Lords Sitting of 4 November 1996

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

Foreign and Commonwealth Office: Overseas Posts
Viscount Waverley Viscount Waverley asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether any budgetary or other measures will be introduced during this Session of Parliament that would necessitate the Foreign and Commonwealth Office closing any overseas posts.
Lord Chesham: My Lords, we cannot anticipate the result of the Budget. The pattern of overseas diplomatic representation is kept under close review, the purpose being to sustain the global foreign policy to which this Government are committed.
Viscount Waverley: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply. Is he aware that UK domestic competition is set to increase as a result of European Union membership and that France maintains double the number of staff in its overseas missions around the world, while Germany has a third more? Will he please recognise that for the sake of our exporters and our export-driven economy it is essential that the United Kingdom maintains a strong presence overseas?
Lord Chesham: My Lords, I reiterate that we are committed to maintaining the global foreign policy needed to support British interests and to provide essential services to business and the public. I cannot pre-empt the Budget.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that his ambiguous Answer is thoroughly unsatisfactory? Is he further aware that the European Commission has already established 126 overseas posts, which it calls embassies, which are in direct competition with the embassies of the various member states? Will he make quite sure that British interests are not in any way brought into disrepute or lack credibility as a result of those wholly unauthorised establishments—made without the consent of the Council—in various parts of the world?
Lord Chesham: My Lords, I reject being called ambiguous on this matter. I have not been at all ambiguous with that statement. I cannot pre-empt the Budget. Even the noble Lord opposite would not expect me to pre-empt the Budget. For further conversation on this matter we shall have to wait until the Budget.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, will the noble Lord confirm that the British Government have been
522
economising by using facilities provided by other governments in a number of capitals, in particular, by the German Government in Alma-Ata and elsewhere? Does he feel that that gives the right image of the kind of independent British foreign policy of which the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, and others would approve?
Lord Chesham: My Lords, we have to look at this matter sensibly. Obviously, to over-duplicate services does not make any sense whatever. The noble Lord might like to look at the number of locally engaged staff within the British foreign service, of whom we have far more than any other country.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, does the Minister agree that it could be argued to the contrary: that if the French have twice as many officials on the job as we have, they must be twice as badly managed?
Lord Chesham: My Lords, that is a very tempting inference.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that, as this Government stand for value for money, the value for money given by our minute foreign service is quite remarkable? Does he further agree that it is quite irrelevant, if I may politely say so, to talk about local staff? Excellent as they are, they do not represent our country; nor can they interpret it to the countries where we are represented. The issue is the size of the foreign service itself. I recognise that commitments cannot be given ahead, but may I hope that much more recognition will be given to the fact that this is absolutely outstanding value for money?
Lord Chesham: My Lords, I totally agree. Of course we look for value for money. What we get from our staff overseas is absolutely superb and I should hate to think that any other interpretation should be put on it, certainly by ourselves.
Lord Gillmore of Thamesfield: My Lords, in the light of the services rendered by posts overseas to British exporters and investors as well as to the Government and the British traveller, services which the noble Lord commended, does he agree that post closures are likely to prove a false economy?
Lord Chesham: My Lords, I do not believe that we have been talking about any post closures. At this stage changes are neither ruled in nor ruled out in advance of the Budget. There has been no statement that there will be post closures.
Lord Whaddon: My Lords, will the noble Lord bear in mind the great difficulties encountered by people doing business with the further parts of the former Soviet Union? Many business people in those areas have to travel 1,000 miles or more to Moscow or Leningrad in order to apply for a visa as it cannot be done purely by post? Will he bear in mind the enormous business that we lose because of those difficulties? I must declare

523
an interest as I have pointed out before the difficulties that I have encountered in doing business with those areas.
Lord Chesham: My Lords, I appreciate what the noble Lord said. It may be worth noting that since 1990 we have opened or reopened 29 new posts, mainly in central and eastern Europe and the Far East. We have closed eight posts in the same period.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, bearing in mind that the Government are determined to cut public services, whether or not desirable, in order to make way for tax cuts to try to secure an electoral victory, can the Minister say what thought has been given to the possibility of more joint representation with our European Union partners? Can he also comment on whether or not the joint representations that presently exist have been successful and what savings may have emerged from them?
Lord Chesham: My Lords, I come back to the fact that we cannot pre-empt the Budget. We have been asked to do so in questions involving expenditure cuts in that area. We do not know whether expenditure will be cut and therefore I cannot answer that part of the noble Baroness's question. In relation to the second part of her question, if it is appropriate, makes sense financially and is efficacious, we shall look at joint efforts. Any continued or expanded joint effort will have to wait for the Budget.
Viscount Waverley: My Lords, is the Minister aware of the low morale that exists in the Foreign Office after years of cuts in that sector by the Conservative Government?
Lord Chesham: No, my Lords. Where I have been recently there was no indication whatever of low morale. The foreign service does a terrific job and needs all the support we can give it.
Lord Richard: My Lords, the Minister did not answer my noble friend's question. Are the Government satisfied with those joint representations which already exist and are the Government considering the possibility of having more? It is a simple question.
Lord Chesham: My Lords, I gave a simple answer. Where it is efficacious, money saving and they have worked, we are satisfied. As to further joint efforts, we shall have to wait for the Budget to see what funding is available.
Lord Richard: My Lords, I am sorry to be difficult on a Monday afternoon, but can the Minister answer the question? Are the Government satisfied with the joint representations that have already taken place?
Lord Chesham: My Lords, of course. If not, we would not have them.

Legal Aid
2.45 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter Lord Boyd-Carpenter asked Her Majesty's Government:
What was the cost to public funds of legal aid in the last year, and what is the estimated cost in the current year.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, net expenditure on legal aid in 1995–96 was £1.391 billion. The provision for the current financial year is £1.477 billion, though on present trends it would appear as though actual expenditure will be slightly higher than that.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is my noble and learned friend happy with that further increase in expenditure in this area? Is he aware that many of us feel that public expenditure of this kind ought not to be increased and ought to be controlled?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I have intimated proposals for providing machinery for controlling the total size of the legal aid budget. The details are set out in the White Paper. In the meantime, quite a lot is being done under the present system to try to control what is being paid out. For example, I am hoping to introduce a system of graduated fees for advocacy in the Crown Court at the beginning of 1997 which will cover cases lasting up to and including 10 days. It is also proposed to introduce a system of standard fees for civil legal aid work, including matrimonial cases. That will provide greater control over expenditure and incorporate early and certain payment for quick and efficient work.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor aware that such changes as have been made are welcome? However, does he recall that some months ago I raised the question of a German national, living in Italy, who sued a Japanese company through the courts of this country and received substantial legal aid to do so, to the surprise of most Members of your Lordships' House and the public outside? Can the noble and learned Lord tell us whether measures have been brought to bear, as he indicated they would, to prevent what most of us consider to be an abuse of the system? If not, it is about time they were.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I indicated before and I indicate again that I have proposals for overall control of the legal aid budget which will deal with the kind of case referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Dean, and give priority to cases within the overall money available. I believe that the specific case mentioned by the noble Lord was an infringement in this country of a United Kingdom patent. However, my general proposals will have the effect of putting priority as between cases of that kind and other cases which your Lordships may think more deserving and allocating funds accordingly.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, will my noble and learned friend comment on the pressure that

525
exists to provide legal aid in cases in tribunals of all sorts? I declare an interest as a person who sits as a member of an industrial tribunal. Can he tell me whether that will add greatly to the cost? Also, does he hold the view, as I do, that it will be damaging to the informality of the tribunal proceedings to introduce legal aid into that process?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, in the present state of controls over legal aid there is no question of extending it further to tribunals. If the legal aid budget was fully controlled, occasions might arise when it would be appropriate to fund certain types of specific cases. However, that would be within an overall priority for legal aid and with a controlled budget. There is no question whatever of that happening under the present system so far as this Government are concerned.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: My Lords, is the noble and learned Lord aware that Mr. Orchard, the Chief Executive of the Legal Aid Board, has recently written that the merits test does not represent a substantial barrier to trivial or frivolous litigation and that he has also written that increasingly the board is finding that it is not in possession of the full facts of cases in legal aid applications? Does he have any plans to deal with this?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the merits test is laid down in primary legislation. Only primary legislation can change that. I proposed in the White Paper that we should change that by primary legislation when parliamentary time is available. So far as concerns ascertaining the facts, the Legal Aid Board is learning more and more how to try to extract from applicants the relevant facts. The Legal Aid Board is not the ultimate judge of the case. It looks to see whether there is a prima facie case within the terms of the existing merits test. But the Legal Aid Board is now finding it rather less certain to rely on the advice it gets from the applicants' lawyers than once it did. This matter requires further action on the part of the Legal Aid Board, and that it is pursuing.
Lord Meston: My Lords, can the noble and learned Lord confirm that, contrary to the impression sometimes given, the vast majority of legal aid is not squandered but is properly used on deserving cases which are conscientiously assessed both as to merits and to means? Can he also indicate whether the figures he has given allow for the recovery of the costs of legal aid through costs orders, the statutory legal aid charge and from VAT?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, there is no question of recovery of VAT except under the two heads which the noble Lord mentioned. The figures I have given are figures of net expenditure. It is difficult to say where the balance lies between genuine claims and claims that are less than genuine. But my understanding of the experience of the Legal Aid Board is as I said in answer to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg. The Legal Aid Board is finding that facts are alleged to it in applications which, once the case starts,
526
often turn out to be not quite accurate. The Legal Aid Board is examining the situation carefully to see whether it can prevent this happening in the future.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, against that background, can the noble and learned Lord tell the House how many applications for legal aid have been rejected by the board over the past two years or so?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I do not have that figure with me. I am happy to write to the noble Lord with an answer to that question. I take it that he means initially refused by the Legal Aid Board, because sometimes the decisions of the Legal Aid Board are altered on appeal by area committees and sometimes following judicial review.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, I have no pecuniary interest in the matter and I am not a solicitor by any means. However, as an ordinary man in the street, perhaps I may ask the noble and learned Lord whether he is really happy with the situation. Many of us who see cases in one capacity or another are most dissatisfied with the way in which the Legal Aid Board presents itself to people. It seems most unfair in many cases.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, it goes without saying that I am not happy with the present position, which is why I have made proposals in the White Paper to change it. On the other hand, the Legal Aid Board is doing its best within the constraints of the present scheme. It is trying to improve its systems all the time. There is no complacency in this operation. I do not think the Legal Aid Board is complacent, as the quotations from the chief executive given by the noble Lord, Lord Irvine, show.

Air Traffic Services
2.55 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have any plans to privatise the National Air Traffic Services in this Parliament.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Viscount Goschen): My Lords, no. The Government intend to bring forward legislation to privatise the National Air Traffic Services early in the next Parliament.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I congratulate the Minister and his colleagues on fighting off the Treasury and on shelving this privatisation proposal twice in the past two years, bearing in mind that the proposal has met with enormous opposition from the industry, from the airlines and from the Transport Select Committee in another place. Meanwhile, can he indicate what plans the Government have for the National Air Traffic Services operation at Prestwick, which covers Scotland and the north of England?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the noble Lord is not correct in saying that the proposal has been shelved.

527
I have just said that we intend to bring forward legislation early in the next Parliament. Secondly, his analysis of the level of concern about this proposal is quite wrong. There is considerable support from the industry for releasing NATS from the constraints of the public expenditure round. Thirdly, with regard to the new Scottish centre project at Prestwick, the chairman of the Civil Aviation Authority announced in the summer that the authority was reviewing the two-centre strategy. When it has come to its conclusions, a decision will be reached about further work at Prestwick.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, if the Minister believes that deferring the proposal until the next Parliament is not shelving it indefinitely, he does not understand anything.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the noble Lord has exceeded his normal levels of optimism. I do not think he should count his chickens.

Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology (POST)
2.56 p.m.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Boston of Faversham): My Lords, I beg to move the first Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That as proposed by the Committee of Selection the following Lords be appointed to serve as members of the Board of the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology (POST)—

L. Dainton,

L. Flowers,

E. Selborne.—(The Chairman of Committees.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Broadcasting: Select Committee
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That a Select Committee on broadcasting be appointed to supervise the arrangements for, and deal with any problems or complaints out of, the televising and sound broadcasting of the proceedings of the House and its committees; and that as proposed by the Committee of Selection the following Lords be named of the Committee:

L. Chesham,

L. Gladwin of Clee,

L. Graham of Edmonton,

L. Merlyn-Rees,

B. Rawlings,

B. Seccombe,

L. Thomson of Monifieth (Chairman),

B. Wharton,

E. Winchilsea and Nottingham;

528
That the committee have power to adjourn from place to place and to report from time to time;
That two be the quorum of the committee;
That the committee have power to appoint specialist advisers.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, can my noble friend say why the list of noble Lords selected for this committee does not include my noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing, who has a knowledge of broadcasting unequalled by any Member of this House? Why has he not been included in the list?
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I seem to recall—and I have no doubt that other noble Lords will as well—the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, asking a similar question a year ago and a similar question two years ago. What I was able to tell him on those two occasions I am unable to add to today. I entirely agree with him that the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, is indeed endowed with great knowledge of broadcasting. The noble Lord will be aware that, as with other proposals before your Lordships' House for appointments to committees and other bodies, extensive consultations take place in the course of the preparation for these proposals to be put before your Lordships, through in particular—I am grateful to them—the usual channels. The names which emerged on this occasion are those of noble Lords who are eminently suitable to carry out the work which is proposed today.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, can the noble Lord enlighten us still further as to whether the name of my noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing went forward to the usual channels?
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I am unable to confirm or deny details about any names which are discussed, not least because there is such an extensive range of ability throughout your Lordships' House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Parliamentary Broadcasting Unit Limited (PARBUL)
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I beg to move the third Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That as proposed by the Committee of Selection the following Lords be named as members of the Parliamentary Broadcasting Unit Limited (PARBUL):

L. Boston of Faversham,

L. Chesham,

L. Thomson of Monifieth.—(The Chairman of Committees.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

National Heritage Bill [H.L.]
3 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of National Heritage (Lord Inglewood): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
It is just two years since the National Lottery was launched and your Lordships will be well aware of the enormous success it has already had in raising funds for good causes—a success which goes far beyond even the most optimistic commentators' expectations.
It is proof of the interest in this Bill that it has encouraged so many distinguished noble speakers and in particular I am looking forward to hearing the maiden speech of my noble friend Lord Luke.
Of that money generated by the lottery for good causes one-fifth is available for the support of heritage projects throughout the United Kingdom. The term "heritage" is of course a convenient shorthand for all the tangible survivals of our past. It covers such items as historic buildings and monuments, artistic treasures, artefacts of all kinds, and landscape of scientific or ecological importance. I should say too that the concept of "national heritage" can embrace items of local and regional significance, since it is widely recognised that the quality and diversity of such items are themselves an important feature of the national heritage as a whole.
Responsibility for distributing lottery money for the heritage rests with the trustees of the National Heritage Memorial Fund, which was established under the National Heritage Act 1980 as a successor to the National Land Fund. The National Heritage Memorial Fund's responsibilities in respect of the lottery are in addition to its original responsibilities, while its powers remain those granted it by the 1980 Act.
The National Heritage Memorial Fund has so far made over 530 lottery awards worth £328 million. I shall mention three random examples of recent awards as an indication of the range of projects involved. A grant of £95,000 has been offered for the conversion of an 18th century commercial building in Crail, Scotland, for use as a childcare centre. The sum of £975,000 has been offered for the restoration of HMS "Trincomalee", a Royal Navy sailing frigate launched in 1817 and now the second oldest ship afloat. And at the top of the scale—the largest award yet made—was announced only last Thursday; namely, that £25 million is available to secure the structure, operation and environment of the 87-mile Kennet and Avon Canal, linking the River Thames at Reading with the River Avon at Bristol, a remarkable example of canal construction and engineering.
The National Heritage Memorial Fund has also deliberately begun to develop themes for lottery awards to ensure that the money is distributed in a coherent and thought-through manner. Earlier this year it established a programme to stimulate applications for the restoration of urban parks, and last month saw the launch of a joint National Heritage Memorial Fund/English Heritage programme for church repairs, to which each side has contributed £10 million for the first year.
530
The chairman of the fund trustees, the noble Lord, Lord Rothschild, whom I am delighted to see here today, may wish to say a little more about the way in which the National Heritage Memorial Fund has approached its task. However, it is already clear that the lottery is a very valuable source of new support for the heritage.
The Government's aim in bringing forward this Bill is to widen the powers of the trustees generally, and in particular to extend the benefits of the lottery even more widely across the heritage sector. We want to see lottery money being used to enhance opportunities for everyone—and in particular young people—to have access to the heritage, to study it and to enjoy it. We want to ensure too that lottery funding can be an option for any worthwhile heritage project, with no unnecessary barriers standing in the way.
The problem which faces the trustees now is that the existing powers of the fund, as set out in the National Heritage Act 1980 to which I have already referred, effectively confine its funding remit to projects which involve the acquisition, maintenance or preservation of tangible heritage assets. Of course, the current powers are sufficient to enable the fund to support a wide range of major heritage projects and indeed, as I have indicated, it is already taking full advantage of the opportunities.
Nonetheless, the current terms of the legislation do limit the National Heritage Memorial Fund's role as a distributor of lottery funds. It cannot make funds available for access, education and youth initiatives in the heritage field. It cannot provide assistance for information technology projects or schemes for the development of heritage-related skills. It is severely limited in its ability to fund nature conservation work.
The Government want to remove these constraints. We would like to see the National Heritage Memorial Fund undertaking a role in the heritage field analogous to that which the Arts Council and Sports Council are now successfully playing within their sectors but which is at present outside its remit for the reasons I have already explained.
We want the National Heritage Memorial Fund to have the opportunity to fund, for example, special transport schemes to enable children to visit heritage sites; reduced admission charges at sites for the young and the elderly; bursaries for training young people in conservation skills; and projects to ensure the survival of rare flora and fauna. We would like the fund to be able to support a wider range of museum projects, on the lines discussed in the Government's Treasures in Trust document published in July.
We would also like the fund to be able to offer support for two categories of project which enhance understanding of the nation's history independently of its tangible remains. The first is exhibitions relating to an historical subject area. An example might be a museum exhibition on the life and work of an important figure in history or on the ecology of a particular region. The second is the creation of an archive, in any medium, relating to a significant aspect of national history.

531
This might include, for example, an oral record of the distinctive experiences of particular localities or ethnic groups, or a major archaeological survey.
That then is the first theme of the Bill: extending the National Heritage Memorial Fund's funding remit to take in a much wider range of worthwhile projects in the public interest. However, we have been looking not only at the issue of what type of project the fund can support; we have also been considering the question of who is eligible for assistance.
Under the legislation as it stands, eligibility for National Heritage Memorial Fund assistance is confined to public bodies and charitable bodies established for a specific heritage purpose. Of course, this is wide enough to take in a great many important projects. But it also places many projects beyond the reach of the fund which must, by any reasonable standards, be seen as having equivalent heritage value.
Let me mention a couple of specific examples of the problems. Many almshouses are of course run by charities. But they are not normally charities established for a heritage purpose. The National Heritage Memorial Fund has therefore had to reject a number of applications for lottery funding for the restoration of outstanding historic almshouse buildings. I believe most people would see that as something of a nonsense.
Or again, one of our most distinctive forms of historic building is the seaside pier. As noble Lords may be aware, 1996 has been designated as the Year of the Pier. Sadly, many of our seaside piers are in need of major repair work. Those which are in local authority or charitable ownership are eligible for lottery funding and a number of awards have in fact already been made. But many piers are privately owned and are therefore beyond the scope of the fund's current powers. If, for example, a resort has two piers next to each other on the seafront, one of which is owned by a charitable trust and the other is privately owned, the former is at present eligible for lottery funding while the latter is not.
Over two-thirds of our historic buildings are estimated to be in private hands. Hence a substantial part of our built heritage is outside the National Heritage Memorial Fund's existing terms of reference and therefore ineligible for lottery assistance. Nor is it simply a matter of individual historic buildings. There is considerable scope for the allocation of lottery funds for heritage projects of a more strategic kind; for instance, historic townscape schemes as an element of urban regeneration or integrated conservation projects in the countryside. Yet as things stand the National Heritage Memorial Fund is often unable to help because much of the property affected is in private ownership.
The National Heritage Memorial Fund itself, English Heritage and other leading heritage bodies, all take the view that it makes no sense to limit the impact of the lottery in this way. So did the National Heritage Select Committee in another place when it issued its report on the National Lottery earlier this year.
532
The Government fully agree. The availability of lottery funding ought not to depend on who happens to own the property concerned. It should be determined on the basis of the actual project for which funding is sought. The key considerations are: is it a project of importance for the national heritage? Will it produce a clear benefit for the public as a whole?
So that is the second theme of the Bill: the removal of the current restrictions on eligibility for lottery support in favour of a new approach which looks at the nature of the project rather than the identity of the applicant.
I am aware that the proposed new approach to eligibility has prompted two specific concerns. The first is that it is the Government's purpose simply to enable lottery grants to be made to owners of historic houses. For the avoidance of any possible misunderstanding, I should make it clear that my own family home, Hutton-in-the-Forest, near Penrith in Cumbria, which I own and where I drafted much of this speech, is a Grade I listed building open to the public.
I hope it is clear from what I have already said that the privately owned heritage includes a great deal more than historic houses. Indeed, it goes wider than historic buildings generally. The new rules on eligibility will also apply of course to, for example, museums, land and artefacts owned by private individuals. Furthermore, it should be emphasised that eligibility to receive money is not of course the same as receiving it. Eligibility is merely an entitlement to have one's case considered on its merits. It is a matter for the trustees of the National Heritage Memorial Fund how the funds for which they are responsible are disbursed.
Moreover, there is nothing new about giving assistance from public funds to privately owned heritage property. It is a long-established element in the array of policies which we have in Britain to preserve our historic buildings and landscapes, and which command all-party support.
For many years, English Heritage and its sister agencies have been running grant schemes for historic buildings of outstanding quality, irrespective of ownership, to which tight conditions are attached and enforced, including if appropriate clawing back money already given. What is important is that the National Heritage Memorial Fund should continue to work closely with English Heritage and other heritage bodies across the whole of the United Kingdom to ensure that money is applied where it is most needed. I am pleased to be able to tell your Lordships that the National Heritage Memorial Fund has begun constructive discussions with the 21 relevant statutory bodies on future funding priorities in the light of the new powers contained in this Bill, after which it will be consulting more widely.
A separate concern is that the Government's intention is to allow lottery money to substitute for English Heritage funding and thus through a sleight of hand renege on their original undertaking that lottery funds would be additional to existing government expenditure programmes. I am glad to have this opportunity to

533
clarify the position. Money raised by the lottery does not replace existing grant funding. It is separate from it. As the Prime Minister said:
"We will make no case-by-case reductions on conventional public spending programmes to take account of awards from the Lottery. The money will not replace public expenditure".
Nor does this prevent lottery money from complementing other funding. Within the built heritage sector, it is entirely right that projects which are beyond the scope of English Heritage's grant programmes—in terms of either eligibility or affordability—should be able to be considered for lottery funding. What matters is that there should be co-ordination and agreed strategies on the role of lottery funding in relation to other heritage programmes. As I have said, discussions are now taking place to that end.
I would now like to turn to the detailed provisions of the Bill. The main substance is in the first clause. This redefines the funding powers of the National Heritage Memorial Fund trustees as set out in Section 3 of the 1980 Act. The new provision involves three principal changes. First, it extends the fund's funding remit to encompass more than just the acquisition, maintenance or preservation of land, buildings or objects of importance to the national heritage. The fund will now also be able to fund projects to secure access to the heritage; to encourage study, understanding and enjoyment of the heritage; to develop skills relating to the heritage; and to fulfil ancillary purposes. The extended powers cover the natural as well as the cultural heritage, so that the fund will be able to support, for instance, work to preserve rare species of wildlife.
Secondly, the existing exclusive list of recipients eligible for National Heritage Memorial Fund funding disappears. Instead the fund will be able to fund any project which is of importance to the national heritage and is of public benefit. Whether a particular project satisfies these requirements is of course essentially a matter for the trustees themselves, but as regards public benefit, access to the public will obviously be a key consideration. Indeed, there will continue to be a specific requirement on the fund to have regard to the desirability of public access or display in relation to any project being considered for funding.
Thirdly, there is a new power for the National Heritage Memorial Fund to fund public exhibition and archive projects relating to an important aspect of the United Kingdom's history, natural history or landscape and which the trustees consider are of public benefit.
As I have indicated, we are proposing these changes mainly with the fund's role as a lottery distributor in mind. But the changes will also apply to the original National Heritage Memorial Fund, which, as your Lordships know, serves as a fund of last resort for the support of heritage projects in memory of those who have given their lives for the United Kingdom.
I will make only the briefest mention of Clause 2. This repeals existing provisions which require the fund to obtain departmental and Treasury approval to the payment of allowances to trustees and to certain staffing matters. This is a simple housekeeping measure and in line with our general policy of relaxing such controls
534
over public bodies. To the extent that controls continue to be needed, they can be exercised by way of the fund's financial memorandum.
This is only a short Bill, but I believe that all those who care about our nation's history and its future will recognise it as a measure of very considerable significance. It will extend the impact of the National Lottery more widely across the whole heritage sector. It will bring a great deal more of the heritage within reach of lottery funding; and it will open up a whole host of new opportunities for people to discover it for themselves, to study and explore it in depth and to treasure it as one of our greatest national assets, and one of the pleasures of life. I commend the Bill to your Lordships.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Inglewood.)
3.16 p.m.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing the Bill so clearly. I was particularly struck by the reference to seaside piers in need of repair. I should like to ask the Minister about the backwoods hereditary Peers of this House, many of whom are beyond repair and, sadly, perhaps facing demolition.
This is an intriguing Bill. Twelve days ago there was not a whisper of it in the Queen's Speech, yet here it is—small, but seemingly perfectly formed. On studying it, I can now understand why. The Bill, although modest, is very worthy in intention and makes positive, helpful contributions about the national heritage. It is not partisan, scores no party points and does not have many votes in it. As such, it was clearly disqualified from inclusion in the mish-mash of sloganising that we suffered last week.
I should like to take this opportunity to say how very much we are looking forward to the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Luke.
I should make it clear at the beginning that we on this side broadly support the Bill because it helpfully gives the heritage lottery distributors more flexibility to distribute grants to a wider range of eligible beneficiaries, putting them, as the Minister said, on a similar basis to the arts and sports distributors. Under the Bill, the heritage lottery distributors will be able to support a wider range of heritage buildings, townscapes and landscapes, including the piers and theatres, and access to that heritage. The Bill will encourage study and understanding and the creation of heritage archives and intellectual property, including the science heritage, and nature conservation, including animals and plants. It helps to embrace the whole heritage mosaic of ownership, public and private, of access and preservation, and especially the improvement of our intangible, as well as tangible, heritage.
The original 1980 National Heritage Act is clearly out of date. The modifications in the 1993 National Lottery etc. Act were inadequate and too restrictive—and we are all responsible for that. The question of eligibility of candidates caused dissatisfaction, with private individuals and commercial companies being excluded. The definition of "eligible projects" was also

535
unsatisfactory, excluding, for example, car parks, oral histories, new cataloguing, information technology databases and so forth. It also left the trustees' administrators subject to excessive Whitehall control. That seems to be well addressed in Clause 2. I understand that those at the pit face are happier with that. The re-modelling of the purposes and powers of Section 3 of the Act in Clause 1 is much more positive, creative and flexible. I particularly like the use of the word "enjoyment", which is so often alien to our legislators, the coverage of "things of any kind" in line 9 and the defined purpose of encouraging the study, understanding, compilation and dissemination of information. Taken with the opening reference to,
"scenic, historic, archaeological, aesthetic, architectural, artistic or scientific interest, including animals and plants",
I feel that some progress may have been made towards a desirably broad definition of our national heritage.
The whole of new Section 3A is very useful. It covers archives and includes living oral histories and exhibitions of heritage. But in the context of study and understanding of our national heritage, I ask the Minister to confirm that such great heritage projects as the Victoria county histories, which are close to my historian's heart, are clearly covered by the Bill. Speaking subject to correction, I believe that they were launched with funds from the 1851 exhibition. They have come to a virtual halt, and it would be appropriate to re-finance them now. They have made great contributions to our knowledge of local heritage.
The proposed assistance to private historic houses has aroused particular interest, even on this side of the House. It may be questioned by some who fear that toffs on wealthy estates will get away with more public subsidy, adding to the welfare state and the common agricultural policy. However, it was supported by the report of the Select Committee in another place. I shall explain why we on this side support the principle, providing strict conditions and criteria are adhered to. I gave my personal support to helping private historic houses in this House at Question Time some years ago—perhaps New Labour, old houses. One cannot understand how logically or fairly one can preserve the built heritage while defining out private historic houses which constitute two-thirds of the built house heritage and receive 11 million of the 15 million visitors to historic houses per year. Surely, it is cheaper and more efficient to have them maintained in private hands with the help of lottery funds than for them to fall into disrepair or wholly into the lap of the state and the National Trust.
The fact is that it is better to have heritage houses lived in. They are more alive and less like museums—one thinks of the noble Minister's house, which is very alive—and visitors prefer that. My right honourable friend in another place the shadow Secretary of State for National Heritage, Mr. Cunningham, also has a long record of support for this initiative. He personally intervened to help rescue Munster Castle in the north east. He has asked for confirmation from the Minister
536
that St. James's Park, the sacred home of the blessed Newcastle United Football Club, would also qualify for grant as top of the league of British footballing heritage.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, not for long!
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I reassure noble Lords and noble friends that it is not meant to be unique to Newcastle. Northampton Town springs to mind, although I accept that with reference to Arsenal and Millwall noble Lords may have serious doubts about the heritage contribution.
Having stated our most generous support for this principle, we on this side insist that the criteria and conditions of grant must be rigorously applied. The key condition must be wide access for the general public, together with benefit to the local community. One must also have firm clawback provisions to prevent owners from making development profits from grants. The access conditions must be strictly enforced. Public access must be genuine and frequent, with none of the fiddles occasionally observed in the past whereby access has been at the owner's convenience but it rarely seems to be convenient to the owner. Grants must have strict prior conditions with regular subsequent monitoring. The rule must be: no genuine access, no grant.
Means-testing should also be rigorous. After all, it would be outrageous and unacceptable for a government which introduced stringent tests for the poor who applied for social security benefits to operate loose means tests for those with rich assets. I ask the Minister whether he can say more about the administrative arrangements for grants. Clearly, we need a sensitive balance. We want grants and conditions to be rigorously selected and monitored but do not want to create a bureaucratic monster, nor give free range to the politically correct petty napoleons or the nannies and ninnies, sometimes sadly found for example among environmental health officers and (speaking from personal experience) even some of the harridans occasionally found in English Heritage. Perhaps the Minister can explain further the administrative arrangements. It is probably best to use the expertise and long involvement of English Heritage in conjunction with the team of the noble Lord, Lord Rothschild, which has done an excellent job in the past two years. As to that, I look forward to more details in the schedule.
To look more widely than the strict legislative text now before us, there is concern about the financial plight of certain relevant parts of our heritage. This Bill does not give more resources to the heritage sector. It simply and properly encourages more applicants to apply for existing funds. The heritage lottery fund is already five times over-subscribed by existing applicants under the previous narrower eligibility. Even more worrying—and, I believe, damning of this Government—is the way that the introduction of lottery cash has been used by the Treasury as an excuse to cut direct grants to heritage. This is in total breach of the firm promises given by Ministers in this House at the time that the National Lottery Bill 1993 was being debated; and it is in breach of the personal commitment given by the Prime Minister at the time that lottery funds would be additional.

537
The pledges on additionality have become a sick joke. That was and is deplorable, and all in the heritage world watch the coming Budget with trepidation. I believe that the direct grant to the National Heritage Memorial Fund has been savagely cut in recent years, proportionally by more than any other sector, and grants to historic houses have been reduced.
Most alarming is the plight of our museums, especially the British Museum. While the lottery may help with one hand, the Treasury takes it away with the other and slashes annual revenue grants. What is the point, my Lords, of providing new galleries and exhibitions if there is no one to staff and protect them?
Along with other suffering museums and galleries, the British Museum—our top tourist and visitor attraction—has had its grant cut in real value year after year. Compared to 1991–92, the real value of its proposed grant for next year has been slashed by £6 million (roughly 15 per cent.). That is at a time when the emergence of the new British Library means that the British Museum suddenly has 40 per cent. more space to manage, and £3 million less in its share of the provision for library maintenance and security. That extra space should be seen as a magnificent opportunity for Britain's and the world's most distinguished museum to develop new services. Instead, it adds to the financial crisis which the Government have imposed.
It will be a scandal if the Government force the museum to introduce entrance fees, cutting out millions of visitors at a time when lottery cash is flowing fast, but is excluded from its revenues which the Government cut.
I shall not delay the House further since I suspect the Minister may have a train to catch and the rest of us must eat. I have tried to convey our support for this excellent Bill while at the same time deploring the Government's savage cuts in direct funding to the heritage. I look forward to hearing whether there are any words of comfort in the winding up speech of the noble Baroness.
3.32 p.m.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, I, too, join in welcoming and looking forward to hearing the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Luke. I have no objection, in principle, to the effects of the Bill. How could I, when two-thirds of what can broadly be considered as the national heritage is in private hands? But I hope to highlight some practical issues, and to draw the Minister's attention to an urgent national heritage issue in Argyll.
First, I need to declare the interest, in that I am vice chairman of a building preservation trust in Clackmannanshire, which is a current applicant for heritage lottery funds for a List A, schedule 1 ancient monument.
My first issue is contained in Clause 1 relating to new Section 3(2) of the 1980 Act, which provides that the trustees may:
"give financial assistance for any project which appears to them to be of public benefit".
538
When I compare that to the wording of the 1980 Act:
"is of importance to the national heritage"—
I am left to wonder: is that too loose and too imprecise? Does it not represent a dilution of the criteria? We are, after all, considering how publicly subscribed funds are to be distributed.
My second issue surrounds the meaning to be derived from new Clause 3(7) which provides:
"the Trustees shall bear in mind the desirability of public access to, or the public display of, the thing in question and of its enjoyment by the public".
That contrasts with the tougher and more focused wording of the 1980 Act:
"the Trustees shall have regard to the desirability of securing, improving or controlling public access to, or the public display of, the property".
The new clause seems to downgrade the fundamental importance of public access. It could seem to allow the trustees to consider a proposal by which the public would be excluded. In the context of grant aid to private individuals, I should have thought that a more rigorous and prescriptive approach would have been more appropriate. Is it good enough to say that, because private individuals own two-thirds of the national heritage, they should be grant aided without substantial benefit accruing to the general public (the subscriber)?
My third issue arises from Clause 2(b) and is a genuine question. Contained within the trustees' expanded power to appoint staff, is there any commitment to open an office in Scotland, or is this an expansion of a centralised service?
At present there is an overload of worthy cases. Why are we being asked to widen the applicant base? The current backlog has the undesirable effect of causing other agencies in funding partnerships to underspend, and so suffer clawback to the disadvantage of the national heritage. We already have a huge number of applicants under the current rules. Is it wise to open the floodgates at this time, especially when the assessment and approval process seems to be taking seven months to two years? I hope that there will be a substantial delay in the implementation of this provision. Perhaps the Minister will consider delay until the Millennium Fund has expired. At that time the residue of the Millennium Fund could be transferred to national heritage funds.
Finally, I wish to draw the Minister's attention to the former railway bridge over the narrows of Loch Creran at Dallachoilish. I do not expect an answer to this today. The Creagan Bridge is owned by the Secretary of State for Scotland and is in urgent need of listing by Historic Scotland. This structure was designed by Sir John Wolfe-Barry, the designer of Tower Bridge and son of Sir Charles Barry, assisted by H. M. Brunel (son of Isambard Kingdom Brunel) and E. M. Crutwell.
This twin lattice girder bridge was designed carefully to ensure that its visual impact did not interfere with its dramatic setting, as it stands in an area of outstanding natural beauty. The handsome, single arch approach spans and the central pier were built of rock-faced granite ashlar, and finished in a romantic Scottish baronial castle style, with crenellated parapets all of which blend with Loch Creran and the surrounding

539
rugged landscape. The threat to that structure comes from a proposal to build another bridge on its site. It is vital that the proposal be converted to a sympathetic adaptation of the existing bridge.
To conclude, I hope that the Minister can help me over my earlier concerns.
3.38 p.m.
Lord Charteris of Amisfield: My Lords, I presume to take part in the debate because I had the honour and the great pleasure of being the first chairman of the National Heritage Memorial Fund—a job which I inherited on April Fool's Day 1980 and gave up in 1992. I shall not keep your Lordships long as I have only two things to say, neither of which has much to do with the Bill but which concern the heritage more generally.
I am entirely in favour of the Bill, which has my full support. It would not have done, mind you, when I was chairman of the National Heritage Memorial Fund because we should not have had nearly enough money to satisfy the enormous demands which will arise as a result of private individuals being able to obtain money from it. I see that my noble friend and one-time colleague Lord Morris of Castle Morris, who was a trustee with me, is nodding his head. Thank you, sir.
I want to talk about two things. First I wish to talk about my successor, the noble Lord, Lord Rothschild, who is sitting in front of me. I look forward to hearing him speak later in the debate. Furthermore, I am pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Luke, has decided to make his maiden speech on this subject.
For 12 years we in the National Heritage Memorial Fund got money out of the Government as and when we could. Towards the end we were receiving £12 million a year and working with a staff of seven. With my noble friend Lord Rothschild came a shower of money in the shape of the lottery funds and with that came a great increase in the number of demands made upon him. As a result, the fund has had to expand considerably. Such expansion is not easy but I am sure that it has been satisfactorily carried out. I spent last weekend as a dilapidated Peer suffering from a sharp bout of flu, reading with great interest the 1995–96 report of the fund. It is clear that my successors have the fund under control and I wish them good luck for the future.
My second point relates to the memorial element of the National Heritage Memorial Fund. That fund did not start on April Fools' Day 1980 but in 1946, when the socialist government then in power established the National Land Fund with £50 million, which was then a great deal of money. That money was the product of the sale of surplus equipment. The fund was established as a war memorial and it undertook some good work.
However, 10 years later, in 1950, the fund was raped and plundered. I hate to remind the Government that it was a Conservative government who did that. The original £50 million was clawed back, which, in my opinion, was a whale of a way to treat a memorial fund! However, it survived and was left with £10 million. When it came into our hands in 1980 there was
540
£12.5 million left. According to the current rate there should have been £647 million, but that had been clawed back.
I am absolutely certain that Her Majesty's Government would never consider such rape and plunder again. However, it is possible to kill the memorial element of the fund simply by allowing it to die through lack of money. As I have said, when I retired, the fund was receiving £12 million a year. Between 1993 and 1909 that figure was £8.8 million a year and next year it will be £7.5 million. Where is it going? Every year the figure is reduced, whereas it should be increased. I am sure that the Government are well intentioned in respect of this matter but I am extremely suspicious of the Treasury, which does not like us, never did like us and would like to kill us off.
I do not know how much a memorial element matters. It probably does not matter very much to a generation which did not experience the war, but to me and my generation, and to those a little younger, it matters very much indeed. I hope that Her Majesty's Government will not forget that point.
3.44 p.m.
Lord Luke: My Lords, I am fully conscious of the privilege I enjoy today as a maiden speaker in immediately following such distinguished speakers. I thank noble Lords for their good wishes.
The Bill that we are considering today widens the criteria by which money becoming available from the National Lottery can be distributed. I am particularly pleased to learn that some of it may be made available to help and encourage children to visit museums. I hope that they will include not only museums such as the Natural History Museum in London, which already does a great deal for children, but also those devoted strictly to arts and antiques, such as the small but excellent Cecil Higgins Museum in Bedford. I remember a spectacularly successful exhibition there, when superb collections of porcelain, glass and watercolours were brought alive for the children of the surrounding area by clever presentation, close co-operation with local schools and, importantly, enthusiasm. In my opinion, any lottery money spent to promote such events will be worthwhile.
As a dealer in watercolours—I restore and frame them—I suppose that in that context I can be said to be contributing in a minuscule way to the national heritage of the future. I am an historian by inclination and find that I am frequently trying to relate current events to historic parallels. For instance, the other day as I was walking across the path from St. James's Palace to Westminster I could not help reflecting on someone who walked the same path several days running some 350 years ago. He was a small man but extremely dignified, stubborn to a degree but immensely brave. A few days later, as we all know, he again walked from St. James's Palace to Whitehall to the Banqueting House and to his death. I do not believe that it is always realised that your Lordships' House had nothing whatever to do with that foul deed; it had been abolished three weeks previously.

541
However, that act, by the very reason of its enormity and the profound effect it had on everyone, was the single most important factor in ensuring that in subsequent years reform and change took place relatively peacefully and our highly successful constitutional monarchy took shape. Hence, there were no bloody revolutions such as those which occurred in virtually the whole of the rest of Europe; no sacking of our cities; and no destruction of our heritage, except of course during the Second World War.
We now have a government department to look after the treasures all around us. Here we are on an island between marshes and the river and on a site which has been a palace for 1,000 years. How can we not be influenced by our surroundings and a profound sense of living history.
The national heritage is being created all the time. As an example I wish to draw your Lordships' attention to a splendid, recently published photograph composed of 12 of the most attractive ladies in public life, portrayed as the Muses of ancient legend; and how nice to see that the most attractive of those is the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, who is not in the Chamber at the moment. I am sure that that photograph will become part of our heritage.
My father once told me that if and when I arrive in this House, I should concern myself with and speak only about matters of which I have at least some knowledge. I know that he kept to that rule during the 53 years that he served in your Lordships' House. I hope to do the same, for the next 53 years of course. I thank your Lordships for your indulgence in listening to me today.
3.50 p.m.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, it is a great honour and pleasure on behalf of the whole House to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Luke, on his excellent and knowledgeable maiden speech. Earlier this year the noble Lord succeeded his father, whom he mentioned, who was a much respected Member of this House for many years. After Eton and Cambridge, the noble Lord entered the family company—Bovril—where he worked until it was taken over, I understand by Sir James Goldsmith, in 1971. I understand that he is now a picture dealer, specialising in water colours. The noble Lord did not say that they are mainly 18th and 19th century water colours which are surely the best and belong to our greatest period in that field—one which is extremely relevant and germane to the subject of today's debate.
The noble Lord has a long record of public service, having been High Sheriff of Bedfordshire in 1969–70 and a Conservative member of Bedfordshire County Council for five years. His services to charity have included being a commissioner and then commander of St. John Ambulance in Bedfordshire. He is also a keen churchman and an active liveryman. The noble Lord has made a notable maiden speech and I hope that we shall hear from him on many other occasions.
I am sure that we are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, for explaining with such clarity the purposes and details of the Bill. As my noble friend Lord Donoghue said, it is not often that we on this side of the
542
House are able to welcome a Bill so wholeheartedly from the present Government. Perhaps we should have general elections more often if the run-up to them results in more acceptable Bills.
This Bill is necessary to give the trustees of the National Heritage Memorial Fund more scope to aid a host of projects which hitherto they have been unable to do, as the noble Lord explained. That should enable them to give financial support to our country houses, and in particular their gardens and splendid parks, both those in the National Trust and those which are privately owned and opened to the public.
Many of our finest houses have been lost since the war, but most people today would agree that what remains should be preserved for future generations. That is now accepted by all the main political parties. Indeed, as the noble Lord, Lord Charteris, said, the 1945 Labour Government did much to initiate help and support for that sector. As the noble Lord said, Hugh Dalton, when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer, resurrected a provision in Lloyd George's 1909 Finance Bill which permitted the handing over of land to the community in payment of death duties, as they were then called. Dalton set aside £50 million secured from the sale of war stores for a special National Land Fund to reimburse the Inland Revenue for land offered by executors. As the noble Lord said, that was envisaged as a memorial to those killed in the two world wars. Many houses and lands have passed to the National Trust as a consequence of Dalton's measure.
The noble Lord did not mention something else which the 1945 government did. That was the appointment by Sir Stafford Cripps in 1948, when he was Chancellor, of the Gowers Committee. That was a committee set up to look at houses of outstanding historic or architectural interest under the distinguished chairmanship of Sir Ernest Gowers. The committee reported in 1950.
Gowers recommended inter alia that designated houses with their parks should be preserved as private residences occupied preferably by the families connected with them, provided—and this was important—that the buildings were open to the public. He recommended that there should be tax relief for repairs and maintenance, and relief from inheritance tax for contents of national importance provided that those remain in the house and are not sold.
Those measures taken by the Attlee Government, which also saved the Regent's Park terraces when the Crown Estates wanted to demolish them, did a great deal to save the situation.
Sadly, though, there is another side to the picture, as the Treasury, as usual, kept a tight fist on the National Land Fund for many decades and the fund was raided from time to time by Chancellors, mostly Tory Chancellors, for quite other purposes. However, in 1980 the present Government agreed that the fund should be used for the purpose for which it had originally been created, and it became the National Heritage Memorial Fund. The Government deserve every congratulation on that decision. Since 1980 the NHMF has spent £166 million and I understand that it has rescued 15 great houses, secured thousands of acres of important landscape and saved hundreds of works of art.

543
Since 1994 the National Lottery has contributed important additional financial support and the whole picture is now much more encouraging. When the heritage lottery fund was first set up, the Government gave a definite undertaking, as my noble friend said, that lottery funding would be additional to government funding and that the core funding would not be reduced. I am afraid that that has not been the case: the Arts Council grant has been cut by a cumulative £18 million since 1993; the NHMF itself has suffered further Treasury raids; the level of funding in 1993–94 was £12 million; by 1995–96, that had been cut by one-third to £8.8 million; and next year a further cut is expected of around 6.5 per cent. to £7.5 million, which is a very big drop.
This year is the 50th anniversary of the land fund. I ask the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, whether the Government will mark that anniversary by restoring the grant to at least its original level. English Heritage can make grants for capital repairs such as roof repairs to historic houses. Those grants have been cut by the Government, a Government who call themselves Conservative. I assume that the intention is to replace those grants by lottery funding. I ask the Government to confirm that those Section 3 grants can continue, irrespective of lottery funding. It is expected that the NHMF will take on projects now financed by English Heritage. The Historic Houses Association wants grants for once-in-a-lifetime repairs. Will that be allowed, provided of course that the house is open to the public?
I gather that the Historic Houses Association has no objection to a means test as that would be essential to establish the present financial position of the owner but also as a guide and safeguard for the future.
Perhaps I may also ask the Government whether grants can be made for parks, as well as for the house, of special interest and importance, such as those designed, for example, by Capability Brown and, indeed, for special gardens of exceptional beauty. At present, the English Heritage grants for parks are limited. There is also the question of partnership funding. Initially the Government required that all heritage lottery funding should be matched by the applicant. Sometimes the contribution had to be as high as 50 per cent.
Charitable contributions are becoming increasingly difficult and this has meant that some grants could not be taken up. I welcome the recent more flexible attitude towards partnership funding. I hope that that continues. Applications for more than £100,000 would now require about 25 per cent. partnership funding, while, for those below, the threshold is 10 per cent. I think that that is much more attainable. It should also make it easier all round.
It is official policy, I believe, that lottery funding spent on the arts should be used for the widest public benefit. Our historic houses are visited by 11 million people a year, and they are an important contribution to tourism. Many of these remain in private ownership, which, to many visitors, is an additional attraction, as Gowers pointed out over 45 years ago. The time has
544
come, therefore, when help to preserve this unique part of our national heritage needs to be wider and more flexible. The Bill goes a long way to meet these current difficulties and, in general, I welcome it.
4.1 p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, mentioned the important question of the financial position of historic houses towards the end of his speech. In a few moments I shall be referring to what the present chairman of the Historic Houses Association, Mr. William Proby, whose grandfather presided over the committee which chose me as a candidate in 1945, has just written to me and asked me to mention. However, before I go any further, I should also point out that Sir Richard Proby was also the grandfather of my noble friend Lord Inglewood!
We are in a very strange and unusual position in this debate because, however much we approve of a Bill, normally we ask the Government what they are going to do to implement it. We have a pretty clear idea of that but, in fact, a great deal of the responsibility for implementing the Bill will fall upon the National Heritage Memorial Fund. Today we have the great advantage of having with us the noble Lord, Lord Rothschild. He is to speak immediately after me and, for that reason, no doubt noble Lords will wish me to keep my remarks fairly short.
However, I should like to echo the tribute paid by the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, to my noble friend Lord Luke. I was the Member for Huntingdonshire, which adjoins Bedfordshire, for many years. Therefore, I was conscious of the wonderful work that the father of my noble friend Lord Luke and his family have done in Bedfordshire. Indeed, its effects often crossed the border into Huntingdonshire. My noble friend referred to the long period of service that his father gave in your Lordships' House, but I should remind noble Lords that the late Lord Luke lived to be 90 years of age. I only hope that the present Lord Luke, my noble friend, will do the same so that we may hear his interventions as often as possible, though not necessarily confined in the way he suggested.
Perhaps I may deal quickly with the question of the Historic Houses Association. My noble friend Lord Inglewood said that the lottery would not replace public expenditure. That was good news because it conflicts with several of the comments which have already been made about public expenditure being reduced where National Lottery aid has been granted. I hope that in future we shall have the advantage of continuing public help where it is really needed, as well as the advantage of lottery funds.
As regards the Historic Houses Association, government cuts have greatly reduced the grant aid for historic houses in recent years. As the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, said, that could mean interference with public enjoyment. As the noble Lord pointed out, 11 million visitors a year visit historic houses. Such houses are most costly to maintain and to run. However, the public are only charged rather moderate fees for visiting them. Therefore, it is most important that the Government should keep an eye on their position.

545
Mr. William Proby has asked me to say that the Historic Houses Association welcomes the proposed changes to the National Heritage Act and the advantage to be gained from the heritage lottery funding being placed on the same basis as other lottery distribution as, for example, is being made for sports and arts. It will not only help historic houses but it will also help their environment. It will help to improve landscapes, and other things like theatres and seaside piers. Nevertheless, there is an anxiety in the Historic Houses Association (which is a very vigorous body that had a most successful conference in London only last week) about the increasing cost of funding such houses and, indeed, as regards receiving adequate support in that way both from the Government and the lottery.
I turn now to a separate matter—principally archives. I have in mind the new Clause 3A(2) to the National Heritage Act 1980 which, under the heading "Financial assistance towards exhibitions and archives" on page 2 of the Bill, refers to the projects for which,
"assistance is to be given to—

(a) set up and maintain a public exhibition, or

(b) compile and maintain an archive".

We should try to understand our long history, to which—and I hesitate to say this because it is not a word that one is allowed to use much—various races, invaders mostly, have contributed, as well as the people we like to think were the original inhabitants of our country. With the help of those people who have metal detectors, much of that history has been discovered over recent years and, alas, dispersed. Some of those discoveries have gone to museums, but not enough.
So far as concerns England and Wales—and this does not apply to Scotland or Northern Ireland—;I should like to think that the inadequate ancient law of treasure trove will soon be brought to an end and made more sensible by the bringing into force of the Treasure Act, introduced earlier this year by the noble Earl, Lord Perth, with the help of my noble friend Lady Trumpington and, indeed, a number of us on both sides of both Houses of Parliament. Perhaps my noble friend will be able to tell us when that will happen.
I remind your Lordships that the ancient law in England and Wales meant that the only things that were protected were gold, silver and precious jewellery, and nothing much else. However, they were not protected, and did not become a matter of public concern, unless a coroner's inquest had reached a decision that the original owner—perhaps several thousand years ago—had deliberately buried the treasure with the intention of recovery. Of course in the nature of things the original owner was never known, so a coroner's inquest had an almost impossible task. That will remain the law until the Government bring the Treasure Act into force. When that Act comes into force, a much wider range of archaeological objects and historic artefacts will be protected, will have to be reported and will therefore find their way into our museums.
As I said earlier, if we wish our ancient history to become better known we need to have what have become known as portable antiquities properly recorded. A few months ago the Government published a most
546
interesting discussion document entitled Portable Antiquities and they allowed until late June to enable people to express their views on it. I very much hope that the powers contained in that part of the Bill to which I have just referred relating to archives will be used for recording those artefacts in the years to come.
I should mention that Dr. Roger Bland, who is in charge of the coins and medals department at the British Museum, has expressed his great concern on this matter. Now that the views of the public on the proposals for recording these antiquities have been obtained by the Department of National Heritage, we would like to know what the Government think should be done about it. In the hope that it will be accepted as part of the law and of the responsibilities of the National Heritage Memorial Fund, I ask the noble Lord, Lord Rothschild—although I cannot expect an answer from him today as that would not be fair—to take on board the importance and the desirability (if the Government agree) of using the power contained in the Bill to record these things because that would add greatly to our knowledge of history. This is such a fascinating subject and one could go on. However, I merely say that the past and the future are often more interesting than the present. This Bill will enable us to enjoy the past much more, and we welcome it.
4.14 p.m.
Lord Rothschild: My Lords, I want to start today by putting on record my hope—shared, I should say, by all my fellow trustees at the National Heritage Memorial Fund—that this Bill gains all party support both here and in another place.
As the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, has so clearly said in introducing the Bill, the need for it arises from our experience in the past year as distributors of lottery money under the 1980 Act. Let me remind your Lordships that the 1980 Act was devised for quite different circumstances to today's. It served, and continues to serve, the "last resort" fund well—that is, the National Heritage Memorial Fund, which my predecessor, the noble Lord, Lord Charteris, guided and led with such brilliance and élan. Some changes were made to the 1980 Act by the 1993 lottery Act, but experience has shown us that these did not go far enough. The noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, has already given your Lordships some examples of that: for example, almshouses and information technology for access to museums. Under the words of the existing Act—they are restrictive—we can only give our resources to "acquire, preserve or maintain" museum collections. Your Lordships will see that we cannot grant aid, for example, information technology databases to interpret those collections for the public to enjoy.
The noble Lord, Lord Luke, in his elegant and thoughtful maiden speech, gave this House some other excellent examples. I hope I may tell him that we have helped the Cecil Higgins Museum quite recently. In these areas we have from time to time been forced to turn down worthy projects in heritage terms because of the unforeseen consequences of the 1980 Act. The lottery largesse is far greater than any of us ever

547
expected; but so too has been demand. We are currently receiving some £280 million a year; but we are already over five times over subscribed, as the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, drew to our attention. More than ever it will be important for us to establish and to stick to clear priorities. We intend through a process of discussion and consultation to be in a position to announce new funding guidelines by the autumn of next year.
Once the Act is in force, the lottery fund will be able to consider applications on their merits, unconstrained by ownership. That means that where a good project in heritage terms provides substantial public benefit but depends on the participation of private owners, they will in future be eligible for funding. But let me stress that we want to use our money for the widest possible public benefit.
National parks, historic towns and conservation area partnerships will surely be priorities. As regards repairs for individual houses, let me remind the House that English Heritage has a good scheme with means testing for the Grade I and Grade II star listed buildings. The Grade II listed buildings—which will be additional to what English Heritage already covers—may not be such high priorities. We do not want to duplicate the work that English Heritage has done so well for many years. But that does not mean that we cannot help in certain cases to keep heritage entities intact. For example, in the past owners have been forced to sell some important part of their collections to stop the holes in the roof, as it were, of an important historic house. If we are able to intervene, the heritage receives a double dividend. That is something we should surely seek to encourage. Let me say again, however, that our support should surely always depend on clear and additional public benefit, usually in the form of real increased public access.
Let me remind the House that the heritage lottery fund's first full year was only last year and the impact has already been dramatic. In this morning's Financial Times the distinguished commentator, Mr. Colin Amery, began his weekly article by saying,
"In many countries government spending on the arts is under harsh review. But in the UK the extraordinary success of the National Lottery is helping cultural life in ways that would once have seemed impossible."
He ended by saying:
"The lottery funds are the best source of money to democratise the heritage business".
With the extended canvas provided by this Bill we will be able to spread the benefits across an even wider range of projects and to make a memorable and lasting impact as a result. We therefore very much welcome the Bill.
4.20 p.m.
Lord Hindlip: My Lords, I must declare an interest in this Bill. Many of the clients that my firm advises will become, if the Bill is passed into law, clients of the national heritage lottery fund trustees.
I should like to congratulate my noble friend the Minister on his clear speech and on the clarity of the aims of the Bill. In so doing, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Luke, on his excellent maiden speech.
548
I can assure the Minister that my colleagues in Christie's and I will urge those clients we advise to take advantage of this legislation where possible before going to auction, successful though results in the market have been recently.
But while supporting the aims of the Bill, I should like to ask my noble friend Lady Trumpington for further assurances on the points referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, my noble friend Lord Charteris and others: that this funding will be additional to and not instead of government grants. I have been connected with the heritage world now for nearly 35 years and I think that I can be excused for a certain degree of scepticism. We really need assurances that the funding is additional.
The second point on which I wish the Minister to be specific is regarding private owners. I am not a toff. My own family home is now a police station. But I know that the Bill is welcomed by the Historic House Owners Association, whose members, as has already been pointed out, own two-thirds of the built heritage in this country and, as four noble Lords have pointed out, receive 11 million of the 15 million visitors in this country to historic houses. Many of them need help, not just with running costs but with capital expenditure. I urge the Minister, and specifically the trustees of the national heritage lottery fund, to be both generous and flexible in their dealings with private owners. It is quite clear that the public benefit must be served. However, too rigorous requirements, for instance, public access, will damage-1 would go so far as to say ruin—not only the fabric but the ambience of a country house; and too restrictive an application and interpretation of rules can work against the public interest. Flexibility, not rigidity, in the long term can often serve the public interest best. Never forget, my Lords, the example of "the Three Graces". Had the rules been less rigidly applied in that case "the Three Graces" would be the property of the nation at a cost of £1.3 million, and would still be at Woburn. As it is, the poor girls have to go backwards and forwards between London and Edinburgh at a cost of £8 million.
I should like to mention a case—perhaps I may underline my interest in it—with which my firm is experiencing certain difficulties. I refer to the core of the incomparable collection of furniture of the late Prime Minister, Sir Robert Walpole, at Houghton. It would be inappropriate to go into the details of this case, and I shall not take up your Lordships' time in doing so. The point is not strictly covered by the Bill but by surrender in lieu. However, it is worth mentioning as in general terms it highlights a particularly important aspect of public benefit from privately held works of art. I was at a prizegiving last week in Norwich for the excellent business pairing scheme. My noble friend Lady Trumpington was to have appeared at it but I believe that she was engaged in your Lordships' House. There was an exhibition at the Castle Museum of works of art from Houghton. The furniture had been borrowed from the house, with the pictures brought back from the Hermitage in St. Petersburg. The director of the Norwich Castle Museum expressed pleasure over the

549
exhibition which we sponsored and commented how much better the furniture looked in its original surroundings.
That is certainly the view of the public. They like seeing things in their natural habitat. They look better there and they cost the Government far less. Private owners provide excellent curatorial staff. In the main they look after their works of art. They provide free security and, if you like, free museums. By their very definition, country houses spread the benefit for which governments have so often specified the need. Many of the best private houses are in the north or sometimes distant east Anglia—Houghton, Holkam and Blickling to name but three.
I hope that in her winding up speech my noble friend Lady Trumpington can assure us that the Government are behind the private owner, as the Bill sets out. In the past one has had the feeling that the party opposite was almost more committed to this cause than those on our side of the House.
In conclusion, I wish to commend my noble friend Lord Inglewood for including three times in the Bill the word "outstanding". Much has been said about the wider use of lottery money. But I believe that lasting benefits come not from political correctness and the widest possible use, but from a more focused view, from concentrating on outstanding works of art. Although I gather that we shall have Mystic Meg twice a week now, the lottery funds are not guaranteed; and they are not inexhaustible. Please do not spread the lottery too wide. Let us concentrate on the best because I am quite sure that that is the means by which this huge success can work in the long term for the future of this country's most precious and fragile assets.
4.29 p.m.
Lord Chorley: My Lords, in warmly welcoming the Bill, I declare an interest. I retired as chairman of the National Trust four months ago; however, I still retain both formal and informal connections with it.
The Bill is important to the trust directly and, perhaps more importantly, indirectly. It is mercifully short. In fact it has only one substantive clause—or perhaps I should say two, since Clause 2 is not unimportant. It is entirely appropriate that the Bill should begin its passage in this House. It is an added bonus that the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, is in charge of shepherding it through the House. Not only does he have great experience in heritage matters, but I hope I do not embarrass him when I say that he is also a listening Minister—which cannot always be said of some of his colleagues in government.
The Bill is about widening the powers of the National Heritage Memorial Fund. In the 16 years since the 1980 Act, as nobody would disagree, the fund has been a tremendous success story. There were 12 years under the imaginative leadership of my noble friend Lord Charteris. He was brilliantly followed by my noble friend Lord Rothschild, who, as he mentioned, had to cope almost overnight with the huge expansion in the fund's activities which arose from the lottery. The increase in activities, which indeed took place almost
550
overnight, must have been at least thirty-fold and perhaps nearly forty-fold. It is therefore entirely right, 16 years later, and with the expansion of funds that has taken place, to take stock, examine the powers and extend them. The words I wrote down are almost the same as those of the noble Lord the Minister; namely, it is proposed to extend the powers in two respects: first, in respect of what the trustees may support. In that respect I particularly welcome the specific references, for example, to,
"encouraging the study and understanding of them [the objects]",
and also the specific references to assistance for education and training. The Bill goes on to include the setting up and maintaining of public exhibitions and the compiling and maintaining of archives, as already referred to. All these areas are important to those of us in the trust, and they are becoming increasingly more important. Therefore all this is very good and timely news. I shall say no more on that issue, but turn to the second point; namely, whom the trustees may support.
I believe that all would agree that there was a weakness, perhaps understandable, in the 1980 Act which has now become increasingly apparent; namely, it was restricted to heritage and conservation trusts and organisations. As we were told by the Minister and other speakers, that excluded some two-thirds of our built heritage—what I would loosely call the private sector. Not only was that unfair but it left at risk a whole vital area of heritage. Now we have the magic words in subsection (3) of the new Section 3, "for any person".
I wish to say, at the risk of being parochial, that we in the trust regard this extension as of great importance, a major step forward. That may seem strange to those who tend to see the trust as being keen to grab any stately home that comes its way. But the fact is that the trust has more than enough great houses. The burden of maintaining them is a huge drain on our resources. So a healthy private sector is of the utmost importance to the trust. It has always been—I repeat, always—the trust's policy to act only as a long-stop: to step in only when other remedies fail. That cannot be said often enough.
There are other supporting reasons: for example, plurality, the different approach that different families have to showing their houses; with that goes the sense of a house being lived in. I could expand on that but I have made my point. The matter was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue. Then there is the question of costs. Not only does private ownership, through the free input of management and labour from the owner, mean that the nation conserves its heritage relatively inexpensively—indeed in that respect the private sector is remarkably good value for money for the nation—but there is an additional factor vis-à-vis the trust in that, when we take on a house we are required to declare it inalienable; that is to say, we can never sell the house or its contents, or raise money on them. That means that we take on an open-ended liability and have no alternative but to insist on an endowment. Sadly, history shows that we have not, at any rate until the last 20 years, been very good at securing or calculating adequate endowments as the endowments on the great majority of our houses have proved totally insufficient.

551
So much for general principles. I should like now to turn briefly to some practical issues in regard to how the extended powers are to be applied. First, I assume that the NHMF will mainly be concerned with what I loosely describe as capital projects. Some of those may of their nature incur a net—I emphasise net—increase in running costs. I hope in those cases the trustees will in appropriate circumstances be pragmatic (perhaps "flexible" is a better word) and allow an element of endowment funding. I say that because in our general national enthusiasm for accessing lottery funding, which has tended hitherto to mean capital projects, there is a tendency on the part of applicants to underplay (underestimate) the ongoing costs. One wants to avoid such hugely worthwhile projects, as it were, ending in tears some 10 years later when the full difficulty of meeting running costs has only just become apparent. A small element of endowment can therefore make a crucial difference. Having said that, one recognises that proper strings would have to be attached. Proper conditions would need to be imposed, perhaps by way of separate charitable trusts, in the case of individuals.
I suspect, however, that the main weight of funding will be for major capital repair programmes: a new roof is the normal example, but there are others such as rewiring, security systems and so on. They are the sort of repairs that have to be done only once in a generation. Those sorts of events are real killers for the private owner. It is sometimes said that no one should be in the business of running a heritage house unless he or she can meet the ordinary running costs. That is a sensible and true statement, albeit unpalatable. But the blockbusting expense of, let us say, a new roof is an entirely different matter. Selling investments, even if sufficient are available, is unpalatable as it will usually mean a heavy capital gains tax bill, not to mention the crippling burden of VAT in addition to the building costs themselves.
One would also like to see, for major buildings, agreements with owners on long-term programmes of works. To be effective, conservation work—this applies as much to contents as it does to the fabric of the building—requires the steady application of resources over a period of years. That, incidentally, appears to be entirely consistent with the new purpose of, "encouraging the maintenance and development" of conservation skills. Such an approach will also tend to be more economical if it is run on a properly organised and planned basis.
There is one current problem with that sort of approach; namely, the inability of the NHMF trustees to make contractual commitments for more than a short period ahead. I know that my noble friend Lord Rothschild is aware of the issue, so I will leave it at that, except to remark that we believe there are possible solutions which would deal with the NHMF's difficulties in this area.
That brings me finally to the question of the future relationship—the working arrangements—between the NHMF and English Heritage. The noble Baroness who is to wind up will be relieved to hear that on this occasion I do not want to enter the fray on the question
552
of additionality, though I agree with everything that previous speakers have said. Nevertheless, the fact is that English Heritage's ability to meet its normal responsibilities has been steadily reduced in recent years. It seems to me, therefore, that there are two key points: first, to make full use of English Heritage's expertise and not to duplicate it; secondly, for there to be clarity on who is responsible for what.
I listened with great interest to the words of the noble Lords, Lord Inglewood and Lord Rothschild. I reiterate that we must seek to avoid bureaucratic red tape, needless delays and extra cost as well as the danger of falling between two stools.
I have gone on quite long enough. I conclude by repeating my congratulations to the Government and everyone involved on introducing this simple piece of legislation which has great potential for our national heritage. I wish the Bill a speedy passage to the statute book.
4.41 p.m.
Lord Crathorne: My Lords, I too should like to congratulate the Government and my noble friend the Minister on the Front Bench on bringing forward this Bill. Today is a very good day for the heritage. I am sure that we all have great pleasure in taking part in this Second Reading debate.
I want to say a very few words, having had the experience of being a trustee of the National Heritage Memorial Fund. The trustees, and particularly the chairman, the noble Lord, Lord Rothschild, shoulder a quite enormous burden and workload, which is a point that has not perhaps been sufficiently expressed this afternoon. I am sure that the Bill will very significantly improve the working of the fund for the chairman and his trustees. In that context, I was pleased to see reference made to the fact that in future it will be possible under certain circumstances to remunerate trustees. That has an advantage. At the moment, there are many men and women who simply cannot give up the time required to be an NHMF trustee without remuneration of any kind. I do not know how often the system will be used but it is very satisfactory that it is in this Bill.
Another point that I was delighted to see resolved was in regard to the "eligibility jungle" which existed, where the rules were laid down initially much too tightly. It is easy to be wise after the event. But now projects in multiple ownership, such as townscapes, which are a mixture of private, commercial and public ownership, can receive grants. When I was a trustee I remember that one of the frustrations was that we often had to turn down things because there was a private element or an element which simply did not meet the eligibility test. So that provision is very good news.
Also, the general broadening of the scope to not just a "tangible heritage asset" is so good. That is now very much more broadly defined. As the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, pointed out, and I agree with him, it is nice to see it "encouraging enjoyment". That seems quite admirable.

553
There has been discussion about the owners of private country houses and I think it worth emphasising a couple of points in that regard. It is very much accepted—indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, made the point—that the cheapest way of looking after those lovely houses is when they are in private hands.
A second related point is that there is no question but that the public gain even more pleasure from going round houses in private ownership—perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, will not agree with me—than they do from going round those in the ownership of the National Trust or any public ownership. It is excellent that there will be ways in which, with the correct safeguards, private houses can benefit.
This is an excellent Bill which is supported on all sides of the House. I am sure it will make the job of the noble Lord, Lord Rothschild, which he carries out with such great distinction, somewhat easier and perhaps even more satisfying than it is at the moment.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, in his maiden speech, which had all the desirable qualities, including brevity, the noble Lord, Lord Luke, described himself as an historian, and I welcome him to the growing numbers of your Lordships who make that claim. I learnt from his speech that they include the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue. Indeed, he presented—it is the only theme on which I wish to touch—the very considerable anxiety in the community of historians, both professional and amateur, about the future of the Victoria County History.
It was the understanding of the Institute of Historical Research of the University of London, which now looks after the Victoria County History, that when the heritage Bill was modified, as it is now in the Bill before your Lordships' House today, it would be made clear that the Victoria County History would be eligible for support from lottery funds. But examination of the text of the Bill does not make that commitment sufficiently clear. At a time when, as the noble Lord, Lord Rothschild, and others reminded us, there are many claims on the lottery money, anyone who wishes to put forward a claim must at the very beginning be certain that there is nothing in the text of the Bill which would or could exclude it. Therefore, I very much hope that that omission or partial omission will be remedied during the passage of the Bill in your Lordships' House.
At present I propose to test it by putting down, together with my noble friend Lord Pilkington, an amendment—possibly a couple of amendments—of a very minor kind to clarify for instance that, where archives are spoken of, works of reference—which the Victoria County History is and for the purposes of our heritage it is perhaps the most important work of reference—could be included. Since neither I nor the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, are masters of parliamentary draftsmanship, I hope that the Government themselves will remedy the omission by proposing amendments. The noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, and I, and I am sure others representing the historical community in your Lordships' House, will be glad to discuss the matter with Ministers at the appropriate time.
554
It is unnecessary to enlarge upon the importance of the Victoria County History. It is not only a record of our heritage. The fact that it has been in progress for a century makes it part of that heritage. Therefore, I feel that there is no need further to urge the case. I hope that the noble Baroness, when she comes to wind up, will be able to assure us that the Government will either accept a proposed amendment or, better still, propose one themselves. I must apologise to her in that, if the debate is much prolonged, I may not be present to hear her. But in that case the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, will be here and we much look forward to remedying this particular but perhaps rather dangerous verbal omission.
4.50 p.m.
Lord Cobbold: My Lords, first, I must declare an interest. I am honorary treasurer of the Historic Houses Association and also the owner of an historic house in Hertfordshire which is regularly opened to the public and has been the recipient of Section 3A grants from English Heritage in the past.
I welcome the new Bill unreservedly. It seeks to put right an—I am sure unintended—anomaly whereby National Lottery funds have not been available to support the privately owned built heritage but up until now have been available to the private sector through the Millennium Commission and in the arts and sports sectors.
As the Minister and other noble Lords said, by far the greater proportion of Britain's built heritage is in private hands. That is not just confined to large country houses. The sector covers town houses, villages, office buildings, pubs, theatres, cinemas, agricultural and industrial buildings and more. It is our landscape and our built heritage that attracts 23.7 million foreign visitors to Britain and earned for the nation last year some £12 billion, according to the recent annual report of the British Tourist Authority. It makes tourism one of our largest industries and one of the largest employers.
I do not believe that there is anyone in your Lordships' House, and hardly anyone in the country at large, who does not cherish our built heritage and who would not wish to see it preserved for future generations. I am sure therefore that we shall be unanimous in welcoming the Bill. Lottery funds are intended to support those aspects of life that we value but for which it is hard to justify the use of scarce public funds raised from taxation.
Let me turn to the specific case of historic houses, with which I am most familiar. Owners of historic properties were naturally disappointed when the private heritage was excluded in the original lotteries Act, particularly since the supply of Section 3A grants from English Heritage had slowed to a trickle. In welcoming wholeheartedly the new Bill, owners of historic houses recognise the need for an increased public benefit and for access to their houses. But they are concerned about the new procedures and as to how the new arrangements are to be administered.
I was somewhat concerned by what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Rothschild, in that he was relying very much on the additionality clause—one might ask,

555
additional to what?—in the case of Section 3A English Heritage grants. It may be that Grade I and Grade II starred houses are already adequately cared for, but I am doubtful whether that is the case. In the hope that there will be some funds available for historic houses, I should like to say that we are familiar with the workings of English Heritage and know that it has the staff, the expertise and experience to deal with the specific and specialist problems of historic houses. It is experienced in the important area of means testing and in the judgment of appropriate public access provisions.
Can the Minister say whether it is the intention of the Bill to duplicate that expertise within the National Heritage Memorial Fund? If so, and on the assumption that English Heritage would continue to be involved through the Section 3A grant procedure, that could represent a major increase in bureaucracy that could lead to duplication of the already extensive paperwork, increased bills from architects and legal advisers and an inevitable lengthening of the whole application process.
I hope that the Government will give careful consideration to the efficient operation of the new scheme. For example, it may be sensible for the National Heritage Memorial Fund to make an annual block grant for the private heritage to English Heritage to be administered using its existing procedures and expertise. I pose the question.
I wish to put in a further plea and echo what my noble friend Lord Chorley said. The lottery distributors have a propensity to support capital projects involving construction or purchase of physical assets. Little consideration is given to future running costs. I feel therefore that the endowment fund has an important part to play and nowhere is that more relevant than in the case of an historic house. The National Trust is living proof.
As my noble friend Lord Chorley said, the National Trust will not take on a new property unless it has a substantial dedicated endowment fund. Indeed, he said just now that the endowment funds that it has had in the past have rarely proved to be adequate. My noble friend himself devised a formula within the National Trust to calculate the size of such a fund for each property. The NHMF has provided funds to the National Trust for that purpose in the past and, more recently, from the heritage lottery fund it provided endowment funding for the National Trust's acquisition of Croome Park. So precedents do exist. I believe that endowment funding should be more widely and more readily provided by the lottery distributors and not just in the heritage area.
For an historic house, as the National Trust takes for granted, a dedicated endowment fund is the best possible long-term solution. An historic house endowment fund could make use of the existing legislation covering maintenance funds. Maintenance funds, as currently defined, are not quite the ideal vehicle but would not require much modification to become so.
Finally, I once again welcome the Bill and, as an historic house owner, I uncompromisingly stress my conviction (which I know is shared by the overwhelming majority of members of the Historic
556
Houses Association) that any support from the heritage lottery fund is and must be for the benefit of the historic building and not of the owner—however historic he or she may be!
4.56 p.m.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, my purpose in taking part in this Second Reading debate is to give a broad welcome to the Bill, although I find it difficult to say anything that does not duplicate what has already been said. I have spent most of the debate deleting sections from my speech as noble Lord after noble Lord made those valid points.
Before entering into the detail of the Bill I shall dispose of some formalities. First, I declare a three-fold interest. I am a commissioner of English Heritage which, of course, is greatly interested in this Bill and looks forward to it reaching the statute book with the minimum of delay. I take this opportunity of thanking those noble Lords who have supported, in the course of the debate, the role of English Heritage and its potential role in the future in a way which comes much better from them than it would from me.
Secondly, I am involved with a number of organisations which are actively seeking lottery funding. Although that is peripheral, I count it as an interest. Thirdly, I have a life interest in various historic properties, including listed buildings, which could become eligible for grant as a result of the Bill becoming law. For the sake of completeness I should say that, as of today, no application for lottery funding has been made in respect of any property in which I hold a personal interest, nor is any planned.
Finally, in this general section, I wish to say that one noble Lord who would have liked to be here but sadly is not is my noble friend Lord Astor who was closely involved with the National Lottery etc. Bill as it went through its various stages in your Lordships' House. My noble friend did not anticipate such an early introduction of the Bill and felt unable to cancel a long-standing engagement he had today in the United States. As he would like to take part in subsequent stages of the Bill, he asked me to say that he hoped your Lordships would accept the circumstances which have prevented him from being here today.
The Government are to be warmly congratulated on introducing this short but important Bill. I welcome in particular the provisions to extend the powers of the National Heritage Memorial Fund to allow it to distribute lottery money to private owners. Almost as soon as the National Lottery etc. Act was passed in 1993 it was plain that there was a major lacuna. In relying on the existing powers available to the National Heritage Memorial Fund, the lottery distribution provisions effectively excluded most of the built heritage from assistance, as has been identified many times during today's debate not least by my noble friend the Minister in his opening speech.
It is still argued from time to time that private owners are all rich men and women living in their castles who contribute no public benefit and who do not need public money. As Sir Jocelyn Stevens, the chairman of English

557
Heritage, has robustly put it, this is, of course, bunkum. Most of the privately owned heritage comprises modest private houses, small shops and businesses in our towns and countryside; what the Prime Minister has described as the "people's heritage". They make up the very warp and weft of our historic landscape and townscape, and their condition is critically important if we are to conserve these assets for future generations.
I do not want to rehearse again the contribution made by the historic houses of this country to the nation's life, save to make one point which I do not think has been touched on. It is now well understood that the repair of historic buildings in conservation areas and the improvement of their setting can be a potent factor in encouraging economic regeneration.
Overall, it seems clear that it is in the interest of everyone in the country that private owners should be able to receive lottery assistance where this is essential and secures appropriate public benefits whether through the conservation of historic buildings and ancient monuments, the provision of, or improvements to, public access to them, or, more widely, through economic regeneration and the encouragement of tourism.
There is nothing new in this line of thought. Since 1953 these benefits have been the rationale underlying the existing scheme, funded by taxpayers' money and, as has been said, with the support of all political parties, for grant aiding repairs to historic buildings and operated by English Heritage since 1984 and its counterparts in the rest of the United Kingdom.
It is important that once the Bill is passed, as I hope it very soon will be, the new powers to assist private owners are deployed quickly. The chairman of the heritage lottery fund, the noble Lord, Lord Rothschild, who made such an interesting contribution to the debate, has already indicated his desire to commit significant resources as soon as possible to historic town centres and other conservation areas. If I had spoken before the noble Lord I would perhaps have asked him what scale of commitment the heritage lottery fund is considering in this area. However, I do know that discussions are already taking place between English Heritage and the heritage lottery fund about how English Heritage will be involved in the task of distributing these grants.
English Heritage already provides advice and casework management services to the heritage lottery fund in respect of lottery applications within its area of competence. This co-operation has proved very effective, allowing improved focusing of both lottery and English Heritage grants, together with the reduction of bureaucracy and the provision of simplified procedures for grant applicants. The recently announced Joint Church Grants Scheme, which was referred to by my noble friend Lord Inglewood, shows how far this process can go given good will on all sides. It is obviously of particular importance that full use is made by the heritage lottery fund of the skills that English Heritage has developed in the definition of repair programmes, the financial assessment of applicants and projects and the monitoring of works.
I am sure that the House would welcome an undertaking from the heritage lottery fund that it will provide sufficient resources to allow a significant
558
overall increase in the help available to private owners. I believe that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage has already indicated this as a possible way forward in her comments to the National Heritage Select Committee in May this year when she said:
"Rather than restricting Lottery spending to projects which were never funded from government funds, it was possible to allow funding for projects in sectors where government funds were insufficient".
Grant aid to private owners is certainly such a sector. In the face of falling support from the Government, English Heritage has been forced to make large cuts in its individual grant schemes which have fallen particularly heavily on private owners precisely because they have not been eligible for lottery funding.
It is with some regret that I dwell a little on the diminishing support that English Heritage receives from the Government. At a conference held to mark the 10th anniversary of English Heritage in September 1994, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister made the unequivocal pledge that the money raised by the lottery will not replace existing government spending. That pledge was quoted in full by my noble friend Lord Inglewood in his opening speech. But since that statement English Heritage has seen first a standstill and then a cut in cash terms. On the 1995–96 base line, English Heritage estimates that there will be £44.7 million less over this and the next three years, and further cuts in the autumn Budget are not considered impossible. As I said, English Heritage has been compelled to reduce significantly the amount that can be offered for repair grant. The casualty is, of course, the heritage.
More ominous, in a way, is the threat that now looms over English Heritage's core competencies as a consequence of those reductions. If that happens, not only will the benefits that the Bill intends to confer on the heritage be wretchedly eroded but the skills developed by English Heritage over many years will be lost to the nation. Specifically they will be lost to those who are charged with the responsibility of seeing that lottery funds are spent effectively and wisely.
This Government had the vision and courage to introduce the lottery and it has been an outstanding success. The benefits to the nation are only beginning to emerge. In bringing forward the Bill the Government demonstrate their willingness to improve upon the original model. I have always felt that we have outrageous expectations of new institutions. New institutions take time to come of age. They often experience a tricky, and sometimes unattractive, adolescence that calls for sensitive handling. I have no doubt that there will be more heritage lottery problems.
Yes, this is a good Bill and I wish it well. It corrects an injustice. But as it goes through its stages, I shall be looking for something further. I ask my noble friend to confirm that the accumulated skills and experience of English Heritage are central to the good working of the Bill. I should like to hear a new commitment by the

559
Government and the heritage lottery fund trustees, giving confidence that the heritage will benefit from the Bill as Parliament intends it to benefit. In practical terms this means money flowing rapidly to private owners for public benefit. And finally, although the undertaking has been given—I do not mind how often I hear it—I would ask once more for confirmation from the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, that lottery money will not be used to replace existing government spending. In saying that, it will not be lost on the noble Baroness that not a single speaker believes that the Treasury is not clawing back this money. I look forward to her comments.
I am grateful for the opportunity provided by the Bill to extend lottery funding to the private owners of historic buildings whose difficulties were first identified more than 40 years ago, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi. Many of them have struggled for decades to maintain their properties for the benefit of all and with the very limited public help available. If we are to avoid the loss to the nation of more of our built heritage, large and small, and if we are to take full advantage of the economic and social benefits of investment in modest properties in conservation areas, then the new resources available through the lottery as a result of the Bill must be made available to them at once. I warmly support the measure.
5.9 p.m.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu: My Lords, I congratulate the Government on this most welcome and necessary Bill. I have no wish further to impose on your Lordships' House by repeating how necessary I think it is. Most welcome is the fact that the Bill has been so widely drawn—it certainly needed to be—and if, by any chance, the Victoria County History has been left out, I am sure that can be put right.
However, I have a certain déjà vu because when the National Lottery etc. Bill was being debated in your Lordships' House some of us knew it was flawed. Several of us put down amendments in order to correct the situation, particularly in order to get the problems of additionality and outstandingness better appreciated. Our expressed concerns were somewhat pushed aside, but we were assured that as the trustees would have complete discretion and flexibility, all would be well. The fact is that they did not have complete flexibility and all has not been well. That is unfortunate because it was not the fault of the trustees of the NHMF. When they were appointed in 1980 they were legally restricted. When the lottery money came along it just did not fit in.
Everyone from the top of the land, from Cabinet Ministers, downwards, thought that lottery money would be used for all heritage good causes regardless of ownership. When the lottery Act came into effect we found that two-thirds were not eligible. I do not believe that the Government can be accused of deliberately misleading the House on this occasion. Perhaps they too were misled. We are delighted that the Select Committee in another place has come down so strongly to get the situation changed.
560
What I believe compounded the situation and what has concerned the private heritage world since lottery funding started, is not so much that important conservation projects have been rejected or precluded, but that it was widely understood—perhaps wrongly—that the majority of the NHMF trustees actually disapproved in principle of allocating lottery money to the private sector on the grounds that the people would object. "Over my dead body", was a comment made to me by somebody from the fund when I suggested that this Bill was required.
I find that amazing because the fact is that since 1953, following the Gower Report, which has already been mentioned, the Historic Buildings Council was set up and millions of pounds of taxpayers' money has been spent on private properties, National Trust properties and so on. It has always been carried out under strict conditions. There have been means tests, access arrangements made, and so on. The noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, made a great issue of that, but the fact is that what has been done over the years has been adequate. There have been very few complaints. As long as English Heritage continues to help and lay down the conditions, then all will be well. Certainly, when I was chairman of English Heritage for eight-and-a-half years there was absolutely no let up; in fact, we extended the conditions.
Let us for a moment realise that for their part private owners play a great part in being unpaid curators and in attracting tourists, and they give as much public benefit as anybody else. I have complete confidence that the NHMF and English Heritage will be able to co-operate in ensuring that there are sufficient funds and that they are given under strict conditions. Some projects may well fall into the competence of English Heritage for grants and others will be better dealt with by the National Lottery. Both will require each other and I am sure that it will work out well.
I was delighted to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Rothschild, that there is no prejudice in principle and that a new chapter has begun. As past president of the Museums Association I would like to pay tribute to the fund for giving so much help already. It has been most appreciated. I believe we can say that a new era for museums has begun. Perhaps I may also say that many of the great museums of the world started as private collections. They have gone on to become local museums and then national museums. That is something that should not be forgotten.
I am delighted that the word "enjoyment" is also in the Bill. When we are dealing with things of national importance, they can also sometimes be of local importance as well. These are mostly Committee points which we can discuss later on. The most remarkable feature of the Bill is how widely drawn it is. I certainly support the provision that trustees should be remunerated. It is very hard work to assess applications; it requires the highest professional qualifications.
Finally, perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, who made some joking remarks about peers, that in today's debate 14 out of the 19 speakers are hereditary peers.
5.14 p.m.
The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, I happened to spend the weekend in rather bleak surroundings in a Church of England parish in north Coventry. In this context and with this memory, it is difficult to see historic buildings and landscape as a deserving cause when one sees urban deprivation, poor housing and education and other desperate needs which persist in our society. Nevertheless, I do believe—and I believe the public appreciate this—that these buildings, gardens and parks can also be an environmental asset and an encouragement to those who live close to them and a source of revenue which gives them added value as our national heritage. I was pleased to hear mention of townscapes as deserving of more attention. Perhaps city landscapes could be added to those.
I warmly welcome the Government's decision in this Bill to follow up the Select Committee's recommendations on eligibility and to include private owners where there is public benefit. I declare an interest as a joint owner and administrator of a small country house and garden. This is especially important not just because of the fact that two-thirds of the built heritage is in private ownership, but because so much more property is in private hands as a result of the hiving off of sites owned by hospitals, railways, the Ministry of Defence or belonging to the so-called historic townscapes, which are now in mixed ownership.
But the key question, as has been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, is the future role of the Government and of English Heritage. If heritage lottery funding is such a bonanza and is now to get to the parts which English Heritage cannot reach, who will make future decisions on the heritage? Now that English Heritage, itself a slimline version of a grand old government department, has regained its status, self-confidence and authority and the other things which the noble Lord, Lord Cavendish, has spoken about, and which has prepared an excellent four-year plan, which I have read, it will be tragic if the lottery fund is allowed to develop alternative wisdom and expertise and so undermine what English Heritage has already achieved. I know from what others have said that this is a concern not only of English Heritage, but of many other people. I am sure that the Minister will give it the fullest attention in her reply.
It is hard to convince people that English Heritage funds for historic properties, whether in public or private ownership, are still very limited and, as has already been mentioned, they have been reduced by government cuts. A sum of £2 million to £3 million for the largest historic houses is a pitiful amount measured against the annual demand and only one-tenth of that sum is additionally available for parks and gardens. Perhaps I may give a recent example: coping stone for a garden balustrade can cost £50 per metre: the replacement of one crumbling section of stone garden wall can require thousands of pounds. Not surprisingly, owners all over the country are cashing in their works of art in order to pay for the fabric of the buildings where they are housed and preserved. This hidden subsidy is too often ignored. It is the background story of our English heritage, which looks so good on the surface. The Government need to
562
explain more fully how it is that not just the lottery but the Department of National Heritage are going to help to save our heritage. Again, I am sure that the Minister will give the fullest possible answer, although at this stage of the Government's expenditure plans it can hardly be satisfactory.
5.18 p.m.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, in a week of five important elections around the world, perhaps we should not forget that, after an election in this country, this Government were responsible for introducing the National Lottery etc. Act 1993. This timely Bill is rightly amending that Act. That was after much debate and controversy. It has proved an outstanding success. It is yet another government triumph. I hope that the thousands of people who have benefited will give the Government the credit that is rightly due to them.
The lottery is so successful because it is well run and highly professionally administered. The chairmen of the five funds that benefit so greatly—the arts, sport, heritage charities and the celebration of the Millennium—deserve our congratulations, especially the noble Lord, Lord Rothschild, who explained the details so clearly to your Lordships.
It is tempting in a debate like this to go into specific projects for funding. I believe that this is an error. This is a short Bill, as my noble friend Lord Inglewood said, but of great significance. It seeks to make a few specific changes which are to be welcomed. Clause 1 extends the powers of the trustees of the National Heritage Memorial Fund to give financial assistance to projects of importance to the national heritage.
As more than two-thirds of Britain's historic buildings are in private hands, it is surely a good move to allow the National Heritage Memorial Fund to distribute money to private owners for the first time. Most are owners of modest properties, as we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Cobbold, and from my noble friend Lord Cavendish, but I repeat (because I think that it is important) that we are talking often about corner shops and terraced houses in conservation areas and not just about stately homes, as many people may think. Such properties make a major contribution to the general economy. Recent surveys have identified that the built heritage, parks and gardens of this country are important factors in persuading both visitors and investors to come here.
New Section 3 will provide for the trustees to give financial assistance in respect of, among others, items of scientific interest and botanical interest. Britain has, at Kew, one of the largest and most comprehensive botanical, taxonomic and horticultural libraries in the world. It allows open access for all bona fide research workers and visitors. I should have thought that that was the kind of project that should be supported.
The essential factor with regard to any project gaining funding must be that it is for the public benefit and that there will be greater public access. Ay, there's the rub. For in this age of open public access (sometimes even without it), what dreaded circumstances often ensue. Such ill omens will pose major problems for millions of

563
people in the future. Public access is not possible without adequate security. Therefore, security is a must, but it has become one of the most costly items in which private individuals—or even public owners—have to invest. There is no escape; today it is an absolute necessity.
An added problem is that security systems now are not only more costly, but have to be more and more sophisticated. They need to be one jump ahead of the vandal or thief to be effective. Alas, nothing is sacred—be it a garden statue, a rare plant or tree, a picture or a piece of furniture, books or manuscripts from libraries. Nothing, if it is of interest or of value, is safe. The cost of basic and essential protection as well as of insurance is enormous. I am speaking about the protection and preservation of our national heritage. Much that is stolen goes abroad—and of one thing I am certain; the thief does not apply for an export licence. Other items are broken up and are never seen again.
The mechanics by which lottery funding could assist privately owned historic property have yet to be finalised. I wonder whether security, mentioned in the new Section 3(2)(c), could be given serious consideration. Can my noble friend Lady Trumpington and the noble Lord, Lord Rothschild, as chairman of the National Heritage Memorial Fund, take that on board?
Finally, I welcome the Bill. It is a deregulatory Bill, removing a layer of bureaucracy. That is surely a popular move. But I hope too that the Government will, despite this, keep all the excellent staff and continue to leave the administration independent of the Department of National Heritage so that the great success not only of the lottery, but also of the way in which it is run, will continue.
5.23 p.m.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, I occupy a rather lonely position today after the gap in our list of speakers. Incidentally, I am told by the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, that there is no significance in that and that it is one of those technical hitches to which we are all subject from time to time. I look forward to being with him after the gap in future debates.
We on these Benches follow the views that have been expressed on all sides of this House. We welcome the Bill unreservedly. It is a short and very cleverly structured Bill. I am most grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Inglewood and Lord Rothschild, for explaining it so clearly and for presenting the thinking behind it so precisely.
We must all welcome any opportunity to preserve our country's unique heritage of houses, particularly private houses with their gardens and parks. As noble Lords have said, we all know the enormous financial strain under which many owners of private houses have been struggling for many years. That is why I do not share in any expression of the view that the Bill is seeking to give "toffs"—I think that that was the expression—the opportunity to grow rich from lottery funds. I certainly have not heard that view expressed forcefully in your Lordships' House today although it may be expressed in the other place or outside.
564
What we hand down to our descendants is as important, if not more important, than any tourism considerations. Of course, tourism is a huge money earner for this country and we are always seeking to improve what we offer to travellers from both this country and abroad.
It may be appropriate at this point to refer to what will be new Section 3(7) which cleverly introduces the phrase,
"the Trustees shall bear in mind the desirability of public access".
That rather guarded reference to public access is most important. I fully accept that Members of another place may say that public access must be an absolute condition of money being given to the private owners of such houses but, as we all know, there is a balance to be achieved. If it is not carefully controlled, tourism can be a great polluter. There may well be houses which fulfil the criteria of the fund and receive moneys yet which can offer only limited access because of the fear that the property may deteriorate or because the owner of the house cannot police any greater public access in the way that he feels necessary.
Incidentally, just before the debate started my noble friend Lord Avebury tapped me on the shoulder to relate a dismaying experience that he had yesterday in Berkshire when on an English Heritage sponsored walk. He came across some Saxon burial mounds, and much to my alarm, being a motorcyclist, he found a number of young motorcyclists riding over them. He raised the serious point that a lot of damage is being done to this country's heritage sites because we are not able to protect them not only against motorcyclists—I have never ridden over a Saxon burial mound and nor do I intend to; indeed, I do not even intend to go off the road—but against damage caused in other ways. Undoubtedly, it is important to ensure that those places which are not obviously regarded as part of our heritage, such as Saxon burial mounds, are properly protected against such unthinking vandalism.
I refer now to the excellent maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Luke. The noble Lord was right to refer to the importance of making museums accessible to children. I am still in the position of having a young child and I know that in the London area the museums for children are unbelievable. The Science Museum, the Natural History Museum, the Imperial War Museum, the museum at Hendon and the Victoria and Albert Museum all present what they have to offer in such a way as to make it fascinating to children. That is a great relief to me. Nowadays, all parents have to avoid the dreaded video. I do not represent my party when I say more than that, it is important to get children away from condescending and politically correct children's broadcasts. To get them into museums will bring them great benefits in later life. I agree with the noble Lord that any help to get children into museums and provide them with special conditions of access is desirable. I congratulate the noble Lord on the totality of his speech. I should also like to pursue with him the effects of the decapitation of King Charles I and whether that is the reason why we enjoy the relatively smooth

565
democracy that we have today. It is probably more important than that, but I am only self-educated. I look forward to talking to an historian about these matters.
I am particularly interested in the intention of the noble Lord, Lord Rothschild, to pay special attention to town centres. In this country, town centres, particularly cathedral cities, have not been particularly well handled in terms of preservation. I think of my own part of the world, the county of Devon, and Exeter in particular. That is one of the oldest cities in the kingdom. That has been handled with scant respect for its heritage. Perhaps there is a particular reason why our cities are not as well preserved as those of other countries in Europe. Recently, I was in a town on Lake Bracciano, to the north of Rome, which looked much as it did before the discovery of America by Columbus. It may be that in Britain the mercantile and industrial period and clearing of the decks to prepare for a new era, which has resulted in the destruction of a good deal of the medieval fabric of our towns, has not had the same effect in those countries.
On Saturday a rather condescending or flippant remark appeared in the Financial Times. By and large, it supported the new measures in the Bill. It suggested that the noble Lord, Lord Rothschild, and his fund would seek in some way to prettify (to use a horrible word) or gentrify dilapidated town centres in Britain. I am sure that that is the complete opposite of what he shall be doing. I do not believe that with the formidable array of talent at his disposal he will be disposed to create any kind of theme park image in the towns which he intends to improve. Certainly, there is a good deal to be done in the towns. The ability to give private owners money from the lottery under the provisions of the Bill will make it all the easier for improvements to be made to town centres where hitherto there have been difficulties because of the inability to make such funds available.
I look forward very much to the passing of this Bill without delay. I hope that there will be no carping or cynicism about the use of lottery funds for these purposes at this early stage. Thus far, it has been handled in an excellent way. There are one or two small matters. The suggestion in the Bill that employees should have terms and remuneration entirely at the whim of the fund requires clarification. There is probably a reason why terms of employment have been framed in such a loose way in the Bill. It may be that the noble Baroness will amplify that, although I am not hopeful. Perhaps at a later stage she will let me know the position.
It is an excellent Bill. We have had an excellent debate which is difficult to sum up. All of the views have been interesting. I am sure that any contributions in the other place will be preceded by careful scrutiny of today's Hansard.
5.35 p.m.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, we have had an excellent debate. It is always a privilege to be present when your Lordships discuss matters to do with the heritage, for the subject is one on which noble Lords invariably speak with expert knowledge and deep commitment. I am delighted by the cross-party welcome
566
for this Bill. It is a real pleasure for me to add my congratulations to those of other noble Lords on the truly elegant maiden speech of my noble friend Lord Luke. I am devastated that I do not feature as one of his ancient Muses.
As my noble friend Lord Inglewood indicates, the Bill extends the funding powers of the National Heritage Memorial Fund, principally with the aim of widening its role as a distributor of lottery proceeds. I remind your Lordships that we propose changes to the powers of the NHMF in two main respects. The first is an extension of the NHMF's funding remit to embrace a much broader range of heritage projects than is currently possible. The Government want to give people the opportunity to experience the heritage at first hand. We want everyone, especially the young, to have the chance to learn, not just what the heritage can tell us about our history, but what it signifies for our present and future. It is not enough simply to preserve historic buildings, works of art and artefacts. We need to ensure that they have meaning for us and that they come alive.
I particularly welcome the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, relating to private houses. I wrote my speech in my stately Battersea flat long before I was aware of what the noble Lord would say. I wonder whether other noble Lords have shared my experience in visiting castles and houses abroad. Of course, those buildings are among the outstanding achievements of European architecture and are a privilege to visit. Yet, I hope that no one will take it amiss if I say that many of them seem somehow lifeless, simply because they are not lived in. They demonstrate that the heritage is not just a matter of architectural or artistic accomplishment. The past means most to us when it is brought to life and speaks to us. It is therefore of the greatest importance that resources should be available not only for preserving the heritage but also for interpreting it and making it more accessible and enjoyable. It is with this end in view that we propose the extension of the remit of NHMF.
The second change that we propose involves the establishment of an entirely new approach to eligibility for NHMF funding. No longer will eligibility depend on who the applicant happens to be. Instead, the test will be whether the applicant's project is of demonstrable importance to the national heritage and whether it is of clear public benefit. The public benefit test will normally require that the public is guaranteed appropriate access to the particular heritage item with which the project is concerned. The effect of this change will be to allow the terms of reference of the NHMF to embrace the whole national heritage. It will enable priorities for lottery funding to be framed solely on the basis of heritage need and public benefit irrespective of ownership. It will ensure that no worthwhile grant application need be rejected just because of technical difficulties over eligibility.
The noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, and my noble friend Lord Beloff raised the question of the Victoria County History. I am aware of the concern about that matter. There is doubt about the project's eligibility for public funding now, but it is our plan that it should fall within the eligibility of the NHMF once the Bill has

567
become law. I believe that it would be wiser for me to look into the matter and write to both noble Lords on the subject. The noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, also spoke about the funding of the British Museum being cut by £6 million since 1991–92. The noble Lord will be aware that the Government continue to support our great museums and galleries at a very substantial level. The figure for 1996–97 is £213 million, excluding the Royal Armouries. But, like all other recipients of public funds, they cannot be exempt from the need for reductions in the overall level of all public expenditure.
I understand that the British Museum trustees are currently considering a report suggesting various ways in which resources available to them in future years should be arranged to meet the museum's needs. I am sure that they are right to do so, but I cannot of course pre-empt at this time decisions about the museum's future level of government funding which are properly a matter for the Budget decisions to be announced in due course by my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
The noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, my noble friend Lord Renton, the noble Lord, Lord Hindlip, my noble friend Lord Cavendish, the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, and other noble Lords all raised that ghastly word "additionality". Various explanations are given of what the policy "the additionality of lottery funds" means. That should be clarified. Perhaps I may try. The Government have always made it clear that money raised by the lottery for good causes was and is intended to be additional to public expenditure. The Government will not reduce public spending programmes to take account of awards from the lottery. That commitment cannot, however, mean that the Government should set aside the issue of what they can afford to spend on any programme which benefits from lottery funds compared to any other public expenditure programme. The opposite view would be to give an automatic protection to lottery-supported programmes which was not available to others. Such a result would be absurd.
In consequence, where the public expenditure programme is increased or decreased, that, in itself, does not prevent, for example, the use of lottery funds to secure projects or programmes beyond the scope of foreseeable affordability but similar to those hitherto financed by public expenditure, or adding lottery funds to the level of affordable public expenditure in any particular area. That approach is not a breach of the principle but a sensible means of ensuring that, with the public funds available, of which the lottery is a part, the real objectives for support for the heritage, the arts, sport and charities are met.
The funding allocation for English Heritage for 1996–97 represented a reduction of 2.5 per cent. in previously planned provision. However, it must be remembered that the total grant to English Heritage increased by 64 per cent. between 1988–89 and 1995–96 (£65.9 million to £108.3 million), including provision for some special projects. As I said before, like all public spending programmes, that is under review and I cannot anticipate decisions which the Chancellor will announce in the Budget later this month.
568
The noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, and the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, asked about administrative arrangements for the future. It will of course be for the NHMF to determine the detailed arrangements that best meet the requirements of the legislation. Those will of course give full weight to public access, means testing, monitoring and clawback of grant.
Public access or display will normally be key issues in the consideration of a public benefit in any project being considered for funding. The NHMF already imposes a public access consideration on all grants where that is appropriate. The appropriate degree of access is judged in relation to individual cases. The NHMF also continues to monitor projects after all payments have been made. In the event of failure to comply with a public access requirement, or, indeed, any other conditions attached to a grant, the NHMF would, if appropriate, require repayment of the grant. The NHMF accepts that, if grants are given to private owners of heritage assets, whether land, building or objects, the safeguards will need to be even more stringent. The NHMF will apply its grant conditions rigorously, including the requirement for public access. The NHMF accepts that means testing will be necessary for private applicants.
English Heritage has of course had long experience of means testing, access requirements, clawback of grant, and so forth in respect of its own grant scheme. I understand—the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, might be interested—that, for example, during the year 1995–96 there were some 20 cases in which English Heritage had occasion to recover grant previously paid, involving the sum of £83,000. Not bad!
The noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, kindly gave me notice of one of his questions. I do not think that any of us knew the answer to it, so I shall most certainly write to him. I am afraid that my noble friend Lord Crathorne is under a misapprehension: the provision in Clause 2 which he has in mind is concerned only with the allowances payable to the trustees. That could cover, for example, payment for trustees in respect of their attendance at meetings, but it would not cover substantive remuneration for their work as trustees.
The noble Lord, Lord Charteris, to whom I pay tribute for all his work on behalf of the NHMF, commented on the reduced funding of the original Heritage Memorial Fund. The Government are very much aware of the view that there is a continued role for the memorial fund independently of the lottery. The NHMF has put to the Government its case for a restoration of grant-in-aid for the memorial fund. The Government will consider that carefully in assessing priorities during the current PES round.
The noble Lord, Lord Cobbold, asked whether the Bill would duplicate consideration given to applications from private owners currently considered by English Heritage. I agree with him that, wherever possible, duplication in bureaucratic procedures should be avoided. I am sure that the NHMF will want to make full use of the expertise already available in English Heritage, as indeed it already does in respect of applications covering the built heritage.

569
The noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi—I am most grateful to him for giving me advance warning—asked whether English Heritage Section 3 grants would continue and whether the NHMF would be able to fund grants for once-in-a-lifetime repairs. English Heritage will certainly be able to continue to offer its full present range of grants alongside the awards which it will be possible for the NHMF to offer. Detailed decisions will of course continue to be for English Heritage itself to take in the light of its assessment of overall priorities for the use of the funds it has available for the repair and conservation of the built heritage in England. Likewise, I envisage that the NHMF will be able to make grants to private owners for once-in-a-lifetime repairs following the Bill's passage. Of course it will be for the NHMF trustees to consider individual applications on their merits. I expect that they will want to take advice from English Heritage and other statutory bodies in doing so.
The noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, also asked whether grants would be available for parks. Perhaps I may remind him and the House of the broad scope of the NHMF's funding powers as they will stand after the Bill is enacted. The funding powers will apply to items of any kind which are of scenic, historic, archaeological, aesthetic, architectural, artistic or scientific interest. Therefore, parks will be included within that remit. Indeed, lottery grants have already been made for the benefit of some outstanding parks; for example, the purchase and restoration of Croome Park in Worcestershire.
My noble friend Lord Renton asked about treasure trove, which is a subject dear to both our hearts. As he knows, the Government are committed to bringing forward a code of practice in relation to treasure trove and to consulting on that before bringing the Treasure Act into force. We hope to be able to issue the code in draft to interested bodies within the next few months. I therefore anticipate that we should be able to bring the Act into force in the course of next year.
I can assure my noble friend Lord Hindlip that the Government will continue to offer help to private owners, as they do at present, through a range of schemes such as the acceptance-in-lieu scheme. I was most upset to have missed the exhibition of Houghton treasures at the Norwich Castle Museum, which I understand is a wonderful exhibition on a very interesting topic. However, it is not often that we have a vote on the Loyal Address, which prevented me from being there.
The noble Lord, Lord Chorley, asked whether the NHMF was prepared to consider revenue or endowment funding to help with the running costs involved in heritage projects, about committing lottery money on a continuing basis and about substitution for core funding. There may be cases in which time limited revenue funding is appropriate, particularly as part of a specific capital project.
I have answers to several more questions but time is passing. Perhaps I may write to my noble friends Lady Rawlings and Lord Cavendish and to the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland. I apologise for not answering them now but I wish to wind up the debate.
570
I remind my noble friend Lord Renton that it has been said, "It is better to plan for the future rather than the present because there is so much more of it". I am confident that this short Bill will be welcomed by everyone who cares about our national heritage. It will build on the outstanding success of the National Lottery as a source of support for the heritage. It will open the door to lottery funding for a whole range of exciting new projects; projects to kindle the interest of young people in the heritage and to make the past more accessible, more understandable and—dare I say it?—more fun. I therefore invite your Lordships to agree that the Bill be read a second time.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
5.54 p.m.

Hong Kong Economic and Trade Office Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

Infections Resistant to Antibiotics
5.55 p.m.
Baroness Masham of Ilton Baroness Masham of Ilton rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what steps they are taking to combat the growing problem in hospitals and the community of infections resistant to antibiotics.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I am grateful to have been given time in your Lordships' House to ask the Government this Question. I consider it to be a matter of vital importance. With trust hospitals competing against each other, and the contracting purchaser-provider policy now in place, it is only too possible that when infections break out a cloud of secrecy may come down. Would the Minister agree with me that infection control is far too important a matter not to be treated in an honest and open way? Should it not now be put at the top of the health agenda? All patients, their supporters and staff inside and outside hospitals should know what to do and how to deal with infection control.
With no slack in the system and nurses, doctors, domestic and therapy staff working hard, how easy it must be to cut corners. As one patient leaves a hospital bed another one goes into it. How thorough is the cleaning of mattresses, equipment and dust? Do doctors and nurses always wash their hands between treating patients? In many hospitals, bank and agency nurses are employed who do many different jobs in many different hospitals. In all hospitals, but particularly in large inner city ones, keeping infection under control needs constant vigilance.
About 18 months ago I visited a large hospital outside London. One doctor said to me, "I think the bugs may win". I felt that that was a matter to be discussed in your Lordships' House. The microbiologists and the infection control doctors and nurses are of immense importance.

571
They should be given full support and all hospital departments should have clear guidelines which are adhered to.
Methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) is a bacterium resistant to treatment with a wide range of antibiotics. It can become a major infection in hospitals. It is also becoming a problem in nursing homes and in community settings. MRSA is not necessarily any more virulent than other infections but the range of treatment options is more limited because of patients' resistance to antibiotics. Hospital-acquired infections, which are thought to affect 1 million people on any one day, increase patients' discomfort and their time spent in hospital. Lives can be put at risk. There is public concern that hospitals are no longer safe places in which to be and hospital staff are also at risk of infection. Infection increases the cost of treatment. How much are these infections costing the National Health Service today?
Failure to control the spread of MRSA is likely to result in serious infections which are difficult to treat, increased drug and other treatment costs, closed wards or special units and disruption to the normal running of hospitals. The number of infections acquired is a good measure of the standards of care in a hospital. The inclusion of hospital rates of infection in league tables could act as an incentive for improvement. Is it not time to make MRSA a notifiable condition?
Infection-control nurses can reduce the risk of infection both in hospital and after patients are discharged into the community. However, more are needed. A community physiotherapist from Bradford told me that she had had returned a wheelchair cushion on which was written, "patient died from MRSA". She was not sure what the correct procedure should be. Dr. Sandy Macara, chairman of the British Medical Association, states:
"There is a real prospect that the majority of our antibiotics could become impotent for the purposes on which we have relied upon them for 40 years".
Doctors in Gloucestershire believe that they have found evidence of a link between meningitis and the over-use of antibiotics after comparing prescribing patterns in areas of high and low incidence of the disease. The WHO warned recently against the global spread of bacteria resistant to antibiotics. But the spread of resistance to anti-malaria drugs may pose a greater threat. Man's ability to stay one step ahead of the mosquito-borne malaria parasite is in doubt.
There is concern about the continuing increase in cases of food poisoning, with more than 88,000 people affected seriously last year, costing the National Health Service about £30 million per year. A dangerous strain of salmonella typhimorium DT104, which is resistant to antibiotics, is increasing at an alarming rate.
Multi-drug resistant strains of tuberculosis have been on the increase world wide as a result of misuse of antibiotics that were expected to rid humanity of the condition. With the expansion of air travel, highly resistant strains are now only a few hours flying time from western Europe. Studies in the US have shown that
572
the multi-drug resistant TB kills 45 per cent. of people with healthy immune systems within two years. In patients carrying the HIV virus, the mortality rate is 85 per cent. Outbreaks inside prisons and among the HIV community in New York infected hundreds of people, most of whom have died.
If multi-drug resistant TB is allowed to spread in Britain, just think what it might do if it circulated around the Chamber during a long debate in your Lordships' House.
Much has been said this year. The World Health Organisation report in 1996 stated:
"We are standing on the brink of a global crisis if infectious diseases are not controlled. No country is safe from them. A major cause of the antibiotic resistant crisis is the uncontrolled and inappropriate use of antibiotics globally. They are used by too many people to treat the wrong kind of infections at the wrong dosage and for the wrong period of time".
Greece is an example of a country where one has been able to buy antibiotics over the counter for years. It is essential to limit the use of important new antibiotics in both human and veterinary medicine and not to employ them as animal growth promoters which give cross-resistance to those used in human medicine.
As resistance spreads, the life span shrinks. As fewer new drugs appear, the gulf widens between infection and control. Last Monday, Channel 4 presented "Cutting Edge" on the problem of multi-resistant TB. I found it to be most concerning and profoundly sad. Mistakes have been made. If Ministers in the Department of Health have not seen the programme, they should do so. I hope that everyone learns from it. One must ask what the guidelines were on infection control at St. Thomas' Hospital and the Chelsea and Westminster Hospital where patients died. Perhaps the Minister will tell the House.
I hope that when patients have to be treated in isolation, they will be treated as humanely as possible. I hope that TLC will not be forgotten, even though stringent precautions must be taken.
The World Medical Association met last week in South Africa. It declared that the global increase in resistance, including the emergence of bacterial strains resistant to all available anti-bacterial agents has created a public health problem of potentially crisis proportions.
With Unstarred Questions, there is no way of thanking all noble Lords and Baronesses for taking part at the end of the debate so I do so now. Thank you.
6.5 p.m.
Baroness McFarlane of Llandaff: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Masham of Ilton, for bringing this Question before the House and giving your Lordships an opportunity to discuss a matter of such concern in health care.
I started training as a nurse just over a year before the inauguration of the National Health Service. Antibiotics were not in widespread use in those days and penicillin and streptomycin were only gradually making their impact. In those days, we treated infections with great respect and the protocols for the prevention of

573
cross-infection were followed with meticulous precision. We knew that the lives of patients and staff could depend upon them.
I am by no means wanting to make the case that practitioners of that bygone era were more efficient or more conscientious than the practitioners of today. But I wonder whether the broad range and ready availability of antibiotics have made us rather too reliant on them and less meticulous in our care.
I felt grossly out of date as I came to this debate and so I consulted Margaret Worsley, the deputy director of nursing of the North Manchester Health Care Trust, who has an international reputation as an infection control sister. She brought me a vast quantity of literature. I was impressed by the size and complexity of the problem and the fact that the problem is global and knows no national boundaries.
I believe that the three major problems with resistant strains include methicillin resistant staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) and epidemic MRSA, multi-drug resistant tuberculosis (MRTB), which the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, mentioned, and vancomycin resistant enterococci (VRE).
It is interesting to look at the Communicable Diseases Report Weekly over the past year. In June of this year it stated:
"The number of hospitals referring isolates of the commonest strains of EMRSA has continued to rise".
In August 1995 it stated:
"The first reported outbreak of hospital acquired multidrug resistant TB (MRTB) in England and Wales has occurred on an HIV unit in London".
In December 1995 it stated:
"Vancomycin resistant enterococci (VRE) pose an increasing risk to hospital patients in the UK".
Indeed, another article suggests that the potential for more widespread resistance is quite disturbing and the public health authorities in the United States fear that vancomycin resistant straphylocaccus is a disaster looming on the horizon.
Infectious diseases resistant to bacteria, as the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, said, know no boundaries. They are found in hospitals, in the community and in residential and nursing homes. The noble Baroness talked about the scale of the problem. The latest figures I have relate to 1987 when it was estimated that the infections cost the health service approximately £115 million and there were 95,000 lost bed days.
In the face of those problems, I believe that action is needed. It is true to say that the problem of antibiotic resistant bacteria is largely a consequence of the manner in which we use antibiotics. Once regarded as "wonder drugs" for use in exceptionally severe infectious illnesses, we now use them on a far more routine basis. Many operations are performed under a broad spectrum antibiotic umbrella and infections from earache to acne are treated with antibiotics.
There is widespread advertising of new antibiotics and it is a temptation to assume that if the older drug
574
does not work, then a new one will be suitable. In that way, we have newer drugs which are usually more expensive and delays are caused in finding the antibiotic of choice for the particular bacterial infection. So we have sometimes a careless use of antibiotics. Yet the protocols for the administration of antibiotics are there. They are provided in the British National Formulary and they are there for every doctor to follow. But, in face of the problems, it is clear that there is a need to apply a far stricter antibiotic policy.
The Department of Health has published guidelines for control of the environment in nursing and residential homes. The Public Health Medicine Environment Group published Guidelines to the control of infection in residential and nursing homes in 1996, and in 1994 the joint tuberculosis committee of the British Thoracic Society published a code of practice which emphasises the importance of infection control, particularly in tuberculosis. However, those protocols need to be more stringently applied. It is part of the role of the infection control nurse to make them known and to monitor their effectiveness. It is the view of the Royal College of Nursing that the guidance needs to be collated by the Department of Health and tackled on a national basis and that the Clinical Standards Advisory Group has an important role to play in issuing guidelines as a matter of priority. We look forward to hearing from the Minister about the intentions of issuing those guidelines.
I have a feeling that at the basis of the problem there lies very basic nursing care. Many of the practices that need to be encouraged are matters of basic nursing care—hand washing by both patients and staff. I have to say that medical staff are not immune in that respect. One of the articles that I read showed that there was a variation of between 22 per cent. and 63 per cent. compliance among different groups of doctors in hand washing. I have watched a consultant doing a round and going from patient to patient without hand washing in between and, indeed, even prodding infected wounds with a pencil. I am sure that nurses do equally horrific things. However, that implies that facilities have to be provided if there are to be safe practices. It is my view that we need to monitor and order the routines and the guidelines that we impose.
One of the interesting facts that emerges from the literature is that the protocols and guidelines issued are often ineffective because of lack of compliance. We must accept professional responsibility for that throughout the health professions. I look forward to hearing too about the very dominant role that needs to be played by the Department of Health.
6.13 p.m.
Earl Baldwin of Bewdley: My Lords, there is no doubt that we have a major problem and we are all grateful to my noble friend Lady Masham for raising it this afternoon. There is also no doubt that a partial

575
answer is to use fewer antibiotics, something doctors are constantly urged to do. Let me suggest another solution: invest more in complementary medicine. I speak here as a patient and student of complementary therapies, with a very modest pecuniary involvement as part-time chairman of the British Acupuncture Accreditation Board.
There are a number of distinguishing features of complementary approaches to health care. One is that they are seldom aggressive. This is in marked contrast to the high technology approach of modern Western medicine, whose tendency is to go in with all guns blazing when disease manifests itself. The lesson we have learnt the hard way is that when you do this the bugs fight back. On the other hand, when you treat with herbs, homoeopathy or acupuncture, this does not seem to happen. Garlic, echinacea, tea-tree oil, thyme all have a useful role in clearing up infections.
I spoke to a herbalist friend only last week who was having much success with a combination of echinacea and burdock with the current throat bug that is going round, for which some of the local doctors were using antibiotics. I also spoke to a researcher who is doing some interesting laboratory work with essential oils, specifically targeting the colonisation by MRSAs that we have heard about. Because of the variety of these oils, and the complexity of their molecules in contrast to those of antibiotics, resistance can much more easily be avoided, and I understand that the results so far are promising. Homeopaths will draw attention to the spectacular success of the Royal London Homoeopathic Hospital in the cholera epidemic of 1854, with a mortality rate of 16.4 per cent. as against in the mainstream hospital average of 51.8 per cent.—figures, interestingly, that were suppressed at the time.
A second reason why complementary treatments do not stir up resistance is that many of them work to bolster the overall health and vitality of the patient rather than simply attack the infection. Of course you often need both. But a distinguishing mark of much of complementary medicine, usually overlooked by conventional commentators, is its focus on the host milieu rather than the external pathogen. After all, our guts are full of all kinds of assorted bacteria with which, when generally healthy, we live in harmony.
When a herbalist, using (as it might be) Siberian ginseng, works on a patient's non-specific immunity, there is less need to engage in chemical warfare with invading forces, and with acupuncture and homoeopathy it is no different. It is remarkable what the body itself can achieve, given the right conditions. This again is something the modern doctor has largely lost sight of, with sometimes dire results. I have always been impressed by the story of the professor, in the early days of bacteriological research, who swallowed a whole phial of TB bacilli in front of his astonished class because he was so confident of the ability of his immune system to deal with the consequences.
576
Anything that reinforces a person's immunity and general well-being will reduce the impact of infectious agents and lessen the need to weigh in with antibiotics and provoke all the counter-attacks that we have been experiencing. A good diet based on fruit and vegetables is one such factor. Decent housing, sanitation and welfare are others. I suggest that the Government can perhaps do more in these areas to promote not just freedom from disease but positively good health.
Of course I am not claiming that non-conventional medical approaches have all the answers. I well remember the herbalist who told me for heaven's sake to go and take an antibiotic because that was the appropriate treatment in the circumstances. What I am saying is that some of the well-established complementary therapies can do, without side-effects, much of what modern drugs are doing with the consequences that we have been hearing of. And if the Minister, who has heard me say this before, is not disposed to rely on the results of many centuries of clinical experience in a number of healing disciplines, perhaps, as I have also said before, she will help to promote further well-conducted research into the anti-viral and anti-bacterial properties of these treatments. The practitioners cannot do it all on their own.
For I fear that, unless we come up with some radical thinking in this area, we shall only perpetuate the vicious circle of resistance, to say nothing of the other unwanted side-effects that accompany our present system of drugs-based medicine. It is noteworthy that the World Medical Association is currently calling for the development of "innovative" anti-microbial agents. Whatever else the Government propose to do, I do hope that they will not ignore this particular approach, which, as countless surveys have shown, is also what more and more patients are calling for.
6.20 p.m.
Lord McNair: My Lords, I think this will be the third time that I have spoken about oxygen therapies in your Lordships' House and I do so on this occasion with gratitude to the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, for introducing this debate.
When I first mentioned my intention to speak about hydrogen peroxide to my noble friend Lord Harris of Greenwich he said he thought it was only for whitening hair. My own hair has considerably lightened since I first took my seat but I can assure him that this is due to the passing of years and not to the application of hydrogen peroxide.
So, if not for changing hair colour, nor for rocket fuel, what relevance do the oxygen therapies have to healthcare and to antibiotic resistant pathogens? The answer is: a very great deal. We are trying to answer this Question tonight precisely because antibiotics have failed us. That has been graphically underlined by the description of the problem which the noble Baroness gave. The situation we face is the logical outcome of the choices made by medical policy

577
makers and those involved with the training of doctors at about the beginning of the century, but I shall return to that later.
In our debate on 2nd December 1994, on the Motion of the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, about the health of drug users, and in our debate on 10th January of this year on the Motion of the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin, on non-conventional medicine, I explained the evolutionary basis of the effectiveness of ozone and hydrogen peroxide in maintaining health and the ways of using it. I shall only add that ozone turns into hydrogen peroxide on contact with water or blood. Hydrogen peroxide is what the white blood cells use to destroy viruses and bacteria, so it has a crucial role to play in the immune system.
Hydrogen peroxide is used for cleaning work surfaces; ozone is the most effective fumigatory gas known. The use of the various forms of oxygen for medical purposes should be considered not only for treating individuals suffering from infectious diseases but also for making sure that when people go into hospital they do not acquire new infections.
Since my attention was first drawn to this issue in 1993 I have, as I said, spoken about it three times. I have also met the Minister who will reply to this debate with her advisers on two occasions and I have engaged in quite a protracted correspondence with her. It will therefore be no surprise to her that I raise the matter again. In her most recent letter to me she suggested that before the Government could fund any research into the possible benefits of hydrogen peroxide there had to be a corpus of knowledge about it. Earlier this year I sent her a book which is a facsimile reproduction of one published in the first decade of this century. It contains 300 articles from medical journals which speak highly of hydrogen peroxide. There are in existence, I understand, over 6,000 such articles dating back to the second half of the previous century when oxygen therapies were first discovered in Germany. How much of a corpus of knowledge do the Minister and her department need?
I may seem to have digressed a little but the point I wish to make is the following. The very fact that I encountered this issue and have so assiduously pressed a vast body of information on the department should indicate not just that the subject warrants intensive research, which should include those already expert in the oxygen therapies, but also that if the benefits are as great as I and others have claimed, then by failing to investigate thoroughly the present Government and the department lay themselves open to charges of negligence on a vast scale.
I referred earlier to the direction taken by medical policy and medical education about 100 years ago. The then recent discovery of the pharmacological possibilities offered by the new science of organic chemistry based on the oil industry offered the prospect of rich rewards for the oil barons of the day and as a consequence treatments such as the oxygen therapies fell by the commercial wayside. I was interested in the reference that the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin, made about the suppression of the success
578
of the homoeopathic treatment of a cholera outbreak in 1854. It seems that little has changed. The repercussions of that decision 100 years ago are still reverberating round Whitehall because during one of the meetings I had with the Minister, a Department of Health official insisted that there could be no benefit from oxygen therapies if no commercial benefit would follow from research. That astounded me. The commercial benefit to the Government would be immense and the health benefit to the nation even more so.
The facts that we have heard this evening from the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, and from the other two speakers have made my case with chilling emphasis. I had no idea before the debate started just how widespread and serious this problem is. It is made more serious by the department's intransigence about hydrogen peroxide and ozone.
6.25 p.m.
Lady Kinloss: My Lords, I am very pleased to support my noble friend Lady Masham of Ilton in her Unstarred Question this evening. On 1st February this year at col. 1554 of Hansard the noble Baroness asked a Starred Question on this particular subject, in which I asked a supplementary question of the Minister. It was whether she could comment on a report that the Heriot Watt University was researching into the use of seaweed to combat at least some of these infections. Could she say what progress has been made and whether it has yet had any trials? The Minister also said at the time that guidelines had been issued to hospitals in regard to treating infections in wards. Can she say whether the hospitals have been able to use the guidelines successfully and whether they are allocated any extra funds to acquire the necessary equipment to clear the infections?
My interest in this subject arises from the time, some years ago now, when our son at the age of 10 contracted staphylococcus aureus in his leg. We and he were very lucky and grateful that he was cured by penicillin which was still effective then against this illness.
Research in Australia has demonstrated the effectiveness of tea tree oil in eradicating MRSA in hospitals there. I understand that there have been recent demonstrations of the use of tea tree oil in this country. Would the Minister say whether the Department of Health is interested in the effectiveness of this product, and will it consider conducting research into tea tree oil?
By chance last week I was talking to my younger daughter and mentioned tea tree oil. She said, "Oh yes, it is wonderful stuff, I use it whenever one of my three young sons cuts himself, or even for bad scratches". She uses tea tree ointment. It not only helps the wounds to heal, but it is also an antiseptic against possible infection. I believe I am right that it was originally used by the Aborigines of Australia.
There is a very interesting statement on resistance to antimicrobial drugs adopted by the World Medical Association in South Africa last week. Among its

579
recommendations it advises that national medical associations should encourage their governments to fund more basic and applied research directed towards the development of vaccines and other antimicrobial agents. It also recommends that these antimicrobial agents should be available only on prescription. Can the Minister say whether the Government are accepting the recommendations, and in particular whether they should be available only on prescription?
A British Medical Association press release of last Friday, 1st November, drew attention to the problem of the increase of one form of salmonella. Dr. John Cowden of the Scottish Centre for Infection and Environmental Health in Glasgow, warns in this press release that this type of salmonella is increasingly resistant to many antibiotics. May I hope that the Government will take heed of the warning.
6.28 p.m.
Lord Broadbridge: My Lords, it is with some trepidation that I address your Lordships' House on a bacteriological subject since we number many doctors in our membership, quite apart from those who may be actively involved in the field of drug resistance. However, rather than declaring an interest—which usually means financial—I declare some acquaintance with the topic of today's debate in that, after obtaining my first degree in chemistry at Oxford I spent a year and a half being supervised by Sir Cyril Hinshelwood, a Nobel prizewinner, on a thesis entitled "The mechanisms by which bacteria resist the action of drugs". However, alas, all this is some 35 years ago, and I did not follow a microbiological career.
Broadly, infections can be split into viral and bacteriological infections. There is little that medicine can do for viral infections. Keeping the blood sugar level up certainly helps; but broadly the advice is similar to that given to TB patients earlier in the century—that is, good food and rest. I suppose that the father of modern bacteriology is Sir Alexander Fleming, through whose window at St. Mary's Hospital, Paddington, a penicillin mould floated in and killed everything on the agar growth medium plate on which it landed. Fleming did not develop this observation at the time but most fortunately made a careful record of it. It was left to Sir Howard (later Lord) Florey in the late 1930s with his team at Oxford to develop this crucial observation. Without the formality of first testing it on an animal chain, he treated a policeman, who was dying of blood poisoning in the Radcliffe Infirmary, with startlingly positive results. Thus, by research and development at Oxford and, because of the war in America, penicillin and its derivatives were born. Simultaneously other antibacterial agents were developed in other places, such as the sulphonamides in, I think, Germany.
This has led to a culture where over the past 60 years or so friends and relatives have said, in the vernacular, "Go and see doctor and he will give you something for it". And he does. And it has worked. This brings us to the heart of today's debate: increasingly, the antibiotic does not work and, in the
580
words last week of the World Medical Association meeting in South Africa, (and your Lordships may already have heard them but they bear repetition),
"The global increase in resistance, including the emergence of bacterial strains resistant to all available antibacterial agents has created a public health problem of potentially crisis proportions".
Mechanistically, a bacterium's objective is rather like that of the human race: to survive and multiply. There are two theories about how that occurs. One is that a few members of the bacterial population are better suited to survival than the others—one might perhaps call them mutants—and multiply. The other is that after a lag in growth, all members of the bacterial population adapt and grow. My humble piece of research indicated that the former mechanism prevailed. Like human beings who, if subjected to a nasty shock, adapt their behaviour accordingly, bacteria when presented with a hostile antibacterial agent have, over a considerable time, learnt to do the same. Actually it is probably not their behaviour that they adapt so much as their structure.
A principal factor leading to this state of affairs has been over-reliance on and over-prescribing of antibiotics. As the WMA states, mutation to antibiotic resistance has been exacerbated by the availability of antimicrobial agents without prescription in many developing countries. I have direct experience of this. Developing an abscess on a tooth last month while on holiday in Greece, I was able to buy amoxycillin, a wide spectrum antibiotic commonly prescribed in the UK, over the counter with no prescription. Perhaps I was being naughty but it was what my doctor had prescribed the last time I had an abscess.
Another problem is the necessity for repeated courses of drug treatment because patients either are not advised or take no notice of the fact that it is essential to complete the course of treatment. As a poster on my doctor's wall reads, "Don't stop the treatment just because you feel better". The mean growth time, or mgt, of a bacterium is commonly about half an hour and that is the time taken to double the population. So if at midday you have a million cells, by half past twelve you have 2 million cells, by one o'clock, 4 million, by half past one 8 million, and so forth. Bacterial growth is very rapid, increasing the problem presented by resistant strains.
The only solution to the dramatic and disastrous increase in the prevalence of resistant strains must surely be research, research and more research. This, of course, is going on among participants which may perhaps be likened to a spectrum. At one end there are the heavyweight players, the national and international drug companies, for there will be great profit as well as great good as a reward for a solution. At the other end, there are the more academic research bodies such as universities, colleges, hospitals and institutes. Human invention is a nebulous business and no one can say from where the successful inventive spark may come except that statistically surely the more minds and resources devoted to the problem, the more likely will be success. Chance, luck, intuitive thinking, analysis, a corporate strategy and plan for research all play their part. But if the advanced nations

581
of the world's governments can fund such work to the limits of their reasonable resources, a solution and progress is that much more likely.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, for bringing this vital, in the true meaning of the word, topic to our attention and await eagerly the reply of the noble Baroness, the Minister, who speaks with the great experience of having previously been chairman of a huge health authority.
6.36 p.m.
Lord Fitt: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, for bringing this subject before your Lordships' House. As a former Member of Parliament, there have been times over many years when I have questioned whether the existence of this House was relevant. However, I believe that the debate this evening should alert people at the other end of the building; in the final analysis they are the people who will have to take steps to deal with this subject. I approach the matter both on a personal basis and from the point of view of the whole country. I do not wish what happened to me to happen to any other individual or family.
The noble Baroness rightly drew attention to many aspects of the spread of disease. I do not believe that enough stress has been placed on this matter. I hope that people in another part of this building will consider it. The world health authority has said that antibiotics given to animals can ultimately have an effect on human beings when they are treated with antibiotics. Everyone knows of the effect of BSE on animals and CJD on humans. But we are discussing a completely different subject. Attention should be drawn to what has been said by the world health authority: that what has been given to animals can have an effect on people in receipt of antibiotics.
MRSA is a real danger to people in this country and all over the world. It has been said that the problem is out of control because antibiotics have been so freely available. They have been used in an indiscriminate way so that the bacteria themselves have become used to them, and the infection cannot be treated.
I believe that it is the duty of the Government to use all means in their power to find a way to remedy the awful effects of MRSA. I could talk at length on the subject, but let me put the facts before your Lordships in graphic terms. My wife and I had been married for over 48 years. She had suffered from asthma all her life. She had been taking cortisone and the various treatments that are available to asthma sufferers. I spoke to her doctor, who thought that she was taking too much cortisone. He asked her whether it would be possible for her to go to one of the foremost hospitals in Europe, the Chelsea and Westminster, which was built at a cost of millions of pounds. He said that she would be there for only two or three days and staff would try to find a substitute for the cortisone that she had taken over so many years.
I listened to him making that request and, unfortunately, I agreed with him. I took my wife in a taxi to the Chelsea and Westminster hospital. When we
582
arrived on the first floor I noticed that there was some debate going on as to which ward she would go. I subsequently found out that there are some hospitals in this country where staff look at your birth certificate rather than the ailment you have. If you are over 70, you are admitted to the geriatric ward, whatever your complaint. Obviously that was what the debate was about.
My wife was eventually admitted to the Nell Gwynne ward. I went to see her that evening, and the next day. On the third day I visited her, she said, "Gerry, there's a woman at the end of the ward who has some sort of hospital bug, and they're all very concerned about her". They had screens around that patient. I put my hands to my head and said, "Jesus, Ann, if there's a hospital bug, you're going to get it". The next day I went to visit my wife and they gave me rubber gloves and an apron. She had contracted the bug as a result of going into that hospital. I only wish now, in retrospect, that I had never agreed to let her go there. She and the other woman who had MRSA were put into a side ward, an isolation ward. The ward she had been in was a geriatric ward and there were other patients in it; that is exactly the ward in which vulnerable people should not be placed. All people over that age are vulnerable. They are all receiving intravenous injections. As the world health authority states, once you receive an injection you are liable to pick up infections that are there in the ward.
From the day that my wife contracted that infection her health went totally and absolutely downhill. I was with her, as were my five daughters, two of whom are nurses. We stayed with her every second of every day during the time she was there. Eventually, the bug that had entered her respiratory system was creating such havoc that she had to be taken into intensive care. She was on an intensive care machine for 21 days. She was then transferred from the Chelsea and Westminster to one of the foremost chest hospitals in the world, the Brompton hospital in London. When she was transferred there and was admitted to the ward, as I walked down the corridor all I could see was, "No admittance", and again, "No admittance". There were 17 cases in the hospital. People enter that hospital with chest complaints, and all those had contracted MRSA. Again, to transfer patients from one hospital to another only creates further strains of this devastating infection.
The hospital was treating my wife with Vancomycin. Evidently, that is the only drug that can deal with MRSA, but it causes devastation to the human frame. The side effects of the drug used to combat MRSA are horrendous. Patients become incontinent; and they cannot breathe. I decided that MRSA was killing my wife. Eventually, after she had spent so many days there, I told the doctors that I intended to take her out of there. I took her to my home in Kent where there were washing facilities. In September last year, on the day I took my wife out of the hospital, the consultant said to me: "By the way, your wife is very weak". He did not have to tell me. I could see it at every second. He said that MRSA had created such devastation that she would never again be able to deal with an attack of 'flu. He

583
said that if she ever caught 'flu she would not be able to combat it.
However, I took my wife out by private ambulance. In Kent I and my daughters stayed with her every second of every day. We began to build her up. She still had MRSA when she left hospital. She was still taking Vancomycin. On 4th January this year she had to go back to the Brompton hospital for a test. There they said that she had made remarkable progress and that she should return to the hospital in June. When I took her back to Kent, she asked me for the loan of my handkerchief and said, "Gerry, I've got the 'flu". That was exactly what had been predicted by the consultant. So devastating had been the effect of MRSA that she caught 'flu and within a week she had died.
I have a long script in my hand, and there are many things that could be said in this debate. I understand this subject from a very personal point of view. The Government should use all means at their disposal to do what they can to educate nurses, consultants and doctors to wash their hands. Some medical staff think that they should not be forced to accede to such an obligation. But the Government should take any measures they can to bring to their attention the devastating effects that this infection can have.
I should say that, although I have criticisms in relation to what happened to my wife, and will have until the day I die—I took her to hospital for an asthma attack and that eventually led to her death—the intensive care unit at the Chelsea and Westminster hospital must be recognised as one of the foremost clinical and compassionate organisations in this country, and in the world. There was nothing staff could have done to prevent the terrible onslaught of MRSA in my wife's case.
I look upon this debate on MRSA as a matter that is very personal to me. I do not want the same to happen to anyone else. Had it not been for the fact that I took my wife to hospital for an attack of asthma, whereupon she contracted MRSA, I should have been celebrating my 49th wedding anniversary tomorrow.
6.48 p.m.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, after hearing from my noble friend Lord Fitt that enormously moving expression of the devastating personal and family consequences that MRSA can have, I believe the whole House would wish to extend sympathies to him and express our appreciation of his courage in talking personally when so often we talk in the most general terms in this House. We also express our thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, for initiating the debate. It is about large numbers of people and about international trends. But it is also, as we heard, a debate about individuals and the suffering that those individuals can undergo.
The noble Baroness who introduced the debate spoke about the tendency in hospitals sometimes to hide the fact that they have antibiotic resistant infections. They have nothing to hide, sadly, in Great Britain at the moment because there is a very high incidence among
584
hospitals many of which are prestigious, highly efficient and high quality hospitals. But perhaps, in the spirit of openness for which the noble Baroness called, I should declare a rather unusual interest. I am the chairman of a London hospital which today has 18 beds closed to admissions because of MRSA on the wards. That is not an unusual phenomenon either in London or throughout the country.
In fact, as was pointed out by the noble Baroness, MRSA is not a notifiable disease. It can be carried by many people without ill effects. Looking at the figures which the Public Health Laboratory Service has recorded, in 1994 there were 1,081 cases, in 1995 there were 1,670 cases and in the first nine months of 1996 there were already 1,666 cases. If the trend continues, we shall be talking about a doubling of MRSA cases within two years. That is a very serious issue for us all.
So far, I have spoken about MRSA. But, as has been pointed out, the issue extends to other diseases. The case of tuberculosis which is resistant to antibiotics is particularly worrying. One has seen the devastating effects that it can have, particularly on populations whose health is compromised, such as the elderly but also those who are HIV positive. It is a new and worrying phenomenon.
It was said earlier in the debate, I believe by the noble Lord, Lord McNair, that the problem was that antibiotics had failed us. That is too sweeping a statement. Many people in this House, elsewhere and throughout the world have good reason to be extremely grateful for the benefits of antibiotics and antibiotic therapy, which in the main have been life saving. What I believe we have seen is the profligate use of antibiotics and it is our failure to control their use, nationally and internationally, that has led to many of the problems. Of course, it is a failure, as was mentioned in the debate, not only in human medicine but also in farming and in veterinary medicine. Those are areas about which we ought to be concerned.
But I should like particularly to dwell today on my concern that many of the trends that we see at the moment in terms particularly of MRSA are intensified by the problems that we are experiencing in our acute hospitals at the moment. Previous speakers have already made reference to how measures that need to be taken to prevent outbreaks of MRSA and to control outbreaks when they have occurred are absolutely crucial to our ability to deal with this problem. The noble Baroness, Lady McFarlane, spoke about the importance of hygiene and also about the importance of having the resources to deal with the issues within hospitals that are affected by MRSA.
I have to say that at the moment it is well acknowledged—press coverage over the past couple of days cannot leave any of us in any doubt—that hospitals are working under enormous pressure. That pressure leads to very high bed occupancy. It leads to a very high and rapid turnover of patients. It leads to patients being moved around the hospital from ward to ward because they are admitted to the first available bed and transferred later to a place where they can be more appropriately nursed. When there are crisis situations

585
during the middle of the night and when trying to avoid trolley waits in casualty departments, beds are being put up within ward areas which are closer together than they should be. We all know that proximity increases the spread of disease.
We also know that the staff who work in such wards are working under very intense pressure. Although we have to keep the training, re-training and very high standards in personal hygiene to the forefront for everyone who works within the hospital service, it is undoubtedly true that low morale and increased workloads lead to less rigorous enforcement of the personal hygiene that is so essential if an impact is to be made on these areas.
Perhaps I may ask the noble Baroness who will reply and who, I know, has taken a great interest in these matters and takes them very seriously, whether she can answer a range of points and tell us what we need to know. First, this evening we have spoken about hospitals and the prevalence of antibiotic resistant infections within hospitals. There is also the issue of its prevalence within the community, which has an impact on the discharge of patients who are no longer sick but who may still be infected by MRSA, particularly into community nursing homes.
One aspect that we should not neglect is the danger of stigmatising people who are no danger to themselves or anybody else by horror stories about the effects of being an MRSA carrier and of ostracising them in some way from the community or feeling that they cannot live within a residential home or within a community nursing home. The advice put out by the department has made quite clear that, if proper precautions are taken, that is not so.
Will the Minister say something on that issue and particularly on whether she feels that the number of community control of infection nurses is at a satisfactory level? If it is not, what will be done to promote the employment of community control of infection nurses? I hope that we shall not receive the answer that it is up to local decision-making. The noble Baroness, Lady Masham, raised this matter as a question when the House debated previously this issue and there was a great deal of emphasis in what the Minister said about it being a matter for individual hospitals to have their own policy and that what should be done was a matter for local decision-making on the control of infection. The evidence is very clear. It has been set out in the contributions tonight. This is not a local problem but a national problem. We need a concerted national approach if we are to tackle it.
I also ask that we strengthen and encourage the compilation of national statistics as well as national advice, guidelines and monitoring the effectiveness of that advice and those guidelines from the department. That is tremendously important.
Many speakers referred to the statement a few days ago by the World Medical Association in South Africa and to its recommendations that we tackle these problems internationally both through agriculture and in the field of medicine. I wonder whether we could be given some idea about government policy on that issue.
586
Finally, does the noble Baroness accept that the pressures, the high levels of bed occupancy, the rapid turnover and the shortage of trained nursing staff all increase the risk of MRSA outbreaks? If so, what action do the Government intend to take to prevent the present over-heating in our acute hospital services?
7 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Cumberlege): My Lords, I too am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, for raising what I believe to be a very important subject. Once again she has put her finger on the pulse. I agree with her too that infection control is too important not to be treated in an honest and open way. That is why we have invested so much in training clinical staff and making managers aware of bacterial resistant diseases.
I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, on her first occasion winding up for the Opposition Benches. Like her, I too pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Fitt. So often the noble Lord has displayed enormous courage, both in the Province and in your Lordships' House as he has tonight. Of course, I am speaking for the Government on this occasion and have to speak in general terms, but I carry the sorrow and anguish of those who, on occasions, are failed by the National Health Service.
Without doubt, the discovery of penicillin and other antibiotics has revolutionised health care. They have provided untold benefits to patients. They have been in the vanguard in helping to control the spread of infection and made an enormous contribution to advances in medicine and improvements in post-operative care. Simply put, they have helped to save the lives of literally hundreds of thousands of people. It is not surprising, therefore, that any suggestion that we are heading towards a "post-antibiotic era" generates fear and anxiety.
The ability of bacteria to develop resistance to antibiotics is not a new phenomenon; it was identified at a very early stage in their use. That was countered by conventional infection control techniques and other intervention strategies which included limiting or rotating the use of antibiotics. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady McFarlane of Llandaff, that it is not just medicines and drugs on which we should rely, but good clinical practices in both doctors and nurses. Although successful, those methods were overshadowed by what seemed to be a plentiful supply of new antibiotics. Between 1939 and 1972, for example, over 30 new antibiotics were discovered. Not surprisingly, however, in more recent years the number of new antibiotics has fallen. Microbial antibiotic resistance has always been an issue, but the need to address it has now become more urgent. In considering new strategies and policies to combat its spread, we also need to ensure that the best use is made of the antibiotics currently available and, perhaps, to relearn certain lessons from the past.
I should also emphasise that the development of antibiotic resistant bacteria is not unique to this country. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, mentioned the

587
comparison between this and other countries. In many countries, the spread of these types of micro-organism has now been accepted as more or less inevitable. That is not the case in the UK. One of our most effective weapons is the high quality of the infection control systems in our health service. We also maintain very strict controls over accessibility to antibiotics by making them available only on prescription. That is generally not the practice in other countries. Indeed, in those countries with the greatest problems, as the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, said, it is often the case that antibiotics—even ones we would restrict for the treatment of certain specific conditions—can be bought over the counter. By contrast, other countries, particularly in Scandinavia, have been relatively successful in containing the rise in problems of resistance.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Broadbridge, for his exposé of that difficult subject. Perhaps I can assure him that the situation in the UK is much better than in other countries. However, there is no room for complacency and I am sure that there is much we can learn from the successful experience of others.
What I should like to do is spend a few moments talking about MRSA, as it is the one antibiotic resistant infection which, in recent months, has tended to attract the most headlines and has clearly proved to be of great concern to your Lordships' House tonight. Phrases such as "killer bug" and "super bug" have been used by the media and are ill-founded. They have invoked anxiety among many patients, their families and friends. They have also conjured up images of our modern day health care system hurtling towards an imminent and inevitable doomsday. That does not mean to say that I wish to minimise the difficulties created by MRSA and other antibiotic-resistant infections or the importance we attach to tackling them. I hope that, through my remarks, I shall help to allay some of the fears and anxieties that have been generated.
MRSA is a relatively antibiotic-resistant form of the bacterium staphylococcus aureus. Staph aureus is one of the commonest of all the bacteria—so common that about one-third of us carry it quite harmlessly on our skin or in our nose and throat. Normally, the bacterium does us no harm, but if the skin is cut, or if resistance to infection is lost or compromised, the germ can multiply and set up an infection. Mostly, it is a trivial infection of the skin, but among patients who are in hospital it can sometimes become more serious. This is because resistance to infection may be poor on account of their illness or treatment. Catheters or drips going through the skin can also provide the germ with a route of entry, as can a surgical wound. In those instances, the bacterium can cause more serious infections, such as septicaemia or pneumonia. Staph aureus has the ability to cause a range of infections from the trivial to, as we heard tonight, the most life-threatening.
MRSA is the antibiotic-resistant variety of the same bacterium and acts in exactly the same way. The infections it may cause are no worse than those of ordinary staph aureus. The reason why MRSA is seen as more of a problem is that if an infection develops it
588
is more difficult to treat because many of the commonly used antibiotics are not effective against it. The infection is not, however, totally untreatable. There are antibiotics that can be used but they may produce more side-effects and they are more expensive. Those factors justify efforts to prevent vulnerable patients coming into contact with MRSA.
Over the years a range of clinical guidelines specifically on MRSA has been produced. They include guidance on methods for the control of MRSA, published jointly by the Hospital Infection Society and the British Society for Antimicrobial Chemotherapy in 1986. That guidance was updated and republished in 1990 and formally commended by the department to the NHS in 1994. The department is now working with professional groups on yet a further revision, as the noble Baroness, Lady McFarlane, mentioned, to take account of the needs of hospitals with high and low prevalence of MRSA and units with various degrees of risk.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Masham and Lady Hayman, raised the question of the growing problem of antibiotic resistant infection in the community. The fear of MRSA has created a great deal of anxiety among owners and managers of some nursing and residential homes. It has also caused distress to residents and their families. Those concerns are founded on a misunderstanding of the nature of the bacterium and the type of infection that it may cause. Residents in most of those homes are at no greater risk of infection than the general population. They do not have medical devices such as drips penetrating the skin and they do not have surgical wounds. There has never been an outbreak of infection due to MRSA in a nursing or residential home, nor do we consider one to be likely.
However, in response to the obvious anxiety, the department worked with the professional organisations to produce guidance on MRSA in the community, and the control of infections more generally. That was issued in May. The guidance stated that a person carrying or infected with MRSA was not a risk to other residents and that routine arrangements designed to prevent all types of infection, such as good personal hygiene, are sufficient to deal with it. To underscore those messages, the department also issued a leaflet on MRSA to health authorities, social services departments and nursing and residential homes. We have also held seminars for managers of those homes, their insurers and the staff responsible for their statutory registration.
I should not like to give the impression that MRSA is the only antibiotic-resistant infection that hospitals have to contend with. As the noble Baroness, Lady McFarlane, said, there are several other types. These mainly affect patients in specialist units, such as intensive care or transplant units, where patients are particularly vulnerable. In such circumstances, there is often a need to use broad spectrum antibiotics to combat complex infections, which, ironically, as the noble Baroness suggested, may also provide ideal conditions for the bacteria to develop resistance.
I should like to say a brief word about TB. The rates of drug resistance to tuberculosis also remain at low levels. This is not to say that we should in any way be

589
complacent, and I am aware of the recent outbreaks of multi-drug resistant TB within two London hospitals. Perhaps I may say to the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, that I did watch the television programme.
One of the aims of our national tuberculosis policy is to prevent the emergence of drug resistant disease. Drug resistance can often be attributed to poor compliance with treatment. Guidance issued this year from the inter-departmental working group on tuberculosis on the prevention and control of TB makes recommendations for ensuring that TB patients complete their full course of treatment. However, it is inevitable that occasionally drug resistance will emerge, and also that some patients who have acquired their disease abroad will have drug resistant disease. In these cases it is important that healthcare workers are aware of the possibility and that appropriate infection control measures are in place to prevent spread to other people, especially in hospitals. The principles for the control of tuberculosis are well established. More detailed guidance on drug resistant tuberculosis is in preparation. We have paid for a nurse education video and pack produced by the RCN on our behalf. The video has been shown four times on TV. It has been widely circulated and, I know, has been much appreciated by nurses.
The noble Lord, Lord Fitt, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, raised the issue of a link between antibiotics and food. At its meeting in January this year, the Advisory Committee on the Microbiological Safety of Food concluded that an in-depth review of the role of food in transferring microbial antibiotic resistance should be undertaken. A multi-disciplinary working group under the leadership of the committee's chairman, Professor Georgala, has now been set up and is currently gathering evidence. The group is aiming to report next year.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, spoke of ward closures. I know she believes, as I do, that the welfare of patients is of foremost importance to hospitals. When an outbreak of infection occurs, the need to protect patients from infection has to be balanced against the implications of disruption to the hospital's routine services as a result of infection control measures. Sometimes, to prevent the spread of infection, it is necessary to close a ward or a specialist unit temporarily to new admissions. Such a decision can only be made by the experts on the spot after careful consideration of the options and having regard to the type of infection and the way it spreads, how vulnerable to infection other patients on the ward are likely to be and the availability of alternative facilities for both infected and non-infected patients.
Guidance from the department has made clear that hospitals and purchasers of their services need to ensure that they have adequate routine provision for isolation of infected patients; nevertheless, in an outbreak some disruption may be inevitable, but it will always be in the interests of promptly controlling the risk to patients.
I am aware that there is a good deal of support available to help combat the development of antibiotic-resistant infections. Leading the fight are consultants in communicable disease control, infection
590
control nurses and microbiologists. The new specialty of consultant in communicable disease control was established in the NHS in the late 1980s, implementing the recommendations of an expert committee chaired by the then chief medical officer. These new specialists are more highly trained than their predecessors and take a more proactive role in combating communicable disease and infection in the population.
In 1995, the department issued guidance strengthening previous recommendations that hospital infection control teams and hospital infection control committees be established. It advised that within hospitals an effective infection control programme with defined objectives should be set in place and kept under regular review. It also recommended that surveillance of hospital acquired infection should become routine and that purchasers should include enhanced surveillance, prevention and control in their contractual requirements. To strengthen these recommendations, specific objectives aimed at ensuring that appropriate arrangements for communicable disease and infection control are in place feature in the planning and priorities guidelines for the NHS for 1997–98.
The noble Baroness, Lady Masham, raised two specific instances where prevention has clearly not been effective. I do not want to go into detail on the cases at St. Thomas's Hospital or the London Hospital which are the two most recent ones. I can assure her that a full report on the incidents at St. Thomas's is being prepared but has not yet been produced for us to see. The other case was at the London Hospital. A patient with HIV was infected. Clearly a good deal of work is being carried on at the moment as a matter of urgency to trace other individuals and contacts.
I should like to address the issue of complementary therapies. The noble Earl, Lord Baldwin, and the noble Lord, Lord McNair, explored the role of these therapies. I appreciate the strength of the range of complementary therapies and how many of them are very effective for certain groups of people. I know that noble Lords are very anxious that we should carry out research into their effectiveness. That is appropriate today when the whole focus of the National Health Service is on evidence-based medicine. But we have to have research protocols produced of institutions such as the MRC and other research institutions. It is not for us to produce those proposals but for those interested in this area of work. I know that will not satisfy noble Lords but I am afraid that is the position.
The noble Lady, Lady Kinloss, asked about the research which has isolated a substance which is active against MRSA and other antibiotic resistant bacteria. I think probably she was also referring to research in Australia on the effectiveness of teatree oil. We welcome that research. However, other such substances have turned out to be too toxic for clinical use, so it is too soon to say that these may be a new treatment. We are cautiously optimistic.
Finally, I should like to address the issues put forward by the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin, about prescribing and the use of drugs within general practices. That is where the bulk of prescribing takes place. The number of

591
prescriptions issued and dispensed for antibiotics has grown more slowly than the total for all drugs dispensed in England between 1991 and 1995. Rigid national policies on antibiotic prescribing are not appropriate because patterns of resistance vary from place to place and only the doctor in charge of the patient is in a position to decide on the best treatment for that individual. Local policies are being developed by clinicians in consultation with microbiologists, often through area prescribing committees. A great deal more
592
is being done by the British National Formulary, which is published twice a year, and other prescribing journals. We keep the issue closely under control.
Antibiotic resistant infection represents a considerable challenge, but it is a challenge which we are rising to meet and are determined to combat and overcome. We are not complacent. But compared with many other European countries, our record is enviable, and we shall strive to keep it that way.
House adjourned at twenty minutes past seven o'clock.