National Heritage Bill [H.L.] (Hansard, 12 December 1996)

§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of National Heritage (Lord Inglewood)
My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.

§ Lord Howie of Troon
My Lords, as your Lordships will know, I have been interested in this Bill since it first came before us. During the earlier stages of the Bill the Minister was kind to me, in that he recognised some of the concerns which I raised. I hope that I can be kind to him today.
I rise to speak this afternoon because I received a letter from him yesterday afternoon which I wish to reply to on the record. He takes up the points which we had been disputing during the earlier stages of the Bill, particularly my feeling that buildings and structures are separated in paragraph 1 of the schedule but not in new Section 3 as it appears in Clause 1(1) of the Bill, where I thought that they should be separated. In his reply to me, the Minister said that paragraph I of the schedule enabled the trustees—of the heritage fund, I suppose—to take action themselves rather than providing financial assistance to others to act. He points out that that part of the Bill will not be used very often.
What I find curious is that the trustees are specifically asked to deal with buildings or structures when they take action themselves but buildings are not separated from structures when they give financial assistance to others. I thought at first that the Government would be using the locution which has been used once or twice in the past to define "buildings" as including "structures" but that turns out not to be the case.
The Minister drew my attention to the Interpretation Act 1978, which apparently includes "structures" within the definition of "land". When I read that in his letter, I thought that the Minister had torpedoed me below the water line, and I daresay he thought so as well. However, driven by curiosity, I obtained a copy of the Interpretation Act 1978, of which I had not previously heard, and I notice that what he says is true: "land" does include "structures". However, it also includes "buildings". I note that he uses the argument that "structures" are included in "land" in order to leave "structures" out of the Bill, while he uses the fact that the definition of "land" includes "buildings" in order to leave "buildings" in the Bill. This is a case of the goose and the gander which I do not fully understand. I merely wish to draw that point to his attention.
1191 I turned also to the housing grants Act which we passed earlier this year. In that Act buildings and structures are separated. Land is mentioned as well, but only in the sense of buildings or structures forming, or to form, part of the land. This is an area of considerable confusion. If my earlier amendments had been accepted, that confusion might have been cleared up. I dare say they might care to look at that matter in another place.
I referred to that part of the schedule to the Bill which refers to "objects". I wondered what those objects were. The Minister said in his letter that objects which relate to our engineering heritage are also objects of historic interest. That is very often true, and I do not object to that. However, I noticed that, when he listed my house last week—and we discussed this across the Floor—it was listed because of historic and architectural interest. There is no difficulty about combining the two interests. As a matter of fact, it is not very historic and it is not very distinguished architecturally, but that is another matter. If historic and architectural interest can go together, historic and engineering interest can go together too.
But what are these objects? I had drawn attention to the fact that there were many objects of engineering interest which were not structures or buildings. I mentioned at Report stage the kinds of things that I had in mind: machine tools, pumping engines or perhaps the lock gates on a canal. Those are objects of engineering interest. The Minister should perhaps encourage his colleagues in another place to look at the matter once again.
I am very grateful to the Minister for the attention which he has given to my arguments in the course of the past few weeks. I would merely suggest to him that he should encourage his colleagues to look at those arguments.

§ Lord Monkswell
My Lords, in rising to support the remarks of my noble friend Lord Howie of Troon, I think it is useful to point out to the House that he does not speak for himself alone. This is not a matter which he alone is interested in. We need to put on record that the noble Lord speaks not only for an enormous number of engineers, both of the present day and the past, who have contributed and still contribute to the basic fundamental strengths of this country. He speaks for the nation, in the sense that the elements for which he speaks—the structures, the engineering elements and so on—are so important to the fabric of our society that we are disturbed when civil servants and Ministers sometimes need a lot of persuasion to accept the validity of the argument.
I hope that the eloquent way in which the noble Lord, Lord Howie, spoke this afternoon, in particular in asking the Government, as the Bill progresses through another place, perhaps to see fit to reconsider the slight resistance (if I may so call it) which they seem to have aroused to including within these important definitions structures, including engineering. They might think again and reflect on the very great importance not of the words themselves but of what those words mean to the fabric of our society and our history.

§ Lord Montagu of Beaulieu
My Lords, I should like briefly to congratulate the Government on bringing forward this Bill, which rights a wrong and a serious flaw 1192 the original Bill. As past president of the Historic Houses Association, I also thank the Government. The Bill will eliminate a great sense of injustice felt by a majority of owners of historic structures in this country.
It cannot be stated too often that it is the building and not the owner that benefits from grants. Since 1953 there has been the accepted quid pro quo of public access, which has now become accepted by all and become, indeed, traditional.
My only worry is that, now that so many more people have the opportunity to have a slice of the cake and the cake is no bigger, there will be a serious problem of funding. Otherwise, this is an excellent Bill and I thank the Government for bringing it forward.

§ Lord Donoughue
My Lords, from this side of the House I join in the earlier comments. We believe that this is an excellent and practical Bill. It contributes to the welfare of the heritage of the nation. Not all Bills are like that and we were rather relieved to have this one.

§ Lord Inglewood
My Lords, I am most grateful to your Lordships for their contributions to this debate and for their comments on the Bill. I was most reassured by the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon. On his own admission, the difference between us is one not of substance but of style. He agreed with me and corroborated my view that what we have done in the Bill meets the case that he would like to see addressed. Where we disagree is on the style in which we have done it. We drafted the Bill in this way in order to give the greatest degree of assurance and clarity, bearing in mind that it is a legal document and not a layman's draft. So, while we shall consider most carefully the noble Lord's remarks and those of the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, I think we can rest assured that there is no difference in substance between us as to what the Bill achieves.
I also listened with great care to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Howie, in respect of the listing of his own house. It occurred to me that it may have been the historic aspect of his house, to wit the fact that he himself had lived there, which led to the listing. But then I thought no, that is not possible because he did not live in the other 400 or so houses in Hampstead Garden Suburb that were listed on the same occasion.
My noble friend Lord Montagu of Beaulieu went to the heart of the purpose of the Bill; namely, to put right an anomaly which meant that certain aspects of the heritage—those which are privately owned—fall outside the eligibility criteria of the National Heritage Memorial Fund acting as the distributor for the lottery.
The change that we have effected has been supported by all the Front Benches in this House, for which I am most grateful. I am also grateful to my officials for their help and to my Whip, my noble friend Lady Trumpington. I commend the Bill to your Lordships.