Sitting of 31 January 1983

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
NEW WRIT
For Bermondsey, in the room of the right hon. Robert Joseph Mellish (Chiltern Hundreds).—[Mr. Michael Cocks.]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  BRITISH WATERWAYS BILL [Lords]
  As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.
Oral Answers to Questions
  ENERGY

    Coal Mining (Productivity)
    Mr. Knoxasked the Secretary of State for Energy what has been the increase or decrease in labour productivity in the coal mining industry over the most recent 12-month period for which figures are available.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. John Moore): Provisional figures show that in 1982 overall revenue output per manshift averaged 2·41 tonnes, an increase of 1·3 per cent. on 1981.
    Mr. Knox: The increase is very welcome, but does not my hon. Friend think that it is a little disappointing compared with the excellent figure for last year? Why has there been a slowdown?
    Mr. Moore: It is a positive increase, but my hon. Friend is right in saying that it is obviously disappointing. Essentially, the reasons relate to two factors—the sympathetic industrial action with the health workers earlier in the year and the NUM overtime ban in October.
    Mr. Hardy: Will the Minister confirm that, although the figure is more modest than for many years, it is evidence of the enormous technological achievements that have taken place in the mining industry? Will he also confirm that our industry is the most successful deep-mining industry in the world and that it can remain so if the Government ensure that adequate investment is forthcoming?
    Mr. Moore: Yes. It shows clearly the massive investment that has gone into the technological advance of our industry, and obviously both sides of the House welcome that. However, it is disappointing to all of us who want coal to be successful that the expected increases in productivity under the "Plan for Coal" have not materialised so far.
    Mr. Hannam: Does my hon. Friend agree that if the unions had been able to fulfil their side of the commitment in "Plan for Coal", as the taxpayer and the Government have done with their investment, electricity prices and general industrial costs would be lower than they are today?
    Mr. Moore: It is clear that all those who use electricity—82 per cent. of our electricity comes from coal generation—would benefit from any improvements in productivity patterns in the coal industry.
    Mr. Eadie: The Minister gave the figures. On the theme of disappointment, does he agree that it is also disappointing that, since this Government took office, there has been very little evidence of new pit sinkings?

    3
    What are the prospects for new pit sinkings? I ask that because there in lies the hope of achieving increased productivity?
    Mr. Moore: I am delighted to see the hon. Gentleman back in the House after his recent operation.
    The hon. Gentleman will know, of course, from his experience, that the vast majority of new investment since "Plan for Coal" has gone into the long-life pits in terms of improved technology. New pit sinkings are a facet of the long-term improvement of the industry, as also is the removal of the uneconomic capacity of the industry, which is part and parcel of that investment process.

    Gas and Electricity (Standing Charges)
    Mr. Durantasked the Secretary of State for Energy if he has had recent discussions with the Electricity and Gas Consumer Councils to discuss standing charges of the gas and electricity industries.
    Mr. Greenwayasked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the implementation of his proposal that standing charges should be no greater than 50 per cent. for bills of £10 or less.
    The Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Nigel Lawson): I am sure that the House will have noted with approval that the Electricity Council recommended just before Christmas that area electricity boards should adopt my proposal that standing charges should not exceed 50 per cent. of any domestic consumer's bill, and that two weeks ago the British Gas Corporation also decided to adopt the 50–50 scheme.
    Mr. Durant: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement. However, is he aware that many hon. Members are anxious that action should be taken fairly quickly so that the benefit from this measure will be felt next winter?
    Mr. Lawson: I understand that the proposal for gas will not take effect until the first meter reading on or after 28 February, but that virtually all electricity bills that are issued from tomorrow will implement the 50–50 scheme, which will cover the current winter period.
    Mr. Greenway: The nation, particularly pensioners and those on supplementary benefit, welcome the development and will be grateful to hear that the plan is to be speedily implemented, but will my right hon. Friend look again at the possibility of making it 100 per cent. for pensioners?
    Mr. Lawson: About half of the beneficiaries of the 50–50 scheme will be pensioners—perhaps those pensioners who are in the greatest need. However, if there were no standing charges for all pensioner households, it would cost about £300 million a year, which would be unacceptable. I am sure that, on reflection, my hon. Friend would not wish that. What is important for all electricity consumers is that the industry has agreed that the average increase in electricity prices generally in 1983–84 will be zero.
    Mr. Skinner: Is the Minister aware that out of more than 9 million pensioners only a small number will be affected by this new measure? Do not old-age pensioners have more right to the £300 million and more which over the next few years the Government will offset by means of tax relief to the banks, which send money to Argentina and other countries for the rescheduling of their debts.
    Mr. Lawson: I sometimes think that it would be better if the hon. Gentleman were to go to Argentina. His response to this measure is characteristically churlish. It will benefit about 1 million gas consumers and up to 2 million electricity consumers who are particularly hard up. From the letters of complaint that I and my colleagues have received the preponderant issue concerns a standing charge that is higher than that for unit consumption.
    Mr. Warren: I welcome my right hon. Friend's initiative on the standing charge limitation. Is he aware that the total income from standing charges to the electricity and gas industries is over £900 million? Therefore, will he organise an audit to find out exactly how the money is being used, because it is impossible to believe that that vast sum of money could be used just to maintain existing equipment?
    Mr. Lawson: My hon. Friend has made a good point. Some kind of audit is needed. It was for that reason that I agreed with the industries last autumn that independent consultants should examine the justification for the levels of standing charges. Those reports are now with the industries and I am awaiting their comments on them.
    Mr. John Smith: Is the Secretary of State aware that, despite his reference to no increases in electricity prices, since the general election domestic gas prices have risen by 97 per cent. and electricity prices by 82 per cent.? Is that not the most significant feature of energy prices and a disgraceful indictment of the Government?
    Mr. Lawson: There is no disgrace at all. These matters have been debated in the House, but perhaps the right hon. Gentleman had other responsibilities at the time and was not in his place to hear the arguments. However, I assure him that there has been a sharp increase in energy prices generally over the past three years. Gas prices increased more because the Labour Government, of which he was a member, deliberately held down domestic gas prices to try to achieve some short-term electoral benefit.

    North Sea Oil
    Dr. J. Dickson Mabonasked the Secretary of State for Energy when he estimates the production of oil from the United Kingdom continental shelf will peak, and at what figure; and what is his estimate of production in 1990, 1995 and 2000.
    The Minister of State, Department of Energy (Mr. Hamish Gray): The 1982 Brown Book forecast shows that in 1985 production will be between 95 million and 130 million tonnes. It is not possible to give useful forecasts further ahead.
    Dr. Mabon: That answer begs the question about net self-sufficiency in Britain to the end of the century and is hardly relevant to the 30 or so marginal fields that await exploitation. Do Department of Energy Ministers share the view that the present system of taxation, whatever its rate, is the only system and that proposals by the Institute for Fiscal Studies are to be rejected, or do they see some fundamental change in taxation as a way of leading marginal fields into production?
    Mr. Gray: The right hon. Gentleman is well aware of the consultations that have taken place between the Department of Energy and United Kingdom Offshore Oil Association and between the UKOOA and my right hon.

    5
    and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It would be wrong of me to anticipate what my right hon. and learned Friend will say, but I assure the right hon. Gentleman that all representations have been carefully considered.
    Mr. Skeet: Would my right hon. Friend affirm the Brown Book figures if the oil price fell to $25 a barrel?
    Mr. Gray: My hon. Friend is skilled in these matters and he will be able to make his estimates as well as we or outside bodies can. The estimates in the Brown Book were made when the oil price was substantially higher, and the estimates that will appear in this year's Brown Book will take account of any variations that might take place in the price of oil.

    Central Electricity Generating Board (Chairman)
    Mr. Raceasked the Secretary of State for Energy on what date he was informed of the arrangements existing between the present chairman of the Central Electricity Generating Board and the Westinghouse Corporation.
    Mr. John Moore: Sir Walter Marshall, in his personal capacity, does not have, and has never had, any commercial relationship with Westinghouse. Of course, as former chairman of the Atomic Energy Authority, as chairman of the Central Electricity Generating Board, and as chairman of the pressurised water reactor task force, he has been in frequent contact with Westinghouse. I should add that the Government have the highest regard for the way in which he carries out his public duties.
    Mr. Race: Is it in the public interest to have in charge of choosing the type of generating capacity that Britain is to install in the 1990s a man who has had a close personal relationship with the Westinghouse Corporation for the last eight years? When the Secretary of State was informed of these matters on 10 May 1982, why did he not notice that there was a strong conflict between the interests of Sir Walter Marshall and those of the public? Is it not about time that these matters were fully revealed and debated in the House?
    Mr. Moore: The hon. Gentleman clearly did not listen to my answer. Had he done so he would have realised that the Government have absolute confidence in a man who has served Governments of both political parties with great distinction throughout his public career. There is no conflict of interest whatever in the highly qualified technical advice that he has consistently given to Labour and Conservative Governments.
    Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: Is my hon. Friend aware that Conservative Members regard the question by the hon. Member for Wood Green (Mr. Race) as a disgraceful innuendo? We have the greatest confidence in Sir Walter Marshall. We have known him over a great many years and regard him not only as a distinguished scientist and engineer but as a man of the utmost integrity.
    Mr. Moore: I can add nothing to my hon. Friend's remarks other than to deplore the way in which this forum is used to smear a great public servant.

    Wytch Farm
    Mr. Aitkenasked the Secretary of State for Energy when he next expects to meet the chairman of the British
    6
    Gas Corporation to discuss his proposals to offer for sale the corporation's 50 per cent. stake in the Wytch Farm oilfield.
    Mr. Lawson: Discussions with the corporation about the disposal take place frequently.
    Mr. Aitken: I welcome my right hon. Friend's frequent discussions and, above all, his commitment to allowing the public to invest in the oilfield, but does he realise that there is growing concern about the transparent delaying tactics being used by the British Gas Corporation? Will he find time to have a quiet, but firm, word with the chairman of the British Gas Corporation to tell him—
    Mr. Skinner: "Firm word"? That is bad grammar for a publicly educated schoolboy.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. We all know that the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) is here, but he must learn to control himself when other hon. Members are speaking.
    Mr. Aitken: Will my right hon. Friend tell the chairman of the British Gas Corporation that continuing to manouevre this ball into touch until after the next election will do neither him nor the corporation any long—term good?
    Mr. Lawson: I can well understand my hon. Friend's concern, and to some extent I share it. Having debated the issue several times, Parliament has decided that the British Gas Corporation's share of the Wytch Farm oilfield should be disposed of by the corporation and moved into the private sector. It would be a great pity if those responsible for the sale were to cause the taxpayer to obtain a less favourable price than he might otherwise have expected. It is merely a question of when the disposal takes place and in what form. It is not a question of whether it will take place, because Parliament has already decided that.
    Mr. Palmer: Will the right hon. Gentleman assure us that he has learnt something by now from the experience of Amersham International and Britoil, and that there is no question of selling off this valuable national asset at a knock-down price, against the advice of the BGC?
    Mr. Lawson: I should have thought that the lesson of Britoil is that I would be the last person to dispose of oil assets at a knock-down price.
    Mr. Eggar: Have not the BGC's delaying tactics over the sale been deliberately engineered to avoid the will of Parliament and to reduce the amount that the taxpayer is likely to obtain? Has not the role that the chairman has played, in putting an artificially high price on this asset, proved completely unacceptable?
    Mr. Lawson: I have great sympathy with what my hon. Friend has said.
    Dr. J. Dickson Mabon: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that this issue was debated in Parliament several times and Ministers assured us that Wytch Farm would be sold, not at any price, but at a realistic price? Is it true that the highest bid so far is about half of the valuation of Wytch Farm?
    Mr. Lawson: The right hon. Gentleman may be giving too much credence to a figure floated some time ago by

    7
    the BGC. Of course, he is right on the general proposition. The asset will be sold at a proper price, and not below that price.
    Mr. John Smith: Does the Secretary of State accept that it is disgraceful to force the BGC—which found, exploited and made a success of the field—to sell off that asset, particularly when the market is weak? Does the right hon. Gentleman further accept that it would be quite wrong for a sale to take place unless a proper price is obtained for that asset? Is not the very distinguished public servant who is the chairman of BGC entitled to the same degree of Government confidence in him as they give to those who support their point of view?
    Mr. Lawson: Of course the asset must be sold at a proper price, and not below that price. I have made that absolutely clear. That is the Government's view, and it will be carried out.

    Electricity (Investment)
    Mr. Skeetasked the Secretary of State for Energy what surplus of generating capacity for the efficient running of the grid and providing for future consumption he takes into account in considering the approval of new investment in generating capacity.
    Mr. Lawson: Since the Conservative party took office investment by the electricity industry has been approved only to reduce costs and to increase diversity of supply, not to increase capacity. However, the planning margin which the Central Electricity Generating Board has used hitherto is currently under review.
    Mr. Skeet: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the greater part of excess capacity is made up of old and inefficient plant and that it is largely coal-fired? In acquiring further capacity, will he take into consideration the need to acquire additional technology and to diversify fuel sources?
    Mr. Lawson: My hon. Friend is quite right. The diversification of fuel supplies is an important considera-tion. That is one of the important arguments in favour of increasing the proportion of our electricity that is generated by nuclear power.
    Mr. Race: If nuclear power is so cheap compared with the production of power by other means, why was the publication of the new study by the CEGB into the relative costs of nuclear, coal and oil-fired energy postponed from October to November, from November to December and from December to January? Who is sitting on it?
    Mr. Lawson: Nothing is being sat on. As a result of the Sizewell inquiry and the great interest that is taken in such matters, more information than ever before is being provided. Sometimes it takes a little longer than hitherto to provide such information. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman and the whole House would welcome that extra information.
    Mr. Forman: In the review of the planning margin, will my right hon. Friend take full account of the growth of pump storage for the electricity system, since that must benefit the efficiency of the system?
    Mr. Lawson: Yes, Sir. However, its contribution—although important—is relatively modest.
    Mr. Skinner: Will the Secretary of State confirm that it would be foolish to shift the balance of energy away from coal to any other form of fuel when there is a temporary lull in the oil market? Will he also confirm that during the 1950s and 1960s many people, including, in various Governments, Ministers in the right hon. Gentleman's position, made a grave error in turning away from coal and closing pits that should have been kept open and could be producing coal now? We do not want to make that mistake again.
    Mr. Lawson: Since we generate about 82 per cent. of our electricity from coal, the hon. Gentleman is hardly on a very good point. He has overlooked the fact that this Government introduced and extended the coal-fired boiler conversion scheme. The hon. Gentleman must bear in mind that the extent to which business and industry avail themselves of that scheme will depend on the performance of the coal industry in every respect.

    Nuclear Installations (Incidents)
    Mr. David Atkinsonasked the Secretary of State for Energy how many incidents at nuclear installations have been reported to his Department since 1977.
    Mr. John Moore: Under the stringent reporting system introduced in 1977, 257 incidents have been reported to my Department. None were serious incidents as defined in the Nuclear Installations (Dangerous Occurrences) Regulations 1965 and none has given rise to any significant health hazard to employees of the plant or the general public.
    Mr. Atkinson: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the safety record of the British civil nuclear power programme compares favourably with that of any other nuclear power programme and is even better than the record of our own oil, gas and coal industries?
    Mr. Moore: Our safety record compares more than favourably with that of any other major industry and with that of any other country. Three weeks ago, on the Channel 4 programme "The Friday Alternative", the work force at Sizewell A was interviewed and was quite bemused by all the horror stories about supposed scares on safety. The men said that their most difficult time was the journey to and from the nuclear plant.
    Mr. Warren: I welcome my hon. Friend's statistics about safety standards in the British industry. Will he assure us that he keeps a watchful eye on the considerable number of incidents at the Cap de la Hague plant in northern France, which often bring pollutants towards the south coast of England and cause us considerable worry?
    Mr. Moore: I am very conscious of that point. My hon. Friend will be pleased to know that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary plans to announce quite soon a formal agreement concerning exchanges of information in the event of an emergency in France or the United Kingdom. I hope that it will be signed shortly.

    Fuel Costs (Comparisons)
    Mr. Colvinasked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will compare the level of fuel costs in industry in the United Kingdom with the level in the rest of the European Community.
    Mr. Gray: A study of comparative European energy prices is currently being led by the CBI, involving relevant trade associations and supplying industries. I understand that the results will be available soon and I await them with interest.
    Mr. Colvin: Is my hon. Friend aware that, while awaiting the outcome of that study, an industry-funded rationalisation scheme for EC smelting factories may be carried out? Is he further aware that Commonwealth Smelting Ltd. in my constituency, the only zinc smelting works in the United Kingdom, could be at a disadvantage when compared with its European competitors because our EC partners appear, contrary to the Treaty of Rome, to be subsidising their high energy consuming factories in Europe?
    Mr. Gray: I appreciate my hon. Friend's special interest in the smelting of zinc in his constituency. He will understand that I cannot comment on individual cases. I understand that our industrial electricity prices are broadly in line with those of EC competitors, but if my hon. Friend has clear evidence of any breach of Community rules by competitors I should be happy to raise the matter with the Commission.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Do not energy-intensive industries abroad enjoy high load factor discounts? Is it not a fact that in Italy such industries can buy electricity at 50 per cent. less than in the United Kingdom, in France at 40 per cent. less and in Germany at 25 per cent. less? Why do the Government not accept that foreign industrialists pay less for energy? Why do they not help British industry out of the doldrums by reducing industrial energy prices at home?
    Mr. Gray: We shall have to wait and see what the most recent survey reveals. The hon. Gentleman has perhaps exaggerated some of the figures. A small group of high load factor consumers, accounting for probably not more than 2 per cent., would come high in the European list, but for the majority of industrial consumers the price charged for electricity in the United Kingdom is comparable to that charged by our European competitors.
    Mr. Eggar: Have not industry's energy costs improved vis a vis those of continental competitors in the past three years? Does not the only big discrepancy relate to the bulk supply electricity tariff, about which the Government plan to do something?
    Mr. Gray: My hon. Friend is correct. That is a fact.
    Dr. John Cunningham: Have not the Government been saying, almost since they first took office, that they intend to do something for energy-intensive industries? Have not the Chemical Industries Association and the paper and board industry, to name but two, given the Government substantial evidence of the damage that high electricity prices cause them in European competition? Is it not about time that the Government gave them a real answer?
    Mr. Gray: Representations have been made to the Government, but I remind the hon. Gentleman that Government measures worth over £250 million to help industry with energy costs were announced in the last two Budgets. They included new consumer-contracted load arrangements for the largest electricity users, a gas price freeze and help for foundry coke.

    Coal Industry (Investment)
    Mr. Joan Evansasked the Secretary of State for Energy when he proposes to meet the chairman of the National Coal Board and the president of the National Union of Mineworkers to discuss future investment in the coal industry.
    Mr. Lawson: I shall continue to meet hem as appropriate.
    Mr. Evans: If the Secretary of State is considering an early meeting with the chairman of the National Coal Board and representatives of the National Union of Mineworkers, will he guarantee to them that investment in the industry will continue and that he will consider increasing it? Is he aware that South Wales does not seem to be getting a fair share of coal board investment? I refer in particular to investment in the Phurnacite plant in the Aberaman area, where it is planned to go over to an ancit process?
    Mr. Lawson: Investment in the coal industry is running at a substantial level—at about £800 million a year or more—despite the fact that it is likely to make a loss of about £500 million this year before taking deficit grant into account. As the chairman of the National Coal Board has made clear on a number of occasions, a pound is a pound. That is as true in South Wales as in the rest of the country. A pound that goes in losses and uneconomic pits is a pound less for investment in the industry.
    Mr. Rost: Will my right hon. Friend do something about that by pressing the coal industry to generate more of its investment requirement without increasing the taxpayers' deficit, by speeding up the closure of uneconomic and high-cost capacity?
    Mr. Lawson: The Government's policy is that the coal industry should move towards viability, but that cannot occur overnight.
    Mr. Gwilym Roberts: Will the Secretary of State discuss with the chairman of the NCB and the Government of Ireland the possibility of substituting British coal, at present used in Northern Ireland, for the alternative fuel now being used by Ireland? What effect is that likely to have on investment in the coal industry and on the market for British coal?
    Mr. Lawson: I am not sure whether that is a matter for me. In any event, I do not know the answer. If the hon. Gentleman writes to me, I shall do my best to respond.
    Sir Anthony Meyer: Can my right hon. Friend reassure me and my constituents that the proposal for investment in the coal liquefaction plant at the Point of Ayr in my constituency is set to go ahead? When is work expected to start on the project?
    Mr. Lawson: The Under-Secretary made a statement in November last year and progress continues to be made towards the board's liquefaction project at the Point of Ayr.
    Mr. Eadie: Will the Secretary of State consider amending his reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdare (Mr. Evans)? The right hon. Gentleman said that he would meet the industry's representatives "as appropriate." Does he agree that, according to the answers that he has given, it is appropriate for him to meet

    11
    representatives of the industry? Will he ignore the parrot cries for a massive pit closure programme and be constructive by introducing a programme for new capacity involving new pit sinkings?
    Mr. Lawson: I take note of the hon. Gentleman's advice. He has great experience of the coal industry. The problem with the coal industry is not meetings, but economics.

    National Union of Mineworkers
    Mr. Edwin Wainwrightasked the Secretary of State for Energy what recent representations he has received from the National Union of Mineworkers; and what responses he has made.
    Mr. Tam Dalyellasked the Secretary of State for Energy what recent representations he has received from the National Union of Mineworkers relating to the future of the coal industry; and what replies he has given.
    Mr. John Moore: My right hon. Friend and I have received communications from the National Union of Mineworkers on a variety of topics in the past few months. Naturally, we take account of these in making decisions on the matters involved.
    Mr. Wainwright: Does the Minister realise that in spite of what has been said the NUM is deeply concerned at how the Government are dragging their feet in coal liquefaction at the Point of Ayr and at the progress being made there? Does the Minister agree that some further benefits could be given to encourage industries that are doing well in converting from gas and oil to coal? When will there be further development at the Vale of Belvoir?
    Mr. Moore: I shall try to address myself to one of those questions. I have received letters about liquefacation, but not from the NUM. I shall assume that I might receive such a letter, and provided that everything goes well with the new £500,000 that the Government are offering to the coal board to help with the new design studies, we can expect construction to commence in mid-1984, provided that all the other conditions are met.
    Mr. Dalyell: Can the Department help the NUM and the Scottish area of the coal board to resettle the Kinneil miners, who were promised jobs elsewhere in the Langannet complex?
    Mr. Moore: I shall draw the hon. Gentleman's remarks to the attention of the coal board. It is a detailed matter related specifically to Scotland. I recall the board's public undertakings. The board has made it clear that there are sufficient jobs at other collieries in the area.
    Mr. Eggar: Would not the future of the coal industry be best served if the NUM agreed to allow the closure of the 30 most inefficient pits?
    Mr. Skinner: What nonsense.
    Mr. Moore: I would not begin to debate in detail what happens at individual pits. It is clear to all who have a commitment to the long-term success of the coal industry that the faster the industry is able to remove its uneconomic tail and apply its investment to long-term, successful pits, the faster the industry will hold its present markets and gain new ones.
    Mr. Allen McKay: Following the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Dearne Valley (Mr.
    12
    Wainwright), may I ask when the Government will be in a position to announce a decision about the Belvoir coalfield, which is to replace the Leicester coalfield?
    Mr. Moore: As all hon. Members know, that is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. Obviously, I hope that a statement can be issued shortly.
    Sir Anthony Meyer: Will my hon. Friend answer my earlier question, which I do not think my right hon. Friend heard, and give us some idea of when work may be expected to start on the Point of Ayr coal liquefaction project?
    Mr. Moore: I thought that I had made it clear to the hon. Member for Dearne Valley, (Mr. Wainwright) that, provided that the conditions were met, with the £500,000 of new Government aid, construction might be expected to begin in mid-1984.
    Mr. John Smith: Will the Minister resist the cries, which are increasing in intensity, from Conservative Back Benchers for a wholesale closure programme for British collieries and recognise that views of that kind cannot produce a balanced energy programme?
    Mr. Moore: The view of all who are interested in a balanced energy programme and in the success of our coal industry is, I hope, that we should advance, if we can, and as fast as we can, the process of closure of uneconomic capacity. That is in the interests of all who wish the industry to succeed and I hope that all will help to achieve that rational goal.

    Foundry Coke Subsidy
    Mr. Hal Millerasked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the foundry coke subsidy.
    Mr. John Moore: The aid will be continued until 31 December and will then end. It will enable increases this year in the list prices of United Kingdom foundry coke to be limited to £5 per tonne on 7 February and a similar increase in the summer. The cost of £8 million will be reflected in increases in the National Coal Board's deficit grant and external financing limit.
    Mr. Miller: I thank my hon. Friend for his efforts in securing that decision, which will be especially welcome in the West Midlands foundry industry. Will he confirm the real help that the scheme gives in reducing industrial costs by comparing the price at the end of this year with that obtaining, say, at the end of 1981, and with the prices being paid by continental competitors?
    Mr. Moore: The total aid, including the £8 million, will be about £22 million. The NEDC report showed that in January 1981 foundry costs were £103·80 per tonne, so, even with this year's increases, foundry coke costs to British industry will still be less in cash terms than they were two years ago and after the increases this February they will be less than those of all continental competitors except France.

    Supplies and Conservation
    Mr. Rostasked the Secretary of State for Energy what progress his Department is making in completing its

    13
    study on the comparison of the cost-effectiveness of investment in new energy supplies and investment in conservation.
    Mr. Gray: The study was published on 18 January and a copy has been placed in the Library of the House.
    Mr. Rost: I welcome the Department's first contribution on this important subject. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the report is inconclusive because, as stated in paragraph 87, it did not examine whether investment in conservation produced a higher return to the Exchequer than investment in new capacity?
    Mr. Gray: I think my hon. Friend will agree that it will take some time for the report to be considered, but it clearly shows that there is no simple trade-off between investment in energy supply and investment in energy conservation. For example, peak demand is in general reduced proportionately less than average demand by measures such as loft insulation, and it is peak demand that determines the need for supply investment. Those points will have to be carefully studied and I am sure that my hon. Friend will take the opportunity to contribute to the deliberations.
    Mr. Eadie: In considering costings with regard to energy conservation, will the right hon. Gentleman assure us that he will also consider social benefits, such as helping elderly people to suffer less from the cold—that is especially relevant today, when there is a lobby from Age Concern at the House—and the employment benefits to be derived from energy conservation, as jobs are certainly badly needed in Britain today?
    Mr. Gray: I join others in welcoming the hon. Gentleman back to the House. He makes a good point. Nevertheless, decisions on energy conservation investment are best made by individual consumers in the light of their own circumstances and the correct price signals. The best way to encourage optimum deployment of resources in the energy sector is to ensure that prices reflect opportunity costs to the maximum extent possible.
    Mr. Hardy: Does the Minister agree that after three or four years of relying largely on price as the determinant of conservation it is time the Government recognised the employment benefits that would accrue from a more courageous investment and conservation programme? Does he agree that it is also time for investment in alternative and new forms of energy and that this year should see a marked advance in the combined heat and power programme, in which we thought the Government were interested?
    Mr. Gray: The Government are certainly very interested in combined heat and power. As the hon. Gentleman knows, a study has already been carried out on this and my right hon. Friend hopes to make a statement on it before too long.

    Alternative Energy
    Mr. Chapmanasked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the progress of research into alternative forms of energy with particular reference to wind, wave and solar systems.
    Mr. Gray: Progress continues on research into alternative sources; wind, geothermal and passive solar being the most promising.
    Mr. Chapman: I appreciate that the latest evidence suggests that alternative forms of energy can make only a marginal and modest contribution to our total energy requirements, but does my hon. Friend agree that they could nevertheless make a significant contribution in certain localities of our country? Will he confirm that research funds have been increased in previous years and that there is no duplication in research between Britain and, for example, other countries of the EC?
    Mr. Gray: I can confirm to my hon. Friend that this year our programme is expected to be in the region of £11 million to £12 million and is likely to continue at that level. We have concentrated on the most promising tech-nologies, which are wind, geothermal and passive solar. There is, of course, other research going on, but we endeavour to ensure that there is not too much duplication. It is almost impossible to avoid a degree of duplication, but that is kept to a minimum.
    Mr. Penhaligon: Will the Minister confirm that to date the geothermal experiments carried out in Cornwall have been extraordinarily successful? Will he let the House know precisely when he expects to announce the new contract, how much it will be for and what is the hold-up? To be honest, we all expected that the announcement would have been made by now.
    Mr. Gray: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct. Along with wind energy, geothermal energy shows the most potential. The major item of expenditure will be incurred in developing the extraction of heat from hot, dry rocks beneath the earth's surface. The second phase of this work, which has been very successful, is expected to cost approximately £10·3 million, of which the Department of Energy will provide about £9 million. I hope that it will not be too long before a final announcement is made.
    Mr. Forman: What will be done to develop wind energy beyond what has already been developed on the Orkneys?
    Mr. Gray: The experimental work on the Orkneys is still going ahead. I can confirm to my hon. Friend that the best available advice shows that this source is likely to be more expensive per unit of electricity than hot rock geothermal energy, but nevertheless it compares favourably with wave energy, for example.

    Fuel Bills (Standing Charges)
    Mr. Eggarasked the Secretary of State for Energy what response he has received from the British Gas Corporation with regard to the level of standing charges.
    Mr. Gray: The British Gas Corporation recently announced that it will be limiting standing charges to a maximum of 50 per cent. of a domestic consumer's bill in relation to meter readings on or after 28 February 1983. I welcome this decision.
    Mr. Eggar: While, of course, my hon. Friend's remarks are extremely welcome—and I know that the whole House will congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy on putting forward this initiative—may I ask whether the British Gas Corporation gave any excuse for the delay in replying to my right hon. Friend's initiative, especially when the electricity board replied a full month earlier and before Christmas?
    Mr. Gray: The result that has been achieved from both the British Gas Corporation and the electricity board has been satisfactory. If one organisation took rather longer than the other to come to a conclusion, I am prepared to overlook that in view of the happy position that we have now reached.
    Mr. John Smith: Will the Minister confirm that, from the last election until October of last year, gas prices for domestic consumers rose by 97·7 per cent.? Is that not one of the highest increases in prices ever engineered by any Government? Is it not the case that the Government forced the British Gas Corporation to increase prices by 10 per cent. above the rate of inflation for three years?
    Mr. Gray: This is the second time this afternoon that the right hon. Member for Lanarkshire, North (Mr. Smith) has raised this matter. Can he not welcome the excellent announcement that has been made—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] My right hon. Friend has already fully answered that question. One of the main reasons is that the Government of which the right hon. Gentleman was a member ducked all those issues while they were in power.
    Sir Peter Emery: May I suggest that we consider those who will benefit as a result of the corporation's statement? There are many who might need to have this information and it is not sufficiently widely known at present. Will my right hon. Friend have discussions with Sir Denis Rooke on exactly how more information can be given to ensure that this excellent step forward is understood?
    Mr. Gray: I shall pass on my hon. Friend's suggestion. It is essential that as much publicity as possible is given to this excellent piece of news.

  LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

    Government Information (Co-ordination)
    Mr. Murphyasked the Lord President of the Council if he will make a statement on the co-ordination of Government information.
    The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): There is close co-ordination between the Prime Minister, myself and our ministerial colleagues on the presentation of Government policy.
    Mr. Murphy: Does my right hon. Friend agree that a topic such as the need for multilateral nuclear disarmament requires such co-ordination? Is he prepared to state that the Government are planning a national advertising campaign to put across our realistic and forthright policy?
    Mr. Biffen: I agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of the subject, but I must make it clear that no final decision has been taken about whether to conduct a campaign of the kind reported in the press.
    Mrs. Shirley Williams: Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that, constitutionally, we have a Government of Britain and not of the Conservative party? Will he assure the House that there is no question of public funds being used for a propaganda campaign? Does he appreciate that there is no parallel whatever with the 1969 campaign, which was concerned with information and not propaganda?
    Mr. Biffen: I can only repeat that no final decision has yet been taken. Should there be such a campaign,
    16
    however, I am sure that it will take account of the campaign mounted in 1969 by the Labour Government, of which the right hon. Lady was a member, and will of course have regard to information.
    Mr. Frank Allaun: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that Government information and advertising should be confined to consensus matters such as new pensions arrangements? Should not the Conservative party itself pay for highly controversial propaganda of the kind involved in this instance? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is grossly improper and unfair to spend large sums of taxpayers' money to pay an American advertising firm to attack the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, the Labour party and others?
    Mr. Biffen: I can only repeat that no decision has yet been taken about whether to conduct such a campaign, but I must point out that information campaigns were conducted by the Labour Government on counter-inflation in 1975–76, and on the United Kingdom's commitment to NATO in 1969. For many of us that covers the broad span of accepted politics, but I realise that for some it lies outside the area of consensus. That is why one can never have an information campaign covering every possible point of political opinion.
    Mr. McCrindle: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that when the Labour Government in 1969 sought to promote their defence policy by means of full-page advertisements in the national press, that was projected by some who served in that Government as co-ordination of Government policy? What has changed in the meantime to create the fuss that there has been in the past few days?
    Mr. Biffen: My hon. Friend fairly points to broad comparisons between the situation in 1969 and what might be the consequences if a campaign of information on our defence policy were now to be conducted. But I must say to the House that, much as I am enjoying this, I am to some extent but the John the Baptist for what comes in defence questions tomorrow.
    Mr. John Silkin: If I may question John the Baptist on this point, will he use his considerable weight as Lord President of the Council and as the co-ordinator of Government information to point out to his right hon. Friends that the difference between the present situation and 1969 is that the Opposition in this case are totally against the Government's nuclear policy?
    Mr. Biffen: We all know what happened to John the Baptist. It is not for me to draw inferences or conclusions from the drift of the Labour party further and further into the neutralist non-nuclear camp.

  HOUSE OF COMMONS

    Accommodation
    Mr. Dormandasked the Lord President of the Council whether it is his intention, in the arrangements presently being undertaken to increase accommodation for hon. Members, to provide a separate office for each hon. Member.
    Mr. Biffen: Services Committee deliberations are still proceeding on how best to put to parliamentary use the accommodation in phase I of the redevelopment of the Bridge street site.
    Mr. Dormand: Is it not scandalous that we should have to ask for such a basic requirement as an office for each hon. Member? Will the Leader of the House, in spite of what he has just said, do something now, before it is too late, to ensure that it is the aim of the operation now being considered to have an office for each hon. Member? Will he also, as a matter of urgency, consider the present position with single rooms in the Palace? Is he aware that very few hon. Members, and perhaps no Back Benchers, have a single room in the Palace? Is it not of considerable value for hon Members to be as close to the Chamber as possible?
    Mr. Biffen: For fairness and accuracy, I must point out to the hon. Gentleman that, even if phase I of the Bridge street site were to be implemented, not every hon. Member would have a single room, even if that were generally thought to be desirable. I make no assumptions on what might be the judgment of the House on these matters, but I will draw the attention of the Services Committee to the hon. Gentleman's point about a further investigation of the accommodation that is available to see whether it might be more effectively utilised.
    Mr. Dickens: Does my right hon. Friend agree that when a constituent contacts his Member of Parliament the very least he can expect is confidentiality? Whether it be other Members of Parliament, or their secretaries, research assistants or, indeed, their visitors, does he agree also that when one is telephoning about sensitive material on behalf of a constituent, that constituent should expect confidentiality, which he does not get at present when we are sharing offices?
    Mr. Biffen: I am sorry if my hon. Friend has real difficulty in securing the degree of confidentiality that he
    18
    would wish, given the present accommodation of the House of Commons. I have to say—I hope that my hon. Friend does not take this in any hostile sense—that most hon. Members who have similar problems none the less manage to overcome them.
    Mr. Maxton: Is not an enormous amount of space within this building used by the other place, and if we abolish it, would we not have enough office accommoda-tion for all of us?
    Mr. Biffen: This matter was raised only a few weeks ago when I was required to answer questions on this issue. I do not think that I can do any better than refer to the rather dusty answer that I gave to the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan).
    Mr. Greenway: Has my right hon. Friend heard the cacophany of sound when three or four hon. Members are using the telephones at the same time in one office, or dictating letters to their secretaries, or a combination of these things? Does he agree that something muse be done to make facilities more suitable for each hon. Member?
    Mr. Biffen: I know that this point is argued in all parts of the House. It is for that reason that the House will fairly soon have the opportunity to debate the proposals For phase I of the Bridge street site, when these considerations can be weighed and judged.
    Mr. Dalyell: Should not a room be found in the House of Lords for Admiral of the Fleet Lord Lewin, where he can discuss classified information in a way that only a Minister can do? How is it that he can discuss matters which the House of Commons is told—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. With every respect, that is going too far. I was willing to see how far the hon. Gentleman wanted to go.

Consolidated Fund Bills (Mr. Speaker's Ruling)
3.30 pm
Mr. Speaker: I promised to make a statement today on the new procedure for Consolidated Fund Bills, which the House will be following for the first time next Monday.
Under the new Standing Order No. 93A, proceedings on the Bill are to be formal: the various motions to dispose of it will be put to the House without debate. The ensuing debate will take place on the Adjournment and will not be confined to the contents of the Consolidated Fund Bill, which will already have been passed.
Under the Standing Order, the debate on the Adjournment may continue throughout the night until 9 am on Tuesday morning. The Standing Order, however, says nothing about the organisation of this debate. Accordingly I propose to follow the recommendations of the Select Committee on Procedure (Supply), which have generally commended themselves to the House. I shall hold a Ballot to determine the order of the subjects which Members wish to raise; and where identical or similar subjects have been put in by different Members whose names are drawn in the Ballot, only the first name drawn will be shown on the list.
I propose also to set a limit on the time of each debate, which, in accordance with the Select Committee's recommendation, will not normally exceed one and a half hours. I propose, however, to retain a discretion to allow one or two debates to continue for rather longer, as I do on holiday Adjournments, though no single debate would last longer than three hours. As some debates may not last as long as one and a half hours, Members will need to keep in touch with developments if they are not to miss their turn.
The Ballot will be held on Wednesday evening next. Members should submit their subjects to my office by not later than 4 pm on Wednesday. A list showing the subjects and times will be published on Thursday morning.

Rt. Hon. Member for Devonport (Speech)
3.32 pm
Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Last Tuesday some of us listened transfixed with incredulity to the speech of the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen). Yesterday, in an astonishing interview, the former chief of the defence staff made important denials of what the right hon. Gentleman said. Regardless of the substance of the issue, grave charges have been made about misleading the House. This has created suspicions among many of us who supported the previous Labour Government and who would have been horrified had the statements of the right hon. Member for Devenport been true.
Mr. Mike Thomas: They were true.
Mr. Dalyell: Ought there not to be some explanation in the form of a personal statement tomorrow by the right hon. Gentleman?
Mr. Speaker: Order. It is not for me to call for a personal statement. Discussions that take place outside the House are not matters for me.

Argentina (Loan)
3.33 pm
Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that last Thursday several exchanges took place between the Opposition Front Bench and the Prime Minister and others about the need for a statement to clear up the business about the three medium-term bridging loans that Argentina has negotiated with the IMF. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition made it clear that he wished the Prime Minister to make a statement that would clear up the matter and would give her the opportunity to defend and explain her position. He wished a statement to be made as soon as possible.
I have not seen anything that suggests that a statement will be made today. The Leader of the House is present and I wish to know whether it is possible for the right hon. Gentleman to say when the statement is likely to be made. Many of us feel extremely strongly about British taxpayers' money—tax relief is being handed over to the banks that are making the loans—being given to Argentina so that it can continue with its rearmament programme.
Mr. Speaker: I have received no request for a statement to be made.

Metal Box (Hackney)
Mr. Speaker: I have received notice of foul applications under Standing Order No. 9 and I propose to call the hon. Members concerned in the order in which their applications have been received. Mr. Clinton Davis.
3.34 pm
Mr. Clinton Davis: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
"redundancies at Metal Box PLC, Hackney branch".
You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that I gave you notice of my application.
Last Friday the Metal Box factory, which is the largest remaining manufacturing employer in Hackney, announced that 170 out of a total work force of 538—more than 20 per cent. of the work force—were to be made redundant. This has to be viewed against a background of unemployment in the borough that is now edging up to 27 per cent., one of the worst percentages in the country. The borough suffered a loss of about 1,100 jobs only a few weeks ago consequent upon the closure of the Lesney Match Box toy factory in my constituency.
These redundancies are obviously specific and important. Apart from the distress and anxiety among the workers at the Metal Box company, they are bound to have serious consequencies for other businesses both within and adjacent to the borough.
The matter is urgent, first, because against the backcloth of the deprivation that is being suffered in Hackney and east London, the Government, as well as the local authority and the GLC, have a responsibility to consider how they can help to resolve or mitigate the problems besetting the company and the work force. They must not stand idly by while inner city areas such as Hackney decompose industrially.
Secondly, there is to be a period of 14 days within which the company has announced that discussions are to take place before redundancies begin to be given effect. It is vital that consultation should take place to ascertain what can be done to avert a catastrophe.
Thirdly, consultations hitherto have been a charade, with management telling the work force what is to happen and giving it no opportunity to put its own positive ideas.
I submit that this is a matter which is specific, important and urgent and, therefore, falls within the Standing Order.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Davis) gave me notice before 12 noon today that he would seek leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing
"redundancies at Metal Box PLC, Hackney branch".
The House always listens with concern to applications that involve unemployment. However, as the House knows, under Standing Order No. 9 I am directed to take into account the several factors set out in the order but to give no reason for my decision. I listened carefully to what the hon. Gentleman said but I must rule that his submission does not fall within the provisions of the Standing Order. Therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.

Nuclear Weapons (Publicity Campaign)
3.38 pm
Mr. Gavin Strang: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the Government's proposal to use public money to pay an American-owned advertising agency to mount a campaign promoting their policy on nuclear weapons".
The matter is specific, Mr. Speaker, because over the weekend Government spokesmen have admitted that they are discussing such a scheme with J. Walter Thompson, an American advertising agency. The scheme will involve advertisements in the press and on radio and television. The Lord President confirmed the existence of such a proposal this afternoon.
There are many who will find it offensive that the Government's nuclear weapons policy should be promoted as if it were Pepsi-Cola. The matter is important because it relates to the momentous decision to deploy American cruise missiles in Britain by the end of the year. Secondly, it involves the use of public money for political propaganda on an issue that will be central to the forthcoming general election.
The Government are losing the argument on cruise and Trident, and it will be a constitutional outrage if public money were used to soft-sell the deployment of weapons of mass destruction that are opposed by the majority of the people.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) gave me notice before 12 noon today that he would seek leave to make an application under Standing Order No. 9 to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
24
"the Government's proposal to use public money to pay an American-owned advertising agency to mount a campaign promoting their policy on nuclear weapons".
The House will have listened to the exchanges this afternoon before the hon. Gentleman made his application as well as the statement that he made. I have listened carefully to what the hon. Gentleman said but I must rule that his submission does not fall within the provisions of the Standing Order. Therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.
Later—
Mr. Bob Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. My point of order concerns the Government spending money on political propaganda against the peace movement. I am not trying to question your judgment about the application by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9. Under the Exchequer and Audit Departments Act 1866 the permanent secretary to the Department has the right to minute the Secretary of State if he feels that a political decision about expenditure of which he does not approve is being taken. In the ordinary course of the business of the House, such a decision, although it would eventually filter its way through to the House because it is reported to the Comptroller and Auditor General and thence to the Public Accounts Committee, would not, because it is an internal decision of government, be subject to questioning.
Can you, Mr. Speaker, examine the general position regarding minutes by permanent secretaries about this and other matters, as it is important to enable the House to judge better the view of a permanent secretary about this type of political expenditure?
Mr. Speaker: I am obliged to the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer). He will understand that it is not for me to find out what permanent secretaries are doing. There are other ways in which the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends can pursue the matter.

School Leavers (Supplementary Benefit)
3.39 pm
Mr. Mike Thomas: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the severe financial penalties about to be imposed by the Government upon thousands of Easter school leavers who become 16 by midnight tonight and will find that they are no longer entitled to draw supplementary benefit unless they undertake that they will not seek examination qualifications in June."
The matter is specific, in that a substantial number of young people—some tens of thousands each year—will suffer as a result of this provision. They are young people who leave school at Easter and who are 16 by 31 January. Moreover, they may intend to take CSEs or other examinations in June.
The matter is important, because it is crucial that the Government do not discourage young people from seeking qualifications. It is ridiculous that Easter school leavers should be being asked by social security offices to give the extraordinary undertaking that they will not take examinations in June. If they do not give such an undertaking, they will be denied supplementary benefit until September, irrespective of whether they take those examinations.
The matter is urgent because, as things stand, if the Government do not do something, thousands of kids will suffer, and they will start to suffer soon.
It is extremely difficult to understand the Government's motivation. The young people concerned will effectively be under financial pressure to leave school and not to take qualifications. As a side effect—this is a new issue—if they can afford to withstand that financial pressure, they will be kept out of the unemployment statistics until September as they will not claim benefit. It is another unemployment figures fiddle. I am seeking leave to move the Adjournment of the House so that the Government can
26
make a statement tommorrow to the effect that they intend to put this grave injustice right. [Interruption.] I am sorry to see from the noise behind me that I do not have the support of Labour Members on this important subject.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Newcastle, upon Tyne, East (Mr. Thomas) gave me notice before 12 noon today that he would seek leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the severe financial penalties about to be imposed by the Government upon thousands of Easter school leavers who become 16 by midnight tonight and will find that they are no longer entitled to draw supplementary benefit unless they undertake that they will not seek examination qualifications in June."
Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I must give my ruling first. As the House knows, the same consideration applies to this application as to the others. I do not decide whether the House should discuss these matters; I merely decide whether they are of such a nature that we must change our business and have an emergency debate tonight or tomorrow. I listened carefully to what the hon. Gentleman had to say, but I must rule that his submission does not fall within the provisions of the Standing Order. Therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.
Mr. Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In his latter words, the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Thomas) made something of the fact that Labour Members did not support the idea.
Mr. Mike Thomas: This is not a point of order.
Mr. Skinner: I should like to draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the fact that the subject has been before the House and that on at least one occassion many members of the Social Democratic party were not present because their average attendance—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. Justice has been done.

Prescription Charges
3.43 pm
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the announcement by the Government of an increase in prescription charges."
In a written answer, the Government have recently announced yet another increase in prescription charges. Although the Minister said that he would only increase them in line with inflation, the present increase is 2 per cent. above the Government's own estimate of the rate of inflation for 1983. It represents a 700 per cent. increase in prescription charges since May 1979—a 400 per cent. increase in real terms.
The matter is important because, on the Government's own estimate, the number of prescriptions that are issued free of charge is falling. On 26 July 1982, the Minister of State said:
"Over 75 per cent. of all prescriptions are currently dispensed free".—[Official Report, 26 July 1982; Vol. 28, c. 380.]
That figure has now fallen to 69 per cent. Unfortunately, that information has not been given to the House; it has been made clear only in a press statement.
The matter is urgent because, although we had two debates on the pharmaceutical industry last Thursday, no Minister gave the House this information. Moreover, there are clear signs that the Government are sitting on the Greenfield report on effective prescribing, which would more than cover the amount of money that will be raised by the present increase in prescription charges.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Crewe (Mrs. Dunwoody) gave me notice before 12 noon today that she would seek leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that she thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the announcement by the Government of an increase in prescription charges."
I have listened with great care to what the hon. Lady has said. The House knows that it has instructed me to give no reasons for my decision but to take account of the several factors set out in the order. I have listened with great care to what the hon. Lady has said, but I must rule that her submission does not fall within the provisions of the Standing Order. Therefore, I cannot submit her application to the House.

BILL PRESENTED
  GENERIC DISPENSING
  Mr. Laurie Pavitt, supported by Mr. William Hamilton, Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody, Mr. Terry Davis, Mr. Gerard Fitt, Mr. David Ennals, Mr. Andrew F. Bennett, Mr. Frank Haynes, Mrs. Renée Short, Mr. A. W. Stallard and Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours presented a Bill to permit a dispensing pharmacist to substitute a generic substitute for a medicine prescribed by a general practitioner in the National Health Service unless the general practitioner specifically orders that such a substitute may not be dispensed: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 8 July and to be printed. [Bill 68.]

Common Fisheries Policy
[Relevant documents:
(a) Statutory Instruments
Specified Sea Fish (Prohibition of Fishing and Fishing Methods) (Variation) (No. 5) Order 1982 (S.I., 1982, No. 1845).
Sea Fish (Specified Waters of Member States) (Prohibition of Fishing) Order 1982 (S.I., 1982, No. 1848).
Sea Fish (Specified United Kingdom Waters) (Prohibition of Fishing) Order 1982 (S.I., 1982, No. 1849).
Demersal Fish (Specified Northern Waters) Licensing Order 1982 (S.I., 1982, No. 1850).
Specified Sea Fish (United Kingdom Fishing Boats) (Prohibition of Fishing) Order 1983 (S.I., 1983, No. 14).
Specified Sea Fish (United Kingdom Waters) (Prohibition of Fishing) Order 1983 (S.I., 1983, No. 15).
(b) European Community Documents
10372/82—Fisheries Conservation—beam trawling.
Unnumbered—Commission informal compromise proposals of 26th October 1982 concerning Total Allowable Catches, Quotas, Access and Structural Measures (Unnumbered Explanatory Memorandum of 4th November 1982 refers).
10391/82—Common Customs Tariff: Tariff Quotas for certain fishery products.
Unnumbered—Commission declaration of 21st December 1982 to the Fisheries Council (Unnumbered Explanatory Memorandum of 19th January 1983 refers).
Unnumbered—Formal Commission proposals amending earlier proposals concerning Quotas and Access (Unnumbered Explanatory Memorandum of 19th January 1983 refers).]
Mr. Speaker: I have selected the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.
3.50 pm
The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Peter Walker): I beg to move,
That this House approves the Agreement on the Common Fisheries Policy reached at the Council of Fisheries Ministers meeting on 25th January 1983.
I am delighted at last to be able to propose such a motion to the House after many years of negotiation by successive Governments and nearly four years when I and my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Minister of State in my Department have been responsible for those negotiations. I welcome the opportunity to debate this question because it gives me the chance to put into perspective the background of our fishing industry and to bring up to date the concept of what that fishing industry is likely to be about in the years ahead. As a result of the agreement there should be stability and confidence for the fishing industry, which have been lacking for a considerable time. I welcome that because if we are involved in negotiations in which our objective is to obtain the best terms available for Britain's industry we must be aware of the fact that any pronouncements made on the overall situation in the industry might affect our negotiating position.
I shall put into perspective the recent history and the current condition of our fishing industry. Over the past 15 years two factors have had a dramatic effect on the industry. One was was the loss of our fishing rights in

29
Icelandic waters, which finally departed from us in 1975–76, when after a period of considerable friction it was decided that Iceland should be given a 200-mile exclusive fishing zone in its own waters, to the considerable loss of our long distance fishing fleet.
The other factor of great importance has been overfishing. Fishermen throughout Europe, including at times British fishermen, have fished so much that the stocks have been substantially diminished. Herring stocks have virtually disappeared. There is no doubt that during that period the fishing industry has recognised the immense importance to its future of having sensible conservation policies properly enforced throughout the fishing waters of Europe.
That is the general background, against which serious problems and anxieties have been created for our industry. In 1973, during the negotiations to join the European Community, Europe agreed upon the nature of the fishing policy that it wished to pursue, which would bring conservation, quotas and enforcement to all the waters enjoyed by the European Community. There has been criticism of my right hon. Friend the Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) and of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) because of the terms of the fishing agreement and its effect. Few hon. Members can afford to join in such criticism—certainly not the leaders of political parties. The Liberal party supported that negotiation and agreement. In 1974 the Labour party decided to renegotiate the terms of our membership of the European Community, but it decided positively and completely not to mention fishing in the renegotiation.
Mr. Robert Hughes: Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that the initial agreement that was signed when we joined the Common Market was perfectly adequate and that there was no reason to criticise it?
Mr. Walker: I am saying that that agreement had the support of the Conservative and Liberal parties at that time and that, when the Labour party decided to renegotiate the terms of our entry to Europe, it decided to accept those conditions. If the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that the Labour party thought that the terms were bad, it is an immense criticism of his party and Government that they decided not to mention them at all in the renegotiation. Therefore, his party must be criticised. When it said that it would put to the country in a referendum the renegotiated terms for Europe, it had decided not to raise the fishing terms in the renegotiations. That is clear.
The other factor, which partly comes into the amendment tabled by the Opposition, is the argument that as other countries went for a 200-mile limit, that would provide Britain with up to 60 per cent. of the fishing stocks of Europe and that the negotiations should have been about obtaining that 60 per cent. of the stocks. There are some serious questions about that attitude. The first is whether 60 per cent. is accurate. It is less than that. The 60 per cent. did not allow for all the fish enjoyed by Denmark and other countries in Scandinavian waters.
The reality is that if the United Kingdom, instead of demanding anything like the historic proportion of Europe's fish that it had caught, demanded a 200-mile limit and 50 per cent. or 60 per cent. of Europe's fish, that would mean the massive destruction of the fishing industries of most of our friends and partners in western Europe. The Labour party may think that that is
30
reasonable. It might consider saying to Denmark, France, Ireland, Germany, Holland and Belgium, "We will take from you the 30 per cent., 40 per cent., or 50 per cent. of your traditional fishing", which it would consider reasonable and in the interests of our fishing industry. However, if that were the view of the Labour party—it is the view of the Labour party—it would have to answer for the fact that the Labour Government extended the 200-mile limit. The Labour Government, in agreement with their European colleagues, decided to go for a 200-mile limit in European waters. When they made that decision, they did not make it a condition of that decision having any share of the quota of fish.
Mr. Robert Hughes: I am following the right hon. Gentleman's argument closely. Is he saying that the conditions for the negotiation of the common fisheries policy, of which the Prime Minister made such play at the general election in a special letter to Conservative candidates, were completely bogus?
Mr. Walker: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, neither in a letter nor in any pronouncement, nor in the Conservative election manifesto—
Mr. Hughes: What did she say?
Mr. Walker: In none of those things did she say that the British Government should have 45 per cent., 50 per cent. or 60 per cent. of the fishing quotas.
The then Foreign Secretary, now one of the leaders of the Social Democratic party, went to The Hague and signed agreements on the extension of the British 200-mile limit. While doing so, unlike, for example, the Irish Government, he did not demand any guaranteed quotas of fish for the United Kingdom. Therefore, any negotiating position on extending the 200-mile limit was given away long before this Government came to office.
Looking at the announcement that was made in the House at the time, one sees that no Labour Member of Parliament representing fishing interests made any criticism. Therefore, the argument, repeated in the amendment, that because of our 200-mile limit we should obtain the quotas of fish that are within the limit was one that the Labour party had no right to argue.
Mr. Norman Buchan: With respect to the right hon. Gentleman, I thought that he would have recognised the wording in our amendment. It is not really our amendment, but a direct quotation from the Prime Minister that he is rejecting. It was she who said that we required an adequate exclusive zone and
"a further considerable area of preferential access".
That has been thrown out of the window. It was the Prime Minister who said that our waters
"contain more fish than the rest of the Community put together".
The right hon. Lady said that our quotas should reflect that. I gave the right hon. Gentleman credit for at least recognising the "leaderene's" words.
Mr. Walker: We have succeeded in achieving every objective mentioned in the amendment, and, as the hon. Gentleman deplores, with the full support of the fishing industry. We inherited the position in 1979 with regard to Europe's fishing when, after—
Mr. Mark Hughes: On a point order, Mr. Speaker. During his argument the Secretary of State mentioned a signature to a document which the Government and the Community have not been prepared

31
to provide to the House. It would be most helpful if we could see the terms of annex 7 of The Hague agreement to know what was signed by the now deputy leader of the Social Democratic party.
Mr. Walker: During the three years that followed the previous Government's signing of that agreement, the then Minister responsible for fishing, any of his junior Ministers—some of whom are here today—or the then Secretary of State for Scotland could have made that signed agreement available.
In 1979 the Government inherited a position wherein the previous Government had not just signed away the 200-mile limit without any return, but had negotiated for three and a half years on a common fisheries policy and had failed to obtain any reasonable quotas or reasonable proposals on access, enforcement and restructuring. I inherited a common fisheries policy agreed by eight countries in Europe with quotas, access and enforcement proposals which were unacceptable to Great Britain.
Mr. Robert Hughes: There was no agreement.
Mr. Walker: There was an agreement between the eight other member countries. They had a meeting in Berlin at which the British Minister did not turn up. He therefore allowed, without dispute, the eight countries in Europe to agree on a basis of quotas and access which was totally unacceptable to the British Government.
I have recited those facts because few people negotiating a fisheries agreement for Great Britain could have inherited a worse or more difficult position. That is why I made it clear during my initial talks with the fishing industry that I would not come to any agreement during the prolonged negotiations unless the three major fishing organisations approved that agreement. I also made it clear that we would provide the necessary national aid to our fishing industry to ensure that it was in a condition to take advantage of any suitable agreement that could be obtained.
I wish to give a factual analysis and comment about what has happened to the size of the fleet in recent years.
Mr. Buchan: Before the Secretary of State leaves the point on the agreement of the fishing organisations and his determination not to accept an agreement except with their agreement, were not they placed in exactly the same position as the Minister? They were boxed in by time. Unless they agreed to the Minister's proposals in December, they were faced with the fact that he would not promise them protection if they went it alone. They had a pistol at their heads. That is what they have said during the past four weeks.
Mr. Walker: What the hon. Gentleman has said is untrue. The quotas, the access arrangements, security of stocks and the enforcement that the fishing industry will have compared with what it had in the past are in the interests of the industry. That is why all three organisations have approved the agreement. The Opposition's great regret is that we have an agreement suitable to the fishing industry.
Mr. J. Enoch Powell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I understood the right hon. Gentleman, somewhat earlier, to be referring to and basing his arguments upon an international document to which
32
this country was a party, which is alleged not to have been laid before the House or to be available to hon. Members. If that is a correct understanding, Mr. Speaker, would you rule upon whether that is in order?
Mr. Speaker: I shall make some inquiries. I cannot give a ruling on the right hon. Member's question off the cuff. I shall make a ruling later.
Mr. Albert McQuarrie: Further to that point of Order, Mr. Speaker. Is it the case that the treaty of The Hague was made available to the House, but that the annexes thereto were not made available to Parliament by the Labour Government who signed it?
Mr. Speaker: I shall make a statement later.
Mr. Walker: I shall be delighted, Mr. Speaker, if you in any way criticise the previous Government's failure to make available documents which are seemingly now required by the Labour party.
It is important to keep the size of the British fishing industry in perspective. I have recited the difficulty about the Icelandic waters. There has been a substantial reduction in the larger vessels in the British fleet.
Mr. Robert Hughes: You can say that again.
Mr. Walker: I shall put it into the correct perspective. During the period 1974 to 1979 the number of vessels over 80 ft were reduced from 455 to 272. That is a reduction of 183 such vessels during the previous Government's period in office. The latest available figures show that the fleet has decreased by a further 27 vessels. I mention those facts because the Opposition have declared their interest in fishing. Therefore, one would have at least considered that, during a period of such a dramatic drop and difficulties for certain ports, Government aid to the industry would have been at its highest instead of its lowest. During the period 1979 to 1981, while the long distance fleet has been reduced by a further 27 vessels, the inshore fleet has increased by 136 vessels. The latest available figures show that we have the greatest number of fishing vessels for a decade. Again, on the latest figures available, the number of people employed in the fishing industry is a 10-year high.
I state those figures because one of the problems about the public's concept of the fishing industry is that, whenever journalists or the media wish to comment about the fishing industry, they visit Hull, which has borne the biggest burden of the reduction in the number of larger vessels. The greatest reduction in the number of vessels took place before this Government took office. Since then, other fishing areas have expanded considerably. The expansion at Peterhead and at places such as Bridlington and Scarborough has been very substantial. Although it has many problems, Grimsby, too, has expanded substantially during these years.
Every port is not full of rusting vessels. In the past three years the number of vessels has increased and the number of people employed in the fishing industry has not been reduced. One of the main reasons for that is that this Government decided that in the period of uncertainty during the fisheries negotiations they would provide substantial aid to the industry. The aid that I injected into the industry was not only to take into account financial

33
losses that the industry overall might make, but for the servicing of the substantial capital expenditure that the industry had made in new vessels.
On obtaining the agreement, the situation is not of a fishing industry being forced into decline with ports full of rusting vessels. It has had to go through the very painful process of losing long distance fishing in Icelandic waters, but it has taken advantage of the opportunities that exist in nearer waters. The proposals agreed in the Community give the industry a firm foundation.
I wish now to consider various aspects referred to in the amendment and the fundamental parts of the agreement. Basically, we have quotas that are above our historic catch in the years 1973 to 1978. At the end of their amendment, the Opposition mention the lack of compensation for our loss of fishing opportunities in third country waters such as Iceland, but, by any measure, the compensation is substantial.
For example, taking the figures in 1970, before the erosion caused by our loss of Icelandic waters, in non-Icelandic—that is, European—waters we were obtaining 33·7 per cent. of the European quota. Overall, including our third country waters, we were catching 38·7 per cent. Instead of 33·7 per cent. of the European quota that we obtained in European waters, in the negotiations we have moved to a position where we now have 37·3 per cent. That reflects how we have considerably succeeded in getting the Community to understand the real problems of the British fishing industry in the loss of those waters.
Mr. John Prescott: The achievement of 37 per cent. must be seen against the total of 60 per cent. of fishing within British waters inside what may be called Community waters. The rough estimates that I have done show the difference between the two to be fish to the value of almost £100 million. Once again we are paying for the privilege of joining the Community, and we are paying more than it is costing the Community to reconstruct all the European fleets.
Mr. Walker: That is an absurd argument. No Government—certainly no Labour Government—could go into a negotiation where they claimed, first, that it would violate all of the London convention rights that they had entered into and, secondly, that it would reduce the fishing industries of all our allies in Europe by 30 per cent.
Mr. Prescott: No.
Mr. Walker: Yes. To do what the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) suggests would be to say to France, Holland, Belgium, Denmark and Ireland that we would take away 30 to 40 per cent. of their historic fishing. What does the hon. Gentleman suggest would be the reaction? If we caught that 60 per cent.—I hasten to add that we do not have the vessels to do so—
Mr. Prescott: Now.
Mr. Walker: Or ever.
If we caught that 60 per cent., where does the hon. Gentleman suggest that we would sell the catch? The fish would all previously have been caught and sold in Europe. By that action we would just be taking it away. Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that any Government in the foreseeable future would tell our closest allies in the Western world that we were moving our fishing limits to destroy their fishing industries? The hon. Gentleman
34
knows that that would not happen. That is one of the great myths created as the background to the negotiations. I am glad to have the opportunity to say so.
I repeat, if the hon. Gentleman and the Labour Government believed that, they were in the negotiating position to carry it out. The Labour Government extended the 200-mile limit. They decided, probably correctly, that that was not a feasible way to treat our closest allies. If, by some strange chance, the Labour party gained power and withdrew Britain from the Community, would they tell their fellow Socialist, President Mitterrand of France, that there would be a 200-mile limit to destroy his fishing industry? Would they tell the Social Democrats in Denmark, who complained that the agreement is already far too biased towards the British, that they would take away half the Danish fishing industry? That is absurd.
Mr. Prescott: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. If I catch your eye, I should like to develop the argument, but the Minister has again referred to an agreement that the Labour Administration are supposed to have agreed, which is in appendix 7 of The Hague agreement. We cannot continue the debate on a matter that has lot been seen by hon. Members.
Mr. McQuarrie: It is the Labour party's fault.
Mr. Walker: The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East can read in Hansard the statement of the then Labour Foreign Secretary announcing The Hague agreement and see the welcome that it obtained from the Labour Benches.
Mr. Buchan: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. It might be useful if I intervened. The appendix is becoming a major issue. It has been referred to several times. The annex has not been published. It has been mentioned for the first time today in connection with this problem. It was mentioned once before by the Prime Minister in a letter to me and it could not be discovered then. The Government rest their legal case on annex 7. We should see the document before we proceed further.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am now in a position to give a positive reply to the point of order raised by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell). There is no need for the Minister to lay the document before the House. He is not at liberty to read or quote from the document at the Dispatch Box, and he has not done so he has only referred to it.
Mr. Buchan: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Thank you for the ruling, but in many ways it makes the situation more difficult. You have correctly said that the Minister cannot quote from the document. The trouble is that he rests his defence on it without quoting from it. He should do both or neither.
Mr. Walker: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have not quoted from the document. I am willing to rest my case on quoting the words of the Labour Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs from the Dispatch Box when he announced The Hague agreements.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I have given my ruling. I can add nothing to it.
Mr. Walker: If we look at the quotas that have been obtained, we see that not only are they substantially above the historic fishing levels in the years of the Labour

35
Government but they are the quotas that our fishermen require and, due to the new conservation measures, the quotas that will give a substantial future to our fishing industry.
The best that came forward from Europe, after three and a half years of negotiation by the Labour party, were access proposals that would have retained all the historic rights of the Treaty of Accession and of the London convention without any improvement whatsoever. Now we have obtained almost an elimination of the Treaty of Accession historic rights, a substantial reduction of some of the London convention rights and very important rights in the six to 12-mile limits of other countries. That is not only a remarkable improvement on anything obtained previously, but it provides British fishermen with a greater domination in their own territorial waters than they have ever before enjoyed.
In addition, the Shetland box creates a unique opportunity in European waters that is welcomed by those who primarily fish in those rich waters. There is substantial improvement on access, and British fishermen have an opportunity such as they have never previously enjoyed.
One of the important achievements for our fishermen is that, at last, a proper system of enforcement will apply to all countries—not only to the United Kingdom. We negotiated that we should be responsible for enforcement in our territorial waters, and that is right. We shall ensure that that enforcement is carried out well and effectively. At last we have an inspectorate that can examine any other country to ensure that it complies with the conservation and quota arrangements. All the countries within the Community will be subject to proper enforcement of the rules.
Mr. Donald Stewart: How can the Minister make such positive assertions about enforcement when we have seen enforcement measures fail miserably?
Even when our own fishery protection service is doing its best, it leaves much to be desired. How can the Minister be so positive that enforcement will work satisfactorily?
Mr. Walker: That is my point. In the past, we have not had an agreement and therefore there has been no inspectorate to ensure enforcement. Although we have tried to ensure enforcement, other countries have failed to do so. Scottish fishermen welcome the agreement because there is a regulation on enforcement, drafted by the Government, that will provide an effective system of enforcement.
A matter of great importance for the future is that our industry can now restructure and modernise its fleet to take advantage of the considerable opportunities. Part of the agreement provides for substantial sums to be made available during the next three years for reconstruction. The Government's objective is to enter into talks and negotiations with all sides of the British industry to see how best it can take advantage of that opportunity and to reach agreement on the policies that both the Government and the industry need to pursue in order to achieve sensible restructuring in the years ahead.
Mr. Robert Maclennan: In his talks on restructuring, will the Minister include discussions with those sections of the fleet, especially the
36
distant water fleet, that have already been driven to the wall during the long 10 years of negotiations? Will the Minister examine more favourably than did the Labour Government the possibility of redundancy payments for those who have already been driven out of the industry?
Mr. Walker: Redundancy is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment. Since he was connected with the Labour party at the time, the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) knows that the Labour Government examined the matter and decided that there was not a scheme that they could put forward at that time.
Mr. Prescott: It is not true that the Labour Government refused a redundancy agreement. I shall outline that matter in my speech. They did agree to a scheme and the Treasury gave money to a redundancy agreement that arose out of the Icelandic fishing agreement. I wish to correct that point which the Minister made in his statement.
Mr. Walker: My remark was based on the fact that I recently met a delegation from the TGWU. The union told me how it had negotiated with the Labour Government and failed to obtain an appropriate agreement, although it believed that various Ministers were in favour of one. I take it that that suggestion made by the union was wrong.
Mr. Prescott: Yes.
Mr. Walker: I shall inform the TGWU accordingly.
Mr. Buchan: I was not a member of that Labour Government. I am not here to make a special plea, but I must tell the Minister that my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) is right. The Minister himself said that he understood that Labour Ministers were sympathetic. The truth is that that agreement was never finalised. It reached the point where it might have and should have been finalised, but it was not because of lack of agreement from the Government. Before the election, the trade unions still had not finalised their views. I know the history of the matter, and I presume that that was what the Minister meant when he said that Labour Ministers were sympathetic.
Mr. Walker: I understand why the hon. Gentleman, when it comes to fishing, claimed that he was not a member of the previous Government. I am willing to accept any suggestions about what took place. I can speak only from experience of a meeting that I had a week ago, when I was asked to examine the matter. I rightly said that it was a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment—it is his sphere of responsibility —and I gather that proposals and suggestions are now being made.
Another sphere that is of great importance to our industry is marketing. There is scope for considerable improvement by our industry in the marketing of fish, both in the United Kingdom and abroad. I do not mean that it would be right for Governments to pour large sums of money into vague advertising campaigns for fish. If we are to succeed in that sphere, we need to ensure that, from the time when the fish are landed to the time of delivery to the appropriate customer, the industry plays its part in substantially improving quality control, presentation and distribution of fish, both in the United Kingdom and abroad. There is considerable scope for the industry, and I should be only too pleased to consider with the industry ways in which that can be achieved.

37
I express my appreciation of those who, during the past three and a half years, have patiently and constructively taken part in the negotiations. The industry has not only attended every meeting, but has discussed our entire strategy of negotiation and given much constructive advice. From the beginning, the industry has been willing to share responsibility for deciding whether an agreement was in the industry's interests. I pay tribute to the leaders of all three of the organisations concerned, both past and present, for their role in the discussions during the past three and a half years.
I thoroughly endorse words said in the House about the role played by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State. His role has been substantial and has been widely appreciated by the industry generally. Any Minister who has had the privilege of working for many hours with the leaders of such an industry comes to appreciate the qualities of those who work in it.
The British fisherman is remarkable. He is a man of immense independence and great courage who has with great fortitude put up with the uncertainties of the past 10 to 15 years. I welcome the fact that we now have an agreement that has the industry's support and provides security far into the next century as well as potential for growth of the industry. I commend the agreement to the House, and I know that it is in the interests of the industry.
4.27 pm
Mr. Norman Buchan: I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
'declines to approve a Common Fisheries Policy agreement which fails to secure an adequate exclusive zone, a further considerable area of preferential access and quotas which fully reflect the fact that our waters contain more fish than the rest of the Community put together, and further fails to compensate the United Kingdom industry for the loss of fishing opportunities in third country waters.'
It gives me immense pleasure to move the amendment because most of the words come from the Prime Minister and the Tory party manifesto. I merely wish the Government to pay attention and, perhaps, obey some of their own words.
I was surprised by the tone taken by the Minister. The content of his speech was highly contentious and irritable. His tone was very far removed from the benign presence with which he favoured us last week when he was having cocktail parties and uttering the word "superb".
Mr. Robert Hughes: He has a hangover.
Mr. Buchan: It is possible that the Minister has a hangover, but perhaps the feelings of the fishing organisations have made the Minister realise that the word "superb" is hardly appropriate. It was the kind of press management that we saw last week in relation to the report on Argentina, and that we are now about to see with the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament—replacing actuality with promises and cocktail parties.
It would have been infinitely better had we had this discussion before the settlement—something for which we pressed before Christmas. Indeed, the Danes achieved that. It is monstrous that the Government, because of the inadequacy of the treaties that they signed and the material that they put before the House, found themselves tied to a 10-year term whereby they had to reach an agreement
38
by the end of the day or open up our waters, and then reached the agreement without reference back to the British Parliament.
The Danes had the right to express their views on the agreement in their Parliament. We, too, should have had that opportunity and also the opportunity to express the views of the industry. It would have been infinitely better had the views of the industry been conveyed on the Floor of the House so that we could have achieved a greater degree of truth about the nature of the agreement.
The issue is vital to the well-being of the industry, to thousands of fishermen and to scores of local communities throughout the United Kingdom. A debate would lave put into perspective the ridiculous over-sell of the agreement. I must say, in as low a key as possible, that it is a bad agreement—whether Britain is part of the EC, or outside it. The Government cannot call it a good agreement when the Prime Minister herself told us that any agreement had to take on board the fact that most of the fish were within our waters.
Our quota, when two-thirds of the fish is in our waters, has been reduced to one-third. I do not necessarily want to keep all of it, but it could have been used for proper bilateral agreements. Our quota is now just under half of what the waters would have given us in different circumstances. It is hardly a good agreement, even within the EC, in the context of the aims and expressed intentions of the Conservative party. Its expressed intention, throughout a long period, was the desire for a 12-mile exclusive limit. We do not have that. Most of the waters around England and Wales—we have done better in Scotland—have a six-mile exclusive limit. The wish for a 12-mile limit has gone out of the window.
The Prime Minister strongly hammered one crucial point when she visited Aberdeen during the general election—it is known as the Chatham syndrome in politics. Why did she say that she was a friend of the fishermen? When she was in Aberdeen on 26 April 1979 she said:
"Fishermen will find a true and determined friend in the next Conservative Government"—
Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Buchan: Conservative Members should have tried to say that to the fishermen to whom I spoke during the weekend. The Prime Minister also said:
"our negotiating aims will be for … an adequate exclusive zone"
Does the Minister really beleve that, with various countries establishing a 200-mile limit, a six-mile exclusive limit for England and Wales is adequate? It is nonsense. The right hon. Lady further said—and this Conservative Members cannot avoid—that another aim was
"A further considerable area of preferential access".
The Government confirmed that as recently as 15 July in a motion that they put before the House—just six months before the sell-out. Their motion then referred to
"the need to secure an exclusive 12-mile limit,"—
that has gone in the surrender—
"preference outside 12 miles to protect particularly dependent fishing communities".—[Official Report, 15 July 1982; Vol. 27 c. 1183.]
The Government's specific promises, framed within a motion in the House, have been surrendered. Yet they dare to use the word "superb". It is nonsense, and should be seen to be so.

39
The agreement must be judged against such promises. It must be judged also against the possibilities that would be available to our hard-pressed industry were we outside the EC and able to control our destinies. The Minster might recall our discussions 10 years ago. He was on my side then. I do not recall accusing him of being one of the marketeers.
Mr. Peter Walker: The hon. Gentleman is wrong.
Mr. Buchan: I am sorry if I am wrong. A man may often be wrong, but not as consistently wrong as that! There were sufficient warnings of the problem that we would face. No one can blame the Labour party then for failing to warn about the position in which we would find ourselves when negotiating an agreement which, if we failed to give other contries what they wanted, would leave them fishing up to our beaches.
We must consider not only my view of the issue but the views of the fishermen—those whom the Minister said have given him full support. He said so less fulsomely today than on previous occasions. I remember that he once described them as virtually standing on their seats and cheering. Yet I know that the fishermen have reacted not with enthusiasm but with relief because of their intense fear that they would have something even worse. Despite the promise in the Tory manifesto that if they did not secure an agreement they would take independent action to preserve our interests, the Minister made it clear to the fishermen that he was not prepared to do that. If there was no agreement, he would not guarantee them policing and protection.
Mr. Peter Walker: That is not true.
Mr. Buchan: The fishermen have said that to me.
Mr. Walker: Who said it?
Mr. Buchan: The National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations and the Scottish Fishermen's Federation have said that it was clearly spelt out to them that there was no means of giving them adequate policing and protection without an agreement. Indeed, the Minister himself has said that. Despite the Minister's words, the reaction of the fishermen was relief rather than enthusiasm.
Mr. John Townend: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Buchan: I wish to move on—[HON. MEMBERS: "Give way."] I shall give way, but I have hardly made such outrageous statements as those made by the Minister.
Mr. Townend: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, in a reply to a question that I put to him, my right hon. Friend made it clear that if there was no agreement the Government would not allow fishing up to our beaches and would take unilateral action?
Mr. Buchan: I am sure that I have also said that. No Government would dare to allow fishing up to our beaches. That was never an option. The option concerned what would happen to the quotas and what would happen within the Shetland box and the 12-mile limit. Not even the Tory Government expected fishing up to the beaches.
The chairman of the SFF, Mr. Willie Hay, said:
"If we had had a superb agreement we would have had a 200 mile limit and as much fish as we can catch. But if you put it into the context of the disaster which could have befallen us"—
the failure to give proper protection—
40
"the agreement is not too bad at this time."
Conservative Members can call that fulsome approval if they wish, but it does not appear that way to me.
Mr. Peter Walker: It so happens that an hour before I arrived at the House I received an official letter from the SFF, which said that its members wished
"to congratulate you most warmly on the conclusion of the Common Fisheries Policy negotiations earlier this week and to say how very much we have appreciated and admired your great skill, leadership and sterling resolve in bringing about a settlement."
Mr. Prescott: Can the House be told what the compensation is?
Mr. Buchan: We are not talking about his great skill but the welcome that has been given to this specific and concrete agreement. Nor are we talking about the manoeuvring and brilliance of the Minister in dealing with a difficult situation. I will come in a moment to the NFFO.
Mr. Donald Stewart: With regard to the Scottish Fishermen's Federation, would the hon. Gentleman remind the Minister how few fishermen it now represents? Following the agreement, it has been broken to smithereens.
Mr. McQuarrie: That is absolute rubbish.
Mr. Buchan: I have observed that problem. Rightly or wrongly, I have advised some of the organisations that it is sometimes easier to split than unite. They have a common enemy in the Government and they should come together.
The National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations wrote to me saying:
"As you appreciate, it is our view that the agreement may be considered"—
that is a very temperate paragraph and I have no disagreement with it; I understand exactly what it is saying in this context—
"the best realistically attainable within the Community, given the terms of the Treaty of Accession."
That is the crucial sentence. The terms of the Treaty of Accession are the reason why we are in this position.
The letter continues:
"However, it must be recognised that the settlement falls considerably short of the justifiable objectives of the industry." The author is saying that the Minister did his best in a bad situation. The deal is neither superb nor does it meet the needs of the industry.
The promises of the Prime Minister and the Minister had been clear enough. The Minister said on 14 February 1980:
"We need an adequate exclusive zone … and we need an area of preferential access beyond that."
The Minister went on to say:
"In our discussions with the Commissioner we shall be arguing strongly that in framing the quotas he must take into account Britain's geographical position, our historical position and the loss of fishing that we have already sustained in third country waters. Only on that basis will fair and reasonable quotas acceptable to the Government be agreed."—[Official Report, 14 February 1980; Vol. 978, c. 1780–82.]
He has gone without the 12 miles; he has gone without the 50 miles. Where is the recognition of the loss of third country waters? He claims to have moved out some of the historic rights between the six and the 12 miles. Is that the recognition?
We were negotiating from a position of weakness. The fishermen recognise that. That is what Mr. Atkins referred to in his letter, when he spoke of

41
"the best realistically attainable within the Community, given the terms of the Treaty of Accession".
The position was weak for two reasons. First, time was running out as we had been warning. The hon. Member for North Fylde (Sir W. Clegg) said that the Government had reached half an hour to midnight and time was running out. The other reason was that the law was not necessarily on their side, and they were not prepared to challenge it. Whatever brilliance the Minister displayed, he was negotiating from an impossible position.
Annex VII has been mentioned. The truth about annex VII is that in the Official Journal of the European Communities, dated 19 October 1981, a question was put down by Miss Quin, a Labour Member in Europe, and the answer she received was:
"The Council considers that a decision to publish the Annexes is entirely out of the question since they contain material which it would be most inappropriate to publish."
That was called in aid to help us to make up our minds in relation to the agreement. We are told by the European Community that we are not to see it. Where is the independence of action of the Government? Why are they not protesting about this? Why are they not publishing it? It was passed to the European Community, as was our control over our waters.
The position was weak legally. The Minister was saying that, as long as the Commission gave its imprimatur to the deal, that would make it legal. At the same time as he was saying that, the Prime Minister was saying that in theory other nations could fish up to our beaches. I wrote and asked the Prime Minister why there was this contradiction between her and the Minister. The Minister was saying that the Commission could give the agreement legal force, and she was saying that in theory they could fish up to the beaches. In her answer to me, she gave the most extraordianary explanation, and this is why the Government were in a weak position legally. She said:
"Dear Mr. Buchan,
Thank you for your letter of 8 December. We need to distinguish between legal theory and the actual legal situation."
I would like to hear her defending in the Court of Appeal before Lord Denning. She claimed that the situation was taken care of in annex VII of The Hague agreement. That speaks of the need to regulate fishing activities in a coastal belt.
My understanding is that annex VII relates to two problems affecting Ireland, and the third is in relation to the problem of small local communities. It is both a secret and a gentleman's agreement. The Government had no legal basis behind them in the negotiations. Given the time factor, the legal position they were faced with and the lack of will to go it alone—as they promised in their manifesto—the Government produced the best deal attainable—a thoroughly bad deal.
The Minister also referred to the problems that are still remaining within this agreement, and the special measures concerning it. I wish to deal with the mysterious factor of the 20,000 tonnes of mackerel and the 2,000 tonnes of cod. The Minister claims that there is no possibility of the Commission proposing any arrangement to allow the Danes to get mackerel from our waters if they fail to get the 20,000 tonnes elsewhere. The Minister says he would veto any such proposal. At the same time, Henning Grove, the Danish Fisheries Minister, said:
"we are guaranteed 20,000 tonnes of mackerel for an indefinite period. If we cannot get this from third countries we would have to get it from somewhere else."
42
If the Minister looks at the initial regulation proposal to establish a system of conservation and management of resources—7954/82—he will see that there has been a change in the unnumbered resolution referred to in the Order Paper and dated 26 October. It is a curiously sinister change. Included under article 11 are the measures that relate to various articles that can be decided by a qualified majority. For the first time in this unnumbered document referred to in the motion, paragraph 4.1 is included in what has to be decided by a qualified majority. Paragraph 4.1 refers to the volume of catches available to the Community, referred to in article 3, being distributed between member states in a manner ensures that each member state relative stability. For the first time that distribution between member states is to be carried out by qualified majority. That is precisely the problem with which we are dealing in relation to the 2,000 tonnes of cod and the 20,000 tonnes of mackerel. The redistribution, if it does not come from third countries, will be on the basis of a qualified majority. I hope that the Minister cam answer that point. Where is the Minister's veto on this matter? Is he sure that he can prevent both an allocation of that mackerel and Danish fishing off our west coast"
The document states that the cod agreement will end in three years. Although it is 2,000 tonnes of cod in general, that reduces the quota of cod that we are entitled to get. Can the Minister use a veto there? The NFFO believes that other countries could use up their quotas of whiting and plaice after nine months. But at that time, under the review clauses, is there any means of ensuring that those countries are not allocated further tonnages? I hope that those fears can be laid to rest, because the inclusion of paragraph 4.1, referring to the qualified majority, adds strength to the fears.
The Shetland box is very important. To their credit, Conservative Members wish to see preferential treatment for the Shetland box. However, during the period of concessions, as time was running out, the box was reduced by about 6 per cent. But that, too, must be reviewed, and how stands the veto there? I am worried about that because section 2 of the paper refers to the conservation measures necessary to achieve the aims set out in relation to each species or group of species. Section 2 also mentions a qualified majority decision. If it affects the Shetland box, we have reason to be worried. The NFFO says that the agreement, far from being watertight, secure and stable, as the Minister claimed, and despite its words of thanks for his skilful negotiation, believes that it still remains "shrouded in doubt"
No one would deny that the best form of policing of waters is single-nation policing. If we could exercise control over 200 miles, we would have much more secure policing than we have with the present Community policing, especially in an epoch of industrial fishing and purse nets. The only way we can secure that—the Minister might consider this—is to ensure perhaps mixed crews on inspection boats in each state's waters. That may help. It is a serious matter that must be dealt with.
The Minister said that there was no decline in the fishing industry. We must measure that against the possibilities that were open, and especially against the loss of Icelandic waters. I, too, will quote some figures. In 1970, 975,000 tonnes of fish were landed by British vessels at United Kingdom ports. In 1981, 745,000 tonnes were landed. That represents a decline since 1970 of 23·6 per cent. The Minister said that much of the decline took

43
place under the Labour Government. But that is the gravamen of our argument. I accept that the Labour Government also failed to renegotiate this problem in 1974. They were faced with the Common Market problem and future deadlines. We are not shirking the matter and saying that the problem was caused by any Government. It was caused by the Common Market agreement and the initial negotiation.
Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Of course it was.
Mr. Buchan: Of course. I am referring to the Minister's reference to a decline, which he attributed to the Labour Government. The hon. Lady is a Daniel come to judgment. She is absolutely right. It was caused, first, by the Common Market and, secondly, by the loss of Icelandic waters. But that is not what the Minister said.
In 1970, the deep water fleets had 161 trawlers that were more than 140 ft. long. There are now 34. That means that for every five trawlers measuring more than 140 ft. in 1970, today there is only one. One can see the effect on Humberside. At Fleetwood there were 33 trawlers measuring more than 110 ft. but now there are 11. At Grimsby there were 101 trawlers and there are now 22. At Hull there were 93 trawlers and now there are 26. I visited Lowestoft at the weekend and met representatives of all sections of the industry, especially the trawler owners—Boston among others—and they told me that 10 years ago there were 120 boats in the middle water fleet whereas now there are only 30.
We must add to those factors the age of the fleet. Out of 245 vessels measuring more than 80 ft., 150 were 10 years old or more. In the inshore fleet of England and Wales, in 1980 about half of the 969 vessels were more than 25 years old and only 13 per cent. were under 10 years old. The position is rather better in Scotland. Out of 1,000 boats in the inshore fleet, only 20 per cent. are more than 25 years old, but fewer than one-third were under 10 years old.
Mr. David Myles: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us how many purse seine netters there are now compared with the figure in 1978, or whichever year he chooses, because that is the most efficient way to catch pelagic fish, whose numbers have multiplied dramatically?
Mr. Buchan: Of course, but that does not alter my point that the total numbers of fish have gone down. I mentioned two factors. One was that, despite the purse net, there has been a decline of almost 25 per cent. in fish caught and many boats have been lost. I agree with the hon. Gentleman if he is expressing fears about the proliferation of the purse net.
Mr. Donald Stewart: He is supporting the purse net.
Mr. Buchan: Yes. I was worried about that. If we are to have intelligent conservation measures, we must use the most efficient form of fishing, but when we examine any form of fishing a major criterion is whether it is also an intelligent method of conservation.
It is an extraordinary fact, as Nye Beven said, that Britain is an island surrounded by fish and it would take an idiot to make a mess of it. However, we are still in deficit in our balance of trade in fish and fish products by about £250 million a year. That should stop.
44
It has been argued that our access to EEC waters rectified the position. In 1970, we caught £133 million worth of fish in third country waters. By 1981, that figure had declined to £4 million. One factor in the decline is the presence of EEC waters, and the other major factor is the loss of Icelandic waters. But between 1969 and 1981, the United Kingdom's catch in Community waters fell from 901,000 tonnes to 639,000 tonnes. Denmark's catch increased from 260,000 tonnes to 450,000 tonnes. Those figures are from a recent report and they can be checked, but they mean that the United Kingdom's catch in Community waters has fallen by about 30 per cent., whereas the Danish catch increased by 78 per cent. The figures can be found in the annual report of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
Mr. Peter Walker: Is the hon. Gentleman pleased that, in 1970, before we joined the Community, we were catching 33 per cent. of the main edible species in European waters, and that from now on we shall have 37⅓ per cent.? Does he agree that that is a substantial improvement on what we were enjoying from European waters before we joined the Community?
Mr. Buchan: That ignores two factors. One is that we could fish in third country waters and the other is the potential catches had we not joined the Community. The balance between imports and exports of edible fish each year is still £250 million in the red. That cannot be satisfactory.
I want to mention two or three other matters, one of which is restructuring. The figures for ageing and the drop in catches show the need for this, whether we are in or out of the Market. How different the position would be if we were outside the Common Market and in a position to exercise our own control over 200 miles. All the possibilities must be measured against that.
If we were outside the Common Market, restructuring would not be an exercise in decline, but a genuine remodelling and reshaping of the structure of our fleet. We would need to remould to new needs, particularly in our middle water fisheries, and remould the fishing fleet for that purpose. We would also be in a position—this is something that the Minister seems to miss all the time—to carry through good bilateral agreements for mutual benefit with the Faroes, Norway and, possibly, Iceland. I do not blame the Conservative Government alone in this respect. The Labour Government, too, were in error in their negotiations with Iceland. We should have agreed with Iceland on the 200-mile limit, preparatory to operating the same system for ourselves.
Mr. James Johnson: I am fascinated by what my hon. Friend says about a new fleet. Can he help us in Hull by suggesting how we might have a distant water sector? If we had perhaps 10 vessels, where would they fish? Is that a possibility?
Mr. Buchan: The best way to solve the problems in Hull for a start would be to return a Labour Government, because that is the first and prime requirement. With that, and with the 200 miles and the fish within those 200 miles which other countries, too, would want to catch, it would be possible to come to a bilateral agreement, certainly with the Faroes, and Norway, and possibly on a trading basis with Iceland. However, a lot of work will be necessary to put right the harm done by this Government.

45
Restructuring is now urgent, and the Sea Fish Industry Authority is already doing much work in this regard. What share of the allocation of Common Market money is coming to us? There is every reason why it should come to us. Will it come to us on the basis of the 37 per cent. quotas? Will it be on the basis of the amount of fish—60 per cent.—that we have offered to Common Market waters? Will it be on the basis of the waters? We want to know the basis of the allocation, because we have suffered more than any other country, with our loss of third country waters.
I want to stress two aspects. The first is training. I hope that the Minister will be more generous in this respect than he was in fostering the marketing of fish. Perhaps he will be as generous as he is to the Argentines, because that would help us all. This Government have been willing to lash out large sums of money to a country with which a few weeks ago they said they were not prepared to discuss peace. [Interruption.] I am talking about Argentina. If the Government can do that with such cavalier abandon, they can give a little thought to some money for the training of British fishermen, particularly on safety at sea.
I have seen some material that was put before SFIA, and it suggests that 1,000 adult fishermen should be given training in basic sea survival each year up to 1986. Those of us who have fished in the North Sea know the continual anxiety for 16 and 17-year-old boys fishing without training in safety and basic seamanship.
Secondly, I shall say a word about the fishermen's charter, as we have come to know it. If we are to restructure, as we must, and if we are to police properly, as we must, the one thing that is common to both is the licensing of boats.
Mr. McQuarrie: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves the subject of training, may I point out—a fact which I am sure that he, with his connection with Buchan, will appreciate—that the Buchan technical college trains the majority of young seamen in Great Britain in sea fishing? I accept that not only this Government but previous Governments have sadly failed to put enough money into training the men who go to sea, hence the considerable number of tragedies over the past few years. There is definitely a need for further training, particularly in places such as the Buchan technical college.
Mr. Buchan: I hope that the Buchan Observer will have noted the hon. Gentleman's strong plea in connection with the Buchan technical college. There are other colleges, but I shall not name then now. I endorse what the hon. Gentleman said.
It has been suggested by a number of people working in this sphere, particularly the trade union, that we should now face the problem that we faced in the past with redundancies. At any rate, a start should be made on the present position, and a commission should be established to examine working conditions and the system of employing and remunerating all full-time fishermen, including, perhaps, share fishermen. In particular, we should seek to establish a register of all professional sea fishermen, shipping vessel owners and employers, and registration should be a prerequisite for a licence to fish. We should establish a body similar to a wages council to set minimum levels of guaranteed wages per day at sea and to set maximum levels for continuous work periods. Another problem concerns the specific conditions
46
affecting these boats. We should set minimum times ashore as a corollary, and set holidays with pay, as in other industries.
Mr. Maclennan rose—
Mr. Buchan: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to finish this point.
We should now be preparing the way for setting up an establishment benefit scheme, similar to that enjoyed by merchant seamen, for implementation in conjunction with the restructuring of the fleet. We should make provision for the safety and health care of fishermen, so as to cope with accidents, serious difficulties and occupational diseases. A group could examine the physical stresses caused by life at sea. We should provide for early retirement for fishermen. We should perhaps look at what happens regarding retirement in the mines at 55, and consider introducing a pension scheme so that fishermen whose physical condition is deteriorating could retire at 55, and so that those who wished to retire at 55 could do so voluntarily, with a pension. We should provide more access for training and education for all fishermen—not just entrants—who wish to avail themselves of that opportunity, making compulsory training in safety, survival and fire-fighting. Those arrangements should be supported and funded from public funds so that fishermen could take time off to undergo courses at public expense.
Finally, we should establish a system of life insurance, so that dependants can be taken care of in the case of death at sea, as with certain other industries. A fragmented industry probably needs a national framework of this kind. I call it a fisherman's charter, as have the men responsible for drawing it up, and I hope that the Minister will pay close attention to it.
Mr. Maclennan: I simply want to clarify the issue of licensing, and ask the hon. Gentleman whether, in his proposals in this regard, he sees it as a means of improving the conditions of work, or whether he sees it as a means of limiting the catching capacity.
Mr. Buchan: I said that the restructuring and these proposals go together. One method is the licensing. Most fishermen tell me, particularly in connection with the Shetland box, that the system of licensing is the one prerequisite for good policing. I see no reason why we should not extend that, and I see no reason why we cannot have overall licensing. Part of the prerequisite for obtaining a licence would be the acceptance of the fisherman's charter.
I have talked beyond my time, as the Minister did, although rightly so because fishing debates are rare in the House. However, I was disappointed to hear the anxieties of those who work at the Lowestoft fishing laboratory about research. I know that the Minister is especially interested in the laboratory. Certainly one boat, perhaps more, has been taken out of use and there is particular anxiety about fundamental research and whether it will be driven more and more only to monitoring stocks rather than dealing with longer term research. I should like the Minister to reassure us about that. The researchers are worried that the Rayner complex within the Government might have its effect and that, while no redundancies are being declared on the scientific side, natural wastage may be happening and if that occurs in one department it might impede the laboratory's work considerably. If only two or

47
three people went, for example, but they were all biologists, it could have serious consequences. Precisely because fishing is a hunting industry we need scientists and continuous scientific work. We should pay more attention to the scientists. The cavalier way in which the Government ignored the scientists' advice on the total allowable catch last year, both in relation to mackerel and other species, was deplorable.
I hope that the Government will consider marketing and marketing support. None of Britain's food industries has ever been good at marketing but we hope to repair that. The Minister has taken a lead in Food for Britain but can we have better financial support for the marketing of fish? In addition, we need an intelligent pricing policy. We must begin to put fishing on all fours with agriculture in terms of support structures, and that means a much more intelligent approach to fish prices.
Fishing is not exclusively a sea industry; it is land based also. When I see klondyking by foreign boats along our southern and south-west waters, I feel it is a pity that we have not given much more emphasis to onshore processing. Many people say that that is too expensive and that it is cheaper to steam out, fish, and unload in the foreign boat. Certainly it is unlikely that we shall be building the kind of klondykers that the Russians have been using and that they had as a result of their Canadian fishing. If we are to have a stable and a secure industry we must put money into improving marketing and processing factories. We must consider the problem of industrial catching, the by-products, the purse net which the hon. Member for Banff (Mr. Myles) seemed to like, and the dangers, not because we are Luddites but because we recognise that we cannot destroy the seedcorn of our industry and expect it to thrive.
I have a sheaf of irrelevant notes made as the Minister was speaking. He put up an extremely good case for a bad agreement. It is one that we must reject. We were given no opportunity to give our advice before it was arrived at and we now have an opportunity to do so. I shall be calling upon my right hon. and hon. Friends to show their attitude towards this thoroughly bad deal.
That reminds me that the Minister complained that only 120 people voted "No" to his policy. But that also meant that 70,000 fishermen did not even bother to endorse it at all. [Interruption.]
"Six fishermen out of the 70,000 approved of the Minister's policy."
How is that for a headline? The Labour party thinks that it was a bad deal in or outside the Common Market. It was a bad deal but perhaps the best obtainable precisely because of the circumstances in which we had been placed by the Treaty of Accession, signed by the Conservative party, and we shall vote against it tonight.
5.14 pm
Mr. John Townend: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise an important and urgent problem which affects the fishing industry in my constituency. I welcome the settlement and congratulate my right hon. Friend the Minister on removing the uncertainty and instability in the industry. There is relief in Bridlington at the solution of a problem which most of my fishermen think should have been settled in 1975 in Dublin. There has been considerable fear that without an agreement,
48
whatever assurances were given, there was a danger of the European fishermen being able to fish up to our beaches; that has now been removed.
The settlement has come not a moment too soon because in the last two or three weeks a large Hull trawling company, Thomas Hamling, has gone into receivership. That has had serious implications for the fishing industry in Bridlington—for two reasons. First, Thomas Hamling is a part-owner with skippers and crews of a considerable number of boats in Bridlington. Secondly, it operated one of the fish-selling companies in the port. That has caused an immediate problem, because the cheques paid to the fishermen for their week's fishing were bounced by the bank responsible for calling in the receiver.
Mr. Robert Hughes: Disgraceful.
Mr. Townend: I agree.
That meant that, for one week, the fishermen had no money and it has certainly caused a nasty smell in the town because Hamling was acting only as an agent, paid on commission, and not as a principal. It was not buying and selling the fish and making the profit itself.
The attitude taken by the receiver, who is appointed by the bank, could affect the future of an important section of the Bridlington fleet. The bank acted unwisely and incorrectly in stopping the cheques. I have contacted it by telephone today, urging that the cheques should be met in payment for the fish landed by the fishermen. I pointed out that it would not be in the bank's long-term interests—particularly from a public relations point of view—to put the Bridlington fishermen in financial difficulties in this way. I was told that the matter was being dealt with at the highest level and would be looked at as sympathetically as possible. I hope that that means that the fishermen will be paid, because some of them are desperate for that money.
It is true to say that there are few things which do not lead to some good. I am delighted to tell the House that as a result of that company going into liquidation the fishermen have formed themselves into a co-operative called the Bridlington Fishermen's Selling Company; they should be congratulated on their initiative. [Laughter.] I am surprised to hear the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) laughing. I should have thought that he would have supported such an initiative by our local fishermen, as I certainly do.
Mr. Prescott: I certainly do endorse co-operatives, but I am a little surprised to hear such support coming from the hon. Gentleman. The workers and trawler skippers from the Hamling vessels that collapsed contacted me this weekend to tell me of their problems because they could not contact the hon. Gentleman, who has an ex-directory telephone number.
Mr. Townend: That is incorrect. The National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations in Bridlington has a secretary, Mr. Gowan, with whom I have been in close contact over the past week. I have spoken to him several times on the telephone, he has kept me informed and I have discussed raising the matter in the debate this evening.
Mr. James Johnson: Hamlings is in west Hull and many skippers, deck hands and so on are Hull men. I do not say that we welcome what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but there can be no doubt that it should be said.
Mr. Townend: I take it that the hon. Member approves of the fact that I have brought this issue before the House.
I trust that the receiver will be prepared to sell the company's share in the boats to the skippers and crews involved at a reasonable price. That is essential if the industry in Bridlington is to continue at its present size. I shall outline how the agreement affects my constituency. The fishermen were particularly pleased about the quota for North Sea cod. We shall get 47 per cent. of the total. That is one of the most important species to be fished out of Bridlington and the fishermen believe that they will now get plenty of fish. The quota is well above the average catch in the years between 1973 and 1978. We then fished 85,000 tonnes, but we now have a quota of about 114,000 tonnes.
The fishermen are pleased with the elimination of the rights of all member states to fish any species in the six to 12-mile area from Flamborough head to Spurn point. The exception is the French right to fish for herring. There is some regret that my right hon. Friend the Minister was unable to negotiate that immediately, particularly as there is little record of the French fishing that species in the area. However, hon. Members must accept that one cannot expect to gain 100 per cent. of one's objectives in negotiations. If one negotiator achieves 100 per cent., the other negotiators will achieve virtually nothing. The elimination of those rights will be of particular benefit to Bridlington's inshore fishermen.
I should like to comment on restructuring, and in particular on building and modernisation. The Bridlington fleet is ageing and it is important that as many boats as possible should be replaced in the next few years. How much of the money will come to the United Kingdom, and in particular to the inshore industry? I was a little disturbed to notice in the agreement that, of the moneys available, we shall get 25 per cent. of the costs, while Ireland, Greece and parts, I believe, of France and Italy will obtain 50 per cent. That is regrettable, because our need is great.
With good will on the part of the receiver, I am sure that we shall get over Bridlington's local difficulties. If we do so, there will be a bright future for our fishing people. Bridlington is close to Hull and, like the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West, I have constituents who work there. Some of them are trawler owners and others are crew members. I have been asked to inquire what the effective date will be to qualify for reconstruction aid. As the industry has had to wait so long, the effective date to qualify for aid should be the settlement date of 25 January 1983. It is important to confirm that freezer trawlers will qualify for decommissioning grants and aid.
Future fishing areas may be a matter for my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary. The Falkland Islands could provide important fishing grounds, particularly if the limits there are extended to 200 miles. One of the leading trawler owners in Hull said that klondyking in the southwest had not been economic enough for the British owners to build ships because they would be used only for a certain part of the year. However, if they could be used for klondyking mackerel in the south-west as well as for fishering around the Falkland Islands it might be economic. It might be possible to do some swap deals with other countries. I understand that a great deal of squid has been caught there in the past by Polish trawlers and sold to Japan.
50
I thank the House for its indulgence and I also thank my right hon. Friends for achieving an agreement which will lift the uncertainty that has bedevilled the industry for so long.
5.25 pm
Mr. Roy Mason: I shall try to be brief. Mine is not a fishing constituency, but as I spoke on behalf of the Opposition for some time during the negotiating period I thought that I should contribute this afternoon.
The Minister will say that, like it or not, we have a European-agreed common fisheries policy. Indeed, he said that dogmatically today. He appeared to be not so much a wet as a dictator. He said nothing in his speech about the agreement. However, I shall paraphrase what he said in his statement last week. He said that we had a full and unqualified agreement, with the full approval of the three main fishing organisations, which was destined to last up to 20 years. The quotas obtained are higher than our actual catches between 1973 and 1978—the calculation period—for the seven main species of fish in which we, in the United Kingdom, are interested.
We have a total quota of 37·5 per cent—the Minister believes that the quotas are good—that is allied with conservation measures and an increasingly effective enforcement system. The Minister would say that all the ingredients make up a sensible fisheries policy. He believes that Britain should benefit from it. I suppose that he felt entitled to some self-satisfaction. His unrestrained ebullience from the fizz of his champagne must really have been relief from weariness. As defence counsel might say when defending a man on a charge of drunkenness, he was tired and emotional.
I suppose that that is understandable. There have been nearly four years of negotiations. About 26 trips have been made to Brussels and Europe. There have been 47 bilateral meetings and other states have been coaxed along, perhaps by private deals of which we shall know nothing for some time to come—deals of agriculture, deals with third countries, deals on the budget and so on.
All those with an interest in the deal have been racing against the threat of foreigners fishing up to our beaches. Perhaps in their mind's eye they saw the entry of the Spaniards with their massive fleet. I believe that the deadline threat led the fishing organisations to agree to the deal. They feared the collapse of what had been achieved and further deadlock. However, there are some glaring omissions in the agreement, to which I shall refer later.
First, I should like to ask some questions about the agreement. The Minister has said that we now have greater dominance of our coastal waters than was ever before enjoyed in the history of the British fishing industry. Prove it! Elaborate! Tell the House! Instead of giving us a bland statement, the Minister, at the end of the debate, should prove that our dominance is the best that has ever been known.
According to the press, the Minister said that the United Kingdom's fishermen would be able to catch 70 per cent. of all the fish within the coastal zone. That needs to be proved. I notice that there is an improvement. I refer to our rights in the six to 12-mile limits of French, Dutch, German and Irish waters. However, the fishermen ask what good that is to them. They think of the cost of sailing to those foreign waters only to find them swept clean by the native inshore fleets. How much are we likely to realise from the £140 million for restructuring? The Minister says

51
that the bulk of the funds is to be allocated to what he calls measures of interest to the United Kingdom. What are they? Laying up payments? Scrapping? The modernisation of vessels? To what extent will our fishing fleet be restructured?
It is time that the Minister told us how the restructuring is to take place and which parts of our coastline and which ports are to benefit. I understand that all the EC moneys in the agreement must be applied for and agreed in three years. Before then, Common Market regulations must be laid before the House. Will we have a say in the share-out of those cash allowances to the various ports and regions of the United Kingdom?
What about restarting in Norwegian waters? We have had no details from the Minister. Who benefits? Which ports are affected? Is the size of a trawler likely to be a factor? That could be important to the Yorkshire and Humberside regions, to Hull and Grimsby—if there is a deep-sea fleet left to participate.
The Minister gave figures; I will give some. In 1969 a total of 218,347 tonnes of fish were landed at Hull by Humberside vessles, not by foreign vessels bringing in foreign fish. In Grimsby 171,163 tonnes were landed. In total those two ports landed 41 per cent. of the United Kingdom catch. In 1981 a total of 9,288 tonnes of fish was landed at Hull—a 95 per cent. reduction. In Grimsby, boats landed 40,635 tonnes—a 76 per cent. reduction. Those two ports have become almost completely shattered since we lost the cod war and have wearily negotiated a common fisheries policy with our European neighbours.
Hull's fresher fleet of about 100 deep-sea trawlers has almost disappeared. The number of modern freezers there has declined from 45 to no more than half a dozen, and not many of them have much fishing to do. A change in the type of fishing has meant a change in the structure of the fleet. Some owners have had to bow to change and more inshore fishing has resulted.
Unless United Kingdom and EC financial aid is forthcoming the total collapse of the fishing industry in Yorkshire and Humberside could become a reality. The starkness of the cruelty of change at those ports is revealed when one realises that from 1978 to 1981 employment on ship and shore, seagoing and land-related operations, declined by about 12,000 jobs. That is catastrophic for one area.
By comparison, in Scotland—apart from Aberdeen's loss for similar reasons—the middle distance and inshore fleets have survived, albeit on Government subsidies and Community grants. Today more than 50 per cent. of United Kingdom fishing takes place in Scottish waters. The pattern of fishing, the deployment of the fleet, its shape and port developments have undergone great changes and therefore some rectification is necessary to provide a more balanced deployment of the fishing fleet. In the light of that, Yorkshire and Humberside—Hull and Grimsby—must be seriously considered.
We intend to vote for our amendment. My reasons are more specific than are explained in the amendment. Welcoming what the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) had said, the Minister of State stated:
"It will not only let our partners in the Common Market know where the British Parliament stands in these negotiations; it will be of immense reassurance to our fishing industry that all parties in the House of Commons stand together behind the Minister in the task that lies before him."
52
Those were brave words—resolute is the term in vogue. The Minister then said:
"We are worried that in a long, drawn-out struggle, the British position might be watered down in some way. If it is, Parliament will not stand for it. Our European partners must accept this as a reality."—[Official Report, 15 June 1978; Vol. 951, c. 1236–39.]
He said:
"Parliament will not stand for it."
He forgot to mention that a Tory-governed Parliament might. They were tough words, and prophetic. He used the words
"watered down in some way."
That is what has happened. That is why we shall register our dissatisfaction with the Minister tonight. He will remember the British position by unanimous agreement of the industry and Parliament. We all reaffirmed our position on 7 August 1980. We were worried at what the Minister of State had previously said was actually happening and that our demands were being
"watered down in some way."
The House and industry restated that we should all stand together based on a united resolution by Parliament. It was not just the Government or just the Opposition, but Parliament's expressly stated view that the House supported the Government's objectives—a satisfactory overall settlement of a common fisheries policy which takes adequate account of the need to conserve and safeguard fish stocks and of the overall requirements of the fishing industry. That also has not yet been spelt out in the agreement. We agreed in particular to maintain the need to secure exclusive access within 12 miles. There were no "ifs" or "buts". There were no variations on the theme. We were clear and unambiguous beyond doubt. We agreed to preferential access within 12 to 50 miles. They were two absolutely clear directives by Parliament.
Mr. Myles: With the right hon. Gentleman's great experience, does he believe that a better agreement could be achieved now or at any time in the future?
Mr. Mason: Yes, I believe it could. I shall explain why. The directives by Parliament formed the core of our demands and the heart of our claim. The Minister has not won; he has lost. No matter how he glosses over his agreement, he cannot deny that on an exclusive access within 12 miles and preferential access within 12 to 50 miles he has failed the industry and Parliament. He has reneged on a unanimous resolution of the House.
As the Minister of State prophesied, taking the fishermen to Brussels and Europe month after month, year after year, wore them down. They experienced sheer frustration. They were exhausted and weary of the battle so they accepted watered-down proposals. In piecemeal fashion the Minister persuaded the industry's representatives to agree, not to a good deal, but to a raw deal. In the meantime the Minister ignored the call of Parliament. He preferred to ignore a unanimous resolution of the House. Crucial and key objectives were never obtained.
So tonight we shall vote for the fishermen of the United Kingdom because we would have preferred a better deal and not this raw deal. We shall cast a vote against a Minister for riding roughshod over Parliament's unanimous views.
5.38 pm
Sir Patrick Wall: The right hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) said that he could have

53
negotiated a better deal. He was Minister responsible for fisheries for a long time and he singularly failed to do that. The right hon. Gentleman is right to say that there has been a complete change in the industry from distant water to inshore. He is right to say that that change is caused by external factors which have been disastrous for the Humber ports.
The right hon. Gentleman said that he would vote for the Opposition amendment. That surprised me, because the world has changed in the years that we have been debating the common fisheries policy. Initially, the right hon. Gentleman said that he was pleased that at last agreement had been reached. That is the view of most hon. Members on both sides. At least we have an agreement. Of course we would like to go back to the days before the cod war and to the 200-mile limit, but we cannot. The world has changed, even if the Labour party has not.
Let us examine the amendment. The Opposition claim that the Prime Minister's word is involved and that we should not have an agreement until we have an adequate exclusive zone. We do not have a complete 12-mile exclusive limit, but we have an improvement over 72 per cent. of our coastline where limits previously existed. The amendment also states that we should have an
"area of preferential access and quotas".
The Shetland box has already been mentioned, and we now have access to French, Netherlands, German and Irish waters. We have a 37·3 per cent. quota, which is a considerable improvement on the first EC offer of 31 per cent.
The amendment states that we have failed to compensate the United Kingdom industry. The House has already heard about the major EC restructuring grants that are available, and the Government have given a total of £57·2 million compared with £14·9 million given by the Labour Government. It cannot be maintained that those matters have not been met by the agreement.
Mr. Robert Hughes: How many times did the fishing industry tell the Labour Government that the industry would collapse without Government aid, and how many times has the industry made precisely that plea to the Tory Government?
Sir Patrick Wall: I do not know how many times the industry approached the last Government, but I know that it got four times more from the Conservative Government than from the Labour Government. Furthermore, as the Minister has said, far more trawlers went out of commission under the Labour Government than under the Conservative Government—certainly in my ports.
The background to the debate must be hammered home. It was the Conservatives who entered the Common Market, but we demanded renegotiation of the common fisheries policy. Later, the 200-mile limit made nonsense of the common fisheries policy discussions. In 1975 the Labour Government renegotiated the Common Market agreement, and the Conservative Opposition specifically asked that fishing be one of the subjects to be renegotiated. The hon. Gentleman can check that in Hansard. However, that was not done.
A year later, the 200-mile limit was discussed at the Hague meeting. The Labour Government allowed Ireland to double her quota of fish and claimed no more for Britain. Those are facts that can be checked. When the Conservatives came to power in 1979, we were alone against the eight other members of the Common Market,
54
largely because the Labour fisheries Minister had not even bothered to attend the meeting in Berlin. It was eight to one. It has taken a long time, and strenuous negotiations by the Minister and the Minister of State, to put things right and get an agreement covering all the Nine.
Mr. Robert Hughes: Does the hon. Gentleman regard it as a superb agreement?
Sir Patrick Wall: It is not perfect—nothing is perfect in this world—but it is good. It would be marvellous if we could return to the days before the cod war, but history cannot be reversed. I believe that the agreement is the best possible in the circumstances.
Under the agreement, the quotas give us viability for the next 20 years. That will have a stabilising effect on the industry. We have an overall quota of 37·3 per cent., 47 per cent. of North sea cod, 60·5 per cent. of west coast herring and 58·7 per cent. of west coast mackerel. As I have said, the original EC proposal was for 31 per cent. overall. What we have achieved is much better than anything achieved by the Labour Government.
On access and the six to 12-mile limits we obtained considerable improvements over the pre-accession historic rights. My hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington (Mr. Townend) outlined a specific case which can be paralleled all around the coast. British vessels now also have rights within the six to 12-mile limits off France, the Netherlands, Germany and Ireland. The Shetland box has already been mentioned.
Enforcement is perhaps the weakest point. The United Kingdom is to be responsible for enforcement within its own ports and limits. The EC is to have on-the-spot inspections, but I understand that the number of inspectors originally envisaged has been reduced. I am sure that both sides of the House would like to see EC inspection procedures toughened up considerably. I understand that the EC can now step in when a country has exceeded its quotas, as occurred in Norway two or three years ago, when the British had no quota at all, as it had been fished out by others. Under the EC rules, that will no longer happen. Nevertheless, EC enforcement must be examined very carefully in the coming years and we should do all that we can to toughen it up.
On conservation, even Labour Members must admit that there has been a great improvement in recent years. I am also glad that there is more control over beam trawling, as I have long advocated.
On restructuring, major EC grants are available for the next three years for scrapping, building, modernisation, laying up and exploratory voyages. United Kingdom aid has been £57·2 million over the years. Can the Minister tell us today whether Government aid will be available alongside EC aid for the specific matters that I have mentioned?
Redundancy payments have also been mentioned and it is important that they should be examined. The Minister agreed in his opening speech that the distant water fleets of Hull and Grimsby had been decimated because of the long delays in CFP negotiations. I know that the majority is casual labour, but something must be done either through the EC or by the Government to help with this problem in the Humber ports.
The port of Hull requires 25 freezer trawlers to operate—half the original freezer fleet—and these trawlers require 40 to 50 tonnes per day or 75,000 tonnes of cod

55
or cod equivalent per year. I understand that the quota available is 114,700 tonnes, so a great deal depends on the quota allocations to the various ports. As I have pointed out to my right hon. Friend in the past, Hull and Grimsby have lost more through lost third water fishing rights than any other ports in the country and they must be given some compensation for that loss when quota allocations are made. To quote just one figure, the average loss to Hull distant water vessels over nine years has been 368,000 tonnes from third countries.
Now that the common fisheries policy has been agreed I hope that swap deals will go ahead with Norway and other countries. Previously, such deals were impossible as they had to be negotiated through the EC and the EC would not negotiate until the CFP had been settled. I hope, too, that the recent very large imports from Denmark and the Netherlands will be checked by the reduced quotas—25·5 per cent. and 7·7 per cent. respectively—allocated to those countries as compared with our own quota.
The essential point, however, is that the quotas—our own and everyone else's—must be correctly enforced by national Governments and, above all, by the EC, especially within the ports.
Finally, there has been a great fall in the value of fish. For instance, in 1978 cod fetched £563 per tonne, but in 1982 it fetched only £553. Yet in the same period the retail price increased by almost 50 per cent. and earnings increased by 58 per cent. This results not only from the changing value of the pound against other European currencies but from marketing problems. I shall not go into details, as we recently debated fish guide prices, but I am sure that my right hon. Friend will agree that EC withdrawal prices are too low and that higher guide prices are needed. We obtained higher guide prices for cod and haddock last year for this year and I hope that my right hon. Friend will continue his efforts next year as this is fundamental for the recoupment of the fleet.
The new marketing regime started on 1 January this year. We hope that also will be a help.
In many years of fighting for the CFP, Labour Governments have been so unsuccessful that when they left office eight countries were ranged against us. Now we have an agreement to which the whole EC agrees and which is recognised by the industry as being the best possible under the circumstances. In the next 10 years we shall have to restructure our fleet, as has already been said, changing from the larger vessels to the smaller vessels. We must ensure proper policing here and in continental Europe and obtain the correct marketing arrangements. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my right hon. Friend the Minister of State deserve special praise for what they have achieved against so much difficulty and obstruction in at last obtaining a satisfactory CFP.
Mr. Mark Hughes: Will the hon. Member therefore withdraw his statement that
"Ireland received better assurances for a 50-mile limit than were given to Britain. Is he"
the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen)—
"aware of the explosive anger that will be demonstrated by the whole fishing industry if we fail to obtain a 50-mile exclusive limit?"—[Official Report, 2 November 1976; Vol. 918, c. 1212.]
Has the hon. Gentleman changed his view?
Mr. Prescott: Yes, he has; there is a Tory Government now.
Sir Patrick Wall: Of course, the industry then was asking for a 12-mile exclusive limit and preferential access for 50 miles. That was not obtained by the Labour Government or wholly by the present Government but we have achieved the best we possibly could under the circumstances. I say again that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and Ministers responsible who have at last achieved this agreement deserve the congratulations of the House on obtaining reasonable stability for the industry for the next 20 years.
5.51 pm
Mr. J. Grimond: The test of the agreement lies in the future. Will it prevent overfishing in the North sea, and will it protect stocks so that local fishermen can make an adequate living and the industry can thrive?
I am alarmed particularly at the heavy industrial fishing that goes on in the North sea and by the immense increase in catching power. That is of great importance to my constituency. As oil runs down, we shall return more and more to our traditional employments of crofting, knitwear and fishing. As I have often said, islands such as Whalsay and Skerries have no hinterland, and if fishing fails they will fail completely.
I attach great importance to two passages of letters from the Secretary of State for Scotland. I should like to put them on the record. The first passage comes from a letter dated 14 December 1982. The Secretary of State said:
"I shall certainly be watching closely for any signs that Shetland waters are being over-fished: the proposed arrangements for the North of Scotland box gives us a valuable means of controlling fishing effort in that area, and monitoring the situation so that I can react appropriately if the need arises. I share your concern for the long-term future of the fishing stocks around the United Kingdom, and for the long-term viability of the fishing industry. I am convinced that the CFP as proposed, with its full range of access, conservation, restructuring and control measures, offers excellent prospects to secure that future … Accordingly, it may reasonably be expected that foreign activity in the area will decline, while the traditional fishing pattern for local vessels will not be affected, and indeed their opportunities should be enhanced by the implementation of new controls."
I emphasise that our anxiety is not only about foreign vessels, but about the total number of British vessels which may take to fishing off Shetland and Orkney. I also emphasise that the Secretary of State referred to local vessels, and this I understand is a commitment that if there is any danger of local vessels being unduly pressed by vessels from other parts of Britain the Government will take action.
Last year, the Shetland industry, and indeed the Orkney industry, had a fairly satisfactory time. In 1981 the total Shetland catch of demersal and pelagic fish and shellfish was about 74,500 tonnes, worth about £7 million. In the third quarter of last year alone, the industry caught 34,000 tonnes worth about £2,250,000. To date, even allowing for inflation, it has not been doing too badly, but, in spite of the box, I still have some anxiety about the amount of fishing that will go on around Shetland and Orkney.
Licences will be issued for 62 British vessels—large British vessels more than 25 metres between the posts-52 French vessels, 12 German and two Belgian. Those are not strictly licences. Individual vessels will not be licensed. These are the numbers of vessels which will be fishing in

57
the box at any time. It means that 52 French vessels can fish continually in the box. As soon as one goes out, another can take its place. Therefore, it is not strictly a licensing scheme, and it may lead to heavy fishing. I only hope that the Government will monitor, as they say they will, and, if necessary, take action against overfishing not only by foreign vessels but by British vessels.
In addition, as the Government well know, my constituents are still anxious to discuss a regional managing or licensing scheme applicable to all vessels under which fishing will not be reserved totally to Shetland or Orkney, but there will be a proper licensing scheme for fishing around our coasts. Again, the Secretary of State for Scotland has told me that he is willing to discuss such a scheme as soon as the industry is ready and now that the agreement is signed. I hope that that is so, but he has also shown that he does not think it necessary. I still believe that it is necessary. If he does not think so, I hope he will deploy the reasons which make him believe that.
The cost of fuel is of considerable importance to my constituency. What do the Government believe will be the effect of the recent fall in the price of oil? One result is that petrol in my constituency has increased by 5p per gallon. I hope that the fishing industry can now look forward to some decrease in the price of fuel either through a drop in world prices or perhaps from subsidy.
The Government will be aware that there is some dissatisfaction in my constituency with the allocation of the subsidy. My constituents believe that the smaller boats have been badly treated. The Government are entitled and right to take credit for giving a subsidy to the industry, but they should get this in proportion. This year and next year £14 million will be spent on the Palace of Westminster. That is in addition to the £60 million or £70 million which has been spent in the past 20 years. We should get these things in proportion. The amount of money given to fishermen is not large considering what we spend to refurbish our own home. However, anything is better than nothing.
I understand that the Minister of State has recently met representatives of the shellfish industry and discussed their possible licensing scheme. I also understand that some form of licensing scheme has been or is about to be agreed in Wales based upon the number of creels. Perhaps the Minister, when he replies, will comment on that. I am also told that the size of lobsters which may be caught is to increase from 83 mm to 85 mm. I am not sure of the scientific evidence for thinking that that will make much difference or what the point of it is. I understand that the minimum size of the skaggerak is 75 mm, and that 75 mm lobsters can be marketed in Britain because that is the limit in force in certain parts of the EC. It seems essential that some harmony should be introduced into the EC regulations. We are all agreed that the berried lobster orders were comparatively ineffective. It has been suggested to me that lobsters weighing less than 1 lb or more than 3 lb should be returned to the sea. At any rate, there are signs that lobster stocks are decreasing. I hope that the Minister, when he replies, will say what is being done for the shellfish industry.
I finish where I began. I am still not at all satisfied that the long-term future of the industry is absolutely assured. Another matter gives cause for concern. I understand that foreign vessels can now come to Britain and be registered here. My hon. Friend the Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon) tells me that 62 Spanish vessels have been
58
registered in the United Kingdom and are free to fish within the limits and for the quotas that have been assigned to the United Kingdom. Is that true? If so, is this not a large loophole in all the arrangements? Can foreign vessels come here, obtain registration, and then take advantage of all the wonderful benefits that the Government say they have gained for the British fishing industry? This is already an extremely important issue in Cornwall and in parts of the English channel and it is one that needs to be dealt with.
6 pm
Sir Walter Clegg: It is always a great pleasure to be able to take up the remarks of the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond). I am sorry that he is to leave us after we have spent so many millions of pounds making this place attractive for him to remain in. His speech was in marked contrast to that of the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan), who spoke from the Opposition Front Bench. It was his usual old mixture of 50 per cent. vinegar and 50 per cent. vitriol. The hon. Gentleman is an effective speaker but he left me slightly baffled. We were all looking back in anger—this has been a great debate for that. The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland is one of the few contributors to the debate who is looking forward.
The hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West claimed that our position was untenable from the beginning because of the original terms of entry into the Common Market. The retort of Conservative Members on such occasions is, "But the previous Labour Government renegotiated the terms of entry." It seems that we both have guilt on our shoulders. I shall have to explain to my constituents that I voted for entry into the Common Market. Labour Members will have to explain to their constituents why they c id not renegotiate the fisheries policy if they really felt so strongly about it.
Mr. Robert Hughes: The hon. Gentleman is in a different position from me because he has to defend an agreement that the Government have signed.
Sir Walter Clegg: It will be easy for the hon. Gentleman to vote against the agreement.
The hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West seemed to be saying that it was a bad agreement. He seemed also to say that the Labour party could not have negotiated a better agreement because it was so damned difficult to negotiate. He finished by saying that my right hon. Friends were in an impossible position. I am left unconvinced by the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. and hon. Friends that the Labour party could have produced a better agreement within the terms of reference that my right hon. Friends had. Where would the Labour party have used the magic waves of the diplomatic wand to better the agreement that is now before us? If there are any to be waved, I have not heard about them. Staying away from Berlin was not a very effective way of using a magic wand. So much for the past. We all have our cross to bear.
I think that the agreement is as good as any that we could possibly obtain. It is certainly a much better agreement than the one that was on the cards when my right hon. Friends first took on the task three and a half years ago.
I was astounded when the right hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) complained about the fishermen

59
being pressed and worn down by my right hon. Friends. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that the fishermen from my constituency who accompanied my right hon. Friends were only too delighted to go. They were only too delighted by the notice that was taken of what they had to say. I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman's criticism can properly be levelled at the Government.
The Humber ports, Fleetwood and Aberdeen would have been badly hit irrespective of membership of the Common Market. There is an argument that we would have been better able to deal with the difficulty if we had remained outside the Community. That is a fair argument for those who oppose the Community but I am not so certain that we would have had the freedom of negotiation that some hon. Members have claimed. We would have had to respect the rights of others.
When we first started to discuss the idea of a 200-mile limit we found that we had plenty of pelagic fish in our 200 miles but not the quantity of demersal fish that we were able to get from the Icelandic and Norwegian grounds. That was one of the problems when the early talks took place. When we had herring we thought that we could do a deal with the Icelanders by inviting them to take some of our herring in return for some of their white fish. I believe that the port of Fleetwood would have been badly hit whether Britain had been inside or outside the Community.
During the years leading up to the cod wars the deep sea fleet was confined to Icelandic and Norwegian waters. The fleet was designed to fish in those waters and it was obvious that it would be in serious trouble if it were denied them. That proved to be the case. There is not one deep sea trawler left in Fleetwood.
While the deep sea fleet was being run down severely the inshore fleet was increasing. Men who lost jobs on the deep sea trawlers put their savings into buying fishing vessels. Fishing is the only job that they know and it is their only skill. This process has increased the size of the inshore fleet. It is now extremely important to our fishing economy and we must look after it with care. It provides work, and the fish that our people need to eat.
The prosperity of fishing ports is variable. Some parts of the country are doing better than others. I suspect that Scotland comes out rather better than England and Wales. Fleetwood has had a rough time since mid-November because of the weather, which has been appalling. It has been a mild winter inland but at sea there has been gale after gale. This has meant that some of the inshore boats have been unable to go to sea. The owners can do nothing to alleviate their cash flows and overheads, especially the interest charges on their boats, which continue. I ask my right hon. Friend to bear carefully in mind the position of ports such as Fleetwood.
As the right hon. Member for Barnsley said, there is a special case to be made for the ports which have suffered especially because of the loss of third water grounds. The Humber ports and Fleetwood have suffered especially. Fleetwood is a special case because it has been hit so much harder than other ports. It has finished up with vessels that have nowhere to fish and nowhere to go. Special care must be given to rebuilding schemes. The Government have been generous and grants have been made but they have
60
been spread over a wide area. The time has come to consider being more discriminatory in the way that grants are applied.
Under the common fisheries policy there is a future for the middle water fleet. When I first went to live in Fleetwood in 1951 there were many middle water vessels operating from the port. Later they were withdrawn and the operation was concentrated in Iceland. Nevertheless, the waters are there to fish, not within the 12-mile limit but well outside it. It would suit Fleetwood well to have trawlers of between 80 ft and 135 ft that fish in bad weather. One of the problems that faces my port, which possesses only an inshore fleet, is the continuation of supplies when the weather is as it has been recently.
Perhaps my right hon. Friend the Minister can say how the commissioning and restructuring grants will apply. Which vessels will get them? Will it be those vessels that have fished up to the last possible moment? How will the grants be distributed? We can get vessels of middle-water size to fish effectively. They will not face the substantial overheads that the big Icelandic vessels used to have.
I shall now deal with a different problem—marketing. Having seen some fish markets abroad and the way in which fish is presented in Britain, I believe that a great deal can be done to improve our presentation. I join other hon. Members who have pressed the Minister about marketing. I hope that he will listen. He has expressed extreme interest in the marketing of fish. To market it properly, we must achieve a price that is good enough for the fisherman and good enough to enable the housewife to buy when she compares it with competing products such as chickens, hamburgers and convenience foods. Foods must be presented properly. Proper presentation could be of great advantage to the industry.
There is great scope for selling fish in the expanding slimmers' market. I know that I am not a good advertisement for slimming. I recently tried to buy a suit off the peg and was told that I could not be provided with one because I was portly. Nevetheless, the slimming craze that has swept through the country could provide a market for fish because, if it is cooked properly, fish can be an effective slimming food.
Another problem that faces ports such as Fleetwood is the landing of fish. The National Dock Labour Board ports are suffering because fishing is included in that dock labour scheme. I am no longer certain that it is good for the dockers or for the people who land the fish. In the past two and a half years, the dock labour force in my port has fallen from more than 100 to 15. Unless the port is effective and attracts fishermen, there is no need to land the fish.
I hope that there can be talks with the fishing industry and that it will be pointed out that it is different from normal dock work. It could be suggested that we do away with the present system and have a regime that will lower the price of landing fish, so that the price to the housewife is lower and the fishing industry has a better stake in the market.
The past 10 years have been traumatic for our industry. It has been terrible to sit and watch it as I have done. I had connections with the fishing industry long before I came to the House. I am left with tremendous admiration for those people who have fought against the blows which have been aimed at them and which they could not control in any way.

61
Wyre borough council and the Lancashire enterprise board have tried to step in to help. The present agreement is a springboard for the future. All aspects of the fishing industry will be tender for some time, and the Government will have to keep a close eye on the problem. Nevertheless, I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Minister of State. Throughout the years of negotiation, he has never failed to give a most courteous hearing to the fishermen of Fleetwood every time that we wanted to see him.
6.14 pm
Mr. Donald Stewart: Unlike some of his hon. Friends, the hon. Member for North Fylde (Sir W. Clegg) made a realistic and temperate speech. I do not necessarily share his point of view but he did not regard the agreement as something to be over the moon about. I think that I am right to say that he said that it was the best that we can have in the circumstances. Some of his hon. Friends have been quite euphoric about the agreement. I see nothing in it to justify that outlook.
The Minister referred to the fact that during the Common Market renegotiations the Labour Government did not have fishing on the agenda. That is a valid charge but it is also true that if the Conservative Government had had some regard for the fishing industry during the accession negotiations neither the Labour Government nor the Minister would have had to bother with trying to get a fisheries policy out of the Common Market. My constituents and those in the Shetland part of the constituency of the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) voted to come out of the Common Market when we had the opportunity in the referendum. I have always believed that that strong vote to come out of the Market occurred because the people of the Western Isles took the same view as the Norwegians who believed that membership of the Market could be death to the industry.
The press release that the Prime Minister issued before the last general election for the benefit of Conservative candidates, especially in Scotland, has already been referred to. It is a vague document. It is good on assertions such as:
"We shall make fishing top priority in our EEC negotiations."
We can take that with a pinch of salt. The document continues:
"In addition our negotiating aims will be for:—
1. an adequate exclusive zone"—
there is no suggestion of what that might be; 5 miles, 50 miles or 500 miles—
"2. a further considerable area of preferential access"—again, there is no suggestion of what the area should be.
The fourth aim was:
"Britain must have a very substantial share of the total allowable catch".
That is also extremely vague. Nevertheless, it worked a treat at the time. Some fishermen who know better now were led to believe that a Conservative Government would look after the fishing industry. The result has been reduction and chipping away all the while.
I know that some Conservative Members do not like Fishing News. Nevertheless, it deals with what we wanted—a 50-mile exclusive limit, which has been beaten back to a 12-mile exclusive limit, dominant preference in a 12-mile to 50-mile band and a fair share of our 60 per cent. stock contribution. What did we get? A six-mile exclusive limit, foreign access to a six-mile to 12-mile
62
band, no real dominance areas and 36 per cent. of the main species. As the right hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) said, I hope that we shall hear more about United Kingdom vessels' right to access to United Kingdom waters.
The deal strikes me as a defeat and a sell-out of the fishing industry. I am especially worried that the Danes have a fall-back position about the 20,000 tonnes of mackerel. The problem must be solved one way or another before the debate is completed. The English paid danegeld in the past and it did not do them much good. The Danes are now claiming that they have the right to 20,000 tonnes of mackerel. We want a categorical assurance that that mackerel will not come from the west coast of Scotland.
My constituency has suffered considerably from the deal. There is foreign access for up to six miles, for all species, for France, Ireland and Germany. It will he extremely difficult for the fishermen in my area to survive when those foreign vessels have those rights of access. Therefore, I am sure that the Western Isles islands council, my local authority, will press the Government to accept its fisheries plan, which the Secretary of State assured me earlier was not against the principles of the Common Market or the British Government.
One sees the extent of the sell-out involved in the common fisheries policy if one compares the end result with the demands made by Conservative Members about the absolute minimum that the fishermen would accept. The hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat), speaking in a fisheries debate in June 1978, said that the extension of the limit to 200 miles
"was not an EEC extension to 200 miles but an extension by the sovereign States which happened to be members of the EEC."
He went on:
"it explodes any claim that the EEC might have in extending the 200-mile limit to the effect that it is the owner of the fish within that limit. It has already been pointed out that no other resource is attempted to be treated in this way…Therefore, there must be no question of even accepting the principle of a Community resource."
When talking about limits, the hon. Gentleman said:
"The Conservative Party remains firmly of the belief that a 50-mile exclusively controlled zone is the most practicable and best available way in which to get what we believe are our just deserts.
The hon. Member for Haltemprice (Sir P. Wall) said that the world had changed. It has not changed half as much as the views of the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South. In the debate to which I referred, he said:
"What do we need? We need control over our 200-mile exclusive economic zone and over conservation measures in that area. Also, as the industry has made clear, we need a 50-mile exclusive zone."—[Official Report, 15 June 1978; Vol. 951, c. 1208–45.]
Today the hon. Gentleman is a signatory to an early-day motion congratulating the Government on the policy at which they have arrived. How is that possible? How did the hon. Gentleman's demands change in that fashion since June 1978? I can only put it down to gross political prejudice. Such hon. Members will accept from the Conservative Government one tenth of what they demanded when in Opposition.
There was an article in The Scotsman on 14 December entitled
"Old rivalries surface in Scottish fisheries crisis".
I said earlier that the Scottish Fishing Federation had fragmented into different sections after the announcement

63
of the fisheries policy. This article will be of interest to Conservative Members, particularly those from the north-east of Scotland. It states:
"For years now forward-thinking fishermen from the Clyde to Shetland have seen the implications of this imbalance and have attempted to forestall its effects by developing regional fisheries plans which give a high degree of preferential fishing for local vessels.
They consider the purse-seine fleet a case in point. There are just five pursers between Mull of Kintyre and the Butt of Lewis but there are another 50 of them in the North-east. For years, however, this fleet has taken much of its huge catches from the Minches, in the way of herring and mackerel, and so seriously have these stocks been depleted that it is estimated that economically the optimum number of pursers for Scottish waters is no more than 20. For West coast fishermen the logic is clear—keep out an unrestricted East coast fleet or face the extinction of West coast fishing communities."
Mr. Myles: If those east coast pursers were doing so well, why did none of the right hon. Gentleman's constituents buy a purser?
Mr. Stewart: For one thing, they did not do so because of the capital involved and because the vessels were not being built in British yards. They did not do so because they are opposed to that type of fishing. The hon. Gentleman believes that it is an efficient way of fishing. It is. However, it is so efficient that if it is continued for much longer, the ports from which the vessels sail will face extinction. The hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members from the north-east will not find it easy to deal with the west coast in future when foreign vessels have the same rights as our vessels in those areas.
The policy refers to conservation and enforcement. The policy is pie in the sky on those points. In the past we did not get far. It is ridiculous for the Minister to talk as if both those things will be assured as a result of the policy. It also refers to restructuring the fishing industry. In my book that means fewer boats for us, while the fleets of other countries expand. The fishing fleet should be treated in the same way as agriculture with regard to grants and loans. I am not opposed to the farming grants. They are fully justified. It is time that the Government faced up to the fact that the fishing communities and fishermen deserve the same rights.
The policy would mean a contraction of the fishing industry. There would be massive implications for future naval requirements, which the Government should keep in mind. It is not a great concern of mine, but it is theirs, and they should not forget it. Apart from the economic dangers, there are other dangers to which the Government should pay attention.
6.27 pm
Sir Michael Shaw: I listened with interest to the right hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart), not least because I have never heard him make an optimistic speech. He is always grumbling and asking for more—typical gloom and doom. Whatever is provided, it is not enough for the right hon. Gentleman. I suppose that comes from knowing full well—I am sorry to be critical—that he would never have to reach an agreement with anybody on behalf of anybody else, so it is always safe to pursue the path of criticism.
I am bound to doubt the right hon. Gentleman's words for the simple reason that one of the negotiators of the
64
agreement was none other than my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, whose interests in Scotland are well known, firm and beyond question. I am certain that he would never have allowed the agreement to be reached had it not been fully in the interests of Scotland and of Scottish fishermen.
There is a danger that in the Chamber any words of commendation to one's own side will be regarded as sycophantic, yet an outstanding success has been achieved by my right hon. Friends. The fact that the Opposition are seeking to deny it and to cover up serious mismanagement in their negotiations makes it entirely right that I should voice my wholehearted approval of what my right hon. Friends have done.
The truth is that an agreement had to be reached. The longer the delay, the more difficult that was. Good though the agreement is now, it would have been better had it been achieved when the Labour Government were in power, as could have happened.
During the five years that I spent in the European Parliament, I became more and more depressed by the British Government's standing and unpopularity, particularly during this country's first presidency in 1977. At times I felt that Ministers did not want to get on with their opposite numbers in the Council. That feeling was quickly reciprocated. It was not the way to reach agreement. It was all too easy, if all too mistaken, for the Government to refuse to reach agreement unless all our demands were met. Many people felt that the Government were sticking out for the fishermen's true interests. The reality was that, by not then reaching a fair and lasting agreement, the industry's long-term interests were being jeopardised.
The hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) said that my right hon. Friend has the best obtainable agreement. If one accepts those words as being genuine, it means that my right hon. Friend did everything that was possible. If he did everything that was possible, one has to see from where he started. When he took office, in the words of Austen Laing, the then director general of the British Fishing Federation Ltd.:
"The hand which he was obliged to pick up, when he assumed office, was a yarborough."
After starting with a yarborough my right hon. Friend finally achieved a successful agreement. The Opposition admitted it to be the best obtainable agreement.
We must never forget that my right hon. Friend, his colleagues and helpers had difficulties that did not exist when the Labour Government were negotiating. At a critical point in the negotiations, Mr. Gundelach, the agriculture Commissioner, died. His successor became ill. There then followed a series of national elections in different EC countries. Those factors made final agreement impossible and continuing negotiation necessary. All that time we had to keep our cards close to our chest in case our negotiating position was given away. Yet patiently, persistently and, above all, firmly my right hon. Friend steered the negotiations to a successful and agreed conclusion. It is sad to me that, because of the way we conduct our affairs in the House, we cannot be united in welcoming a job well done.
I shall now deal with the future. The predominant feelings among my fishermen are, first, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington (Mr. Townend) said, great relief that at last a firm and lasting agreement has been reached. That is welcome. For months, if not years, the urgent need was for an agreement to be reached so that we

65
could plan ahead. The second feeling was that now both the industry and the Government could get down to planning for the future. Today is not the time to go into great detail about that planning, but it is time to stress to everyone interested the opportunities that lie ahead for the industry to grasp. Everyone connected with the industry must play his part.
Representing Scarborough, I think particularly of the English inshore industry. The fishermen must look to the renewal, or at least modernisation, of boats and equipment. The cost of that at present-day prices is substantial. The right hon. Member for Western Isles said that the cost might have deterred fishermen from having new boats. I have been amazed that fishermen in my constituency, despite the difficult conditions of the past two years, have still been prepared to put vast sums into the building and equipping of new boats at great risk to their families. Many of them have found life difficult, because there is no doubt that during the past year or two years the only people who have managed to make any money in the inshore fleet have been those with the older boats which they have managed to keep in tip-top order. Those who have the new boats, with their tremendous costs, have found things difficult. That cannot go on for ever. There must be new boats. New and up-to-date equipment must be provided if we are to make the most of the opportunity that lies ahead. I am sure that fishermen in Scarborough are ready and willing to undertake the necessary obligations to meet those challenges. However, it is not just the fishermen, the processors and, above all, the merchants who have the important task of improving their methods and marketing arrangements.
The home ports of the inshore fishing fleet must have the vision and confidence to provide modern harbour and quayside facilities on which their future fleets can be based. It is no good carrying on the same old system with the same old equipment and facilities for the fleet. The fleet must be, and I believe is, willing to modernise, but it must also be supported by a modern port, not just with proper berthing, but with up-to-date fuelling, icing plant and facilities for buying, selling, and processing fish. I have left the Scarborough harbour authority and the fleet in no doubt as to my views on the matter.
Alas, I regret that certain ports have serious recession, but I believe that there are ports with a good future if they want to grasp it. Undoubtedly, one of those is Scarborough. They must have the proper facilities to make the best of those opportunities and those facilities must be provided now. The Government, too, have an important part to play. Most importantly, they must police the agreement and ensure that it is effective. Without that, the future once again looks uncertain and bleak.
The Government must make sure that not only this country, but all the signatories to the agreement carry out what is agreed. They must help and encourage the industry in all the changes that must be made if we are to take full advantage of the new opportunities won for us. I hope that they will, as they have done in the past, by keeping in touch with the industry.
What a mockery to say that the fishermen had grown so tired of going to Brussels that they signed the agreement out of sheer weariness. Perhaps that was the trouble when the Minister in the Labour Government failed to go to Berlin. He may have been a little weary. Our Ministers certainly were not weary. [Interruption.] It is no good the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Johnson)
66
looking like that. We all know that the then Minister should have gone to Berlin and seen that the agreement was not made.
We must keep in touch with the industry, as I am sure we shall, and with the ports that wish to re-equip themselves to act as the basis for the fleets of the future.
Mr. Prescott: What was the agreement that the hon. Gentleman believes was made at Berlin that was so disadvantageous to the British position?
Sir Michael Shaw: As I understand it, when the Government came to power, there was an agreement on quotas and so on that was not agreed by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in the Labour Government. It was agreed in his absence. Eight countries out of nine supported it.
Mr. Prescott: A new fishing agreement requires all nations to agree. We have seen the situation with Denmark over the past few months. If one nation did not attend, how was it possible to get an agreement?
Sir Michael Shaw: Exactly. It was an agreement of the eight. When we came to power, it was one nation—Britain—against the other eight. The transference to unity was a remarkable achievement under great difficulty. We started from a poor position largely set up by the Labour Government.
I welcome the agreement. I congratulate my right hon. and hon. Friends on their work in achieving it. I look forward with confidence to the future of our fishing industry.
6.42 pm
Mr. James Johnson: Last Wednesday the poll taken by Fishing News was mentioned at the Dispatch Box, when the Minister thought that he had scored a point over my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan). I would have preferred to see a poll taken among the workers in the industry. It might have given us a little more insight into what the industry feels.
Let us suppose that Fishing News had taken t poll in North Shields, Peterhead and Hull. I believe what the leaders have said—that the workers would have shown themselves to have been in favour of the settlement at this time, late in the day. The Minister is entitled to have his fun, talking of one against eight or eight against one. He is correct in one sense in saying that that was the position when the Labour Government were negotiating, but it is a pedantic, academic and historical point. Further argument about the percentage—whether it is 37·2 or 40 per cent.—is superfluous. A deal had to be done by the end of the calendar year. I did not think that that would be achieved. I thought that the situation would go on and on and at the end of the day the Danes would play us out.
No one can deny—fishermen in North Shields or Ministers at the Dispatch Box—that many problems remain. Fishermen know that only too well. The men who go fishing and the merchants who sell fish on the dockside grudgingly accept the position—faute de mieux. They could go no further. If we discount a little hypocrisy on either side of the House—a large dose from the Minister, as always—it is apparent that we must attempt to implement the deal as fully as we can.
I believe that, as usual, Scotland has come off better than England.
Mr. Donald Stewart: We have more fish.
Mr. Johnson: One of our headaches in Hull will be to get a sufficiently large share of the money, if and when the Minister disburses his share of the £130 million or £140 million from the EC. We may have a difficulty with Scotland, but I must not talk about devolution and the other matters that perplex people north and south of the Tweed.
We must do three things. First, we must make conservation stick. That is vital to us all. The Minister talked of sensible conservation policies, but there are so many unknowns. Whether with conceit or not, the United Kingdom believes that it can patrol and organise its waters. We are the first to say that the other Community states have neither the ability nor the will to implement the policies essential to maintain our fish stocks. That is sad. It is bad for the future and distorts competition now.
We are not angels. Constituents of mine—Hull skippers—have been gaoled in Iceland and Norway. But our fleet is at a disadvantage. We are not operating under the Marquess of Queensberry rules. Like a certain member of the CBI we might have to fight with bare knuckles to enforce uniformity.
The common fisheries policy needs enforcement. Can that be done internationally? I do not think that this EC that we are in is willing to spend enough money. Let us consider the policing of vessels. We began with 30 inspectors, which is inadequate, but we are now down to 13. I always attempt to be fair—it is a start, but not much of one. Will those 13 inspectors stamp on people in Boulogne? A year or so ago a BBC film showed clearly and factually what was happening with officials, the harbour commissioner and skippers who landed their fish there.
Will the 13 inspectors board vessels at sea and take us back to the time of Wilberforce when our Navy boarded foreign vessels looking for slaves? Will they emulate the slave dealers? The Minister of State may think that those inspectors may cost only £20,000 in expenses which is not much. However, those 13 inspectors are receiving £250,000 from the kitty to do their jobs. Some of them will be on shore, so only half a dozen may be at work on the sea. We have to begin somewhere, but this is a poor, meagre start that fills me with no hope of success.
It is not new to say that we must have a properly structured fleet. Our fleet—especially the inshore section—can capture all the catches available. We have been given a 37·2 per cent. share of the total allowable catch, but that is only for seven species. The Minister will not demur if I tell him that, at the end of the day, we have a 28 per cent. share of the total available catch of all species in the EC fish pond.
The United Kingdom has an old fleet with too many vessels. We must scrap and build and get ourselves back 20 years to the days of the Fleck committee. Otherwise, we shall be seeking subsidy after subsidy from the Government. The Treasury must be much more generous than the Community, which has given £130 million to £140 million. There is nothing to stop the Government giving far more than that if necessary. The Minister can, at his own discretion, top up any funds that are given to us by the EC. He and the Minister of State can make up their own minds. I have no clue what the Minister intends to spend because nothing has been finalised. It is too early.
68
The EC will take six months to settle its views and regulations and then the Minister must consult the industry.
I understand that the people who work in the docks in Peterhead and North Shields have accepted the deal. It is a poor deal in absolute terms, but the best one available. There are far too much of some species in the deal and far too little of the one vital species, cod. There is too much plaice and haddock, but little cod.
Marketing has already been discussed today. The EC is terrible in that area. I wish that, with his adept touch in agricultural matters, the Minister of State would do something about intervention in fishing. The intervention levels are much too low. I am told that the United Kingdom is a magnet for all the surpluses that God sends.
The Minister earlier made sympathetic noises about Hull. I listened carefully to what my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) said about Yorkshire and Humberside. That was on the ball. Hull is unique in that it has the only deep sea fishing fleet left—what little there is. No other port is in the same shape. Fleetwood does not qualify because it never sent vessels beyond Spitzbergen and Baffin bay. It did most of its fishing—and did it well—off Iceland. Fleetwood is now on its uppers.
Hull has had the worst deal of any port in the United Kingdom. There is no fleet left worth speaking of there. Does the Minister think that it has a long-term future? The Germans have a distant water fleet, so why should we not have one also?
A joint deputation from Hull and Grimsby is to visit the Minister soon. It will include the leaders of the two councils, the two town clerks and the four Members of Parliament. We want to know what the Government think about our future. Will there be a fleet of about 10 vessels? Does the Minister and his advisers think that we could catch not only mackerel and herring—pelagic fish—off north-west Scotland and the south-west peninsula, but could our distant water boats—some of them are 270 ft long—go further?
I am glad that the Minister is in the Chamber, because he does listen to hon. Members, unlike some Ministers. Does he think that Hull has a future? The Germans have a distant water fleet in Cuxhaven, so why cannot we have one in Hull? We are the only port in that predicament. Will we have about 10 vessels with access to the Barents sea, the White sea and Spitzbergen, where the fleet fished in the past? Is it possible to do a deal with Iceland to fish there again and also with Denmark to fish off Greenland? Surely that is not impossible.
The Minister made sympathetic noises about Hull and, as he knows, a deputation is coming to visit him. Hull has received a shock, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Bridlington (Mr. Townend), because Hamlings has gone out of business. When a firm ceases business, there is gloom and despondency. People are talking about another firm that might cease trading. Let it not be too late before the Minister steps in to help us to survive.
Hull has waited a long time, and will continue to wait, in the hope that, within a month or so, the Minister will say, "I do not think Hull is finished yet. It has 2,000 unemployed deck hands and scores of skippers who have lost their jobs, and they are first-class people. They want to work and we will give them a chance to do so."
6.59 pm
Mr. David Myles: It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Johnson) and the reasonable argument that he puts forward. I dare to suggest that, if he and the right hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) were in rather more prominent positions on the Opposition Front Bench, instead of a motion to throw out the agreement there might be a bipartisan approach, which would be more beneficial to the fishing industry.
Mr. Prescott: No.
Mr. Myles: The right hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart) said that Conservative Members would not like Fishing News. I read it avidly every week. It reflects substantially the views of the fishing industry. Its headline this week says
"Let's make it work".
I suspect that the right hon. Member for Barnsley and the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West would have said "Let's make it work".
It is regrettable that many years of bipartisan approach, due, again, to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West in an all-party committee on fishing, dealing with how to get together and talk to the industry and keep the industry together and let it be seen that we are not trying to divide and conquer as some would like to do, have been thrown aside by the cavalier attitude of the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan), who has far more interest in scoring party political points than in obtaining a constructive future for the fishing industry.
I shudder to think what the fishing industry would think about the possibility of throwing the agreement out of the window and getting back to the renegotiating table were the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends ever to regain power and fulfil their commitment to come out of Europe and tear up all the agreements that have been made within the European Community. The fishing industry would regard that as a very bleak outlook.
We now have an agreement that has been welcomed—I put it no higher than that—as acceptable by the leaders of the industry. I am surprised that the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West, with his pretended knowledge of the character and people of the north-east of Scotland, does not realise that for Willie Hay, who is a constituent of mine, to say that the agreement is "nae so bad" is a fulsome welcome indeed. I assure the House that that is by far the most effusive welcome that one can expect from people in the north-east, whether they be fishermen or farmers. I know Willie Hay very well. He might read Hansard, and I am quite willing to face him with that assertion.
With the greatest respect to Fishing News, I do not think that the poll was significant. It was disappointed with the response that it got—not with the result but with the rather ambiguous replies.
I turn to the opinion of Fishing News on the agreement. Gilbert Buchan, who is the most respected leader of the fishing industry, has laboured long and hard for an agreement in Europe alongside different Ministers. I am sure that Mr. Buchan will forgive me for revealing that he told me he was a long-time Labour voter. Gilbert Buchan said that he would have been ready to talk and if possible to reach agreement by giving a little bit more.
Mr. Prescott: I thank the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to discuss Scottish politics. Most of Gilbert Buchan's statements have been directed towards the fishery organisation for which he purports to speak.
Mr. Myles: It is clear that Gilbert Buchan is now the father figure and elder statesman of the fishing industry. We often hear elder statesmen making statements of greater veracity than do some statesmen who are not quite so old and who have not retired. He has retired as the president of the Scottish Fishing Federation.
Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: In the fishery inquiry of the old Select Committee on Industry and Trade, Gilbert Buchan gave the prime evidence in Scotland. I am most impressed to hear the view that he gives.
Mr. Prescott: That was not his view then.
Mr. Myles: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Nobody in this House would disagree that Gilbert Buchan is an honest man. He says what he thinks without fear or favour.
I shall not rake over the ashes of the past to see whether anything else might have been. The evidence suggests that, had an agreement been reached sooner, we would have been worse off. I disagree slightly with my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough (Sir M. Shaw) in this matter. When the Government came to power the catch quota on offer in the Berlin talks, which was agreed by the other eight members, was 31 per cent. We have now achieved 37·3 per cent. although many say that it is 37·5 per cent.
I do not wish to exaggerate. We were always asking for and ever demanding more. I remember clearly—I do not need any hon. Member to remind me of the fact—that as a candidate I had a sticker on the back of my car saying "50-mile limit". I wanted that.
How often do the Opposition's friends in the trade unions initiate negotiations by asking for an amount that they will accept? We always ask for more. I never knew a farmer, when bargaining over buying a cow, to accept the figure that is first put forward. That is a negotiating position. That is well understood. The right hon. Member for Western Isles, who is laughing, knows that.
Sir Michael Shaw: I sympathise with my hon. Friend, but I was implying that, had the same approach been adopted in the earlier stages as was latterly adopted, and had the agreement that has finally been reached, come about several years earlier, surely that would have been better for all of us.
Mr. Myles: I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. However, the tragedy was that we did not have the people before. Had we had the same people then, there is no doubt that we could have achieved an equally good, or perhaps even better, agreement. It is significant that, in the Government's fight for this acceptable agreement, they have maintained the industry at such a level that it can expand as the fish stocks expand and fulfil the quotas in the agreement.
The agreement will give a percentage quota which, if conservation agreements are fully kept, should provide for an expansion of the catch. The word "if" is important. Under the agreement we have far stricter and better control than under the previous agreement, because we have control of our own 200-mile area. The coastal state is under our control. There seems to be a misconception that

71
the owner of any foreign vessel found fishing within that area cannot be prosecuted in Britain under this agreement. That is not true. My right hon. Friend will correct me if I am wrong, but we have the power to prosecute foreign vessel owners in this country under this agreement, although not under the national measures that obtained while we were negotiating the agreement. The owners need not return to the state under whose flag they fish.
The agreement should also allow boat building to be restructured. The fishing boat building industry has been going through a difficult period in recent years. Perhaps it is worth quoting the manager of a Buckie shipyard—Jones of Buckie—Mr. John Richardson:
"Local fishermen seem a lot more confident now that a European Common Fisheries policy is settled. Recently there had been a marked increase in the inquiries about new boats and I'm very hopeful of our gaining further orders this year."
I welcome the fact, as I represent a constituency that has a substantial fishing boat building industry, that the agreement will provide the employment that is so necessary.
However, as many hon. Members have said, much remains to be done. The common fisheries policy will not settle the problem of low prices on the quayside. I welcome the initiative of the Sea Fish Industry Authority on marketing. I add modestly—although no one is ever modest here—that I may have been influential in setting up a meeting between Peter Seales, the chief executive of the SFIA, and Bill Marlow, the chief executive of the Meat Promotion Executive. They will meet soon to see whether some lessons from the promotion of meat by the Meat Promotion Executive can be taken on board by the SFIA. I welcome the fact that those gentlemen are talking, because it is only by discussing the matter that we can improve on the base that this agreement has set up.
Marks and Spencer is a great supporter of British industry, but it is sad that that institution, which has said so often that it will always buy British goods if they are of equivalent value and standards to other goods, gets its fish from Denmark. I have already told one of my local fish processors, who has shown great initiative in expanding his business with the help of the Scottish Development Agency, the Government and FEOGA grants from Europe, that it is high time that he went after the Marks and Spencer order. It is on the table for him to pick up if he can fulfil the quota, standards and continuity of supply that that great organisation requires.
I now come to a rather difficult point. The industry must stick together. Of course, there are conflicting interests within the industry, but I appeal to those who threaten breakaways to stick together. With this basis of agreement on which we can build, it would be tragic if the industry's representatives were to lose much of their influence with the Government by failing to resolve their internal differences. In a democracy, a minority can always make its views known, but in this case the minority can best make its opinion felt within the present structure rather than by breaking it up, as the right hon. Member for Western Isles, who has now left the Chamber, seems to wish. That is the devious and despicable way in which the Scottish National Party tries to buy popularity—by encouraging minorities to break up organisations and by trying to divide and conquer.
72
The right hon. Gentleman continues to boast that the Western Isles was one of the few areas to vote to stay out of the Community. I visited the area with the Select Committee on Agriculture, inquiring into support for less favoured areas. We spoke to the people there and asked them what they thought. All the time they said "For goodness sake, give us more." It has been rudely and unfairly said that the Army salutes like this, the Navy salutes like this, the Nazis saluted like that, but the people of the Western Isles salute like this. It is rather unfair to say that, but we must recognise that the Western Isles has benefited more from our membership of the Community than any other area.
Mr. Maclennan: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the hon. Member for Banff (Mr. Myles) to make rude gestures that cast reflection on the islanders and that, furthermore, cannot be taken down by the Hansard reporters?
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): It is my experience in this Chamber that hon. Members frequently make gestures.
Mr. Myles: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was slightly doubtful about the propriety of that remark myself. I hope that I made it clear that I felt that the gestures were unfair to the admirable people whom I met in the Western Isles. However, I must carry on and tell the right hon. Gentleman that many of those to whom we talked—he is held in very high regard there, which I could never quite explain, although it must be his charm—told me categorically that when the right hon. Gentleman stood up and said "We must leave Europe and"—the other matter that his party frequently raises—"we must get rid of the South Uist Army firing range", they shudder because, as they said "Those are the two things that maintain the prosperity of a vast number of the people in the Western Isles".
I was interested in the fishermen's charter, as described by the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West, who also seems to believe that it is best to stay away from most of this debate so that he does not hear the home truths.
Mr. Eric Deakins: The hon. Gentleman is clearly unused to debates in the House of Commons, otherwise he would appreciate that it is sometimes difficult for Ministers and shadow Ministers to be in attendance for six or seven hours non-stop. Occasionally they require relief.
Mr. Myles: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Waltham Forest (Mr. Deakins) for putting me right in that regard.
It seems to me that the only way in which the fishermen's charter, as described by the hon. Gentleman, can be afforded would be by the kind of economic management that has been shown by this Government.
All in all, this settlement will come as a great relief for the Scottish fishing industry and for those who depend on it for their livelihood. I am sure that I speak for the vast majority of my constituents when I say that.
7.21 pm
Mr. Robert Maclennan: Conservative Members have complained of partisanship in the official Opposition's approach to this debate. They have only the Minister to blame. The right hon. Gentleman opened the debate with one of the most partisan speeches

73
that it has been my misfortune to listen to in this House. It was partisan in its description of history. I am certain that the industry will be unimpressed by the fact that the Minister chose this occasion simply to trawl over the events of the past 10 years without attempting to elucidate the areas of doubt, to chart the way ahead for the industry or to answer any of the questions raised by the industry since the announcement of the settlement last week.
The most remarkable of his partisan remarks was his wholly unfounded attack on my right hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen). It was a personal attack of which he gave my right hon. Friend no warning, and which I greatly resent. The Minister owes the House an apology, and I hope that he will take the earliest opportunity to make it for misleading the House on a series of important facts connected with The Hague agreement.
First, the agreement was not negotiated, as the Minister said, by my right hon. Friend. At that time, my right hon. Friend was Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, not the Secretary of State, as the Minister suggested. Secondly, far from the conclusion of the agreement having resulted in throwing away a negotiating hand—an assertion that the Minister made on an earlier occasion—The Hague agreement has provided this Government with the foundation for and basis of the provisions under which they have invoked national measures to protect the British fleet during the negotiating period. That was extremely important to the industry and, it must be said, to the present Government in conducting the negotiations.
Mr. McQuarrie rose—
Mr. Maclennan: I shall gladly give way to the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. McQuarrie) when I have finished this point.
Thirdly, The Hague agreement was reached by the late Anthony Crosland, who was the Member for Grimsby. He was a man for whom the fishing industry was almost his reason for being in politics. The idea that he would have thrown away the negotiating position to protect his own industry will be seen as completely unworthy. It is a charge that should never have been made.
Mr. McQuarrie: Will the hon. Gentleman concede that when the deal was done by the then Member of the Labour party—regardless of his name—and the 200-mile limit came into being, the Irish insisted on an increase in their quotas? Nevertheless, that Labour Member, who led the discussions, made no effort to gain any additional quotas for Britain. That is why we failed to gain at that time, and Ireland gained substantially.
Mr. Maclennan: All I can say is that the conclusion of The Hague agreement, which was reported to the House on 2 November 1976 and is in Hansard at c. 1206–10, makes it plain that not only did the Government of the day regard it as a considerable achievement to have obtained an agreement to extend the fishing waters of the Communiy to 200 miles throughout the European pond, but that the agreement was wholly welcomed by the Opposition. The present Foreign Secretary, who was then the spokesman on agriculture and fisheries matters, asked my right hon. Friend the Member for Devonport:
"Is the Minister aware that we welcome the agreement to move the limits and are pleased that that has been achieved?" —[Official Report, 2 November 1976; Vol. 918, c. 1207.]
74
The right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) certainly did not regard it as a mistaken diplomatic manoeuvre. He regarded it as an achievement—and rightly so. It has been the basis of the protecticn that the industry has enjoyed under the national arrangements which have persisted since then. It is a pity that the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food chose to repeat that canard today for purely partisan reasons.
I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) that the question as to whether this agreement is satisfactory is one that the future will reveal. At this stage it is impossible to be wholly certain about a number of aspects of the agreement. It is a pity that neither the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food nor his deputy has chosen to remain in the Chamber at this point and have left the Front Bench almost empty, because there are a number of questions which fall to be answered and to which the industry is seeking replies.
First, the virtue of any common fisheries policy—both Labour and Conservative Governments have striven for 10 years to get one—must be that it improves the prospects for conservation. It is not feasible for effective conservation measures to be taken on purely national lines. The Labour party, which is now committed to taking Britain out of the Community, has never faced the fact that if we left the European Community the future of our fishing industry would be in the hands of the remaining members of the Community.
Mr. Prescott: The hon. Gentleman is flying in the face of the evidence. All the evidence is that nations with coastal control, particularly with the extension to 200 miles, can control the conservation measures. Iceland is a perfect example of that. However, when there are international agreements, whether within the Community or outside it, agreements on quotas are often not observed and that leads to the decline of stocks. I know of no area on which there has been international agreement about fishing stocks where it has been possible to achieve conservation.
Mr. Maclennan: The geographical location of Iceland is somewhat different from that of the United Kingdom. Our contiguity with the waters of continental Europe makes it essential to have agreement with those countries to ensure that they do not overfish. Unfortunately, fish are no respecters of boundaries drawn on maps. Breeding grounds may be on one side of the line while catching grounds are on the other. That is the predicament that we face and that is a principal reason for welcoming an agreement.
The Minister has done a good job in reaching agreement on the total allowable catches. I have no doubt that the negotiations were hard and that the end results were as good as could reasonably be expected and better than many on the fishing industry believed likely. That is not to say that individual fishermen and, indeed, fisheries organisations at different times in the negotiations would not have wished for a better deal. No doubt they did and no doubt that was argued for. It certainly was argued for by the Labour Government. However, at the end of the day the allocation of catches in the seven principal species seems to me to be essentially fair.
It is an achievement to have reduced the historic rights of access to fish in our coastal waters to the extent that they

75
have been reduced and to have opened up new access to the continental fishing grounds for our domestic fleet. Those arrangements have been accepted by the industry, but considerable ambiguities remain about what brought Denmark to conclude an agreement. In particular, there are the 20,000 tonnes of mackerel. It is essential that, when he replies, the Minister should give the industry the assurance that it is seeking that that will not be taken from west Scotland mackerel.
Furthermore, the Minister should specifically answer the question that has been raised by the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations about the 2,000 tonnes of North sea cod that have been offered to Denmark for three years under a separate regulation. That is said to be a one-off gift, and the Minister has asserted that the practice will be terminated automatically after the expiry of the regulation and that it is not the subject of review. It is not clear to the industry that that is the case. If it is, it is up to the Minister to be more categoric than he has been so far.
Other anxieties persist, notwithstanding the Minister's jubilation last week about the implications of the special measures accorded to Denmark. The provision for a Commission review each October of the uptake of national quotas is a cause for concern, because it might preclude the United Kingdom from negotiating bilateral exchanges of plaice and whiting for cod and haddock. It has been put to me by Nigel Atkins of the NFFO that Denmark and the Netherlands could conceivably seek to fish their quotas of whiting and plaice within the first nine months, confident that tonnages will be transferred at no cost from the United Kingdom allocation. Those are points of considerable uncertainty.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland spoke of the Shetland box. I do not wish to do more than endorse his inquiries and ask that the Minister answer them. It is widely considered that that is the most unsatisfactory aspect of the deal. Although the Council of Ministers seems to have adopted the idea of the Shetland box as a conservation measure, it does, on the face of it, look to be rather like window dressing. It has been put forward, apparently by the Commission, with the purpose of promoting rational exploitation of biological resources, bearing in mind the social and economic needs of the fishermen in that region. However, the difficulty is that the licences apply only to the larger vessels over 25 metres, and the number of licences to be handed out is so great that it will not cut down fishing. France is to receive 52 licences but will need to build more boats of the kind she uses near Shetland in order to keep a fleet of 50 vessels fishing there regularly. The important point is that it will be open to France to keep 52 boats fishing there all the time, and Britain and Germany have enough licences to increase considerably the amount of fishing that is done in the Shetland box. That is an unsatisfactory situation. I hope that it lies within the Government's power to alter the licensing arrangements to ensure that overfishing does not take place there.
I had hoped that the debate would provide the opportunity for the Government to say how they propose to secure the economic base of the industry in the future. It is regrettable that, having achieved the settlement of the fisheries policy, they have not seen fit to say what shape they see the industry taking in the next decade. It lies very
76
much in the Government's hands to determine that. The money that has been made available under the regulation on restructuring is extremely limited—£140 million—and we do not know how it is to be spent in Britain.
We do not know what priorities the Minister has in mind for the industry. It is not sufficient for the Minister to say that he proposes to consult the industry and hear its views. The Minister has overall responsibility and should have his own views. He will have to reconcile considerable differences of opinion within the industry itself—differences not only within the Scottish fleet but resulting from the condition of the industry in different ports. In particular, the Humberside ports are in a parlous condition, as several hon. Members have made clear. The ports of Hull, Grimsby and Fleetwood have, as a result of the loss of Icelandic fishing, seen a complete alteration, almost a decimation, of their fishing effort. It is surely right that money should be made available to promote the fishing effort in those ports.
It is also right, as I said in a short intervention earlier, that those who have been driven out of the industry over the past 10 years and received no compensation because they were held to be ineligible for redundancy payments under the Redundancy Payments Act 1965 should receive payment under the Commission's proposals. I noticed that the Minister tried to slough off this matter and said that it was for the Secretary of State for Employment. As the sponsoring Minister for the fishing industry, he must take a line on this. He cannot simply hide behind his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment. This matter involves a relatively small number of people—hundreds not thousands—and it is right that the Minister should act upon the permissive legislation of the Community to give financial assistance to such people. I hope that their long overlooked rights will be acted upon.
I put it to the Minister that one of the top priorities should be to seek to assist the industry to adapt itself to the need for quality improvement. Our industry's capability to land quality fish is not as high as it should be in all the ports. The installation of proper refrigerating and handling equipment would be of great service. In addition, money should be made available both to the vessels and to research institutes for investment in fuel-saving techniques. Fuel costs have undoubtedly been the single most burdensome problem to face the fishing industry.
Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland, we in the north of Scotland have been appalled by the remorseless rise in fuel prices, despite the fact that international oil prices are apparently being cut. It is extraordinary that petrol prices should rise by 5p to over £2·15 a gallon in the north of Scotland. Apparently, the Government are just standing by doing nothing. However, the Government must be given some credit for achieving a framework within which the industry could prosper, and that is why we shall support them in the Lobby tonight.
Nevertheless, I say that with qualified enthusiasm. Not all the credit for getting the framework right goes to the Minister. Considerable credit must be given to those of our European partners who assisted in the negotiations. I have my doubts whether the Minister has the measure of the difficulties facing the industry. I do not propose to say any more about the problems of Humberside, but it must be recognised that we cannot go on with an unregulated industry, in which the rise and fall of sectors is left purely to market forces. In an industry based on diversity of effort and on differing conditions, we cannot allow those

77
sections that are under particular strain to die and then wring our hands and say that it is just too bad. That is what has happened on Humberside, and it has happened under both Labour and Conservative Governments.
Mr. Prescott: The hon. Gentleman will recall that a delegation led by a Social Democratic party candidate went to see him about the fishing problems in Humberside. Did it leave him with the impression that this agreement was acceptable to those in Grimsby?
Mr. Maclennan: Mr. Paul Genny, who led that delegation, has taken more interest in the problems of the Grimsby fleet than the Member of Parliament for that area, who has not attended this debate for a minute. It is 7.45 pm and the hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) has not even turned up. The views of the fleet have been made clear to me by fishermen in Grimsby, and they have also been made clear to the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) and to the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East. They both had the courtesy to listen to what the fishermen had to say.
Mr. Buchan: As I well know, my hon. Friend the Member for Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) has been an assiduous Member of Parliament on matters affecting the fishing industry. He has been on my back often enough, and he has been on the Minister's back even more, pushing the case for Grimsby and its fishermen. He sent me his apologies for not attending the debate. He is a member of a parliamentary delegation, for which arrangements were made many weeks ago. I thought that that was known. If it had been humanly possible, my hon. Friend would have been here. He expressed his regrets and apologies to me, and I am glad of this opportunity to inform the House. However, I am sorry about the tone of the comments that made it necessary for me to intervene.
Mr. Maclennan: I am only sorry that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) felt it necessary to intervene to make a partisan point. The hon. Member for Grimsby does not have to apologise to the House. He has his constituents to look after. If he chooses to be a member of a parliamentary delegation, it is a matter for him.
Mr. McQuarrie: A junket.
Mr. Maclennan: The Government's "stand back" attitude to the management of the fishing industry is no longer appropriate. It may have been appropriate when the high seas were open to hunters of fish throughout the world. However, as our waters are confined, we cannot allow the fleet to expand—as the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Johnson) wisely said—without any control or regulation. I hope that the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West implied that the view of the official Opposition was that it was necessary to intervene to protect those who have been injured by an unregulated industry and to ensure that the depredations of one section of the fleet do not damage another section. There is a particularly bad example of that at present.
The Government have been waiting for the conclusion of a common fisheries policy before acting on the recommendations of the inshore legislation committee. Its report, prepared by officials at the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries in Scotland, puts forward proposals on how the waters round the Scottish coast should be divided between different sectors of the
78
industry. The damage being done to the static gear section of the industry—which is responsible for shell fishing—by pelagic trawling that is effectively unregulated is incalculable. The Government have stood by and allowed it. Pelagic fishing has been reopened at a time of year when the creel fishermen make their largest catches. The excuse is that it will provide a continuity of supplies to processors in this country. However, the fish caught are apparently going to the klondykers and to the Russian boats which are standing off in the Minch.
Those pelagic trawlers are trailing away hundreds of creels at enormous cost to the fishermen. It is a scandal. It was brought to the attention of the Minister of State, Scottish Office at the end of December that it was a distinct possibility. That it did not happen on a large scale before this week is due only to the extremely bad weather, which has prevented fishing. However, in the past few days awful devastation has been wrought. The Government should not have waited for the conclusion of the common fisheries policy. They should have settled t le matter earlier. I understand that the Government are now waiting for the opinion of the Scottish Fishing Federation to be given at the end of the month. The Government should have set a tighter timetable. It was predictable that this month would be a month of great difficulties. Furthermore, it is one reason why a substantial section of Scottish fishermen do not see the Scottish Fishing Federation as representative of their interests.
Like other hon. Members, I regret the division developing in Scotland between different sections of the industry. Scotland, which takes about 60 per cent. of the total fishing catch in the United Kingdom, should speak with a united voice. If it is to do that, the interests of all sections of the Scottish fleet must be represented by the relevant bodies. I do not criticise them, but I criticise the Government for not being active when the warnings were sounded.
Dr. David Owen: Does my hon. Friend agree that more than Scottish waters are involved? Is he aware that there is considerable anxiety in south-west waters because the Government take such a long time before taking action on klondykers? They appear to require evidence of illegal action long after it has been committed. That causes considerable concern in the southwest.
Mr. Maclennan: I agree. I chose the Scottish example because it involves my constituency, is well known to me and illustrates a general point. It is not good enough for the Government to say to the creel fishermen that they should invest large sums, which some do not have, in apparatus that gives notice of where such ventures are taking place.
One of the Minister of State's more ludicrous suggestions was that lines should be laid up to five miles out to sea so that the creels can be drawn in when the trawlers come heaving into sight. The Minister appears to have neither a knowledge of the industry nor a willingness to learn.
I hope that the recommendations by the inshore legislation committee will be acted upon. I do not approve of all the recommendations, because they are too restrictive in the provision of waters for the creel fishing industry, but it is important that the Government act—and act soon.

79
It is also important to recognise that in some parts of the country fishing has an importance to the local economy out of proportion to its importance to the national economy. For social reasons, it is important that the Government recognise the predicament of peripheral maritime areas. In making dispositions for the restructuring of the fleet and in making money available, the Government should attach weight to that. Islands and remote communities on the mainland are particularly needy. Long after North sea oil ceases to make an important contribution to the local economy, fishing must and will make a major contribution. That is a prime need, but the Minister has never shown his awareness of it.
The industry always has to rely upon limited stocks. Traditionally it is a hunting industry. It is important to do more about stock enhancement. We must do more about experimentation, not only with flat fish but with the breeding of fish, such as cod. The Norwegians are doing it—and we can do it.
We must not cut back on our limited research efforts. I understand that there is a threat to the research vessel based at Lowestoft and that the Rayner committee has proposed that there should be cuts at the Torry research laboratory. Such suggestions are retrograde to our needs. I hope that the Minister will give firm assurances that, far from cutting that effort, the Government intend to increase it.
The Government have paid lip service to the idea of promoting fish. I was disturbed at what the Minister said today. I understand that the Sea Fish Industry Authority proposed that £3 million should be spent on the marketing and promotion of fish but that the Government rejected that proposal. Perhaps the Minister thought that it would involve pouring money into vague advertising schemes for fish, although he did not specifically say that. I hope that the Minister is not simply wielding an axe yet again.
The common fisheries policy could provide a basis for marketing that would enhance the industry's prosperity. In the last decade that has not been done. The import of fish from third countries has disrupted prices on a number of occasions. We now have a pricing mechanism that is more likely to be effective. The industry will take some convincing that the guide price arrangements are sufficient and high enough to ensure a proper bottom for the market. I hope that the Minister will look urgently at the need to adjust the guide prices.
The industry has laboured with uncertainty for 10 years. That has contributed to its decline—in some ports a sharp decline. I hope that the Government accept that, in supporting them tonight, we have the best interests of the industry in our hearts and minds. We hope and believe that it is possible for the industry to take off, given backing from the Government, necessary restructuring and a willingness by the Government to shape the fishing effort throughout all our waters.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Speeches lasting 35 minutes will make it difficult for the Chair to call the many other Members who wish to speak.
7.57 pm
Mr. Ray Mawby: The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) made some
80
important points, the most realistic of which was that he regarded the agreement with qualified enthusiasm. If the Minister can get the hon. Gentleman to go that far he has done well. Naturally, the Opposition seek to create dispute. I can understand that in light of the Labour party's general view, about which we read in the newspapers, which is that we should leave the Common Market. It is natural for them to table such an amendment.
I agree with the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland when he says that more conservation will result from the agreement. That is important. The right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) Intervened to explain the overfishing of mackerel in south-western waters by klondykers. Some of them come from Scotland and sell their entire catch to Russian vessels standing off just far enough to ensure that they are within the law. Our mackerel fishermen using the hand line system are not happy about that. Others who have expressed unhappiness have been my shellfishermen, whose pots have been interfered with by trawlers at various times—usually foreign trawlers.
I have always wondered why one should allow certain fishing boats to concentrate upon fishing purely and simply for manufacture. If fish landed does not fetch a reasonable price if sold for human consumption, I see no reason why it should not be used for fishmeal or other products. Fishing deliberately for manufacture, however, is opposed to the interests of the conservation of the species.
I also note that although there are quotas for various species of fish there is, unfortunately, no quota for sprats. If sprats are not on quota there will be, and indeed is, a tendency for overfishing of sprats when a boat has reached its quota of some other type of fish. That may well interfere with the breeding stock of sprats and so put in jeopardy a species that, in certain ports, is very valuable.
I have been asked about a racket that is growing up in the south-west. I do not know whether it occurs in other parts of the country. It appears to be possible for what amount to Spanish vessels to be registered so long as they employ two or three British crew. Unless something is done about this, the Danes could get round all the measures we have laid down by manipulating the registration of boats. I understand that under the minimum requirements for registration the presence of only two or three British crew on a trawler qualify it as a British boat and therefore permit it to fish. While we are a member of the Common Market, I should hate to feel that our fishermen were being put out of employment by such a development.
The general fishing bodies appear to have accepted a reasonable agreement. They wanted a certain amount, and our quota of the seven edible species is to be 37·3 per cent. This seems to be generally accepted by the representatives of British fishermen. Certainly there has been no outcry in the south-west against arrangements of this kind and the fishermen seem reasonably happy with the agreement.
I agree with the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland that these measures should lead to greater conservation—so long as we all work together. As has been pointed out, it is difficult to maintain and police quotas. Nevertheless, we must ensure that any gaps are closed. The agreement should be properly policed to ensure that the quotas are observed. I believe that it is a good step forward towards proper fish conservation and

81
that in the fairly near future we may even see the return of the herring and other species which, due to lack of conservation in the past, have become almost extinct.
8.5 pm
Mr. John Prescott: A great deal has been said today about the agreements themselves and whether people were right to say what they did a few years ago and whether what they now say can be measured against that. Realistically, we all recognise that during negotiations people may feel that they must be firm, although at the back of their minds they are prepared to accept something less than that on which they publicly insist. Nevertheless, there are resolutions of the House against which to measure the agreement. I fully support the Opposition amendment, if only because the agreement in no way covers the consequences suffered by the Humberside fishing industry which depended so heavily on third country waters and was promised compensation.
I intend no discourtesy to the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, but if the Minister or the Minister of State comes into the Chamber I may well repeat one or two of my remarks. Measuring what has been achieved against what the House agreed takes one's mind back to the debate on 9 December 1981. Until then, the House had agreed on a 12-mile exclusive zone and a 50-mile preferential zone with compensation for third party waters. However, the Government's amendment in that debate, as compared with the Opposition motion, showed that the Government were beginning to change course. They no longer mentioned the 50-mile limit but simply referred to securing an exclusive limit, without any commitment to the position adopted in the earlier joint resolution. We were therefore right to point out that the Government were changing course and shaping themselves to accept less than that which they had previously proposed both in opposition and in government as the minimum acceptable to the House and to themselves.
The Secretary of State referred to The Hague agreement. It is a bit much that conclusions are constantly drawn from that agreement when I gather that the important appendix 7 is available neither to the House nor to the Government, making it impossible to judge the challenge that certain agreements were made behind closed doors about understandings on quotas in the negotiations. The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) said that in those negotiations the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) simply sought to extend rights in the 200-mile limit with the agreement of the Community to cover necessary conservation in areas up to that limit.
The report of that debate is the publicly available source of evidence to which the Secretary of State referred, but it is clear from the general debate around the statement made by the right hon. Member for Devonport that what was really exercising the Labour Government's mind was the difficulty of negotiations with Iceland. The then Foreign Secretary, Anthony Crosland, believed, although I disagreed entirely, that joining the European Community would mean that we could use the strength of the Community to force Iceland to agree terms.
Quite frankly, most of us rejected that, both in the referendum and in the negotiations with Iceland. I supported Iceland's case because it was right at that time. There was little support from the House but I supported it because the best position, for Britain's interests, was to
82
declare an Iceland on the Community and take up to its own 200 miles. That was clearly what was happening, although unfortunately the prevailing thinking of Anthony Crosland and presumably the thinking of the right hon. Member for Devonport was that, by securing this understanding, we would be able to pressure Iceland as one of the third party countries. The attempt failed, as some of us predicted it would fail.
Let us be clear about it—the point has been made by the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland—no agreement was achieved about tonnages. The Berlin agreement has been referred to. It is clear that, if eight nations get together and one does not turn up, there is no agreement. One cannot change or secure any agreement without all participating in the agreement. It is nonsense to drag in the Berlin agreement and I hope we shall hear no more about it when the Minister replies.
Has the agreement been a triumph? What criteria are we to use? If we examine the total tonnage available in the EC in 1980, we find that 3·665 million tonnes was caught at a value of £744 million. Sixty per cent. of that tonnage—that was the figure often used in the House; 60 per cent. being the amount of fish in the British waters of the Community waters—would have given us a tonnage of 2·2 million at a value of £446 million. The 37 per cent. that the Government say they have negotiated would give an equivalent on these figures of 1·3 million tonnes, or a value of £275 million. Consequently, the 23 per cent. difference is equivalent in value, according to these figures, to £171 million per year. That is the price we are paying to join the Community's fishing policy. We are giving more than we receive. It is an old formula in the Community and, in this case, one figure gives us £171 million, the price of the privilege of joining the common fisheries policy.
However one measures the 1982 total allowable catches for the seven species, it would seem that the value would be an approximate difference of £40 million. Whether the figure is £171 million or £40 million—perhaps the Government will be able to give us some estimates, because presumably they have an idea of what they were giving away in the negotiations—the Government are paying for the reconstruction not only of our own fleet but of those of everyone else in the Community from what it is costing us to join the Community agreement.
If the Government disagree with the figures, presumably they will have some idea what they are. Will they please tell us what it is costing the British fishing industry for the privilege of joining the Community fishing industry? Everyone is agreed that we are not receiving all the fish that we could possibly get out of it. Clearly the old Common Market price is prevailing.
On those criteria, we have not got 60 per cent. In case I hear again the question, "What would you do if we were given all the 60 per cent?", I will say that it can be sent to Hull, because we are in dire straits. The Government have not succeeded in achieving the full total that we could get, although they have achieved 37 per cent., which is somewhat better then the 31 per cent. in previous negotiations.
In 1978, I and others produced a document called "Fishing into the Eighties". I was then a member of the European Assembly, to which the hon. Member for Scarborough (Sir M. Shaw) referred. In 1974, according to the industry, there were 3·9 million tonnes of fish in EC waters. In the United Kingdom 200-mile limit there were

83
2·3 million tonnes, or 60 per cent. In the United Kingdom 50-mile limit, there were 1·7 million tonnes or 44 per cent. of the total. It is a fair judgment, particularly for those who opposed Britain's entry into the Common Market, as I did irrespective of its other advantages, to say that our fishing industry will be damaged by our membership. If we had remained outside, we could have taken sufficient fish—admittedly a different mix, and we would have had to readjust our industry—from our own 200 miles.
In addition, we would have been in an important negotiating position with Norway and other countries to negotiate even extra stocks in bilateral agreements that were denied us by the Common Market. So it is clear that membership of the Common Market is not advantageous for the fishing industry, and it is paying the price in more money being paid to the Community for the privilege of receiving less fish.
Each hon. Member can make his own judgment about the Common Market, but against those criteria the position is clear. The effect of the agreement has not been the same all over the country. The Secretary of State made it absolutely clear that other areas in Britain have expanded. That is undoubtedly true, particularly in inshore fishing, where there has been some expansion in the fleet, particularly in Scotland, as well as in some English ports. But that has not been the effect in the deep water ports, to which I shall address my remarks. It is the deep water effects with which we are concerned.
I should like to give some examples of the scale of the decline, and then compare that to the position of the inshore ports which are near my own area. For example, the deep water ports such as Hull were declining from the mid-1960s, even before our entry into the Common Market. Losing the Icelandic waters was a considerable blow. Canada was extending its areas and there were tremendous technological advances in freezer fleets, which were largely concentrated in the Humberside area. But, as my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Johnson) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) pointed out, the fleet was in considerable decline. From 1970 to 1980, for every 100 ships at the beginning of the decade, we are now left with 10. For every 100 men we employed—11,000—we now have 10—1,000. The amount of fish caught has declined by 90 per cent. In 1971, Britain had 920,000 tonnes of fish, of which Hull had 166,000 tonnes, or 18 per cent. of the total. The value of that fish at the time was £18 million. That, multiplied by a factor of five to take account of inflation, gives a real value of £90 million today. But in 1981, British total tonnage has fallen to 680,000. Hull is down to less than 20,000 tonnes, giving a value of about £7 million.
The economy in Hull depends on an input of £90 million through the docks and is now trying to survive on £7 million. It is impossible to sustain any viable fishing industry on such a financial input. That emphasises the scale of the decline in Hull, but it is not true of all areas. Bridlington has, over the same period, doubled the amount of tonnage and has increased in real value by 25 per cent. the value of the fish. The same is true of Fraserburgh, where total tonnage has increased by 50 per cent. and the real value by 25 per cent. Many of the inshore fleets have expanded both tonnage and value of the fish, while quite the opposite has occurred at the deep sea ports.
84
That shows the great difference between the consequences of the agreement. The deep sea fleet is highly concentrated in certain areas. The small inshore fleet is dispersed around most of the United Kingdom. Therefore, what was of considerable consequence to Hull was the compensation for the loss of third country waters which was promised on our entry into the Common Market. Again, we can compare what occurred with the Community agreement.
Previously, it was agreed that compensation would have to be sought for 340,000 tonnes of third country water fish. In fact, compensation was obtained for 56,000 tonnes, but not 1 tonne of that compensation for third country waters came to Hull. The compensation has failed to meet any of the criteria. The Danes may be given 20,000 tonnes of mackerel and 2,000 tonnes of cod as a sweetener. Over the same period the Danish industry has expanded from 260,000 tonnes to 457,000 tonnes in 1981. The Danes are to be given a sweetener and their industry has increased its catch by 57 per cent. while the United Kingdom's catch has decreased by 30 per cent.
These are not good criteria against which to measure a claimed triumph. The Danes have been able to expand their fleet and so have the Dutch, despite the low quotas available to them. How have they been able to sustain a full fleet taking fish all the time? That has been achieved by breaking the quota agreement. This is readily admitted. Indeed, it has been admitted in the House. To add insult to injury, the Community pays compensation on the illegal amounts in excess of the quota agreement and is even prepared to consider quotas for the following year that are based on the excess catches.
A good example of the consequences of this sort of fishing is the collapse of the Hamling company, which constituted 25 per cent. of the freezer fleet in Hull. It was working with a Dutch company. The British ships were prevented from fishing while the Dutch and the German ships were allowed to continue to scoop out the fish. Nobody prevented them from doing so although the quotas should have stopped the fishing continuing. They were able to take the illegal catch to Holland and put it into the large freezers—I am talking about the company that was a partner of the Hamling company—and presumably they will be given export rebates for the fish because it is going to Nigeria.
When those in the industry in Hull and Humberside know that that activity is taking place, they cannot accept that the rules and the practice will change because of the new agreement. They cannot accept that other fishing fleets will begin to observe the agreement and that the 13 inspectors—it seems that they will have to be supermen—will be able to visit the hundreds of ports to prevent the illegal fish from coming in. It is not an acceptable proposition.
We hear from the Government that the industry is supporting everything that they are doing. We warned the Minister repeatedly of the consequences of their actions. When the Handing company went bankrupt, one of its directors, a Mr. Watson-Hall, paid a flying visit to the office to pick up some papers. It is reported in the Hull Daily Mail that he told a group of angry, redundant trawlermen that they were
"out of work because of the Government and the EEC."
It is against that background that the Hull fishing industry will judge the agreement. Those who are near to bankruptcy will have difficulty in endorsing what the

85
Government have done, especially when they are asking for compensation. Mr. Watson-Hall's statement and others that have been made from within the industry are very different from those made by Mr. Austen Laing on behalf of the British Fishing Federation.
We hear many lectures about the Common Market but I and others fought the referendum to decide whether we should stay in the EC on the basis that it would destroy Humberside's fishing industry. We were laughed at and it was said that we were anti-Market. We argued that, irrespective of the advantages that were claimed from membership of the Community, the EC would destroy Humberside's fishing industry. It is no pleasure to know that truth was on our side. That is borne out by the catalogue of disaster on Humberside that I and others have highlighted.
We have seen a collapse of the Hull fishing industry. The earnings of the industry 10 years ago were £90 million on 1980 figures. Its earnings now are estimated to be £7 million. This has had a disastrous effect on the fishing industry and all the related industries, including shipbuilding, ship repairing, cold storage and ice machinery. It is estimated by the Yorkshire and Humberside economic board that every 1,000 tonnes of fish coming into Hull generates about 76 jobs. It is necessary now for Hull carefully to consider the optimum amount and value of fish to come through the port to sustain a viable industry.
Hull was told during the years of decline that it had to wait until an agreement was reached. The Government must now decide whether there is to be a fishing industry on Humberside, especially at Hull. I pay tribute to the Prime Minister and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food—I cannot often do so—for the action that they took when they were approached by Hull council. The industry had bankrupted itself and could not sustain a landing capacity at Hull. The Ministers allowed Hull to use inner city money to enable a Hull catching and landing facility to be maintained. The Government recognised that it was necessary to meet heavy dock charges to give some assistance to an industry that could not maintain its infrastructure on the amount of fish coming into the industry.
That argument is equally applicable now to the dock problem and the maintenance of an under-used education structure. If the industry sinks below 10 per cent. of what it was 10 years ago, the education infrastructure could not be maintained and the training of officers, ratings, stewards, deckies and all the others involved in the industry will begin to suffer. This will happen because of a lack of throughput. Education cuts are severely reducing the training capacity that has been built up in the industry, which was a positive way of achieving a viable future for the industry.
I shall quote from a letter from the Hull Fishing Vessel Owners' Association Ltd. that is dated 18 February 1980. It is signed by Mr. Thomas Boyd. The letter was written after a meeting with the Prime Minister. The association hoped that there would be some agreement. Mr. Boyd wrote:
"There was no one present at the meeting who was not delighted to hear that, after your bilateral discussions with the other EEC Fishing Ministers, you are most optimistic of achieving the United Kingdom's demands, namely, 45 per cent. of the EEC's Fish Pond's annual catch. This is most exciting news to us. We were also pleased to hear that you yourself would consider inadequate any offer from the EEC of less than this."
86
The association was left with the clear impression—I do not know whether it has been corrected by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food—that Hull had a future with the possibility of 45 per cent. of the annual catch. The agreement is not a triumph when measured against that earlier demand.
There has been a collapse in the fishing and freezing fleets. Hull has 22,000 unemployed, one of the highest rates of unemployment in Yorkshire and Humberside. The effect on the industry has been considerable and unique. No other area in Europe has been more directly affected by the fishing agreement than the port of Hull.
It is absolutely clear that Hull has not simply sat down and cried about its problems. It has tried to sustain an industry with a landing capacity. The local authority has set up a joint fishing committee, held discussions with EC Commissioners and opened negotiations with Iceland after the blacking of some years ago. Eventually, it was able to bring fish from that area back to Hull. The local authority has actively worked within the difficult remit of the Community, whatever its overall view of the EC.
The fleet has continued to decline, in spite of the money that has been made available—I think that the Minister said that it is now four or five times what was available under the Labour Administration. Nevertheless, there has not been sufficient compensation for the loss of fish from third country waters. Tonnage of fish, not money, is what is needed. The industry does not want only subsidies; it wants sufficient fish to maintain a viable industry.
It has been said that the men have not received any redundancy payment. As an ex-seaman, I know the argument well. If one signs articles on a ship for less than six months, the redundancy fund regards that as less than two years' continuity. Five men who have worked for Hamlings, which closed this week, came to see me. Between them, they have 128 years' service in that company. One of them has 37 years' service. Incidentally, some of them are not my constituents, but those of the hon. Members for Haltemprice (Sir P. Wall) and for Bridlington (Mr. Townend) who are ex-directory so they cannot be reached in urgent cases. I am in the telephone book, as all hon. Members should be, so they came to see me. I am happy to represent their case today.
There is an anomaly in redundancy payments. The Hull Daily Mail said that Mr. Hall, the managing director of Hamlings
"revealed that he would be making a redundancy claim himself—and signing on the dole. 'I am now out of work and looking for a job.'"
The difference between him and the men who came to see me is that he works ashore so he will qualify for redundancy pay. However, the seamen, who between them have 128 years' service with the company, are not entitled to a penny because they cannot demonstrate continuity of employment.
I hope that the Minister of State will listen and pass on what I have to say to his right hon. Friend the Minister. I hope that his dinner was a good one; he has ad long enough at it, and missed my contribution about Hull. As a direct result of the Icelandic agreement, the previous Labour Government accepted a deal for paying trawlermen compensation which I and other hon. Members from Hull drew up.

87
The Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Treasury opposed the payment of any such redundancy. We showed that it would be possible by demonstrating continuity of employment.
I am extremely grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster (Mr. Walker) who was able to get more than £250,000 from the Treasury for fishermen's redundancy payments, in spite of the difficulties of the official agreement. Unfortunately, that did not work out, as the Transport and General Workers Union tried to use the money to end the casual element of that work. The union hung on in the hope of getting an agreement which was not achieved and, in the meantime, the Treasury pinched the money back, so the trawlermen did not get their money.
To add insult to injury, the trawlermen must face the fact that the company has been paying into a redundancy fund upon which none of them will be able to claim. Since 1965, that fund must have had about £500,000 in it. Surely the Government must feel that they have a moral responsibility to consider that problem. The Minister of State might bear in mind that the money that has been collected for redundancy is not simply a Department of Employment problem. The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has some influence over and responsibility for it.
I have attempted to show that the problems that Hull and Humberside face have been made most difficult by the agreement. The Opposition amendment alone justifies voting against the agreement. There is a way forward. The Labour party wants this country to leave the Common Market. It would be far better for the fishing industry if we did. There can be no doubt about that.
Within the EC framework, if we are to remain in it, how can we achieve the best possible deal for the fishing industry, bearing in mind the fact that we are obliged to work within the limits of the agreement? The Government must recognise that Hull is unique and has been especially badly affected. I am encouraged that, in a statement last week, the Minister said that Hull's deep sea fleet was badly affected.
An agreement over redundancy can be reached, irrespective of whether one calls it a severance payment as they do in the Merchant Navy, or whether some fund in Europe is found. The least that the House can do is find sufficient money to give the affected men some redundancy payment, although most of them would much rather still have their jobs.
The Government should recognise the special circumstances of the case. I shall make a special plea. A case arose over the weekend. It is only a minor part of what has occurred. Mr. Dodd, who worked in the fishermen's mission, has been out of work for two years because of the decline in the industry. He has found another job in London, but the Department of Employment has denied him the money to move his family to Cambridge, although the agreement has put him out of work. The Government could show some sympathy, and I will send them details of the case.
We are keen about the fishermen's charter of rights. I am glad that the Government are having discussions with the Transport and General Workers Union. There is room to be found in licensing agreements. A fair pricing system
88
will have to be recognised, similar to the one in the common agricultural policy, although it will be equally costly.
The Minister knows that his Department is receiving a delegation from Hull. The town council has tried to get together to promote special action on the problems of Hull. The council is asking the Government to take special measures for Hull and Humberside's problems. The Government must act urgently, since otherwise whatever fishing capacity we have will be lost.
Much needs to be done with retraining. The Government could provide money for that. Money could be found from the Community. The Commissioners have told my council that they are prepared to finance a special study of the problems of Hull and Grimsby that arise directly out of the agreement. I hope that the Government will state that they are prepared to work with those forces on the special problems of Humberside. Most important, it is urgent that the unique problems of Humberside should be solved.
8.36 pm
Mr. Albert McQuarrie: I shall not follow the same line of argument as that put forward by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), who is opposed to the Common Market, but who suggested that money from the EC should be provided for Hull with all its problems, with which we sympathise. That was an odd argument. The hon. Gentleman is opposed to the EEC, yet he wants the Community to provide money for vessels in Hull.
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware that one of the main reasons why the distant water fleet does not have fish is that we do not have distant waters. Until there are reciprocal agreements in distant water areas, it will be extremely difficult for us to suggest that the reason why there is a problem for the fleet is purely financial.
Last Tuesday, 25 January, was not only the anniversary of the birth of Robert Burns, Scotland's bard, but a historic day for the fishing industry. It was on that day that agreement on the common fisheries policy for the 10 member states of the European Community was reached. That agreement concerns the seven main species, quotas, access, conservation, enforcement, structure and marketing. Hon. Members who represent large fishing constituencies, such as my constituency, Aberdeenshire, East, deeply appreciate the untiring efforts of my right hon. Friends the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the Minister of State and the Secretary of State for Scotland to obtain that agreement. They were fully supported by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, who has consistently stated that no agreement would be acceptable to her or her Ministers that did not have the full support of the representatives of the fishing industry.
Members of the fishing industry spent thousands of pounds visiting Brussels to attend the talks over the three and a half years of the final negotiations. Their wise counsel was made freely available to and accepted by my right hon. Friends. I commend especially the representatives of the Scottish Fishing Federation, the Scottish White Fish Producers Association, the Scottish Pelagic Fishermen's Association, the British Fishing Federation and the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations. I welcome the support of those organisations. The House should recognise the tireless work of Mr. Gilbert Buchan who is past president of the Scottish Fishing Federation

89
and one of my constituents. The present president is Mr. Willie Hay, and it has been said that he was not in favour of the agreement. That comment has been explained fully by another of my hon. Friends.
Mr. George Sutherland, Mr. Sandy Baird and Mr. John West of the Scottish White Fish Producers Association and the Scottish Pelagic Fishermen's Association have wide knowledge of the industry's need. They have had to sell the package to the fishermen and have been of considerable value to my right hon. Friends during the negotiations. I couple with those gentleman Mr. David Aichieson, former executive of the SFF, Mr. Bob Allen, the present chief executive and Mr. Roddy McColl, the director general of the Scottish White Fish Producers Association and of the Scottish Pelagic Fishermen's Association.
It was most frustrating for my right hon. Friends and the industry that the Danes proved so difficult. It meant that the CFP did not come into operation on 31 December 1982. It is to their credit that they have now seen the impossible position in which they would have been placed had they persisted in their demands. There was no way in which they would have won, as our Ministers and the industry had made it clear that we had gone as far as we would and that there would be no further concessions.
We must now look to the future. We must ensure that we have a united fishing industry. There is no point in recriminations about which party fell short of what was expected during the long negotiations. The fishermen want a secure future and catch quotas which will give them a good living in the years ahead. The failure of successive Governments to achieve a CFP has meant that many fishermen have been forced out of the industry and many more are up to their ears in debt from holding on in the hope that there would be a future for the fishing industry.
There has been an improvement in fish landings. The value of landings by United Kingdom vessels in Scotland for November 1982 was £14·9 million. That is most welcome. The total landings for the 11 months from January 1982 are £137·7 million which is an increase of 18 per cent. over the corresponding period in 1981. It is most commendable of the fishermen.
The CFP will help our fishermen even more. Of the seven main species of fish stocks, six provide more than 80 per cent. of United Kingdom landings. That will be enhanced if we can recover the herring stock. Great credit is due to our fishermen for accepting the restrictions that the Government had to place upon them for conservation reasons.
The quotas which have been obtained for the seven main species exceed all our fishing in the years 1973 to 1978, and for most of the stocks they are as great or even greater than the exceptionally high level of fishing in 1981. The average catch of North sea cod in the years 1973 to 1978 was only 85,000 tonnes. The quota provided under the new agreement is for 114,700 tonnes. The quotas provide the United Kingdom with 47 per cent. of the Community's North sea cod, 60·5 per cent. of the west coast herring and 58 per cent. of west coast mackerel.
Compared with the 10 member states, the United Kingdom has come off best in its proportion of the quotas for the seven main species. It has 37·3 per cent. That is equal to 60 per cent. of the fish in our waters. The other countries have smaller quotas and three of them have nil quotas.
90
The 37·3 per cent. gained by the United Kingdom can be seen as a success in the negotiations undertaken by the Government. It must be borne in mind that the Commission's first proposal, as has been illustrated by a number of hon. Members, was for only 31 per cent. of the seven main species. It is to the credit of my right hon. Friends that 6·3 per cent. has been gained for the United Kingdom at the expense of the other member states.
The question of access was one of the most difficult parts in the negotiation. The agreement guarantees that British fishermen will have a better domination of our coastal waters than has been available at any time in the history of the fishing industry. Up to 1964, Britain had a three-mile exclusive zone. When the London convention was adopted in 1964 the limit was extended to six miles and then to 12 miles. Agreement was reached with the member states as to what historic rights should be allowed within the six-to-12 mile limit.
Those rights were accepted by all countries involved in the London convention. We had to accept them until we joined the Community in 1973. Unfortunately, when we joined the Community, and later in renegotiations by the Labour Government, other EEC countries demanded and received a further extension of those historic rights, which diminished the catching capacity of our fishermen.
In the new agreement most of the Treaty of Accession rights will be eliminated. We have achieved a major improvement for our fishermen in that 72 per cent. of the coastline where historic rights previously existed will be eliminated. Added to the agreement is the provision for British fishermen to fish for all species in the six-to-12 mile area of the other members states, and we have safeguarded the box around the Shetland Islands by laying down that larger vessels that wish to fish there will require a licence so that important stocks in the area can be conserved. There will be no restriction on vessels under 80 ft in length, which is to the particular advantage of Scottish vessels. All the arrangements provide for a guarantee against increases in the intensity of fishing in an area of great importance to the Scottish fishing fleet.
The hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) mentioned enforcement, which was one of the most important demands of representatives of the fishing industry during the early negotiations and throughout. It was accepted fully by my right hon. Friends. Protection had to be covered so that member states could not overfish their quotas or infringe their access provisions. The new agreement provides for a system that will ensure the effective control of fishing by all members states. The United Kingdom Government made the first proposals for enforcement. They set out clearly the obligation to ensure that Community regulations would be adhered to.
The United Kingdom Government will also be responsible for enforcement within our own pots and fishing limits. In addition, again at the United Kingdom Government's insistence, the Commission will establish a special unit whose specific task will be to ensure that the member states fully enforce their responsibilities for catch quotas. The unit will have the power of on-the-spot inspection and will be able to stop member state vessels from further fishing where there is reason to believe that the agreed quota has been exhausted.
Mr. Maclennan: I agree with the hon. Gentleman's argument in broad outline, but is there not considerable concern in the fishing industry that the unit's membership

91
is too small? If there is to be effective Community inspection of national efforts, the staff must be substantially increased.
Mr. McQuarrie: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I was intending later to say that the enforcement organisation must be enlarged.
To give weight to enforcement, substantial penalties have been fixed. Fines of up to £50,000 plus confiscation of very costly gear will be made when the offenders are caught.
We must establish with the Community that the fisheries directorate—I direct my remarks to the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan)—at the EC is strengthened if we are to be certain that the new agreement will be fully implemented and effective. I mean the directorate within the EC, as well as the policing of the waters.
For many years, our fishermen have been compelled to accept a conservation policy, due to the serious decline in certain stocks. The Government intend to have a new regime to meet some of the United Kingdom needs, and it will be established on a more permanent basis than the vital Norway pout box.
The industry has welcomed the improved marketing arrangements and hopes that they will provide a new stability to the markets for fish products. Consumers must also be encouraged to buy more fish. I want to see many more fresh fish shops opened in towns and cities, together with fish and chip shops instead of the many Chinese carry-outs that we have at present.
The structure plan will make available £140 million for various purposes such as scrap and build, vessel modernisation and the building of new vessels—I hope that orders will ne placed only with British yards—artificial reefs and exploratory voyages. The Community will finance 50 per cent. of all scrapping grants and 25 per cent. of the cost of vessel modernisation.
Now that the common fisheries policy has been agreed, the Government should give more attention to the onshore section of the industry, principally to the fish processors, who are in desperate need of assistance. It is sad that the Minister responsible for fisheries at the Scottish Office has not appreciated their pleas for assistance. The Government should also pay more attention to the fishing co-operatives that are doing a good job at the ports and should receive more encouragement.
Many appeals have been made to the Minister, but to no avail. It is all very well for the Minister to say that fish processors should pay the right price at the port for the fish. I assure him that there are many times when the ports pay over the odds for the fish just to keep their employees at work. In Fraserburgh last week, Mac Fisheries paid off 40 workers because of the problem in that industry.
I recently received a letter from the Scottish area manager of Mac Fisheries:
"Your letter of the 17th January and the copy of Lord Mansfield's one dated 24th December arrived on a very appropriate day, the one when my company announced it was going to have to cease working on the night-shift, making 40 people redundant.
I must say that whilst I am not surprised that the Minister's letter contains little Christmas cheer, I find it incredible that a member of the Government can apparently be so out of touch with the state of the processing industry.
92
You will appreciate that my Company is in the process of updating and re-thinking its strategy at the moment, and once we have done this I will be in touch with you again.
In the meantime, can I thank you for your ever present efforts on our behalf."
The second-last paragraph bodes ill, and I hate to think that very shortly we shall hear again of further redundancies in that firm as well as in others. I trust that Ministers will examine that section of the industry seriously and see what can be done.
The Opposition amendment is, to say the least, a most childish attempt to cover up their failures. The same applies to the comments made about the common fisheries policy by Mrs. Winifred Ewing, a former Member of the House and a member of the Scottish National party. She claims that the fishing industry has been bought and sold. That is absolute rubbish and typical of the outpourings that we are accustomed to hearing from her and members of her party.
Mrs. Ewing is obviously not aware that when the negotiations for the CFP commenced, the right hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. Silkin) said that there were no cards to play and no bases from which to play. To be fair to the right hon. Member, he did create a base, and it was from that base that my right hon. Friends concluded their agreement, by their able negotiations. It was only natural that the Labour party was sour at the success of the Government in gaining an agreement, and the Scottish National party—in the form of Mrs. Winifred Ewing—screaming from the housetops that the fishermen had been sold down the river. The confidence of the fishermen in her party was fully displayed on 3 May 1979 when they rejected her in the constituency of Moray and Nairn. She took herself off to pastures new. She did not even align herself with a British group to support the fishermen, but joined with foreign member states. That does her no credit. She must not think that she can con the Scottish fishermen with hysterical outbursts.
Mr. John Prescott: When referring to the difficulties being suffered by the industry, the hon. Gentleman should mention that Captain Kirk is a Conservative and a prominent member of the Conservative group in the European Parliament.
Mr. McQuarrie: I cannot say that I am grateful for that intervention. Captain Kirk is a Social Democrat Conservative, whatever that may be. If I were a member of the EC, I would throw out Captain Kirk. I am delighted that he is having to pay a £30,000 fine for having the audacity to invade our beaches.
The Norwegians are stopping any member state fishing in their waters until a reciprocal policy is agreed with the EC. I sincerely hope that the Council of Ministers will reach agreement at an early date. My constituent Mr. Gilbert Buchan, who is a past president of the SFF, said recently:
"We in Scotland say that the Norwegians are getting too much of our mackerel, too much of our herring, and to have an agreement with the EEC is what it is all about."
We must obtain a proper share of North sea herring. That has never been discussed by the Commission, and when it is we must insist that we have a normal percentage. That is especially vital for the town of Fraserburgh in my constituency, because it would allow the fishing industry to plan for the future. With no real markets for what little we catch of herring, there needs to be a drive to promote that species. That would suit Fraserburgh, which is badly

93
hit by unemployment. It is ideally situated both inshore and offshore for fish processing and port landings. We must ask for 35 per cent. of North sea herring when the fishing areas are reopened. If a safeguard is not agreed with Norway, it will mean that between 120 and 150 vessels could be tied up every day of the year. The inshore fleet at Fraserburgh would be affected by the offshore fleet, and all sorts of problems would arise.
The Opposition amendment should be rejected. It would be rejected by the fishermen who have praised the fact that the CFP has finally come into being. For the first time, the fishing industry will have the prospect of a stable and secure future. The Government can claim to have fulfilled their promises to the industry. All the moanings from the Opposition and the bawlings of Mrs. Ewing of the Scottish National party cannot refute that claim.
I said earlier, when I intervened in the speech of the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West, that there should be a wider scheme of training for young skippers. Adequate provision is not made, and if training cannot be provided by funds from the EC, the Government must think about financial aid. There have been far too many tragedies at sea involving young skippers. I am not suggesting that they in any way misbehaved, but the problems that arise, such as a sudden squall, mean that if they are not experienced their boats might sink. Unfortunately, we have seen a great deal of that in recent years.
The same applies to safety at sea. Ships do not carry sufficient hazard warnings. There have been several suggestions to the Department of Trade—which have not been thoroughly examined—to provide that when a vessel does go down there is some means of ensuring that its whereabouts can be identified. With the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland, I do not believe that the Tony research station should be cut in the way it has been.
I quote from the recent speech of Mr. Gilbert Buchan:
"I encourage fishermen to keep calm at this present time which is critical for the industry. It is a time for keeping quiet and for watching and praying. Anybody who knows anything about life accepts that there has to be compromise between people using faith and hope".
That is what the Government have done over the past three and a half years. That is why we have a common fisheries policy today such as we have never had before. That should commend itself to the House and to the people of this country.
9 pm
Mr. John Golding: I welcome the prohibition in statutory instrument No. 1845 on
"the fishing by any fishing boat for salmon in any waters within the British fishery limits, but excluding any part of those waters which are within 12 miles of the baselines from which the breadth of the territorial sea adjacent to the United Kingdom, Channel Islands and the Isle of Man is measured."
I am pleased with the first part of the sentence but not with the second. Will the Government complete the job? It is all very well to have a prohibition on the fishing for salmon beyond the 12-mile limit. For the preservation of our salmon stocks, more must be done. It is very clear, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) agreed with me in this matter, that the Government must act on problems such as acid rain, river pollution and the problem of poaching.
One of the most important subjects to which the Minister must address himself is gill netting. The right
94
hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart) is doing his best to prevent the passing of legislation to prevent gill netting. If I represented as many poachers as does the right hon. Gentleman, I should probably do the same. It is important for our salmon stocks that gill netting is prohibited.
I draw the attention of the House to an article that appeared in yesterday's Sunday Times:
"Citizens Bill: A Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Richard Milner."
It is an article worthy of examination by the House. If Mr. Milner were a Member of this House and fortunate enough to be successful in the private Members' ballot, he would bring in a Bill to
"ban gill netting in inshore waters to protect immature and breeding fish,
prohibit the practice on wrecks and reefs within the 12-mile limit to prevent unnecessary carnage and marine hazard and
enforce these bans with minimum fines of £1,000 on conviction together with the confiscation of all nets, boats, cars and other equipment used by the illicit gill-netters. Only in this way can we protect the vital resources which sustain the ongoing industry."
The Minister will know that the damage being done to our stocks from gill netting is enormous. It is nor poaching in the traditional sense. It is not the taking of one fish. It is rustling in the Wild West sense, and it is destroying the stocks.
The Minister is to be congratulated on protecting salmon outside the 12-mile limit. When is he going to protect salmon as they come within the 12-mile limit and into our rivers?
9.4 pm
Mr. Mark Hughes: We have had a fascinating debate and I apologise to those hon. Members who have taken part when, for reasons connected with a fisheries disease Bill that comes before a Committee on Wednesday, and other essential requirements, I had to be absent.
In the 12½ years that I have been a Member of the House, no hon. Member can be proud of the way in which we have dealt with the British fishing industry. Both sides of the House have raised expectations about what we could achieve that we knew in our heart of hearts could not be realised. One example was the Icelandic dispute, when the wholly honourable course taken by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) was in marked contrast to the chauvinism displayed by the rest of the House throughout the entire Community argument. I could quote 50 statements from hon. Members on both sides of the House, saying that nothing less than a 50-mile exclusion zone would do. I am as guilty as the Minister of State, who said on 21 December 1978:
"It is exclusive zones first and foremost".—[Official Report, 21 December 1976; Vol. 923, c. 474.]
Too many of us, when we said those things and voted, knew that we could not deliver what we proffered to the fishing industry.
I am sorry to have to say that. Mutual blame exists in this matter, irrespective of party. Ministers in the Government whom I supported, and members of the then Opposition, including the present Foreign Secretary, said that we must have a 12-mile or 50-mile exclusive zone or bust. It was the call of the day for every politician, including the Scottish National party—
Mr. Donald Stewart: No.
Mr. Hughes: I have not listened in the European Assembly to Mrs. Winnie Ewing without knowing how stridently she argued for a 50-mile exclusive zone or nothing. All of us said it, knowing that it could not be negotiated.
We were faced by the fact that the technology of fish catching and the international law governing fishing had become totally out of alignment. With sonar, radio contact and all the other paraphernalia that became available to fishermen on a massive scale in the late 1960s, whether Icelandic, Norwegian, Faroese, Scottish, English or Welsh, the unskilled skipper who could not read the sea, the sky or the wind could use electronic equipment to find fish, and used the gear and the horsepower on his boat to scoop out those fish.
At the same time, there occurred one of the most pernicious biological arguments on the use of the resources of the sea that has ever afflicted any resource. It was that perhaps it was better to eat the fish as bacon and eggs. It is perfectly possible to say that to scoop it out and turn it into fishmeal, and to turn that fishmeal in Denmark, or wherever, and then into bacon and eggs, is a better use of the phyto-plankton energy than to allow it to be used as whiting, herring, cod, and so on, and that we enjoy our fish better as baon and eggs than as fish.
The damage to jobs and to fisheries that those operations and opportunities created was terrifying. Clearly, in the early seventies, the ability of the British deep-water fleet off Iceland to destroy the Icelandic regeneration of cod species had been reached. No one now, 10 years later, can seriously argue against the Icelandic Government's proper concern for the depletion of cod stocks around Iceland a decade ago. Equally no one can argue now that the capacity of British, Danish, German, Dutch, Belgian or French fishermen to destroy the herring stocks in the North Sea, the Irish Sea, and elsewhere was total. Indeed, they very nearly succeeded.
It was regrettable that the law still started from the basis of how far a cannon could shoot in 1620. It was still wittering on about three miles, which was the safe distance at which one could blow up a ship in 1620. At least, that was the theory. The reality was totally different. There was a legal paradox; that conservation was known to have to be international, and yet no international authority existed to enforce the essential conservation that was known to be required. That essential paradox and difficulty existed, whether or not we were members of the Community.
Let us consider the herring stocks. The autumn spawners spawn mostly between the shore and nine to 12 miles out, but the young fish spend the first year and a half of essential life off the Danish, Dutch and German coasts. When they come back, they do not have little flags on their tails to say "We were spawned in England or off the Farne Islands". One cannot have a conservation policy that is national, and ICES and all the other international organisations accepted that from the start. They understood, too, that one cannot enforce a conservation policy except through the national Government. That was the trap, independent of our membership of the Community, that faced the British Government some time in the late sixties or seventies. We should perhaps have negotiated it in the late 1960s. That is our difficulty. We missed that opportunity. We failed to recognise the technical availability of scientific knowledge on the flow of eggs and larvae and all the other information that our
96
highly skilled scientific officers and other officers from ICES were providing for political judgment, with the necessary legal power to do anything about it. For us to take the unilateral position in 1967 or 1968 when the information was available would have been wholly impolitic and impractical.
Had we gone to a median line on conservation in 1968 to 1969 we would have thrown away not just our fishing rights in Iceland and the power to choose conservation methods and measures. We would also have thrown away areas that are still not wholly settled, such as our position in the Channel Islands, adjacent coasts and in the Isle of Man, and the French position in the Gulf of St. Lawrence and around Saint-Pierre and Miquelon and so forth. The reality of fishing biology and conservation came out of gear.
In the middle of that, we suddenly produced a total nonsense, which was the fisheries policy agreed under the Treaty of Accession under which we entered the EC. Anything more out of date, more anachronistic and more useless in producing a solution of the conflict of biological evidence and legal requirement than free fishing up to the beaches would be hard to find. Why any Government at any stage should either have accepted or failed to renegotiate that nonsense leaves me speechless. That is why I voted against our rearrangements in the referendum. Therefore, when we came to look at the problems facing any Government in coming to a common fisheries policy, we found that after 1 January 1979 all conservation was unilaterally transferred to the Commission. It did not exist in the international law of the sea at that time. How on earth can any Government have arranged to transfer the essentials of conservation to an organisation that had no legal status in the context of the law of the sea? It is an absurd position.
I must confess a slight interest as chairman of the European Assembly's fisheries committee. I happened to be in Berlin one evening early in January, expecting the British Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to turn up to discuss an agreement. I was not very good on a television interview with the Netherlands television service. My Dutch failed me in the first minute, never mind the last. It is clear from my recollection of the European Assembly's fisheries committee that senior Ministers of good will such as Jan de Koning, the Dutch Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries, Niels Kofoed, the Danish Minister of Agriculture, Brian Lenihan from Ireland, and others saw our difficulties. Although, in public, they would have to range themselves eight to one in favour, they would never say that our Minister was wrong to accept a rotten deal. They acknowledged that he had a legal right and a proper duty to reject that which he held to be unacceptable.
What have the Government achieved? The inshore fishermen of Morecambe bay who go in search of what I still call Dublin bay prawns—which others have to call nephrops and other such fancy names—will not be satisfied. The fisheries are at risk because of the access that has been given to French vessels between Point Lynas and Morecambe bay. In a political deal we have traded some fairly phoney and ill-proven historic rights with the French. It may have been necessary, but that does not make it acceptable.
How does the fisherman at Seahouses benefit compared with his colleague 19 miles up the coast at Eyemouth? At Eyemouth, the fishermen have 12 miles that are free of

97
foreign vessels. However, the fishermen at Seahouses, with the rich herring grounds and the neighbouring Farne islands, have to compete with all but the Danish. In the crucial years in which benchmarks were used there is not much evidence that the area was a major fishery for French, Dutch, German or Belgian vessels. Access to many parts of the east coast and the Irish sea can be defended only in terms of a sordid political deal and not in terms of a serious acceptance of historic rights. I regret that I have to say that, because it means that English and Welsh inshore fishermen may well have been sold for a mess of potage.
There is no evidence that the inshore fishermen or the middle water fishermen can have any long-term confidence when it comes to the equality of supervision meted out. There is clear evidence that the enforcement of other countries is lax compared with our scrupulous enforcement, which is as harsh, if not harsher, with British infringements than with foreign infringements. That evidence means that it is difficult for fishermen to be confident in the even-handedness of present enforcement, to believe that the numbers of Community-based inspectors are adequate or that the courts will exercise their powers effectively.
Socialist groups in all member states reached an agreement seven or eight years ago. It was agreed that no conservation measures could succeed without licensing. I am glad to notice in the Chamber the hon. Members for Lancaster (Mrs. Kellett-Bowman) and Scarborough (Sir M. Shaw) who, curiously, voted in favour of licensing, but against the other parts of the proposal.
We must have licensing vessel by vessel, not licensing for patches. Without that there will not be sufficient conservation to satisfy the needs of the local communities. Let us be clear that a foreigner to the fishermen off Seahouses or West Hartlepool can be more than 20 miles from port. It does not matter whether he is Belgian, Dutch or Scottish. That is the reality. Let us make no bones about it: in the south-west and parts of Wales the Scots are known to be the villains. Our own countrymen, not the Belgians or the Dutch, are the villains. Unless there is licensing to give free access to United Kingdom citizens, free access will be given to pirates. That is what the fishermen believe. Unless we go for licensing, allied to catch capacity and the horsepower on the propellers or the deck, we shall never create the security necessary to support the industry.
In the last few weeks the industry has had to come to terms with a transformation akin to that which faced many hundreds of English villages in the sixteenth and eighteenth centuries. I refer to enclosure. As a result people no longer have the right to hunt for their food on the common. Fishermen now have to come to terms with allocated quantities and places where they can catch their fish and earn their livelihood. Because the agreement fails to appreciate what the House said in the past about the long-term need for adequate conservation, I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote for the amendment.
9.28 pm
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith): The hon. Member for Durham (Mr. Hughes) made a thoughtful, well constructed and moderate speech. I wondered why he urged his right hon. and hon. Friends to vote for the amendment. Anyone objectively reading
98
what the hon. Gentleman said will wonder how he came to that conclusion. The hon. Gentleman has experience of how the fishing industry is organised, and I do not disagree with him about that one whit. As he said, fish respect no boundaries. In northern Europe we cannot conserve our fish stocks and have a prosperous fishing industry unless management of fisheries is organised on an international basis.
In the 1950s and 1960s attempts at conservation were made through voluntary international bodies, with no sanctions or controls. Total allowable catches always went to the highest figure that the most greedy agreed. That policy led to the destruction of stocks, specifically herring stocks in the North sea.
There were two major fallacies in the hon. Gentleman's argument. He said that in those circumstances the Treaty of Accession was crazy. I agree that something was crazy, and I said so at the time—the policy cobbled together immediately before Britain, Denmark and Ireland joined the Community. The Treaty of Accession, however, was not so crazy, although I know that a number of Labour Members will never acknowledge that fact.
Specific provision was made in the Treaty of Accession for controlled access—exclusive access to six miles and limited access between six and 12 miles. That was clearly and firmly embodied in the treaty. In addition, objectives were laid down, and criteria for the formulation of policy at the end of the transitional period took account of many of the things mentioned by the hon. Member for Durham, such as fish stocks and the state of communities that are particularly dependent upon fishing, about which I agree with him.
That was the hon. Gentleman's first mistake. He failed to recognise the taking of a step—albeit a small step—towards a better and more effective fishing policy.
The hon. Gentleman made a second mistake. The agreement reached in Brussels on 25 January takes account of that policy and, in terms of the logic of the hon. Member for Durham, gives us a degree of control over stocks, exclusive access and of preference beyond the 12 miles that we have never had before. Even more important, it introduces a level of control and enforcement that has not existed before, and quotas, related to scientific advice, which give us the prospect of conservation and management, which is what the hon. Genleman wants, rather than free exploitation of the vital natural resources of the sea.
The hon. Gentleman's speech was reasonable, thoughtful and well laid out, but he was wrong on those two points, which are crucial to the debate. Because the fishing industry has taken a different view from the hon. Gentleman on those points, it has supported the agreement and asked us to accept it. My hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough (Sir M. Shaw) made the telling point that to delay when we had this opportunity would have been to jeopardise the future of our industry. For that reason, perhaps more than any other, my hon. Friends the Members for Banff (Mr. Myles), Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. McQuarrie), Bridlington (Mr. Townend) and I and many others from different parts of the country have emphasised the support given by the industry to the agreement.
The truth is that the Opposition regret two things. First, they almost wished—indeed, I believe that they did

99
wish—to see fishing up to the beaches at the end of the transitional period on 31 December and, in a sense, were disappointed when it did not happen.
Mr. Prescott: The right hon. Gentleman should not be so arrogant.
Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I was not being arrogant. I took the trouble to read the debate that took place in 1971. In speech after speech, Labour Members said that there would be fishing up to the beaches, but it did not take place. At that time, we had not agreed a common fisheries policy. Nevertheless, all the fears and scares that they set up were not justified in the event.
Secondly, I believe that the Opposition almost regret that agreement has been reached in Europe. I exempt some hon. Members from this, but it certainly applies to the Front Bench spokesmen. They almost regret that a common fisheries policy has been reached, which is the one safeguard for our fishing stocks and the future prosperity of our fishing industry.
Mr. Prescott: The prosperity of Hull?
Mr. Buchan: The Minister knows, by definition and by statement after statement, that what he says is untrue. If he wishes to argue about the speeches in 1971–72, I should point out that the position that we took then has been justified by experience in the past six months. We said that as time went on such pressure would be brought to bear that the final agreement would let our industry down. That is exactly what has happened.
Secondly, we regret that the Government failed to use the strength that they claimed in their manifesto when they said that, if they could not secure the right kind of agreement, they would be prepared to go it alone to defend our waters. We would have supported them in that.
Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The hon. Gentleman is playing Jeremiah again. Nothing is more typical, and nothing emphasises so clearly what I have said. Having failed to see fishing up to the beaches because the United Kingdom took national measures on 1 January 1981, on which the hon. Gentleman said that he would back us, and having seen an agreement reached, the hon. Gentleman, whose earlier speech was based on looking back over his shoulder rather than forward as others, such as the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond), did, now chooses to look forward, but merely as a prophet of woe. It is no wonder that the fishing industry has no confidence in the Labour party.
My hon. Friend the Member for North Fylde (Sir W. Clegg), with his great interest in these matters, and a number of other hon. Members stressed that, in addition to the CFP agreement, it is essential that the industry and the Government together do all that they can to improve the marketing of fish. Personally, I am convinced that there is scope for improvement, but, as my right hon. Friend said in opening, it must be in the context of marketing in the widest sense. It is a matter not simply of promotion, but of grading, policy, presentation, transport and distribution. I certainly give the undertaking, as my right hon. Friend has elsewhere, that whenever the Sea Fish Industry Authority, which is charged with this responsibility, puts forward its terms for a full marketing strategy, we are ready to work out with the authority how
100
that strategy may best be put into effect and how it can be supported. Having achieved a common fisheries policy, I hope that the whole industry will pull together, as it has in the discussions, to update marketing and to make it effective in the interests of the industry and of the consumers of this country.
The hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) raised the subject of research, which is not directly related to this matter but is nevertheless important. I agree with him on this. Unlike research in other industries, research in the fishing industry is not simply a matter of technological or scientific progress. Perhaps more than in any other industry, research in the fishing industry into the size, location and movement of stocks is essential for an effective management policy in relation to those stocks. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we understand that priority.
Recommendations have been made by the Rayner committee. Those matters are now under discussion. My right hon. Friend and I have had a meeting with the unions involved but we have not yet come to any conclusion. I assure the hon. Gentleman and the House that in reaching a conclusion we shall bear in mind the wider function of fisheries research compared with research in other areas.
The hon. Gentleman also raised the important issue of research vessels. That decision has been taken, apart from Rayner. It is true, simply for reasons of more effective research, that a vessel has been decommissioned. What the hon. Gentleman did not acknowledge is that we have decided to build a new vessel, which I hope will be more suitable for the task. Therefore, looking to the future, that again demonstrates our support for the industry.
Mr. Mark Hughes: Will the Minister give an assurance that there will not be a crucial gap in the research availability when one vessel is withdrawn before the other is commissioned?
Mr. Buchanan-Smith: We wish to see continuity of research. There is no point in doing otherwise. It is our intention to maintain that continuity of research with the resources available to us. It is our intention that the work should continue. If there were a gap, the work could continue in other ways by chartering, or whatever. It is not our intention that gaps should arise.
The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland and the hon. Member for Durham argued that now that we have a common fisheries policy we should have more effective policies for the management and organisation of fisheries. The hon. Member for Durham said that we should approach this matter along the licensing road. That is one road down which we could go, but the support of the industry is not as wholehearted as the hon. Gentleman suggested. I have a number of doubts. Whatever tools we use for management—there is a series of different tools which could be used to manage our fisheries policy—I hope that there will be no difference between the two sides of the House that we should avail ourselves of the tools of management to ensure that we maximise our resources to the best possible effect.
It is essential to have a fisheries policy agreed with the other fishing nations in Europe before effective management measures can be introduced. The agreement is a prerequisite to the type of control and management that the hon. Gentleman and I seek. At the same time, I assure the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland that we

101
shall be consulting the industry about measures of management and restructuring. Obviously we shall be consulting the fishermen's organisations throughout the United Kingdom and taking account of the areas round our coast where there are special fisheries interests. We have to work it out together, but the ultimate responsibility must remain with the Government. We intend to consult in future as we have done in the past. I hope that the House generally will support that policy.
I should like to deal with one other general matter outside the agreement of 25 January, to which reference was made in particular by my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Mr. Mawby), although it was touched on by a number of other hon. Members. My hon. Friend referred to the Spanish vessels in the south-west which are known as the Spanish armada. My right hon. Friend has considered this matter carefully. As I have expressed at Question Time and on other occasions, we share the concern about the extent to which Spanish operators can evade, and have evaded, our national and Community arrangements to protect our fisheries. They take advantage of our liberal laws on registration. I freely admit that. For wider reasons, it is right that our laws are liberal, but they present a loophole which has been exploited and we wish to see that loophole closed. It is my right hon. Friend's intention to introduce a Bill as soon as possible that will do that. There have been complications in determining exactly how to frame the Bill, but we hope that the difficulties have now been resolved. The Opposition have said that, if we introduce a Bill, they will give us their support and allow it to pass through this place quickly. If that support is forthcoming, we shall proceed as soon as we can.
Mr. Buchan: I thank the Minister for making that statement. I adhere to the assurance that was given earlier. Unless we run into unforeseen difficulties, we shall give the Bill all possible support and allow it a speedy passage.
Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. As soon as the Bill is fully prepared we shall wish to carry it through all its legislative stages as quickly as we can. I welcome the support that the hon. Gentleman has given. I am sure that other parties will give their support. I am sure also that the Bill will be welcomed by all those who represent constituencies in the south-west.
Mr. Maclennan: Will the right hon. Gentleman display the same urgency in dealing with the problem of the competing use of inshore waters and answer my question about the recommendation of his committee?
Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The matter is under consideration by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. I am sure that he will carry forward his study of the problem as soon as he reasonably can.
Mr. Prescott: "Yes, Minister."
Mr. Buchanan-Smith: My hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington and others asked about structures. The total sum available to the Community over three years is £140 million. The sums available for decommissioning or scrapping total £18 million, while £66 million will be available for modernisation. The laying-up premium amounts to £25 million. The largest part of the budget will be devoted to the areas of the greatest interest to our fishing industry.
102
It is impossible to say what share we shall get of these sums. It will depend on the applications that come from the industry once the detailed implementing regulations have come forward from the Commission. We want to enter into discussions with the fishermen's organisations as soon as possible. We have had a number of informal consultations with representatives of the fishing industry since last summer, and we have agreed with the fishing organisations how we should operate the full implementing regulations when we have them.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington asked about the qualifying date for scrapping grant. No date has been fixed, but one of the key requirements of the qualification is that the vessel should have fished for 100 days in the year before it is decommissioned.
The hon. Members for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) and Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) and others asked about the 22,000 tonnes of mackerel and 2,000 tonnes of cod for the Danes. There is concern that the Danes could, in some roundabout way, have access to western mackerel. That is not so. The Danes have specifically renounced all claims to any western mackerel. The declaration, which was made in the Council, states:
"The Council notes that, in this context, Denmark renounces its claims regarding western mackerel."
That is clear and unequivocal. The 2,000 tonnes of cod will end after three years. Secondly, it is additional to the total allowable catch and was agreed with Norway. Therefore, it does not come into the total allowable catch calculations. Thirdly, it is not part of the main regulations.
The hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West mentioned the status of the quota proposals. It has been suggested that they have been based on article 43 of the treaty. It is true that that article allows for majority voting, at least in theory. Nevertheless, it is the view of the Council of Ministers that article 43 is subject to the Luxembourg compromise. That view has been explored several times. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) should follow what happens in Europe.
Mr. Eric S. Heffer rose—
Mr. Buchanan-Smith: No. I shall not give way.
Mr. Heifer rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The Minister has made it clear that he is not giving way.
Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The hon. Member for Walton has not been present for most of the debate.
Mr. Hafer rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The Minister is not giving way. He must be allowed to continue.
Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I shall not give way. The hon. Member for Walton has not come to the debate until its closing minutes. I should rather deal with the points that have been raised by right hon. and hon. Members who have been here.
Mr. Heifer: I have been here since 9 o'clock.
Mr. Buchanan-Smith.: It has been implied that article 4(1) of the basic regulations might be put at risk and that it might give more continuity to these temporary arrangements than ought to be the case. Article 4(1) applies to the basic regulations, not to the points that I have made outside it. It has the opposite effect to what the hon.

103
Gentleman fears. Article 4(1) deals with staying power with regard to the percentage quotas that are vital to us. It is more of an insurance than the type of risk that he suggested.
My hon. Friends the Members for Haltemprice (Sir P. Wall) and North Fylde and the hon. Members for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) and Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Johnson) asked about deep sea fishermen. They should benefit from one of the major factors in the structures package. We have recently recognised the importance of that sector. That applies especially to aid, but to fishery management such as the sectoral quota that has been given to the freezer fleet as well. It is worth examining the quotas in third country waters that we have agreed for the benefit of our fleet. The quota for cod in north Norway for 1983 that we agreed on 25 January is 8,030 tonnes. The 1981 catch—the last year for which we have full figures—was 5,156 tonnes. The quota for haddock in north Norway is 3,090 tonnes and the 1981 catch was 1,548 tonnes. I could give more examples.
The Opposition have accused the Government of not caring in the negotiations about the interests of the deep sea fishermen. The structural package, the help that we have given to the industry, the quotas in third country waters that we have negotiated—and the fact that those quotas are better than the recent record of the deep sea fishing industry's catches—show that we are giving them a proper deal.
Mr. Prescott: It is not even 10 per cent.
Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Control and enforcement is crucial. Many hon. Members raised the subject, especially my hon. Friend the Member for Banff. We have never had proper control and enforcement before. In reply to my hon. Friend's point, I make it clear beyond peradventure that control and enforcement are in the hands of the coastal state. It is true that some of the national measures at the beginning of the year were in the hands and the responsibility of the flag state. That was because of the nature of the measures. However, now that we have full agreement, the situation reverts to what it was in the original control regulation that we agreed, and which is based on proposals that we put forward, that control should be in the hands of the coastal state, Therefore, we are responsible for the policing right up to the 200 mile or median line. We police the access areas and the north of Scotland box. We police all the conservation measures where there are no quotas, and a country fishes. We carry out the prosecutions when a country fishes or exhausts its quota, and that is notified. We have the power in our waters, which are the largest area in the Community, to enforce that. It is that enforcement power, together with the quotas, that gives us the real strength.
The intervention by the right hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart) was a disgrace to the House. The right hon. Gentleman made one of the most destructive speeches that I have ever heard, when there is a Community development programme of £20 million over five years.
Mr. Donald Stewart rose—
Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I shall not give way. The right hon. Gentleman has had his turn.
104
The only positive element in the right hon. Gentleman's speech was when he tried to divide the Scottish Fishing Federation. That is a disgrace to the Scottish people and an insult to the intelligence and hard work of the office bearers in the organisation. When I listened to the right hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) and the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West, I thought that they were no more than paper tigers. They gave away the basis on which we would have been able to negotiate a better agreement, if they had wanted it.
Mr. Prescott: That is untrue.
Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I shall go back to The Hague agreement and the statement that was made by the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen). My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North (Mr. Fletcher) intervened and said:
"Is the Minister aware that Irish Ministers achieved a better deal".
The right hon. Member for Devonport replied:
"I am only too well aware of that."—[Official Report, 2 November 1976; Vol. 918, c. 1210.]
Therefore, then and at the renegotiation in Dublin in 1975, the Labour Government failed to negotiate a better agreement.
If Opposition Members really wanted a better agreement in the common fisheries policy, they should have tried to achieve it when the power was in their hands. They did not do so. They did not even try to do so. That is why, when we came to office, we were faced with quotas of 30 per cent., and the position in the EC was eight against one.
With regard to access, where there were historic rights in three-quarters of our coastline, we have either eliminated or reduced those rights. We have further areas of preference, not only in the north of Scotland box but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, East said, in the pout box and the mackerel box in the south-west We also have monitoring and control, as I said before.
Above all, we have gained on quotas. There is a better deal than anything to which the Labour party ever aspired. If one compares quotas in 1973–78 with the quotas that we have negotiated, and the record on the main species that are important to us, one sees that we caught 43 per cent. of North sea cod in 1973–78, but under this Government we caught our new quota of 47 per cent. We caught 34 per cent. of Irish sea cod. Our quota is 42·7 per cent. Western mackerel was 54·7 per cent., and we have negotiated 58·7 per cent. The industry wants stability and continuity in the amount of fish that it can catch. In this agreement, which has the industry's support, I believe that we have given the industry a base on which it can build for the future, and I know that it is right to do so.
Mr. Prescott: The Government have sold out the industry.
Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The House divided:Ayes 90, Noes 161.

Division No. 53]

[10 pm

AYES

Allaun, Frank

Campbell-Savours, Dale

Atkinson, N.(H'gey,)

Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

Bennett, Andrew(St'kp't N)

Cocks, Rt Hon M. (B'stol S)

Booth, Rt Hon Albert

Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.

Boothroyd, Miss Betty

Cook, Robin F.

Brown, Hugh D. (Proven)

Cowans, Harry

Buchan, Norman

Crowther, Stan

105

Cryer, Bob

Marks, Kenneth

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Marshall, D(G'gow S'ton)

Davidson, Arthur

Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

Davis, Terry (B'ham, Stechf'd)

Mason, Rt Hon Roy

Deakins, Eric

Maxton, John

Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

Dixon, Donald

Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

Dormand, Jack

Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)

Eadie, Alex

Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

Eastham, Ken

O'Neill, Martin

Edwards, R. (W'hampt'n S E)

Palmer, Arthur

Ellis, R. (NE D'bysh're)

Pavitt, Laurie

Evans, John (Newton)

Powell, Rt Hon J.E. (S Down)

Field, Frank

Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

Prescott, John

George, Bruce

Race, Reg

Golding, John

Robertson, George

Gourlay, Harry

Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)

Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

Silkin, Rt Hon J. (Deptford)

Hamilton, W. W. (Ctral Fife)

Silverman, Julius

Hardy, Peter

Skinner, Dennis

Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

Snape, Peter

Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

Soley, Clive

Haynes, Frank

Spriggs, Leslie

Heffer, Eric S.

Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)

Hoyle, Douglas

Stoddart, David

Hughes, Mark (Durham)

Strang, Gavin

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

Tinn, James

John, Brynmor

Wainwright, E.(Dearne V)

Johnson, James (Hull West)

Welsh, Michael

Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rh'dda)

Whitlock, William

Jones, Barry (East Flint)

Williams, Rt Hon A.(S'sea W)

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

Lamond, James

Wilson, William (C'try SE)

Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

Woolmer, Kenneth

McCartney, Hugh

McDonald, Dr Oonagh

Tellers for the Ayes:

McGuire, Michael (Ince)

Mr. Ron Leighton and

McKay, Allen (Penistone)

Mr. George Morton.

NOES

Aitken, Jonathan

Bulmer, Esmond

Alexander, Richard

Butcher, John

Ancram, Michael

Carlisle, John (Luton West)

Arnold, Tom

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Aspinwall, Jack

Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (R'c'n)

Atkins, Rt Hon H.(S'thorne)

Cartwright, John

Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

Chalker, Mrs. Lynda

Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

Chapman, Sydney

Bendall, Vivian

Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th, S'n)

Benyon, W. (Buckingham)

Clegg, Sir Walter

Berry, Hon Anthony

Cockeram, Eric

Best, Keith

Cope, John

Bevan, David Gilroy

Corrie, John

Biffen, Rt Hon John

Cranborne, Viscount

Blackburn, John

Dorrell, Stephen

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)

Dover, Denshore

Boyson, Dr Rhodes

du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

Braine, Sir Bernard

Dunn, Robert (Dartford)

Bright, Graham

Durant, Tony

Brinton, Tim

Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)

Brooke, Hon Peter

Emery, Sir Peter

Brotherton, Michael

Fairgrieve, Sir Russell

Bruce-Gardyne, John

Faith, Mrs Sheila

Buchanan-Smith, Rt. Hon. A.

Fenner, Mrs Peggy

106

Forman, Nigel

Myles, David

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Neale, Gerrard

Goodhart, Sir Philip

Needham, Richard

Goodhew, Sir Victor

Neubert, Michael

Goodlad, Alastair

Normanton, Tom

Gow, Ian

Onslow, Cranley

Gray, Rt Hon Hamish

Osborn, John

Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)

Page, John (Harrow, West)

Grist, Ian

Patten, Christopher (Bath)

Gummer, John Selwyn

Pattie, Geoffrey

Hampson, Dr Keith

Percival, Sir Ian

Hannam, John

Pollock, Alexander

Hawkins, Sir Paul

Renton, Tim

Hawksley, Warren

Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

Hayhoe, Barney

Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

Heddle, John

Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)

Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

Roper, John

Holland, Philip (Carlton)

Rossi, Hugh

Hordern, Peter

Rumbold, Mrs A. C. R.

Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)

Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

Hunt, David (Wirral)

Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

Irvine, Rt Hon Bryant Godman

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Jessel, Toby

Skeet, T. H. H.

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Speed, Keith

Kaberry, Sir Donald

Speller, Tony

Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)

Knight, Mrs Jill

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

Lamont, Norman

Sproat, Iain

Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

Stainton, Keith

Lee, John

Stanbrook, Ivor

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Stevens, Martin

Loveridge, John

Stradling Thomas, J.

Luce, Richard

Tapsell, Peter

Lyell, Nicholas

Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.

Lyons, Edward (Bradf'd W)

Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

McCrindle, Robert

Thompson, Donald

Macfarlane, Neil

Townend, John (Bridlington)

MacGregor, John

van Straubenzee, Sir W.

McKay, Allen (Penistone)

Viggers, Peter

Maclennan, Robert

Waddington, David

Macmillan, Rt Hon M.

Wakeham, John

McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)

Walker, Rt Hon P.(W'cester)

McQuarrie, Albert

Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir D.

Major, John

Waller, Gary

Mather, Carol

Warren, Kenneth

Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus

Watson, John

Mawby, Ray

Wells, Bowen

Mawhinney, Dr Brian

Wells, John (Maidstone)

Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

Winterton, Nicholas

Mayhew, Patrick

Wolfson, Mark

Mellor, David

Young, Sir George (Acton)

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Younger, Rt Hon George

Miller, Hal (B'grove)

Mills, Iain (Meriden)

Tellers for the Noes:

Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)

Mr. Ian Lang and

Moate, Roger

Mr. Archie Hamilton.

Murphy, Christopher

Question accordingly negatived.
Main Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House approves the Agreement on the Common Fisheries Policy reached at the Council of Fisheries Ministers meeting on 25th January 1983.

European Community (Motor Insurance)
[Relevant Reports of the European Legislation Committee
23rd Report Session I980–81—HC 32-xxiii para. 1
18th Report Session 1981–82—HC 21-xviii para. 2
7th Report Session 1982–83—HC 34-vii para. 1]
10.12 pm
The Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mrs. Lynda Chalker): I beg to move,
That this House takes note of European Community Documents Nos. 9747/80 and 5326/82 about a draft Second Directive on the Approximation of the Laws of Member States relating to Insurance Against Civil Liability in respect of the use of Motor Vehicles; and supports the Government's intention of welcoming the proposal in principle while seeking improvements in detail.
I am glad to open the debate that has been arranged to accord with the recommendations of the EC Scrutiny Committee that the draft directive raised important matters of policy and principle and should therefore be further considered.
This is a fairly modest proposal that does not seek full harmonisation of compulsory motor insurance law throughout the Community, but rather seeks to provide for a minimum level of protection for third parties which member states will be free to exceed if they so desire. We believe that that is the right approach as it eliminates the more serious shortcomings while maintaining high standards where they are already established.
Some harmonisation has already been achieved by the first directive, but with a different objective. That was designed to abolish insurance checks on visiting vehicles from other member states, especially at frontiers where green cards were previously normally checked. In order to safeguard the rights of third parties, the directive required motor insurance policies issued in a member state to provide the minimum insurance cover required by the law of the other member states. It also relied on an undertaking by the national insurance bureau of each member state, for vehicles based in its territory, to pay due compensation in respect of compulsorily insurable liabilities incurred by them in other member states, even where they were uninsured.
While the first directive has successfully removed a barrier to the free flow of motor traffic—indeed, the arrangements have been extended to Austria, Czechoslovakia, Finland, the German Democratic Republic, Hungary, Norway, Sweden and Switzerland—the new directive seeks to improve the level of protection for victims of accidents throughout the EC, whatever the origin of the vehicle.
The most significant effect for this country is that we should have to extend our compulsory insurance law to cover liability for property damage as well as liability for personal injury and to provide guarantees in cases of damage where the driver responsible was uninsured. We have not hitherto considered that such measures in the United Kingdom would be justified. In the first place, policies issued in the United Kingdom almost invariably cover liability for both injury and damage. By itself, therefore, an extension of the insurance requirement would achieve little—except for a handful of policies which are for the minimum only. Moreover, most owners already insure their property and if they cannot recover from
108
someone else they can turn to their own insurance. The scale of loss in property damage cases is very much less than for personal injuries.
On the other hand, there are cases in which property owners—mainly motorists—suffer loss because the negligent driver is a man of straw and has failed to insure at all, or if he has, may be in breach of some policy condition—for example has failed to report to his insurer. Even if the owner is insured against own vehicle damage he will often suffer a loss of no-claim bonus. Or the damage may have been caused by a hit-and-run driver. It is argued that it is inequitable that the vehicle owner should not be protected against the irresponsible driver in the same way as those who are injured.
I should explain that injured victims are fully protected in this country by a combination of provisions in the Road Traffic Act, which void various policy conditions as against injured third parties, and our agreements with the Motor Insurers Bureau which guarantee compensation when the driver is otherwise uninsured, or when he is untraced. The real issue for us is whether similar safeguards should be introduced for property owners.
We are inclined to the view that it would be right to extend our law, including the voidance clauses of the Road Traffic Act, and the MIB uninsured drivers' agreement to liability for property damage. But because of the very real possibility of serious abuse, we do not think we can provide for damage allegedly caused by an untraced driver. This view accords broadly with those we have consulted on the draft directive and with the recommendations of the Committee in another place.
I turn now from the general issue to the particular articles of the draft directive. Article 1(1) would require compulsory insurance against liability for personal injury and property damage throughout the Community. I should mention, however, that article 3(1) of the first directive allows for the scope of the requirement to be limited, and insurers have suggested that there should be no requirement to insure goods in transit. This restriction applies in other member states and it is argued that insurance of such goods is normally taken out under a different policy from that of motor insurance, and that if it was made compulsory there would be confusion and difficulty in dealing wiih claims. Some policies exclude damage to property such as bridges, viaducts and roads caused by vibration and weight. Also, there may be problems associated with vehicles such as mobile cranes or mechanical excavators operating off road but causing damage to third party property on a road. We shall need to consider those possible exceptions and would welcome any views.
Article 1(2), which was the subject of our supplementary memorandum, specifies minimum limits of compulsory insurance, or in other words the floor for cover throughout the Community. It would certainly cause no problems for the United Kingdom as we already require unlimited cover for liability for personal injury. Private motorists have unlimited cover for property damage but for commercial vehicles there is normally a limit of £250,000, well in excess of the minimum in the latest proposal. This article would benefit United Kingdom motorists who rely on the minimum cover when motoring elsewhere in the Community, as in some states this is quite low and they might at present find themselves under-insured.

109
Article 1(3) provides that a guarantee fund should compensate victims of uninsured or untraced drivers but allows limitation or exclusion of compensation for property damage caused by an untraced driver. That option was included by the Commission following strong opposition to its original proposals. I have already mentioned that we believe that such damage should be excluded from our untraced drivers' agreement. In the uninsured case it has been suggested that, because of the disproportionate extra costs of handling the smaller claims for property damage, an excess should apply, so that if it was under £500, no claims below that amount would be entertained by the bureau and only the net amount of any claims exceeding this sum would be payable. I should be interested to hear hon. Members' views on this proposal.
Article 2 seeks to provide that third parties are not deprived of due compensation because at the time of the accident the vehicle concerned was being used in breach of policy conditions. The objective is laudable, but the drafting is defective as it has a discriminatory effect against insurers of visiting vehicles from another member state. For that reason, it is not acceptable to the vast majority of the members of the green card system, which provides the guarantees on which the first directive relies. We shall therefore press for this article to be revised.
Article 3 would abolish exclusion, allowed in some other member states, of members of the family of the policyholder from the scope of compulsory cover. The article would be of benefit to British motorists since it removes a potential hazard where, if he has only the statutory minimum insurance, it would not cover members of his family in any accident for which he was responsible. That position cannot arise in the United Kingdom now and will not arise abroad in future once the directive has been finalised.
Article 4 redefines the territory in which a vehicle is normally based for the purposes of the first directive as the territory of the state of which the vehicle bears the registration plate. It seeks to avoid disputes and in our view is unobjectionable.
Article 5 deals with timing and we must, of course, ensure that a sufficient period is allowed for the necessary statutory processes and for changes in insurers' procedures and documentation.
I can sum up that rather formal description of the directive by saying three things. First, the directive will provide a better deal for Britons travelling abroad because it raises the standards of compensation for both personal injury and property damage. Secondly, it will provide a better deal for Britons whose cars are hit by traceable EC cars. They will receive compensation from the European Community motor insurance bureau of the country to which the vehicle belongs. Thirdly, it will provide a better deal for Britons whose cars are hit by traceable British cars, because the Motor Insurers Bureau will ensure that they receive compensation.
I commend the draft directive to the House in principle and propose to press for any improvements that we consider necessary.
10.21 pm
Mr. Roger Stott: This is a small but important measure, and I thank the Minister for her full and lucid explanation of a rather complicated European document. I concur with what she said about the benefits that would accrue to United Kingdom drivers from the
110
provisions about property and the Motor Insurance Bureau. In many ways the provisions in the document concur with the views that my right hon. Friend the Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth) and I hold about motor car insurance. I shall not detain the House for long this evening because we need not discuss the matter at great length. The Minister described the consequences of the directive and, on balance, its provisions are sensible.
However, in passing, I draw the House's attention to the document that accompanies the provisions announced by the Minister. I do not know whether hon. Members have the document from the European Community that sets out in detail what the provisions entail. I am interested in the semantics of the document, especially because I have never viewed the European Community with great enthusiasm and I have had serious doubts about whether we should be a member of it. I realise that this is not the time to deploy those arguments, but it is important for us this evening to consider, albeit briefly, the wording of the draft document.
Paragraph 2 on the second page states:
"The Commission does not consider it advisable to allow the Member States, as both Parliament and the Economic and Social Committee requested, to fix an excess below which the guarantee fund would not pay compensation."
That is a very striking phrase:
"The Commission does not consider it advisable".
One can only conclude that the Commission is completely overruling the European Parliament and the economic and social committee in respect of their request to fix an excess below which the guarantee fund would not pay compensation.
The following page has this to say, in paragraph 4:
"In deference to the views expressed by Parliament and the Economic and Social Committee, the Commission has amended Article 3".
Paragraph 5 says:
"The Commission has also"—
in a benign and giving way—
"acceded to Parliament's request that longer periods be allowed under Article 5".
The parody continues in the following paragraph:
"The Commission, did not, however, adopt the amendment to Article 4 proposed by Parliament and the Economic and Social Committee".
Although the document contains proposals that I cannot advise the House to oppose, it demonstrates clearly the view that I have held for many years that the European Commission is a law unto itself, a non-elected bureaucratic body that easily overrides the European Parliament and its committees, although the latter look at these directives and make recommendations on them.
Mr. Douglas Hogg: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would also wish to make the point that the directive in its present form constitutes only proposals, and whether or not these proposals become law depends on the decision of the Council of Ministers, and that Council will comprise at least one Minister from this country who is accountable to Parliament.
Mr. Stott: That goes without saying. The hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) says that all legislation, or all laws, that emanate from the European Community have to be passed by the Council of Ministers. My argument—it is a tenuous one—is that the Commission has the audacity to use language such as "In deference to … Parliament". It objects to Parliament's view. It

111
disagrees with Parliament's view on this, that, and the other. This reinforces my clearly conceived idea that the European Commission is a non-elected bureaucratic body that seeks to impose its will on this House of Commons, and the European Parliament is totally disregarded in almost everything that it does.
Notwithstanding that little aside—the road that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, graciously allowed me to wander down—the provisions of the document are sensible. The document's proposals are not earth-shattering, but they are significant. For that reason, we welcome them. I note the Minister's initial remarks, that the proposals are worthy of consideration, but that they are not the final view of the Government and may need to be refined at some stage in the light of our experience. We therefore give these proposals a fair wind.
10.29 pm
Mr. Douglas Hogg: Like the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Stott) I welcome the draft directive. It should be welcomed on two grounds. First, it is highly desirable that the House should provide that property damage forms part of the compulsory insurance cover afforded to all United Kingdom drivers, and indeed third parties. Secondly, it is highly desirable that we should have a uniform system of minimum insurance cover backed by a guarantee fund. In that letter regard Britain is entitled to draw attention to the fact that for the most part the Motor Insurance Bureau agreement, which has underwritten claims of this kind, has set the pace for other countries to follow.
Although I welcome the draft directive, I should like to make three points. First, we are dealing with minimum cover. I have looked at the draft directive and I see that in respect of a single accident involving one victim the minimum cover is set at 350,000 ecus or just over £200,000. I suggest that that level is too low and it is even lower when one has regard to a single claim involving several victims, because then the minimum cover is 500,000 ecus, which is around £295,000.
The cover required on the part of drivers should be unlimited. There are two reasons for that. If one has regard to the awards that are being made in the courts one sees that, partly as a result of inflation and partly as a result of the more generous interpretation that courts have placed on loss of earnings claims, we are seeing claims of £300,000 plus in the High Court. It is slightly unsatisfactory that the House should put a minimum level below that which is increasingly common in English courts. Therefore, there is a strong argument for saying to the Commission that we should either not have a lower limit at all or that the present lower limit is too low, especially in the case of the 500,000 ecu lower limit in the case of several victims arising out of one claim.
Mr. Edward Lyons: Yes.
Mr. Hogg: I am glad to see that the hon. and learned Gentleman also takes that view.
My second point relates to property damage, and on that I am glad to say that I agree entirely with the point made by my hon. Friend the Minister. It would be undesirable that, in the case of unidentified drivers, a person should have a claim on the fund or, for United Kingdom purposes, on the MIB. The draft directive gives
112
Britain the right to exclude a claim for such damage and I welcome that. We are contemplating damage caused allegedly by a driver who cannot be identified, but that raises the interesting question in many instances of whether the damage was in fact caused by the driver who makes the claim or by some unidentified driver who cannot be identified. It would be jolly difficult to determine liability in such a case because it would be easy for a driver who had left the road and smashed his car, with serious personal injuries, to say that somebody else caused it by driving towards him, without hitting him, and had then gone away. There would be great problems in determining liability, especially in a case of damage only. I welcome what my hon. Friend the Minister has said in this regard. We should exclude such damage in so far as non-traceable drivers are concerned.
Thirdly, and it may that this point is already met by the practice and conventions of the EC, I would regard it as desirable that non-EC countries should have the right to opt into this kind of agreement. That could no doubt be done by non-EC countries subscribing to some convention which incorporated the overall terms of this agreement, it being made reciprocal as between the EC and the non-EC country that wishes to opt into the system. It is obviously desirable for our citizens that they should have minimum protection throughout Europe, whether or not they are driving in EC countries.
If there is a mechanism under which non-EC countries can have reciprocal obligations and rights, I am in favour of it and I hope that the Minister agrees.
10.35 pm
Mr. Edward Lyons: We are discussing an important matter. Britain is in the process of moving towards compulsory insurance to cover property damage. At present, if a driver's car is written off because of the negligence of an uninsured driver, he has a claim against that uninsured driver personally, but if that driver has no money or assets, compensation is impossible to recover.
Recently one of my constituents was involved in a case which illustrates the need for the new directive. He borrowed his brother's car and collided with a car driven by an uninsured person. The uninsured driver was guilty of negligence and judgment was given in the local county court. The uninsured driver did not pay. The Motor Insurers Bureau is not responsible for property claims against uninsured drivers. The car was a write-off, and my constituent had to compensate his brother for the value of the car out of his own pocket. He paid his solicitors to sue the uninsured driver. My constituent had to pay his solicitors for pursuing the negligent, uninsured driver. Every time his solicitors tried to enforce the judgment and obtain costs, more costs were incurred. My constituent is substantially out of pocket.
Britain is the only country in the EC which does not have compulsory property insurance in such circumstances. It is to our shame. People talk of the advantages and disadvantages of being in the EC. This is an example of an advantage because we are being pushed into what EC countries have done for years. In future, a man whose car is written off in the way that I have described by an uninsured driver with no assets will be able to recover compensation from the Motor Insurers Bureau. That is a major, desirable change. When will the necessary legislation be introduced?

113
The provision could be wider and include liability for the Motor Insurers Bureau, financed by our insurance companies, to pay compensation in respect of damage not only by an uninsured driver, but by the driver who cannot be traced.
We must bear in mind that any extension of compulsory insurance will lead to higher premiums. The inclusion of untraceable drivers will result in increased premiums, because a person who has suffered damage through his own negligence might be tempted to claim that the damage was caused by an untraceable driver. The whole system would be open to abuse. Accordingly, although with some regret, I take the view that the untraceable driver should not come within the scope of the proposals, and there is provision for Britain not to have to follow such a lead.
The limits on compensation in Europe seem to me, on the whole, reasonable in respect of property, although I agree with the comments of the hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) about limits in relation to personal injuries. The limits proposed in the draft directive are higher than hitherto in the various countries and, as such, are to be welcomed as a substantial improvement on the present position.
In Britain, however, there is no limit at all in relation to personal injuries. In other words, when a driver takes out the compulsory third party insurance, he knows that the insurance company has imposed no limit in respect of any personal injuries caused by the driver. I therefore agree that the Government should press for higher limits abroad.
Nevertheless, the new proposals are a great leap forward, and I am greatly encouraged that we can point to this positive advantage resulting from our membership of the EC.
I noted the comments of the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Stott) about the language used and the alleged arrogance of the Commission, but everyone knows that the Commission has virtually no power in relation to the Council of Ministers, which is composed of Ministers from national Governments responsible to national Parliaments. Indeed, it is because Governments are supposed to be responsive to their national Parliaments that this debate is taking place today.
We all know that if the Government do not agree to what is proposed by the Commission, or indeed by the European Parliament, nothing will happen. It is pure myth nowadays to make out that the Commission has great powers. Once upon a time it had such powers, but the Council of Ministers representing national Governments has relentlessly taken power from the Commission. Furthermore, it will not allow the European Parliament to have any reasonable power for fear that national Governments will suffer a diminution of their powers as a result.
What we now have is a Europe governed not on European or international principles but by national Governments out of considerations of self-interest. In this instance, however, it is clearly in our national interest to support the directive. It is in the interests of motor vehicle consumers in this country to have a directive of this nature and the legislation to operate it. I wish it godspeed on behalf of the Social Democratic party.
10.43 pm
Mr. Roger Moate: I apologise for not having heard the remarks of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State in opening the debate. I hope that she will forgive me if I raise any matters that she has already adequately dealt with.
First, I find myself in the unusual position of defending the European Commission. In this case, it seems to be directly answerable to the Council of Ministers, which is responsive to this Parliament. I certainly prefer that arrangement to giving any additional powers to the European Parliament. Indeed, I was surprised that the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Stott) sought to elevate the role and significance of the European Parliament.
Mr. Stott: That was not my intention. I said that this confirmed my view of the European Parliament as a completely neutered body, as I had always believed it to be.
Mr. Moate: I agree with the hon. Gentleman in that respect. Especially when one considers the rather futile nature of the elections on which the European Parliament is based, it is clearly unresponsive to anyone. The Commission at least is responsive indirectly to this house, and this is a good example of an occasion on which the House is being asked, in a manner of which I entirely approve, to give its approval to a draft directive.
I commend the motion before the House and thank my hon. Friend for its wording. It specifically asks the appproval of the House for the Government's intentions. So often we have complained about take note motions which are unamendable and do not give the House an opportunity to express its view. In this case, we have been asked to support the Government's intention of welcoming the proposal. It is a proper way in which to proceed.
I should like also to welcome the improvement in the personal injury arrangements throughout the Community. It has been unsatisfactory in the past, and remains so to a certain extent, that there have been such inadequate levels of personal injury compensation in many Common Market countries. Because of these considerable variations, British motorists have still had to take out additional insurance cover, as described in their green card, when they travel in Europe. Years ago, we thought that that would be unnecessary and would be ended, but still today a motorist going abroad is wise to take out extra green card insurance. It is not a legal requirement although many think it is, but it is advisable because the level of compensation in many European countries is inadequate. Now, it will probably be adequate but not to the extent that it is unnecessary now to have some form of additional cover. I should like my hon. Friend to say what she sees as the practical implications for the British motorist travelling abroad in future once the British regulations are introduced.
In practice, in Britain, the British motorist will still have unlimited liability for personal injury. When he or she travels abroad there will still be the limits laid down in the document as the minimum requirement. In practice, will the British motorist still require to take out extra cover on a green card when he travels abroad? We think that it is important to give guidance to the motorist about the future position. I agreed very much with my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg). The limits are important to the Community politically but not to the

115
motorist taking a holiday. It would be so much more desirable if one could extend these international arrangements to cover all the countries of Europe. It would not require a great initiative by the Government to see whether this could be extended to those countries such as Spain which are not yet members of the Community but might well be, and other countries, which will not be, such as the Scandinavian countries and Switzerland.
This has been a remarkable debate. This thinly attended House is accepting the principle, a reasonable principle, that the Road Traffic Act should be extended to include property damage. It is remarkable because the House over the years has accepted as a matter of major principle the limitation of personal injuries. Some years ago there was a hotly argued and hard-fought Bill to extend that personal injury to include passenger liability. It took a special Act of Parliament and three years of argument to achieve. Yet tonight, almost as a matter of course, we are throwing in property damage with hardly any debate or controversy. It is a matter of major importance and in the end, someone has to pay for it. The motor insurers bureau will pay those claims, but of course that has to be paid for by the insurance companies, and that in turn will come out of insurance premiums. I suspect that it might be a matter of far greater significance than might be suggested by the rather perfunctory nature of the debate. It could be expensive and many people could in equity receive compensation when in the past they could not have done so, but that ultimately will have to be reflected in higher insurance premiums.
It is right that the untraceable driver should be excluded from this legislation, especially in view of the other recommendations that there should be no minimum level for property damage claims. I ask the House to think for a moment about the consequences had that not been so. Untraceable damage—for example, damage caused by lorries to buildings, gates and fences—is familiar to many. There is also damage caused by vibration and the many vehicles that are damaged in car parks. If we included untraceable owners who had caused damage to vehicles we would be introducing a nightmare.
We are debating a matter of considerable importance. It is a step in the right direction. If we have to say "Thank you" to the Community for taking the initiative, against all my instincts I say "Thank you". Let us broaden the measure on a much wider European basis because that, too, will be in the interests of motorists.
10.51 pm
Mrs. Chalker: By leave of the House. I am most grateful to hon. Members for their comments. I do not want to detain the House for more than a few minutes.
If the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Stott) does not understand now about translation from one member state's language into another member state's language and does not realise that the formality of the language is no worse than the way in which the language of the House so often appears to the ordinary man in the street in United Kingdom Ltd., I am surprised at him. The hon. Gentleman
116
was trying to find something to say. He knows what is going on. The hon. and learned Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Lyons) was right to tease the hon. Gentleman about that.
I am glad that there has been a welcome for this measure. I believe that it will be of great benefit to British motorists. My hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) and the hon. and learned Member for Bradford, West spoke about minimum cover and both felt that personal cover was inadequate. An improvement is being made and I am sure that it will be possible to bring other countries up to the same standard stage by stage. It is important to move as fast as we can towards a more satisfactory situation for motorists driving in and out of one another's countries, especially in Europe.
In my earlier remarks I referred to the first directive, which successfully removed a barrier to the free flow of motor traffic and detailed the extension of the arrangements to other countries outside the European Community. The new directive seeks to improve the level of protection for victims of accidents throughout the EC and it may be able to be extended. I am sure that many countries will want to consider that. If there is anything further to report to hon. Members who raised the issue, I shall write to them.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham, who gave me his definite support for the exclusion of untraceable drivers. If we were to be forced to include untraceable drivers, the cost of insurance really would increase. My hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) has made history this evening in welcoming the directive. I can tell him that the insurers estimate that the effect on premiums of this measure will be negligible. It will mean also that our motorists will be better compensated if they should be involved in an accident that includes property damage.
The hon. and learned Member for Bradford, West asked when all this would come to pass. The measure will probably become effective next year. A number of stages have to be completed and I wanted the views of the House before the final direction is put forward.
I was asked about the need for the green card. It will be some time before the directive will be finalised and it is always wise for a motorist to check with his insurer before going abroad.
I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham will underline that, with his experience of the insurance industry. It must be up to the individual motorist to decide what level of cover he wants, even though the directive establishes a minimum. There may be circumstances that demand higher than the minimum cover. It is advisable to take out a green card extension to cover other risks in a domestic policy—for example, own vehicle damage, when nobody else is liable. A British motorist who goes abroad may have an accident that involves no other vehicle and damages nobody else but his own vehicle is damaged. That can be covered adequately by a green card extension.

117
I shall not repeat the positive advantages to British motorists. I said all that at the beginning. I think that we all welcome this Community initiative as an opportunity to widen the scope of our system to include material damage and to take advantage of some harmonisation that will benefit all motorists in the Community.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House takes note of European Community Documents Nos. 9747/80 and 5326/82 about a draft Second Directive on the Approximation of the Laws of Member States relating to Insurance Against Civil Liability in respect of the use of Motor Vehicles; and supports the Government's intention of welcoming the proposal in principle while seeking improvements in detail.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS
Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 73A (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.)
STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS
  TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT
  That the draft Statutory Sick Pay Up-rating Order 1982, which was laid before this House on 16th December, be approved.—[Mr. Berry.]

REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE BILL [Lords]
Ordered,
That, in respect of the Representation of the People Bill [Lords], notices of Amendments, new Clauses and new Schedules to be moved in Committee may be accepted by the Clerks at the Table before the Bill has been read a second time.—[Mr. Berry.]

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS
Ordered,
That the Standing Order of 4th July 1979 relating to the nomination of the Public Accounts Committee be amended, by leaving out Mr. Dick Douglas and inserting Mr. Dale CampbellSavours.—[Mr. Berry.]

Airey Houses
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Mather.]
10.56 pm
Mr. Michael Welsh: I wish to draw the attention of the House to the problem associated with Airey houses, especially those that are owned by local councils.
British architecture has had more than its fair share of problems in the post-war years. Airey houses are an example of the consequences of building in non-traditional materials or to non-traditional methods. These nontraditional houses take their name from Sir Edwin Airey, who came up with the ⅔ design in the 1940s. They are quick-built, pre-cast concrete semi-detached houses. About 26,000 Airey houses were built, about 22,500 of which went to local authorities and the balance to Government establishments.
Because of the demands of the early post-war years for housing, especially for workers in essential industries, Airey houses are to be found predominantly in rural areas and mining villages.
According to my information, the design was ingenious and designed for structural economy and fast erection. I gather that Airey houses are a pre-cast concrete version of the typical North American timber building, with a multiplicity of light vertical studs carrying, and braced by, shiplap siding. The problems of the Airey houses have been well publicised by the Department of the Environment. Indeed, the Secretary of State for the Environment has announced measures that are aimed at assisting with the repair of Airey houses that have been bought by former council house tenants under the Government's right-to-buy legislation.
I gather that the problems with the houses are mainly to do with the deterioration of the tube-reinforced stanchions. Apparently, the technology of the 1940s was insufficient to recognise that the concrete cover over the tubular steel reinforcement would be regarded today as little more than nominal at the very best. I also gather that the water:cement ratio that was used during manufacture has proved to be wrong. I am also told that the lack of adequate moisture sealing between the cladding planks, and between them and the stanchions, is yet another reason for the deterioration. I shall not labour the House with more of the technical problems that can be found by referring to the Department of the Environment's publications. The Department is so worried about the houses that it has strongly urged detailed inspections of them at regular intervals.
Furthermore, the Government have for once demonstrated that on occasions they have a conscience, particularly when those at risk are the owner-occupiers who are said to owe a debt of gratitude to the Government as a consequence of their public asset-stripping programme for forcing the sale of council houses at prices that can be represented only as the bargain of the century.
I remind the House that on 7 September the Minister for Housing and Construction issued a statement announcing the Government's decision to give special assistance to those who purchased Airey houses at valuations that did not reflect the structural defects discovered subsequently. That announcement was

119
supplemented at a later date by another that extended those benefits to people who had bought in the period since the first announcement was made.
Therefore, the 197 owner-occupiers of Airey houses in my constituency will be able to apply to Doncaster borough council for repair grants, subject to their satisfying the test specified by the Minister for Housing and Construction. Those good people bought their houses from the National Coal Board. Had they bought them from the Doncaster borough council, in addition to the option of a repair grant, they would have had the option of requiring the council to repurchase the dwelling. However, Doncaster borough council is likely to be urged by the Government to be willing to purchase Airey houses sold by the NCB if the owners wish it to do so.
The owner-occupiers of Airey houses bought from their local authorities can either apply for the repair grants or require the council to repurchase. The Government will reimburse the local council for the cost of any repairs, but it seems that the cost of the repairs made by the local authority can be obtained only for owner-occupiers. It seems strange that for the ones that the local authority owns the cost of repairs will not be obtained.
Dr. Edmund Marshall: May I assist my hon. Friend, with whom I share a common concern, as we represent constituents who are tenants of Doncaster borough council? Because the Department has deliberately discriminated between the different owners of Airey houses—the owner-occupiers and the local authorities—I have today sent a request to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration that he investigate whether there has been maladministration.
Mr. Welsh: I thank my hon. Friend for those comments. I am sure that the ombudsman will take everything into account and will come to a decision that he thinks is right and just.
The Government will generously meet the cost of any ex gratia payment when the purchase option is exercised, subject to the option on repurchase being exercised in the period that will end in September 1985.
The Government are to be congratulated on their acceptance of their obligation to ensure that the owner-occupiers are not left with a pig in a poke. Similar quite generous terms will apply where the owner-occupier bought from a Government Department. I hope that the NCB will go one better and top up the statutory entitlement to repair grants so that employees and former tenants are fully compensated. I know that the Minister cannot do anything about that, but I hope that the NCB will take note of it.
I told the House at the beginning of my speech that Airey houses were found predominantly in the rural and mining areas. Don Valley is at the heart of the south Yorkshire mining industry. Furthermore, the constituency contains vast areas of high quality arable land. Therefore, no one listening to me will be surprised when I say that Doncaster borough council is the owner of another 863 Airey houses, some of which were bought from the NCB before the defects became apparent.
The Government do not have a reputation of being a friend to local government or to council house tenants. That is a fact of life which cannot be hidden. Therefore, it came as no surprise to me to hear that the terms on offer
120
from the Government to the owner-occupiers of Airey houses are not to be made available to local authorities for the Airey houses still owned by them and let to their tenants.
All that is offered to local authorities to deal with the problem of their own Airey houses is an Exchequer contribution where the repair costs are eligible for housing subsidy in the normal way. That means that not one penny will be made available from the Exchequer towards Doncaster borough council's problem unless, as a result of tonight's debate, I can persuade the Government to change their mind.
What is the absurd and contradictory outcome of the Government's attitude? They have decided that the taxpayer will meet the owner-occupier's costs in remedying his property's shortcomings, but the council tenant, who as a taxpayer will be helping his next-door neighbour, is expected to meet the whole bill through his rent. In Doncaster that will mean £1·16 per week on the rents of all tenants. The Government's answer to that so far has been to say that the bill should be put on the rates. Do they not know that this would add to the expenditure, which the Secretary of State for the Environment would then penalise under the vicious rate support grant rules for 1983–84? It would be the ultimate insult because, then, instead of giving grant in the form of housing subsidy, which should be done, the Secretary of State would end up by deducting rate support grant. The Government would actually make a profit out of avoiding their moral obligations and responsibilities.
Doncaster borough council is not alone with this problem. Conservative Members represent constituencies with similar problems although the scale is, perhaps, slightly less. I know that those hon. Members are under pressure from their councils to persuade the Government to act equitably. Is it therefore too much to hope that I might have the support of those hon. Members?
Whatever may be said today about Airey houses, let us acknowledge that the idea was conceived at a time of tremendous shortage and the houses were marketed through the Government of the day to help local authorities with the major rehabilitation of our community life following the ravages of the second world war. I stress that the design was approved by the then Ministry of Health. The Government, by recognising the problem of owner-occupiers of these Airey houses, have admitted a moral responsibility based on the fact that the houses were marketed by a Government Department. Why must the Government be narrow-minded and deny Exchequer assistance to the local authorities? Airey houses have given significant service for more than 30 years and, furthermore, the problems can be solved. That cannot be said for some of the other system-built schemes of the 1960s.
I was a member of the local council for many years before my election to my present office. I was in local government when a major problem arose with corrosion in aluminium bungalows. They were known popularly as prefabs and they were generally of two main types. First, there was the one that was regarded as temporary and, secondly, there was the one known as the B2 or the BL8, marketed as being of permanent construction. Those two points are vitally important.
In 1961 local councils with these permanent bungalows were asked to carry out a detailed survey into the problems

121
of corrosion. Last year local councils were told to examine their Airey houses. The results of the 1961 and 1982 surveys both showed that there was a major problem.
Let us now contrast the attitude of the Government in 1961 with that of the Government in 1982. The attitude of the Ministry of Housing and Local Government then, clearly stated in circular No. 45/61, was to ensure that local authorities received appropriate relief from the financial consequences of the premature deterioration of the bungalows, that is the prefabs. The basic answer to the problem of the prefabs was demolition. The financial relief from the Minister then was the cancellation of the capital debt, but in some cases the Minister gave grants towards the cost of approved works of repair. Where demolition was the only option, the cost of that did not fall on the local authorities either.
We in this parliamentary democracy really do have certain fundamental principles that are acceptable to us all. One of these is our desire to achieve fair play. I submit that the parsimonious attitude of the Secretary of State for the Environment towards local authorities owning Airey houses is quite unfair. Unless financial help is forthcoming for places such as Doncaster, the only option open to the council is likely to be that of demolition. What happens when the demolition contractors come in and knock down one half of a pair of semi-detached houses when the other half has been bought and is now in owner-occupation? Try telling the owner-occupier of an Airey house at Campsall, Doncaster, about the benefits of owner-occupation when he finds that the council has had to knock down the house next door. What are his prospects of a sale? One of the advantages of owner-occupation is generally that of seeing the value of the investment increase with the passage of time. Who is going to buy one of these Airey houses? No one in his right mind.
What a pig's ear it will all be, and what heart-rending stories will be told to the councillors and the local Members of Parliament by those who have seen their investment so badly eroded. I hope that I have said enough to demonstrate the extent of the problem at Doncaster. It is not unique to Doncaster. Other authorities have similar difficulties.
I implore the Government to release the purse strings and pay subsidy to enable all local authorities to meet the cost of restoring their Airey houses.
11.11 pm
Mr. Harold Walker: My hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. Welsh) referred to the widespread concern in the constituencies affected by the issue. The deep and serious concern of hon. Members from south Yorkshire is reflected by the fact that at this late hour we have in the Chamber my hon. Friends the Members for Penistone (Mr. McKay), for Goole (Dr. Marshall), for Dearne Valley (Mr. Wainwright) and for Hemsworth (Mr. Woodall).
It may seem odd that I seek to take a minute or two of the time of the House when in my constituency, to my knowledge, I do not have a single Airey house. But my constituency is geographically at the heart of the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley. At least half the housing stock in my constituency is municipal housing—council housing. Unless the Minister is prepared to be more forthcoming, my constituents who are council tenants in Doncaster will be faced with the cost either of the replacement of the Airey
122
houses, if it is necessary to demolish them, or of repairing them. As my hon. Friend said, that means an addition to their rent—on top of what the Government have already imposed since they took office in 1979—of £1·16 a week. For that reason, I add my voice in support of my hon. Friend in urging the Government to treat local authorities as owners of these properties no less generously than they have treated private owners.
I very much hope that the Under-Secretary will be more forthcoming and responsive than he was when my hon. Friend and I met him together with representatives of the local authorities at his Department. My hon. Friend and I persuaded the representatives that he was honourable, generous, sympathetic and understanding, but they went away disbelieving what we had said. I hope that tonight the hon. Gentleman will put right the impression that he created on that occasion and will respond more generously than he has done so far in the debate or in the meeting with the representatives of the Doncaster metropolitan borough.
11.15 pm
The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Sir George Young): I thank the right hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Walker) for seeking to persuade his colleagues that I was a gentleman with all the qualities that he described. I am sorry that doubts were subsequently cast on his judgment.
I commend the persistence of the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. Welsh) in harrying the Government on this issue. He has written to me on several occasions, he raised the matter in a debate in the House last week, he brought a heavyweight deputation from his constituency to see me, together with some of his hon. Friends, he has raised it several times in Committee on the Housing and Building Control Bill, there is an early-day motion, and he has secured this Adjournment debate tonight. He has pursued the Government without being given any encouragement by Ministers to believe that there was any light at the end of the tunnel. He said that the Government were no friends of the council tenant. I hope that the 500,000 who will have purchased their homes by the end of this Parliament will look on us sympathetically.
I am grateful for the opportunity to explain to the House the position of Airey houses that are still owned by local authorities. I understand why hon. Members are concerned about the obligations that face their local authorities, which wish to do the right thing for their tenants.
Thus far we are in agreement. Where we part company is on the need for an extension of the measures announced by my hon. Friend the Minister on 7 September 1982. The blunt truth of the matter is that for local authority Airey houses there is already a comprehensive system for ensuring that the resources needed are available and that financial assistance can be given where it is needed—within the limits of the total public expenditure available. That covers all their obligations on their housing stock, not just particular defects in one type of building.
The HIP system handles the allocation of resources. The scheme was introduced by the Labour Government. The housing subsidy system provides financial help where authorities cannot be expected to find all the funds needed to finance their housing programme. That is the broad case for the Government maintaining that, because there is no such comparable system for private individuals, the help introduced for owner-occupiers is justified.

123
The assistance I outlined for local authorities, divides into two—assistance with the capital allocations so that they have the resources to do the work, and the revenue aspect.
For 1982–83, the Government have encouraged local authorities to spend more of the resources available to them for housing investment. We invited bids last October from authorities which could use additional resources for capital projects this year. My hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction announced last week that additional HIP allocations of up to £160 million have so far been approved for 218 local authorities. Some of those authorities have taken advantage of that invitation to obtain resources to begin work this year on repairing Airey houses. We have also told authorities that they are free to spend extra resources this year on improvement grants without limit, and without the need to submit prior bids. Certainly for 1982–83, therefore, lack of resources should not be a problem.
For 1983–84, gross provision for housing investment by local authorities is nearly £2·5 billion. That will allow authorities to increase their capital spending on housing by 15 per cent. over the likely outturn this year. The allocations were announced on 25 November 1982. In addition to those allocations, authorities will have a further £684 million of housing capital receipts generated next year, which is available to increase their allocations, plus, of course, accumulated unspent receipts carried forward from previous years. There should be resources available to carry out the work.
The hon. Member for Don Valley mentioned revenue consequences. At the risk of going into technical detail, it may by helpful to outline how the present housing subsidy system works. Subsidy entitlement is calculated afresh for every financial year. Each authority's starting point is its subsidy entitlement for the previous year. That is then altered by changes in these forms of its expenditure allowable for subsidy, including increases arising from new loan charges, and by changes in its local contribution on a basis set by the Secretary of State. So the normal 75 per cent. proportion of loan charges arising from repairs to Airey houses can be expected to feature in the subsidy calculation. Whether an authority actually receives Exchequer subsidy and the amount of its entitlement depends, however, on the result of the entire subsidy calculation, not on one ingredient taken in isolation. No Exchequer assistance is available, because the local contribution, rent or rates in lieu, is reasonably expected to be sufficient to enable the authority to meet its housing revenue expenditure.
As to rents, I can well understand an individual council tenant fearing that the cost of repairs to his home might be reflected directly in increased rent. Such a fear seems to be misplaced. Local authorities raise their housing income—whether from rents, rates or any other available source, including subsidy—to meet the whole of their housing expenditure, so there should by no question of recharging the cost of repairing an Airey house to the tenant whose home it happens to be. An authority that is no longer entitled to subsidy might, of course, choose to meet its housing expenditure, including that on Airey houses, almost entirely from rental income, or it could do it out of rates. The choice is for the authority.
124
The crucial point, which I do not think hon. Members have understood, is that whatever the decision it should not result in an unfair burden. Provided that an authority, out of subsidy, continues to raise local housing income in line with the annual increase in local contribution prescribed for the subsidy calculation, the authority should have sufficient, or more than sufficient, funds to call on.
Doncaster has 863 Airey houses that were built about 30 years ago. The council does not know the overall condition of all the dwellings. It is fair to assume that there will be considerable variation. The council estimates the cost of repairs at about £14·7 million, and maintains that the revenue impact of this expenditure would amount to £1·8 million per annum. That would represent an increase in rent for all council house tenants in the borough of £1·16 per week. The hon. Gentleman said—I understand why he said it—that the local authority consider this to be unacceptable. The alternative of meeting the cost out of the rates is not possible without incurring grant penalties under the rate support grant system. The cost has been overstated by Doncaster.
The houses are probably on average about 30 years old. The council should already have made some provision for the repair and improvement of those houses as part of its forward programme. The total cost for repair, at £14·7 million, includes some improvement as well as repair work.
The council could not repair all the houses in one year. Indeed, it proposes to spread the repair programme over 10 years. The annual revenue consequences will be much lower, beginning at about £150,000 to £200,000 per annum. The rent implications are lower than the volume described, certainly for the initial year.
Doncaster's average rents are still below the national average, as about £12 a week compared with £13.55 a week for England as a whole. It could be argued that there was scope to meet some of the revenue cost of repairs to Airey houses from the rents. If the local authority does not want to use the rents—I quite understand why—it should be able to use the capital receipts. In the first six months of 1982–83 they generated receipts of £6·2 million. From April 1980 they have generated receipts of more than £10 million. Outturn figures show that these receipts are not being spent. It is against that background that the HIP allocation of £9·7 million for 1983–84 should be judged.
I have gone into this case several times as a result of the strenuous representations that have been made. The existing system of giving help to local authorities is adequate to deal with this problem. It must be examined in perspective. The percentage of Doncaster's stock represented by Airey houses is a small figure.
It would be wrong to alter the system of giving Government help to local authorities solely to reflect the problem of Airey houses. If we conceded this case, I know that other local authorities with comparable problem estates, which for other reasons have had to be demolished prematurely, would demand similar assistance.
The existing system fairly reflects the needs of local authorities, on the one hand, and the resources available, on the other. It is not out of lack of sympathy that I must say to the hon. Gentleman that I cannot accede to his request. We have considered the request, but we believe that the existing system is adequate to deal with it.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-four minutes past Eleven o'clock.

TRADE
  Domestic Electrical Appliances (Imports)
  Domestic Electrical Appliances (Imports)
  Consumer Councils
  Consumer Councils
  Saudi Arabia
  Saudi Arabia
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Special Schools (Suffolk)
  Special Schools (Suffolk)
  Education (Assisted Places) Regulations
  Education (Assisted Places) Regulations
  Cypriot Students (Fees)
  Cypriot Students (Fees)
  Her Majesty's Inspectorate (Reports)
  Her Majesty's Inspectorate (Reports)
  Student Grant
  Student Grant
HOME DEPARTMENT
  British Nationality Act
  British Nationality Act
  Public Disorder (Stoke Newington)
  Public Disorder (Stoke Newington)
  Arms (Security)
  Arms (Security)
  Bugging
  Bugging
  Football Matches (Sale of Alcohol)
  Football Matches (Sale of Alcohol)
  Official Secrets Act
  Official Secrets Act
  Jellicoe Report
  Jellicoe Report
  Boundary Commissions (Reports)
  Boundary Commissions (Reports)
  Royal Ulster Constabulary
  Royal Ulster Constabulary
  Latin American (Refugees)
  Latin American (Refugees)
  Electoral Law (Review)
  Electoral Law (Review)
  Brixton Prison (Dental Clinic)
  Brixton Prison (Dental Clinic)
  Jim Heather-Hayes
  Jim Heather-Hayes
  Cypriot Refugees
  Cypriot Refugees
PRIME MINISTER
  Cabinet Committees
  Cabinet Committees
  British Railways (Serpell Report)
  British Railways (Serpell Report)
  France (Nuclear Weapons)
  France (Nuclear Weapons)
  Falkland Islands (Visit)
  Falkland Islands (Visit)
  Port Stanley (Argentine Aircraft Landing)
  Port Stanley (Argentine Aircraft Landing)
  Company Audits
  Company Audits
  Sir Nicholas Henderson
  Sir Nicholas Henderson
  Argentina (Arms Purchases)
  Argentina (Arms Purchases)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Beef (Prosecutions)
  Beef (Prosecutions)
INDUSTRY
  Inmos
  Inmos
  Telecommunications Apparatus
  Telecommunications Apparatus
  Workers Co-operatives
  Workers Co-operatives
  Timex
  Timex
  European Community (Assistance)
  European Community (Assistance)
  Postal Orders
  Postal Orders
  Multinational Companies
  Multinational Companies
  Cycle Lamps
  Cycle Lamps
WALES
  Welsh Water Authority (Meetings)
  Welsh Water Authority (Meetings)
  Welsh Language (Gwynedd and Clwyd)
  Welsh Language (Gwynedd and Clwyd)
  Community Nurses
  Community Nurses
  Bilingual Departmental Forms
  Bilingual Departmental Forms
  Road Programme Document
  Road Programme Document
  Roads (Baglan)
  Roads (Baglan)
EMPLOYMENT
  Unemployment Statistics
  Unemployment Statistics
  Trade Union Leaders (Meeting)
  Trade Union Leaders (Meeting)
  Part-time Work
  Part-time Work
  Dismissals (Compensation)
  Dismissals (Compensation)
  Gennard Report
  Gennard Report
  Mrs. Hamilton
  Mrs. Hamilton
  Health and Safety
  Health and Safety
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Works of Art (Fiscal Legislation)
  Works of Art (Fiscal Legislation)
  Fraud Prevention
  Fraud Prevention
  Unused Income Tax Allowances
  Unused Income Tax Allowances
  Reliefs and Allowances
  Reliefs and Allowances
  British Firms (Argentina)
  British Firms (Argentina)
  International Loans
  International Loans
  Social Security Budget
  Social Security Budget
  Public Expenditure
  Public Expenditure
  Personal Incomes
  Personal Incomes
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  MV Linne (Charter Terms)
  MV Linne (Charter Terms)
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Dental Surgery (Anaesthesia)
  Dental Surgery (Anaesthesia)
  Bone Marrow Tissue-typing
  Bone Marrow Tissue-typing
  Ophthalmology (Prices)
  Ophthalmology (Prices)
  Committee on Safety of Medicines
  Committee on Safety of Medicines
  Families (Unemployment Effects)
  Families (Unemployment Effects)
  Nurses (Advertising Costs)
  Nurses (Advertising Costs)
  Drugs
  Drugs
  Health Foods
  Health Foods
  Board and Lodgings Allowance
  Board and Lodgings Allowance
  Dental Service (Suffolk)
  Dental Service (Suffolk)
  Births (Statistics)
  Births (Statistics)
  Alcohol Misuse (Report)
  Alcohol Misuse (Report)
  Supplementary Benefit
  Supplementary Benefit
  Attendance Allowance
  Attendance Allowance
  Heating Costs
  Heating Costs
  Industrial Diseases (Employment)
  Industrial Diseases (Employment)
  Supplementary Benefit Regulations
  Supplementary Benefit Regulations
  Child Care
  Child Care
  Breast Milk Substitutes
  Breast Milk Substitutes
  Mr. D. Coates
  Mr. D. Coates
  Prince of Wales Hospital, Tottenham
  Prince of Wales Hospital, Tottenham
  London Ambulance Service
  London Ambulance Service
  Household Duties Test Payment
  Household Duties Test Payment
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Falkland Islands
  Falkland Islands
  Anatoly Shcharansky
  Anatoly Shcharansky
  Natural Environmental Research Council
  Natural Environmental Research Council
  Council of Ministers (Forthcoming Business)
  Council of Ministers (Forthcoming Business)
  Southern Thule
  Southern Thule
ENERGY
  Coal Liquefaction
  Coal Liquefaction
  Coal Imports
  Coal Imports
  Wytch Farm
  Wytch Farm
  Oil Licences
  Oil Licences
  Coal (Alternative Uses)
  Coal (Alternative Uses)
  Opencast Coal Mining
  Opencast Coal Mining
  Heat and Power (Pilot Schemes)
  Heat and Power (Pilot Schemes)
  Fuel Bills (Standing Charges)
  Fuel Bills (Standing Charges)
  Plutonium Nitrate (Shipments)
  Plutonium Nitrate (Shipments)
  National Coal Board
  National Coal Board
  Coal-fired Power Stations
  Coal-fired Power Stations
  Electricity Generation (Fuel Consumption)
  Electricity Generation (Fuel Consumption)
  Nuclear Waste
  Nuclear Waste
  Atomic Energy Authority
  Atomic Energy Authority
  "Coal and the Environment"
  "Coal and the Environment"
  Severn Estuary (Tidal Power Report)
  Severn Estuary (Tidal Power Report)
DEFENCE
  Battle Honours (Vessels)
  Battle Honours (Vessels)
  Falkland Islands
  Falkland Islands
  Northolt Airport
  Northolt Airport
  Nuclear Waste
  Nuclear Waste
  Ascension Island
  Ascension Island
  Chartered Vessels
  Chartered Vessels
  Arms Imports
  Arms Imports
  Exocet
  Exocet
  Menwith Hill
  Menwith Hill
ENVIRONMENT
  Water Industry
  Water Industry
  Village Venture Competitions
  Village Venture Competitions
  Special Protection Areas
  Special Protection Areas
  Water Industry (Industrial Dispute)
  Water Industry (Industrial Dispute)
  Gipsy Sites
  Gipsy Sites
  Islington
  Islington
  Alexandra Palace
  Alexandra Palace
  Nature Conservancy Council
  Nature Conservancy Council
TRANSPORT
  Nuclear Waste (Brent)
  Nuclear Waste (Brent)
  Lead in Petrol
  Lead in Petrol
  Heavy Goods Vehicles (Road Damage)
  Heavy Goods Vehicles (Road Damage)
  Seat Belts
  Seat Belts
  Public Vehicle Drivers (Smoking)
  Public Vehicle Drivers (Smoking)
  Radiation (Willesden Junction)
  Radiation (Willesden Junction)
  Motor Cyclists (Visors)
  Motor Cyclists (Visors)
  Serpell Committee (Appointments)
  Serpell Committee (Appointments)
SCOTLAND
  Western Isles (Improvement Projects)
  Western Isles (Improvement Projects)
  Cumbernauld (Employment)
  Cumbernauld (Employment)
  New Towns (Employment)
  New Towns (Employment)
  Industry (Selective Assistance)
  Industry (Selective Assistance)
  Nimslo (Financial Assistance)
  Nimslo (Financial Assistance)
  Dumfries Royal Infirmary
  Dumfries Royal Infirmary
  Child Care
  Child Care
  Unemployment Statistics
  Unemployment Statistics
  Tenant Participation Schemes
  Tenant Participation Schemes

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

Land: Local Authority Registers
The Earl Alexander of Tunis: My Lords. I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government how many acres of vacant land are currently listed in the registers of local authorities and how many acres have been sold since the registers were first established.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, at 1st January the registers contained details of sites of one acre or more amounting to 108,000 acres of unused and under-used land owned by public bodies. By the same date some 6,000 acres of registered land had been disposed of or brought into use.
Earl Alexander of Tunis: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his Answer. Can he say what proportion is now available for residential purposes?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords. it is estimated from a special study that about 16 per cent. of the land on the first 35 registered appeared to be suitable for housing development.
Lord Northfield: My Lords, can the noble Lord say for how many years this would suffice at the present rate of housebuilding? Is he aware that the national housebuilders feel that this is an overstatement, in a sense, of the amount of land that really would be helpful to them in getting a faster housing programme going?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, it is my understanding that housebuilding depends on demand. but I am sure that the noble Lord would have his own views on that subject. The housebuilding federation also conducted a study and found that 11 per cent. of the land on a sample of 63 registers was both suitable for housing and—and this is the differential—is available to private builders. There is no conflict there with my department's estimate. I am afraid I cannot say how long this land would last at the current rate of housebuilding. If I may. I shall take the opportunity to write to the noble Lord.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, can my noble friend say, or provide and estimate to the House, what percentage of the land has actually appeared on the register? No local government is perfect. Perhaps one could form an estimate that a half, or three-quarters, of all the publicly-owned land is on the register now, or
512
is it 100 per cent.? What is the percentage actually on the register?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I am afraid I do not have details on that. However, I would point out, as I pointed out when I was answering a similar Question on 24th January. that we are not entirely talking about local authorities. Although the counties and districts between them make up 61,000 acres—that is 64 per cent. of the total—nationalised industries and statutory undertakers have declared 24,000 acres: Government departments and other Crown bodies, 2,000: and other public bodies such as new towns, housing corporations and so on, a further 8.000 acres. Therefore. no one should run away with the idea that local authorities are entirely to blame in this matter.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, while the general view of local authorities is that this land will be needed for housing development over the next 10 years, can the noble Lord say what percentage of the land held by them is deemed to be suitable for industrial development?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the land falls, as I understand it, into three categories. I have already identified the 16 per cent. which is thought to be suitable for housebuilding. There is a small amount of agricultural land, and I would assume that the rest is suitable for factory sites and roads, car parks, or perhaps extensions to stations and such things.

Forestry Commission: Sale of Land
2.40 p.m.
Baroness Elliot of Harwood: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government how many acres of forestry land the Forestry Commission have sold to the public since the Royal Assent was given to the Forestry Act 1981.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, between 27th July 1981 and 21st December 1982 the Forestry Commission sold 16,042 acres (which is 6,492 hectares) of forestry land and plantations. As at 21st December 1982 a further 95,600 acres (which is 38,700 hectates) of forestry land and plantations were in the process of being sold: that is, they were either on the market or had been approved for sale and reserve prices had been fixed.
Baroness Elliot of Harwood: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for that Answer. Are there further plans for selling land which belongs to the Forestry Commission but which is not yet planted at all?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the main intention is to sell forestry land which has plantations on it.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, could the noble Earl say what representations he or the Government have

513
received from Britain's farmers who are affected by these sales, and what representations, if any, there have been from those representing the Forestry Commission?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am not aware of any particular flood of representations from farmers. Certainly there have been queries from a number of individuals, but not necessarily from farmers.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, the noble Earl's reply to his noble friend Lady Elliot's supplementary was slightly unsatisfactory, to me at any rate. Could the noble Earl tell us how much plantable land has been sold—as I understand it, there has been plantable land sold—from the Forestry Commission's reserve? As he, I hope, knows, they were given a minimum target of 10,000 hectares. Does he feel that selling off plantable land will be in any way a danger to achieving that target?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I shall certainly find the figures which the noble Lord requested and send them to him and to my noble friend. I think there is no doubt that any sales of Forestry Commission land which take place are made in order adequately to reorganise the Forestry Commission's assets, and where land is sold it is only that which is not anticipated to be required for urgent use.
Lord Hale: My Lords, could the noble Earl say whether he has had representations on this matter from the organisation representing agricultural workers?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, again, I am not aware of any specific organisation having written complaining, if that is the inference of the noble Lord, Lord Hale. Periodically people write in about sales of specific parcels of land, but not in a general way.
Lord Wells-Pestell: My Lords, would the Minister be good enough to indicate the purpose for which this land will be used?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the land, which is Forestry Commission land on which forestry stands, is sold to private purchasers, who will continue to use it for private forestry. I should make the point, though, that if people who have purchased Forestry Commission land wish to fell it they must have a licence from the Forestry Commission, who also have power to direct them, and indeed to enforce their direction, to replant that land.
Lady Saltoun: My Lords, as the Minister said that no plantable land had yet been sold by the Forestry Commission, may I ask why that has been the case? Is it just because there has been no demand?
Earl Ferrers: The noble Lady understood me slightly incorrectly, my Lords. I said the main object of the selling of the land was to sell land which had trees on it, and I said I would find out and let the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, know—and the noble Lady, if she is interested—exactly how much of that land has trees on it and how much has not.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, would the Minister agree that the use of the word "public" in the Question tabled by his noble friend is rather inappropriate in the circumstances and that it might be better to term it "private exploitation"?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I do not know why the noble Lord directed that question to me. What the terms of my noble friend's Question are is a matter for my noble friend. Having said that, I would not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Bruce.
The Duke of Atholl: My Lords, when my noble friend sends the figures to the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, and the noble Lady, may I ask him to say also how much Forestry Commission land which has been sold, although not under trees, is capable of being planted, as opposed to that which is unplantable?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords. the Question to which I am asked to give a reply appears to be getting more and more convoluted. I think the best thing for me would be to write to the noble Lord as indicated and then, if my noble friend the Duke of Atholl wants further information, if he would table a Question for Written Answer I will give him all the information that I can.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, I made it perfectly clear—I hope the Minister appreciates the point—that I was referring to plantable land.

Gibraltar: Lisbon Talks
2.45 p.m.
Lord Merrivale: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, bearing in mind the 1967 Gibraltar Referendum and the Gibraltar Constitution Order 1969, they will give an assurance that as a result of the proposed meeting next spring of the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary and the Spanish Foreign Minister (the agenda of which could include discussions on the future status and sovereignty of Gibraltar) there will be no Act of Parliament or arrangements under which the people of Gibraltar could pass under the sovereignty of another state "against their freely and democratically expressed wishes".
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Belstead): My Lords, the Government stand by the commitment contained in the preamble to the Gibraltar Constitution, and referred to in the Lisbon Agreement, to honour the freely and democratically expressed wishes of the people of Gibraltar.
Lord Merrivale: My Lords, while I thank my noble friend for that unequivocal assurance, may I ask him two questions? First, will Her Majesty's Government insist that the lifting of all restrictions on access to Gibraltar and the resumption of ferry services from

515
Algeciras and air services to Madrid are agreed upon en bloc and not piecemeal? Secondly, while hoping that the whole tone of the negotiations will be centred on practical co-operation for mutual benefit, may I ask whether Her Majesty's Government would consider playing the Ceuta and Melilla card should the discussions tend to concentrate on the reestablishment of the territorial integrity of Spain?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I entirely understand why my noble friend is concerned about all the various forms of communication to Gibraltar; my noble friend takes a close interest in that and I absolutely accept that it is a valid question. I would simply draw his attention to the fact that under the Lisbon Agreement, both Governments have agreed to start negotiations aimed at overcoming all the differences between them. As for Ceuta and Melilla, that is not a matter for Her Majesty's Government.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, if there is any question of the dockyards being opened, or perhaps partially reopened, may I ask whether any consideration would be given to the granting of work permits to Spanish citizens—because that was the essential bond between the two communities prior to 1969—and will that subject form part of the negotiations?
Lord Belstead: That matter may be discussed under the Lisbon Agreement, my Lords, but I cannot forecast exactly what will be raised.
Lord Stewart of Fulham: My Lords, is the Minister aware that there is anxiety in Gibraltar lest the possible closure of the dockyard may make it impossible for Gibraltar to maintain her identity, whatever legal safeguards are adopted?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, that is an apprehension which I do not think is borne out by the facts. The facts are that officials are now engaged in detailed discussions with the parties directly concerned for establishing a commercially managed dockyard in place of the naval dockyard, and I very much hope that those negotiations will meet with success.
Lord Saint Oswald: My Lords, do the Government consider that, in the light of the recently and frequently described efforts of Her Majesty's Government to reach accord with the Argentine over the Falkland Islands, including the possibility of condominium, leaseback or eventual cession of sovereignty, it is even more difficult than it was before for any Spanish Government further to restore the facilities which once existed on the Gibraltar frontier, without parallel possibilities being included for discussion in the intergovernmental talks promised by Her Majesty's Government and soon, I hope, to take place between our Government and the Spanish Goverment?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, let us concentrate simply upon the issue of Gibraltar. From the point of view of Her Majesty's Government, the Lisbon Agreement is a method of looking at the future generally of Gibraltar. Only a week ago I told your Lordship's House on behalf of Her Majesty's Government that there are matters that the Government will wish to
516
raise in the Lisbon talks. I consider that the people of Gibraltar believe that is a realistic way forward. Therefore I hope that my noble friend will accept from me that we are focusing upon Gibraltar, and not upon anything else.
Lord Beswick: My Lords, have we not really got beyond the point when we should be considering the problem as a question of sovereignty under this nation state or that nation state? Is there not any constructive thinking going on at all about the possibility of some form of United Nations trusteeship?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, in my original Answer to my noble friend Lord Merrivale, I repeated our commitment to respect the freely and democratically expressed wishes of the people of Gibraltar. It is written into the constitution. It is also written into the Lisbon Agreement. That is an agreement between the Governments of Spain and the United Kingdom; and it will be between those two Governments, together with the Government of Gibraltar (because they, too, will be present at the time) that the Lisbon talks will be held.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, when the discussions take place, will my noble friend invite the attention of Spanish Ministers to the fact that the continued obstruction of access to the territory of a friendly power would be quite inconsistent with membership of the European Commiunity?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, as I think my noble friend knows, Her Majesty's Government fully support Spain's application to join the European Community. but it is inconceivable that Spain should join the Community while restrictions remain on ordinary traffic between Spain and Gibraltar.
Lord Paget of Northampton: My Lords, so far as the dockyard is concerned, is there in Europe a single dockyard that can exist without heavy government subsidy—and who will provide the subsidy?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I have no idea what is the answer to that particular question, but what I do know is that we are making realistic, and I consider, sensible proposals, from the point of view of Her Majesty's Government, to see that commercialisation is a success, if—I repeat, if—the details of the matter can be worked out to the satisfaction of all concerned; and it is those talks that are going on at the present time.

Nuclear Weapons: Geneva Negotiations
2.53 p.m.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what progress has been made in the intermediate range nuclear weapons negotiations in Geneva.bution>
Lord Belstead: My Lords, there was limited progress in the first three rounds of the negotiations because the Soviet Union insisted on trying to justify its monopoly in intermediate range nuclear missiles and was unwilling to negotiate towards the complete elimination of this class of nuclear weapon, as proposed by NATO. A new round of negotiations began in Geneva on 27th January. The United States negotiator, Ambassador Nitze, has our full support in his efforts to continue to examine thoroughly the Soviet position, including the various proposals made since the last round by Mr. Andropov.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, would the noble Lord not agree that the Government might combat unilateralism more effectively by taking a more positive attitude to negotiations than that represented by the scandalous proposal to spend £1 million of taxpayers' money on advertising?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, so far as the first part of the noble Lord's supplementary question is concerned, the Americans are making the zero offer—meaning no land-based intermediate range missiles in Europe—in good faith, and that is the objective for the negotiations agreed within the alliance. With regard to the second part of the noble Lord's supplementary question, no final decision has been taken on whether to conduct a campaign of the kind reported in the press. The Government are considering ways of increasing public understanding of the issues involved in their nuclear disarmament and defence policies, and this is one of the possibilities being considered.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, will my noble friend consider publishing pictures of the SS20, 300 of which are currently deployed by the USSR against Western Europe? Is he aware that we have seen pictures of the cruise missiles, but we have not seen pictures of the Soviet equivalent? Since these have now been in existence for a number of years, and have been deployed up to the maximum extent, are not the public in this country, and in other free countries of the West, entitled to see some of the pictures which must undoubtedly exist in our intelligence files?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I shall certainly take seriously into account what my noble friend has suggested.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that many people are worried about the Government's proposal to undertake what would seem to be party political propaganda at the public expense? Is he also aware that the exclusion of British, French and other nuclear weapons from balance calculations gives rise to false comparisons between the East and the West?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I am not sure that what the noble Lord said at the beginning of his question presents a very fruitful way forward. The fact of the matter is that under the Government at the end of the 1960s the Administration ran a campaign to promote British NATO defence policies, including possession of nuclear weapons. The campaign involved full-page newspaper advertisements, which invited readers to
518
send for a booklet, and I think that very probably it was a sensible and prudent thing for the Government to have done at that particular time.
So far as the French and the British deterrents are concerned, this is a quesstion on which I have answered the noble Lord on many occasions. The fact of the matter is that the Andropov proposals, so far as this matter is concerned, would give the Russians a monopoly of intermediate range land-based nuclear missiles in Europe. That is something which, for the safety of all people in Western Europe, we really cannot allow.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, is not the most important point that real, practical progress should be made in the talks? In view of the fact that the Soviet refusal to make substantial progress on verification has been the stumbling block up until now, can the noble Lord say whether, on the Soviet side, there is any easement on that central issue?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I do not in any way want to be unhelpful to the noble Lord on what I of course agree with him is the key question, which has been the stumbling block for very many years, but I have not any news to give on this particular point because the negotiators met afresh only four days ago.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, is the Minister of State aware that the only two examples of press advertising from the late 1960s, to which he has referred, and to which the public's attention was directed when inquiring from the Ministry of Defence this morning, relate to straightforward accounts of Government defence policy—more of a recruiting nature than of anything else—which could not possibly have been objected to by any party in Parliament at the time; and that that is a very different situation from the use of Government funds on a matter—
Several noble Lords: Question! Question!
Lord Kennet: My Lords, will the Minister of State agree that that is different from the spending of Government money on presenting one side of an argument that is now a matter of acute party disagreement in Parliament?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I must make myself clear. I was not criticising the previous Government, in which of course the noble Lord was a Minister; indeed not. I think probably the previous Government were prudent. I say "probably" merely because I began to think about this point only a few hours ago. With regard to the question of the rightness of spending money in this way at the present time, if it is to be spent, the intention would be to create a better awareness of the issues and facts by publicising Government material about disarmament and deterrence.

Business
Lord Denham: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I announce that dinner will be available at the usual time this evening.

519
The Report stage of the National Heritage Bill will be adjourned at approximately 7 p.m. for a short period. During this adjournment, the Third Reading of the Juries (Amendment) Bill will be taken.

Mental Health Bill [H.L.]
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone): My Lords, I rise to move that this Bill be now read a second time. It is a pure consolidation Bill. It brings together the law relating to mentally disordered persons. The principal Act is the Mental Health Act 1959. Over the years numerous, if fairly minor, amendments have been made to that Act by subsequent legislation, and more recently the Mental Health (Amendment) Act 1982 made extensive textual amendments to the 1959 Act as well as introducing new provisions relating to the treatment and discharge of mental patients. This is accordingly a good moment to consolidate. If your Lordships agree to the Second Reading of this Bill, it will be referred in the usual way to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read a second time, and referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.

National Heritage Bill [H.L.]
3.2 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Energy (the Earl of Avon): My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now further considered on Report.
Moved, That the Bill be further considered on Report.—(The Earl of Avon.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Schedule 1: Part III [The Boards: Armouries]:
Baroness Birkmoved Amendment No. 40:
Page 25, leave out lines 4 and 5 and insert—
("(2) Subject to sub-paragraphs (3), (4) and (5), the trustees shall be appointed by the Secretary of State.")
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I think that it will make better sense if I also speak to Amendments Nos. 43 and 44. The object of these amendments is to enable the Prime Minister to appoint the chairman of the trustees. Noble Lords will remember that when we debated this matter in Committee, Members from all parts felt that the Armouries Museum, which is now being devolved and being made a trustee museum of its own, should be treated in the same way as the other devolved museums and therefore that the chairman and the trustees should be appointed by the Prime Minister. This is felt very keenly by the Master of the Armouries and by other people concerned.
Since the Armouries in the Tower of London is the oldest national museum in Britain, and the major part to its collection consists of the personal weapons and
520
arms of our sovereigns, it was felt that the appointment should be consistent with those of other museums and therefore should be appointed at the highest level. In Committee, the Minister in his reply pointed out that the reason why the Government were objecting to this was that the Armouries Museum was part of the Tower of London. and the fabric and upkeep of the Tower of London came under the Department of the Environment. With great respect, I do not think that this is relevant. The fabric of most of the other trustee museums—in fact all of them—comes under the Department of the Environment, as I know from the time when I was a Minister in that department.
Therefore, these amendments are to effect a compromise, leaving the appointment of the trustees generally to the Secretary of State, but providing that the chairman of the trustees should be appointed by the Prime Minister. This I think would give a fillip to the Armouries, the Master of the Armouries and the people concerned, and would also not make them feel, as they do at the moment. that they are being rather denigrated and made to be rather second-class museum citizens as they are in a different position from the others. I beg to move.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu: My Lords, in supporting this amendment may I say that it may be recalled that on Committee stage we had a Division about this amendment. As a compromise, the point that the noble Baroness, Lady Birk. has raised was suggested: that, even if the Secretary of State continues to appoint the trustees, perhaps the chairman should be appointed by the Prime Minister. It may seem that the Armouries are taking unnecessary umbrage and feeling that they are being put on a lower status. That is a matter of opinion. Nevertheless, they feel this and one has to take into consideration their feelings. Certainly in view of the fact that the Armouries have an important place in this Bill it appears rather strange that they are treated so differently. I hope that the appointment of the chairman by the Prime Minister can he accepted, even if the Secretary of State continues to appoint the other trustees.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, as the noble Baroness and my noble friend Lord Montagu have said, these amendments provide either that the Prime Minister shall appoint the chairman or that the Prime Minister shall appoint the first chairman but only appoint subsequent chairmen after consultation with the trustees. At Committee we discussed the question of prime ministerial involvement in appointments, and on a Division the Committee showed themselves in favour of leaving appointments at the Armouries in the hands of the Secretary of State for the Environment. Under both these amendments, the Secretary of State will appoint the majority of the trustees. I can see no good reason why he should not appoint the chairman. The Government continue to believe that the arrangements adopted in the Bill are the best.
Since the Committee stage I have pursued this subject with my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. The Government still feel that he is the appropriate person to appoint the chairman. I reiterate what I said in Committee: there

521
has been a close relationship between the department and the Armouries. This must inevitably continue as the Tower will be still managed by the Department of the Environment. I do not feel that the Armouries need a fillip. They have a great standing of their own. I do not believe that the standing of the Armouries should be in any way impinged by our discussions this afternoon. One might even say that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State might be getting rather worried about his own standing.
The Government wish to stress that our decision in no way affects the standing of the Armouries. We recognise their international repute. It is simply more convenient and more straightforward. If the noble Baroness is not prepared to withdraw her amendment, I shall be happy to abide by the wish of the House.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his very clear and concise explanation of this issue. With great respect, it is all very well for him to say that this does not mean that they are any lesser bodies; it does not mean this and that. The point is that this is the way the people concerned feel. Speaking personally, one can argue that it may not necessarily make all that difference whether it is the Secretary of State. This could apply to all the museums or just to the Armouries. It is unfortunate. It is a very narrow view that the Government are taking over this matter, because it really is nonsense. I have discussed this with a wide range of people who have a great deal of experience and a diversity of views on the whole question of the museums. To say that its tie-up with the Department of the Environment means that the chairman of the trustees cannot be appointed or should not be appointed by the Prime Minister is, quite frankly, nonsense. However, as we have voted already so far as the trustees are concerned, and as I imagine so many people who are not in the Chamber at the moment would come in and vote against the amendment, as they did before, I shall not take up the time of the House. I hope that in another place they will think that it makes more sense and shows more humanity and sensitivity if they take the line which the noble Lord and I have put forward. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 41 not moved.]
The Earl of Avonmoved Amendment No. 42:
Page 25, line 8, at end insert—
("(4A) In appointing any trustee, the Secretary of State shall have regard to the desirability of the person's having knowledge or experience of arms, armour, the Tower, management. administration, or any other subject knowledge or experience of which would be of use to the Board in exercising their functions.")
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment last Thursday when I moved Amendment No. 4. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 43 to 47 not moved.]
The Earl of Avonmoved Amendment No. 48:
Page 25, line 22, leave out from first ("chairman") to end of line 23.
522
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment when I moved Amendment No. 7. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 49 and 50 not moved.]
The Earl of Avonmoved Amendment No. 51:
Page 26, line 27, at end insert—
("Proceedings
21A.—(1) The Board may regulate their own procedure (including, subject to sub-paragraph (7), quorum).
(2) In doing so, they may make arrangements for any of their functions, other than the power to acquire or dispose of land. to be discharged by committees.
(3) Any committee shall be appointed, and may be dissolved, by the Board.
(4) A committee may include as members persons who are not trustees, but at least two of the members (including the committee's chairman) must be trustees.
(5) A committee shall act in accordance with such directions as the Board may make from time to time.
(6) Anything done by a committee under the arrangements shall, if the arrangements so provide, have effect as if done by the Board.
(7) The quorum for meetings of the Board shall not at any time be less than three.
(8) The validity of any proceedings of the Board shall not be affected by any vacancy among the trustees or by any defect in the appointment of any trustee.
Allowances
21B. The Board may pay to each of the trustees and the members of any committee such reasonable allowances in respect of expenses as the Secretary of State may determine with the Treasury's approval.
Instruments
21C.—(1) The fixing of the seal of the Board shall be authenticated by the signature of the chairman or of some other person authorised either generally or specially by the Board to act for that purpose.
(2) A document purporting to be duly executed under the seal of the Board, or to he signed on the Board's behalf, shall be received in evidence and, unless the contrary is proved, be deemed to be so executed or signed.
Accounts
21D.—(1) The Board shall keep proper accounts and proper records in relation to them.
(2) The Board shall prepare a statement of accounts in respect of each financial year.
(3) The statement shall give a true and fair view of the state of the Board's affairs at the end of the financial year and of the Board's income and expenditure in the financial year.
(4) The statement shall comply with any directions given by the Secretary of State with the Treasury's consent as to the information to be contained in the statement, the manner in which the information is to be presented or the methods and principles according to which the statement is to be prepared.
(5) The Board shall send the statement to the Secretary of State at such time as he may direct.
(6) The Secretary of State shall, on or before 30th November in any year, send to the Comptroller and Auditor General the statement prepared by the Board under sub-paragraph (2) for the financial year last ended.
(7) The Comptroller and Auditor General shall examine, certify and report on the statement sent to him under sub-paragraph (6) and shall lay copies of it and of his report before each House of Parliament.
(8) In this paragraph "financial year" means the period commencing with the day of the Board's establishment and ending with 31st March following that day, and each successive period of 12 months.")
The noble Earl said: My Lords. I spoke to this amendment when I moved Amendment No. 12. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 52 to 55 not moved.]
Lord Beaumont of Whitleymoved Amendment No. 56:
Page 26, line 40, at end insert—
("( ) Each report shall include a statement of action taken by the Board to promote the use of the Armouries by disabled people.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords. I spoke to this on a previous amendment. I understand that this is one of the amendments which the Government have undertaken to make in some form or another. Since that is so, I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 57 and 58 not moved.]
The Earl of Avonmoved Amendment No. 59:
Page 27, leave out lines 1 to 4.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I spoke to this with Amendment No. 12. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 16 [The Board's general functions]:
3.11 p.m.
The Earl of Avonmoved Amendment No. 60:
Page 10, line 23, at end insert—
("(4A) For so long as the Board have a right to occupy premises in the Tower, and so far as otherwise practicable, they shall secure that an exhibition of arms, armour and associated objects from among their collection is maintained and open to the public in those premises.").
The noble Earl said: This amendment seeks to ensure that so far as possible the trustees of the Armouries maintain an exhibition, as they have traditionally done, within the Tower of London. Noble Lords will recall the discussion we had on this question at Committee stage. I said then that, unfortunately, we were unable to accept the amendment of my noble friend Lord Montagu which would have required the trustees to display a major part of that collection at the Tower because, without having an express right in the Bill to occupy premises at the Tower, the trustees would be given a duty which they had no power to fulfil.
I hope your Lordships will agree that we have found a way round this difficulty by giving them a duty to maintain an exhibition at the Tower for so long as they have a right to occupy premises there. If they have an agreement to use part of the Tower for their collection, as we fully intend they shall, then they must maintain an exhibition there. The amendment makes it clear that the exhibition must be open to the public. The amendment itself does not attempt to define the extent of the exhibition at the Tower, for that would seem to be unnecessary. I am sure that the Tower will remain the centre of the Armouries exhibition. I hope that noble Lords will agree that this is a good solution. I beg to move.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for moving this amendment. It certainly covers the points that I raised on Committee and will ensure that the connection between the Armouries and the Tower of London will last as it should last.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, may I welcome this amendment which covers broadly the ground that the noble Lord and myself were anxious to get established.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 21 [Establishment of Board of Trustees]:
Earl Ferrersmoved Amendment No. 61:
Page 13, line I at end insert (" . Kew")
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 61. It may be convenient to the House if I speak to Amendments Nos. 62, 65, 67, 71, 156, 157 and 163 at the same time. At the Committee stage, there was a certain amount of discussion as to the name which should be given to the Royal Botanic Gardens. The noble Lord. Lord Strabolgi, suggested that they should be called the "Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew". At that time I intimated, possibly a trifle injudiciously, that there was little point in adding the address in order to make it clear.
The noble Earl, Lord Perth. suggested that they should be named the "Royal Botanic Gardens of England". It was in order to differentiate them from Edinburgh that he suggested adding the words "of England". I did say that we would consider the arguments made in Committee and, having done so, I conclude that Lord Strabolgi's suggestion of "The Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew" is the best. I might add that I was very grateful to your Lordships for the advice given and, as your Lordships will see, the Government, as usual, took it. I would only add that I think it was Sir Winston Churchill who once said that periodically one has to make a meal of one's own words; and I think that he added, "And not an unwholesome diet, either".
The amendment that I am proposing is that the institution should be known as the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew. It is also necessary to include a small addition at the end of Clause 22 to ensure that there is no confusion about the powers of the board. These words make it clear that these powers go wider than just the location of Kew Gardens itself. If they were not added, it might be questionable whether the board had the power to continue its present activities at Wakehurst Place or any other location in the future. I am grateful for your Lordships' suggestions. I hope that your Lordships will approve the amendment that I move.
The Earl of Perth: My Lords, I am sure that I am also speaking for the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, although he is not here, in thanking the noble Earl. Lord Ferrers, for the amendment. I think that "Kew" is totally appropriate. If I did suggest, "of England", it was because I wanted to make sure that there was no muddle between England and Scotland which both have their botanic gardens. Ours is the Royal Botanic Gardens, Edinburgh; here it is the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew. I thank the noble Earl very much for making the necessary change.
Baroness David: My Lords, in the absence of my noble friend Lord Strabolgi may I say that I know that he is very pleased that this has happened, and I would say how grateful we are to the Minister.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 1: Part IV [Royal Botanic Gardens]:
Earl Ferrersmoved Amendment No. 62:
Page 27, line 8, after ("Gardens") insert (", Kew,").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this amendment goes with Amendment No. 61. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Ferrersmoved Amendment No. 63:
Page 27, line 31, at end insert—
("(2A) In appointing any trustee, the Minister shall have regard to the desirability of the person's having knowledge or experience of the science of plants or any related subject, management, administration, or any other subject knowledge or experience of which would be of use to the Board in exercising their functions.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this amendment is consequential upon Amendment No. 1. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Ferrersmoved Amendment No. 64:
Page 27, line 42, leave out from first ("chairman") to end of line 43.
The noble Earl said: My Lord, this amendment is consequential upon Amendment No. 7. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Ferrersmoved Amendment No. 65:
Page 28, line 4, at end insert (", Kew,").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 61. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 66 not moved.]
Earl Ferrersmoved Amendment No. 67:
Page 28, line 22, after ("Gardens') insert (", Kew,").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is another consequential amendment following Amendment No. 61. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 68:
Page 29, line 5, at end insert—
("Proceedings
28A.—(1) The Board may regulate their own procedure (including, subject to sub-paragraph (7), quorum).
(2) In doing so, they may make arrangements for any of their functions, other than the power to acquire or dispose of land, to be discharged by committees.
(3) Any committee shall be appointed, and may be dissolved, by the Board.
(4) A committee may include as members persons who are not trustees, but at least two of the members (including the committee's chairman) must be trustees.
(5) A committee shall act in accordance with such directions as the Board may make from time to time.
(6) Anything done by a committee under the arrangements shall, if the arrangements so provide, have effect as if done by the Board.
(7) The quorum for meetings of the Board shall not at any time be less than four.
526
(8) The validity of any proceedings of the Board shall not be affected by any vacancy among the trustees or by any defect in the appointment of any trustee.
Allowances
28B. The Board may pay to each of the trustees and the members of any committee such reasonable allowances in respect of expenses as the Secretary of State may determine with the Treasury's approval.
Instruments
28C.—(1) The fixing of the seal of the Board shall be authenticated by the signature of the chairman or of some other person authorised either generally or specially by the Board to act for that purpose.
(2) A document purporting to be duly executed under the seal of the Board, or to be signed on the Board's behalf, shall be received in evidence and, unless the contrary is proved, be deemed to be so executed or signed.
Accounts
28D.—(1) The Board shall keep proper accounts and proper records in relation to them.
(2) The Board shall prepare a statement of accounts in respect of each financial year.
(3) The statement shall give a true and fair view of the state of the Board's affairs at the end of the financial year and of the Board's income and expenditure in the financial year.
(4) The statement shall comply with any directions given by the Secretary of State with the Treasury's consent as to the information to be contained in the statement, the manner in which the information is to he presented or the methods and principles according to which the statement is to be prepared.
(5) The Board shall send the statement to the Secretary of State at such time as he may direct.
(6) The Secretary of State shall, on or before 30th November in any year, send to the Comptroller and Auditor General the statement prepared by the Board under sub-paragraph (2) for the financial year last ended.
(7) The Comptroller and Auditor General shall examine, certify and report on the statement sent to him under subparagraph (6) and shall lay copies of it and of his report before each House of Parliament.
(8) In this paragraph "financial year" means the period commencing with the day of the Board's establishment and ending with 31st March following that day, and each successive period of 12 months.")
The noble Earl said: My Lords, both Amendments Nos. 68 and 70 are consequential upon Amendment No. 12. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Beaumont of Whitleymoved Amendment No. 69:
Page 29, line 17, at end insert—
("( ) Each report shall include a statement of action taken by the Board to promote the use of the Royal Botanic Gardens by disabled people.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is one of the amendments to which I have spoken previously and which I understand is accepted. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Ferrersmoved Amendment No. 70:
Page 29, leave out lines 25 to 30.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 68. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 22 [The Board's general functions]:
Earl Ferrersmoved Amendment No. 71:
Page 14, line 27, at end insert—
(" (10) The Board's name shall not be taken to confine their activities to Kew.").

527
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is consequential on Amendment No. 61. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 29 [Establishment of Commission]:
3.19 p.m.
Baroness Birkmoved Amendment No. 72:
Page 17, line 3, leave out ("Commission for Ancient Monuments and Historic Buildings") and insert ("Heritage Commission").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 73 because they are alternatives. Noble Lords will recall that we had a long and lively debate at Committee stage as to what this new Commission should he called. It was generally felt from all parts of the Committee that to call it the "the Commission for Ancient Monuments and Historic Buildings" and then try to gather together those initials, and then use them for everyday usage or for answering the telephone, would be an enormous mouthful and would probably be reduced to something else which was not perhaps as good as would be obtained by considering the matter in advance. One of the problems was that, on the whole, everybody rather disliked the idea of having to use the word "heritage" but could not come up with an alternative. We have all since been rushing about consulting Fowler and the OED and anything else we could lay our hands on, but we are still left with this word "heritage". It is having a rather bad time at the moment, because on the whole it is rather a good word which means very much what it says.
There were other problems associated with this, and one was that a title should not be chosen which would either conflict or cause confusion with the National Heritage Memorial Fund. I am very glad, incidentally, to see the noble Lord, Lord Charteris, is in his place this afternoon. When this was discussed informally he indicated that he personally did not feel that the Heritage Commission would have that effect. Since then I have thought further about this, and it seems to me there is probably a better case for calling it the Heritage Conservation Commission. The reason is that we are talking about conservation and preservation and we shall be coming on to the functions later on. Nevertheless, preservation and conservation are the main functions of this new body, it seems to me. The two words are very similar but I think that "preservation" rather has the connotation of keeping something in its original state—in a way, sometimes, almost pickling it—hut it would certainly apply to archaeology.
One talks of "preserving" a tree, while one would perhaps talk of "conserving" a forest. We talk about preserving wildlife and in the countryside conservation context we would often use the word "preservation" as an alternative to "conservation". The advantage of using the word "conservation" is, first, I think, that "ancient monuments and historic buildings" is not by any means fully descriptive of the scope that the new commission will have, because it also has to look after those parts of cities, towns and villages where listed buildings are found grouped together in conservation areas and where their repair can be grant-aided under town schemes or where conservation area grants can
528
be used. Also, of course, it deals with archaeological work. Conservation, unlike preservation, also indicates the use of buildings for purposes other than their original purposes. That is how we are able to save so many of our buildings; for example, by converting old and redundant churches for other use and also converting old warehouses and so on.
The Conservation Commission was my first thought, and then I realised that that would again open it wide to the countryside or to nature, whereas Heritage Conservation Commission seems to me to carry both sides of it—and, quite frankly, unless we keep this long and perhaps not very accurate name for the new commission the width of the work of the new commission is not indicated. Therefor, if we take out "heritage" we are left with something rather woolly. On the other hand, "heritage conservation" pins it down very much more to what this whole commission is about. It also removes it, I think, from any possible confusion with the National Heritage Memorial Fund. Personally, having considered both of those, I would plump for the second of them. However, I should like to hear what other speakers have to say. I beg to move.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: One can argue endlessly about a name. Your Lordships will remember that the great philosopher Bradley described metaphysics as finding bad reasons for what we believe instinctively. The noble Baroness, it seems to me, has given some very good reasons, but in the end it is a matter of impression. I am bound to say that "Heritage Conservation Commission" seems to me entirely felicitous.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu: My Lords, we had a discussion on this at Committee stage and I think it was generally agreed that the present title is rather long and clumsy. It is also generally agreed by many people, inside and outside your Lordships' House, that the word "heritage" is a very over-worked word at the moment. Nevertheless, the fact that nobody likes it at the moment does not mean that it will not become even more respectable as the years go on. Indeed, perhaps the commission will make it more respectable, apart from anything else; so I hope that some further thought will be given to this, because it is a great mouthful and it is going to he abbreviated anyway. I think we may as well try to encourage people to use an expression which is sensible.
Lord Charteris of Amisfield: My Lords, if I may say something as chairman of the National Heritage Memorial Fund, we do not want to be dogs in the manger about the word "heritage". However. although, as the noble Baroness said, I did on a previous informal occasion say that we did not really mind whether it was called the Heritage Commission or not, I think that, on consideration, I should like to take those words back. The disadvantage of using the word "heritage" is, first, that I think, whatever happens, it is liable to get the new commission muddled up with us. Secondly, "heritage", as we understand it, has so much wider a connotation than the various things which will be looked after by the new commission. That has been demonstrated by what we have been able to do during the two and a half years of our existence, when we have grant-aided not

529
only buildings but a various and wide selection of museum objects—pictures and things like the Kennet Ciborium. We have also grant-aided the last active "blanket mire" in Europe near Blar-nam-Froileag and other bits of delightful wilderness, to say nothing of the habitat of the Greater Horseshoe Bat. Therefore I think it would be much better if we did not use the word "heritage" in the title.
Baroness Airey of Abingdon: My Lords, I should like to support my noble friend Lord Charteris. If we use the word "heritage", there are already two organisations—one besides ours—and everyone knows the National Heritage Memorial Fund. Surely, if we had a third one using the word "heritage" there could be great confusion. I do agree with my noble friend that what we have grant-aided goes extremely wide. I should like to add to the things that he has mentioned, for instance, Wimpole Avenue, an aeroplane and the famous vehicle "Bluebird", which everyone knows about, and also the manuscript of Tennyson's In Memoriam. Our scope is very wide, and the suggested title could cause confusion with an organisation which is more specialised. Therefore I should like to join my noble friend Lord Charteris in opposing the use of the word "heritage".
Lord Mancroft: My Lords, may I ask your Lordships to remember the debate that we had when the word "ombudsman" first came before us? Everybody complained about it: it was an ugly word; nobody would know what it meant; and it was not even English. Despite all that, that is the word which everybody now uses and I doubt whether there is one Member in 10 of your Lordships' House who knows what the correct legal definition of "ombudsman" is. May we therefore decide that whatever we eventually call this new commission, however ugly it be, it must be something that the public are going to call it, and let us remember that "ombudsman", ugly though it is, is what the public now says.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, may I point out that "ombudsman" has three syllables whereas Conservation Heritage Commission has 10? This is, of course, the difference; and if anybody could find three syllables for this one how grateful the House would be.
Lord Cottlesloe: My Lords, may I point out, leaving aside any question of the Ombudsman, that, if this is simply called the Heritage Commission, it is concerned with only a part of the heritage, the preservation of ancient monuments and historic buildings in England. The word "heritage" has a much wider scope, and it would be better to define it as it is defined in the Bill as drafted.
Lord Sandford: My Lords, I support the amendment we are discussing and go for the shortest of the alternatives proposed, for two reasons. First, it is quite unthinkable that the title proposed in the Bill will last for more than a week or two. If one attempts to use it either in its full form or in its abbreviated form for more than a few minutes one can realise that. The second is to rebut the point being made about
530
"heritage" being too wide a term for things covered by the Bill. If that were so, the Bill would not be called the Heritage Bill. Nobody objects to that, and if nobody objects to the Bill being called the Heritage Bill why on earth should the commission not be called the Heritage Commission?
But on the substance of "heritage" being too wide a term, in the sense it is used in the Bill, is it really true to say that the historic buildings do not contain almost all the elements with which the other bodies deal? In this Bill we are concerned with land: we are concerned with pictures; we are concerned-with furniture; we are concerned with gardens. What aspect of the heritage does not come into the things with which the commission will have to deal? I strongly urge the House to support Amendment No. 72.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, when your Lordships discussed this question at the last stage my noble friend Lord Avon agreed to consider all the ideas and points put forward in that debate. The Government were open to suggestion, and continue to be so, about this important and rather difficult matter. If I may put in a "plug" for the team on the Bill so far. perhaps I might say that the difficult we manage to do at once, the impossible takes consultation. However, having considered everything that was said before and is now being said, I am still not convinced that any of the ideas that your Lordships have come up with is better than the title we have now. But I agree that it is by no means perfect. It is rather long and rather solemn—my noble friend Lord Montagu made that point—hut it has the most unusual virtue of being accurate.
My noble friend Lord Avon spoke before of the doubts about the word "heritage", and these have been exemplified by some of the contributions this afternoon. The noble Lord, Lord Charteris, and my noble friend Lady Airey do not like "heritage". The Government do not like "heritage" either, despite the point made by my noble friend Lord Sandford, who said: this is called the Heritage Bill, so why should not the commission be called the Heritage Commission? The answer is that the Bill falls basically into two parts; one concerns what one might call general heritage and the other is about the commission, which may or may not include heritage. The importance, as we see it, is that whatever the commission ends up being called it should have a title which is descriptive of what it is trying to achieve.
At the last stage my noble friend Lord Sandford invented a splendidly complex acronym for the title, using all its initials, but the Government feel that this could be shortened to CAMHB, standing for the Commission for Ancient Monuments and Historic Buildings. That would surely be known as "Cambie" in common parlance, which is a perfectly acceptable set of letters. At the moment, the Government believe that the title should be left as it is, and I hope that the noble Baroness and the noble Lord will not feel it necessary to press to a Division either this or the next amendment. I emphasise that this discussion is going on, and will go on, but I really cannot see, at the moment, a sensible outcome.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, it is interesting to hear the contributions from the House. I am grateful for the support from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, and the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, who I think hit the nail on the head in many of the points he made. I am not sure whether the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, was or was not supporting me. If, as he says, one gets used to a word, it seems to me that it is very much easier and simpler to get used to saying "Heritage Commission" rather than saying, "Commission for Ancient Monuments and Historic Buildings". It is not a question of a strange word but of a string of words.
I would have been inclined to leave it for the moment, but I do not think I am going to do that. The reason I am not going to do that is because everybody who has spoken, and those who have not spoken, have not come up with any alternative at all. They all agree that this is a very clumsy vehicle to use—"Ancient Monuments and Historic Buildings". They say that they are not keen on the word "heritage", but again this is something which explains exactly what the Bill is about. I have the feeling so far that, of the two, "Heritage Commission" seems to get rather more support than "Heritage Conservation Commission". For myself, I do not mind either of those two. I thought the name "Heritage Commission" in fact pinpointed it rather more. I feel I am not prepared to leave it to some thoughts coming up in the future, when so far nothing has arisen except saying, "We do not really like the Long Title but we will leave it as it is". I do not think that is the way to legislate.
Taking up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, I agree with him that it is also perfectly true that once one has chosen a title such as this, which is either one or two words—and, in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, "Heritage Commission" has fewer syllables than "Heritage Conservation Commission"—people quickly know what it means and what it is about. They know quite distinctly that this is quite different from the National Heritage Memorial Commission. It may well be that our pressing the amendment will also stimulate even more thought-buds in the lexical area of the Government's collective brain, and that they will then come forward with something else.
Thus, at this moment. I intend to press the amendment to see what is the feeling of the House. I hope that those who may not be entirely satisfied with the name "Heritage Commission" will support it even on the basis that it should be used as a catalyst to try to get the right wording. If, before we move to a Division, any noble Lord wants to speak out and show a preference for "Heritage Conservation Commission", I should be happy with either of those alternatives.
The Earl of Perth: My Lords, before there is any question of a Division, I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, that I was worried when I heard the noble Lord. Lord Charteris, say that he was worried that "heritage" could cause confusion with his own council. Would it not be sufficient if the Government said, "We are prepared, before Third Reading, to listen to any other good name and would be ready for someone to introduce it"? If we were to divide now on
532
the word "heritage", not being able to find a different name I, for one, would vote with the Government against the word "heritage" at this stage.
Baroness Birk: With the leave of the House, may I say that I omitted to ask the noble Lord, Lord Charteris, before he sat down, whether he felt the same objection applied to "Heritage Conservation Commission" as he felt applied to "Heritage Commission". I am sorry I overlooked that point.
Lord Charteris of Amisfield: My Lords, I think that my real objection is to the use of the word "Heritage". "Heritage Conservation" I find rather less objectionable than the other title.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, with the leave of the House, just to answer the noble Earl, Lord Perth, I hope I made it clear that the Government's mind is entirely open on this matter. Therefore, there is no pressing case for him to vote with the noble Baroness.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I think that the whole House has paid the greatest attention to what the noble Lord, Lord Charteris, has said. But he said in his first intervention that he did not want to be dog in the manger about it, which I suppose, to put it in strictly statutory terms. was not an overwhelming objection. I should like to add that, if we are going to effect any change, it should be a change towards the shorter form "Heritage Commission" rather than towards "Heritage Conservation Commission", which is almost as unsayable as the existing title, although it contains fewer words. So I would urge the House to go for "Heritage Commission" now. I think that within a very few months of its coming into operation the slight difference in the range covered by, on the one hand, the National Heritage Fund and, on the other hand, the Heritage Commission will become quite familiar to all those who are at all concerned with these matters.
Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal: My Lords, may I ask the Minister three questions?
The Earl of Avon: No, my Lords. This is Report.
Baroness Birk: He has not spoken, my Lords.
Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal: My Lords, I have not spoken before. Is it suggested that I have, and that I am therefore out of order?
The Earl of Avon: No, My noble friend cannot answer.
Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal: In that case, I will leave it.
3.42 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 72) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 75; Not-Contents, 79.

DIVISION NO.1

CONTENTS

Amherst, E.

Kilbracken, L.

Ampthill, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Amulree, L.

Leatherland, L.

Ardwick, L.

Listowel, E.

Aylestone, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Balogh, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Mancroft, L.

Beswick, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Birk, B.

Mayhew, L.

Bishopston, L.

Molloy, L.

Blyton, L.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

[Teller.]

Bruce of Donington, L.

Nicol, B.

Burton of Coventry, B.

Northfield, L.

Byers, L.

Oram, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Paget of Northampton, L.

Collison, L.

Peart, L.

David, B.

Phillips, B.

Derwent, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Diamond, L.

Rea, L.

Digby, L.

St. Davids, V.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

St. Just, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Sandford, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Spens, L.

George-Brown, L.

Stamp, L.

Gore-Booth, L.

Stedman, B.

Granville of Eye, L.

Stewart, of Alvechurch, B.

Gregson, L.

Stewart, of Fulham, L.

Grey, E.

Strabolgi, L.

Hale, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal,

Hampton, L.

L.

Hanworth, V.

Taylor of Mansfiled, L.

Hayter, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L. [Teller.]

Hylton-Foster, B.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Ilchester, E.

White, B.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Wigoder, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

Kennet, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Adeane, L.

Holderness, L.

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Kilmany, L.

Atholl, D.

Kinloss, Ly.

Auckland, L.

Lane-Fox, B.

Avon, E.

Lauderdale, E.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Long, V.

Bancroft, L.

Lovat, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Luke, L.

Belstead, L.

Lyell, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

McFadzean, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

MacLehose of Beoch, L.

Charteris of Amisfield, L.

Macpherson of Drumochter,

Clitheroe, L.

L.

Cockfield, L.

Margadale, L.

Cottlesloe, L.

Marley, L.

Croft, L.

Merrivale, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Mersey, V.

Daventry, V.

Mottistone, L.

Davidson, V.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Newall, L.

Dudley, B.

Northchurch, B.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Elton, L.

Onslow, E.

Faithfull, B.

Orkney, E.

Ferrers, E.

Pender, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Perth, E.

Gainford, L.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Geoffrey-Lloyd, L.

Portland, D.

Glasgow, E.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Romney, E.

Gridley, L.

Saint Oswald, L.

Hailsham of Saint

Saltoun, Ly.

Marylebone, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

534

Somers, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Strathspey, L.

Vickers, B.

Sudeley, L.

Vivian, L.

Swinton, E. [Teller.]

Wynford, L.

Thorneycroft, L.

Young, B.

Thurlow, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
[Amendment No. 73 not moved.]
Schedule 3 [The Commission]:
3.50 p.m.
Lord Strathcona and Mount Royalmoved Amendment No. 74:
Page 30, line 43, leave out ("not")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a repeat of an amendment which we discussed at the Committee stage. It deals with the very important issue of the tax régime under which the commission will operate. At the Committee stage we were somewhat surprised when the noble Earl said that the question of the tax régime was still under consideration. However, speaking for myself, I was also very gratified when the noble Earl said that he would be doing his best to secure Treasury agreement to some of the suggestions which were made on all sides of the Committee. The noble Earl promised to put down a number of amendments to support the undertakings which he had given. Unfortunately, those amendments have not been forthcoming. I thought, therefore, that we ought to run the amendment again.
Of course, one sympathises with the noble Earl the Minister in having to negotiate with the Treasury and try to tie it down. I hope he will be able to tell us how far he has got in that difficult and taxing—perhaps I should not use the word "taxing"—in that difficult and demanding task.
Before we hear what the noble Earl has to say, there are two points which I should like to make. I believe that it is very important not to create a kind of merry-go-round situation whereby the commission find themselves paying out taxes with one hand and then drawing them back in the form of grants-in-aid from the Treasury with the other. The only beneficiaries will be Treasury civil servants. This Government are devoted to the notion of reducing the number of civil servants, something which certainly I support wholeheartedly.
Secondly—I believe we said this once before, but it has to be said again—it is important to create a tax régime for the commission which is the equivalent of charitable status, so that anybody who wishes to give money to the commission will be satisfied that the Treasury is not going to get its hooks on any donations which are given. The commission therefore need to be in at least as good a situation as a charity would be.
Having made those two points, I had better hear what the Minister has to say. I beg to move.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for giving me this opportunity and for introducing his amendment in such a mild manner. Very seldom has such a short amendment been about to get such a large response.

535
When we discussed a similar amendment from my noble friend at the Committee stage I said that the Government were urgently considering the question of taxation. I am pleased to say that we have made considerable progress. It might be useful to the House if I outlined the tax régime which we should like to apply to the commission.
The Government's concern has been to create for the commission a tax régime appropriate to its status and to the nature of its responsibilities and operations. It is clear that, as several speakers said in Committee, it would be wholly inappropriate for the commission to be regarded for all taxation purposes as if it were a private sector company. On the other hand, the answer is not simply to exempt the commission from all taxes, duties and levies. Such tax exemptions would outstrip the merits of the case and would be far in excess of anything available to any other body, even the Crown.
The Government have carefully considered what form of exemption is most appropriate. The commission's primary aim will be the preservation of the national heritage, and its activities and purposes will be most closely parallel with those of a charity. Like a charity, it will attract significant private donations. Indeed, similar bodies, such as the National Trust, are charities and enjoy the tax benefits which charitable status brings. The Government recognise and have therefore decided in principle that the commission should he, for the purposes of taxation, treated in the same way as charities. I should stress that this does not mean that the commission will be a charity, but only that it will be treated in a similar fashion by the Inland Revenue.
As I explained in Committee, the situation with regard to charitable status is complex and there is some uncertainty as to whether the commission's full range of functions is wholly compatible with charitable status, particularly as regards the commission's quasi-governmental functions. The Government recognise, however, that these difficulties should not debar the commission from the most appropriate tax treatment. There is precedent for such arrangements. Similar provisions were made for the National Heritage Memorial Fund which, like the commission, is clearly on a par with charitable bodies but which has a closeness to Government which renders charitable status inappropriate.
I cannot at this stage give a detailed exposition of the mechanics of such arrangements, which will have to be tailored closely to the specifics of the commission's operations and finances. I am, however, aware of the justifiable interest of the House in these matters at this stage. and it might be useful if I set out the tax treatment of the National Heritage Memorial Fund which, as I have already said, sets a precedent for this type of arrangement.
The fund is, as are charities, exempt from income and corporation tax on income arising out of activities related to its main purposes: from capital gains tax, development land tax, national insurance surcharge: and from stamp duties on sales or transfers to the fund. Private donations by way of covenant—a point which my noble friend raised—are treated as if they were
536
covenants to a charity. The fund is also listed, by virtue of the Finance Act 1980, in the Finance Act 1975 as one of the national institutions to which beneficial capital transfer tax and capital gains tax arrangements apply. These exempt transfers to the fund from capital transfer tax and offer capital gains tax concessions to vendors to the fund. The National Heritage Memorial Fund does, of course, pay VAT, but this is no different from charities.
The Government have therefore in principle decided that the most appropriate course is to follow the National Heritage Memorial Fund example and to put the commission on a par with charities for the purposes of taxation. This would not require the commission to be a charity. The necessary legislation will be introduced in this year's Finance Bill.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu: My Lords, as one of the Members of your Lordships' House who raised this matter in Committee, I should like to thank the noble Earl for his most satisfactory statement. It is one which I warmly welcome. I am sure that the comparison which has been made with the National Heritage Memorial Fund is a very good one, because that is working so well. Another very good reason is that it is most important for the public to have confidence that the new commission is working for the national benefit as a whole and that no tax of any sort, which would simply go round in circles, will have to be paid. Therefore I warmly welcome the noble Earl's statement, and I am sure that the whole House will welcome it, too.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, while welcoming the charitable aspects of the statement which the Minister has outlined, which put the commission in line with the National Heritage Memorial Fund, I ought perhaps to point out that some other aspects have not been covered. These will cause considerable anxiety and will create hardship for the commission. I have not seen in print the Minister's statement, but I believe he said that so far as taxation otherwise is concerned the commission will be treated just like anybody else will be treated and that VAT and other aspects of taxation, except for the charitable dispositions, will not be affected. I shall not go into VAT on this occasion. Nevertheless, for many years many of us have felt very strongly about the imposition of VAT on the repair and restoration of historic buildings and monuments, because it makes it so costly and often impossible to conserve buildings before it is too late.
Here, there is an added problem. As I understand it. VAT is not paid when the Government own a building. What will happen when some of these buildings are transferred to the commission? Surely the commission should not be left in a worse financial position? In other words, either the commission should be exempted from VAT or have financial assistance in order to be able to pay the tax. Otherwise. how is the commission to be put in funds to pay VAT? Although the refund of any tax paid or monies included in advance for others to use in payment of tax may be made via grant in aid, we need a firm assurance that it will be met in full and is not something that the commission has to find out of its grant in aid generally.
It will be very easy for the commission's financial position to slip quite quickly. The grant in aid which

537
should be used for the real work of conservation, restoration and the running of buildings and monuments may in fact be going back to the Treasury by way of taxation, be it VAT or some other form of tax. This is a basic and very important point; one of the most important questions of resources that we shall be discussing during the passage of this Bill. We need a clear answer to this point, which is an addition and not one covered by the general statement the noble Earl the Minister made. It was only covered in so far as it appears to leave the situation as it is at the moment. It would be quite wrong and difficult for the commission to operate in that financial context, and the commission should not be forced to do so.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, as one who intervened at Committee stage in connection with this matter, I warmly welcome the comments made by the noble Earl and thank him for his long and helpful statement in respect of the tax position.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I too should like to thank the noble Earl for his statement, which seems to be entirely satisfactory. I have only one query. If this state of affairs is going to be enacted, as clearly it must be, I wonder whether the Finance Bill is preferable to this Bill for its enactment? I have in mind the urgency in any event of consolidation. I would have thought that consolidation would be simpler if it were put into this Bill rather than to be plucked out from a Finance Act.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, with the leave of the house, I will respond to a couple of points. First, I should like to thank the noble Lords who welcomed my statement. The noble Baroness, Lady Birk, concentrated her remarks mainly on VAT. I would like to underline again that the fund is exempt from income and corporation tax on income arising out of activities relating to its main purposes; from capital gains tax; from development land tax; from national insurance surcharge; and from stamp duties on sales or transfers to the fund.
The noble Baroness was mainly concerned about VAT. At present the department pays VAT anyway, and so there is no worsening of the situation. The idea is that the commission will continue to do so. If one looks at taking on an actual building, when one goes to the Treasury part of the cost when one discusses it with them will be VAT on whatever the item is; so the grant in aid will take that element into account in such cases. The noble Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, suggested that it would be better that this were put into this Bill rather than into the Finance Bill. I will take advice on this point. If it is possible to do so, we will try to do it in another place.
Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal: My Lords, may I just pick up on the very last point made by my noble friend Lord Avon. He mentioned another place, but we do have another stage in this Bill yet to come before this House. I had better start by thanking and congratulating my noble friend lest I forget to do so. I do not know what he was doing over Christmas but clearly
538
my noble friend has been very busy. He has done an effective bit of arm-twisting and has given us an extremely satisfactory statement. My noble friend rattled off so many taxes at such a rate that I am sure he will forgive us if most of us want to check Hansard to make sure that he has got them all in and has not left out any which we regard as highly significant; I feel it is very likely that he has not done so.
To revert to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, a slightly different point that worries me is that if this provision goes into a Finance Bill, might not this put us into a situation where the matter is not debatable in your Lordships' House? Having got this far with the amendment, and having made such satisfactory progress on achieving the right tax régime—which is not a simple matter—it will be a pity if there were any elements in it which were not considered perfectly satisfactory and yet we were precluded from discussing the amendments that would be required.
Despite what my noble friend said to me earlier this afternoon, I am perfectly sure that your Lordships will be prepared to give him leave to speak if he wishes to answer this point. My recollection is that this House is very indulgent towards Ministers speaking twice and sometimes even three times at Report stage. If my noble friend can react at all to the question of what could be done at Third Reading, I am sure that we will all be very pleased to hear from him, but I do assure him that there is no intention of pressing this amendment at this juncture.
The Earl of Perth: My Lords, before the noble Earl, Lord Avon, answers his noble friend, may I just check that I understood him aright when he spoke on the question of VAT. I believe that almost everybody in this House dislikes VAT, but there it is. The noble Earl said that in the event of the new commission seeking a grant from the Treasury for some purpose or other, the VAT could be included in the amount required for the grant. If the noble Earl will just reaffirm that, it would give me great comfort, even though I dislike VAT in many other respects.
Lord Hayter: My Lords, is it the intention of the Government to leave the phraseology exactly as it stands in this Bill, and to say that the commission will not be exempt from any duty or any tax when it is given all those concessions? That does not seem to me to make sense.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, if I may be permitted to respond a third time, your Lordships will see the danger of letting matters go on. In reply to my noble friend Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal, the advice I have is firm, and it is that tax amendments are appropriate to a Finance Bill and this is rather more a problem of getting it ready in time. If this device proves to be in any way faulty, I will see what we can do about bringing these forward more quickly. To the noble Earl, Lord Perth—yes, that is what I said. To the noble Lord, Lord Hayter, who asked whether the Bill should stand as it is now, we have only just completed our negotiations with both the Treasury and the Inland Revenue on this question and I am sure we shall be looking at the Bill to see what now needs to be done.
Lord Geoffrey-Lloyd: My Lords, I should like to join in the welcome given to the remarks made by my noble friend today, although I do so for a reason slightly different from the reasons which have been advanced by other noble Lords. Some of us are very anxious to see the new commission acting like an entrepreneurial charity. We had some doubts before as to whether the tax regime would be suitable for such a role. Therefore, I am very glad that my noble friend has set those doubts at rest, because I believe the arrangement will very much facilitate the enterprising yet charitable role that some of us so much hope to see in the commission.
However, it will be just as well to remind the Treasury and the Inland Revenue that, under the present proposals in the Bill, there is only just under £2 million-worth of revenue from the historical buildings and ancient monuments which is to be transferred, and something like £6 million-worth of revenue coming in from the Tower of London and Hampton Court, and so on, which is being withheld. So at the moment the Government are transferring only 25 per cent. of the income from the historic buildings and monuments. Many of us feel—and there are certainly reactions on the tax régime—that it does not look as if they are taking it really seriously. We should like to see a really important commission and one which would be able, as a result of entrepreneurial success, to do good works for other parts of the heritage; for example, what is so dear to the heart of the noble Baroness, Lady Airey, the preservation of some of the smaller manor houses of England which have not got the opportunity, for a variety of reasons, of being as entrepreneurial as the larger houses.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.12 p.m.
The Earl of Avonmoved Amendment No. 75:
Page 31, line 6, leave out ("13") and insert ("17")
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this amendment increases the maximum number of members of the commission from 13 to 17: the minimum remains at eight. This will give the Secretary of State additional flexibility and still allow him to achieve a balance between the need to represent a wide range of expertise and the need to keep the commission small enough to act as an efficient body. We did discuss this question at Committee stage. I beg to move.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, I welcome this amendment very much indeed. I cannot remember whether I moved the amendment but certainly I spoke strongly in favour of having a larger number of commissioners, particularly when they get to the point of setting up committees. I am pleased that the Government have taken this view.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Avonmoved Amendment No. 76:
Page 31, line 12. after ("namely.") insert ("history.")
The noble Earl said: My Lords, with the agreement of the House, I should like to address myself to Amendments Nos 76, 78 and 79. The question of the knowledge and experience of members of the commission is an important one. We all want to ensure that
540
the right people with the right spread of skills and expertise are appointed to the commission. The list contained in paragragh 3 of Schedule 3 is a guideline. It sets out the kinds of knowledge and experience we think are most relevant to the commission's work. I think it important to bear these points in mind when considering what it should include.
We had a good discussion at Committee stage, when several suggestions were put forward about how the list might be improved. We have considered them all very carefully and these amendments are the outcome of our deliberations. We were concerned that "history" might be a little wide, but upon reflection we think there would be some advantage in including it, as it would cover a range of specialist areas, including the history of architecture, and we think that that can be safely deleted. I indicated at Committee stage that we preferred "town and country planning" to "planning" on its own without qualification. A large element of legislation which is relevant to the commission is embodied in the Town and Country Planning Acts, and I am sure that we must reflect that rather than the wider concept of "planning", which includes aspects which are largely irrelevant to the commission. I hope the House will agree with these three amendments. I beg to move.
Baroness Birk: My Lords. I should like to support these amendments and welcome them very much, as I think they are a great improvement, particularly in including "history" and taking out "history of architecture", because we have left "architecture" in. I also welcome "town and country planning". I think this makes a more comprehensive and balanced list.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerranmoved Amendment No. 77:
Page 31, line 12, at end insert ("(prehistoric, Roman and mediaeval)")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is another amendment in order to assist the Government as to the view of archaeologists and to get a right spread of expertise particularly in relation to archaeology. The amendment I am suggesting is to insert after "archaeology" three branches—"prehistoric, Roman and mediaeval". I confess at once that I have no expertise whatever in this matter, but I am instructed by the professor of aerial photography at Cambridge, Professor St. Joseph, who also has the support, I understand, of the President of the British Academy in this matter. I am instructed that there has over the last seven to 10 years been a great explosion in archaeology as a result of the development of such matters as aerial photography. Buried sites of great interest have been discovered and I am told that they are the source of tremendous information and research in the knowledge of human history. They include villages, prehistoric settlements, new henges, foundations, mediaeval and early buildings, hill forts of the iron age, thousands of sites which are buried but very important. Therefore, when it comes to appointing the members of the commission, the plea is made from my friends in Cambridge—all of us belong to the fellowship of Selwyn College Cambridge, and that is how I come into the matter—that there should be

541
more than one person having knowledge of archaeology, that the membership should cover persons having knowledge of prehistoric, Roman and mediaeval architecture. The amendment that the noble Earl has introduced, including the word "history", was considered by the professor of aerial photography to see whether it would be suitable, but he still urges me to put it to the Government that the subject of archaeology is far wider than most people think, having regard to the great discoveries which have been made and are continuing to be made in this country. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I wonder whether it has occurred to the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, that the words he is suggesting should be inserted will in fact be interpreted—if it ever has to come before the courts, which I agree is unthinkable—as words of limitation. I do not suppose he really wants these words to be treated as words of limitation, but that, is what they are. For example, they would leave out Tudor architecture, seventeenth century architecture, with all the work of Inigo Jones and Wren, all the eighteenth century architecture, and so on. Of course this paragraph is completely unenforceable anyway, and, as I said in connection with Amendments Nos. 5 and 32 last week, therefore really not fit for legislation at all. But, if we are to have this, then I suggest we do not have words of limitation. The word "history" is not a word of limitation in the context. The word "architecture" is not a word of limitation, but, by the noble Lord's amendment, we shall be limiting the effect and meaning of the expression "architecture".
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I, like the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, can produce no expertise on this subject. The Government have from the start recognised that archaeology should be one of the subjects on this list of areas of knowledge and expertise, and it is fundamental to many of the commission's functions. However, I do not believe that we ought to go on from there and break it down into its component parts. In general, as Lord Renton said, appending lists of specified types would tend to narrow the definition rather than widen it. Although I cannot pretend to be a great expert, it seems to me that there is a great danger that we may exclude things that we want to include—for instance, if I may give an example, industrial archaeology.
Nor should we give the impression that there should be one specialist in prehistoric archaeology, one in Roman and one in mediaeval. The noble Lord said that they were worried that there would be only one specialist in archaeology. I assure him that that need in no way be so, and the general balance will be maintained throughout. I hope that, with what my noble friend Lord Renton said and the few words that I have been able to add, the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, will be reassured and will be able to reassure his friends that we have a conscious knowledge of the general field of archaeology, but prefer to leave this in general terms as we have it. The noble Baroness was generous enough to say earlier that she was happy to see "history of architecture" left out. We might have put in prehistoric history and all the other histories as well,
542
which I think would have muddled rather than clarified matters.
Lord Renton: My Lords, may I, with your Lordships' leave, make an apology? By the placing of the noble Lord's amendments they qualify not the word "archaeology" but the word "architecture". We should realise that.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl, and for the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Renton in this matter. I raised this question of field monuments in Committee, if your Lordships remember, because it was felt that it was a branch of archaeology which might be missed generally in the formulation of the Bill. I should have thanked the noble Earl earlier for his letter to me explaining fully that the Government have in mind, and the Bill envisages, full coverage for these important field monuments that have been discovered during the last seven to 10 years. In view of what has been said, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave withdrawn.
4.20 p.m.
The Earl of Avonmoved Amendment No. 78 and 79:
Page 31, line 13, leave out ("the history of architecture,").
line 14, after ("buildings,") insert ("town and country planning,").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I have already spoken to Amendments Nos. 78 and 79. With the leave of the House, perhaps I may move them together.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Sandfordmoved Amendment No. 80:
Page 31, line 14, at end insert ("and to the desirability of one or more of the foregoing also having knowledge of local government.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I hope it will not cause alarm if I remind your Lordships that this is the point to which my noble friend Lord Ridley said he would have to return savagely if our pleas about local government, which were made in Committee, prove not to have prevailed. I am afraid that seems to he the case. I must, therefore, go through the argument again.
Looking back over the Committee stage, at column 808, I have to say that my noble friend Lord Avon appeared to have misunderstood the point that my noble friend and I were making. We were certainly not suggesting that local government should be in a position to nominate a member of the commission. We are all agreed that that process is very undesirable. Nor were we even wanting someone on the commission whose sole qualification was a background in local government. What we were saying, and I hope that we are now making it even clearer in this amendment, is that an acquaintanceship with the process of local government should be available to the new commission through at least one member of it. I should have thought that was a modest enough request to make on behalf of all three local government associations representing the 450 units of local government, without whose practical involvement this commission would be virtually powerless to act.

543
The commission may very probably abound with experts such as archaeologists, historians and conservationists who have expert knowledge of those fields. We are arguing that among them there should be at least one person not so much with knowledge—although that is the word that I have used in the amendment—as with experience in the operations of local government. In seeking to meet us, if that is what he is doing, by including in Amendment No. 79 the term "town and country planning" I submit that my noble friend on the Front Bench has done precisely what we were being urged not to do by my noble friend Lord Renton: namely, to introduce a term which has a limiting effect. It is the experience of the operations of local government with preferably, but not necessarily, also some experience of being, say, chairman of the planning committee, which would be useful.
We are urging on the Government, I hope successfully, that there should be somewhere on the commission, among all those people on it who are individually selected for their expertise and knowledge in the fields quoted, someone with experience of local government. That is about the most modest request it is possible to make on behalf of local government. I beg to move.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, I support this amendment although I am well aware of the reasons that the Minister gave for opposing it previously and although I believe he does not oppose it on the basis of being anti-local government. The way that the amendment is worded—"also having knowledge of local government"—could well mean that one of the commissioners could be doubling, with experience of local government and some other expertise. It is important that the relationships between what is now the Department of the Environment, which is now handling all this work, and local government should be carried on into the commission. It is essential, particularly when the commission becomes a quango on its own, that there should be at least one commissioner with knowledge of local government. Frankly, I imagine it will end up with a number of people having such knowledge in exactly the same way as have members of the Historic Buildings Council for England.
I would go one stage further. It is extremely important that there should be at least one commissioner who is very well versed in the relationships and the workings of central Government. Dealing with Government in both its fields, local and central, is extremely important and requires a certain amount of experience and expertise. Therefore, I welcome the amendment because it does not limit the commission to having somebody who is in local government and has no other wider knowledge or expertise. It refers only to "having knowledge of local government". I have not put down an amendment. but I hope that the Government will think about this and also bear in mind, even if it is not possible to include it in the Bill, the need to have knowledge of the workings of central Government, the question of departments and also how the Treasury works. It is very important that these skills should be available on this quango because it will
544
no longer have a department and Ministers to fall back on, as it has had up to now.
The Marquess of Aberdeen and Temair: My Lords, may I raise a point of information with the noble Lord, Lord Sandford? I entirely agree with his amendment and with what the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, has said, but there seems to be an interchangeability between the phrases "knowledge of" and "experience in". The amendment refers to "knowledge of". I know a lot about local government. I have done for 50 years. for journalistic and practical reasons when I was on the staff of the CPRE before the war, and this has persisted ever since, but I have never had experience of working in local government. Which does the amendment mean? Does it wish to be more definite? I entirely agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Birk. If one of these persons with other qualifications has experience in, or knowledge of, local government up to the level I have, how is anyone to test that? I shall be satisfied if I can have a reply to that point.
Lord Sandford: My Lords, may I answer the point just made by the noble Marquess, Lord Aberdeen and Temair? I have only put in the words "knowledge of because that is a little broader in its effect. If one has "experience in", which is what I am concentrating on, that is limited to people who have been elected and served as councillors, whereas, as the noble Lord said, there are a number of people with a very wide knowledge of local government, through having cooperated with it and so on, who would come into a slightly broader scope, and I am trying to be as broad as I can.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I am well aware from discussions here in Committee, and elsewhere, of the desire of my noble friend to involve local authorities in the work of the commission, to establish good relations between them from the start and as a symbol of this to include "local government" in this list of qualities. Local authorities will, of course, continue to have an important and valuable role to play in the presentation of the heritage.
However, the Government continue to believe that this amendment is not the right way to achieve this co-operation. I can only say what I said before, that members of the commission should be appointed for their individual skills and knowledge and for the expertise they can bring to the work of the commission. The paragraph in Schedule 3 which this would amend does not prescribe that certain groups or institutions should be represented. There are many additional areas of knowledge or expertise which it would be useful for members to have, and the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, mentioned central Government, for one. But we have not sought, for instance, to include them because the question of the commission's relations with other interests is incidental to the carrying out of its main function, which is what we are really concerned about.
I can assure my noble friend that local government will, indeed, be a subject much in the mind of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State when appointments come to be made. I am sure that a number of those appointed will have substantial knowledge of government, not only local, but central.

545
During our debates on Thursday we heard the noble Lord, Lord Annan, describe the amusing incidents upon the arrival of my noble friend Lord Eccles as a chairman of one of those institutions, when his knowledge of central Government made a great deal of difference.The likelihood is that a number of members will have experience in government—some local, some central and some both—and I very much hope that, with the reassurances that I have been able to give my noble friend, he will feel able not to press his amendment.
Lord Sandford: My Lords, I wish that I could do so. The assurances—if one could rely on assurances—are more than adequate, but, as we often say to Ministers when discussing legislation, what really counts is what is on the face of the Bill. When my noble friend said at the beginning of his remarks that he thought there were better ways in which to secure, on the face of the Bill, the involvement of local government, I was hoping that he would then go on and say exactly where and how that should be done; but he did not do so.
Although I have other amendments later on in the Bill which would have the effect that I am seeking here, my noble friend has given me no assurances that he will accept any of those. That puts me in a difficult position because I think that the argument for having knowledge of, or experience in, local government represented in some way on this commission is absolutely clear, and neither he nor anybody else has sought to argue against it.
My belief is that if the Secretary of State must ensure that this is so—and that is all that my amendment requires—because the commission will find itself operating very largely with local authorities. It will have the management of some of its own ancient monuments in its own hands and need not co-operate with local government; and in the allocation of grants to the private owners of quite a lot of the historic buildings it will not necessarily involve local authorities; but in all the rest of its work, well over half of it and probably three-quarters of it—conservation areas, town schemes, listed building consents and so on—it will be operating with local government. To say that in the process of choosing one's archaeologists, architects, historians, conservationists and experts in finance, it is more than likely that somebody with experience of local government will turn up, does not seem to me to be a satisfactory way of meeting the point that I am making.
Therefore, in the absence of any other assurance that my noble friend will accept some subsequent amendment of mine dealing with local government, I do not think that I have any option but to press the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
4.35 p.m.
Lord Strathconaand Mount Royal moved Amendment No. 81:
Page 32, leave out lines 7 to 13 and insert—
("(6) Employment with the Commission shall be included among the kinds of employment to which a scheme under section 1 of the Superannuation Act 1972 can apply, and accorddingly in Schedule I to that Act (in which those kinds of
546
employment are listed) "Commission for Ancient Monuments and Historic Buildings for England" shall he inserted after "Tate Gallery".").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 81. The phraseology of this amendment is a little daunting, but what it does is to replace paragraph 4(6) of Schedule 3. It is part of an amendment which was discussed in Committee. At that time the Government were very helpful in explaining their intentions as regards pensions, but there are still one or two points which I think need a little further examination and clarification. For example, how is the commission going to he put in funds to make pension payments itself—if it sets up a scheme itself—or through some other scheme or some scheme analogous to that run by the Civil Service? Will it be by grant-in-aid? This would appear to be the case from what the noble Earl has said.
The noble Earl used some rather Delphic words in Committee. He said at column 817 of the Official Report for 16th December 1982:
"it is going to be an unfunded scheme and the costs, if there are any, as it were, will he taken out of grant-in-aid and will he taken account of".
I am not entirely clear what he meant by that, but perhaps he will be able to expand on the position slightly. Does it mean that the commission will have to find its pension money out of the grant-in-aid which is allocated for administration, which is what one would imagine would happen? If so, the commission, when it makes these payments, will have to account for them and will have to ask for an advance to cover them; because I hope it is not the intention that the commission will pay out the money and then have to seek to claw it back from the Treasury. This is a point that I have already made in a slightly different connection as far as tax is concerned.
It seems to me that there are going to be problems—for example, there will be arguments as to who is entitled to pensions. We do not want the commission to be put in the position where it has the responsibility without either the power or the funds to discharge that responsibility. The commission could find itself holding a baby, having paid out some pension money and then that payment being disallowed by its financial masters in the Treasury. That of course would detract from the amount of money that it had available to do the administrative work in connection with its other duties. Much the same argument applies to redundancy monies.
Therefore, we need a total assurance from the noble Earl that the full amounts needed for pensions will be handed over without argument and grant-in-aid. Frankly, I do not expect the noble Earl to be able to give us that type of undertaking. That makes one wonder whether it would not be more sensible to let the commission actually use the Civil Service scheme.
I should like to make one final point. It may sound premature to start talking about this when we have not yet even set it up, but what would happen if the commission had to be wound up? Obviously, the Government would honour the outstanding pension commitments. But again, would it not he simpler if this matter were subsumed into the Civil Service pension scheme? I would be grateful if we could get some guidance and some reassurance from the noble

547
Earl in simple but understandable terms, because I believe that some of the civil servants in some of the directorates which are going to be transferred, are a little apprehensive as to where they stand on this question. I beg to move.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, I should like to support the noble Lord. Lord Strathcona, in his amendment. As he rightly said, this matter was debated in Committee, although the amendment was in a slightly different form. I do not think that we are satisfied with the commission being left to carry out this task on its own. As the noble Lord pointed out, if by any chance the commission has to be wound up, it will go back to the Government anyhow. Therefore, it seems rather unnecesary to have started out on the other route. It is also very difficult to see how it will be prevented from encroaching on grant-in-aid unless we have the firmest possible assurance that the pension content in grant-in-aid payments will he 100 per cent. Once the Government get that far, I should have thought that it would be far better to leave the matter in the hands of the Government, as it is now. So far as I can discover, in recent years one quango which has had the same sort of problems was the Countryside Commission, and the Government have taken full responsibility for the pension scheme. With everything else being added to a very new body—and, as I said before, we are knitting the fabric of its existence as we go along—why add a pension scheme when, throughout their life, the Government have had experience of handling such schemes and could continue to handle this without the commission losing any independence?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, as I said in Committee, the Government see a distinction between the situation of the trustee museums and of the commission. For the trustee museums there is the close link with existing trustee museums which makes it appropriate that their staff continue in the Civil Service scheme. However, the commission, as an executive agency, will need freedom to operate in what it sees as a most efficient way. In particular, the commission will need flexibility in its staffing arrangements. Staying within the Principal Civil Service Pension Scheme we do not think provides that flexibility.
It is right that the commission itself should decide on its pension arrangements, subject to the express provision that the terms that the commission offers to staff transferring from the Civil Service should be not less favourable than those existing at the date of the offer. The Government intend to recommend to the new commission that it adopts a pension scheme analagous to but separate from the Civil Service scheme. By adopting a by-analogy scheme, the commission would get a ready-made, unfunded pension scheme incorporating all the important features of a Civil Service scheme, including index-linking, and one which will allow for the transfer of benefits from the Civil Service. Existing by-analogy pension schemes are not significantly more onerous to run in terms of staff effort than the PCSPS. Being unfunded, they operate on a pay-as-you-go basis and will he properly provided for as a separate heading within the commission's grant-in-aid. I think that that
548
satisfies the noble Baroness's main point, and also one of the points raised by my noble friend.
To pick up a point which my noble friend made in Committee, I do not think that it would be good managerial sense to have within the commission different pension arrangements for transferred staff and direct recruits. This would create two classes of citizens within the one organisation and would hardly make for harmonious relations.
To sum up, the Government believe that pension arrangements are a matter for decision by the commission, within the safeguards that we have laid down. The new body should be clearly separate from Government and should have flexibility in its staffs terms and conditions. Remember, we are looking some way to the future. To remain within the PCSPS does not meet these aims, and we believe that a by-analogy scheme would do so without reducing available benefits. I hope that what I said earlier will have satisfied my noble friend. After this debate, I shall read what he has said and see whether there are any other points on which I should write to him.
Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister. I think that this is a case where we are looking rather precisely at the language which is used. What my noble friend said was clearer and more unequivocal than what I thought he said at the Committee stage. But I agree with him; this is a case where we have to read exactly what has been said and reserve our right to come back at Third Reading, which I sincerely hope we shall not have to do.
He did not touch at all on the point about what could happen in the event of this commission being wound up, reorganised or subsumed into any other organisation. But I agree that it is rather premature to start thinking in those terms when we are actually discussing setting it up for the first time. Nevertheless, it is a point. Possibly my noble friend will have an opportunity to write to me on that particular subject so that everybody gets their reassurances on the record. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw this amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Speaker (The Earl of Listowel): My Lords, before I call Amendment No. 82, I should point out to the House that, if this amendment is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 83, 84 or 84A.
4.46 p.m.
Lord Sandfordhad given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 82:
Page 33, line 34, leave out sub-paragraph (1).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I do not think there is any danger of that, because I have no intention of pressing this amendment. But it links with my Amendment No. 100, and is concerned with the functions of the commission and the way in which they should be discharged. Your Lordships will remember that at the Committee stage there was much discussion about the extent to which those functions should be set out in Schedules 3 and 4, and the extent to which they should be on the face of the Bill, in Clauses 29 and 30. To a very large extent, the Government have met that point with their new

549
Clause 30, and my Amendment No. 100 adds to what the Government have already done. If Amendment No. 100 were carried, or assurances were given which had that effect, I submit that this sub-paragraph in the schedule would be otiose. It is only to point out that fact to the House as we go along that I have tabled this amendment. Unless my noble friend wishes to make any comment at this point, I propose not to move it.
[Amendment No. 82 not moved.]
Baroness Birkmoved Amendment No. 83:
Page 33, line 34, leave out ("may constitute") and insert ("shall constitute committees on Ancient Monuments and Historic Buildings and may constitute other")
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment is an alternative to the one that has just been "not moved" by the noble Lord, Lord Sandford. We discussed aspects of this amendment in Committee, but it is now in a rather different form. The intention is to ensure that the Ancient Monuments and Historic Buildings committees are set up, while others for other purposes may be set up. I think that a number of noble Lords agreed in Committee that this duty should be put on the commission, to set up committees. On the other hand, I think that one noble Lord felt that the commission should be left entirely free to decide what to do.
Whatever the final name of the commission turns out to be, there is to be a merger between the Ancient Monuments and Historic Buildings and, first, it is very important that that is expressed and shown with tremendous clarity. Secondly, it gives reassurance to both bodies, which at the moment are quite naturally rather uncertain and anxious about what the future holds for them—and I refer here to the Historic Buildings Council and the Ancient Monuments Board—that the committees are set up for them, while others for other purposes may be set up. This would make certain that there is a continuing input of expertise and vitality from outside the commission. It would reassure—and I beg the Minister to accept that this is so, and is of extreme importance—the present bodies that they will have a very important role to play and will not be broken up or disappear almost on entry into the commission. I do not think that the appointment of committees by statute is untrusting of the commission because, in doing it this way, one is carrying along the two bodies that are involved. The possibility of setting up other committees—for example, concerned with exhibitions, promotion publicity or education—is then still open to them.
I prefer this approach to the other one. It has a different nuance from what the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, was moving, although he withdrew the first of his amendments. His Amendment No. 100 reads:
"establish committees to advise them in the performance of their functions or to discharge such functions as may be delegated to them by the Commission with the approval of the Secretary of State.".
We were trying so far as possible to get away from the many "nanny strings" that seemed to be hampering the commission in the Bill as it originally was.
If the Government would accept this, it does not cut across the amendments which we shall discuss later on the functions of the new commission in Clause 30, but makes it clear from the beginning that these two initial bodies are there and have their rightful standing and
550
part to play and are not broken up or dissipated in any way. That is the only mandatory part of it, the other is "may constitute other committees". I beg to move.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu: My Lords, in supporting this amendment, I should like to say, as one who supports the concept of the new heritage or historic buildings commission, that there is a certain amount of apprehension among those two bodies—the Ancient Monuments Board and the Historic Buildings Council—which have done so much marvellous work over so many years. Not only that, there is the public confidence in them, and all the people who have benefited from their advice and help. It would be unthinkable for the new commission not to set up these committees, but nevertheless it would be excellent if this could be put in the Bill because it would give a tremendous amount of confidence to anybody that this new commission was going to work in the way that it wants to.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, to pick up my noble friend's last words, "to work in the way it wants to", we do not at the moment know how it would want to work. This is the basic position, we feel here. The question of whether the commission should be statutorily required to set up advisory committes rather than given discretion to do so was discussed extensively in Committee. This amendment seeks to provide a compromise, in that it would require the commission to set up at least two committees but would leave discretion on how many more it might set up.
The Government have considered this issue very carefully in the light of the points made in Committee. The conclusion remains that it should be for the commission to decide how best to arrange its affairs and that the power to establish advisory committees should be discretionary. As I said before in Committee, the responsibility for carrying out the functions of the commission will fall on its members, and it is they who must decide on the best way of fulfilling their duties. While I agree with my noble friend that there is every likelihood that they will form one committee on ancient monuments and another on historic buildings they might, however, decide that the main body itself should cover both these subjects, and to have two such committees would not work, or they might wish to break up the historic buildings into two different committees.
I do not believe that we should restrain them in this way. I can assure the noble Baroness and my noble friend that both bodies which have been mentioned will of course be looked to tremendously by the commission when they establish their way of work. Perhaps now that we have had a Division on the name and it still remains the Commission for Ancient Monuments and Historic Buildings, that should give them some real confidence in the fact that the Government intend that both of these two ancient associations should be represented on the new commission. We are coming to quite a lot of work on committees and it really will be for the House to decide whether they want to impose this kind of thing on the commission, or allow the commission to start with the freedom which the Government would prefer.
The Earl of Perth: My Lords, I feel, with the noble Earl. Lord Avon, that if we accepted these amendments we should he hampering what is in a sense a totally new body. It is true that it is going to have the functions of two other bodies. The subsection as it stands now says that the Secretary of State enjoins them to discharge their functions. It may well be that they would want to do the main work on either ancient monuments or on buildings in the main body and not have a second committee. I hope that on further thought those who have moved the amendment will go along with the noble Earl and see that what the Government propose is probably the best from every angle.
The Marquess of Aberdeen and Temair: My Lords, I entirely agree with both noble Earls, and speak from the point of view of somebody who may want the services of this body. I happen to be a trustee owner only of a ruinous castle in Scotland of some notoriety. It has not status at all. Under the present system I look down the list of different bodies and do not know which one is the right one to go to. Under this proposed new arrangement I would.
Do we really want sub-committees in order to get expert advice? If, rather than just chopping quickly, you let the existing bodies fade away slowly, you will find that they get perpetuated, and an outsider will be in just as much of a muddle as he is at present in knowing which one to turn to.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, maybe I did not explain it very well, or I have created some confusion about this. There was no intention that these committees should replace, or in any way take the place of either in work or in importance, the main commission. I was moving that the commission, which no doubt—at least I hope it will, otherwise it will not be able to keep up with the work—will be setting up a number of committees, should set up initially two committees to cover the work of the Ancient Monuments Board and the Historic Buildings Council. The work they would be doing would obviously come to them via the commission itself.
The noble Lord, Lord Montagu, also referred to the sort of anxiety and uncertainty that is felt at the moment. The people who are on the Ancient Monuments Board and the Historic Buildings Council at the moment, not all of whom may be able to be on the commission itself, and other people whose expertise would be of great value but who are not members of either at the moment, would he able to go on to one of these bodies to start with.
The noble Minister referred to the name. We have not got to the end of this Bill yet, and the commission may still end up with a different name. There are still a few up our sleeve. We have not even tried out "Heritage Conservation Commission". I was hoping that what happened this afternoon when the Government won by only a small majority would spur them into thinking that the indications are that there are a great many people who want them to find a different name. I do not think you should rest the case on what the final name of the commission is going to
552
be. I hope this will be taken into account, and i beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.59 p.m.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerranmoved Amendment No. 84.
Page 33. line 35, at end insert ("and including one such committee comprising inter alia one member nominated by each of the following bodies, namely the British Academy, the Royal Institute of British Architects, the Society of Antiquaries of London, the Trustees of the British Museum and the Royal Academy of Arts.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 84. The object of this amendment is to try to ensure that there is adequate scholarly advice available to the commission through at least one of its committees. The amendment suggests that one of the committees of the commission should include members from the following scholarly institutions which are set out in this amendment:
"the British Academy, the Royal Institute of British Architects, the Society of Antiquaries of London. the Trustees of the British Museum and the Royal Academy of Arts."
I have been supplied with extracts from letters that have passed between the noble Earl, Lord Avon, and, for example, the British Academy. I am instructed that at any rate the reply given on 6th January by the noble Earl, Lord Avon, makes it look as though the Government are positively desirous of reducing scholarly influence over the heritage, and I understand that there is strong feeling about this in academic circles.
While the amendment contains the word "nominated"—asking that there should be nominations from the various scholarly bodies mentioned—if the Minister would give an assurance that the committees to be set up to advise the commission as to its functions will contain scholarly advisers, that would satisfy me at this time. I beg to move.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, as the commission have discretion whether to set up advisory committees, the power to set up a committee with a particular membership is rather unnecessary and would, in any case. have no effect, as they would be able to decide not to set up such a committee. But even if the establishment of such a committee were intended to he mandatory, I do not think, as I said when replying to the previous amendment. that we are on the right course. A committee with the membership proposed would be more or less reconstituting the nominated members of the Ancient Monuments Board for England, and I believe that the only body with any standing which would be omitted would be the Royal Commission on Historical Monuments. That shows the dangers of trying to establish sub-committees of this nature.
However, I take the noble Lord's point and assure him that there is no desire in the Government's mind, as he expressed, to omit scholarly people, professors and others, from our adjudication. While, again, one cannot say who will form the commission, obviously there will be scholarly members on it. However, as we said in Committee on several occasions, the membership of the advisory committees will come particularly from the scholarly group of people, and I happily give the noble Lord that assurance again.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for his comments, although I feel that at the beginning of his reply he was speaking to a different amendment, and certainly not to the one currently before the House. An amendment was put forward at an earlier stage—or at any rate suggested in correspondence—that there should be an advisory executive committee composed solely of people with academic qualifications and experience. I think the noble Lord, in the first part of his reply, was answering that type of amendment.
That is certainly not the proposal I have made in this amendment. I am only suggesting that one of the committees should include the persons from the five or six organisations mentioned—not that they should be the whole of the committee, nor that we should set up a separate committee—and I do not know whether, in those circumstances, the noble Earl wishes to add to what he said to clarify the position, because, as I say, the first part of his speech was directed to an amendment which is not before the House.
As regards the latter part of the noble Earl's speech, however—I shall read it again in Hansard—I understood him to give a number of assurances that the scholarly interests in these matters will certainly not be overlooked. In the light of those assurances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment, though I reserve the right to raise the matter at another stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Birkmoved Amendment No. 84A:
Page 33, line 35, at end insert ("and may dissolve or reconstitute them.").
The noble Baroness said: This and the following two amendments I can deal with quickly because they really follow the line taken elsewhere in the Bill in that at different stages references have been made to various boards of the museums running their own institutions and several insertions of committees have been made in those respects. However, it seemed to us that what was good for those institutions would not be entirely appropriate for the commission. These amendments are in the nature of probing ones to discover the Government's thinking on the various points. The commission may wish to constitute committees, and we are all agreed on that. If the board of the V and A needs a power to disolve committees that are set up, will not the commission need such a power also? If it must have a particular committee, perhaps it needs a power to reconstitute that committee.
Amendment No. 84B requires that two of the members at least of each committee that is set up shall be commissioners, with more such members on larger committees. It also requires that the chairman shall be a commissioner. This, again, is taken from the boards of trustees, although I appreciate that we are speaking about something that is different; this is more a board of management. Nevertheless, it may not do any harm to inject some of the good points from other areas into the commission.
Amendment No. 84C relates to the delegation of functions and makes it clear that the commission may delegate a function in whole or in part and under whatever limitations the commission may lay down. Since large sums of money may be involved, it is
554
suggested that the Secretary of State should approve any such delegation of functions. If the Secretary of State is happy to leave it to the commission, so shall I be, but when it comes to this sort of delegation, that may not be the case. I look forward to receiving the Government's response to these probing amendments.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, while I recognise that there are well-established organisations—and, as the noble Baroness says, we are trying to establish others—which operate on the basis of delegating functions to committees, we do not believe the concept is always appropriate. We think it would be inappropriate here. There are two vital requirements for the commission, without which it will not be a success; it must have strong and sound management and it must have access to the right range of expert advice. In the Government's view, those two essential requirements are met by the Bill as it stands; strong management and access to specialist advice.
The extent of the committees' advisory role—this is the difference between the committees here and those we are setting up elsewhere in the Bill—is that the advisory committees fall short of actually delegating functions. It is entirely up to the commission, and I am sure the House will recognise that this covers a wide range of possibilities. One example worth citing is the Historic Buildings Council for England, which is itself only an advisory body. The proposal to require a minimum number of commissioners on each committee would be a very sensible precaution if the functions were to be delegated, but it is unnecessary for purely advisory committees. The difference between the museums about which we have been talking and these bodies is that their committees will have statutory roles whereas these will be advisories.
On the question of dissolving and reconstituting committees, I am advised that the provision to set up committees automatically confers such powers, and therefore that amendment is unnecessary. Perhaps the noble Baroness will interpret from what I have been saying that, as we are going along with the role of advisory committees, her amendment is not necessary. It is really, as it were, a question whether the House would wish to change the present basis and go on to a more statutory one, and that point will arise on Amendment No. 100 standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Sandford.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that explanation. As I said, it was in the nature of a probing amendment, and I will read his reply in Hansard to ensure I have fully understood it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 84B and 84C not moved.]
Lord Gladwynmoved Amendment No. 85:
Page 35, line 11, at end insert—
("( ) Each report shall include a statement of action taken by the Commission on the exercise of its functions in relation to disabled members of the public.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is another of the amendments dealing with the disabled which the Government have accepted. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 30 [The Commission's functions]:
5.10 p.m.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerranhad given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 86:
Page 17, line 10, at end insert ("and opportunities for research in relation thereto").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in referring to Amendment No. 86, I should, with the leave of your Lordships, also like briefly to mention Amendments Nos. 87, 88 and 89. The object of this group of amendments was to include in the functions of the commission, as set out in the Bill before us, a provision that there should be opportunities for research. The noble Earl, Lord Avon, will soon be moving Amendment No. 91, with the object of leaving out Clause 30 and inserting a new clause in order to set out the commission's functions more fully. The word "research" is clearly indicated in the new clause, and so I do not propose to move my present amendment.
[Amendment No. 86 not moved.]
[Amendments Nos. 87 to 89 not moved.]
Lord Montagu of Beaulieumoved Amendment No. 90:
Page 17, line 22, at end insert—
("(5A) So far as practicable the Commission shall promote—

(a) the recruitment and training of craftsmen in the use of
traditional materials for conservation purposes, and

(b) the quarrying or manufacture of such materials when in short supply to ensure their availability,

for the Commission's own purposes and for the conservation purposes of others.").
The noble Lord said: We had some debate on this subject during the Committee stage, when I believe the discussion turned more on the recruitment and training of craftsmen. It probably concentrated too much on that and on training in connection with the commission's own work. I am sure that the House would agree that the skills, as well as the materials, that are required in order to carry out conservation should also be available outside the commission. The work of conservation would suffer if such things were lacking. The noble Earl may well tell me that such activities are possible under the Bill, in which case the amendment is not needed. A statement from the Government would be helpful in terms of future guidance.
I want an assurance that, if it thinks right. the commission can become involved in the promotion of recruitment and training and in the provision of scarce conservation materials, funding such activities from grant-in-aid, if necessary. If that is possible under the Bill, I should be very happy to withdraw the amendment. But, if it is not, perhaps the Government will accept the principle of the amendment at this stage, since I believe it very important that recruitment and training and provision of scarce materials form a most important function of the commission in relation both to its own works and the works of other bodies. I beg to move.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, the amendment is designed to encourage and, so far as is practicable, ensure the recruitment and training of skilled conser-
556
vation craftsmen and the provision of traditional materials for conservation purposes. The Government agree with my noble friend that those are admirable aims. These activities will of course be a natural part of the commission's remit. It will employ a considerable number of staff, including craftsmen. It will give them such training as it thinks appropriate, and there is no reason why, within the limits of its resources, it should not train craftsmen for others, such as local authorities, who have conservation functions. Similarly, the commission will be concerned to ensure that it and others have adequate supplies of the materials that they will need for the maintenance and repair of the buildings in their care.
These activities are, and we think should be, secondary to the commission's main purpose and duty to preserve the built heritage. We have slight worries about the possibility of the commission being established to run a school, a quarry, or a manufacturing company, and we do not think that that would be quite appropriate. The commission has the powers to do the things mentioned, so far as it wishes, in the exercise of its functions, and to advise others where that would be helpful.
If I may comment more directly on my noble friend's remarks, I would say that what is proposed in paragraph (a) is covered in the Bill; I can give him that assurance. With regard to paragraph (b), when we fully apply that proposal to quarrying or manufacturing for the conservation purposes of others, we think that it might be going a little far. I hope that with the reassurance that I have given my noble friend on what can be done, he will feel content.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl, and I am now certainly much more satisfied. Having received those assurances, which will certainly make good reading in Hansard, I shall be happy to beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 91:
Leave out Clause 30, and insert the following new clause:
("The Commission's functions.
30.—(1) It shall be the duty of the Commission (so far as practicable)—

(a) to secure the preservation of ancient monuments and historic buildings situated in England, and

(b) to promote the public's enjoyment of. and advance their knowledge of, ancient monuments and historic buildings situated in England and their preservation.

in exercising the functions conferred on them by virtue of subsections (2) to (4); but in the event of a conflict between those functions and that duty those functions shall pevail.
(2) The Commission—

(a) shall (so far as practicable) provide education, instruction and information to the public in relation to ancient monuments and historic buildings, with particular reference to those in England;

(b) may give advice to any person in relation to ancient monuments and historic buildings situated in England. whether or not they have been consulted;

(c) may, for the purpose of exercising their functions, carry out, or defray or contribute towards the cost of, research in relation to ancient monuments and historic buildings situated in England.

(3) Schedule 4 shall have effect to amend the enactments there mentioned—

(a) for the purpose of conferring functions on the Commission in relation to England (including functions of making grants in relation to historic buildings and conservation areas.

557
acquiring historic buildings, acquiring or becoming guardian of ancient monuments, providing information and other services to the public in connection with affording them access to ancient monuments, and undertaking archaeological investigation and publishing the results), and

(b) for connected purposes (which include allowing the Secretary of State to approve lists of historic buildings compiled by the Commission, and imposing requirements for him to consult with the Commission before he includes a monument in the schedule of monuments or grants scheduled monument consent or designates an area of archaeological importance).

(4) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (2)(b), the Commission may advise the Secretary of State with regard to the exercise of functions exercisable by him in relation to England under the Historic Buildings and Ancient Monuments Act 1953 and the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979, whether or not they have been consulted.
(5) For the purpose of execising their functions the Commission may, subject to the provisions of this and any other Act—

(a) enter into contracts and other agreements;

(b) acquire and dispose of property other than land;

(c) with the consent of the Secretary of State, acquire land for providing the Commission with office or other accommodation and dispose of the land when no longer required for such accommodation;

(d) do such other things as the Commission think necessary or expedient.

(6) The Commission may make such charges as they may from time to time determine in respect of anything provided under subsection (2)(a) or given under subsection (2)(b) to any person other than a Minister of the Crown.
(7) With the consent of the Secretary of State, the Commission may borrow temporarily by way of overdraft such sums as they may require for meeting their obligations and discharging their functions.
(8) In subsections (1) and (2) "ancient monument" means any structure, work, site, garden or area which in the Commission's opinion is of historic, architectural or archaeological interest and "historic building" means any building which in their opinion is of historic or architectural interest.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in Committee we had a considerable amount of very good discussion about the general purposes and functions of the commission. Many speakers thought that the existing statement of the purposes of the commission as contained in Clause 30 was inadequate, and amendments to improve the wording were moved by, among others, my noble friends Lord Sandford and Lord Montagu of Beaulieu. Another amendment, from the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, sought a clear statement of the functions of the commission in a main clause in order to help in the understanding of Schedule 4. I undertook to take away all those various points and to come back with further proposals. The present amendment is the result.
As I indicated in Committee, the drafting of this provision has not been easy. It has been necessary to look carefully at the interplay between these general provisions and the other specific functions that the commission will have and which are to be found in Schedule 4. However, we think that the amendment avoids the various pitfalls, while providing the kind of provision for which your Lordships were looking.
I wish briefly to describe the new clause. Subsection (1) lays on the commission a general duty, so far as is practicable, of securing the preservation of ancient monuments and historic buildings in England, defined widely by subsection (8), and promoting the public's enjoyment of these sites. This duty accurately reflects the Government's concept of the role of the new commission. To avoid duplication of statute, it is
558
specifically laid down that in any conflict between specific functions and the general duty, the specific function shall prevail.
Subsection (2) provides for three standing functions. The first is to provide education, instruction and information. The second is to provide a generalised advisory function: that I foreshadowed in Committee. The advisory function is also contained in subsection (4), which reflects the existing advisory roles of the Ancient Monuments Board and the Historic Buildings Council. The third function is that of research, which we agreed must be provided, and to which the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, has already referred.
Subsection (3) refers to Schedule 4, but also provides a list of the most important functions contained in the schedule, which we believe helps comprehension and makes the new Clause 30 a full statement of the commission's overall role.
The remaining subsections (5) to (7), which so far I have not mentioned, are broadly as already contained in the existing Clause 30. However, there is one important new provision; namely, subsection (5)(d), which enables the commission to do such things as it thinks necessary or expedient for the purpose of exercising its functions. We see this provision as giving statutory authority for a range of matters, such as receiving voluntary contributions (which is therefore no longer specifically included), using voluntary services, managing museum displays at ancient monument sites, or training craftsmen. They are all points that were raised in Committee. I hope that the House will agree with my own view that the amendment goes a long way towards improving the Bill in the way desired by your Lordships. I beg to move.
The Deputy Speaker (The Earl of Listowel): My Lords, before I call Amendment No. 91A as an amendment to No. 91, I should point out to the House that if Amendment No. 91A is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 92 to 95A.
Baroness Birk Baroness Birk moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 91, Amendment No. 91A:
Leave out subsection (1) and insert—
("(1) It shall be the—

(a) primary duty of the Commission to secure, as far as practicable, the preservation and conservation of ancient monuments, historic buildings and archaeological and conservation areas situated in England; and

(b) secondary duty of the Commission to advance the public's understanding of such monuments, buildings and areas and to promote the public's enjoyment of them.")

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this is an amendment to the amendment just moved by the Minister. First, I should like to say that what is contained in the Minister's amendment will be a tremendous improvement to the Bill. Previously there was only a very sparse description—if one may clothe the situation in such grandoise terms—of the new commission, its duties, functions, and establishment. Everything else was in the rather despised, incomprehensible, and generally denigrated Schedule 4. Now we have a far clearer exposition of what this part of the Bill is about—and here I would repeat what I have said on other occasions: it is really a separate Bill on its own, when compared with the first part of the Bill. They are two Bills merged together.
It is now becoming clear that the commission has duties, and some hints are given as to its functions. But there are points on which there should be greater clarity, as well as a difference of emphasis, and that is what I have tried to achieve in my amendment. Subsection (4) of the Government's version of the new clause mentions only two of the Acts that include conservation legislation, and does not refer to the Town and Plan Country Planning Act, which contains all that we need to know about listed building control and so on; and there is no reference to the 1972 and 1974 Acts. Whether this is being saved for the consolidation that we have been promised, I do not know. Perhaps the Minister will let us know when he replies.
It is regrettable that there is no reference to designed landscapes but we are coming to other amendments on that later. There is basically a difference of emphasis, to which I shall come in a moment; but a final question that I want to raise on the Government's amendment—and perhaps it was an unintentional omission—is this. There was a Committee stage amendment on the commission being the Government's capital transfer tax adviser and, as I understood it, the Minister accepted this in principle. There is no amendment down on this subject and it is not included so far. I wonder whether he could comment on that when he replies or can let us know why it has been omitted, or whether there has been any change of heart.
The difference between the amendment that I am moving and the Government's amendment—and let me say right away that my amendment only applies to subsections (1)(a) and (1)(b)—is this. First of all, it makes it clear that the primary duty of the commission is preservation and conservation. The Government's amendment uses the word, "preservation" but not "conservation"; although parts of the Bill use the word "conservation". I believe the word "conservation" is still in the schedule, and now there is the word "preservation". I will not go over the various semantics which I discussed when moving the change of Title to the Bill. I would imagine that it would be generally agreed that we need both words. "preservation" and "conservation". I think this is very much welcomed by the present Ancient Monuments Board and the Historic Buildings Council.
It also stresses that this is the primary duty of the commission. In no way is this a denigration of the secondary duty,
"to advance the public's understanding of such monuments … and to promote the public's enjoyment of them".
But there is no point about in talking about exhibiting, promoting or exposing monuments and historic buildings to the public unless they are in as satisfactory a state as they can be. Therefore, it is essential that they should be both preserved and conserved, whichever term is apposite to the particular building or archaeological site; and, then, the duty is,
"to advance the public's understanding of such monuments".
I am encouraged in this by the fact in the earlier debate on the name there was general support—although your Lordships may not have liked the semantics of putting it in the name—for the stress on conservation and the necessity of bringing that primarily forward. In addition, in the amendment I am moving, the words
560
used bring in archaeological areas and conservation areas—expressions which nobody in the conservation world would be happy to find missing in this particular principal subsection.
I would stress that these, I think, are of such importance that merely relegating them to a schedule and referring to them there is insufficient. In the Government amendment there are some references to ancient monuments meaning sites rather than areas and so on. I find them a little obscure; nevertheless, they do not bring in conservation areas in subsection (8). Finally, this amendment leaves out the Government's reference to functions overriding duties where they conflict. I must confess that I am not very clear on what the Government mean by that, My own interpretation is rather that, if it means anything at all it should he the other way round; that the duties should override the functions. But perhaps that is because that is not clear.
I should have thought that this amendment is something that the Government could accept. It is clear; it reflects what are the duties of the present bodies which are being merged in this commission; it sets out quite clearly the archaeological and historic building responsibilities, and deals with the commission's purpose and work in getting the public to understand and in education. I hope that the Government will find it possible to accept the amendment, which I think adds to the clarity and adds also to the substance of the functions and duties of the commission as explained in the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down can she assist the House by saying what—
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I hesitate to cross swords with my noble friend on a point of this nature, but I think that perhaps the Question should be put before we discuss it.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I am not discussing it.
The Deputy Speaker: Amendment proposed: Leave out subsection (1) and insert the words as printed.
Lord Renton: My Lords, now I cannot put the question. If I am correctly advised which, with deep respect, I doubt, I now ask the noble Baroness before she sits down—well knowing that she has sat down—if she can explain to us the difference between "conservation" and "preservation", because I am ignorant about it.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, with the leave of the House. I may say that I wanted to avoid this. I thought I had gone into that in great detail when discussing the name. It is very difficult from the lexical point of view. There is not very much difference; but the words have altered over the centuries. The word "preserve" on the whole has come to be used for archaeological remains and to keep things as they are. It also implies, to me and to many people that I discussed this with, a sort of first-aid, immediate action to be taken; whereas "conserve" has a wider context. It involves—and this I think is important—using the same building but restoring it and using it for another purpose. I do not think that "preserve" would cover that. "Preserve"

561
would mean that you kept it the same, and if you use "preserve" in that sense I think you would be wrong because you had, it could be said, altered the nature of the thing. In order to cover it all, it did seem to me important to have both those words in.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I rise only to say that I am most grateful to the noble Baroness.
Baroness Airey of Abingdon: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, is it in order for me to ask a further question about historic buildings? Where cottages of great importance are attached to an historic building so that they form an historic whole, is that "preserving" the whole of an historic situation, an historic place? Would that be "preserving" or "conserving"?
Baroness Birk: My Lords, I speak again only with the leave of the House—and I do not know how proper all this is; I think that probably the Minister is being very good natured about this. I think we all want to try to get it as right as we can. As I understand it, historic buildings encompass the whole field, from the largest stately home down to an historic cottage. They are historic buildings. Many of them, as we know, however small or wherever they are, are listed. So it covers all. I should like to refer the noble Baroness to the Government's amendment which refers to historic buildings. The advantage—and I would have thought that she would agree—of my amendment is that it includes archaeological and conservation areas. Therefore, it takes in a wider sweep of historic buildings because of the conservation areas.
Lord Geoffrey-Lloyd: My Lords, I should like very briefly to congratulate my noble friend in introducing this new clause and to ask him one or two questions about the effect that the functions of the commission might have on the work of the commission in doing its best to help the smaller manor houses, farms and cottages of this country. In doing this I am supporting my noble friend Lady Airey. I can understand that it is difficult for the Government to make the definition of "outstanding" easier in relation to the grant-making powers of the commission.
But I should like to ask my noble friend whether there are not certain other powers in his new clause, specifically under subsection (2), in which the commission could do a good deal to help houses of this kind. I know what my actual duty is in relation to one of the great houses, Leeds Castle, as chairman of the charitable foundation which runs it. But, apart from that, my heart is for the smaller country houses in England which are sometimes much more lovely than some of the magnificent and large ones, and also some of the beautiful farm houses and unique cottages that exist. These are the homes that have played an historic part in the tradition and in the achievements of our country. These are the kind of homes in which people like Colonel H have been bred over the centuries in our country.
I should like to make a plea to the Government to encourage the commission in their work for such houses; and, in particular, I should like to ask my
562
noble friend in regard to subsection (2)(a) and (b)—that is, the provision of education, instruction and information and in regard to the giving of advice—whether these are restricted only to houses of outstanding beauty or other outstanding characteristics, or whether, as I believe from the reading of this clause, they can extend to a much wider range of important, interesting and historic buildings and areas.
I can say out of personal experience of Leeds Castle that advice is very important. If some people think that we have been successful there, I should like to say that we had constant informal advice from the director of the Directorate of Ancient Monuments in the Ministry, the superintending architect of Ancient Monuments actually furnished the route for people to go round the house which none of us had thought of, and we have had continual excellent commercial advice from the head of presentation. The ability of the people who are going to be sent to the commission is very great and it would enormously help some of the smaller houses if it were possible for this kind of help to be given by the commission. I should like to make a plea to my noble friend that I hope that this is possible. I hope that the department and the Secretary of State will in their relations with the commission make it clear that they want the commission to help not only the grand houses but also the beautiful smaller houses and cottages of our country.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, are we not wildly out of order now? The last two speeches should surely be made when we have dealt with Amendment No. 91A and get back to dealing with Amendment No. 91, which is the substantive new clause. I think that we were slightly thrown out by the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, who thought that the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, had sat down when she was deemed not to have sat down at that particular moment. Whatever the fault is, surely this business about the small houses—which I support—is something to which we must come back when we refer again to Clause 91. In the meantime, we are discussing Amendment No. 91A, on which I am in full agreement with the noble Baroness.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, I, too, should like to confine my remarks to Amendment No. 91A—that is, the amendment to the amendment. If the House continues to discuss Amendment No. 91, I shall probably be forced to say what I think about the Government's new amendment as a whole at this stage, but let us try to keep it in order if we can.
I should like to support strongly Lady Birk's Amendment No. 91A for all the reasons that she has given, and particularly because it seems to me unnecessarily vague—a little bit chicken-hearted even—to leave the two duties of conservation, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, public enjoyment, understanding and access on absolutely the same footing so that each is equal to the other. It is the duty of the House to make up its mind whether it really believes that or whether it thinks—as I do—that conservation must come first and that, whenever there is a conflict between the conservation of a certain aspect of heritage and its enjoyment by the public, the

563
conservation must come first because if there is no conservation there is no enjoyment. It seems to me that Lady Birk's formula is a perfectly good one for doing this, and I join her in hoping that the Government may agree to accept it at this stage. It may be that the formula itself could be refined at a later stage. Let us establish the principle that the commission has two duties, the first of which—in the case of conflict—must take precedence over the second. They are not equal duties.
The Earl of Perth: My Lords, I am afraid that I do not go along with the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, or the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, about having primary duties and secondary duties. I think that the commission must have a duty as is put down in the original text. On the other hand, I support the amendment when they put in the word "conservation" and, more important, the words "and archaeological and conservation areas. Also in subsection (1)(b) the words "and areas are used". To put those in the Bill would be a great improvement. I am in a sense a mixture: I like and support very much part of the amendment of the noble Baroness. Lady Birk, and the noble Lord, Lord Strathcona, but not the other part. Perhaps at the conclusion we shall all agree that the final decision on exactly what words to use can come at Third Reading.
5.38 p.m.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, perhaps this will be an opportunity for me to respond to Amendment No. 91A. This amendment, as the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, put it, raises a point about the purpose of a commission. By formally giving a primary role to the commission's duty to secure preservation and conservation—and perhaps I can come back to the words later—the amendment runs the risk of relegating to secondary importance the promotion of the public's understanding and enjoyment of this part of the heritage. As the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, said, this is a matter of judgment.
The Government have always made it clear that the commission's first priority is to preserve and protect ancient monuments and historic buildings for future generations. There is no argument about that. Many of the specific functions in present legislation are clearly aimed at preservation. The Government also believe that there is the important role in interpretation, education and promotion of knowledge of ancient monuments and historic buildings, and they believe that the importance underlying the concept of the commission is its ability to look at both aspects in a particular case and decide how the balance of importance can best be struck.
The Government do not believe there is any risk of the commission's deciding to do things that are deleterious to preservation. The duty to preserve has deliberatly been put first in the Government's new clause 30, which also makes quite clear in subsection (1)(b) that the promotion of public enjoyment and knowledge is in part to help understanding of preservation. We believe it is much better to leave the provision in the form put forward, which, together with the clear statements being made of our policy, gives the commission a clear steer as to how it should interpret
564
its duty while allowing it flexibility to make its own judgment within the constraints of its specific functions.
I hear what the noble Earl, Lord Perth. has been saying and obviously we are considering some changes: for instance, there is a separate amendment put down about the inclusion of archaeological and conservation areas. Archaeological areas are already covered by definition in the new clause but we are looking again—this is one of the noble Baroness's points—at a possibility of a change to cover conservation areas.
The amendment put down also omits any mention of the possibility of conflict between the general duty and specific functions. Noble Lords will appreciate that in drafting a general purpose clause of this kind, which must exist together with specific functions, it is necessary to make legally clear which one prevails in a specific case. The normal legal convention is that in such a case specific functions prevail and it is important for the avoidance of ambiguity for this provision to continue to be included.
The noble Baroness, Lady Birk, asked specifically what had happened to capital transfer tax. I believe that subsection (4) dealing with advisory functions is intended to reflect the present advisory functions as regards the Historic Buildings Council and the Ancient Monuments Board. Advice on other legislation will be covered by the general power in subsection (2)(b). Capital transfer tax advice will be covered by this general power.
When we come on to conservation and preservation, this is a more difficult subject: they are, of course, virtually synonymous. For instance, I believe that both mean "to keep from decay". We can argue this point endlessly. I should like to take back what the noble Baroness has said about having them both, and seeing whether we cannot clarify to some extent the use of "conservation" and "preservation" throughout the Bill, and otherwise come back and probably agree with her. But, for fundamental reasons, we do not wish to put these duties as specifically as she wishes to do and we feel it is essential to have in that legal clause at the end. For those two reasons, I hope that the noble Baroness will not press her amendment.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu: My Lords, I have to disappoint the noble Baroness when I say that I really do support the Government's view on this amendment. Those of us who have been concerned with the conservation of the heritage for many years know that it is perfectly possible to have good conservation and public enjoyment running hand in hand. Indeed, in the private sector it is the public enjoyment which usually produces all the funds, the initiative and the incentive to carry out good conservation.
What I fear in the future is that if the commission is given a primary and a secondary duty and a priority for one, they can always make an excuse to deny public enjoyment. That they will do, and there is no doubt that they would, because that is how they have always behaved in the past; so for that reason I hope the Government will resist this amendment. I think it is so important that they should be equally dealt with by the commission.
Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal: My Lords, I put my name to this amendment, but I confess that I found the Minister's reply was compelling. I think it gives us most of what we are seeking, as I understand it. He resorted to giving us an exposition of the legal position and one must assume that he has had first-class legal advice in advising us in this way. I am perfectly clear that it would be unwise for us to put the commission in a position where they would find themselves in conflict with themselves. Some attempt should be made so far as possible to give them a sense of priority. I believe the noble Lord said that was implicit in the wording of his amendment. If that is true, then presumably we are getting what we want.
We know that the National Trust has said many times that opening buildings to the public has, in some cases, done more damage than the neglect of hundreds of years. Buildings were not designed to have sunlight streaming in on furniture month after month, which unfortunately is necessary if you are going to show them to the public. The public do not want to go round a huge house with all the windows shut up. That is the kind of conflict that can happen, and we have heard of the damage that has been done at places like Stonehenge. We cannot pretend that these conflicts will not arise. If the Minister is totally satisfied that his amendment gives the commission a clear guide on this, then I daresay we should accept it.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, this is very difficult. The noble Earl, Lord Perth, said that he agreed with part of my amendment but not with the other part. The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, is clearly much in favour and so is the noble Lord, Lord Kennet. I will take it that the Minister is certainly going to look seriously at the question of preservation and conservation. If, at the end of the day, it is felt that they are almost interchangeable, then there is no harm and a great deal of good to be done by putting in both words.
Over the question of the functions conferred by virtue of certain subsections, and so on—I understand this is something that has been lifted out of other legislation and put in here—I am still not absolutely clear that it is necessary. Also, I am not entirely happy that the function should supersede the duty. On that, perhaps the Minister would be kind enough to write to me, because I am not really quite clear about it.
I do not know that I am altogether happy—nor do I think the noble Lord, Lord Strathcona, will be altogether happy, in view of the line he has been taking over the financial aspects of this—that in fact the financial advice on CTT is really adequately covered in paragraph (4). I thought the Minister himself sounded a little surprised when uttering those words and I did not think that he sounded terribly committed about that. The exercise of functions exercisable by him in relation to England under the historical and ancient monument Acts and so on, quite frankly, does not give a clue that this also includes the financial aspects of CTT. I think that would have to be looked at. Anything that makes it clearer for people to understand this Bill is of essential importance.
The main point of intention which has not been resolved in this question of primary and secondary duty. I am sorry to be in slight disagreement with the
566
noble Lord, Lord Montagu, when we have worked in tandem so well throughout consideration of most of the Bill, having had the same approach to most of it. I still believe that it is the primary function of a commission of this sort to conserve and preserve the heritage—or whatever other phrase one wants to use—in the first instance. Also, it is no good over-exposing, as has been pointed out, ancient monuments and buildings and wearing them away, no matter how important and desirable the advancement of the public knowledge is. The noble Lord, Lord Strathcona, is absolutely right when he says that there is often conflict. We found it in the department as well, and when I was a Minister there I was extremely anxious that we should show exhibits and promote our monuments very much better than we had done in the past. I agree there was tremendous room for improvement; but very often one was brought up against the problem of getting the right balance between the actual destruction and the wearing away of some of the most popular of the monuments, buildings or archaeological finds and conserving them, and also at the same time getting in as good receipts as possible for them and using entrepreneurial skills, as has been put forward so well by the noble Lord, Lord Geoffrey-Lloyd.
I do not believe that it is downgrading the question of promotion, enjoyment and education, if one says what should be accepted as primary. I am inclined to think that it is probably even more important, once one is making this into a quango and cutting it off from the department to the greatest extent, that this should be quite clearly shown. I would have thought that the Government would have felt that.
I am concerned, though not many people have spoken to the amendment, and I am very tempted to press it to a Division because it seems to me to be one of the basic problems we have to face up to. If we are looking to the future and to what the commission's duties and functions are and considering the future changes in circumstances, changes in technology or even in ownership of houses and buildings and the way they are run, I feel we ought to have a safety net here. I think that is of the utmost importance. Although the last thing I want to do is to call any unnecessary Division, I feel this is a fundamental point and therefore I must ask to test the feeling of the House.
On Question, amendment to the amendment negatived.
5.52 p.m.
Lord Sandfordmoved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 91, Amendment No. 92:
Line 2, at end insert ("acting, if necessary after consultation with and in co-operation with any other body").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 92 is one of eight amendments in the name of myself and my noble friend Lord Ridley, all of which seek to amend Amendment No. 91. Before speaking directly to Amendment No. 92, perhaps it would be helpful and would speed up proceedings if I made a few remarks which pertain to all of them. First of all, I should like to add my compliments to my noble friend for what he has done since we were discussing the clause at the Committee stage. The department in which he has lately been serving is one of the best in Whitehall, if not

567
the best, for the care and consideration it shows Members of Parliament in informing them about what it seeks to do in pending legislation.
Here we have a two-stage consultation process in which the Secretary of State set out very clearly what he was seeking to achieve. Therefore, it is all the more sad that, when the Bill came before us, it failed so signally to match the criteria for determining the qualities and characteristics which one looks for in good legislation which we had been discussing only the previous week. This was a bad lapse which the Secretary of State was glad enough to acknowledge in a meeting of Back-Benchers last week when he admitted that it was not one of the Government's best Bills. One could hardly expect him to say that it was certainly one of their worst, in terms of drafting. But I think strenuous efforts are now being made to make amends, and that is greatly to be welcomed.
I should very much have liked to accept Amendment No. 91 as it stood, even though I was arguing at the Committee stage—I thought my noble friend agreed with this, and a substantial number of members of the Committee agreed—that it would have been better to set out in Clause 29 the broad aims and purposes of the commission and to confine Clause 30 to describing its functions and how it was to exercise them. Now that we have so much that is good in new Clause 30, I have decided to make my amendments in relation to that and not to attempt an entirely new structure with two clauses for those purposes.
I turn to the first of these eight amendments. The first three all deal with aims and purposes. I should have thought that it was abundantly clear from the consultation papers that we had during the summer that what the Secretary of State wanted to do was, to use his own phrases, to get a commission which could adopt a more integrated approach to the care of the heritage and could seek to obtain, in every case—whether one is talking about ancient monuments or historic buildings in private hands—a more effective overall management, to get away from the specific functions which are characterised, on the one hand, by the work of the Historic Buildings Council and, on the other hand, by the work of the Ancient Monuments Board. In my original amendment to Clause 29, I thought it sensible to adopt phrases which the Secretary of State himself used. I do not think my noble friend objected to that at the time, but my noble friend Lord Renton, who is more expert than most of us—if not all of us—when it comes to drafting legislation. has put it to me that that is perhaps not the best way of expressing in legislative form what the Secretary of State and all of us are seeking to achieve about the way in which the new commission should set about its work, and has suggested the terms which I have now incorporated into my Amendment No. 92.
We want a body which consults widely with all those other bodies concerned with the care, promotion and presentation of the heritage. We want a commission which co-operates extensively with other bodies, and not a commission which amalgamates the Ancient Monuments Board and the Historic Buildings Council and then carries on before. For those reasons, I
568
commend Amendment No. 92 to the House. I hope that it commends itself to the Government and I look forward to hearing what your Lordships have to say about it. I beg to move.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I hope I may say without presumption that I fully share your Lordships' admiration for the contributions that the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, has made to your Lordships' deliberations on this Bill. Nevertheless, I have shared fully, if I may say so, the unease that has been repeatedly voiced by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, about the unnecessary verbiage that has crept into the Bill. That particularly applies to the schedules, but here we are concerned with one of the main enacting provisions of the Bill, laying down the functions of the commission.
I submit to your Lordships that we really ought not to put in words unless they are necessary. These words,
"acting, if necessary after consultation with and in co-operation",
are only necessary if there is an implication in the main provisions of the clause that would preclude that. On the contrary, as I read the clause, if any implication is to be drawn, it is that co-operation and consultation are entirely open. The noble Earl will, no doubt, advise your Lordships on that, but unless the words are necessary I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, will not press this amendment.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, the amendment seeks to underline the need for the commission to build up good relations with other bodies which have interests in their field of responsibility. The commission will not be able to carry out their duty of preservation without consulting and co-operating with others, and the power to enter into agreements is much better left in the unfettered form shown in the Government's own amendment. My noble friend Lord Sandford wishes to put this, as it were, in the functions—that is, subsection (1)(a) and (b)—and not in the duties. At the moment, it is under the duties in subsection (5)(a)that they can enter into contracts and agreements and, generally, discuss with any other bodies.
There is a tiny technical point in my noble friend's amendment which it is hardly worth raising, but, if the word "body" were put in, it could, for instance, prevent agreement with a person. I think that I heard a general murmur of assent when the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, spoke a few minutes ago, and I hope that, with the assurance to the House that this point is well covered under the duties, my noble friend will agree to leave it there.
Lord Renton: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Sandford was kind enough to mention that he had asked me about the drafting of this amendment, so that he could put before your Lordships the views which my noble friend Lord Avon had expressed at the Committee stage about—I hesitate to use the word, and I persuaded my noble friend that it should not go into his amendment—integrating the efforts of the commission with those of other bodies. But I must confess that I take the point which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, has made, that we should not use words of exhortation—because that is what these words are—and now that we have had the

569
explanation from my noble friend Lord Avon, and now that he has drawn attention to subsection (5) of the new clause which we are considering, and which overlaps to some extent the amendment of my noble friend Lord Sandford, I hope that my noble friend will feel, after this discussion—which, after all, is on the record and can always be borne in mind—that it will not be necessary for him to press his amendment.
Lord Beswick: My Lords, may I say how much I agree with what was said by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, about putting unnecessary words into this Bill? I should have thought that, if anyone wanted to give someone any authority, short of putting in duties such as become an officer and a gentleman, he would go to subsection (5)(d), which reads:
"do such other things as the Commission think necessary or expedient.".
That would catch everything.
But I rise particularly because I so much agree, too, with something which the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, said—and I hope that I understood him aright—which was that we do not want a commission which just amalgamates other things. If that is so, I hope that that is an undertaking that he will be withdrawing his own clause relating to the Royal Commission on Historical Monuments, because I think that we are tending here to put in too many words spelling out in detail what the Royal Commission should do, and are also tending to ladle on to this new commission pretty well everything that anyone can think of.
Lord Sandford: My Lords, I am most grateful to noble Lords. The difficulty we are in is that, on the one hand, we must obviously avoid putting into legislation words that are not necessary, and I would not want for a moment to disagree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, about that. On the other hand, the Secretary of State, in proposing this Bill at all, is seeking to improve on the existing state of affairs, which means pointing up here and there in the Bill, and specifically mentioning, those items which have been neglected, overlooked or not effectively discharged in the past. It was in seeking to do this that I tabled this amendment. But, in the light of this discussion, and particularly of the assurances from my noble friend, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.5 p.m.
Lord Sandfordmoved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 91, Amendment No. 93:
Line 3, after ("the") insert ("recording and").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Ridley and myself, I beg to move Amendment No. 93, particularly having in mind the opinions and views of the county councils. When I included in my amendment in Committee this aim of recording among the broad purposes which we wanted to see the new commission carrying out, my noble friend had nothing to say against it, except that he thought it ought to go in a different place in relation to conservation. Although I thought logic dictated its coming first, I would not have argued with him about
570
that. So it seemed to me that we were agreed that it should certainly feature. But now it seems to have disappeared and this amendment is to probe and to inquire why that should be so.
I do not believe for a moment that my noble friend will say that it is because it is not important, since the recording of the heritage is the first thing that has to be done before one can decide whether something is worth conserving and how important it is in relation to other things. It is not because others have the responsibility of recording; for example, the Royal Commission, to which the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, has just alluded, have important responsibilities in this field. But there are different sorts of recording. Some are appropriate to the Royal Commission and others are appropriate to this new commission, and I submit that this commission needs to have it numbered among its functions.
Perhaps I may give three examples to make clear to your Lordships why I believe this is so. The Royal Commission have a duty of undertaking a systematic, scholarly, academic survey of the whole of the heritage that we are talking about, in order to acquire knowledge for its own sake. They must not move on to study the historic buildings of Wiltshire until they have done a thorough job on the historic buildings of Dorset. They must also speed up the study of the historic buildings of Manchester before they move on to those of Sheffield et cetera. There is that kind of priority, in order that those who need knowledge of these things for their scholarly and academic work can refer to a systematic corpus of knowledge.
Then there are the very different—and, I submit, quite distinct—practical needs of those who have to decide matters of state and policy. If somebody wants to put a by-pass around, for example, Newark and finds, or knows, that there are some archaeological remains in the way, someone has to have access to a proper record in order to determine how important they are, what they consist of, which period they belong to, whether the fact that we have others like them means that these particular ones can be disregarded, or whether they are so important that the road has to take a different course. This Heritage Commission will give advice on those matters to the Secretary of State, and you cannot have the systematic, scholarly recording of our heritage being constantly interrupted for that kind of thing to be done.
Thirdly, there are the needs of those on this commission, and collaborating with this commission, whose job it will be to promote the enjoyment of the heritage for the education and enlightenment of our children and the family visitors. They, too, must be advised in broad terms of the historical detail in which the importance of a particular monument resides, and I think your Lordships will see that that purpose is different from the other two. Because of this range—and I have mentioned only three examples—of the need for this commission to engage in recording, I think that the function needs to be spelled out. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I should like to support my noble friend Lord Sandford. This is much more a point of substance than of drafting. Just in case my

571
noble friend Lord Avon says that a great deal of knowledge and information is already available and recorded about our historic monuments, may I remind him that with modern methods of discovery, including all the electrical instruments which people use to probe the ground, ancient monuments—or signs of them—are being discovered every year. It is important, therefore, that even if recording is taking place. we should make absolutely sure that one of the important functions of the commission is to keep records up to date and to enter everything new which comes along. There will no doubt be occasions when the commission will simply not have the funds to do all the excavation, conservation and then preservation which they would like to do. Meanwhile, it will at least be important that things have been recorded. I hope that my noble friend's amendment will receive a sympathetic reception from your Lordships.
Lord Adeane: My Lords, with every respect to the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, who has contributed so much to this debate and subject, I am bound to remind noble Lords that the recording of ancient monuments and historic buildings has for a very long time been the responsibility of the Royal Commission on Historic Monuments. In fact, this autumn it will have been so for 75 years. It still is their responsibility, as set out in their Royal Warrant. This responsibility is being increased at the moment by the addition of the bits of archaeological work which were formerly carried out by the Ordnance Survey. These are now going to be carried out by the Royal Commission.
As I understand it, one of the main and one of the most praiseworthy objects of the Bill is to simplify the methods by which the more solid remains of our heritage throughout England are dealt with. The proposal contained in the noble Lord's amendment would seem to me to have the opposite effect. Adding recording to the duties of the new commission, which will have quite enough to do, anyway, will lead to overlapping. "A" will be doing what "B" is going to do next week—or vice versa. I take the three points which the noble Lord made about the necessity for recording by the new commission, but it seems to me that the points he makes are ones which relate to the use of records rather than to the making of records. If the commission is to get itself involved in the making of records, I believe that it will have to become a very different body from the one that is in position at the moment. Therefore I hope that this amendment will not be supported by the House.
Lord Beswick: My Lords, may I briefly support what has just been said. I listened with great interest to what the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, said and I could see that in his mind he draws a distinction between one form of recording, or one occasion of recording, and another. But with due respect to the noble Lord, when it comes to the recording of the work which has been created by the by-pass round Newark, I think that it should be done in a scholarly way. The personnel whom we have already in the Royal Commission are quite capable of performing that particular operation which has been created by the by-pass round Newark. I can see that there may well be some occasion when
572
it is necessary for the two bodies, the Royal Commission and this new commission, to consult as to who should do a particular piece of work—possibly some utilitarian recording. But that should be a matter of consultation: the sort of consultation for which the noble Lord was asking earlier. No matter how persuasive the noble Lord may be in saying that there is a distinction between one piece of work and another, if these two words go into the Bill they will all be treated the same. They will all come under the operation "recording". I should have thought that this would lead to confusion.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, having heard both sides of the argument, I am left a little in the dark. I am wondering how comprehensive are the records now kept by the Royal Commission. If we want to build a motorway, can those records be referred to immediately? If so, I should have thought that the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Sandford is not so necessary. If, on the other hand, in 75 years they have not got anywhere near to creating that kind of record. perhaps somebody else should make a start upon it now. I shall be most interested to hear what my noble friend on the Front Bench has to say.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I do not think it is the Government's view that it would be right to make the recording function one of the main duties. Paragraph (a) of clause 30(1) reads at the moment:
"to secure the preservation of ancient monuments and historic buildings situated in England".
I do not think that it would be correct to include "recording" in paragraph (a).
I have listened to the debate and have taken on board quite a number of the points which have been made. I would suggest, rather in the way that the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, has indicated, that instead of inserting the word "recording" here we should think about inserting the word "record"—though not, perhaps, "recording"—somewhere else among the duties. Perhaps we could examine whether it is possible to work in something of that nature. I fully take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Adeane: that the recording functions are a major part of the work of the Royal Commission on Historical Monuments. It is obviously one of their primary duties.
I do not know whether the noble Lord. Lord Adeane, would care to answer my noble friend Lord Mottistone, who asked about the availability of records, since I do not have that answer at my fingertips.
Lord Adeane: My Lords, the answer is that there is a different speed for the publication and for the accumulation of records. The speed of both is controlled by the amount of money which Her Majesty's Treasury are prepared to allot. This governs the number of people who can be employed. Having said that, I can assure the noble Lord that a great deal of information about all parts of England has been accumulated in the records of the Royal Commission—in the national monuments record, in fact—but has not been published and cannot for the moment be published, simply for this reason of facilities. The information is there if it is required, and it is

573
accessible. But it is not, unfortunately, possible to publish it as rapidly as any of us would like.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu: My Lords, I am sure that what the noble Lord, Lord Adeane, has said will be of great interest to the many people concerned. They are worried that unless the information is available, and reasonably quickly available, the commission will he forced, out of necessity, to set up its own records. That would be a terrible duplication which should certainly be avoided. It is the availability of the record which is most important to the commission rather than the actual recording of it themselves.
Lord Sandford: My Lords, I am grateful for that brief debate and I how to nobody in my admiration of the Royal Commission for the work they do and continue to do. But as the noble Lord, Lord Adeane, said in reply to my noble friend Lord Mottistone, the extent of those records often proves to be insufficient for the kind of purposes which I illustrated in my reference to an imaginary by-pass around Newark: I could have used it in respect of a whole lot of matters. such as central area development and so on, and so forth.
I take very much to heart the distinction which the noble Lord, Lord Adeane, made between the function of recording, which is supremely a matter for the Royal Commission, and the access to and use of records, which is what the commission will more often than not be asked to perform. If we leave matters as they are, there is no doubt that a more active heritage commission needing to have access to and the use of records for a whole range of practical matters which will crop up from time to time, with a fair degree of urgency in many cases, will involve the Royal Commission in diverting attention from the scholarly work which they set out to do and oblige them to become involved in urgent pieces of casework, which I know they greatly dislike. This, as all noble Lords accept, is a matter of getting right the relationship and the collaboration and co-operation between the Royal Commission on the one hand and the heritage commission on the other. That is a matter to which we shall return at the end of the Bill, in three amendments; two of them in my name and one in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Birk.
I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Avon for the assurances he has given about this matter being looked at again. If the word "recording" is not thought to be fitting in the place where my amendment would have it, I hope that some other term can be inserted at another place in the Bill, to overcome to some extent the difficulties and irritations which I foresee at present. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment to the amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.22 p.m.
Baroness Birkmoved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 91, Amendment No. 94:
Line 3, after ("preservation") insert ("and conservation").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment when moving Amendment No. 91A. As
574
I understood it, the noble Earl the Minister said that he would take this matter back and consider it. If he can just confirm that, I will withdraw my amendment.
The Earl of Avon: Yes, my Lords. I believe the House will agree that the two words are synonymous and that obviously we should stick to one throughout the Bill. We will look at the matter and come back to it again.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, I did not gain the impression that the House did feel that. There was quite a body of opinion which accepted that there was a difference between these two words. My own understanding was that the noble Earl stated in his reply to Amendment No. 91A that this matter was something the Government would look at, including the words "preservation" and "conservation", because there was a difference between them. That has not been completely denied.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, the point is that in her earlier remarks the noble Baroness said that the word "preservation" was used in some parts of the Bill and the word "conservation" in others. This had me slightly surprised, and my answer is that they are synonymous and that therefore it is unnecessary to use both terms throughout the Bill; one should be there but not both.
Baroness Birk: I did not say that, my Lords. I was only using those words to illustrate that there was some inconsistency in the Bill. That did not alter my major argument, that I considered that the words each had a particular place in the language of the two bodies concerned and that there were different nuances attached to the words. If the noble Earl the Minister will say that he will look at this matter again, not with a view at the present moment of cutting out one word, then we can get on.
Baroness White: My Lords, does the noble Earl not agree that if one has a ruined tower covered with ivy which is doing considerable damage, one can "preserve" the tower in that state, but one would not be "conserving" the tower because it will still gradually crumble? There is a slight difference between the two words.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, if your Lordships will allow me to say so, we appear to be getting into the most terrible procedural muddle. I am not sure whether in fact the noble Baroness is moving her amendment or not, but since we are now discussing matters on the basis that the amendment has been moved, perhaps she should do so.
Baroness Birk: I have moved the amendment, my Lords.
Lord Skelmersdale: But the Question has not been put, my Lords—that is my point.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Nugent of Guildford): The Question is, That Amendment No. 94 be agreed to.
Baroness Birk: I am sorry, my Lords, I do not know quite what is happening. All I am asking is that the noble Earl the Minister will look at the matter and at the inclusion of both words in the Bill. My noble friend Lady White has pointed out, as I did during the rather long debate we had on the title for the commission, that there are two different meanings and the words are very often used in a different way. Archaeologists more often use the word "preserve", whereas conservationists and the historic buildings people tend to use "conserve", and so I cannot see anything wrong about having both words in the Bill to cover every eventuality. I was moving my amendment but was trying to avoid all this, and I only wanted the acknowledgement of the noble Earl the Minister that I was right in my understanding that he was looking into this matter and was considering it, at the moment certainly, very favourably.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I was looking around the House to sense what your Lordships actually felt about this matter because I am very open-minded. I will say to the noble Baroness, Lady White, that I looked up these words in the dictionary, and she will be delighted to hear that for the word "conservation" the dictionary said that it meant to keep from decay. That is the sort of trouble we are in. I will indeed look at it again.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu: My Lords, perhaps I can help my noble friend, having been associated with both conservation and preservation for many years. I believe that in amenity circles. "conservation" entails a great deal more constructive attitude than "preservation"; "conservation" can be on-going and can entail all sorts of matters which "preservation" does not. This may be nitpicking but that is how these words are beginning to change in their meaning in the English language. We all much more prefer "conservation" to "preservation", which can have a rather static and dead feeling to it.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, perhaps it will assist the noble Earl to realise that he is a member of the Conservative Party and not of the Preservative Party.
The Deputy Speaker: The Question is, That this amendment shall be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion will say "Content"; to the contrary, "Not-Content".
Baroness Birk: But, my Lords—
The Deputy Speaker: Does the noble Baroness wish to withdraw her amendment?
Baroness Birk: Yes, my Lords.
Amendment to the amendment. by leave, withdrawn.
6.28 p.m.
Lord Sandfordmoved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 91, Amendment No. 95:
Line after ("preservation") insert ("and management").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 95, in order to secure another brief
576
debate on the possibility of adding to the duties of the commission, as well as the preservation of ancient monuments, that of securing their management. I do this because the approach adopted over many years by the Historic Buildings Council in respect of historic buildings is not at present the best device to give all the help that is needed by the owners of smaller houses, to which my noble friend Lord Geoffrey-Lloyd referred a moment ago. Their activities to date consist of approving for grant a schedule of repairs, deciding whether the repairs are appropriate and that the building is eligible—sufficiently important in heritage terms—and making their grant conditional on a certain degree of general public access. That is not the best that a commission of this kind can do in respect of the smaller houses.
There are hundreds and hundreds of real gems for which the opening of the house to general public access would he quite an impossible burden on the family. There are some in admirable condition, not requiring any repairs, but which could be greatly assisted if the giving of grant was associated with some general management plan. The best analogy I can offer to your Lordships by way of a general management plan is the kind of plan which a farmer or a landowner puts forward to the Minister of Agriculture when he wishes to attract a grant under the agricultural and horticultural farm development schemes. That covers a wide range of activities concerning the way in which his farm should be managed and developed, and for which, if those proposals qualify him, the farmer can then receive grant. That is much wider and more comprehensive in its scope than the kind of things for which the Historic Buildings Council can give grant at the moment.
I would like to feel that this new commission is able to develop a far wider range of grants for a much wider range of management plans appropriate to the needs of the smaller buildings, making grants available to them for purposes other than repairs and subject to conditions other than general public access. This is the shortest way which I can see for securing that change in the style of the new commission. I beg to move.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, as far as my noble friend is concerned, I have, of course, the same proviso about this amendment as I mentioned before, that I would not wish nor would the Government wish to see it in Clause 30(1)(a) and (b). I take his point about management. He said a number of things and I would like to look at them in detail, to see that every one of them is covered by the duties in subsections (2) to (8). Most of the duties which I took down as he was speaking would come under subsection (5). As the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, pointed out earlier, subsection (5)(d) says:
"do such other things as the Commission think necessary or expedient".
There is also mentioned, "enter into contracts and other agreements". I believe that is where the management function should be, but I will look at the list my noble friend quoted and make sure that all those things can be covered under this new clause.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu: My Lords, there is no doubt that the plight of the smaller houses is

577
important, but, as I read the Bill, I must confess they are adequately covered at the moment; they are obviously historic buildings. I cannot entirely agree with my noble friend Lord Sandford when he talks about management. What sort of management does the noble Lord think the owner of a small house is going to be willing to take? If the house is not open to the public, is he going to be told which rooms to live in, what to spend his money on, in living in this house? I think there would be extreme resistance from the small house owner if management is put in to that sort of situation. In the past grants have always been tied to public access, and in that case management obviously does play a part. But for owners of small private houses to have to accept management agreements, as they do with their forestry or farms, would, I think, be very unpopular.
Lord Geoffrey-Lloyd: My Lords, if I am not out of order in intervening briefly, I think it is an interesting point that has been made. We realise that the Government cannot go too far in departing from the general formula of outstanding natural beauty or historic or architectural qualities. With regard to other methods that are open for them to assist in the survival of the smaller house, I do not like disagreeing with my noble friend who has just spoken, but although these arrangements generally might be unpopular, is that any reason why they should not be available in case in certain circumstances? There are an infinite variety of possible circumstances. They might prove attractive. I think the parallel with the agricultural arrangements which have been worked out successfully over the years is an interesting point.
Lord Sandford: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Geoffrey-Lloyd. I am grateful, too, to my noble friend Lord Montagu for enabling me to make clear, as I should have done in the first instance, the kind of thing I had in mind. It would depend entirely on the initiative of the owner, as indeed does the application for grant under the Agricultural Development Scheme. I do not think there would be any difficulty in developing administrative arrangements which would entirely preclude the commission from intruding on anybody's private property and beginning to tell them how they should manage it, what they should do with the contents, who they should cater for, how it should be insured and so on. Of course it is a matter for the private owner to take the initiative.
What I am suggesting is that we need some method in this Bill—this may not be the most appropriate way—of making it possible for the owners of the kind of houses Lord Geoffrey-Lloyd was mentioning to receive a grant. The smaller country houses I suppose together make up the real jewels of our national heritage. If they take the view that they want to share the enjoyment of their possessions with a wider circle of people, recognising that they cannot do that by inviting the public to come and visit them in large numbers, even if only once a week, but perceiving that there might be other things that they could do—for instance, from time to time lending pictures or some of their furniture to a museum or gallery, adopting more stringent methods of regular inspection than would be necessary if this was not part of the national heritage,
578
a whole variety of things which would make it possible for more people to enjoy what they themselves are enjoying—and being able to formulate a plan for that purpose, it should be possible for them to attract not only the advice of the heritage commission, for which provision is made, but also a grant from the commission.
I am grateful to my noble friend for indicating that he will have a look at this. I hope very much that before the Bill leaves us we shall have some indication of how he proposes to take these points on board. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment to the amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Birkmoved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 91, Amendment No. 95A:
Line 4, after ("buildings") insert ("and archaeological and conservation areas")
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, there is no reference as the clause stands now to conservation areas. The only reference to archaeological areas is rather obscure and knotted up in subsection (8). It seems wrong, after so many years of living with conservation areas and the important part they play in conservation in this country, and also archaeological areas, that they should not be boldly and clearly mentioned in the early part of Clause 30. I think I got some support on this point when I was speaking on an earlier amendment. I hope the Minister will look at this in conjunction with the other points that he is taking back.
"Archaeological areas" and "conservation areas" really are terms of art now and should be included in the early part of this clause. If to do so means some rearrangement, or taking out some parts of subsection (8), it would seem to me to be a very much clearer and better way of proceeding. We do not want too much repetition, especially in view of what the noble Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, said; but it would be much clearer if we had the conservation areas and the archaeological areas mentioned early on. All I am asking is that the Minister should take this back and look at it with the other points he is taking back.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, perhaps I can explain the Government's thinking here. As far as the archaeological areas are concerned, the noble Baroness has drawn the attention of the House to subsection (8) which contains a definition of an ancient monument which covers, as the House will see, a vast number of things, including an archaeological area. Obviously we would prefer to leave it where it is, so that when one reads Clause 30(1)(a) and the words "ancient monuments", that covers everything listed in subsection (8). As far as a conservation area is concerned, the noble Baroness is quite correct. As I said earlier, we are looking at ways of meeting this point by redrafting and will bring back an amendment later.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment to the amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.41 p.m.
Lord Sandfordmoved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 91, Amendment No. 96:
In subsection (2), leave out paragraph (a) and insert—
("(a) shall (so far as practicable) provide for the presentation of such monuments, listed in Clause 30(1)(a) above (and in particular by way of interpretative facilities for the public and educational facilities and services for the use of students and pupils;)")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I welcome the fact that this topic already features in the Government's new clause at subsection 2(a). My amendment is merely suggesting that the wording or formulation which the Government have adopted is not perhaps the best that can be devised. I say that for this reason. I think the word "presentation", which is one used in the consultation documents, is clear and useful because it embraces the two distinct arts by which the promotion of the enjoyment of the heritage can be undertaken by the commission. My amendment seeks to indicate a little more precisely what those two are.
One is interpretation, which is a term widely used, and it is the art of presenting a property imaginatively and skilfully using the visual arts, sound effects, the written word, and even drama and music as in "Son et Lumiere", in appropriate styles to kindle the interest and the appreciation of the casual visitor, whatever age and background: that is to say, to deal with the tremendous variety and range of people that one sees, for instance, pouring into the Tower of London. It has to cater for all ages and tastes and a wide range of educational backgrounds and, in cases such as the Tower of London, visitors who speak a foreign language and belong to alien cultures. That art, like the other art to which I shall shortly be referring, has to be adapted for each particular building and should not be provided in a stereotyped form, which it so often is at some of our ancient monuments today.
In contradistinction to that, but still forming part of presentation, there is the use of a particular aspect of a heritage property to illuminate and to bring to life the teaching of a particular classroom topic to a particular category or age group of children. For example, the noble Duke, the Duke of Marlborough, at Blenheim House, uses his family portraits to illustrate various periods of the 18th century to history classes of children, who dress up in the costumes portrayed in the portraits. The same technique could be the use of the fittings or furniture in a Victorian kitchen at Cotehele, one of the National Trust properties, which are, in fact, so used for classes of visiting primary school children. So there are two quite distinctive activities which need spelling out in those terms.
The other point which I make in my amendment is that this par excellence is not a function which the new commission must seek to carry out in its own right. It is a supreme example of a function which must be discharged in collaboration with other bodies. The provision of education—to use the form of words employed by the Government in Amendment No. 91—is, I submit, a function of the local education authorities, and the schools, colleges and universities. They provide education. What the commission must do is provide the facilities and the services which make that possible. The whole business is the art of
580
combining the functions of the education authorities—the schools, headmasters, teachers, and so on—with those of the guide and the guide books which are used to present the properties.
The Heritage Commission and the management of these properties cannot, and ought not to try to, take the whole function on themselves, and where this is done successfully they never do. But the terms of the Government's amendment do not make that clear and, in fact, they lay upon the commission functions that are wider and more extensive than, in my submission, they should have. I very much look forward to listening to your Lordships' comments and to my noble friend's reply. I beg to move.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, this amendment brings forward a concept which we aired in Committee, that the commission should be more widely concerned in providing for the presentation of monuments to the public and for the provision of educational facilities rather than education. May I say to my noble friend that I think the amendment in one way goes too far and in another way not far enough—and I am not sure he was not critical about my own amendment for the same reason.
The amendment goes too far in that it seeks to require, albeit "so far as practicable", the commission to provide for the presentation of all monuments in England, in particular by way of facilities for education and interpretation. The commission will be able to advise on the presentation of other people's monuments but it would not, in the Government's view, be a sensible use of the commission's resources for it to provide—I accentuate the word "provide"—for such presentation.
Conversely, the amendment does not go far enough in that it talks only of the provision of educational facilities and services for the use of students. The implications of that phrase are that accommodation and materials only should be provided by the commission, but bricks and mortar surely are not enough. The commission will represent the largest source of expertise in this field and it must surely be right that it should be able, if it so wishes, to provide a teacher as well as the facilities. After all, every other body of expertise provides training and education in its specialities and I do not believe that the commission should be an exception to this.
My noble friend, in introducing the amendment, as he did on some of his previous amendments, went through it in some detail. Again, perhaps I can assure him that we will read very carefully what he said, and particularly his comments about the agricultural side, and ensure that our own amendment does, in fact, cover all that he wishes.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu: My Lords, in thinking about this subject will the noble Earl consider the possibility of putting in somewhere the word "interpretation", because that covers everything that we are talking about?
Lord Sandford: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord. We need to think about this a little more

581
carefully and I hope that when the Bill goes forward it will prove possible to do that. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment to the amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Sandfordmoved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 91, Amendment No. 97:
In subsection (2), after paragraph (c) insert—
("(d) may promote or undertake publicity relating to the functions of the Commission").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment calls for the function of publicity to be added to those for which the commission will be responsible. As I said in Committee, this is an area in which I think the Ancient Monuments Board in particular has been weakest in the past and it is a function in which the Historic Buildings Council of England has had no real activity at all; but that it is necessary is something I do not think any of us would doubt. The question is whether the addition of these words is necessary in view of the fact that we already have in subsection (1) (b) the duty of the commission:
"to promote the public's enjoyment of, and advance their knowledge of, ancient monuments",
which might at first sight he thought to be enough; and we have in subsection (5) (d) the ability to do all:
"such other things as the Commission think necessary or expedient".
I submit that this amendment is necessary despite that, because this is such an integral and fundamental function of the new commission. Publicity is needed in order to put before the public at large the mere existence of these properties, the various possibilities of enjoying them, the value of visiting them and so on and so forth. Once the public and the children are there, all the other functions such as the one about which we have just been talking, can be exercised. But publicity is needed on a scale far greater than anything we have seen so far, if these other functions of promotion are to be properly discharged. I do not see that it would do any harm. I think that it is necessary and I look forward to hearing my noble friend's reaction to this amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Geoffrey-Lloyd: My Lords, I believe that the noble Earl will be able to tell us that the Bill as drafted makes proper provision for the commission to engage in proper publicity. I personally think that to over-emphasise the question of publicity—if I may say so with deference to my noble friend in regard to his amendment—would be a mistake, because at the moment there is almost too much emphasis being put on publicity as being the one factor in successful entrepreneurial management. I believe that that is not the case: the real point is that it is the quality of the product—the way in which the house is kept up and maintained and the real educational interest and other aspects of the house—which is most important and which in the end will produce success. Therefore, I should like to suggest to my noble friend that he does not press this amendment, because I am sure that publicity is taken care of in the Bill in a proper way, but it should not be over-emphasised.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, before anyone else takes away the points that I have listed in front of me—my noble friend Lord Sandford mentioned half of my reasons when he moved his amendment and my noble friend Lord Geoffrey-Lloyd has just made the other point that I have in front of me—I should like to make a few comments. Their powers to provide information, to advise any person and to do such things as they think necessary or expedient for the purpose of exercising their functions are more than sufficient to enable them to promote or undertake publicity. As to drawing the commission's attention to this part of the work, as my noble friend Lord Sandford says, their duty to promote the public's enjoyment and knowledge seems to be very clear. With that understanding I hope that I have helped my noble friend and that he will feel the point has been adequately covered.
Lord Sandford: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment to the amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.53 p.m.
Lord Strathcona and Mount Royalmoved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 91, Amendment No. 98:
In subsection (2) after paragraph (c) insert—
("(d) may set up a charitable fund and receive and deposit therein voluntary contributions and such other monies (including profits arising from commercial operations) and endowments received under section 8A of the Ancient Monuments and Historic Buildings Act 1953 as the Commission may decide and the income or capital of the fund may be expended to meet the cost of any expenditure incurred by the Commission;
(e) may make use of voluntary services where it thinks it appropriate to do so;")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 98. I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us that this amendment is largely answered by the comments that he made about the tax régime of the commission when he was dealing with Amendment No. 74. He then expressed the intention that the commission should have a status equivalent to that of a charitable body in regard to the receipt of donations—I hope that I am paraphrasing him correctly—and that is the purpose of the amendment. But one has again to ask—particularly in view of the fact that he said that these intentions were to be given expression in a Finance Bill rather than in this Bill—would it not be wise to express the intentions on the face of the Bill in clear language that everybody can understand, in one piece of legislation, rather than having to refer to some other complicated piece of legislation?
I am slightly reinforced in putting this to the noble Earl the Minister in view of the fact that, in his redrafting of Clause 30, we have now lost subsection (5), which stated:
"The Commission may receive voluntary contributions towards the cost of any expenditure incurred by them".
That particular point is missing from the new clause which is set out in Amendment No. 91, which my amendment seeks to amend. I beg to move.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, so far as my noble friend's comment about the Finance Bill is concerned, I will look into the point but, as I understand it, some of the tax amendments that we are putting forward or are considering would only be practical in a Finance Bill. However, I quite take my noble friend's point: there may be other matters which we could co-opt into the Bill, and I shall, indeed, look into it.
The charitable fund approach is, we think, rendered unnecessary by the decision on the tax status of the commission, to which I have already referred. The advantages of a charitable fund will, under the régime we propose, be available to the commission themselves. We also intend to bring forward an amendment—and this was the point of my noble friend Lord Montagu—enabling the commission to set up a trading subsidiary. This is being drafted with a view to its being ready for Third Reading. I equally understand the point made by my noble friend Lord Strathcona on voluntary contributions. But here again we now believe that it is unnecessary. The power of the commission in the new Clause 30 to do such things as they consider necessary or expedient covers this and the receipt of donations and all the et ceteras.
On investment, as I believe I indicated in Committee, the commission will be able to invest as they see fit without any provision being required in the Bill. I should point out that the Government do not envisage that there will be any great need for other than very short term investments. However, the commission's financial needs will he catered for through the grant in aid. Voluntary contributions are likely to be aimed at specific projects rather than given for general purposes. To the extent that the commission receives other income, that, too, will be expected to be used rather than saved.
I think I mentioned earlier that voluntary contributions will not count against the grant-in-aid. Again, I have given my noble friend a number of assurances and, I hope, clarified the picture for him sufficiently to enable him to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu: My Lords, I am sure that that is a most helpful statement and it certainly contains some very interesting information which I am sure the House will be very pleased to hear—indeed. it may save some time later on this evening. I hope that my noble friend Lord Strathcona will agree with me in thinking that we should withdraw the amendment in view of the assurances that we have had from my noble friend Lord Avon.
Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl and I am sure that my noble friend is right. We hope to see an amendment addressing at least some of these points at Third Reading. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment to the amendment. by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Sandfordhad given notice of his intention to move, as an amendment to Amendment No. 91, Amendment No. 99:
In subsection (5), line 3 at end insert ("with local authorities and other bodies")
584
The noble Lord said: My Lords. having got, as it were, what I wanted on Amendment No. 80, I do not need to move this amendment.
[Amendment No. 99 not moved.]
Lord Sandford Lord Sandford moved Amendment No. 100:
In subsection (5) after paragraph (c) insert—
("(cc) establish committees to advise them in the performance of their functions or to discharge such functions as may be delegated to them by the Commission with the approval of the Secretary of State.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 100. I spoke earlier. when we were dealing with Schedule 3, about the establishment of committees but only to make the point that it was my belief—and I think the belief of a number of other noble Lords—that the important business of laying upon the commission the duty to establish committees to advise them on the performance of their functions was better stated on the face of the Bill—that is to say in the Government's new clause—than left in the schedule.
We have heard my noble friend express his views upon that and, if that were all there were to it, I would therefore withdraw this amendment. But there are more people concerned with this concept than I, including the noble Lords, Lord Dacre, Lord Blake and Lord Beloff, who had tabled an amendment—Amendment No. 101 A—which has been withdrawn, I think because they saw the possibility of making the points they wanted to make on my amendment. Therefore, I will not say anything more on this amendment but will give other noble Lords an opportunity to do so. I beg to move.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Renton): My Lords, I understand that the noble Lord seeks leave to withdraw the amendment?
Lord Sandford: My Lords, no, I do not. I have moved the amendment to give other noble Lords an opportunity to put forward their comments; I have nothing further to say myself.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, Amendment No. 101A would have repeated an amendment which, in rather different words, I moved unsuccessfully in Committee on behalf of the British Academy, urging upon the Government the institution of an advisory council. Because of the views that the House expressed at an earlier stage, I think my noble friends felt that it was unlikely that this amendment would be successful. Also, the amendment that we are now considering would, to a large extent, meet the feelings of the Academy. As I understand them, briefly, they are that, however well the Secretary of State goes about the task of appointing members of the commission, the field which it covers is so wide that issues may always arise or problems may arise where it would be necessary to seek additional expertise from specialists in the particular field of historic buildings, ancient monuments or archaeology, as the case may be. Although I suppose that the Minister may well answer that the establishment of committees is normally something which statutory bodies can do anyhow, I think that it would

585
probably reassure those concerned with the provision of expert advice if this was added to the Bill at this stage.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, to some extent, indeed, we covered this ground when I spoke to the amendments of the noble Baroness, Lady Birk—Amendments No. 84A, 84B, and particularly Amendment No. 84C. As we have heard, this amendment seeks to empower the commission to establish committees to discharge functions of the commission. It generally covers the same ground as we discussed in relation to Amendment No. 84C, although with precautionary provisions. As I said then, in the Government's view, we have set up the committees so that they look after, first, strong management by the board and, then, access to specialist advice through committees. We believe that the committees should have an advisory role and should stop short of actually delegating functions. We said at that stage that it was entirely up to the commission how they set up their committees, and we believe that they would wish to have advisory ones and should not be bound by having to have statutory ones.
My noble friend Lord Beloff also spoke about Amendment No. 101A, which, as he rightly said, was put forward by the Academy. They put forward an advisory council, which we discussed in Committee, where I believe I may rightly say it failed to generate any support. As I said, one of the major benefits of setting up the commission is amalgamation of the currently separate advisory and executive functions. We think that what my noble friend proposes is unnecessary and we should much prefer to leave it to the commission to set up their own advisory committees, making use of as much expertise and good knowledge as they can.
Lord Sandford: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend, but I am not entirely reassured. Perhaps I may just recapitulate on the discussions we have had on this business of establishing committees. The first point which we want to make—and many noble Lords have made it—is that this is an important duty, which my noble friend has not denied, and it is in its best place if it is on the face of the Bill and not tucked away among the various arrangements that are required for the internal working of the commission. That is the first point.
The second point is that this formulation entirely meets the criticism which he levelled against Amendment No. 83 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, in that it does not prescribe in advance what particular roles each committee should have. So it is not open to that criticism.
Furthermore, it includes in it the requirement to have the approval of the Secretary of State, so that he can take care of the important requirement that there should not be overlap and duplication with outside bodies.
The last point I want to make—and nobody has thought to contradict this—is that we really require this heritage commission to operate in a less centralised form than it has in the past: to work through committees, to decentralise its functions and its activities. I know that the noble Lords, Lord Dacre,
586
Lord Blake and Lord Beloff, speaking on behalf of the British Academy, and others concerned with the importance of getting a really strong scholarly input into this commission, feel strongly about this, and for that reason I want to press this particular amendment.
On Question, amendment to the amendment negatived.
7.7 p.m.
Lord Sandfordmoved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 91, Amendment No. 101:
leave out subsection (6) and insert—
(" (6) The Commission may make such charges and payments as they may from time to time determine in respect of anything provided under subsection(2)(a) or given under subsection (2)(b) or promoted or undertaken under subsection (2)(d) to any person or body other than a Minister of the Crown.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a much less substantial point. I think that we are all glad to see in the new clause at subsection 2(c) the first reference to research being a function and a duty of the commission and, linked with that, the power of the commission to defray or contribute towards the cost of research. That is admirable. Amendment No. 101 seeks to extend that power to make charges and payments from the limited field of research to the other matters included in subsection (2)(a) and (2)(b).
I would hope that my noble friend might think that what is appropriate for research is appropriate for advice and bodies giving advice, and appropriate to support the provision of education, educational facilities, and so on. Presumably the power to do such other things as the commission think necessary or expedient is not adequate to enable them to contribute towards the cost of research, and therefore the power has to be included in subsection (2)(c). 1 would submit that it ought to be included in subsection(2)(a) and (2)(b), as my amendment seeks. In passing, perhaps I could say that it is just this sort of power which, if included, would enable the commission, for example, to give grants to the owners of smaller private houses who found a way of using their properties for educational purposes. Without it, I do not think that they would be able to give such financial assistance. Perhaps my noble friend would answer those points. I beg to move.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I think I have understood my noble friend correctly. This amendment seeks to enable the commission to employ other bodies to provide for the presentation of their monuments including publicity and educational facilities. If so, I can assure my noble friend that the power to do this is fully covered by the commission's powers to enter into contracts and other agreements. Nothing further is required. In fact, this amendment would go further than this in that it would empower the commission to pay for the presentation and promotion of the monuments outside their control, and this the Government think would be going too far. Once again as with other amendments of my noble friend to Amendment No. 91, may I look at all the details of what he said and again come back to him if I find that we have not covered the points he has made?
Lord Sandford: My Lords, I would be most grateful. I think the principle would be introduced by what the noble Earl has already put in in subsection (2)(c). I do not want the words:
"contribute towards the cost of, research"
taken out, because I think that is an advance. I just want the principle extended to a number of other functions. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment to the amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Amendment No. 91 agreed to.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, this seems to be an appropriate moment to break for dinner. I therefore beg to move that further consideration on Report on this Bill be now adjourned until 8 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Juries (Amendment) Bill [H.L.]
7.12 p.m.
Lord Wigoder: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill he now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a third time.—(Lord Wigoder.)
On Question, Bill read a third time.
Clause 1 [Disqualification of certain convicted persons for jury service]:
Lord Wigodermoved Amendment No. 1:
Leave out line 6, and insert ("indictable offence").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is purely a drafting amendment. The words "indictable offence" are defined in the Interpretation Act 1978 as being an offence triable on indictment in the case of an adult, and it is therefore neater to substitute that expression for the one in the Bill, but it has precisely the same effect. I beg to move.
The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, amendment proposed: to leave out line 6 and insert "indictable offence". The Question is, that Amendment No. I be agreed to? As many as are of that opinion will say "Content".
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, it may be a convenient moment if one raises on this amendment a matter of general principle in regard to the Third Reading itself.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Elton): My Lords, I think that the amendment has just been decided, has it not?
The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, I was in the process of putting the Question on Amendment No. 1, which formally I am obliged to put. May I try again? The Question is that Amendment No. 1 be agreed to?
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord the Minister for what was a perfectly proper
588
intervention, but I am also obliged to the noble Lord who is sitting at this moment on the Woolsack for his kindness in allowing me to have a second chance at making this speech. It may be a convenient moment to take this as the opportunity to talk about the quandaries that one is in in regard to this Bill as such, and how one should react either to this amendment which the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, has said is a purely technical one, or indeed to the amendment which I understand is later to be moved by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell.
We all know what is the present position. It is that in respect of life imprisonment, an indeterminate sentence, or one for imprisonment for more than five years, there can be a life disqualification, and there can further be a disqualification under the 1974 Act if there has been a sentence of three months imprisonment. All of us are aware that there are difficulties in regard to that position being allowed to stand as it is without our having another look at it in the light of different circumstances largely caused by the non-custodial sentence being encouraged, largely caused, too, by suspended sentences, and so on.
Both at Second Reading and at Committee stage we listened to speeches which were very well informed and which dealt with such unfortunate circumstances as jury nobbling, and so on, which has become rather more frequent than it ever was before. The difficulty that so many of us are faced with, whether we agree to this technical amendment or go on to consider any further amendments—
Lord Wigoder: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord will forgive me for one moment? His observations are obviously very welcome and clearly made, but I cannot help asking whether they have any relevance to what is purely a drafting amendment, to substitute for words in a Bill other words which mean exactly the same thing. His observation may be highly relevant on Lord Campbell's amendment, or on the Question, That the Bill do now pass, which hopefully we shall come to reasonably shortly.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, the last thing I would want to do is to hold up the business of the House purely because a speech that I might make is more suitable for a later stage than at the stage at which I am now making it. I am perfectly content to reserve my speech for a later stage, if that be the will of the House.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
7.17 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Allowaymoved Amendment No. 2:
Line 6, at end insert ("not being an offence on any such occasion in respect of which the court shall only have imposed a fine of less than £50 or shall have granted an absolute or conditional discharge.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move this amendment. It is a qualifying amendment which is designed to serve four objects: first of all, to relate dis- qualification to sentence as distinct from any type of offence, thus restoring the concept of Part II, paragraphs (i) and (ii) of Schedule 1 to the Act of 1974 which this Bill seeks to supplement. One gets a different drift of concept unless one relates

589
disqualification back to sentence as distinct from type of offence. Secondly, to avoid the introduction by this Bill of automatic disqualification by commission of an offence within a wide amorphous category of time without regard to the circumstances in which such offence was committed, this being again in conflict with the concept of the master Act, the Act of 1974, and in submission unreasonable and somewhat unnecessary. The third object is to trim off trivia which, without this amendment, would serve to activate disqualification to no good purpose. The fourth object is to use the sentencing discretion of judges, recorders and magistrates to regulate whether the circumstances in which any particular offence was committed are such as to warrant disqualification.
The reason for detaining your Lordships at this hour, and I shall be brief, is that, as the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, said a moment ago, the mood of this House on Second Reading and at Committee stage was that the Bill in its present form was not quite right, and that somehow we might be able to get it right. It is only in that spirit that I move this probing amendment, and, having said that, may I acknowledge the defects that lie within my draft. First, "any" in line 1 should read "either", and I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Elton for that correction. Secondly, the £50 provision would leave persistent minor offenders, such as shoplifters, free to serve on juries, which is wholly undesirable. Again, I am grateful to Lord Elton for that.
Thirdly, the part of the amendment after the word "or" is, strictly speaking, otiose, declaratory, because Section 13 of the Criminal Courts Act 1963 in effect says that, and I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, for that. Fourthly, the whole concept that I have adopted, of drafting by proviso, is objectionable; it is a bad way of producing legislation, but I was saddled with the original draft. Fifthly, I think your Lordships must know that my whole concept of qualification does not commend itself to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Lane. I think I owe the House that duty of disclosure in such an important matter.
Having said that, the question is how to get the Bill right. How does one achieve a fair, reasonable, practicable and intelligible draft which can serve the most urgent needs of society? It is in that spirit that I beg to move.
Lord Rawlinson of Ewell: My Lords, until my noble friend said, "I beg to move", I was not sure on which side he was, for having moved it, he went on to explain how certain of the points in it were otiose and how others were incorrect, but nevertheless he was presenting it as a probing amendment. I see his difficulty and share his dilemma, because while I support very much what the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, had in mind in presenting the Bill, it seems that we are trying to achieve our objective in a way which we are not capable of doing—I say that with respect to either a noble Lord or an individual in another place—and it ought to be done by the Government. This is an issue which the Government must take in hand. If they do not intend to take it in hand, we must support the Bill; and the Bill, with or without the amendment, serves the purpose of concentrating
590
the Government's mind carefully on the need for reform in the law in regard to juries.
I read my noble friend's remarks about what the Government have in mind. If that is so, that should be satisfactory, provided it is a Bill which deals with this problem. There is no doubt from all the reports one gets in relation to juries—and there are others in the House who probably know more about this matter—that the conduct and standard of juries in criminal courts is not as it should be. Therefore, while the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, has made a noble shot at doing something which must be done, and while my noble friend Lord Campbell has brought forward this remarkable, otiose and incorrect amendment in seeking again to highlight the fact that the subject must be dealt with, we must call on the Minister (as I am sure he will be prepared to do) to give us the lead on behalf of the Government, with all their resources, and say they will grasp this nettle and deal with the problem of juries. Having said that, I must make my decision as to whether to support this otiose and incorrect amendment. However, as my noble friend probably intends to withdraw it, I may not have to make that decision.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I supported the Bill on Second Reading, my Lords, because its general objective seemed to me to be absolutely right, and the grievance it sought to remedy is crying out for a remedy. On the other hand. I saw the force of the counter proposal, which he made perfectly clear, of the noble Lord, Lord Elton, and I think he answered in advance the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Rawlinson; the Government propose to legislate. On the other hand, I felt difficulties about the lines of legislation. An offence punishable with a sentence of imprisonment seemed acceptable, but it was to be one sentence of imprisonment which would disqualify, I think for 10 years.
The Minister mentioned some very serious offences, one perpetration of which, he submitted with considerable cogency, should disqualify: trespass with a firearm, a whole number of wounding offences, robbery, burglary and so on. I have been, without success, trying to find a compromise between those serious offences committed on one occasion and the theft of a single milk bottle on one occasion, which was canvassed on Second Reading.
The amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, as he frankly admitted, will not do as it stands, and the Bill would need redrafting. However, something on those lines might provide an intermediate line, acceptable to Parliament and public opinion, between the serious offences which the Minister mentioned and the milk bottle offence.
Lord Edmund-Davies: My Lords, confronted by an extremely difficult problem, the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, in my view, has attained as acceptable a conclusion in the matter as seems attainable. Whether it is absolutely right is another matter. I speak in relation to his amended motion and I do not, in the light of the cautionary qualification introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, propose to speak to his amendment, which I am, like the noble and learned Lord, Lord Rawlinson, not at all sure is still extant or has been withdrawn.

591
The Government view, on the other hand, as revealed on Second Reading and in Committee, seems to me—and since I do not know whether there has been any change of mind by the Government, I must, for present purposes, proceed on the basis that it remains unaltered—is a view that goes much too far: all are disqualified for jury service who, on even a solitary occasion during the last 10 years, have been convicted on any offence punishable by imprisonment of any length and even though no sentence of imprisonment was actually imposed.
The word "draconian" springs to mind, but it has become so threadbare of meaning by over use that I purposely avoid it. I content myself by saying that the proposal of the Government, as indicated on Second Reading, is unacceptably wide. Unlike all acceptable notions of penology, it appears for present purposes to be unconcerned about the degree of heinousness which led to conviction, it makes no differentiation between offenders with past criminal records and first offenders, and it draws no distinction between crimes of great gravity and those far less threatening to law and order.
On the one hand, ruthless and wicked criminals and. on the other hand, the feckless and deeply repentant who, through a misfortune, may have slipped into crime on a solitary occasion are alike to be disqualified from jury service. While fully understanding the Government's deep desire to ensure immaculacy in criminal trials, in my judgment such a policy goes much too far and ought to be resisted, if persisted in. Accordingly, I urge support for the Bill with the amendment which has been proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, and which has already been carried.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I am sure that we are all grateful to my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway for precipitating a very useful discussion of some important principles in the Bill; and the discussion ensued despite the very diffident manner in which he moved his amendment. He described its intentions as authoritative, and I should not wish to add to that. but I think that I should explain the Government's view on the various aspects of the amendment.
As the House knows, the Government share to a considerable degree the aims of the sponsors of the Bill, although they differ from them as to means. We should prefer a wider disqualification, triggered by any conviction of an imprisonable offence within the last 10 years. But our approach is not a rigid one, and I can tell the noble and learned Lord, Lord Edmund-Davies, that we fully accept that there may be circumstances when a court is able to view an offender's conduct very leniently indeed, and to reflect that in the grant of an absolute or a conditional discharge. In such cases, even if the category of offence is a serious one, the offender's culpability is clearly minor in relative terms, and we agree that he should not automatically be disqualified from jury service. My noble friend is right to want to trim off the trivia (as he put it) in this direction.
However, I fear that, despite my noble friend's persuasive advocacy, we cannot accept his amendment in another respect, because we cannot
592
take the same view in relation to offenders who are fined less than £50. The reason is simply this. The size of a fine is not related solely to the seriousness, or otherwise, of an offender's conduct; it must also be consonant with what he is thought to be able to pay, though not necessarily at once. Therefore a fine may be reduced below £50 simply because an offender is impecunious. It would surely be odd, as would undoubtedly happen if the amendment were accepted, for offenders to be eligible for jury service because they were poor enough to merit a small fine. Then, again, fines, unlike orders for conditional or absolute discharge, are quite likely to be used repeatedly for some offenders for whom imprisonment is not apt.
Therefore the noble Lord's amendment could well mean that repeated offenders who clearly did not accept the values of our criminal justice system were still eligible to serve as jurors.
It follows that our view of the policy contained in the amendment is fairly mixed. I also have to say—1 think that I have already warned my noble friend that I should have to do this, and he has alluded to it—that there are defective elements in the amendment, and he has I think tallied all of them. However, as drafted, the amendment would appear to mean that an offender has to receive a discharge or a fine of less than £50 for only one of his convictions to make him eligible for jury service, no matter how many convictions subsequently follow. But I do not think that we are concerned with the technical perfections or im-perfections of the amendment. All I wanted to point out was that we are not entirely solid on saying that it must be simply for conviction on a particular category of offence. There may be ways of trimming off the trivia which we would not resist, but since the amendment is not effective, we would not support it as it stands.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I shall be very brief. With the greatest of respect to my—
Lord Wigoder: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord will agree that, before he winds up the discussion on the amendment, I may say a few words about it. First. I should like to say that I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, for stimulating this discussion. Secondly, I entirely agree with the noble and learned Lord. Lord Rawlinson of Ewell, that this should be a matter for Government legislation. The Government are aware of the gravity of the problem and they are aware, too, of the urgent need to do something about it. They have made that abundantly clear in various comments that they have made over the last six months or so. It was only when, in response to the repeated suggestions by the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, and myself, the Government made it clear that they were not going to be able to take any initiative in this Session of Parliament, that, with very great reluctance, it was decided to proceed by way of a Private Member's Bill, in the hope that some pressure could be put upon the Government either to take over the Bill, or to initiate legislation of their own.
What was intended in the Bill was that there should be made ineligible for jury service, for a limited period

593
of time, those who on more than one occasion have shown that they disregard the criminal law, that they are prepared to commit serious criminal offences. It was intended to be a moderate proposal that would appeal in general terms to sensible public opinion. As your Lordships know, the Government have taken the other view: that is, that one, single imprisonable offence would suffice. I can only say that I myself do not regard it as acceptable to public opinion that a person who, on one isolated occasion, has failed to provide a breath specimen, for example, should find himself disqualified from jury service. Yet that would be the effect of the Government view as it stands.
We have put forward this moderate proposal, and the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, has sought to moderate it a little further. I entirely sympathise with what he seeks to do. He has sought to moderate it a little further by saying that if there is a not very important instance of what on the face of it is a serious offence, it ought not to count for this purpose. In regard to the noble Lord's proposal, I was going to comment that the fine of less than £50—it is the same point that the Minister has made—would disqualify the wealthy and allow the poor to serve, though each might have committed precisely the same offence, and indeed have committed it together, for that matter.
There is the further aspect that limiting the position by way of a fine as an indication of triviality is perhaps not altogether ideal. There are, for example, many occasions when a not very serious instance of an apparently serious offence is dealt with by a supervision order or a community service order. Whether such a course is followed, or whether a fine is imposed, does not really reflect the gravity of the offence.
Thirdly, as your Lordships will know, with inflation proceeding as it does, limits on fines are inevitably revised every few years, and the result will be that in the course of a few years' time £50 will be raised to £60, £70, or £80, and as time goes by it will become more and more difficult to look back at someone's criminal record in order to decide whether or not he is eligible for jury service.
Whatever is finally decided upon as the criterion of ineligibility, it is very important that it should be administratively practical, and I venture to suggest to the noble Lord that his helpfully intended proposal might in fact lead to certain complications in that way.
Having said that, I believe that so far the debate has served a very useful purpose, because it has enabled noble Lords to express their views about the criterion that is being suggested in the Bill. I have no doubt that the views that have been expressed in all parts of the House will be considered very carefully by the Home Office when, as inevitably it must, sooner or later, it comes to take action on the problem that is presented by the Bill. In the circumstances I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, will consider that his amendment has served a genuinely useful purpose, even though for the reasons that I have indicated it might be better to allow the Bill to go through without further amendment.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, for the kind words he has
594
spoken. With respect to my noble and learned friend, Lord Rawlinson, I made it plain to the House that this was a probing amendment, why it was a probing amendment and why I did not propose to divide the House. Furthermore, with respect, the Government intend to legislate and have said so: Official Report, Vol. 436, No. 7, col. 619, lines 10 to 15. The Government have stated in those lines that they intend to legislate. The problem—and this arose on Second Reading and on Committee stage; it arises now and will continue to arise—is not that the Government do not expect to legislate; but that the basis on which they have stated, through my noble friend the Minister, in that passage of Hansard, that they propose to legislate is that of one indictable offence only and not two—which, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Edmund-Davies, said just now, goes much too far. With the utmost respect, I agree with him, and on previous occasions other noble Lords have agreed with him. That is the problem.
It was in the hope, as I sought to make plain, that this amendment would serve as a catalyst for discussion to deal with that problem that I moved this probing amendment. I only search the intermediate line, as adverted to by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon. Whether that is the right search or not, it is at least the search which I respectfully adopt, which was adopted by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, previously, and has been adopted by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, and by certain others of your Lordships' House who have spoken.
Having sought to identify the problem, we are all indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, for having made it possible to have this debate on a subject that requires the most urgent attention. I agree totally that whatever is devised must be practicable with the type of computer facilities that are now available for the records that are brought before those who have to empanel jurors; and that considerable thought needs to be given before we can get that Bill right. I agree with my noble and learned friend, Lord Rawlinson, that it is beyond the capabilities of a mere individual to come to grips with this and that what we need is the help—the urgent help—of the Government. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7.43 p.m.
Lord Wigoder: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
In doing so, may I express the very fervent hope that the discussions that we have had at various stages on this Bill will not turn out to be an empty exercise but will stimulate the Government into dealing with this very real problem. I say that it is a very real problem because there is widespread concern that the present law is inadequate, and inadequate largely because of the growth of non-custodial sentences in the years since the Juries Act was first passed, as a result of which many people with very long criminal records are now not ineligible for jury service by the terms of the existing law. Of all the people who have spoken, not one has suggested that the present law is satisfactory. That includes noble and learned Law

595
Lords, a noble and learned former Lord Chancellor, a former Home Office Minister, distinguished Queen's Counsel, a distinguished solicitor, and a distinguished lay person in the form of Lady Faithful.
All are agreed that the law is inadequate and all, I think, are agreed that the matter is one of very considerable urgency. It is of considerable urgency because it is quite obvious that the present law is distorting our criminal procedures by enabling people with long criminal records to sit on juries in judgment upon their fellow citizens in circumstances where common sense shrieks aloud that justice is not going to be done. And it is equally urgent because of the very substantial amount of evidence forthcoming in the last year or two of approaches to jurors for the purposes of nobbling them. where again it is perfectly clear that it is those jurors with criminial records who are most at risk and most likely to take part in perverting the course of justice. Not only is the course of justice perverted but the vast expense to the country of having to provide for some of the lengthy retrials as a result of attempted jury nobbling in recent times is such that, even on purely monetarist grounds, there is a strong case to be made for this Bill.
The real question—and I do not propose to repeat what we debated a few moments ago on the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell—is precisely how to strengthen the present law. There is much evidence that a moderate proposal would be generally acceptable, one broadly on the lines of this Bill—and I do not seek for one moment to justify every single word or nuance as a criterion laid down in this Bill—but one that does not go to the extent that the Government are advocating.
Perhaps I ought to read to your Lordships at this stage what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, who regretfully cannot be here this evening, has written to me and told me that I may read:
"I should like you to know that I support most strongly the principle of the Bill but would repudiate totally the Government's proposals as being far too extreme. I have not finally made up my mind as to whether the Bill has got it quite right, but I far prefer the Bill's provisions to the Government's proposals".
When I read that letter from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Diplock, earlier this afternoon, he said at once that he would very much like to be associated with that expression of opinion.
In these circumstances, the real question now for the Government is whether they are prepared to do anything about this matter, and, if so, what? It is known that there is a Private Member's Bill in another place. It is known that its Second Reading is due towards the end of February. The noble Lord the Minister indicated to me and to the House on Committee stage here that, as soon as that Bill was drafted, he would inform me and the House of its contents. It is clear, therefore, that that Bill has not yet been drafted, and the Government, therefore, are still in considerable doubt as to how to proceed.
I can only say, as I have said on a previous occasion, that if the Government, through the means of that Private Member's Bill in another place, seek to proceed on the lines they have so far indicated, with remarkably little support inside or outside your
596
Lordships' House, then that Bill in another place would be doomed to failure. I hope in these circumstances that the Minister will accept that the proper course is either that the Government should take on this Bill and find time for it in another place, or should take on the Private Member's Bill in the other place, and ensure that time is found for it and that the contents of the Bill that the Government bring forward are broadly in line with the contents of the Bill that is in your Lordships' House at this moment. In other words, we seek to stop people serving on juries who on more than one occasion have made it clear that they are prepared flagrantly to break the criminal law. In those circumstances, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Wigoder.)
[The Lord Wells-Pestell sat Deputy Speaker.]
7.51 p.m.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, on an earlier occasion, I badly wanted to address your Lordships on certain aspects of this Bill. The House has been spared what might have been a lengthy speech of mine by the points which have been raised on the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway. I noted with envy how speakers upon that amendment managed to give general expression to their views upon the Bill as a whole and the difficulties created by it. The envy, I assure your Lordships is a moderate one, and from my point of view I have no criticism whatsoever of those who suggested that I might speak later.
We are in a difficulty, and the difficulty, shortly, is this: all of us agree that something ought to be done regarding the 1974 Act. Something ought to be done to stop those whom your Lordships and I might well call villains for the purpose of this exercise from serving on juries and having a villainous influence upon those juries. This is even though we now have the happy situation of not having to have a unanimous verdict; of course a verdict of 10 out of the 12 will, in certain circumstances, suffice. That does not mean that there cannot be a very bad influence upon a jury decision.
What worries me is this: if one is going to reform something which is inadequate, if one is to better the law, there must be a consensus of opinion that one is doing it by something which is acceptable. The problem we face—we faced it at Second Reading, Committee stage and in the amendments we discussed earlier—is that nobody has come out with a formula which is acceptable to your Lordships and which is acceptable to absent and noble and learned Lords of the reputation and status of the noble and learned Lords, Lord Diplock and Lord Scarman. When one listens to the noble and learned Lords, Lord Edmund-Davies and Lord Simon of Glaisdale, both of them so much respected in this House, they too are in some doubt about the right formula. Certainly we have heard a most powerful speech that the Government formula is no good. and we are in doubts about the formula of the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder. I can remember a notable speech by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, who gave instances of what circumstances

597
would result from the minor offences that one person might commit on two occasions in the course of 10 years.
So this is an unhappy situation. I do not think that your Lordships will be any happier, either, in regard to the Bill that we are now looking at when one remembers the contribution made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning. He reminded us of the committee presided over by someone much lamented in this House who contributed so much to it: Lord Morris. His committee pointed out that the phrase "indictable offence" would not be a way of dealing with the 1974 Act for one reason—apart from the others which have been mentioned—and that is this. What layman knows what is an indictable offence so that he can truthfully say that he either is or is not competent to sit upon a jury? The committee of Lord Morris said that there were many cases in their recommendations where matters were dealt with summarily and the person concerned might well think, "I was dealt with in a magistrates' court; that cannot be an indictable offence". We have already heard the objections to the use of "imprisonable offence".
A lot more consideration has to be given before one reforms a law if one really, after all the deliberation in our Lordships' House, comes to the conclusion that there is no really good formula which adequately reforms the law. So, I merely say this: it is not usual for this House to leave it to another House—especially on matters of law—without any guidance from this place. Although this Bill should now pass, I think that the guidance ought to be that, unless there is a formula which is not too light or too heavy—and your Lordships, with all the talent available to this House, have not been able to find such a formula—the Bill should not find its place on the statute book because, in endeavouring to reform the law, we should not have improved it. We might have walked into very many difficulties which even the present law does not afford.
7.57 p.m.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I ventured on Second Reading to give my reasons for supporting this Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, said quite rightly that this Bill had highlighted a situation which calls for urgent action. The only legislative action that is before your Lordships is the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder. There is a proposal—not a legislative one—by the noble Lord, Lord Elton, which he gave on Second Reading, which has been described by my noble and learned friends Lord Diplock. Lord Scarman and Lord Edmund-Davies, and a number of others of your Lordships, as going far too far. It is true that the noble Lord, Lord Elton, resiled slightly from that today and indicated that there might be some flexibility. But his objection to this Bill is that it does not go far enough. If there is, as the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, said, a situation calling for urgent action, surely a step which does not go far enough is better than no step at all. If therefore the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, presses this Motion, I for one shall support it.
Lord Rawlinson of Ewell: My Lords, what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, has brought to our attention is that what we are debating
598
is whether we now pass this Bill—and only this Bill. Therefore what he has said, I should have thought, commends itself very much to practically every noble Lord in the Chamber. I am aware, I tell my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway, whose leg I tried to pull, that there were statements by the noble Lord the Minister regarding legislation. I want to see something very much greater than what he said, but not in that respect. I want to see the Government address the problem of challenges to juries. I want to see them address the problem of the actual composition of juries and from whom juries should be drawn. I think we have got it wrong at the present time and therefore urgent attention is needed by the Government to look at jury trial and at the selection of juries. I can see the advantages of what has been put forward, of having one short, sharp cut, but it is a very severe cut indeed and there is something to be said—despite the wealth of distinguished noble and learned Lords who have expressed a difference of opinion—if a person does offend, for making part of the punishment which is inflicted upon them the fact that thereafter they are unable to exercise judgment on their fellow citizens because they have committed a particular offence. That may he too extreme, too grave, but I can see that there is some sense in it.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, said—and I repeat it—that what we have before us is this Bill, and this Bill goes in the right direction so far as I can see. I still call upon the Government either to say that they intend to legislate, although of course they have not got much time, or that there is a Private Member's Bill coming up in which such matters are raised. All these are matters which are raised by Governments of all complexions over the years. I trust that they realise how grave is the situation with regard to juries and how important it is to have a really comprehensive look at it and to deal with jury legislation at an appropriate opportunity.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I wish very briefly to support what my noble and learned friend Lord Rawlinson has said. This is an urgent matter. We are only at the 31st January, and there should be plenty of time, if this Session were to run its full course, for at any rate a modest measure, even though it did not go quite so far and so comprehensively as my noble and learned friend Lord Rawlinson has suggested. But if the Government are not going to introduce any legislation of their own, I feel quite sure that the very cautious and moderate proposal which the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, has put before us should be allowed to pass and should be given a fair wind in another place.
8.4 p.m.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I have already made clear the Government's position on the Bill as a whole and therefore I will seek not to detain your Lordships for long. As I said at Second Reading, we very much welcome the opportunity it affords to debate an issue of increasing concern and of an importance, which many of your Lordships have underlined this evening, to all involved in the administration, and indeed the receipt, of justice. However, we do not think that this Bill goes wide enough in disqualifying from jury

599
service those who by their way of life have shown that they reject the values of our criminal justice system.
As the House will be aware, broadly speaking, we believe that anyone convicted of an imprisonable offence within the last 10 years should be excluded from jury service. That is a view we have maintained consistently, and the House will be well aware already of the arguments on both sides and of the extent to which I was able to moderate our position on that a moment or two ago. At the same time, I have made it clear that we do not wish to oppose the noble Lord's Bill, with whose aims we have great sympathy. in its passage through this House. We have welcomed the discussion of the issues involved and the chance to gauge the feelings of your Lordships' House on these and on their detailed implications. and indeed of the importance of the Bill as a whole and of the subject with which it deals. The amendment of my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway provided a particularly valuable opportunity for this.
During the Committee stage on this Bill the noble Lord. Lord Wigoder, suggested that the formula in his Bill was a moderate one which would not arouse vehement opposition —I think he had particularly in mind the views that might be expressed in another place—and that it would be right for the Government to accept the Bill as a compromise solution, and that the Government should accept the arguments for finding time in another place for a Bill of this nature.
As to our views on the merits of the proposals in the Bill, your Lordships are familiar with them and it is clear that there is a difference of view in what, in an ideal world, is desirable. I accept that we must also take into account the acceptability to Parliament as a whole of our respective sets of proposals. This is one of the reasons why the debate in your Lordships' House has been so valuable. I must say with regret. however, that the noble Lord has himself underestimated the practical difficulties. In the Government's view, any proposal to alter the present provisions on jury disqualification are likely to meet with opposition from interests with a perfectly proper concern for civil liberties. This applies as much to the noble Lord's proposals as to the Government's.
As a matter of political judgment, therefore, I really do not think that the proposals in this Bill could reach the statute book unopposed. The noble Lord feels that the Government should simply provide time in another place for such a Bill. It would, however, be quite wrong for me to hold out any prospect of that. We have in any case a natural preference for the Bill which an honourable Member proposes to introduce in another place, and in that connection I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, that the drafting I offered to make available to him is in fact in preparation, though it is not yet complete.
I am sorry that I cannot be more forthcoming, particularly as the Government entirely share the objectives enshrined in the Bill, even though they may disagree with the noble Lord on the best way of achieving them. However, your Lordships' discussions have helped to clear some of the brushwood from the path of any such legislation. They have also, in the words of my noble and learned friend Lord Rawlinson, concentrated the Government's mind on the subject; and this
600
has not been an empty exercise. We do wish to legislate at the earliest suitable opportunity. The discussions which the noble Lord has so eloquently led will be an invaluable source of informed views in that process which will, I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. have to pass through this House of Parliament as well as through the other. That will surely be the occasion for the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, and others to seek to modify it.
My noble and learned friend Lord Rawlinson has also placed other important considerations in the same field before your Lordships. These are all for consideration. Your Lordships have not wasted your time. What you have said about the Government's approach to this problem, which we all recognise to be a matter of very great concern, has been and will be noted in the proper quarters. I think I have already made our position clear on the actual progress of the Bill beyond this point.
Lord Wigoder: My Lords, may I make three very short observations in conclusion. First, the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, about an indictable offence, can, I think, very easily be met by a simple procedure under which the court would notify a defendant after conviction that he had, or had not, committed an indictable offence which was a disqualifiable offence under this Act. I see no administrative difficulty about that at all.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I am sure the noble Lord will not mind my intervening, if only in order to make him smile, and nothing else; but I cannot imagine that such a notification is one that will be so precious to the person who receives it that he will retain it for 10 years.
Lord Wigoder: No, my Lords; but it will no doubt remind him when he gets a notice for jury service. Again, I do not think there would be any difficulty about that. The second point that I should like to make is this. There are an infinite number of possible formulae or criteria, as has been made clear. They grade from the very, very mild to the severe, such as the one that is proposed by the Government. I would hope that minor disagreement as to the precise nature of the formulae will not lead as a result to nothing being done. I think it is the Government's duty to decide now, in the light of the debate in your Lordships' House, what is the appropriate formula and to proceed to do something about it.
When the noble Lord the Minister says that the civil liberties organisations and those who are concerned with civil liberties—and I am sure that all of us who have spoken in this debate are concerned, with civil liberties—would object equally to the formula proposed in this Bill and the formula proposed by the Government, I respectfully suggest to him that that is quite wrong and that the formula proposed in the Bill is certainly very much more likely to be generally acceptable.
Finally, may I make the simple point that there is an urgent matter to be dealt with, and the Government recognise it. It involves a one clause Bill that could not conceivably take more than half a day on Second

601
Reading in another place and two days at the most in the Committee stage in another place. It is quite idle of the Government to pretend there is no time to legislate this session if they want to do so. I hope that passing this Bill will stimulate them to do so.
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

National Heritage Bill [H.L.]
8.10 p.m.
Report stage resumed.
Baroness Birk Baroness Birk moved Amendment No. 102:
After Clause 30, insert the following new clause:
("Transfer of functions: Royal Palaces.
.—(1) Her Majesty may by order in Council provide for the transfer to the Commission of any functions, including management, exercisable by the Secretary of State with respect to any Royal Palace, or part thereof, not in the occupation of a member of the Royal Family.
(2) An Order under this section may contain such incidental, consequential and supplementary provisions as may be necessary or expedient for the purpose of giving effect to the Order.
(3) No Order shall be made under this section unless a draft of the Order has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the subject of this amendment was brought out in the consultation paper without the Government coming to any conclusion about it. It was discussed on Second Reading and in Committee. This is to do with the transfer of the functions of the Royal palaces. Our thinking on this is that no decision need be made at the moment. Indeed, I think it would be quite wrong if it were made too quickly, because the new heritage commission will have to dig itself in and find its own way around a great mass of stuff. Because of the merging of the Ancient Monuments Board and the Historic Buildings Council, and the fact that it is an independent body away from the giant umbrella of the Department of the Environment, means that it will, quite frankly, have enough on its hands already without taking on the management of the Royal palaces. Nevertheless, it is all part of our conservation fabric and the environment, with all the problems of promotion, interpretation and education.
What the amendment does is to seek to include it in the legislation so that there is no need to move new legislation which can be picked up when it is agreed that the time, the expertise, the amount of understanding, is there and then the functions can be transferred. There is no commitment, either immediate, or even long term, but there is the opportunity and it would probably start with the palaces not in the occupation of a member of the Royal Family. It would enable orders to be laid. It seems this is the best way of doing it. I have quite deliberately left out the Royal parks, because, for the time being, I personally feel that the parks are happier left where they are.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu: My Lords, in supporting the amendment, I do not think it is any secret that there was considerable heart searching by the Government as to whether Royal palaces should be included. As the Bill progresses it is becoming more and more
602
obvious that, unless the Royal palaces are included, in due course the whole concept and the whole future of the commission will be very much in doubt.
As a noble Lord said earlier, talking about the income derived from DOE property, the two jewels in the crown, Hampton Court and the Tower of London, will be excluded. When one considers the management and the promotion of these monuments, it will be absurd if the commission is publicising, promoting and managing some of the monuments and a completely different agency, such as the Department of the Environment or whatever, will be carrying out such matters for the other buildings. The duplication would be quite ridiculous.
Let us take the question of season tickets, advertising, souvenir buying or what other service it may be. Here is an enabling clause which surely is harmless to anything at the moment, but it will enable a future Government, when the time is right, not to have to go through all the paraphernalia of an Act of Parliament. I cannot see any reason why this should not be accepted, although there are probably very good arguments why at the present time it may not be desirable to burden the new commission with everything all at once. But surely there is absolutely no reason why an enabling clause with built-in safeguards, particularly mentioning the word "management" which is so important, should not be included in the Bill as it stands.
Lord Elton: My Lords, as the noble Baroness explained, the amendment is to enable the functions of the Secretary of State in respect of the Royal palaces not in the occupation of a member of the Royal Family to be transferred by Order in Council to the commission. In response to a slightly similar amendment moved in Committee, I gave a clear statement why the Government decided against including functions in respect of Royal palaces. I pointed out that all buildings with the status of a Royal palace are in a very real sense Royal. People regard such places as Hampton Court Palace and the Tower of London as closely connected with our national heritage and with the Monarchy. It is, indeed, to an immeasurable extent, the Royal linkage with these places which makes them such attractions.
The Government fully accept that the commission will have a role in the maintenance and historic fabric of all palaces. Expertise in respect of archaeological and historical questions can and should be provided to the department by the commission through its general advisory role, but to delegate to the commission the work of maintaining these buildings would, in the Government's view, be to divorce themselves too far from the sensitivity surrounding them. That work should remain directly within the Secretary of State's control and be carried out, as at present, by skilled departmental staff, advised, as I have said, by the commission.
I also mentioned at the Committee stage the importance of security in the palaces. I need not expand on that again tonight. It is also argued that the commission will have tourist expertise in the presentation and commercial management of these properties. It should have the benefit of these money spinners. There is truth in this, but I am sure noble

603
Lords will agree that the commercial presentation of Royal palaces ought not to be the first consideration. What is important about such properties is their histories, their status, and their relationship to the Monarchy. The Government have in mind to look to the new commission for advisory expertise in the presentation of such properties to the public with the constraints of their Royal status. I should add, in respect of the noble Baroness's concern at the Committee stage about incentives, that there is a great deal of scope for better presentation and increased revenue at other sites. And, indeed, they perhaps represent a greater challenge and incentive to the commission because of their geographical spread and because their presentational potential has been far less explored in the past than that of the palaces. The Government have reached these decisions after much thought and believe they represent the right way forward for these important and sensitive properties.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, I think that is a very disappointing response. In fact, when we look at Hansard, with all due reference to the noble Earl's measured diction, we will find a lot of gobbledegook. He rolls out in sonorous tones about what the public expects of connection with the Royal Family. However, I suspect that it is not like that at all. I suspect that the public likes Royal connections but in the public's mind, as in the minds of a lot of us when we are not concentrating on this Bill, the whole concept of the town, or the state and the Royal Family are all fairly mixed up.
On Commissions, or Royal Commissions, we do not always find it easy to get it right. I would be much happier if the Government would produce some really strong, sound, practical reasons as to why they have decided to oppose this particular move. I see why they have decided not to take on the responsibility, but I do not see why they are against allowing this permissive amendment, which would merely enable them to move the matter on when they wanted to do so. We ought to press the Government in this House to a stage where we manage to get some sense out of them. I do not think we have received sense at this moment, and I do not think that the arguments which have been put up by the noble Earl really stand up to examination.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, I cannot make out why the Government should think that the people will think that a Cabinet Minister of this party, or that, is a more suitable manager for Royal palaces than the commission which we are setting up.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, I entirely agree with what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, and the co-signatory of the amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Montagu. I find the position quite extraordinary. It seems to me, thinking back to our earlier debates, that the Government's line has hardened. This is pinpointing the whole dichotomy of the Government over the heritage commission. The evidence is there. It is not the noble Earl's fault. It is just the way in which the Government are now running.
The position was very much more wide open in the consultation papers. The Government also talked very
604
strongly about the importance of presentation about the importance of entrepreneurial skills and about the possibility of getting better receipts. But what do they do? They do not accept the clause, which would enable them to take account of the change in people's attitudes and in the conservation climate, and to see how the commission manage and what kind of success they have. They could do this by order if they wanted, or they could leave it, but they have even put that out of court.
We hear the Tower of London and Hampton Court talked about as though the immediate Royal Family were living there and people were interrupting their breakfast every day. That is absolutely ludicrous. When I was the Minister responsible at the department for conservation, one of my ideas, for which we did not have the money, was to use some of the many empty apartments in Hampton Court and turn them into luxury flats for visiting foreign dignitaries. In earlier days, they used to pull up baskets filled with food, and I even had the idea that we could pull up hot croissants and Brioches, and that people could pay an enormous price for living in that delightful primitive way.
There are an enormous number of ideas which need the capital, the input and all the things which are now being put into the Bill. But what do we hear? We hear about what could be one of the most lucrative forms of income for the new heritage commission, and learn, at the same time, that the commission will be concerned with conservation and preservation. But the Minister himself said on an earlier amendment that we do not need to put in "primary" and "secondary", because they are equal and it can be taken for granted.
The Earl of Avon: What has that to do with it?
Baroness Birk: My Lords, it has a lot to do with it, because against this amendment the Minister has been arguing that one has to be so careful about the palaces and about their environmental state. He then went on to the question of security and said that we would need tested people. Security can apply in just the same way as it does at the moment. Presumably, the commission would be dealing with many people who were ex-civil servants and had been transferred. It is very interesting that there has been this hardened line and that the Government will not accept what is only an enabling clause. Like other noble Lords, I am quite amazed about this.
Lord Geoffrey-Lloyd: My Lords, nobody in this House wishes to embarrass the Government, but everybody wants to see the new commission being a great success. Am I unduly naïve in putting it in this way? The fact is that the Government are only transferring to the new commission about £2 million worth of revenue, whereas they are keeping in the department about £6 million-worth of revenue from what I describe—I must admit to a slightly vulgar phrase—as the great money-spinning palaces. One would feel, to move the metaphor, that they might be a great flywheel for the development of the entrepreneurial process and, we hope, for the success of the new commission. The Government are asking us to believe, at the same time, that they are performing some important movement towards an

605
entrepreneurial system, which they believe to be of benefit, but which, in the end, turns out to be only 25 per cent. in money terms of the income, as it at present exists, from the ancient monuments and historic buildings under the administration of the Department of the Environment.
I approach this from the point of view of somebody who has been a Minister for 16 years, in both peace and war, under Winston Churchill, and I do not want to get involved in this question of the difficulties of the Royal palaces. I am sure that there are such difficulties, but I am equally sure that, if somebody like Winston were in charge, and if he thought it was sufficiently important to the entrepreneurial future of the management of the historic buildings, a solution would be found.
Does a solution need to be found, if I may depart a little from the position of the noble Baroness in the direction of my noble friend, in terms of the amendment that she has moved? Is it not possible within the terms of the Bill, as it is, for the Government to arrange that, in practice, the management of the two great palaces is in the hands of the commission, although the ownership and certain important procedural aspects are arranged to stay in a way which does not embarrass the Government or anybody else? The important point is that the entrepreneurial work of the commission should comprise both those houses which are deemed to pass to the commission, and those which at present the Government think should not pass. It does not really matter whether they pass. The question is: can an effective arrangement be made for the unified entrepreneurial management? That is the question which I ask the Government to consider.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I had not intended to reply, as I do not have much to add, but my noble friend has stung me to answer. First, I should like to say that in my opening remarks I said that the advisory role of the commission would be totally there, in order to support the Royal palaces. But my noble friend then mentioned Winston Churchill, and suggested what Winston Churchill would have thought about this. I think that Winston Churchill would have been horrified at the idea of the Royal palaces being put into a commission. I may be quite wrong, but Winston Churchill had a great sense of history and history is in being Royal and, as such, I think that they should be treated separately. I cannot say whether the Historic Buildings Council and the Ancient Monuments Board thought that when this new commission was set up they would have control of the Royal palaces, and I have to leave it to the House to decide. But I should be very surprised if that were one of their ambitions.
Lord Geoffrey-Lloyd: My Lords, if my noble friend will permit me, I expressly said to him that it was not necessary that the ownership should pass. I said that I thought it was important from the point of view of the management, and he did not deal with that.
8.30 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 102) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 30; Not-Contents, 53.

DIVISION NO. 2

CONTENTS

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Birk, B.

[Teller.]

Bishopston, L. [Teller.]

Nicol, B.

Blease, L.

Peart, L.

Chorley, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Crathorne, L.

Ross of Marnock, L.

David, B.

Seear, B.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Shackleton, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Howie of Troon, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Jeger, B.

Stone, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Kennet, L.

Underhill, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Winstanley, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Adeane, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Avon, E.

Lane-Fox, B.

Bellwin, L.

Long, V.

Beloff, L.

Lucas of Chiworth, L.

Belstead, L.

Lyell, L.

Boardman, L.

McFadzean, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Caithness, E.

Margadale, L.

Camoys, L.

Orkney, E.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Perth, E.

Cathcart, E.

Portland, D.

Coleraine, L.

Renton, L.

Craigavon, V.

St. Davids, V.

Croft, L.

St. Just, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Saltoun, Ly.

Digby, L.

Sandford, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Skelmersdale, L.

Elton, L.

Swinton, E. [Teller.]

Ferrers, E.

Trumpington, B.

Fortescue, E.

Tryon, L.

Gainford, L.

Vickers, B.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Vivian, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Windlesham, L.

Grafton, D.

Wynford, L.

Greenway, L.

Young, B.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
Schedule 4 [The Commission: Amendments]:
8.38 p.m.
The Earl of Avonmoved Amendment No. 103:
Page 35, leave out lines 36 to 46.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this amendment is consequential on Amendment No. 91 to which we spoke before the adjournment. If I may make a brief observation, I had intended at that stage to reply to one point concerning Amendment No. 91. However, with his customary aptitude the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, realised that we were straying from the point, so in the event I did not have time to reply. My noble friend Lord Geoffrey-Lloyd asked about manor houses and was supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Airey of Abingdon. The new clause certainly gives to the commission a very wide advisory power covering all buildings of historic or architectural interest. I am sure that they will pay close attention to

607
the comments made today about the claims for small manor houses, which I would happily endorse. Amendment No. 103 deletes from Schedule 4 an advisory power in relation to the Secretary of State's functions under the 1953 Act. I beg to move.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, before the amendment is accepted or rejected, I wonder whether I could follow the example of the noble Earl, Lord Avon, by going a little wide of the particular amendment which is before us and making a remark about Amendment No. 91 as a whole which was agreed to with such exemplary speed immediately before we rose for dinner. If any noble Lord thinks that I should not do so at this moment I hope he will let me know, otherwise, without any objections from the House, I shall proceed for a couple of minutes.
Amendment No. 91—this major amendment produced by the Government—was, as the noble Earl said, in response to the doubts expressed during the Committee stage about the incomprehensibility of Schedule 4. My opinion is that the Government are to be much congratulated on having seized the bull by the horns and on making a full and quite satisfying statement on the general functions and duties of the commission. For that they have earned the gratitude of all parts of the House. It was necessary to do it because Schedule 4 was incomprehensible.
The other side of that coin—the other side of the complimentary face which I have just presented—is that Schedule 4 is still incomprehensible. We must for a moment ask ourselves, who will benefit from the clear new Clause 30 and who will suffer from the continuing incomprehensibility of Schedule 4? The answer is quite clear. The public at large will greatly benefit from the new Clause 30 and will for the first time know what it is all about: they will know what sort of animal the commission is intended to be.
Now that we can all see the commission's general outline through the mist. we can all be satisfied that it is the right sort of animal. But those who will continue to suffer from the incomprehensibility of Schedule 4 will be all those concerned professionally with the functioning of the new commission. I suggest that the new commissioners themselves will suffer, as will local authorities, civil servants in the department, local amenity societies and trustees. In other words, although much of the harm that would have been done by the total incomprehensibility of one schedule to the Bill has been circumvented by the new clause, yet the harm itself is still there. There should not be an incomprehensible schedule to any Bill.
I want to take this opportunity to ask the noble Earl what the Government intend doing to make Schedule 4 more comprehensible. At an earlier stage there was discussion on the possibility of the Government publishing a document which I called a "kippered Keeling". That document is in itself a very difficult one to understand; perhaps the second most difficult in the law of preservation as a whole. If the Government can put this in the "kippered Keeling" and can undertake to make it available everywhere the Bill is available, to everyone to whom the Bill is available, and at a price which will not greatly increase that which everyone has to pay for the Bill, then the House should rest content.
608
On the other hand, if the Government cannot give us that clear undertaking at this stage, it may be necessary to come hack to the continuing evil of the incomprehensibility of one schedule to this Bill at another stage and, perhaps, even later in another place.
The Earl of Perth: My Lords, Lord Kennet has commented on the difficulties of Schedule 4. It is a very difficult schedule but, to the extent that this amendment leaves out 10 of the lines, we should be grateful—more particularly because, as the noble Earl, Lord Avon, has told us, it is covered in his Amendment No. 91, which was moved before we went to have our dinner. I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, that Clause 30 is now subject to one or two changes, but we know now what the commission are to do. This is stated so clearly, not only for our purposes but also for the public generally, that we are all very indebted to the noble Earl for having done that. It was that point that worried me most of all—what was it all about? Now we know.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords for the kind things they have said. With regard to the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, about the form of publication, I do not have the exact words before me, but, so far as I know, there is no change on the statement I made at Committee stage. However, I will make sure that we give a full statement at Third Reading which will spell it out quite clearly.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Avonmoved Amendment No. 104:
Page 36, line 1, leave out ("At the end of section 2 of the 1953 Act") and insert ("In the Historic Building and Ancient Monuments Act 1953 (the 1953 Act") at the end of section 2").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this amendment makes some drafting changes to paragraph 2 of Schedule 4, which will become the first paragraph of Schedule 4 as a consequence of the deletion of paragraph 1, which itself is the consequence of the new Clause 30. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Strathcona and Mount Royalmoved Amendment No. 105:
Page 37. line 11. after ("garden") insert (", park, designed landscape").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in this amendment —and I shall endeavour to cover the points of Amendment No. 106 at the same time—we refer to the question which was raised by my noble friend Lord Digby at Committee stage. At that time the amendment was received with what I might call reserved sympathy by my noble friend the Minister. Amendment No. 106 is a little different from the amendment moved in the Committee, because seemingly it created problems for the Government by importing the concept of scientific interest. In so doing, it created a conflict of interests with the responsibilities of the Countryside Commission, which was not the intention.
The Historic Buildings Council have not, perhaps, achieved all that we hope they might because basically

609
they have been starved of money. But they have the task of preserving parks and landscapes. Indeed, it is clearly in their remit because they advise the Secretary of State on the question of exemption from capital transfer tax in respect of those areas. What we have done in revising Amendment No. 106 is to place emphasis on the word "artistic" as opposed to the word "historic". My noble friend Lord Digby made the point at Committee stage that artistic achievements are indeed represented by the great gardens, be they large gardens or be they small gardens.
Also, I want to make the point that artistic gardens are still being created. Certainly in my lifetime we have seen the Crown Commissioners create the Savill and Valley Gardens at Windsor, which constitute a major artistic achievement by the eminent gardener after whom the gardens have been named. In using the word "artistic", we are seeking to distinguish between the national landscapes which are the responsibility of the Countryside Commission and artistic creations such as gardens to which we have referred in these two amendments. I beg to move.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for the brevity with which he has moved this, the first in a series of amendments designed to extend the responsibilities of the commission and the Secretary of State to include parks, designed landscapes, and other land of outstanding architectural and artistic rather than just historic interest. Although specific points in the amendments vary, their general principle is the same and therefore I would like to direct my remarks to the principle behind them all.
When your Lordships discussed similar but even more wide-ranging amendments at Committee stage, my noble friend Lord Avon drew attention to the fact that the proposals were trespassing into the remit of the Countryside Commission. In the light of that discussion, he undertook to investigate whether there was any loophole between the powers given to the new commission in this Bill and the existing powers of the Countryside Commission, which might mean that gardens, parks, landscapes and so on could not be in principle helped by grants. Due to the recent changes in portfolios, and fulfilling his pledge, I have met the Countryside Commission and I can confirm to the House that there is absolutely no loophole in the powers that were, are and will he available.
The issue, therefore, becomes one of interpretation and demarcation. The House will appreciate that there are some difficulties in interpretation; for example, what on earth is "a designed landscape". There are many different kinds of landscapes most of which have the imprint of man's hand upon them. They could range from a view of the Cotswolds to a view of Central London, to a formal park with or without a garden landscape by, say, Humphrey Repton or Capability Brown. The real answer here is demarcation. The department and the Countryside Commission at present have an administrative understanding which can most easily be expressed in terms of the ha-ha, with the building side of the ha-ha falling to the department and the other side to the Countryside Commission. There is close co-operation on the grey areas which inevitably exist. The
610
Countryside Commission will, I know, be very ready to co-operate similarly with the new commission on whatever basis is most appropriate.
My noble friend spoke particularly of the artistic achievements and of what he described as the natural achievements, and he described the natural achievements as being the responsibility of the Countryside Commission. I can assure the House that it is not quite as he has stated, but due to my devilling around on this particular issue, which I know causes wide concern in landscape circles, I can say that the position is as I have just stated it.
Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal: My Lords, I beg leave to withdrawn the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 106 not moved.]
Lord Winstanley Lord Winstanley moved Amendment No. 107:
Page 37, line 39, at end insert—
("( ) A grant or loan under this section for the purpose of securing public access to the whole or part of the property shall only be made on condition that provision is made for disabled people to have access insofar as is in the circumstances reasonable and practicable.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a simple amendment which I think noble Lords will recognise is very much along the lines of a group of amendments moved by my noble friend Lord Beaumont of Whitley at an earlier sitting on Report on this Bill, a group designed to require that the various bodies with which we are concerned in this Bill should disclose what they have done on behalf of the disabled in relation to the various premises which they manage. The noble Earl was gracious enough to indicate the Government's general support for that group of amendments. and I understand the Government themselves will be introducing something along those lines.
This amendment, the noble Earl may think, goes a little further. Maybe it does. All that it seeks to do, however, is to require that before grants or loans are given for premises that will be open to the public they be linked in some way with the making of appropriate provisions for disabled people. That link may be particularly important in the field of ancient monuments and historic buildings, where the strict access requirements are less easy to apply than in, say, a new supermarket or a new office block or something of that kind. I think there is perhaps a danger because of the difficulties of doing everything needed in relation to premises of this kind. That is the assumption that, because it is difficult to do everything, we cannot do anything.
I would assure the noble Earl that this amendment is not very onerous. It merely requires that before a grant or loan is given for the purpose of securing public access it shall be a condition that provision is made for disabled people to have access; and it goes on,
"insofar as is in the circumstances reasonable and practicable".
In other words, it merely requires that thought should be given to the rights of the disabled with regard to access before loans or grants are made. That seems to me not a very onerous requirement, and it is one that I very much hope the Government will accept.

611
I am absolutely certain that the Government are as anxious as we are that the momentum gained during the International Year of Disabled Persons should not be impeded and should not be lost. I think there is a danger that it might be. Tremendous enthusiasm was generated during the International Year, and I think it behoves those of us who were very much concerned with that Year to do what we can in relation to legislation on a continuing basis to see that that momentum is maintained. I really do say that this is not an onerous requirement. This should only be done in so far as it is both reasonable and practicable. It merely requires that thought should be given to the possibility of providing access for the disabled before grants or loans are made for the purpose of this particular clause. I beg to move.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, as the noble Lord has explained, this amendment is designed to ensure that access conditions for disabled people are imposed by the commission when making historic building grants for general public access with conditions attached to them. I think there is a very real problem in seeking to do this. Although public access to historic buildings is something which should be looked for and encouraged by the commission, the scope for special provision for disabled, or any other persons is very limited. Preservation of the past does not allow the historic fabric to be altered to provide special facilities.
The real scope for meeting the needs of disabled people lies in making sure that new facilities, such as toilets, restaurants and car parks, cater for them. The commission will not be able to make grants towards the cost of these new facilities. They will be limited, as the Secretary of State is now, to funding the repair and maintenance of the historic fabric. I do not believe it would be right to impose conditions on private owners of these houses which would require expenditure which could not be met. at least in part, by grants. In any case, the kind of facilities to be provided must be a matter for the owner, who will himself be subject to the provisions in the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970, which mirrors very closely the wording of the amendment.
The Government have accepted amendments moved by the noble Lord and by his noble friend Lord Beaumont with the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, on this subject, including an amendment requiring the commission to include in their annual report a statement of action taken to further the enjoyment of ancient monuments and historic buildings by disabled people. This provides an explicit place for the purpose of this amendment and will, we believe, ensure that their needs are met so far as is reasonable and practicable.
I should perhaps add that a great deal is already done for the disabled at the Department of Ancient Monuments within the very real constraints of this kind of site. I hope that because we have undertaken to accept the other amendments, not only in the spirit of last year being the Year of the Disabled but also in the spirit that we believe them to be totally correct, and in the light of what I have said, the noble Lord might not wish to press this amendment.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl. I have listened most carefully, and I think I can say at once that I do not disagree with a single word the noble Earl has said. At the same time. I cannot see why the words he has said should in some way lead him to believe that he cannot accept the amendment. He has said that there will be done precisely what is required in the amendment. The amendment is not onerous; it does not place a specific obligation on anybody. It merely requires that the needs of the disabled should be thought about. In so far as I understood the noble Earl's words to indicate that that would be the position. I am reassured. I would have slightly preferred to see something written into the Bill. But, in the light of the noble Earl's remarks and his clear assurance that it is his desire that what I have in mind will in fact happen, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 108 not moved.]
9 p.m.
Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal moved Amendment No. 109:
Page 38, line 25, at end insert—
("(c) any land which is situated in England which appears to them to be a garden, park, designed landscape or other land of outstanding historic or artistic interest").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we return to the same point as on Amendments Nos. 105 and 106. Perhaps I may ask the noble Lord a couple of questions on this. Again, this is a permissive power which we would be giving to the commission. Are the Government saying that if we give this power to the commission we are in danger of creating a conflict with the Countryside Commission, and that they do not particularly want to address the problem of how that conflict would be resolved? Are they saying that they want to stick rigidly to what they call the ha-ha outside historic buildings? If we do that, is there not a danger that, in the event that an artistic whole is wanted by the commission, one could end up with the Countryside Commission being interested in one bit and the new commission being interested in another? Is this not a totally unnecessary complication? If the park belongs with the building, would it not be a good idea to keep the two together as an entity?
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, before the noble Earl replies, I should like to add a word to what has been said. As a former chairman of the Countryside Commission I have, of course. no right at all to speak on behalf of the Countryside Commission as it now is, but I am bound to say that from my reading and my study of the amendment I cannot see any reason why the Countryside Commission would not welcome an amendment of this kind. It is, of course, a fact that the Countryside Commission has frequently been involved in gardens in one way or another: not the creation of the gardens or the management of them, but the fundamental part of the Countryside Commission's statutory obligations is that it must do what it can to promote access to the countryside. It often uses that definition "countryside" to include gardens of the kind that the noble Lord has in mind—access to the countryside for the purpose of

613
open air, informal, recreational activities. In the light of that particular statutory duty, the Countryside Commission has, in fact, given very many grants to assist access to gardens and to assist with certain parts of the gardens themselves—for example, tree planting at Beaulieu. and there are very many other examples I could give. I merely add, in case there is some kind of misunderstanding, that as a former chairman of the Countryside Commission I cannot myself see any reason why the countryside commissioners at the moment should have any objection to the amendment.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I think it is important to consider once again the commission's major and priority task, which the Government are convinced must be to fulfil its main duties in respect of buildings and monuments. Within that task it is right and sensible that gardens should be included, and that land associated with an historic building or ancient monument, perhaps itself long disappeared, should also be included.
Outside that, I rest my case on my belief that the function of the Countryside Commission—the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, with his great experience of these matters will correct me if I am wrong—is to provide the expertise, financial and other encouragement for what one might call the more distant areas. Between the two commissions all that is historically and artistically important can, as I said in answer to my noble friend's first barrel, be covered.
Although I should be perfectly happy to take further advice on this point, I think that the danger in this particular amendment is to open up such a lacuna that there will be land that will fall into the gap. In other words, it will not be grant aided by anyone. I do not say that that will happen, but I see it as a danger that could occur. That is one thing that nobody wants. Further to that, it would perhaps be in the interests of the House if I ask my noble friend to withdraw his amendment at this stage, and perhaps we can come back to it in private discussions before the next stage.
Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal: My Lords, one cannot possibly refuse an offer such as the noble Lord made at the end of his intervention. May I take just a couple of points on what he said before I withdraw the amendment. He talked about a gap. What I thought he would be fearful of was an overlap. Gaps are not what this is about. I accept that an overlap is a danger. What I think I am saying is that if it seems sensible for the landscape to go with the building, then so be it, let it do that. The noble Lord talked about the co-operation and the good sense that exists between the two commissions. Indeed, he referred to the two commissions.
What I am a little concerned about is that it is, in any case, pretty complicated doing a deal with the Government on any of these things, and if one can possibly avoid having it dealt with by two separate commissions, surely it would be better for the Countryside Commission to be able to say to the new commission: "This looks like your principal interest, you deal with it and have the lot." The idea of splitting this at the ha-ha and dealing with two commissions
614
fills me with a great deal of misgiving. I do not want to waste the time of the House and I come back to the hopeful words of the noble Lord at the end of his intervention. I happily withdraw the amendment, in the hope that we can reach a satisfactory conclusion.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Avonmoved Amendment No. 110:
Page 38, line 28, leave out from ("which") to ("in") in line 29 and insert ("it would (within the meaning of subsection (5) of this section) be historically appropriate to keep")
The noble Earl said: My Lords, with permission, I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 110 and 114 together. In Committee I was, happily, able to accept in principle an amendment put down by my noble friend Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal and moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, which would enable the commission to acquire not only objects which are, or have been, ordinarily kept in the building in their ownership or management. but also objects historically appropriate to such buildings.
Amendment No. 110 amends a current drafting and provides that the commission may purchase or accept as a gift any objects which it would be historically appropriate to keep in the buildings. Amendment No. 114 goes on to provide a definition of "historically appropriate". It covers any object which
"is or has been ordinarily kept in the building,"
or any object which is,
"historically associated with the building or connected with a person or event historically associated with the building."
For example, this would cover the purchase of articles which have long been associated with the resident of a particular building but never actually kept there—a point which I believe concerned my noble friend Lord Digby.
The Duke of Grafton: My Lords, I should like to say a few words on this subject because I am not sure that the Government have really realised what was intended. Amendment No. 103D was accepted in principle in Committee. It would have made the Bill at page 38, line 27, read:
"power to purchase by agreement, or to accept a gift of, any objects which arc historically appropriate to, or have been ordinarily kept in".
I feel that the Government have still missed the point, which had in fact been very clearly made by Amendment No. 103D and by my noble friend Lady Birk, who moved it.
Objects that are historically appropriate to a building would not necessarily pass the test under the Government's amendment; only those of the type mentioned by my noble friend Lord Digby would pass it and they might conceivably have missed the old test as historically associated anyway. The type of situation envisaged by the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, is not met by the Government. I speak as a member of the Historic Buildings Council for England which has to deal with very difficult cases of historic houses which we are trying to rescue without one single stick of furniture. I quote one case in particular—the beautiful Montacute House in Somerset, which was rescued in the 1920s, when not one single bit of historic furniture belonging either to the Phelips family, who built it, or

615
to Lord Curzon, who had lived there for 10 years, was in it.
I suggest that the proposed amendment would allow another collection to be built up of similar objects of furniture which would be suitable furnishings for Montacute House. In fact the National Trust, with great assiduity over many years, has begged, borrowed and stolen furniture and tapestries. I ought to withdraw "stolen", but it has furnished it with very great difficulty.
I see the situation happening again. I do not think that the present amendment actually covers this point. One has only to think of the pathetic empty houses in France to realise that this is surely not what we want.
The Earl of Perth: My Lords, if I understand the problem here, it arises from the word "historically". I understood the noble Duke to say that if one had an empty house and another collection that was wholly appropriate, then it was right that it should be included as part of the whole of that particular house. I would go along with that. But, if we interpret "historically" as being actually associated with the house in one way or another, then I am unhappy about the situation. So I hope that there is no confusion and that the noble Earl when he inserts the word "historically" does not mean that these items have literally got to be part of the history of that house in some way or another. That is my worry. If he were to leave out the word "historically" so that it just said "appropriate to" I should be totally happy.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, I think that we should get one point quite clear. As I understand it, the Minister spoke about his amendment. Did the noble Duke then move the amendment to which some of us have attached our names? There is an amendment in his name. Are we discussing that amendment?
The Duke of Grafton: My Lords, I hoped that we were.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, perhaps I may clarify the point. The amendment moved is amendment No. 110, which is my amendment. The noble Duke will have to wait until his amendment is called.
Lord Digby: My Lords, I should like to come to the rescue of my noble friend Lord Avon because it seems to me that "historically appropriate" here means not necessarily historically attached to the house; it could well mean things that are historically appropriate to the period of the house. Therefore, I believe that it is a wide definition. However, I should like the Minister's confirmation of this wider interpretation because I am most grateful to him for bringing forward this amendment.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, I should like to make my point on this amendment. I also am grateful to the Minister for what I am sure is the intention to meet what a number of us—particularly the noble Lord, Lord Digby, and myself—were concerned about in Committee. The noble Earl, at column 964 of the Official Report for 21st December 1982, said:
616
"The Government agree that historically appropriate objects are highly relevant to the overall conservation of the building and we are happy to accept the amendment in principle".
He went on to say that he would prefer not to commit himself to the precise form of words. It is a pity because, on the face of it, the amendment appears to have done the trick, but I do not believe it really has. It reads:
"historically appropriate to keep in a building if—

(a) it is or has been ordinarily kept in the building; or

(b) it is historically associated with the building or connected with a person or event historically associated with the building".

It seems to me that it does not include objects or pieces of furniture or other things which could be brought into the house at a later stage, which would be historically appropriate but which nevertheless would not come under the criteria of having been:

"(a) … ordinarily kept in the building; or

(b) … historically associated with the building or connected with a person or event".

though they could be of the right period; they could be absolutely right.
It took me some time to fathom this out. At first I was convinced, because I knew the intention was there. We were all pleased and accepted in Committee that this was so. But I think that, through some error or through something that happened, it does not meet the point, certainly the point I made in Committee about this. The amendment in the name of the noble Duke. the noble Lords, Lord Montagu and Lord Strathcona, and myself—Amendment No. 114A —deals with this particular point.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, very briefly, perhaps I may just run through again what I think this amendment includes, because it seemed to me that we had covered virtually everything. Amendment No. 110, using the words:
"it would … be historically appropriate to keep",
in the buildings concerned, covers any object which is or has been:
"ordinarily kept in the building".
or any object which:
"is historically associated with the building or connected with a person or event historically associated with the building".
For example, this would cover the purpose of memorabilia which were associated with the resident of a particular building but never actually kept there. I take the point made by my noble friend the Duke and I should like to have a very close look at what he has suggested—particularly the case he mentioned—to make sure that what he has suggested is covered. I hope that he will let me do that.
The Duke of Grafton: My Lords, I should be very grateful if my noble friend would do that.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
9.17 p.m.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu Lord Montagu of Beaulieu moved Amendment No. 111:
Page 38, line 44, at end insert—
(" (3A) The Commission may acquire any listed building together with any other adjacent property in a group with two or

617
more listed buildings for the purpose of repairing, restoring or improving it, or them. prior to disposing of it, or them, by sale or otherwise under a "revolving fund".").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with this amendment I should like to speak to Amendment No. 113. Noble Lords will recall that in Committee an amendment was tabled on similar lines, but I believe that the Government thought that the amendment was only specially designed to allow country houses to be purchased, repaired and sold. But this was not the purpose and perhaps it was our fault that the amendment was not clearly understood. It was very much wider: it was to ensure that the commission should and could do much humbler work in towns, cities and villages, particularly on small groups of buildings and small buildings themselves, on the "revolving fund" principle, which is well-established and working very well in some areas.
I am sure that your Lordships will appreciate the great merit of such revolving funds—that they are a very cheap way of using a relatively limited amount of money and, of course, using it over and over again. Alas! although this has been very successfully operated in Scotland for many years, especially by the National Trust for Scotland, it has not been adopted widely in England. There are still far too many areas where local authorities and others have not yet adopted revolving fund principles. It is to fill this void that I believe the commission needs to have a clearance and, if necessary, the powers in the Bill.
This amendment differs in various ways from the amendment tabled at the Committee stage. First, the words "together with … adjacent property" have been added so that schemes can cover occasionally even unlisted buildings when they are in a group. Secondly, the term "revolving fund" has been specifically written in to remove all doubt as to what is intended. This amendment is also linked to Amendment No. 113 and sub-paragraph (4) is amended to bring revolving fund activities under the control of the Secretary of State. If this is the price to be paid, perhaps it is the best price to be paid.
Therefore, I am asking for an assurance that the commission can be involved in revolving fund work and that the grant-in-aid will be sufficient to allow considerable borrowing for revolving fund purposes. Finally, perhaps my noble friend would make it clear how grants to other organisations setting up revolving funds to provide them with capital purchases are to be divided between, for example, the Civic Trust and others that pass on their funds to various charities. I beg to move.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, when we discussed this idea at Committee stage, I said that with one difference the activities provided for by this amendment, acquiring, repairing, improving and reselling historic houses, were already provided for under Section 5A of the 1953 Act. That difference was the need to get the Secretary of State's consent to acquisition. As we have heard from my noble friend, Amendment No. 113 takes this on board and makes acquisition for the revolving fund subject to such consent.
However, I must go back to what I said then. This does not alter the basic and most important issue, which is that, under the Government's proposal, the
618
commission will have the necessary powers to operate a revolving fund. I would gladly give my noble friend that reassurance. He asked me about a grant. I am not sure what the answer is to that, but I shall let him know in the near future.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu: My Lords, in view of that assurance, and I am delighted to hear once again that it confirmed that the commission will be able to operate revolving funds, I am happy to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.21 p.m.
The Earl of Avonmoved Amendment No. 112:
Page 38, line 46, leave out ("or(2)")
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this amendment will remove the need for the commission to obtain the Secretary of State's consent to acquiring or accepting as a gift any historical object for the buildings in its care. This question of the need of the Secretary of State's consent was a recurring theme during our discussion on Schedule 4 at Committee stage. In relation to this paragraph, paragraph 8 of Schedule 4, it was suggested that it was not sensible for the commission to be required to get consent before requiring or accepting objects, or before accepting gifts of property. We have accepted the first of these suggestions, which is now embodied in this amendment. Perhaps I may explain why we can accept this but not the other idea. Briefly, it is that taking on an historical building involves continuing bills for repair, maintenance and management. These are often substantial. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 113 not moved.]
The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 114:
Page 38, line 48, at end insert—
("(5) For the purposes of section (2) of this section, an object is one which it would be historically appropriate to keep in a building if—

(a) it is or has been ordinarily kept in the building; or

(b) it is historically associated with the building or connected with a person or event historically associated with the building.")

The noble Earl said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this. I beg to move.
The Duke of Graftonmoved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 114, Amendment No. 114A:
At end insert ("or is similar to such an object; or
(c) it is of the same date or style as the building or part thereof and appropriate thereto")
The noble Duke said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this. I beg to move this amendment.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, since this has been formally moved, although it has been thoroughly thrashed out in your Lordships' Committee, I did not think that the noble Earl in replying to it had totally taken on board the strength of the desire to include in this objects which are not necessarily connected with the building or with persons connected with the building. It is an extension of the Bill that we are searching for here. I am sure it is a right one. I hope

619
that he will come back at Third reading with an amendment to this, or can tell us why not, because even if he does not, I think that the rest of us would probably want to bring it forward. This is an important amendment.
Amendment to the amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
9.25 p.m.
The Earl of Avonmoved Amendments Nos. 115 and 116:
Page 39, line 4, at end insert ("or 119(1)(b) or (c)"). line 6, leave out ("section").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, Amendment No. 115 will enable the commission to grant aid in respect of local authority acquisitions of historic buildings where these are made by agreements. In Committee, when we discussed Amendment No. 103J in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, I was able to assure the Committee that we intended to widen the commission's powers beyond the grant-aiding of compulsory acquisitions. Under this amendment, they will be able to give grant to any local authority which has acquired by agreement any building appearing to them to be of special architectural or historical interest, and any land adjoining such a building which appears to the Secretary of State to be necessary for preserving the building or its amenities. Amendment No. 116 makes a drafting change to reflect the fact that the paragraph now refers to two sections, rather than one, of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal moved Amendment No. 117:
Page 39, leave out lines 13 to 15 and insert—

("(a) buildings which are situated in England and which appear to the Commission to be of outstanding historic or architectural interest together with any land which is contiguous or adjacent thereto: and

(b) land which is situated in England and which comprises a garden, park, designed landscape or other land which appears to the Commission to be of outstanding historic, or artistic interest.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 117 goes to the new paragraph 5A in Schedule 4, and No. 119, if I may speak of that at the same time, broadens the provision to Scotland and Wales. In the presence of my noble friend the Duke of Grafton, I say that perhaps he should be moving this as it is a National Trust one. We have talked about artistic merit, gardens, parks and designed landscapes. This goes back to the same fundamental issue that we do not want to separate the buildings from their surroundings. There seems no good reason why grants should not be given to the National Trust under these two provisions in the Bill so that buildings are not separated from the amenity lands which go with them. Amendment No. 119 attempts to do the same for Scotland and Wales. We are possibly in difficulty over the Long Title of the Bill regarding Scotland and Wales. I hope the Minister will not take refuge behind that because, if he accepts the principle, it would be simple to introduce an amendment to the Long Title.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, this gun is obviously rather modern—having considerably more than two barrels—but let us see how we get on with it as we proceed. These amendments seek to extend the commission's and the Secretary of State's power to make grants to the National Trust, as we have already heard, towards the cost of acquiring property. The current powers cover only buildings of outstanding historic and architectural interest. The amendments would also cover parks and so on.
As I understand it, the grants to the National Trust in respect of a unit—by "unit" I mean a garden with its associated land—would be covered already by the Bill, so I do not see that my noble friend has any cause to worry on that score. My noble friend also preempted what I was going to say about seeking to extend the powers to the Secretaries of State for Wales and Scotland, which is outside the present aims of the Bill. If we really needed to do that, I agree with him that there would not be any great problem in extending the Long Title.
Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal: Frankly, my Lords, I found my noble friend's response difficult to understand. As for the last point he made, we read in paragraph 9(4) of Schedule 4:
"This section applies only where the property or buildings are situated in Scotland and Wales",
which in itself seems to be outside the Long Title anyway, although that is already in the Bill.
So far as the other point is concerned, if the noble Lord really is saying that it is covered, clearly that is something that we must accept, if it comes from so authoritative a source. But the strange point is that, as I understand it, that is not the way that most people would read the Bill. Nevertheless, I think that the best thing we can do is to withdraw the amendment at present and seek confirmation from the noble Lord that he really is right in what he is saying: and no doubt he is exceedingly well briefed. If the experts on the other side are not satisfied, I suppose that we shall have to return to the matter at Third Reading. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.31 p.m.
Baroness Birk Baroness Birk moved Amendment No. 118:
Page 39. line 15, at end insert—
("Commission: major conservation schemes.
5C. Subject to the consent of the Secretary of State the Commission may initiate, carry out, co-ordinate or participate in a "major conservation scheme" for the conservation, repair, enhancement and improvement of any outstanding group of scheduled monuments or buildings listed as being of special historic or architectural interest together with other buildings and land in conservation areas or otherwise, including schemes in partnership with local authorities, charities, housing associations and any other bodies or persons with commercial or noncommercial interest therein as the Commission thinks fit."
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, we discussed a somewhat similar amendment in Committee. We are trying to deal with those cases where major schemes need to be put through, often with the help of local authorities or other bodies, or both. Until now the matter has been left to the Department of the Environment and it has not always faced up to the situation and got on with the job. As a result, schemes have not

621
been put into being by anyone else, things have slid from bad to worse, buildings have been lost, and the cost of saving those that have been saved has risen all the time.
The need is to give the commission powers to get things to move. In the context of Government property being vacated, where local authorities are under no real obligation to go in and spend their ratepayers' money, Chatham's historic dockyard would be a present-day example. Woolwich Arsenal is another, and there may soon be even more, as the services pull out of their historic premises as their needs change. It seems wrong that the commission should have the flair and entrepreneurial skills, yet not have the power to use them where they are most needed.
At the Committee stage the Minister said that he thought that the amendment was drawn rather too widely. Well, this kind of amendment has to be drawn rather widely. So that large and open-ended commitments are not taken on without the Secretary of State's knowledge and approval, this point is now written in, even though by making the power subject to the Secretary of State's consent, we have to accept that caution could act as an obstruction. However, we hope that that will not be so. The amendment provides the opportunity—it seems very difficult to find any other way to do it—to enable major conservation schemes to be carried out by the new heritage commission. I beg to move.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, since we discussed a very similar amendment to this one at the Committee stage, I have had the opportunity to reconsider the question of whether or not the commission should have specific powers to organise partnership schemes, with a wide range of bodies or persons, for the conservation of historic buildings and areas. I have to say that, despite the arguments advanced then and now, I do not believe that these powers are really necessary.
As I said in Committee, the commission will have wide grant-making powers, and in respect of any of these, if it thinks it right, it will be able to agree with any other person or body how best the resources might be used. The commission will also have very wide ranging advisory powers, and within its general duty of preservation described in the new Clause 30 it will have ample scope to foster the preservation of important buildings and groups of buildings through encouragement, expert advice, and commitment, as well as through grant resources. I believe that we all agree that that is the real role for the commission. The extent to which it involves itself will be for it to decide, but as was suggested in The Way Forward, it will be expected to be a powerful voice for conservaton. All the powers that the commission should need to foster and assist the kind of conservation schemes envisaged in the amendment are already in the Bill.
The amendment includes a reference to a "major conservation scheme', a term which at the moment is left undefined, though of course we could get round that. But the schemes could extend to the conservation, repair, enhancement and improvement of any outstanding group of buildings, together with other buildings and land. We believe that in this case the
622
commission would need the consent of the Secretary of State, but not it seems of the owners or occupiers of the buildings involved. I did not intend to go into the technical aspects of the amendment, and I hope that, with my added reassurance as to what the Bill at present covers, the noble Baroness will feel that it is adequate.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that explanation. I am not sure at the moment that I feel that it is adequate. I will read what he has said about it, look at it again and, in the meantime, beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.36 p.m.
Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal moved Amendment No. 119:
Page 39, leave out lines 16 and 17 and insert—
("9.—(1) Section 6 of the 1953 Act (grants for acquisition of historic buildings) shall be amended as follows—
(2) In subsection (2) leave out "buildings which appear" to the end of the subsection and insert—

"(a) buildings which appear to the Secretary of State to be of outstanding historic or architectural interest together with ony land which is contiguous or adjacent thereto; and

(b) land which comprises a garden, park, designed landscape or other land which appears to the Secretary of State to be of outstanding historic or artistic interest."

(3) At the end of that section there shall be inserted—")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment, and I now beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal moved Amendment No. 120:
Page 39, leave out lines 20 and 21 and insert—
("10.—(1) Section 8 of the 1953 Act shall be amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (l)—

(a) in paragraph (c) leave out "building" and substitute "monument";

(b) at the end of paragraph (c) insert—

"or

( ) any land comprising, or adjacent to, any such building or monument; or

( ) any land appearing to the Secretary of State to be a garden, park, designed landscape or other land of outstanding historic or artistic interest.";

(c) for "upkeep of any such building together with" substitute "upkeep of any such building, monument, garden, park, designed landscape or other land together with".

(3) At the end of that section there shall be inserted—")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is on the same general issue, but it gets a little more complicated because it refers back to previous legislation, as so often happens in this Bill. As I understand it, the situation will be that the 1953 Act will be amended in respect of endowments—Section 8 by the Secretaries of State for Scotland and Wales in the future, and Section 8A by the commission in respect of English properties. The new Clause 8A is presumably modelled on the old Section 8, but one looks in vain to find powers for the Secretary of State to accept endowments for scheduled monuments or land contiguous to the buildings, because the 1953 Act was not amended in the 1974 Act, as perhaps it should have been.
My understanding is that the old section says:
"a building of which at that time the Secretary of State is or shortly will be the guardian under the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Act 1979,"
and goes on to say that the endowment can be for or towards the upkeep of any such building together with other property. But are we going to refer to a scheduled monument as a building? If only scheduled monuments can be taken into guardianship, is this quite good enough? I suppose that one could argue that a building can be a monument; but a monument is not necessarily a building. I do not want to get into a great semantics argument at this hour in this House, and I am sure noble Lords would not wish me to do so.
Then we go on to talk about contiguous land. Here again, we are talking about endowments in respect of buildings together with other property. Is that really what we intend? It seems to refer more to items like pictures or furniture than to land or landscapes. Then, finally, we go back again to the question of outstanding landscapes and gardens.
Similarly, Amendment No. 121 is intended to put right the uncertainty in these two sections, sections 8 and 8A, as to whether a monument is a building or not. That is what paragraph (c) is about. I hope that this rather obscure moving of this amendment will be sufficient for your Lordships.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, in speaking to No. 120, I, too, should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 121 and 122. The first part of the first two of these amendments is concerned to ensure that endowments can be accepted in respect of both monuments and buildings, and that the present wording of the relevant section of the Historic Buildings and Ancient Monuments Act 1953 does not preclude associated land. I am happy to say that these amendments are not necessary. They are already covered by the existing wording of the legislation. There is, however, one gap which my noble friend identified in paragraph 11 of Schedule 4, where the new section of the 1953 Act does not presently cover endowments in respect of monuments or buildings in the commission's guardianship. A Government amendment will be brought forward to cover that point. I cannot guarantee that it will be in this House; it could well be in another place. But I give the assurance that one will come forward.
The other effect of the amendments covers ground already discussed on the designed landscape front, on Amendment No. 105. I hope that my noble friend will agree that we need not discuss the principle again. As to whether "monuments" include "buildings" or "buildings" include "monuments", I have a horrible feeling that we may be getting this discussion in the amendments which are sure to be brought forward at the next stage, continuing on the theme of what the new commission should be called. Perhaps my noble friend will be content to leave the matter until then.
Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal: My Lords, the noble Lord is clearly trying to meet us so far as he can. I get nervous when we are at Report stage and talking about things being done at a later stage or in another place. This Bill will not be discussed in another place.
624
We all know that if the Government choose to do so, they have total whipping power in another place, and this Bill is not suitable to be discussed in another place. I sincerely hope that the noble Lord will exercise every bit of pressure that he and his noble friend have used so successfully to see that these matters come forward at the Third Reading in this House. With the greatest respect to another place, I honestly believe that we will be in grave danger if we leave anything to them. With the helpful suggestion of the noble Lord, I am glad to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 121 and 122 not moved.]
9.42 p.m.
Baroness Birk Baroness Birk moved Amendment No. 123:
Schedule 4, page 40, line 32, at end insert:
("Commission to advise on Government's scheduled monuments and listed buildings.
8B. The Commission shall be the adviser to the Secretary of State on the proper maintenance, repair, conservation and alteration of, or addition to, and demolition of scheduled monuments and listed buildings in the ownership, occupation or management of all bodies entitled to Crown exemption from the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Acts (including Health Authorities, Industrial Estates Corporations and the Receiver for the Metropolitan Police District) and he shall cause—

(a) all such monuments and buildings to be inspected by the Commission from time to time: and

(b) reports to be made on them by the Commission to him from time to time: and

(c) advice to be given to him by the Commission on any—

(i) proposal dealt with under the provisions of Circular 7/77 and analogous instructions or advisory notes;

(ii) improvement that can reasonably be made in their maintenance, repair or conservation and in the appropriateness of their use to their being scheduled monuments and listed buildings.").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment is a different version of the one that I moved in Committee, which was rather sharper about the Property Services Agency. This is a very much softer approach to the same problem. There was, nevertheless, considerable support round the Committee and murmurs of agreement and even some surreptitious nods from the Front Bench opposite. Naturally, I do not include the Minister among those who nodded. It was a pity that the amendment was not taken to a Division then. However, I felt also that one should try a rather more tender approach towards the PSA than the one I followed in Committee.
It is important that something is done about what is a real problem—and from time to time everybody admits it is—though the defence put up by the Minister was quite natural. There was a certain amount of truth in it. I said it was true that the PSA does very well in many ways and in many places—particularly in the spotlight at Westminster. But the picture can be very different in the provinces, and Government departments are often notorious in their neglect of the good buildings that they own. I repeat that one of the troubles is that they are left too much on their own and without sufficient control.
Something which also causes great distress is where there is mismanagement of buildings—for instance, in a conservation area. I still have in mind the dreadful

625
post office in Chichester which is right in the middle of that marvellous city—a beautiful conservation area. There are other examples which one can put forward. On the other hand, what has been done at Somerset House has been superb. The only trouble is that Somerset House is still not in use, and that is a great tragedy.
It may well be that the PSA, as a creature of the Department of the Environment, when dealing with buildings in its own estate will consult with the heritage commission freely and constructively. It is also true that the PSA often gets blamed for the iniquities of other Government departments which do not themselves take enough care of the buildings within their own estate. But this amendment now is really just saying that the commission shall be the adviser to the Secretary of State on the proper maintenance, repair and so on, and that they shall cause reports to be made and monuments to be inspected by the commission from time to time.
Therefore, it would seem to me that now it has become quite an acceptable form of amendment which gives this new commission the chance to do what it should do, which—let us face it—has not always been done by the Department of the Environment under all Governments in the past: that is, to make sure not only to consult with, but to keep an eye on the work of, the PSA and to exercise some control; also to make sure that there is adequate consultation and discussion with them and to make sure that they oversee what is being done.
We went into this quite deeply in Committee and I hope now that the Minister will be able to say—because the Government are aware and everybody is aware of this problem—that, in view of this different approach to the matter and this amendment, which I should have thought would be quite acceptable and which seems to be free of all criticism, now would be the chance—and it is very important with this new commission being set up—to ensure that there shall be a proper working liaison because of what the PSA is concerned with in its building work, the restoration and rehabilitation of buildings. There should be this sort of supervisory control, and so on, because of the commission being the adviser to the Secretary of State. I would have thought that that would certainly be welcomed by the commission and should be welcomed by the Secretary of State. Whether it would be welcomed immediately by the PSA, I must be honest and say that I would perhaps doubt; but I think they would quite soon get used to it and, with the new commission being set up, now seems the time to do it. I beg to move.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, we had a good discussion in Committee on the principle which underlies this amendment, and it is clear from the redrafting, as the noble Baroness says, that some of the points made in that discussion have indeed been taken. I have to say, however, that the Government remain of the opinion that a power of this sort could be counter-productive. As I said before, we believe it would be far better for the commission to proceed by advice and persuasion, being seen to be reasonable and responsible while still pressing the conservation case.
626
That is one reason why clause 30 contains such wideranging advisory powers which catch all bodies without exception.
In order to move a little towards what the noble Baroness has been saying, may I say that the Government recognise the point she has made and are therefore proposing to include in Circular 7/77 a requirement that the commission be notified of all relevant proposals dealt with under the provisions of that circular. For those in the House, like myself, who are unclear as to what is meant by Circular 7/77, I should briefly explain that it sets out the procedures governing all—and I say again, "all"—Government departments and those other bodies mentioned in the amendment who are exempt from the statutory obligation to submit planning applications and listed building consent applications. The procedures in the circular very largely mirror the statutory procedures, although they, and the views of the local planning authorities, do not in these cases have the force of law.
The Government are convinced that the powers of notification and advice and persuasion in this situation are the best way to make progress in this area. I hope that my obvious assurance that we have moved a long way towards the noble Baroness in our undertaking to include these requests in the circular, will in some way enable her to withdraw her amendment.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu: My Lords, although some of us are disappointed that the Government cannot accept this amendment, I certainly recognise that they have gone some way towards meeting the points. There is no doubt that the PSA has at times done a very good job; however, in the past it has not always done so and one does not always know what will happen in future. I should have thought that the PSA would warmly welcome close connections with the new commission and if that is to be encouraged, so much the better.
Perhaps the only thing to do now is to see how things will work out, particularly in view of the assurances that the noble Earl has given. Certainly some of us will keep a very close eye on the PSA's operations to make quite sure that it carries out overall Government policy on the conservation of historic buildings, even those in Government care.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, naturally, like the noble Lord, Lord Montagu, I should have been happier if the Government had found it possible or decided to accept the amendment. I think they should have done, because it is something that at some point some Government has to grapple with. Every year an enormous amount of money is spent by the PSA, more than the sum spent by all the other property companies one can think of put together. Therefore, there is not only an aesthetic and visual side, but an important financial side to it.
It is obvious that at this time of night, even if I called a Division, I should certainly not win it on this. Nevertheless, I am grateful to the Minister for having moved a bit towards the line we want, although it is not as strong as I should have liked; but he has undertaken that guidelines will be put out. May I ask if they could be extremely firm and if the connection between the new commission and the PSA could be

627
understood on both sides as meaning that the long sleep is ended and that Sleeping Beauty must wake up and take responsibility for what she has done or not done? Then we shall have moved but a little way forward, although nothing like as far as many of us
628
would hope. Indeed, everyone who spoke when we discussed this in Committee expressed the same point of view from every side of the House. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.53 p.m.
Lord Strathcona and Mount Royalmoved Amendment No. 124:
Page 40, line 32, at end insert—
(" "8B.—(1) The Commission shall compile a register, with plans, to show such gardens, parks, designed landscapes and other lands as appear to them to be of special historic or artistic interest and may amend such register and plans as seems appropriate to them.
(2) Before the Commission makes any entry in such register it shall consult the owner of any land which it then intends to show in that register, so that any representations that he may make may be taken into consideration before the entry is made.
Register and designation of gardens etc.
(3) The Commission shall designate under this section any land comprising an entry in that register and award such grade thereto as seems appropriate to them and may amend any such designation or grading.
(4) The Commission shall publish any designation or grading that it makes under this section, or amendment thereto, and shall notify the owner of any land so designated and all local authorities concerned therewith of such designation, grading or amendment thereof.
(5) The designation of any land under this section shall be for the better information and guidance of all Government departments, local authorities and other bodies proposing development in or near any such designated land or in its setting.
(6) The Commission shall be notified of, and consulted on, any development by any Government department or local authority affecting any such designated land or its setting.
(7) Any local authority shall notify the Commission of, and consult it on, any application made to that local planning authority for planning consent affecting any such designated land, or its setting.
(8) The Commission shall be consulted by the Secretary of State and advise him (whether or not lie has consulted them) on the desirability, or otherwise, of any proposed development which in their opinion affects any land designated under this section or its setting." ").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a follow-up of an amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Digby in Committee. The amendment has, I think, been considerably improved and tidied up. The first point to make is that it now refers to a register rather than to a list. This is more important than at first might appear because the notion of listing of buildings inevitably makes people a little nervous. It make owners nervous and it makes the department nervous as to the amount of work it might be taking on. We are now talking of a register, and I hope that that stills any fear that anyone may have about all sorts of powers being implied or imposed by doing that.
It also refers to the importance of consultation before gardens are put on to the register. Obviously, the purpose of this amendment is to make sure that the commission indeed identifies the gardens, parks, designed landscapes and so on which are of especial interest, historic or artistic.
One of the purposes lying behind that is that it would ensure that the commission were consulted in good time before any proposed development comes about, be it a motorway, a sewage works or a private development. Then they could advise, where appropriate, how the development might affect a registered garden. I do not think that I need to labour the point—we have discussed this so much already—about the limitations and the possibility of overlap between other bodies. Much the same argument applies here. But it seems clear that this is a duty which the commission should have laid upon
630
them, and it would be appropriate for them to perform it at a moment when they thought fit and when they had the capacity to do so. I beg to move.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu: My Lords, the noble Lord must, surely, be aware of the intense feeling about this in garden circles. Although I appreciate the technical problems about the word "listing", and the comparison with buildings, there is an urgent need for a proper register—a sort of Domesday Book—of gardens to be compiled before many more are lost, because, unlike a building, a garden can disappear extremely quickly if neglected. I hope that something can be done along these lines.
It may well be that my noble friend will say that the commission already have these powers: but I know that it would give enormous pleasure and satisfaction to those who are interested in gardens and landscapes, if a register were compiled as officially as possible and as soon as possible. The difficulties which arc sometimes put up, such as that it is impossible to describe a garden in words, can surely be got over. I remember that many years ago there was a great discussion about how you could write down choreography in ballet, but a means evolved and is now in common use. So I hope that the Government will consider an amendment along these lines, if not this one.
Lord Digby: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Avon wrote to me after I raised this subject at Committee stage, and I should like to take up two points which he made. First, he said that while circulating a list to local authorities would certainly advance their knowledge, it would do nothing explicitly to protect such gardens. Of course, it is quite true that there would be no teeth with this register, but this view ignores the effect that a statutory register would have on members of planning committees. The object of the register is not to introduce a new set of controls, but to bring forcefully to the attention of' planners and public bodies, who are planning roads and other things, the value of these gardens and landscapes.
The second point has been dealt with mainly by my noble friend Lord Strathcona. My noble friend Lord Avon said that it might be a precursor to statutory restrictions, and that owners of gardens would be very frightened of this. That is precisely why we have said "register" rather than "lists", as "lists" mean listed building controls to so many people. But controls of that type would be quite inappropriate to gardens. The object of this register is to protect gardens and landscapes, rather than to control their development.
I admit that I would be quite happy if the word "may" rather than "shall" was in this amendment, and I am assured by my noble friend that, in fact, the commission have this power, anyway. But it would act as a spur if it were in the Bill. A lot of work on this matter has already been done by ICOMOS—and I have a preliminary and interim list of gardens—so that it would not entail a vast amount of further work and would not be such a monumental task as people might think. I hope that the Government can accept this amendment.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, I find the arguments most persuasive. Is it not the case that what is proposed

631
would be analogous to—in fact, almost identical with—the status of areas of outstanding natural beauty? They are statutorily designated and they are shown on a map, but once that has happened nothing else happens. The planning system continues to function within them exactly as it functions outside them. Nevertheless, whenever a planning decision is taken within an area of outstanding natural beauty everybody thinks about it just that little bit more; there is just that little bit more publicity; just that little bit more advice is sought, and, one may hope, sometimes taken. In fact, the area of outstanding natural beauty has affected the situation. Therefore one may hope that a statutory register of gardens, even if unaccompanied, at least at this stage, by any powers based upon it, might affect the situation.
Baroness Airey of Abingdon: My Lords, I support this amendment, particularly so far as the planning of roads is concerned. If there were such a register which included important landscapes as well as gardens—possibly designed by such designers as Capability Brown—it might influence the planning of a road which could spoil a landscape.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, this is another but rather more complicated amendment, based on the principle that the commission should be responsible in some way for protecting important gardens, parks and other landscapes, although it represents a change from a similar amendment which was discussed in Committee. As my noble friend Lord Avon said at that stage, and possibly earlier, even though this amendment provides no enforcement procedure to assist the protection of these gardens, such a procedure—the mandatory requirement to produce a register—would potentially form a major distraction for the new commission in their early years from what the Government see as their major tasks, a point which I have already made this evening. In particular, the Government would not want to see anything slow up the programme of the accelerated listing resurvey which is now getting well into its stride. The amendment envisages that the commission will have a major consultative role to play, but the wide range of notification requirements would lead to a very considerable, if not impossible, practical difficulty for the commission and a very considerable extra burden on limited resources.
Besides this, as my noble friend Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal has argued, the existence of a list might well lead some owners to believe that formal protection powers would follow and thus lead to the destruction of the very thing which it is sought to preserve. This is certainly, and unfortunately, a consideration in respect of buildings being considered for listing. It may well be less applicable to gardens, but it would be better to leave the commission to make their own judgment about whether lists are needed without the implication which statutory controls would at this moment inevitably carry with them.
As we have said before, the commission will have the necessary powers to compile lists of historic gardens. if they wish, and, under their advisory powers which we have now widened in the new Clause 30, to circulate such lists to anybody they choose. It may well
632
be that they will wish to compile a list to assist them in deciding upon applications for grants under Section 3A of the 1953 Act, but I strongly believe that we should leave them to decide whether or not to do this themselves. I know that the Garden History Society and the Historic Buildings Council have done some work in this field and that the Countryside Commission have also taken an interest.
The new commission will wish to consider all these issues and to discuss them with the Countryside Commission, which, as has been said before, have wide powers and interests in this field and which, I know, would be very happy to participate. I think it best to leave it to the two corn missions to decide what should be done and how to do it rather than to lay down these detailed and burdensome procedures whose effect may not result in being as helpful as is intended.
I have no doubt that the new commission will note the warm interest of the House in the matter and will do, as I have sometimes said on other occasions, the decent thing. With this somewhat lengthy but I trust satisfactory explanation, I hope that my noble friends will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
The Earl of Perth: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord who has just spoken, particularly in relation to gardens. Gardens are live things. Gardeners today may be creating something which will be thought to be of great artistic merit, or they may want to change what they have started. If it is to be made mandatory that a garden which is being created or which has been created by somebody who is living today has to be listed, many of the people who are doing this work may be very worried about it. I wonder whether we are wise to try to go further than the provisions which, as we have heard, are already in the Bill at the present time.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, I am sure that I am not the only Member of your Lordships' House to be disappointed by the answers given by the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale. I personally felt that the answers he gave were very much the kind of answers which were given by those who resisted the introduction of the designation of areas of outstanding beauty, to which the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, very properly referred. The noble Lord is entirely right: the designation of an area of outstanding beauty does not in some way freeze an area; nor does it introduce new planning controls. The fact remains that, once an area has been designated as an area of outstanding natural beauty, it has a remarkable effect on the attitude of Ministers from time to time when different departments have to take certain decisions. It is not a statutory matter, but the very fact that a place has been designated in that kind of way has alerted those with responsibility in other fields to the importance of the particular area. I believe that this kind of register would have the same effect.
I am glad that the noble Lord mentioned the Countryside Commission in the way he did, because he made it clear that the commission is a body with many responsibilities similar to those which the noble Lord perhaps has in mind in moving this amendment. It is right to emphasise once again that the Countryside Commission has worked very closely with other

633
bodies and not in conflict with them at all. If I did not make this point clear when supporting the noble Lord, Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal, I will do so now, because what I meant to say was, there is no conflict. I have known of many cases where the Countryside Commission has given grant aid for various functions, such as Housesteads Camp at Hadrian's Wall, which was very much a matter for those who deal with historic buildings and ancient monuments.
The commission has often been involved in a grant-aided function and advisory function, which are perhaps of more interest to the Nature Conservancy Council because they are matters concerning the protection of wild life. The Countryside Commission's job has been to grant aid in order to allow people to go there.
The noble Lord the Minister is therefore entirely right in saying that the Countryside Commission will be happy to work very closely with the new commission in doing a job such as this, and would not take the view that by this new commission being given the responsibility of developing a register it was somehow being brought into conflict with another commission having similar duties. It is regrettable that we do not put something of this kind in the Bill. I am sure it will not necessarily mean that one commission shall have a register that is the inevitable precursor to the introduction of some kind of planning regulation and all sorts of Utopian measures of that kind. It merely changes the climate of opinion among those who wield power in Government, local government and in many other bodies where people can take decisions which might be deleterious to the particular gardens we all want to protect. I have every sympathy with the purposes of the amendment, and I am glad for the assurance that the kind of thing which is envisaged in the amendment will in fact be done, but I would have liked to see something such as this written into the Bill.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, by leave of the House, I gree with most of what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley. I do not see any conflict, nor do the Countryside Commission, with whom I have discussed this matter. It may be that they will come to an agreed designation system between themselves which would draw attention to the problems of those gardens on the list. But surely this is a matter for interaction between them, and not something we should make statutory as a leading responsibility and duty on a new commission from the outset.
10.9 p.m.
Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal: My Lords, I have to echo the opinion of many other noble Lords who regard the response of the Front Bench as being disappointing. It was what one might call a dreary smoke screen. My noble friend spoke about statutory controls and about the details of burdens and procedure, and then turns round and says he hopes that his reply is satisfactory; it is not satisfactory at all. The noble Lord, Lord Montagu, and the noble Lord, Lord Digby, have both described how a great deal of this work has already been done. It is not particularly difficult work. The noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, quite rightly says that you can affect the whole climate by
634
doing a thing like this. Naturally, one will hope that the commission will do it.
We had hoped that by putting it into the Bill it would give them a little extra encouragement and would concentrate their minds and also create a slightly extra safeguard. The noble Earl, Lord Perth, rightly said that gardens can very quickly disappear. I agree with him. Many gardens have disappeared. Many gardens have been created. Surely it would be valuable to everybody to be able to see what had been done, to make sure that every step was taken at the earliest stage to prevent any possible damage to them. I simply cannot believe that this would be a particularly burdensome procedure.
I hate to suggest that the House should divide on an issue of this sort: I do not think it is fundamental to this Bill; certainly it is late at night. I have to say to the noble Lord, however, that I feel he is throwing away the goodwill of the House in not agreeing something as desirable and as inessential as this. Nevertheless, having said that, I believe the right thing to do is to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Kennetmoved Amendment No. 124B:
Page 40. line 32, at end insert—
("" Commissions advice on scheduled monument and listed building consents and evidence.

(1) The Secretary of State shall seek advise from the Commission on any application made for scheduled monument consent.

(2) The Secretary of State shall seek advice from the Commission on any application for listed building consent referred to him by a local authority which is minded to give consent thereto.

(3) In the event of a scheduled monument consent application or a listed building consent application being called in for the Secretary of State's own decision, or the decision on such an application being appealed against and that appeal being dealt with by written representations or heard at a Hearing or Public Inquiry (as the case may be). the Commission shall be so informed by The Secretary of State and may—

(a) make written representations where the matter is dealt with by written representations; or

(b) appear at any Hearing or Public Inquiry, being represented and calling witnesses to give evidence, or otherwise, whether or not that Hearing or Public Inquiry is held by an Inspector with powers to decide the matter himself.")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, if the House would be so good as to cast its collective eye backwards to Amendment No. 91, the all-important Government amendment setting out the purposes of the commission, subsection (4) of that says:
"the commission may advise the Secretary of State with regard to the exercise …
of various functions by him.
"whether or not they have been consulted".
The appearance of this phase is in itself a proof of the worthwhileness of Amendment No. 91.
It was quite impossible, unassisted, to deduce from Schedule 4 whether or not the commission might advise, should advise, whether the Secretary of State should seek advice, need not seek advice or whatnot, on the various categories of functions which are now united in this useful Amendment No. 91. The amendment has brought it out that, though the commission may advise, the Secretary of State is under no duty to let them know when a case has arisen upon which they might exercise their right to advise. It

635
is no use giving them the right to advise, whether asked or not. if they remain in ignorance that the occasion for advice has arisen. My amendment simply seeks to rectify this and to bind the Secretary of State to let the commission know when there is a case coming along on which they have a right to advise. I beg to move.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, as the noble Lord says, this amendment attempts to set out in detail part of the advisory role of the commission. This role is a vital one and I can assure the House that the commission will have all the necessary powers to undertake it successfully. I hope I can persuade the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, that the amendment is in large part unnecessary. The new Clause 30, which we have already discussed, gives the commission the widest possible advisory powers. Under it they may give advice to any person in relation to historic buildings and ancient monuments situated in England, whether or not they have been consulted. They also have a specific power to advise the Secretary of State on any of his functions under the 1953 Act and the 1979 Act. So clearly they have the power to offer advice on applications for listed building consent and scheduled monument consent, among a wide range of other matters.
The Secretary of State is also required to consult the commission about scheduled monument consent applications, so there is no question but that they will have an opportunity to put their views to him. If there is an inquiry or hearing the commission will be tree to decide, if they wish, to make their views known. All this is already provided for.
We also intend that the commission should be kept informed of all except the most minor applications for listed building consent, and we shall be making the appropriate amendment to the relevant town and country planning regulations. I believe that in this way we shall have given the commission sufficient power to advise as and when they think necessary, and have provided the appropriate mechanisms for keeping the commission informed so that they may do so. We believe that to spell out in the detail of this amendment what is only part of the commission's advisory role could do harm by casting doubt on the commission's scope to advise on other things.
I hope that I have said enough to assuage the noble Lord, Lord Kennet's worries on this subject, and that he will not have to press the amendment.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, the noble Earl's answer was directed chiefly to assuring the House that the commission have a sufficient right to advise. Nobody doubts that. My amendment is directed to ensuring that the commission are informed of the existence of a particular case in all the categories concerned where their right to advise is exercisable. The noble Earl has run through a number of cases where he tells the House that under the Bill the Secretary of State already has a duty to inform the commission that a specific case has arisen where they have the right to advise. I followed him closely and I shall look at that in Hansard tomorrow.
However, I can already ask him one question. He was quite categorical and inclusive about ancient
636
monment permissions, and that the Secretary of State already has a duty to inform the commission when such cases arise. I think he satisfied me about listed building consent cases which were going to a hearing or public inquiry; that is to say, that the commission would inevitably know that a hearing or public inquiry was coming about. But some listed building consent cases are handled by written procedure, without a hearing or public inquiry, and I ask the noble Earl to give a direct answer: under the Bill as it stands, is the Secretary of State obliged to inform the commission of every particular case that comes to him for listed building consent which is going to be dealt with by written procedure?
It may be for the convenience of the House if I expand for a moment on the difference between written procedure and public inquiry. On the one hand, letters are written and exchanged and reports are submitted and considered. On the other hand, a room is booked and an inspector is appointed. All those with an interest in the case are enabled to come before the inspector and state their views. The inspector then writes a report and later, as is well known, the Secretary of State makes his decision.
Perhaps the noble Earl is now in a position to let us know the answer on the particular point of written procedure on listed building consent applications.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I can confirm that it is intended that an amendment will be made to existing regulations to ensure that the commission are informed of all listed building consent applications.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Earl and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
10.19 p.m.
The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendments Nos. 125, 126, 127, 128 and 129:
Page 40, line, 47 leave out ("After subsection (1)(a)") and insert ("In subsection (1) after paragraph (b)")
Page 40,line 48, leave out (" (aa)") and insert (" (c)")
Page 41,line 4, after ("into") insert ("and carry out")
Page 41,line 8, at end insert—
(" (d) where a redundant building or any pan thereof is situated in England and is vested in the Redundant Churches Fund in pursuance of a redundancy scheme or a pastoral scheme to which section 47 of this Measure applies. the Fund may enter into and carry out an agreement with the Commission for Ancient Monuments and Historic Buildings for England for the acquisition and preservation by the Commission of the building or part with or without other land so situated and so vested:
and for "the next two following subsections" there shall be substituted "subsections (2) and (3) of this section".")
Page 41,line 12, leave out (" (aa)") and insert (" (c) or (d)")
The noble Earl said: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I move all these amendments together.
The most important of these amendments is Amendment No. 128 which empowers the Redundant Churches Fund to enter into agreement with the commission to transfer to it a redundant church. The church will then be wholly the commission's responsibility. The amendment, minus the existing provision in the Bill which covers such transfers from diocesan hoards of finance, will thus give both the

637
boards and the fund the choice of transferring redundant buildings either to the commission or to the Secretary of State.
Under Amendment No. 129 transfers from the Redundant Churches Fund to the commission, like those from the diocesan boards of finance, will, for resource reasons, be subject to the Secretary of State's consent. Amendments Nos. 125 and 126 are minor redraftings, and Amendment No. 127 amends the wording of a provision already in the Bill, to bring it into line with the wording of the pastoral measures. I beg to move these five amendments en bloc.
Lord Sandford: My Lords, I have been watching this part of the Bill as a church commissioner and as a member of the Ecclesiastical Committee of both Houses of Parliament. I am able to say that these amendments entirely meet the points that the General Synod of the Church of England was making to the department at an earlier stage. So it is entirely satisfactory and I am grateful to my noble friend for the amendments.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, in Committee I raised the question of why it was that the Redundant Churches Fund did not have to get the Secretary of State's approval to accept a redundant church, but that the commission will have to get the Secretary of State's approval. If I remember correctly, I have been made aware from correspondence with the noble Earl—or at any rate I have been made aware in one way or another—that the reason why the Government make the distinction is that the Redundant Churches Fund gets a five-yearly grant allocation and is left to spend it over a five-year period in accordance with its own discretion, but that the commission is not going to get that and, therefore, cannot be allowed the same discretion to do what it thinks fit with redundant churches.
I must say that I regret the fact that the commission, which will be a major feature in the landscape, is not to enjoy the same liberty as the Redundant Churches Fund, which is a very minor feature in the landscape. It is regrettable, and the Goverment should have had the courage to trust the larger animal as much as they trust the smaller one.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 130:
Page 42, line 10, leave out ("is") and insert ("are")
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I am delighted to say that this is a very minor amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
10.23 p.m.
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 131:
Page 43, line 11, at end insert—
("(lA) In paragraph (aa) to subsection (1) after "of a" insert "scheduled monument or ".)
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment and Amendment No. 132 can be taken together. They differ substantially from the one amendment—which was debated in
638
Committee—Amendment No. 104G. The new amendments derive in fact from Amendment No. 104GA, which was not moved in Committee. Of the first amendment it should be said that it simply adds scheduled monuments to listed buildings as having settings with respect to which notice is given if the settings are significantly affected by planning applications.
How large the setting of an individual scheduled monument may be, and whether or not it will be significantly affected by a particular application, is left entirely to the discretion of the local authority. Obviously it is right to insert scheduled monuments in Section 28 in this fashion. It is difficult to see why it has not been done before.
The second main part of the amendment no longer refers to scheduled monuments: it now only refers to listed buildings, but it does bring in those that are in Grade A, as well as those in Grade I. Grade A listed buildings are few in number—in effect, they are a few important churches, those that have not yet been regraded into the main numerical system. Even so, the potential number of notifications under the amendment is much reduced by the omission of most scheduled monuments, versus the slight increase in Grade A listed buildings.
Scheduled monuments have been left out in this context only because they are ungraded, so that the most important cannot be readily identified for notification purposes, as is possible with listed buildings. Perhaps it should be that scheduled monuments are graded in future, and, were that done, then the top grade could be inserted into this provision later to heighten the degree of protection as is appropriate. But the most important differences between the old debated Committee amendment and this one lie in paragraphs (a) and (b). The effects of these are yet further to reduce the number of notifications.
Paragraph (a) has been tightened and refers only to there being intervisibility from a ground floor doorway or window of the listed building to the building to be built or the extension to be built on any existing building under the application in question. It also refers to "at any time", in order to cover leafy summer versus bare winter situations. In paragraph (b), the viewpoint for the observer has to be publicly accessible, perhaps for payment, not just anywhere. It also now has to be within the 500 metre radius, whereas it could have been outside under the old amendment, No. 104 GA.
There are further restrictions in the fine print. The 500 metre radius is now to be drawn from the edge of the listed building rather than from the edge of the curtilage. As was and still is made abundantly clear by the wording:
"without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) above",
and:
"not less that 500 metres radius",
there can be no question of the 500 metre radius being treated as "both a maximum and a minimum", as the noble Earl, Lord Avon, suggested it would be.
But, all this apart, if this amendment is accepted, there will be no
"major alteration to existing planning legislation",

639
as the noble Earl, Lord Avon, suggested there would be in the debate on Amendment No. 104G. All that is now set out in the amendment is that there will be a little more certainty that notice will be given when planning applications are made that affect the settings of important listed buildings. A few more notifications will be made—not many—to add to those that will be made anyway, and made to the commission, at that.
The criticisms which the noble Earl, Lord Avon, made on Amendment No. 104G have been met by both excluding scheduled monuments from the main amendment and by bringing in the intervisibility or covisibility requirements. None the less, the purpose of the amendment is still achieved, and all this without imposing an impossible burden on local authorities. It is no more of a burden than that which they should carry anyway if they are diligent. I beg to move.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, the first amendment moved by the noble Baroness—Amendment No. 131—seeks to widen the category of planning applications which have to be publicised to include those which would affect the setting of a scheduled monument as well as those which would affect the setting of a listed building.
This is one of those difficult questions on which I can see at first sight the attractions of what is proposed. But these have to be weighed against the problems. The chief of these is the extra work that this would cause for local authorities and the extra delay that could result for these planning applications. We should also consider whether in some ways this would not be using a hammer to crack a nut. For the vast majority of scheduled monuments the same considerations do not apply to their setting as apply to listed buildings. Most are not in dense urban settings, where they may be particularly badly affected by a nearby development, but are in rural, often isolated, settings; many are unroofed structures or actual ruins. Some dominate their setting to such an extent that it could be held that no development could really affect them or that all development in the area affected them. The Government remain unconvinced that the requirements imposed by this amendment are justified, especially since any local authority will in any case be free to approach the commission for advice about a difficult application and the commission will undoubtedly wish to encourage them to do so. We certainly hope that relations between local authorities and the commission will be such that they will have no hesitation in seeking and giving expert assistance.
The noble Baroness moved on to the next amendment. As I understand it, this is an attempt to define the term "setting" of a listed building in relation to the requirements on local authorities to publicise applications for planning permission which they consider could affect the setting of a listed building.
As the noble Baroness mentioned, we discussed a similar amendment at the Committee stage. I believe that this version attempts to take into account what was then said. I am informed that it is an alteration to existing planning legislation, and the noble Baroness said that it was not. That is my brief, but I shall confirm that to her.
Our advice to local authorities set out in the
640
Department of the Environment Circular 23/77 is to be flexible in their interpretation of "setting", and we recommend that where there is doubt the local authority should publicise. I still believe that it is much better to allow for flexibility than to enshrine in statute a limit which often, however worded, gets treated as both a minimum and a maximum.
There are also one or two problems with the terms of the amendment which I feel I should draw to the attention of the House. I am not sure that one can have a radius from the often irregular outline of the exterior of a building, but maybe the intention is to have a zone extending at least 500 metres from the building. Secondly, the descriptions of the categories of application which are to be regarded as affecting the setting of a listed building seem to me to be far too wide. If we take the case of a listed building on a hill or rise overlooking a village, under paragraph (a), as I understand it, virtually every building in the village might be caught because it could be seen from one of the ground level windows of a listed building.
I mention these points not out of any desire to be difficult but to show the problems there are when one has to define sensibly what we want to catch in this sort of provision, while ensuring that we do not catch so much that the system is swamped and defeats its own purpose. This perhaps illustrates the advantages of a flexible approach such as we adopt at the moment and I think we would wish to see in the future.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, the noble Earl is showing a most implausible innocence in this matter. Does he really think that the Beverley district council would go anywhere near the commission unless it was compelled to?
The Earl of Avon: No, my Lords. Does the noble Lord think that this will make any difference?
Lord Kennet: Yes, my Lords; it would force the Beverley district council to seek the commission's advice on any application for planning consent within a 500 metre radius of any building from which any part of that can be seen, and such a building would of course be Beverley Minster.
Lord Sandford: My Lords, it is not a very good practice to use examples like that for designing legislation. As my noble friend has been good enough to accept my Amendment No. 80, which secures the influence of local government within the commission itself, I think I can, and indeed must, give him an assurance that that is a far better way of dealing with matters such as those raised by these two amendments and the next three or four, all of which, if accepted, would add quite considerably to the burdens on local government and the exchange of paperwork and the general building up of bureaucracy between local government on the one hand and this commission on the other.
It is far better to have a voice within the commission which can remonstrate with districts such as the one that the noble Lord has just mentioned, and influence all of them through their associations so as to develop a good practice in matters such as this, which cannot be achieved satisfactorily by the imposition of the

641
inflexibilities of statutory control. I would join the Government in resisting this and the subsequent amendments.
Baroness David: My Lords, I should like to thank the Minister for his full reply. I am doubtful about the amount of extra work that would be involved. I shall look forward to his letter about whether planning would be affected. The best thing is to read what is in Hansard tomorrow and consider whether more action should be taken. For the moment, I withdraw this amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Kennet Lord Kennet had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 132:
Page 43, line 11, at end insert—
(" ( )After subsection (1) there shall be inserted—
"(1A) For the purposes of subsection (1) above the setting of a listed building which is graded "Grade I "or "Grade A "shall be taken as extending to not less than 500 metres radius from the exterior of the listed building, and a planning application shall be regarded as significantly affecting its setting if, without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) above, any building proposed to be built or significantly extended falls within the setting so described and—

(a) there is intervisibility at any time as between and ground level doorway or window of the listed building and any part of a building to be built, or the extension to be built onto any existing building, under the application; or

(b) can be seen at any time with the listed building, in whole or part, by an observer standing at any place that is publicly accessible (whether by payment or not) anywhere within the 500 metres radius setting so described.".")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, speaking on behalf of the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, and others, if the noble Earl is able to help us we may be able to save the time of the House a good deal, on this and the next amendment. If he were able to say right away without discussion that he would be prepared to amend regulations, or pass regulations, under the Act which would have the effects set out in these two amendments. I would be happy to withdraw them without further ado.
The Deputy Speaker (Earl Cathcart): Amendments 132 and 133 proposed en bloc.
Lord Kennet: Proposed en bloc, with the leave of the House, yes.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I have got slightly out of phase because I thought that the noble Baroness, Lady David, spoke to 132.
Baroness David: I spoke to 132 when moving 131. I intended to withdraw both of them.
Lord Kennet: My mistake, my Lords. I meant to speak to Nos. 133 and 134. I have nothing to say to 132. Perhaps we had better start again.
[Amendment No. 132 not moved.]
10.35 p.m.
Lord Kennet Lord Kennet moved Amendments Nos. 133 and 134 en bloc:
Page 43, line 16, at end insert (" "and on the Commission's request to the local planning authority the Commission shall be furnished with a copy of the application and with a copy of any or all plans and other documents submitted with it that they may request."
(3) After subsection (3) there shall be inserted—
"(3A) Where subsection (2A) above applies, subsection (2) shall he read with the word "all" substituted for the word "both" and with the following inserted after paragraph (b)—
"and
(c) a period of twenty-one days beginning with the date on which the copy of—

(i) the notice required to be sent to the Commission;

or

(ii) any application, plan or other document requested by the Commission;

was received by it unless the Commission has requested that such twenty-one day period be extended so that they can make representations and if so such a period as the Commission may request, not exceeding two months from the date of that request, and that request shall be deemed to have been made by the Secretary of State.".")
(3B) During any period mentioned in subsection (3A) above if the Commission indicates that a planning application noticed to it has their approval the local planning authority may. in respect of the Commission's interest therein, determine the application with or without such conditions as the Commission may approve.".")
Page 43, line 16, at end insert—
("16A. After section 34 of the 1971 Act there shall be inserted—
"Commission to receive copies of local authority planning applications re its listed buildings.
34A.—(1) Where a local planning authority makes application for planning consent with respect to any listed building in its own ownership, occupation or management it shall send a copy of the application together with copies of all plans and documents in support of that application to the Commission for Ancient Monuments and Historic Buildings for England and shall not determine that application within twenty-one days from the date on which the Commission received the copy of the application and all supporting plans and documents.
(2) Where the Commission so requests within the twenty-one day period referred to in subsection (1) above the local planning authority shall not determine an application in the affirmative for up to two months from that request, to allow time for the making of representations on the application by the Commission to either the local planning authority or the Secretary of State.
(3) This section shall also apply to applications made to a local planning authority by others with respect to listed buildings owned, occupied or managed by that local planning authority.
(4) During any period mentioned in this section. if the Commission indicates that a planning application of which they have been provided with a copy has their approval the local planning authority may, in respect of the Commission's interest in the application, determine the application with or without such conditions as the Commission may approve.".")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, would the Minister undertake to put the effect of these amendments into regulations under the measure later on? If so, I think there will be no need to discuss them. The general outline of these amendments is to improve communications between local authorities and the commission.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I see that since we discussed these matters in Committee, some redrafting

643
has been done to try to reduce the impact these amendments would have on local authorities. Of course, the commission should be kept informed of such applications, and that is why we have provided in the Bill for copies of notices to be sent to them. But I can only repeat that what is suggested in the amendments is the sort of burden the Government have sought to avoid. If, on receiving notification of a planning application from a local authority, the commission decide they would like copies of the relevant documents, they should of course be able to obtain them. In the vast majority of cases it will, I am sure, be a simple case of co-operation. If there is, unfortunately, any lack of co-operation, then a visit to the civic offices will be better, we believe, than using statutory powers. They will then be able, if they wish, to study the papers, form a view and get in touch with the local authority very swiftly if they consider there are important issues involved on which their expert voice should be heard. That voice and their influence on local authorities in these cases will depend greatly on the relationship that develops.
Amendment No. 134 is addressed to two matters: first, that of ensuring that the commission is kept informed of applications made by local authorities themselves for planning consent relating to a listed building in their own control and, secondly, that of allowing the commission a statutory period in which to comment. We have discussed the second principle in relation to Amendment No. 133. I can only say again that the Government do not consider it right that the commission should be able to delay the planning system in this way. However, we are seized of the importance of the first point—that the commission should be kept informed of a local authority's intentions towards a listed building in their care. The procedures to be followed by local authorities in seeking planning permission for their own listed buildings are set out in the Town and Country Planning and General Regulations, and the Government propose to insert in those regulations a requirement for local authorities to inform the commission of their own proposals. I am not sure whether that was the only assurance the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, wanted. The commission will be able to advise local authorities or the Secretary of State, if they see fit, but as with so many aspects of the work, the influence they are able to exert will, and should, depend on the good relations they are able to build up with local authorities.
Lord Kennet: We all hope that will be so, my Lords, but many of us live in a world in which we know it is not so. There are local authorities which will do all they can to ignore and tacitly to deceive the commission. That should be recognised on all sides of the House; a tiny minority, but it is partly to look after the case of that tiny minority that such legislation as this is needed. On the question of sending in supporting documents and so on, improving the sending in of forms, I am more than prepared to accept what the noble Earl said, and will beg leave to withdraw the amendments to see if we can come, by drafting, to a less onerous form of words—that is, less onerous on the local authorities though the Government will agree
644
that it will, therefore, be more onerous on the commission.
Regarding the statutory period during which the local authority should not proceed, until it has received the agreement—or otherwise, indeed—or some answer from the commission, I do not think I can he quite so accommodating. If there is an authority whose advice ought to be sought, it is absurd not to provide that those seeking that advice must wait for a set period until they have received it. Otherwise, if I correctly read the Bill as presented, it is open to a local authority to write to the commission one day, stating. "We would like your advice on the following demolition proposal in a conservation area", and a week later to give consent before it has received any answer.
It should not, I think, be beyond the will of the Government to give effect to a provision that there must be a three-week delay, or in special cases where the commission seeks it from the local authority. a two-month delay, in order to allow things to be sorted out. At this stage I should like to inform the noble Earl that we shall later bring forward another amendment to that effect, but at the moment I am prepared to withdraw the present amendment, in order to reconsider the part about the passing of documents and the information. I beg leave to withdraw the amendments.
Amendments, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Birkmoved Amendment No. 135:
Page 43, line 31, at end insert—
("17A. After section 56A of the 1971 Act there shall be inserted—
"Listed building consent applications: reference to the Commission.
56B.—(1) Notwithstanding any provision in any enactment, where a local planning authority in England is minded to approve an application for listed building consent made with respect to—

(a) a listed building which is graded "Grader I". "II*". "A" or "B", or

(b) the demolition in whole or part of a listed building which is graded "Grade II": or

(c) a "Grade II" listed building or any unlisted building in a conservation area which is owned by the local planning authority or with respect to which it is an intending purchaser:

it shall forthwith refer the application to the Commission for Ancient Monuments and Historic Buildings for England for its consideration and not determne the application in the affirmative for two months from the date of such reference without the Commission having first indicated its approval thereto.
(2) Where the Commission so requests a local planning authority in England shall not determine in the affirmative any listed building consent application for consent to—

(a) alter a "Grade II" listed building: or

(b) demolish an unlisted building in a conservation area which is not owned by that authority:

which has been made to it but shall forthwith refer it to the Commission for their consideration and shall not determine any application so referred in the affirmative for two months from the date of such reference unless the Commission indicates its approval thereto.
(3) Where on consideration of any such application referred to it under subsections (1) and (2) of this section the Commission so advises the Secretary of State the application shall be deemed to have been called in by him for his own decision." ")
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, an amendment rather similar to this one was tabled at the Committee stage, but it was neither moved nor debated. The amendment is concerned with the vast majority of the

645
applications for listed building consents made to local planning authorities, and which are determined by them. However, those that affect Grade I and II* buildings, or that involve demolition of any listed building, and even demolition of an unlisted building in a conservation area, are referred to the department, but only if, and when, the local planning authority is "minded to consent".
In the slightly different context of scheduled monument consent, The Way Forward, in, I think, paragraphs 16 to 20, put up as a real possibility the sensible idea that the commission might determine such applications, subject of course to appeal and call-in. I should have thought that what made good sense with scheduled monuments consents (even though the department has not taken that option in the Bill) should make equally good sense here, with listed building consents, to which local planning authorities are "minded to consent".
The practical way of proceeding in order to avoid duplication of staff and endless consulting here and there—and that will be one of the dangers in the new commission—is to have the applications referred to the commission, and let it ask for lesser applications to be referred to it as well, just as the department now does.
The Minister indicated the Government's likely response when he very kindly wrote to me to give me an indication of what the Government would have said had the earlier amendment been moved. The burden of his letter was that an appointed body should not be allowed to give directions to an elected local authority. So in order to cover that point the amendment now provides that the commission may only request, rather than demand, that lesser cases are referred to it: and it could be said that those requests shall be deemed to be directions from the Secretary of State.
The commission is being set up to do an important job, and to do it responsibly as, in effect, the Secretary of State's agent—and it is answerable to him; he controls the purse strings. In that context it seems absurd that the Secretary of State should shy away in fright from giving the job over properly, of course, with due safeguards as to call-in and appeal. If a lot of thought has gone into this point, it seems to have resulted in something of a damp squib. It is time for more thought to be given and for a sensible conclusion to be reached, as is posed by the present amendment.
I hope that in the light, both of the earlier amendment being reconsidered and the very helpful letter that I received from the Minister, we have now got the proposal right, and that it can be accepted. Due to the time factor I have moved the amendment briefly, in a kind of shorthand, but I am sure that the Minister has got the main points. I beg to move.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, the amendment would change the basis of the present system for determining listed building consent applications. As the noble Baroness said, currently these are the province of local authorities, with a right of appeal to the Secretary of State, who may also call in important cases for his
646
decision. The proposal before us would require local authorities to consult the commission in a large number of cases and, moreover, as I understand it, would empower the commission to direct local authorities to refer any application to it for consideration. In either case, the authority would have to wait two months before making a decision.
Finally, the commission would be able to decide that any of the applications referred to it should be decided by the Secretary of State so that, in effect they would decide which cases should be called in. This is a fairly wide-ranging amendment to the system, which I am not at all sure it is right to consider in the context of the Bill. However, the noble Baroness has brought it to our attention.
I do not believe that it is right that an appointed body should be given such powers as these to direct democratically-elected local authorities. Nor do the Government think that we should give such a body, however important its task, powers which are now exercised only by a Secretary of State. We have given considerable thought to these questions and believe that the proposals embodied in the Bill are the right way to proceed. We have previously discussed the difficult questions of relations between the commission and local authorities. We believe that this is another occasion when, in spite of the persuasiveness of the noble Baroness, we feel that what is proposed in the amendment is not the way to ensure a good working relationship.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his clear reply. I am very disappointed by it because, as I said, this has been tempered down to the commission's requests. I still fail to see that what is possibly done on scheduled monuments cannot be done with listed buildings. It again raises what is a basic question. We raised the point over the Royal palaces and other instances throughout the Bill.
If this new commission—the heritage commission, as the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, and I have now named it—is not to have the real independence that it should have, and is not going to be able to take over properly so many of the functions that we understood it was to take over from the department, it will be a commission without bite; and there will have to be a tremendous amount of duplication of both resources and staff in the department and in the commission, and the whole thing just will not be worth while. It is making many of us, as we go through this Bill, really begin to wonder whether this is really going to be on. Is it going to be worth all the effort, upheaval and expense involved if at every point we meet with the fact that the powers on anything that really matters are cut down by the Government. I will not at this stage pursue it further. I will read what the noble Earl has said and reserve the right to come back at the next stage. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 136 not moved.]
10.48 p.m.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu Lord Montagu of Beaulieu moved Amendment No. 137:
Page 43. line 31, at end insert—
(" 17A. Section 58 of the 1971 Act (building preservation notice in respect of building not listed) shall he amended by the insertion after subsection (1) of the following—
" (1A) The Commission for Ancient Monuments and Historic Buildings for England may serve building preservation notices under this section.".")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is an identical amendment to one tabled at Committee stage but not moved or debated. Basically, the existing legislation allows local authorities to serve what are known as building preservation notices. The service of such a notice—a BPN, in short—has the effect of listing a building but only up to six months. During that period the Secretary of State may formally list it when his officers have had time to visit it, look up its history and come to a balanced view of whether or not it can be formally listed with all the long-terms effects that result; or they can decide not to list it and that will be the end of the matter. In practice, the Secretary of State can also stop list a building. They do this when they are convinced of the merits of the building and the reality of the threat of a demolition. In real life, authorities may be slow to move or not be prepared to move for political reasons or, in fact, just not be interested in conservation matters.
What is needed is perhaps a power for the commission to serve their own BPNs, with a short effect, of course. Obviously, they would not need to use the procedure with good local authorities or with an open-and-shut case where stop listing was appropriate and where the Secretary of State's officers were available and easily persuaded. However, in certain cases if they had this power, they might be able to stop the bulldozers coming in. It would also perhaps reduce the need for the Secretary of State to keep people on the ground to do these things at short notice. Investigation prior to stop listing might become increasingly difficult for the department to undertake in a hurry. Therefore, I beg to move this amendment in the hope that it might be able to save a few Firestone buildings, and that type of structure with which we have had problems in the past. If six months is considered too long, maybe a shorter period will be agreed by the Government. I beg to move.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I have sympathy with my noble friend's reasons for moving this amendment. The amendment would enable the commission as well as local authorities to serve building preservation notices. As has been explained, these are notices which prevent private owners of buildings from undertaking any works without consent for six months or until the Secretary of State has decided whether to list the building in question. The Government consider that it would be inappropriate for an appointed body such as the commission to exercise powers which impose restrictions on the right of private property owners. Such functions are only properly exercised by elected representatives.
The general issue of constitutional propriety does not in our feeling outweigh any advantages of speed. It will be open to the commission to make represent-
648
ations to local authorities if they so wish. Even more important, I suggest, will be the commission's relationship with the Secretary of State which should enable speedy spot listing decisions to be taken. As I said in my opening remarks, I have nothing against the idea which my noble friend has produced, but the general constitutional issue prevents me from being able to accept his amendment.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu: My Lords, I appreciate the point that the noble Earl has made as he made it on other amendments this evening. I take the point that obviously a close relationship between the chairman of the new commission and the Secretary of State may well be the best solution of all. Perhaps, therefore, it will be appropriate for me to withdraw this amendment at this stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Birk Baroness Birk moved Amendment No. 138:
Page 44. line 48, at end insert—
("( ) In subsection (4) for "this section" substitute "subsection (1) of this section".
( ) In subsection (5) after "Secretary of State" insert "or Commission", after "above" insert "or to an member of any of the Commission's Committees (as the case may be)" and after "his" insert "or their".")
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment is to do with the payment of members of any of the commission's committees who deal with Section 10 of the 1972 Act under which members of the Historic Buildings Council may be paid if they render services in connection with grants made under that section. No amendment has been made so that the commission can pay anybody such as the members of a committee that it might set up to look after Section 10 grants, a committee that would be equivalent of the committee of the Historic Buildings Council which now looks after these things. I am making a division between the payment of the commissioners generally and those who will be serving, presumably on a similar committee, to do the work that is being done now by a committee of the Historic Buildings Council. It seems wrong that no provisoin has been made in this Bill to allow payment for services beyond the call of duty as a committee member, because this section is in the 1972 Act.
It is not intended that the amendment should provide a back door method of paying committee members who, as paragraph 9 of Schedule 3 provides, may be paid expenses but no more. These are not people, presumably, who will be paid a salary or loss of earnings as the commissioners are. But as there is provision for the relevant committee on the HBC, it seems to make common sense and equity for this to be followed through for people who are to do the same work on a committee of the new heritage commission. I beg to move.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, as the noble Baroness describes, this amendment attempts to provide for any member of the committee to be remunerated who is involved in advising the commission on the exercise of its powers. The House will be aware that we are not in favour of remunerating members of the commission's advisory committee, and I do not believe there is any

649
particular reason to change that view. The payments referred to in Section 10 are for services rendered, but these committees will be purely advisory. If there are any services to be rendered, as we understand it, they should be rendered by members of the commission themselves. They will, of course, be paid.
The first part of the amendment attempts to remove the requirement for the Secretary of State to consult about conservation area grants he makes in England. This is quite unnecessary, for under paragraph 19 of Schedule 4 his power to make such grants in England is removed. There will, therefore, be no occasion for him to consult about their making.
I thought the noble Baroness made an interesting point about the Historic Buildings Council at the moment, that people might he worse off. I should like to have a look at that, but I hope very much that that is not the case, because obviously it is not the intention. Of course members on the committees will get expenses and that sort of payment, but not a salary.
Baroness Birk: I should like to thank the Minister for that reply. I am glad that he is going to look at this, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 139 not moved.]
10.57 p.m.
Baroness Birk Baroness Birk moved Amendment No. 140:
Page 48, line 16, at end insert—
"(2A) After subsection (1) there shall be inserted—
(1A) The Secretary of State shall not make any order under subsection (1)of this section affecting scheduled monuments in the Commission's ownership or management until a draft of the order has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.
(1B) The Commission shall keep a register for each of the monuments in its ownership, guardianship or management of all works which it proposes to carry out under a scheduled monument consent granted under an order made under subsection (1) of this section and shall as may be and in any case not later that seven days from the making of an entry in that register give notice of such changes or additions in or to that register and allow 42 days therefrom for representations to be made.
(1C) Such notification shall he made to the—

(a) Local authorities:

(b) Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings;

(c) Georgian Group;

(d) Victorian Society;

(e) Ancient Monuments Society; and

(f) Council for British Archaeology;

and the Commission shall by the commencement of the 42 day period also display (and use its best efforts to maintain for that period) at a publicly accessible place at or adjacent to the building concerned a notice setting out and explainiing the works covered by the change or addition to that register and shall publish that notice in a local newspaper.
(1D) The Commission shall not proceed with any such work until after the expiry of the 42 day period allowed for representations.
(1E) Representations arising from notifications as above may be made to the Secretary of State and any made to the Commission shall be passed to him by them for his consideration.
(1F) Where any such representation is made the Secretary of State shall, if he thinks appropriate, direct that the scheduled monument consent previously granted by order and covering the works against which that representation may have been
650
made shall not have effect, such that the Commission must obtain a scheduled monument consent from him before the works may be carried out.
(1G) Where the Secretary of State considers that works that the Commission proposes to carry out under a scheduled monument consent previously granted by order under this section are likely to be considered to be contentious he shall withdraw the consent made under that order with respect to the proposed works, such that the Commission must formally apply to him for and obtain the necessary scheduled monument consent before it proceeds with the works." ")
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this is for the other side of Amendment No. 136, which was not moved. That concerned the listed buildings consent which the commission may need. This amendment concerns the scheduled monuments consent that the commission is certain to need, for such consents are required every time even straightforward repairs are carried out on a scheduled monument. The commission is to manage them by the hundred and, not being a Government body, it needs consent. The consents can be issued under Section 3 of the 1979 Act, and it is understood that the issue of such a class consent is contemplated. So the commission, in effect, will be absolved thereafter from obtaining consent. There will be every attempt to cut down the paper work involved, and a modicum of notification and monitoring is appropriate. This holds true here, as it would for listed consents as well.
The amendment, quite properly, places a degree of restraint and supervision on the commission that is needed to keep its standards high and to make it act responsibly. On a minor point of detail, it may be said that the Georgian Group and Victorian Society cannot, almost by definition, be involved in ancient monuments, and that they are sounds almost like a contradiction in terms. But, thanks to the extraordinary way in which the scheduling system works, quite recent buildings can be scheduled, provided they are not occupied domestically by more than a caretaker. Most of the buildings in Chatham's historic dockyard are scheduled and are of either Georgian or Victorian days. Where the same list is used, it may be better not to put names into the statute but rather to do the job by way of an amendable regulation or circular. I beg to move.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, with the agreement of the noble Baroness, I will direct my remarks backwards to Amendment 136 as well as to No. 140. I must confess that when I read them, these amendments made me pause for a considerable time, because the noble Baroness has been castigating me somewhat for not trusting the commission. But as I understand these two amendments, they would indicate, first, that the commission is not to be trusted to undertake any works to buildings or monuments in its ownership without the consent of the Secretary of State; and, secondly, that comments or criticisms from local authorities and a wide range of amenity bodies, made to the Secretary of State, are required if the commission is to operate effectively, and that the commission cannot be trusted to listen to any comments without a statutory provision.
I do wonder about this approach, and perhaps I have it wrong. On the one hand, there are a large number of amendments which seem to emphasise a central focus on the expertise the body will provide—a

651
body in which the largest group of experts in these fields will reside. On the other hand, it is suggested now that, in respect of its own buildings and monuments, it would be incapable of undertaking the very sort of work it has been set up, as the expert, to advise others on. It seems strange, when the Secretary of State sets up a body to manage monuments and buildings on his behalf. and also to act as his expert advisers on ancient monuments and historic buildings, that he should also decide that his creation is not to be trusted to do one of these jobs without statutory watchdogs.
As has been said in the discussions on the Bill, if we are to set up an appointed body we trust it to do the job it is set up for. I have no doubt that both local authorities and the amenity groups mentioned will make their views known to the commission, and that the latter will treat this with its usual respect. The commission will want close links with these kind of bodies and, no doubt, too, advisory committees will draw from their expertise.
Imposing statutory restrictions such as these amendments propose, would, I believe, be counterproductive. I shall, of course, read what the noble Baroness says and, if I have misinterpreted her, I will come back to her again.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, these are very complicated amendments, I agree, and perhaps shorthanding them did not really help. But the first paragraph of Amendment 140 reads:
"The Secretary of State shall not make any order under subsection (1) of this section affecting … monuments in the Commission's ownership … until a draft of the order has been laid before … each House of Parliament."
That does not put the commission under restraint from the Secretary of State.
On the part of the amendment that refers to notification, although the bodies have been spelt out in that way, if this matter was to be considered by the Government, I personally would prefer to see "certain bodies" or something like that and I do not think we need to have them spelled out as they are.
What I have tried to do is to strike a balance between the commission having the right over scheduled monuments, but, at the same time, not going beyond a certain route so that it can be said that it is exceeding its own brief. This is, however, I agree, extremely complicated, and as I did not move Amendment No. 136, a hit more confusion has been added.
For the moment, I will read what the Minister has said; perhaps he will read what I have said. If we understand each other, perhaps we can come back to this again. In the meantime, I beg to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 141 not moved.]
Baroness Birk Baroness Birk moved Amendment No. 142.
Page 53, line 18, after (" (1) ") insert (" for "or guardianship" substitute", guardianship or management" and")
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this has to do with management of the commission, which is to
652
manage many monuments but which initially holds none in its guardianship. It also may not have to admit the public to them.
Amendment No. 143 inserts "management" into subsection (2): without it the commission seems to be unable to set opening times and so on, though this is something which, according to the Notes on Clauses, is to be left to the commision.
Amendment No. 144 addresses a different problem. Here it so happens that "management" has not been inserted into the new subsection (4A), which itself was inserted by Government amendment in Committee.
The result now is that the Secretary of State cannot make regulations under what seems to be the subsection designed to cover the commission with respect to the monuments it is to manage. The ensuing result is that he will have to use the power in subsection (3) which, in its turn, seems to be the wider power probably intended to be used only in Scotland and Wales, which, of course, does not come within the purview of this Bill.
Be that as it may, why must it be that the Secretary of State makes regulations in connection with monuments in the commission's management? Would it not be much simpler and also cheaper and just as responsible to let the commission make its own regulations as the law provided when first printed rather than have the added check that the regulations must be approved by the Secretary of State, who is therefore made fully accountable for the imposition of penalties? This would again cut out a lot of consulting and redrafting, and a lot of the personnel involved, because the regulations would be written by the people actually concerned rather than by those who may not know the day-to-day problems and idiosyncracies of each monument.
Amendment No. 144 returns to the need to put in "management", or the commission will be unable to refuse admission to a monument to those whom they have reasonable cause to think will be likely to damage it. Altogether, it seems to me that Section 19, as already amended, still needs further attention. It may well be that the department has plans to bring forward amendments to put these matters straight if those now tabled are not acceptable. I should be grateful if the Minister could comment on that on the grounds that the present situation is not correct, and if he could say what are the Government's plans to deal with the matter. I beg to move.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, if I may, I should like to speak first to Amendments Nos. 142, 143 and 145. These three amendments seek to extend the powers to control public access under Section 19 of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979 to monuments under the commission's management. The noble Baroness will be pleased to hear that we have no quarrel with the principle of the proposal.
The House will recall that the Committee agreed a Government amendment. No. 111, which empowered the commission to undertake functions on behalf of the Secretary of State, where he so directed, in respect of monuments under his guardianship. That amendment provided for the Secretary of State to delegate functions to the commission, including those

653
relating to public access. In that respect, there is no need, therefore, for these amendments.
There are, however, two other categories of monument in the Secretary of State's care—monuments in his ownership and those otherwise under his control or management. It will be necessary for the Government to table further amendments to cater for those categories in an analogous way to the provision covering guardianship of monuments. There are technical drafting problems which have prevented us from tabling the amendments up to now. I hope that, with those assurances, the noble Baroness will be able to withdraw Amendment No. 142, and not to move Nos. 143 and 145.
If I may come to Amendment No. 144, to which the noble Baroness also spoke, the nub of this amendment appears to be the concept that the commission should be empowered to make regulations with the Secretary of State's approval. The Bill at present empowers the Secretary of State to make regulations after consulting the commission. This is purely presentational and we were advised by our lawyers on the wording. It is the Government's very clear view that it would not be right for a non-Crown statutory body to have the power to create offences, and that formal power to make regulations must rest with the Secretary of State. This follows some earlier comments that I made to my noble friend Lord Montagu.
It is for that reason that the power rests with the Secretary of State, but he must consult the commission before making regulations, thus ensuring that their views are fully taken into account. We believe that this is a better approach. I hope that the noble Baroness will feel satisfied with my comments on Amendments Nos. 142, 143 and 145, and may also be prepared not to move Amendment No. 144.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, I should like first to thank the Minister for what he said about Amendments Nos. 142, 143 and 145, and secondly to ask him whether he is expecting to bring forward the amendments by Third Reading. I thank the noble Earl for indicating that he will. As has been said before, it is very important that we should get as much of this amended as possible before the Bill leaves here and goes to another place.
So far as Amendment No. 144 is concerned, if this is a matter of presentation, it seems to me that it should be turned the other way round and we should let the commission make the regulations with the consent of the Secretary of State, because we are now up against the question of the commission not being in as authoritative a position as they should be. They are the body which should be managing the monuments and deciding about refusals of admission and so on. I do not think I can take this any further tonight. Maybe the Minister will also have another look at it. We will see whether I can come back on Third Reading, perhaps with a different version, or, if he has a change of heart, perhaps he will. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 143 to 145 not moved.]
The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 146:
Page 54, leave out lines 35 to 43.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this amendment is consequential as a result of the new Clause 30. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
11.10 p.m.
The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 147:
Page 55, line 1, leave out ("23B") and insert ("23A")
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is a renumbering amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu Lord Montagu of Beaulieu moved Amendment No. 148:
Page 55, line 20, at end insert—
("(4) The Secretary of State shall, within twelve months of the day appointed for the bringing into force of this section, make a direction such that the Commission shall thence manage all monuments then in his ownership or guardianship.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the noble Earl may find it rather difficult to understand why I have felt it necessary to put down this amendment. Your Lordships will remember that in the debates during the Committee stage the Government stressed time and time again that it was the management, not the guardianship of the monument, or its ownership, which would be given to the commission. Nothing was said, however, about how soon this management function would be transferred. If the management is not transferred to the commission reasonably speedily, the Secretary of State will be left—most unfortunately, probably—with the management of numerous properties and monuments and will inevitably have to run a duplicate organisation to the commission.
The amendment lays down a timetable for making directions under another amendment which was made during the Committee stage. In other words, the amendment simply stitches a timetable, as an additional subsection, to that new section. I beg to move.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, it has always been the Government's intention that the commission should take over the day-to-day management of the monuments in the care of the Secretary of State. We stated it in The Way Forward, and I am happy to state it firmly once more. We envisage that far from waiting a year to make a direction under Section 23B transferring management to the commission, the Secretary of State will transfer the management of many of the monuments in his care to the commission on the day they take over their functions under the Bill. I believe, however, that we should leave to the Secretary of State the flexibility to decide on timing and, although such cases will be very rare indeed, the freedom to decide whether all monuments should be included in a direction. So far as the guardianship of monuments is concerned, I am not aware of any that would not be managed by the commission; but again I believe that it would be wrong to force the issue, as proposed by the amendment.

655
I hope that, with my assurance that it is the Secretary of State's plan at the moment to make a direction regarding monuments in his care on the day that the commission take over their functions under the Bill, my noble friend will feel content.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu: My Lords, the noble Earl has perhaps reassured me, but I am sure he appreciates the reason why I put down the amendment. It would be most unsatisfactory if one had a dichotomy between the Department of the Environment and the new commission over many properties. However, in view of the assurance which I have just heard, I am happy to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
11.14 p.m.
Baroness Birk Baroness Birk moved Amendment No. 149:
After Clause 31, insert the following new clause:
("Royal Commission on Historical Monuments (England).
—(1) The Secretary of State, the Commission and the Royal Commission on Historical Monuments (England) shall consult together as to the desirability, or otherwise, and how the responsibilities of the said Royal Commission can be assumed by the Commission.
(2) The Secretary of State shall present a report to each House of Parliament on these consultations and, if the report so recommends. Her Majesty may by Order in Council provide for the Royal Commission on Historical Monuments to cease to exist and for the new body to be set up under any necessary statutory provisions.
(3) An Order under this section may contain such incidental, consequential and supplementary provisions as may be necessary or expedient for the purpose of giving effect to the Order.
(4) No Order shall be made under this section unless a draft of the Order has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.
(5) The consultations referred to in subsection (1) above shall be begun within twelve months from the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State shall lay his report before both Houses of Parliament within twelve months from the commencement of those consultations and if his report recommends in the affirmative the draft Order in Council referred to in subsection (2) above shall be the subject of debate by, and resolution of, both Houses of Parliament within a further six months."
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, while moving Amendment No. 149, I should like to discuss Amendments Nos. 152 and 153. They are all concerned with the Royal Commission on Historical Monuments.
Amendment No. 149 is very similar to the amendment which was debated at the Committee stage. However, a timetable has been added to this amendment. The Committee debate rehearsed the various arguments for bringing the Royal Commission and the new commission very much closer together but without putting pressure on the Royal Commission as to what it decides to do in the future. It enables the commission to pick this up, if it wishes to do so after consultation.
The real problem about finding some method of merging to a certain extent is the essential point about the need for the National Monuments Record to be readily accessible to the new heritage commission. Without it, the heritage commission would have to set
656
up a parallel architectural and archaeological library at very considerable expense. At the moment the National Monuments Record is located in Fortress House, with the Ancient Monuments Division and the Historical Buildings Division immediately opposite across the road. It is more than likely that in the course of time the commission will have to move to different premises. The problem one is faced with is that it will need to work closely with the National Monuments Record, and the need to do so is a geographical one as well.
The amendment states quite specifically that,
"The Secretary of State, the Commission and the Royal Commission on Historical Monuments (England) shall consult together as to the desirability, or otherwise,"
and if it is found to be "otherwise", then there would have to be some other solution found in attempting to have the National Monuments Record, so to speak, in two places at once. I do not pretend to have a solution at this stage. Under this amendment, the Secretary of State,
"shall present a report to each House of Parliament on these consultations",
and so it goes on, as the amendment at Committee stage did. The only real change is in subsection (5), where it is stated that consultations shall begin within 12 months and a timetable for consultations is laid down.
The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Sandford—that is, Amendment No. 152—refers to the use of a statutory instrument to make such arrangements for the future relationships of the two commissions as may be necessary. In their Amendment No. 153, the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, and the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, refer to the Secretary of State reviewing such relationships when he sees fit and to making regulations and publishing guidelines. I will hastily say that this is a very tricky and difficult subject, and the Government have, understandably, sat back and let the matter float around. Frankly, I do not feel that either of these other two amendments really gets to the point of responsibility for the National Monuments Record.
It is certainly felt by the Ancient Monuments Board and the Historic Buildings Council, who will be doing the work of the new commission, that this should be assumed by the commission. It is probably doubtful that statutory instruments or regulations—even if the latter were the subject of an affirmative resolution of both Houses—could provide for anything like the transfer of the National Monuments Record from the Royal Commission to the new commission. It seems to those of us who have our names to this amendment that the use of an enabling clause would be the best way of dealing with this matter. I beg to move.
Lord Adeane: My Lords, as the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, has said, this is an extremely tricky matter and by no means obvious. Before launching into the question of the National Monuments Record, which is of great importance, as the noble Baroness has said, there is one point that I ought to make first. Subsection (1) of Amendment No. 149 contains an implication which may not be obvious to all noble Lords but which

657
does affect the meaning of the whole clause. We ought to be clear about this. I quote:
"The Secretary of State, the Commission and the Royal Commission on Historical Monuments (England) shall consult together as to the desirability, or otherwise, and how the responsibilities of the said Royal Commission can be assumed by the Commission."
This hypothetical consultation assumes that these responsibilities—that is to say, the work and the staff which carries it out—can be simply picked up as a working machine all in one piece and dumped somewhere in the new commission. I can assure your Lordships that this cannot be done; at any rate, it cannot be done without causing such damage to the original body that it would be unrecognisable. I cannot say how many of the staff would accept a change such as this, nor how many commissioners would—perhaps not many. What would result would not be assumption but dissolution.
To come to the National Monuments Record, perhaps it is not altogether clear what its status is. There seems to be an impression that it is just something run by the Royal Commission. It is not; it is part of the Royal Commission. There used to be something called the National Buildings Record and that went into liquidation in 1964, and it was resurrected as an integral part of the Royal Commission under the name of the National Monuments Record. It is a public archive; it is freely available to everybody, to the public, the Government, and indeed to the new body, from 10 till 5.30 every day, and no doubt for longer if necessary.
It is not, of course, only concerned with architectural matters; it is also and equally concerned with archaeological matters. It is the focal point for records from all over the country; public authorities, societies and private individuals working in the field of archtecture and archaeology all send their contributions. This results in the National Monuments Record maintaining a total of 250,000 records which are added to at a considerable annual rate. So you can see that those of us who are concerned with the Royal Commission are also very much concerned with the National Monuments Record, particularly as it absorbs the work of 30 per cent. of our staff. I am afraid I added that to the debate as a piece of information, but in view of position of the record, and in view of what I said at the beginning of my speech, I cannot myself hope that this amendment will be supported.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu: My Lords, I am afraid I am in the position of supporting this amendment. I think it is generally known by many people concerned with this Bill that this is the hottest potato of all. I think it is a pity somebody has to be prepared to pick it up, and I understand they do not want to get their fingers burned. The fact is that this problem is not going to go away, and what I find very difficult to understand is why the Royal Commission, whose work we very much admire and whose chairman, in the Chamber, has been of tremendous help to us in this debate, is not prepared even to discuss the matter. What are they afraid of, I ask? What are they trying to hide? Is there some reason why discussion cannot go on as to the
658
desirability or not? If they can put up a good case perhaps it will be clear that it should not be.
I cannot understand why a simple enabling clause like this, to ask for discussions, with an enormous number of safeguards built in, cannot be accepted. It may never happen, but all I know is that the question will have to be solved eventually, because as the commission grows the problem of the use of the record by the commission is going to get more and more acute. It may be that administratively it will work well, and therefore the amalgamation may not be needed. If we do not grasp it now, I prophesy that it will have to be dealt with some time in the next five years.
The Duke of Grafton: My Lords, I echo the words of the noble Lord, Lord Montagu of Beaulieu. As a member of the Historic Buildings Council I know that our work to date would have been extremely difficult if we had not had very close liaison with these two bodies. With the noble Lord, Lord Montagu of Beaulieu, I cannot see why there is such nervousness about it.
11.25 p.m.
Lord Beswick: My Lords, I have listened to the discussions on the points involved this evening and in Committee. Certain points seem to have emerged which were pretty soundly based and had wide support when there were more people here to give them support. The first was the proposition put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, who said that we should not put words into an Act of Parliament unless it was necessary to do so. The second point, made convincingly by the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, was that we should not amalgamate for the sake of amalgamation. There is much evidence to suggest that that is a sound and wise proposition. The third point, made more than once and made again by my noble friend Lady Birk, is that there is no criticism of the work of the Royal Commission on Historical Monuments. No one has criticised it; all have paid tribute to the work that it has done. With those three propositions before us I do not see that we should support the amendments now being moved.
There is no evidence at all that the work of the Royal Commission would be done better in any way if it was part of this new amorphous body, which has yet to make its position felt or its achievements known. There is no evidence that it will be better within a new body. There is no evidence, either, that the work of the Royal Commission could not be widened or could not be redirected if consultation suggests that that is the course to adopt. It is not necessary to put in an Act of Parliament that there should be consultation. I am surprised at this idea that something is being hidden. My impression is that there is every intention and belief that there could be the widest possible consultation, if that was decided, without that going into the Bill. Those assurances having been given, I hope very much that it will not be necessary to amend the Bill.
Lord Sandford: My Lords, it will be for the convenience of the House, as I have Amendments

659
Nos. 152 and 153 on the Marshalled List in my name which bear on this matter, if I joined in the debate on this amendment, and I shall then have less to say when we reach my own amendments. It is a pity that this issue has polarised around the question of whether the Royal Commission should be in the heritage commission or outside it, as though that was the only issue to be decided. It is also unfortunate that the Government have not seen fit to give the House a lead or any indication of what their opinion is on this matter.
I have come to the view that in the present circumstances, with a Royal Commission established 75 years ago, with its work clearly set out and proceeding on lines which everyone approves of, the Royal Commission should not now be disturbed to the extent of being abolished and absorbed into the new heritage commission, which is not yet in existence. On the other hand, I cannot agree with the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, and others like him, who feel that, if that is not what is to be done, everything can be left as it is. The fact of the matter is that the work of the new commission, as indeed the work of the existing Historic Buildings Council, depends crucially on the co-operation between these two bodies. That is a pattern of partnership, the details of which will have to be worked out as the new commission comes into being and its members are appointed and it plans for itself the way in which it is going to set about its work.
I know, because the director of the Royal Commission has told me, and so has the chairman, that the details of this partnership are being planned, envisaged and worked out at the moment, and that is satisfactory. But there is no indication yet, and there will not necessarily be for a long time—and there may never be—that this pattern of co-operation will lead in the end to the Royal Commission being taken into the new commission and abolished. That is why I cannot support Amendment No. 149, because it starts with that presupposition, as the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, has said.
On the other hand, I am quite certain that we cannot leave matters as they are, with Parliament entirely in the dark as to how the future relationships are to develop and whether they are ever to be made public. I have been speaking from time to time bearing in mind the needs of the local authorities, the county councils and city councils. The County Council of Hampshire put the point to me that they have to deal on the one hand with the Royal Commission and on the other hand with the new heritage commission in the way they deal now with the Historic Buildings Council. They have their archive department, for instance, which has close working relationships with the Royal Commission. They have their planning department and their conservation department, which have close working relations with the Historic Buildings Council. It is quite impossible for a body like that to operate effectively with the Royal Commission on the one hand, and the heritage commission on the other hand, if it has no public knowledge of what the formal working relationship between these two national bodies is supposed to be.
Therefore, sooner or later the detailed working relationships which are being worked out at the moment by officials must be brought before Parlia
660
ment and exposed for all to see. That is what my Amendment No. 152 sought in the first instance, and what my Amendment No. 153 seeks now in rather more explicit terms. I hope that, when we get to it, the chairman of the Royal Commission will be able to express his view on which of these two amendments finds favour with him. What we need more than anything else is an expression from the Government as to how they see the matter being handled.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I am afraid I am still in the position of having no firm Government view to give to the House regarding the future position of the Royal Commission on Historical Monuments. As my noble friend Lord Montagu would say, I am still throwing the hot potato up in the air and I am trying not to catch it!
As I promised, we have reflected very carefully on the debate on this subject in Committee and in particular the valuable remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Adeane. My impression at that stage, like the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, was that many noble Lords had sympathy with what he was saying. I wonder, however, whether the House will regard Amendment No. 149 as reflecting his wishes, judging by the tenor of the debate in Committee.
The amendments, as the noble Lord, Lord Adeane, pointed out, seem implicitly to be looking to how, rather than whether, the RCHM should be absorbed, and laying down the necessary mechanics and a timetable. I wonder really whether this is a direction in which the House wishes to go. I personally believe that it would be better to avoid a firm indication at the moment.
The amendments of my noble Lord Sandford are, of course, of a much gentler quality—if I may use that word. In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Adeane, made clear that the Royal Commission was very ready to co-operate from an independent position with the new commission. That seems to be a most helpful and constructive position on the part of the Royal Commission, for, on the scenario of a separate Royal Commission it indicates that there would naturally be the kind of discussions of the relationship for which these amendments offer statutory backing. Given that sort of goodwill, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, spoke well when he said in Committee that consultations and a proper working agreement can be reached over the lunch table and this will not be a situation for which legislation is really appropriate. I am sorry that I cannot be more constructive or helpful. Perhaps I should say that my right honourable friend the new Secretary of State is anxious to reach a view as quickly as possible; that he himself, as it were, had to start from scratch.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, after that Government reply, it is almost impossible to carry the discussion very much further. I very much went along with a great deal of what the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, said about this problem. I quite understand the Government deciding that they do not want to push the Royal Commission into a position where it is subsumed by the heritage commission, because one is royal, and I have not yet suggested calling the heritage commission the royal heritage commission and upgrading it to that extent. So there is a problem here.

661
Speaking personally, I am not absolutely and irrevocably wedded to the amendment that I was moving. It was an amendment to try to get us out of the morass into which we had fallen, or the cul de sac down which we had gone, and to give us an enabling Bill. At the moment, although this is a pretty thin House, it is quite clear that is not finding much favour with anybody. However, I should have liked to hear from the Government—and this is the crux of the matter as regards the bodies and their work—whether there is a connection with the National Monuments Record. We have had no lead on how this could be worked out in order that they could still retain their own identity but with the work continuing. There is a great deal of concern that the access to the National Monuments Record may be cut off or it may not work, and it is a very practical point. I do not see it as a question of prestige or of trying to merge the Royal Commission into the new heritage commission, but more a question of how the actual work is to take place. This can be worked out.
Why should any upheaval be necessary at all? If the Government are setting up a new commission and bringing forward this Bill—and, as I understand it, to have very close links with the National Monuments Record is essential and an integral part of it—then the Government must come out of the closet over this and at least say how they feel, or produce some line of thought, or some way in which they think it could work out in practice, rather than just leaving it as it is and saying nothing, with us all going round in circles trying to find some way out of this. That will just continue and we shall get nowhere.
I hope that even tonight the Minister may be able to come down to the basic practical point which is causing all the anxiety of how there can be a link up —or will it be able to continue in its present form?—with the National Monuments Record.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, by leave of the House, as I understand it, it would continue in its present form. Of course, I appreciate the concern of the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, and I actually had runners standing by right up to 10 o'clock this evening in case I could get a decision, but at the moment I do not have it. and until I do there is very little more I can add.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, in these circumstances, I think it would be quite wrong, even if it were feasible at this time of night, to press this amendment at all. At this stage I think we have to hand it back to the Government in order to try to start some sort of working relationship or have more talks, or to say, "You do not have to do anything about this at all; we have been able to make arrangements and to consult about this, and not put it on any statutory basis at all." I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
11.40 p.m.
Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal moved Amendment No. 150:
After Clause 31, insert the following new clause:
("Powers of investment.
.—(1) The Commission may invest any monies it may receive by way of voluntary contributions towards its expenditures,
662
profits from its trading activities, sponsorship or endowment of any of the properties in its ownership care or management in accordance with this section.
(2) Any such sums shall be invested in accordance with the Trustee Investments Act 1961; and sections 1, 2. 5, 6, 12 and 13 of that Act shall have effect in relation to such sums, and in relation to any investments for the time being representing such sums, as if they constituted a Trust Fund and the Commissioners were the trustees of that fund.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, at the Committee stage the noble Earl, Lord Avon, responded to Amendment No. 113E, but did not deal with what was to be done with voluntary contributions or any profits that the commission made on any of the operations it was engaged in. I am not clear whether the noble Earl said when dealing with Amendment No. 98, which seems 100 years ago but was four or five hours ago, that the commission already had these powers, or whether they would have them under provisions to be made in a new Finance Act.
In either case, following the thread which has gone through so much of this debate, we want to make the commission flexible and responsible, so surely they must have a power of investment. One thing is certain: nobody is going to give money to a commission which is simply going to put the money on deposit. Incidentally, I suppose that to put money on deposit is a form of investment, although in a rather restricted form. I hope that the noble Earl will be able to confirm that these powers either already exist or will exist. I beg to move.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, the power of the commission in new Clause 30 to do such things as it considers necessary or expedient covers the question of voluntary contributions and also the receipt of donations. Voluntary contributions which will not count against the grant-in-aid are likely to be aimed at specific projects rather than given for general purposes, and to the extent that the commission receives other income that too will be expected to be used rather than saved. The establishment and use of a capital fund we are not encouraging in this case.
May I come on to investment. The commission will be able to invest without any formal provision. We would rather like to leave it with that sentence because if we put in any amendment along the lines of my noble friend's thinking we must be careful not to restrict the rather more general terms which I have just mentioned and which I shall repeat: the commission will be able to invest without any formal provision.
Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal: My Lords, that seems to be a wholly satisfactory state of affairs. I am grateful to the noble Earl. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu Lord Montagu of Beaulieu moved Amendment No. 151:
After Clause 31, insert the following new clause:
("Additional grants for establishment, equipment, and provision of facilities
—the Secretary of State shall consult with the Commission and additionally pay such grants as may be necessary for the proper establishment and equipment of the Commission and for the reasonable improvement or provision of facilities for the public at monuments and buildings in its ownership care or management.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I do not want to take up too much of the time of the House at this stage of the evening. I simply wish to try to get from the noble Earl an assurance that the new commission will start off with sufficient funds to establish itself in the early days. It will have problems of administration, of offices, and all sorts of other things, and one does not want it to start in a starving position from which it will not recover for many years. I understand that there is goodwill on the part of the Government to see that the commission does get off to a good start; nevertheless, I give this opportunity to the noble Earl to confirm that tonight.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I think I can give my noble friend that assurance. The powers of the Secretary of State to pay grant are, of course, covered in Clause 39. The Government have made it clear in The way Forward, and I emphasised in Committee, that the setting up and administrative costs of the commission will be met as a separate part of a grant-in-aid. The opportunity for improvements in presentation and facilities mentioned in the amendment is, of course, one of the underlying reasons for establishing the commission. When the commission have worked out what they wish to do, which inevitably must be a gradual process, these proposals and their costs will form an important part of successive annual grant negotiations. The Government do not intend to starve their creation of the resources to do the job, and I assure my noble friend that the points he made have been, and will continue to be, very much to the forefront of their mind.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu: My Lords, with that encouraging reply to an important point, I am happy to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 32 [Dissolution of certain bodies]:
11.45 p.m.
Lord Sandford Lord Sandford moved Amendment No. 152:
Page 18, line 5, at end insert—
("(3) the Secretary of State may by statutory instrument subject to an affirmative resolution of both Houses of Parliament make such arrangements for the future relationships of the Royal Commission on Historical Monuments (England) and the Commission for Ancient Monuments and Historic Buildings for England as may be necessary.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, while I do not want to say much about the substance of the amendment, I must say that we cannot possibly leave the relationship between the new commission and the Royal Commission in the unsatisfactory state in which we find it. It seems that we have three alternatives to offer the Minister. One is for him to undertake to come back with the Government's thinking on this matter resolved by way of an amendment in time for Third Reading. The second alternative is for him to accept whichever amendment—No. 152 or No. 153—is acceptable to the House; and I think your Lordships would welcome the guidance of the chairman of the Royal Commission on those two, neither of which presupposes the demise of the Royal Commission.
664
The third alternative, if neither of those is acceptable is the recommitment of this part of the Bill when the Government are ready with their conclusions. I hope the Minister can make a choice between those three alternatives.
Lord Adeane: My Lords, I do not have another speech to make, the House will be relieved to hear. I was absolutely delighted to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, said when we were discussing Amendment No. 149, when he spoke of the future of an informal consultation between the Royal Commission and the new commission, whenever it is ready to take on such consultation. The Royal Commission stand ready at any time to do that—over the luncheon table, over the breakfast table or over any table—and naturally, when some conclusion has been reached, we shall be ready for it to be published by the Government, by ourselves or by anybody else. Everything the noble Lord said on that could only give one great pleasure.
As for Amendments Nos. 152 and 153, on which the noble Lord was good enough to ask me to indicate the way ahead, I can only say that I find the same difficulty with this as he finds; this is something about which we have to look to the Government, and I hope that at some stage before the Bill leaves this House the noble Earl, Lord Avon, may be able to tell us what we have to do next. That is what we want to know.
The Earl of Perth: My Lords, I have listened to the debate on this series of amendments with great care and it seems to me that it is perhaps difficult for the Government to give their view until breakfast or lunch between the commission, when it has been established, and the Royal Commission has taken place. So I must confess that it seems to me that Amendment No. 153, which leaves everything open until after the famous meal has taken place, is probably the amendment that we should go for. It indicates that at a proper time, when the Secretary of State is satisfied that it is expedient to review the relationship, something may happen. But to expect an answer now would be wrong, and one should not press even the Government for it.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, my noble friend gave me three options. Of course, I could accept any of them, but unfortunately they have to be accepted by my colleagues as well, so I must be careful. I think that the best I can say to my noble friend is that I shall of course undertake to make a statement on this subject on Third Reading, with an amendment, if appropriate. My noble friend mentioned his own amendments. Personally, I believe that they would both be a little short of the issue if we did so wish to include the Royal Commission: they would fall a little short of what we would want.
I am sorry that I cannot be more helpful to the House. I think that the noble Earl, Lord Perth, put his finger on the matter when he said that all the discussions that we are now having are being weighed up as well. They will be taken into account by my right honourable friend, and to that extent I am grateful to the House for discussing the matter in such detail at this very late hour. I shall do my best in order to make sure that something is before your Lordships at Third Reading.
Lord Sandford: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Adeane, and to my noble friend Lord Avon for their response to what I had to say on the two amendments. As the noble Earl, Lord Perth, has suggested, it is of course quite unreasonable to require the Government to say here and now what should be the future working relationships between the heritage commission and the Royal Commission. But neither of the amendments is asking for that. All that is asked for is a statement from the Government as to how they are going to handle in the Bill the relationships between the Royal Commission on the one hand and the heritage commission on the other, and any other bodies involved. That is all that either of the amendments seeks to do.
However, if I may say so, my noble friend has taken the first option that I offered him. I asked that he should give us an undertaking to make a statement setting out the Government's position by way of an amendment at Third Reading, and my understanding of his response was that he said he would do precisely that. If that is what he is going to do, I should be delighted to withdraw the amendment, and the third option, of having a recommitment of the Bill, remains available to us should we not find that the Government are able to be forthcoming when the time of the Third Reading is reached. So in all those circumstances I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 152.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 153 not moved.]
Schedule 5 [Minor and consequential amendments]:
11.53 p.m.
Lord Strabolgimoved Amendment No. 154:
Page 60, leave out lines 29 and 30.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 154, to which I spoke in Committee. I beg to move the amendment formally.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I listened to the arguments put forward in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, and in view of their inability at this time to make extensive revisions to Schedule 1 to the National Gallery and Tate Gallery Act, the Government recognise and accept the desirability of preserving the procedure of the 1954 Act. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, will understand that, while the Government accept his amendments in principle, I should prefer to allow the draftsman the opportunity to make any consequential revisions, particularly to Schedule 5. For this particular amendment that may seem rather hard work, but it is really because of Amendment No. 155, to which I am to make the same kind of response, that I feel that I should like the draftsman to have another look at the matter, so as to move our own Government amendment at the next stage.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl, but I was moving only Amendment No. 154. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Strabolgi Lord Strabolgi moved Amendment No. 155:
Page 60, line 32, at end insert—
(" ( ) In Schedule 1 to the National Gallery and Tate Gallery Act 1954 (which lists Museums and other Institutions to which transfers may be made under sections 3 and 5 of that Act) there shall he added in the appropriate places;

The Trustees of the British Museum (Natural History).

The British Library Board.

The Board of Trustees of the Armouries.")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 155, which seeks to add three institutions to Schedule 1 to the National Gallery and Tate Gallery Act 1954. At present transfers to the Schedule 1 list, with the addition of the Ulster Museum, which has been added by order, can be made by the National Gallery, in the case of gifts only, for which no special provision has been made under Section 3, and by the Tate Gallery trustees, who, under Section 5, have power to transfer any work of art vested in them.
There is some inconsistency between these two powers, and I hope that this will receive the attention of the Government. It would be an advantage, I suggest, to give the National Gallery the wider powers of transfer enjoyed by the Tate. At present, certain paintings from the National Gallery are on loan only, because they cannot be transferred. The National Portrait Gallery, for example, has on loan from the National Gallery over a hundred portrait drawings of prominent people from the first half of the last century. These are by a minor artist but are of great historical interest because of the people portrayed. The National Portrait Gallery has also on loan from the National Gallery 35 portrait miniatures which are of no interest, I understand, to the National Gallery and of no relevance to its collections. All these should be transferred. Both bodies of trustees want to do this but are prevented from doing so by present legislation.
Transfers cannot be made by the National Gallery or the Tate Gallery to the British Museum (Natural History) or to the British Library Board or to the board of trustees of the Armouries; although the Victoria and Albert Museum will be able to make transfers to these institutions under Clause 5(4) of this Bill, which attempts to bring the list up to date in a limited way, at least as far as the V and A is concerned. This is because the first two institutions were not in existence in 1954 and therefore did not appear in the schedule; and they have not since been added to the 1954 Act by order. They should have been; but for some reason they have not been added. My amendment seeks to remedy this.
In conclusion, I should like to pay a tribute, if I may, to Mr. Denis Mahon, the distinguished art historian, who is also a former trustee of the National Gallery. Mr. Mahon, working in an entirely voluntary and private capacity, has brought to light by most diligent research various anomalies and omissions in the relevant legislation. I am particularly indebted to him for much information and advice and for bringing these lacunae to our attention. I beg to move.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, for his introduction to this amendment. The Government are in sympathy with the objective of the noble Lord's amendment. However, we cannot accept his amendment outright

667
because to do so would render otiose similar, though not identical, provisions in Clause 5(4), Clause 12(4) and Clause 16(4). If the noble Lord is content, the Government are happy to bring forward an amendment of their own for the purpose of this amendment and to make the consequential amendments. With that commitment, I hope that the noble Lord will be able to withdraw.
Lord Strabolgi: I am most grateful to the noble Earl and I look forward to the Government's amendment at the next stage of the Bill.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendments Nos. 156 and 157:
Page 60, line 40, at end insert (", Kew")
Page 61, line 8, at end insert (". Kew")
The noble Earl said: If I may, I will move Amendments Nos. 156 and 157 together. My noble friend Lord Ferrers has already spoken to these. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Strabolgi Lord Strabolgi moved Amendment No. 158:
Page 61, line 8, at end insert—
("British Museum Act 1963 (c. 24)
( ) In section 9(1) to the British Museum Act 1963 (which allows transfers to other institutions) there shall be added at the end "the National Gallery Trustees, and the Tate Gallery Trustees".")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 158. This is another tidying-up amendment, to repair omissions in previous legislation. It is relevant, I suggest, to this Bill as it relates again to the National Gallery and Tate Gallery Act 1954, which is included in the Long Title. Section 9 of the British Museum Act 1963 allows transfers to any institution listed in the first schedule to the National Gallery and Tate Gallery Act; but the draftsmen forgot that the National Gallery and Tate Gallery are not listed in the schedule, for the reason that it is a schedule to an Act relating to these two institutions.
The Government of the day should have added the National Gallery and the Tate Gallery at the end of Section 9, to make the list complete. Somebody must have woken up to the omission when drafting the Museum of London Act 1965, since in Section 7 of that Act, dealing with transfers, the two institutions, the National Gallery and the Tate Gallery, have been included at the end of the section; and of course the same thing has been done in this Bill in Clause 5(4).
The effect of this oversight in the drafting of the British Museum Act means that the British Museum can transfer to any museum or other institution listed in the schedule except to the National Gallery and Tate Gallery themselves, which of course was not the intention of the 1963 Act. I beg to move.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, indeed Lord Strabolgi's amendment on face value is very reasonable, and it is difficult to see, as he says, why the provisions in the British Museum Act 1963 do not
668
permit transfers of objects to the National and Tate Galleries. However, before the Government feel that they can accept this amendment or consider it in principle, I should like to be sure that there is no underlying legal impediment which prevented the appropriate provisions from being included in the British Museum Act 1963. The noble Lord's amendment, as I understand it, would also extend the scope of the Bill, and possibly require an amendment to Long Title. Subject to these caveats, the Government would be prepared to bring forward an amendment of their own later on to achieve a similar effect. Perhaps the noble Lord would allow me to keep in touch with him as we progress in this particular matter.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Earl. I do not think that the Government need be inhibited about amending the Long Title. They have already amended it by inserting the word "Kew", and for that we are very grateful. In view of what the noble Earl has said, and the commitment that he has made, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 6 [Repeals]:
Lord Strabolgi Lord Strabolgi moved Amendment No. 159:
Page 61, line 17, column 3, leave out ("Section 3(4).")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is consequential on Amendment No. 154. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 160:
Page 61, line 18, column 3, leave out ("In section 4, subsection (2).") and insert ("Section 4(2).")
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this amendment simply corrects a minor drafting inconsistency. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 34 [Commencement]:
[Amendment No. 161 not moved.]
Lord Jenkins of Putneymoved Amendment No. 162:
Page 18, line 13, at end insert (" .but no order shall be made unless and until the staffs of the establishments to be affected by it shall by simple majority in a secret postal ballot have expressed their support for the issue of such an order.
Subject to the foregoing an order may be made bringing into effect only those sections of this Act governing a specific establishment or establishments where staff support has been given.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I may be out of order for a moment if I say that I regret that I was not in the Chamber this afternoon when Amendment No. 66 was moved, which I mistakenly thought was going to be taken at this stage in the proceedings rather than at an earlier stage. Consequently, that amendment was not moved. It is my hope that it will be picked up, either at a later stage in this House or possibly in another place.
If I may turn to the amendment which I wish particularly to press upon the Government, it is Amendment No. 162, rather than No. 161. I do so

669
with some confidence that the Government will save me the necessity of pressing the matter at this late stage by accepting this amendment, which I think will be more in line with their general philosophy than Amendment No. 161, which is clearly just a delaying amendment. Amendment No. 162 is entirely in accordance with the Government's general philosophy in these matters.
The Government are very much addicted to secret ballots, and what this amendment seeks to do is to give the staff the opportunity to express their views on this fundamental change to their whole way of life and terms and conditions by means of a secret ballot. The Government's belief in secret ballots is in my view somewhat mistaken. I think that recent events have shown us that a secret ballot can have consequences other than those which the Government might imagine would flow from them. It is sometimes the case that the rank and file of a trade union are substantially more militant, intransigent, or whatever word one might care to use, than the negotiators, as I think is probably being found in the case of the water dispute.
So a secret ballot, to my mind, is not the be-all and end-all of everything but it is the Government's idea and therefore, as this amendment says that no order to bring the Act into being,
"shall be made unless and until the staffs of the establishments to be affected by it shall by simple majority in a secret postal ballot have expressed their support for the issue of such an order",
it seems to me that the Government will have no difficulty in accepting the amendment. If it is right for the staff to express their view in a secret ballot before a strike takes place, if it is right for them to express their view in a secret ballot before they elect a trade union leader, surely it is right for them to express their view in a secret ballot before a fundamental change is made by an active order in the contractual terms of employment. They arc at the moment civil servants. They have not been fully consulted: the views of only the top layer of people in the museums and other establishments have been taken into consideration. It is true that the top layer, by and large, are in favour of these changes. This is not the case lower down the scale and it is by no means certain that the staff concerned arc in favour of these changes. It is my hope that the Government will see that it is right that their views should be consulted and that this fundamental change in their terms and conditions of employment shall not be imposed upon them until their views in the matter have been sought. I beg to move Amendment No. 162.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu: My Lords, I find this a completely staggering amendment. Perhaps it is light relief at the end of a very long debate. It was my impression that our national museums belonged to the nation and were run for the nation by the staff. It appears from the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, that they are owned by the staff, who have to be consulted about every move that goes on. Perhaps the new security guard who comes in the day before the ballot is taken will know a great deal more about running museums than the director and his senior staff, who have all expressed the opinion that they would like these changes to he made. It really is so absurd that I am very surprised that it can be moved seriously.
670
Perhaps it is not being moved seriously; but from my consultations with the trade unions in these musems, they are content. I think the Government have gone out of their way to make quite sure that the staff conditions are right; and all this nonsense about their ceasing to be civil servants is absolutely absurd. However, I go back to my point: I was under the impression that these were national museums, to be run for the benefit of all our people and not run for the benefit of the staff, which unfortunately in the past has happened too much.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I think I have said to the House on a number of occasions, both now and at Committee stage, that there have been wide discussions with the staff and with the unions. Recently there have been some press reports. The Government have inquired into these and I should like to reassure the House that the claims of staff support for the petition appear to be unsubstantiated. The directors have held meetings with their staff and have been unable to trace the source of the petition. The staff have assured the directors of their support, given the undertaking that the Bill is based in broadly its present form, including staff safeguards. I can see no point in a secret ballot. The Government cannot accept the amendment as it stands, which would also effectively subjugate the wishes of Parliament. I am sure the noble Lord will not wish to press it.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, I would be ready not to press the amendment if the noble Earl had felt able to be a little more forthcoming than he was in his answer. But it is the fact that many of the staffs of these museums will remain civil servants and there are considerable problems as to where the line shall be drawn at that level. Some of the staffs will remain civil servants and will be transferred to other branches of the Civil Service. There is no alternative given to the others: they are to be given an offer, and if they refuse that offer there is no alternative in the Bill as to what will be the result.
There is certainly provision for some sort of individual negotiation on dispute. If the noble Earl were able to say, without giving the staffs a veto on the position, that he will make sure that there would not be enforced upon the staff by Act of Parliament a breach in their contractual relationship with the Government, I think that would be sufficient for me not to press the matter, I hope the noble Earl will feel able to go that far.
The Earl of Avon: I do not think I can go quite that far. As the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, is well aware, we had some discussion on earlier amendments about the no-worsening situation, whereby civil servants at the museums can have a no-worsening clause built into their contracts, which as far as I know they themselves welcome, too.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, having regard to that more specific assurance, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Avonmoved Amendment No. 163:
In the Title, line 3, after ("Gardens") insert (",Kew,").

671
The noble Earl said: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Ferrers has already spoken to this. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
House adjourned at eleven minutes past midnight.

  N. IRELAND: APPLICATION FOR RELEASE OF FEMALE PRISONER
  N. IRELAND: APPLICATION FOR RELEASE OF FEMALE PRISONER
  WANDSWORTH: ALLEGED PAYMENTS FOR RUBBISH REMOVAL
  WANDSWORTH: ALLEGED PAYMENTS FOR RUBBISH REMOVAL
  THE DEER ACT 1963: STATUTES IN FORCE REVISION
  THE DEER ACT 1963: STATUTES IN FORCE REVISION
  EFFECTIVE PRESCRIBING: WORKING GROUP REPORT
  EFFECTIVE PRESCRIBING: WORKING GROUP REPORT
  SMOKING AND HEART DISEASE
  SMOKING AND HEART DISEASE
  GIBRALTAR: THE BLANDS SCHEME
  GIBRALTAR: THE BLANDS SCHEME