I beg to move, in page 1, line 14, to leave out from the beginning to "contribute" in line 15.

I have sat on a local authority for a very much shorter time than the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede). I can only claim to have done so since 1955. I am bound to say that I take a different view from that taken by the right hon. Gentleman about this matter, not because I do not trust local authorities but because it seems to me that this is a Bill dealing specifically with the repair and maintenance of buildings of historic or architectural interest.

I am afraid that, on balance, I am against the Amendment moved by the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), although I think I see what he has in mind. There are, of course, buildings which are of particular local interest about which there might very well be a different attitude locally from what there is in Whitehall. I know that the right hon. Member for South Shields was a member of the Government who claimed that the gentleman in Whitehall knew best.

I did not say that.

The right hon. Gentleman was silent on that occasion.

Nor can we.

I do not know what my hon. Friend means by saying that he cannot commit the Government.

We cannot commit the Lords.

An Amendment moved in another place on these lines might be reasonable, but failing that, I must oppose this Amendment.

I support the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) in his Amendment. I am not so scared of the consequences as my hon. Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell) seems to be.

Seems to have been.

"Seems to have been," I beg his pardon. My experience of local authority work does not go back so as that of the right hon. Member for South Shields, but it goes back somewhat further than that of my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Worsley) for it was in 1954 that I joined a local authority.

My hon. Friend has not considered the hypothesis that possibly a certain building might get a grant when it ought not to get it.

I should rather see the danger of certain unworthy buildings receiving grants than that any worthy one should not get the grant, which is what I feel might happen if the Bill went through unamended.

I listened, I confess, with some stupefaction to the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Worsley) and my hon. Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell). I thought that the Tory Party as a whole was in favour of giving local authorities such responsibility as they could safely exercise.

Yes.

I should have thought this was an instance in which that could be safely exercised. It is not as if the hand of the Ministry would be unduly absent from this matter, even if the Amendment were accepted. As we know, every local authority operates under financial conditions which are fairly closely circumscribed from Whitehall. We may be quite certain that if they showed themselves wildly lavish in respect of this Clause they would find they would not get so much in the general grant or by some other means.

That argument would not stand up and that is why I did not use it. I was suggesting the possibility that List III—

If the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell) would address the Chair it would be easier for the whole Committee to hear what he has to say.

I apologise, Sir William. I was in some doubt whether to turn this way to my hon. Friend, or the other way, and I chose the wrong way. My point was that List III—and this is the point I am not sure about—may have some fixed status so that the local authority cannot add to it as it wants. If that is the position there is little ground for the Amendment, but if the local authority can add to it as it wishes there is no difference between that and what the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) has proposed.

Let us go on the second supposition of my hon. Friend, that the local authority is entitled to add to the list of buildings. That would not help it if the inspector from Whitehall were to come and decide whether a loan was or was not to be granted. I do not think that meets the point put forward in the Amendment. However, as I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire, South and myself agree upon one thing, which is that we do not know whether List III exists or what it is for, perhaps I had better abandon that part of the argument and turn to another point.

The Committee ought to be grateful to the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), because his Amendment directs, as I think it properly should, the attention of the Committee to the question of whether or not Whitehall should, or need, come to the assistance of the local authority. When the right hon. Gentleman spoke of the trust that he is prepared to give—and which I apprehend most hon. Members will be pre- pared to give—to local authorities, he struck a very responsible chord, but one has to look at the reasons for the Clause as it now is worded in giving the local authorities the additional safeguard—because that is what I believe it to be—of the consent that the Minister would have to give before any contribution could be made.

Is my hon. and learned Friend seriously suggesting that we should hand over the administration of the country to people with beards?

No, that is the last thing I should urge on the Committee—nor do I hope that my hon. Friend is urging upon the Committee that it should be handed over to people who wear bowler hats.

All hon. Members will agree that the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) has much greater experience of local authority affairs than most hon. Members and no one would dispute his authority on many aspects of these affairs. But I must say that on this one he does not carry me with him, for it seems that we are seeking to open the gate to a wide extent to local authorities to give grants which might, in the national interest, not be to our advantage.

Would the hon. Member for Clapham (Dr. A. Glyn) consider whether the man in the Clapham omnibus might be the best person?

I entirely agree, and I wish we had a building of this nature in Clapham which we could preserve as a national heritage.

I would think that omnibuses are covered by the terms of the Bill.

In that case, we have in my constituency the Ministry of Transport museum in which are preserved a number of omnibuses and other items.

I approach the Amendment with great embarrassment because to find myself in a situation where I agree with the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell) and disagree with my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) is something I never thought to reach and it makes me think that I must be wrong.

Perhaps it is because the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl) and I served together on the same local authority for so long.

That is really a double-edged remark after what the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, South said about the extravagance of some local authorities. I do not think that in Paddington there would be found any particular desire to spend money on preserving historic buildings.

I do not want my hon. Friend to get my biography wrong. I was first elected to a local council in April, 1908, and I understand, therefore, that my hon. Friend was alive at that time. I have never served on any council in Mitcham.

Then my right hon. Friend was a member of his local authority before I was born—by two months. Thus on that score alone one must regard my right hon. Friend with very great respect. My right hon. Friend also speaks on this subject with an unrivalled authority since he has worked for many years on the Historic Buildings Council and he probably knows more about the problems involved in grant-aiding historic buildings than anyone. For those two reasons I find it difficult to disagree with him However, on the matter under discussion there are a number of reasons why it is wise to keep in this safeguard. I understand that under the Bill there will be no difficulty for buildings listed on the Ministry list and that local authorities may grant-aid them if they wish. Presumably, if local authorities need to borrow money to pay for loans, they would probably have to obtain loan sanction and, of course, if they obtained that then everything would be at large and they would have to justify their cases. But otherwise, as I understand it, in the case of a listed building, there would be no trouble or hold-up and a local authority could move.

The hon. Member refers to the necessity to get advice from the Ministry, and I agree that expert advice should be obtained, but the Clause does not say "advice." It says "consent." That is a point on which I should like to hear the hon. Gentleman.

I think a possible way of doing it would be similar to the matter of superannuation funds. A local authority may invest its money in equity shares but financial advice is first required from an expert before this is done. We might limit the discretion in that way so that advice is obtained from a recognised authority before the work is commenced. One has to expect the Minister to behave reasonably and helpfully and to be interested in guiding local authorities. I should not have thought that the limitation of consent, subject as it is to Parliamentary criticism and deputations from local Members and all the other horrors which bother a Minister, was an unduly repressive restriction.

It is peculiarly ill-fitting that I should have to resist an Amendment moved by the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede). The hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl) has said that the right hon. Gentleman was serving on a local authority before he was born. The right hon. Gentleman was serving on a local authority before my mother was born. Therefore, I certainly bow to him in his knowledge of this subject. I must say that, on balance, I agree with the views expressed by the hon. Member for Widnes.

May I point out to the hon. Member that the Government Department which was eulogised by my hon. Friend the Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl) for its advice was not the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, but the Ministry of Works?

That may well be so.

I echo what my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) has said in opposing the Amendment put forward by the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede). I do so in a spirit of deep humility, in deference to the great experience of the right hon. Member. I have a certain pride, as well as humility, in that I think I am one of the few hon. Members present who can claim to have been born just before the right hon. Gentleman was first elected to a local authority. In another respect, I am a mere chicken, because it is only since 1958 that I have been on a local authority myself.

We have had a fairly wide-ranging debate on this suggestion of the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede). I thought that we were going to start and continue rather like a newspaper correspondent, "Who is the youngest inhabitant? Who is the oldest inhabitant? Who has served longest on the council? Is this a record?" I do not think that any of us will challenge the record of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Shields in local government. He is an historic councillor of special interest who ought to be preserved. One day he may be of such outstanding historic interest as to become the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Works, who will, no doubt, erect and preserve a suitable monument; but we hope that that day will not came for many, many years.

"The attitude of local authorities can closely affect the future of historic buildings which some other person or body is struggling to preserve … We urge local authorities, where it is open to them to do so, to use their discretion in favour of, and not against, preservation of those buildings which genuinely deserve the most sympathetic treatment on architectural or historic grounds. This is particularly the case when the need for preservation arises from the value of the buildings as a group."

"Where an individual or voluntary organisation is struggling to raise sufficient funds to restore a building, it is doubly difficult for them if the local authority is unenthusiastic, or even—as sometimes happens—hostile to its preservation. There is, of course, no question of 'sabotage', either figurative or actual; but in these days it is hard for any private person to repair a building, and most of all to restore it to a place in the life of the community, without the sympathy and, if possible, financial help of a local authority. We note with particular regret cases where preservation is hampered by lack of such cooperation, since so many buildings owe their survival to the help of an enlightened local authority."

I understand that there are three grades in the list and that information regarding buildings in the third grade is in the possession only of the local authority itself. The owners are not told. Would the Clause apply to this third grade?

I am not quite sure of the answer to that. I think—I will tell my hon. Friend later if I am wrong—that the answer is, "No'. It is with grade I and grade II that we are concerned.

I have listened with great care to the case put against the Amendment, and I have noted what my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary has just said about the sympathy with which his Ministry will examine future applications of this sort. I have no doubt that what he says is true. Nevertheless, I am always a little suspicious about appeals, usually from members of the Government, to allow something to go through on the ground that it does not really matter because they will be sympathetic about it after it is through. Basically, the matter should be fully understood before it is passed into law, and, therefore, while I accept that the Bill will be sympathetically applied, nevertheless I should like to see the Amendment put in the Bill.

I thank hon. Members on both sides for their kindly references to me—at least, I think that they were meant to be kindly. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] However, a person reaches a stage when he does not desire to be reminded of how long he has been wandering about. I thank the Parliamentary Secretary for his explanation about the way in which the Bill will be administered.

I beg to move, in page 1, line 19, at the end to insert:

"and, at the time of making a contribution under this section towards the expenses of the repair or maintenance of a building may also, by grant or loan, contribute towards the expenses incurred or to be incurred in the upkeep of any garden occupied with the building and contiguous or adjacent thereto".

It will be convenient to discuss with this Amendment the hon. Member's Amendment to the Title, in line 3, after "interest," to insert:

"and the upkeep of gardens occupied therewith."

On a point of order. May I ask you, Sir William, whether this Amendment is in order under the terms of the Financial Resolution, which states:

"That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make provision for contributions by local authorities towards the repair and maintenance of buildings of historic or architectural interest, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament,"

Further to that point of order. I think that I must move the Amendment because I understood that it was the only way which was in order in which I could get such a provision into the Bill. But I should be most grateful, Sir William, if you would indicate whether it is covered by the Financial Resolution.

Further to that point of order. If the Financial Resolution has been accepted, surely the Amendment is in order.

I have not raised the point of order in any sense of obstruction but merely so that we may keep our proceedings regular and in order. It seemed to me that there was a doubt about the matter, and, while I have no doubt that the Committee will want to approve the Amendment, I should like the Committee, or someone at any rate, to consider whether any amendment of the Financial Resolution is involved.

The Financial Resolution is very wide, and I think that the Amendment falls within it.

I am grateful to you, Sir William, for your Ruling.

I support the Amendment. I entirely agree with what the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) has said. It would be a great pity to take over a historic building, or a building of great merit and interest, and not be able to contribute to the maintenance of its grounds and gardens. In some circumstances, the grounds and gardens are more valuable than the house or the building. It therefore seems to me that this is a sensible and correct Amendment. Beautifully kept gardens and grounds can improve a district's amenities.

I, also, support the Amendment. It perhaps meets the point which the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) had in mind, because it is an Amendment for the avoidance of doubt. It is fairly well established that a building includes the curtilage of it and a pleasure garden enjoyed with the house, and that is why the Amendment comes within the Money Resolution.

"and, at the time of making a contribution under this section towards the expenses"

"A contribution by way of loan under the foregoing subsection."

I think that it may save the hon. Member trouble if I tell him that I am not prepared to accept a manuscript Amendment in that sense.

I appreciate that at this stage of the Bill, which still has to go to another place, Sir William, and I would not, if I were in your position, accept a manuscript Amendment at this stage. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] I had in mind what I referred to earlier, that private Members do not like manuscript Amendments if they can avoid them, because they do raise slight difficulties at later stages, and, like the hon. Member, I am in a benevolent mood this Friday, and am trying to help hon. Members on both sides of the Committee.

May I express my gratitude to my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) for this concession, although it is a limited one? During our previous debate on the Bill, my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Robert Cooke) described me as a historic monument, though he put some balm on the wound by saying that it was a well-preserved monument. I am glad that this historic monument, even a battered battlement, has survived long enough to witness this concession.

In contributing my support to this Amendment I should like to begin by assuring my hon. Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell) that I can see hardly any cases where a historic garden as such would be outside the scope of the Bill, because surely almost any garden has some form of garden architecture attached to it, as well as plants and trees, and so on. It would be perfectly simple. If a grant or contribution is to be made to the building, the garden would come within the scope of what we are suggesting.

It has nothing to do with flowers and lawns or azaleas and rhododendrons, as I indicated to the Committee.

I did not enlarge on this because I thought it outside the scope of the Bill and out of order, but one example would be the Botanical Gardens at Oxford, a famous national heritage, but I would not have thought, with all respect, that the building at present inside them would have attracted a grant.

Of course, this is where my hon. Friend and I would differ. I would think that the architectural features of almost any historical garden were as worth preserving as any of the horticultural ones, and, indeed, most gardens are enhanced by the presence of architecture.

I also should like to support this Amendment and to add my regret to what my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) has already said, that it could not be in slightly wider terms. I always feel that in this country we do not quite do ourselves justice as regards gardens. It is not often that any nation can claim to have made one absolutely original contribution to any form of art, but I think that we can claim to have invented the landscape garden; it was William Kent, who left the fence and saw all nature as a garden.

Order. That would clearly be outwith the scope of the Money Resolution, and, therefore, it would not be in order to discuss it now.

I apologise, Sir William.

I support the Amendment, for two reasons. The first reason is a very obvious one, namely that a garden is an integral and delightful part of any house that it graces. Some of these old buildings are priceless jewels of architecture. Any jewel needs a proper setting. Many people think that the wonderful gardens which go with some of these houses are as much a joy to visit as the houses themselves.

I am sure that we are all grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Sir H. Kerr) for raising this matter in Standing Committee and thereby doing a great service to the Bill and improving it. The Bill without the Amendment would apply to the fixtures and fittings of a garden— that is to say, the houses and architectural things—but I agree with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Billericay (Mr. Gardner) that it would not have included gardens attached to the curtilage of the property.

"at the time of making a contribution towards the expenses of the repair or maintenance of a building may also … contribute towards the expenses incurred or to be incurred in the upkeep of any garden…."

Before my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary answers the various points put to him, I should like to add one question to which I hope he knows the answer. I have not given him any notice of it. What is the position under Section 30 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, which is referred to in Clause 1? Does the list include gardens which are appurtenant to houses? This is rather relevant to the point we are considering. My impression is that it does. What we are doing is in the nature of a tidying up operation. If we did not do it, it would lead to much complication and difficulty. I apologise for not giving my hon. Friend notice of this horribly specific question. I can but hope that he will be able to give me some indication of what the answer to it is.

I am quite sure that every member of the Committee would desire to express their thanks to the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell) for the legal advice he has given us this morning. I notice that the Parliamentary Secretary is in touch with the representative of the Whip's Department. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary has suggested to that gentleman that the next time there is a vacancy in one of the Law Offices of the Crown the service rendered to the Committee this morning by the hon. Member should be remembered in his favour. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."

Again, we have had an interesting discussion. I do not think that grave difficulties will arise about the implementation of this provision. In Committee, I made somewhat discouraging noises to my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Sir H. Kerr) about extending the scope of the Bill, but I must get myself quickly on-side and say that I, like everyone else, capitulated to his eloquence and the strength of his argument.

"building' includes any structure or erection and any part of a building as so defined".

I am grateful for my hon. Friend's answer. Would I be correct in saying that in the case of an historic building and a garden, it will be possible under the Amendment, by fiction of law, to maintain the garden by giving a. very small payment for the building?

If I can avoid it, I never like to refer to a fiction of the law. Under the law as I hope it will be operative when the Bill is passed, it will be quite possible for a local authority to make a contribution to the garden in the way I have suggested.

I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.

It would be convenient also with the new Clause to discuss the Amendment in the name of the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison), in Clause 1, page 2, line 3, at end insert:

(3) It shall be a condition of any contribution made by grant under this section in relation to a building, which is or consists mainly of a dwelling house, that if within three years of any payment by way of such contribution the building is sold, there shall be paid by the vendor to the local authority who made the contribution a sum equal to the amount of the said payment or to the amount of such enhancement of the sale price as the District Valuer may certify to have resulted from the said payment, whichever amount is the less:

Provided that no more than one payment shall be required under this subsection in respect of any one payment by a local authority.

(4) A contribution to which the last foregoing subsection applies and payment by way of such a contribution or under the said subsection to a local authority shall be registered in the register of local land charges by the proper officer of the local authority in such manner as may be prescribed by rules made for the purposes of this section under subsection (6) of section fifteen of the Land Charges Act, 1925.

I am obliged, Mr. Deputy-Speaker.

I am glad to give my support to the new Clause, which has been so excellently explained by my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon). A Clause of this kind is essential if we are to secure the public support that we need for legislation of this nature and the feeling that local authorities, if they make these contribution's, can recover in cases when recovery is justified.

I support the new Clause and congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) on the clarity which it manages to achieve. I believe that it is necessary to make certain about the purposes of the Bill, beyond peradventure, and I should like to add to the remarks made by the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) in Committee that the purpose of the Bill is not to provide a new "Poor Law" for people who live in large houses. I believe that the operation of the new Clause will remove all doubt on the issue and emphasise public spirit which is behind the Bill.

I also support the intention of my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) in moving the new Clause. This was perhaps an oversight in the original Bill—the kind of oversight which Standing Committees never fail to find out and, in so doing, perform a useful function.

The proposed new Clause and the Amendment reflect the genuine worry which the Committee has that the Bill might be regarded as being of benefit to a certain class of the community. They attempt to overcome any possibility of property "spivs" and developers getting hold of property of historic value and making an unwarranted profit out of it at the expense of the public and the ratepayers.

The hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) has mentioned that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) has unfortunately been called away and has not been able to be here this morning. That is why my contemptible self has been occupying this position on the Opposition Front Bench. But I have been very carefully briefed—as anybody who knows my hon. and learned Friend can well believe—about what I am to say on the subject before us. My hon. and learned Friend naturally feels that his Amendment is a good one. I do not share the doubts expressed about the burden that would be placed upon the district valuer. I agree with the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell) that if their noses are put to the quarry district valuers will solve the problem. But my hon. and learned Friend would not want to be obstructive for a moment. He recognises that the substantial point has been met.

I am sure that no one wants to forget that the purpose of the Bill is to encourage local authorities to make grants and to encourage owners to apply for them. Therefore, we should bear in mind at every stage that this Measure should simplify and not complicate the law. I believe that there was a feeling at one stage—certainly as far as I was concerned—that it might not be necessary, because many of the loans will be small, as the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl) said, to have this power at all. However, there is no doubt that there was a very strong feeling on both sides—the case was very forcibly put by the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison)—that there ought to be some safeguard against the abuse by an owner of the powers in the Bill. That is really the object of this Clause.

My hon. Friend said if it were, more or less, pressed on the owner. As I see it, this provision to recover being permissive, the owner could perfectly well say to the local authority, "If you force me to do this you must bind yourself not to recover more than £x in so many years".

I have no doubt that these things could be dealt with by agreement. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Clapham (Dr. Alan Glyn) is right, that if the local authority were exercising great pressure the owner could ask for an undertaking that it would not use the powers under the Act.

I regard the debate on this new Clause as being held in the realm of unreality. I heard the figure of £10,000 mentioned as being the amount of a grant likely to be made under the Bill when it becomes an Act. Quite frankly, I do not expect that any grant of that amount will be made. I think that when figures of that kind come into the calculation it ought to be understood that it is a matter for the Historic Buildings Council, which has very expert advice at its disposal.

Subject to loan sanction.

Not necessarily subject to loan sanction. The local authority would need loan sanction if it needed to borrow the money but if it did it out of revenue it would be all right.

The hon. Gentleman and I have had plenty of local government experience in Surrey, and there are plenty of ways of avoiding loan sanction. One could, for instance, mortgage the sewage plant, and the Ministry would have no power to deal with one. There are plenty of ways round that.

I ask leave to speak again to answer what has been said by the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) because it was my figure of £10,000 to which he referred. I took £10,000 only as a convenient round figure. I might easily have taken £1,000. The magnitude of the sum was quite irrelevant to what I was saying.

"Special reasons"?

My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) has been dealing with a Bill which refers to "special reasons", but in this case we are not concerned with the motoring world.

My hon. Friend will bear in mind that I gave him assurances on those points.

With respect, my hon. Friend gave assurance on the second, but not on the first point. I should like to have it.

I beg to move, in page 2, line 3 at the end to insert:

(3) A local authority may require as a condition of the making by them of a contribution under this section by way of grant towards the expenses of the repair or maintenance or upkeep of any property that the person to whom the grant is made shall enter into an agreement with them for the purpose of enabling the public to have access to the property or part thereof during such period and at such times as the agreement may provide.

It might be convenient if we discuss with this Amendment the Amendment in the name of the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison), in page 2, line 3, at the end to insert:

(3) A contribution under this section may be made subject to conditions imposed by the local authority for the purpose of securing public access to the whole or part of the property to which the contribution relates and of giving public notice of such right of access.

This Amendment, like the new Clause we have been discussing, is designed to meet a point raised in Committee by the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison). I hope that the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl), who substitutes today for the hon. and learned Member—his father figure—will be able to treat this Amendment in the same spirit.

This is another Amendment that improves the Bill. It contains what have been described as permissive powers as to access. I do not think that a local authority will often require to impose such conditions because, as the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) has said, the property concerned is much more likely to be a small property—the single house. It is right to make the imposing of access conditions permissive; if the owner does not wish to avail himself of the money he does not need to have people going through his house. The Amendment makes sure that there is no loophole for people to get money and give nothing in return.

This rather prosaic Amendment marks the climax of a very dramatic passage in the Standing Committee, when the whole nation was thrilled at the idea of seeing the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Robert Cooke) in his bath [HON. MEMBERS: "He's not here."] Then that may well be where he is; I do not know his habits as well as do hon. Members opposite.

For the reasons put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon), I hope that the House will accept the Amendment. It may be that even if the Amendment were not included in the Bill, local authorities would have power to enter into an agreement of the kind suggested. I believe that the Historic Buildings Council has dealt with such matters by letter, which is by far the best way of doing it. It might not be appropriate in every case, but it is useful that the Bill should itself indicate to local authorities that, in certain cases, it will be appropriate for them to enter into this kind of agreement.

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

On Second Reading, I complimented my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) and expressed the hope that, as the youngest hon. Member in the House, he would, many, many years from now, in a ripe and rubicund middle age, be able to look back at this Bill as being one of the happiest moments he spent in Parliament.

May I say that, even so, I will not have served in the House for anything like as long as some hon. Members, particularly the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede).

The hon. Member for Southend, West is in the living form an expression of the truth "Guinness is good for you." I was glad that my hon. Friend was able to include in his Bill the Clause dealing with gardens. All of us who prize and treasure the history and beauties of' our land realise that so often in the past the garden was placed like a frame around a picture and was very much a part of a house.

I should like to add to the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Sir H. Kerr) and to express my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) on promoting and steering this Bill through its various stages.

"a county, county borough, metropolitan borough or county district …"

I want briefly to support the Motion and to congratulate the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) on introducing and guiding this Bill to its Third Reading. It is to the credit of this House that the youngest Member should show such an interest in the historic and cultural assets of this country. I feel that the Bill is wanted today, and that it will assist the local authorities in this matter.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) on this excellent Bill. I am reminded of a previous occasion when he first came to the House and made a very brilliant speech on Cyprus. I can only say that the skill with which he made that speech has been applied in the course of this Bill. I think that he has met our wishes at every stage and that in so doing he has improved the Bill very considerably.

Britain, and particularly England, is not a museum. It is the home of a living and developing people who have a great history and who, with a bit of luck, may have a tremendous future. It would be wrong for me at this stage to indicate which is the quickest way to secure the latter end.

I join the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) in supporting the Third Reading of the Bill. I am sorry that he passed such strictures on Sir John Vanbrugh's work. We have an example of it in Bristol. The stables were turned into a police station and the house is to become a school of architecture.

I should not like the House to part with the Bill without my having the opportunity of saying a few words and, in particular, of adding my congratulations to those of other hon. Members to the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) on the skill, consideration and ability with which he has piloted it through its various stages. I listened to a great deal of the Second Reading debate and I have read the whole of the proceedings in Committee. I cordially congratulate the hon. Member on his efforts and commend the Bill to hon. Members.

We have been doing our best during the passage of the Bill to help the preservation of the landmarks of our history in a way in which hon. Members on both sides have wished. My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) is in good compay in his appreciation of the past. Disraeli wrote—and I think that his words are still apposite—

"Men moralise among ruins, or, in the throng and tumult of successful cities, recall past visions of urban desolation for prophetic warning. London is a modern Babylon; Paris has aped imperial Rome. and may share its catastrophe … Damascus … had municipal rights in the days when God conversed with Abraham."

"As yet the disciples of Progress have not been able exactly to match this instance of Damascus, but it is said that they have great faith in the future of Birkenhead."

The selection of a Private Member's Bill to try to get through the House is a matter of great skill and judgment. I have never yet had to do it. One difficulty is that if an hon. Member chooses a subject in which nobody is interested he loses his Bill because of indifference. If he chooses a subject in which many people are interested he loses his Bill because of the desire on the part of hon. Members to take part in the discussion on it. I quite appreciate that as the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) looks at the clock he is beginning to wonder just at what point he will be choked with cream.