KelvingroveMy Lords, again, may I thank the Minister for accepting this amendment. He has gone some way to meet the point raised at the Committee stage. It is important that there should be a firm obligation on the board to establish all the facts about admission charges, particularly their effect on attendances. When we come to discuss this again perhaps we may have more information—I am talking about the whole question of museums and charges—because of the willingness the Minister has shown to include these amendments in the Bill. I should like to thank him for doing so.
§ On Question, amendment agreed to.
§ Clause 17 [Provisions as to National Library of Scotland]:
§
Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 18, line 36, leave out ("thirty-two") and insert ("eighteen").
§ The noble Lord said: My Lords, this deals with the constitution of the board of trustees of the National Library of Scotland. We have been looking at all these 133 boards. We have a new board with very onerous duties in respect of the Royal Scottish Museum and the National Museum of Antiquities of Scotland. It is to consist of nine to 15 members. The National Gallery, which includes the National Portrait Gallery—the Portrait Gallery of Modern Art—is to have seven to 12 trustees. The number of trustees for the Royal Botanic Garden in Edinburgh, which is one of the prides of Edinburgh, is to vary between five and nine. But when we come to the National Library, we have 32. With all due respect, that is just a wee bit unwieldy.
§ When one looks to see who these people are, one sees that there are to be 11 ex-officio members. They are to include the Lord President of the Court of Session and the Lord Advocate. The Lord Advocate has no doubt rushed away out to examine the agenda for the next meeting of the National Library. Another member is the Secretary of State—he has nothing else to do so he could be an ex-officio trustee. Then there is the Dean of the Faculty of Advocates, the Minister of the High Kirk, the Member of Parliament for Edinburgh Central, the Lord Provost of Edinburgh, the Lord Provost of Glasgow, the Lord Provost of Dundee, the Lord Provost of Aberdeen and, of course, the Queen's and Lord Treasurer's Remembrancer, who is the ultimate inheritor of intestate estates.
§
If we are to bring this situation up to date, let us get rid of this batch of ex-officio members. Therefore, my first amendment is to reduce the number of members from 32 to 18. I come to my next amendment, No. 11.
Amendment No. 11: Page 18, line 37, leave out from ("whom") to ("shall") and insert ("thirteen").
This amendment cuts out the ex-officio members.
Amendment No. 12 is consequential.
Amendment No. 12: Page 19, leave out lines 1 to 13.
In Amendment No. 13 I do a bit of pruning in respect of those people appointed by the Secretary of State and reduce the number from five to four.
Amendment No. 13: Page 19, line 15, leave out ("Five") and insert ("Four").
Then we come to Amendment No. 14.
Amendment No. 14: Page 19, line 19, leave out ("Five") and insert ("Four").
This amendment says that instead of having five persons appointed by the faculty, there shall be three appointed by the faculty. Then the Bill continues that there shall be four persons appointed by the universities and two by the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities.
§ I think that my amendments would result in a much more wieldy situation than the present set-up of 32 members, particularly as 11 of those people will never be present. I was Secretary of State for eight years and I was never once asked to attend. I feel highly offended that I was never asked—in fact, they may have concealed the invitation because they wanted me to do something else on the particular day. It really is a bit of nonsense. The present Lord Provost of Edinburgh does not even want to call himself the Lord Provost. Why labour him with this additional ex-officio duty? It really is nonsense. It might have been all right in 1925; we are now in 1985 and we can run the National Library without the help of these ex-officio members. By pruning the other members, we shall get a much more workable organisation. I beg to move.
134§ Lord GrimondMy Lords, I raised a similar amendment in Committee to reduce the number of members, and indeed to cut down the number of advocates. I did not want to abolish them; I merely wanted to reduce the large number of advocates. My proposal was met with horror by members of the legal profession, but I am used to that. I remain of my original opinion. I was not deeply influenced by the arguments of the Minister, who seemed to be saying that as this has always gone on, it should go on forever.
All I can say is that the nature of the library has changed. It is no longer the advocates' library. They are certainly owed a great debt for looking after it for so long and for leaving a very good library to the nation. But they were paid for doing so and it is now a national library. I believe that it is from that angle that the trustees should be appointed so that they really represent the nation of Scotland. Although guaranteeing the faculty adequate representation on the board, I think that at the moment they are over-represented and I do not believe that there is a case for including the Secretary of State, the Minister of the High Kirk, or indeed the Member of Parliament for Edinburgh Central. However, I shall not reiterate all the arguments which I put forward in Committee.
§ Lord KirkhillMy Lords, I, too, should like to lend my support to all that my noble friend Lord Ross of Marnock has just said, and indeed to give general support to the remarks just made by the noble Lord, Lord Grimond. The noble Lord the Minister may recall that on Second Reading I was particularly concerned that the Bill did not seem to give a positive discrimination in favour of the various outstanding municipal galleries of Scotland. I think that I could just accept the idea of ex-officio members where this relates to my difficulty about the museums in the various towns of Scotland, because at least the various Lords Provost might, upon a very rare occasion, turn up and complain about whatever was the issue of the day. However, as regards the National Library, it seems to me to be an absolute and palpable nonsense to have these ex-officio members itemised.
§ Lord Ross of MarnockMy Lords, may I ask my noble friend Lord Kirkhill whether he was ever invited or whether he ever turned up when he was the Lord Provost of Aberdeen?
§ Lord KirkhillMy Lords, I was never invited and, having not been invited, I did not turn up. I shall conclude by saying that I believe the Minister should look very seriously at this issue again.
§ Lord Gray of ContinMy Lords, we had a very good debate on this matter during the Committee stage when the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, and indeed the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, gave us the benefit of their views on this subject. On that occasion we were also privileged to have the benefit of one of our distinguished and learned Lords, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser. I thought that the noble and learned Lord explained very well the attitude of the advocates and how seriously they regarded their representation on this board.
135 The board has been shown to be capable of steering the library through a period when important decisions have had to be taken—for instance, the decision to establish the Scottish Science Reference Library, and to locate that facility away from the library's main building on King George IV Bridge. We have in the Bill made the changes necessitated by local government reorganisation and the growth in the number of Scottish universities. Two representatives of COSLA will now be included on the board, and the universities will be confirmed in their right to appoint four trustees drawn from all eight universities—the arrangement they already operate informally. I believe that with these small amendments the constitution of the board will continue to reflect the needs of the library.
The noble Lord, Lord Ross, referred to reducing the advocates to three, but his amendment says to four. I think that the noble Lord would be better to reduce it to three because his figures, despite his experience in the realms of instructing the young, on this occasion do not add up. If all the noble Lord's amendments are accepted as they are tabled, I believe that they would result in a board of 18 members, of whom 13 would be appointed as provided in the Bill and the other five, being persons of eminence in literature in public life, would be co-opted by the trustees. Unfortunately, the subsequent changes result in 14 appointments, four by Her Majesty on the recommendation of the Secretary of State, four by the faculty—but there is no indication which faculty since the reference to the Faculty of Advocates would have been deleted—four by the universities, and two by COSLA. With the five appointed members, this would result in a board of 19, although the provision would be for only 18.
I appreciate that the noble Lord would be perfectly entitled to amend this at this stage to three, therefore getting the correct number. But clearly the amendments as proposed would be defective. Indeed, even with such an amendment, I am not persuaded that what the noble Lord has in mind would be an improvement. I think that with the changes we have made we have the composition of the board just about right and I would hope that perhaps on reflection the noble Lord might be prepared to withdraw his amendment.
§ Lord Ross of MarnockMy Lords, as the noble Lord the Minister well knows, I would not allow a defective amendment to go forward. However, the main point of concern has been the 11 ex-officio members, who add nothing at all to the deliberations of the trustees and the board. The noble Lord the Minister referred to the difficult times that they have seen. I am perfectly sure that not a single ex-officio member was present. It is the nonsense aspect which we believe we should get rid of. It might have been all right in 1925, but we should remember that the advocates sold their library and it was bought by a distinguished Scotsman, who, with a sum of money, helped to create the National Library of Scotland. One reason why we had to do something was that he died. He was also a life member of the board, which does not make very much sense in 1985.
§ 4 p.m
§ Neither does this business of all these Lords Provost. Fancy the Secretary of State being an ex officio member of it. It is absolute nonsense. He is never there. He is never asked to be there. Indeed, it would considerably upset the whole layout of that board if he turned up. After all, he does a certain amount of appointing himself. It does not make sense, and the Government should have taken the opportunity and got rid of this anachronistic nonsense in respect of these ex officio members.
§ I am not going to proceed with the amendment at this stage. It may well be that the Government will have a chance—and I think the whole House would be with them—to make that particular change. They could leave the rest if they wanted to, but they should make that change. What on earth has the Minister of the High Kirk of St. Giles to do with it? Or the Member for Edinburgh Central, whoever he happens to be? Remember, Edinburgh Central is no longer central Edinburgh. It goes right out to Murrayfield. What special interest has he got there? It is a bit of nonsense that we should carry on with this 50 or 60 years after it was first put in. However, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ [Amendments Nos. 11 to 14 not moved.]
§
Lord Gray of Contin moved Amendment No. 15:
After Clause 19, insert the following new clause:
§
("Amendment of Historic Buildings and Ancient Monuments Act 1953
.—(1) This Historic Buildings and Ancient Monuments Act 1953 shall be amended as provided in this section.
(2) In section 5 (acquisition by the Minister of historic buildings, their contents and adjoining land) after subsection (2) there shall be inserted the following subsection—
(2A) Subject as aforesaid, the Minister shall have power to acquire by agreement, whether by purchase, lease or otherwise, or to accept a gift of—
(3) In section 6 (which provides for, amongst other things, grants to the National Trust for Scotland for acquisition of historic buildings)—
(4) In section 8 (power of Minister to accept endowments of historic buildings)—
(1A) Where any instrument coming into operation after the commencement of this subsection contains a provision purporting to be a gift of property to the Minister upon trust to use the income thereof (either for a limited time or in perpetuity) for or towards the upkeep of a garden
137
or other land acquired or accepted by him under section 5(2A) (c) of this Act or a garden or other land which he proposes so to acquire or accept or for or towards the upkeep of any such garden or other land together with other property situated in Scotland, he may accept the gift and, if he does so and the provision does not constitute a charitable trust, subsections (2) to (6) below shall have effect"; and
(c) in subsection (4), after the word "building", where first and secondly occurring, there shall be inserted the words ", land or garden".").
§ The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the new clause which stands in my name. The purpose of this new clause is to make a series of amendments to the Historic Buildings and Ancient Monuments Act 1953 which would extend the Secretary of State's powers under that Act so as to bring them into line with those of the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission for England under the National Heritage Act 1983.
§ We have considered very carefully the points made in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, in favour of his amendments and supported by other noble Lords. On reflection, we decided that the balance of advantage did lie in seeking to use the current Bill in the ways which had been suggested. I hope that your Lordships will agree that this is an improvement to the Bill, and I beg to move.
§ Lord Taylor of GryfeMy Lords, I should like to express my appreciation of the consideration which has been given to this matter by the Minister. I am sure that the amendment which he now moves will be well received in Scotland. I put down the amendment with some prompting from the National Trust for Scotland, and I am glad that my persuasion, plus the considerable weight given to the National Trust for Scotland, has persuaded the Minister to accept this amendent. I have written to the Minister, but I should like formally to thank him.
§ Lord RentonMy Lords, I do not dispute that in substance these amendments should be made. However, the current drafting practice, and the better drafting practice, is that amendments of this kind should be contained in a schedule to the Bill rather than in a clause. We do not want clauses in Bills cluttered up with too much detail, especially when they concern relatively minor amendments of previous legislation.
It is well done in the form of textual amendments, but I ask my noble friend whether at some stage he will arrange for this new clause to become Part I of Schedule 2, and then the present Part I of Schedule 2, which is headed "Minor and Consequential Amendments", could become Part II, and the present Part II "Repeals" should become Part III. The Bill would present itself in much better form and would be much more in accordance with the best modern practice if that were done.
§ Lord Gray of ContinMy Lords, I have listened carefully to what my noble friend has said on this subject. With his experience on such matters I am reluctant to argue with him on such a point of detail. The best I can do is to say to my noble friend that I shall read carefully and consider what he has said and 138 discuss the matter with my own draftsmen, who no doubt will have their ideas on the matter as well. I am grateful to my noble friend for his contribution.
§ On Question, amendment agreed to.
§ Schedule 1 [The Boards]:
§
Lord Gray of Contin moved Amendment No. 16:
[Printed earlier: col. 125.]
§ On Question, amendment agreed to.
§
Lord Gray of Contin moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 22, line 36, leave out ("a") and insert ("at least one").
§ The noble Lord said: My Lords, noble Lords will recall that in Committee I moved an amendment to Schedule 1 which now appears as paragraph 3(4). This guarantees that the Secretary of State, in appointing the trustees of the National Museums of Scotland, shall include in their number a Fellow of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland. When we debated this point the noble Earl, Lord Perth, asked whether there might be a small further amendment to guarantee the appointment of "at least one" Fellow of the Society. I indicated that I would be happy to accept that suggestion, which I felt caught the mood of the Committee. I am now happy to move that amendment.
§ The Earl of PerthMy Lords, I want to say "Thank you" to the Minister, and really to say "Thank you" to the noble Lord, Lord Ross. When the matter was in Committee I sat down too quickly and he took it up in the next amendment. Anyhow, between us we have achieved what we think is the right thing. It does not restrict the choice. It may not be more than one, but anyhow it is one, and we are grateful to the noble Minister for having put it in, as he said he would.
§ On Question, amendment agreed to.
§
Lord Gray of Contin moved Amendment No. 18:
[Printed earlier: col. 132.]
§ On Question, amendment agreed to.
§
Lord Gray of Contin moved Amendment No. 19:
[Printed earlier: col. 132.]
§ On Question, amendment agreed to.
§ In the Title:
§
The Earl of Perth moved Amendment No. 20:
Line 4, after ("Scotland") insert ("or the Museum of Scotland").
§ The noble Earl said: My Lords, in a sense this is a probing amendment because we have what we wanted—and I have already expressed my gratitude for that—in the words "Museum of Scotland" and the subsequent description of what it may be. That is already in the new Clause 4. However, what has worried me—and it worried me particularly when I saw the letter which the noble Lord, Lord Ross, has already mentioned and which was written to us all—is that I got muddled about the powers of the trustees, or who could be what in the way of trustees.
§ I was not clear, and I am still not clear, and it would be helpful if the Minister could make it clear to us, 139 whether when—and I hope soon—we have a Museum of Scotland the existing Board of Trustees of the National Museums of Scotland can in fact say to themselves, "We now have a new name. We are the trustees of the Museum of Scotland." If that is the case, then I suspect that the amendment that I have suggested to the Title is unnecessary. However, I should like confirmation that that is what in fact can happen and is within the powers of the board of trustees. I beg to move.
§ Lord Gray of ContinMy Lords, the amendment which the noble Earl, Lord Perth, has moved to the Long Title of the Bill would have the effect of suggesting that in the main body of the Bill itself we are including alternative titles for the new board of trustees themselves. This whole subject raised great interest when it was debated in Committee, and it may be of assistance to your Lordships if I go over the ground again.
Noble Lords will, I hope, agree that uncertainty about something as fundamental as the trustees' title would not be in the interests of the museums. We have therefore indicated firmly in Clause 1 that the trustees' title will be the "Board of Trustees of the National Museums of Scotland". That title could not be changed without further statutory authority. To that extent this proposed change to the Title of the Bill would be misleading. The Bill makes it possible for the trustees to give whatever names they wish to the various institutions under their control.
We have agreed this afternoon to include a prominent reference to the possible Museum of Scotland. However, the trustees do not need to change their own name to become the trustees of this museum or of any other which they might set up or may already control. So in this respect any change to the Title would be unnecessary and to seize on one name rather than another would be somewhat invidious. I hope that with that explanation the noble Earl might agree to withdraw his amendment.
§ The Earl of PerthMy Lords, I think the important thing that the Minister has said is that if the Museum of Scotland is set up, the board of trustees can call themselves the trustees of that museum, if I have understood him correctly. If that is the case, I am happy to withdraw my amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§
Lord Gray of Contin moved Amendment No. 21:
Line 12, at end insert ("and the Historic Buildings and Ancient Monuments Act 1953").
§ On Question, amendment agreed to.