My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

My Lords, the operation referred to was conducted jointly by the DHSS and the police and resulted in 179 people—63 per cent. of those arrested—being charged, 159 of whom have since been convicted. Its purpose was to stop the claimants concerned from receiving benefit to which they were not entitled and to deter others from claiming fraudulently. The cost was about £36,000, against which must be set about £450,000 of wrongful payments that would otherwise have been made in a full year. I am sure that taxpayers and the vast majority of people receiving benefit who are honest in hteir dealings with the department wish for effective counter-measures to be taken against fraud, particularly, as was the case in Oxford, where there is large-scale abuse of the system.

My Lords, while thanking the Minister for that reply, may I ask him to comment in this connection on the lack of adequate provision made for the single homeless in the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977?

With respect to the right reverend Prelate, my Lords, that is another question.

My Lords, how many of those convicted were subsequently found to be entitled to far larger benefit than they were in fact receiving?

My Lords, so far as I know, none. These people were, in general, convicted because they were receiving benefit far more than that to which they were entitled.

My Lords, what percentage of the sample under review is represented by the 179 convictions the noble Lord mentioned?

As I said in the Answer, my Lords, 63 per cent. of those arrested were charged. Virtually all of those charged, but not quite all, have since been convicted, but a small number of cases remain to be dealt with.

My Lords, apart from the percentage of people found guilty, may I ask the noble Lord to say how many people were detained? Would he agree that a better system should be found to check on these matters, rather than the spectacular type of mass raid, which can also inflict a great deal of anxiety on innocent people who would like to claim but who might be deterred from so doing in case they should become involved in a similar incident?

My Lords, the total initially arrested I think numbered 283, of whom, as I said, 179 were subsequently charged. The other hundred or so were not charged because the evidence available was not thought to be sufficient to justify prosecution.

For how long were they detained in custody, my Lords—that is, those who were innocent and not charged in due course?

My Lords, none was detained for longer than 24 hours.

My Lords, while this exercise on behalf of the DHSS was, no doubt, designed to try to reduce the cheating which goes on and which amounts to some £4 million a year, may I ask the noble Lord to explain the sense of carrying on in this way to recover £4 million while at the same time reducing the Inland Revenue's staff who are working on the black economy, which is now running at £9 billion?

My Lords, I think, if I may say so, that the noble Lord plucks figures out of the air in this matter. The extent of alleged fraud in regard to social security, for example, is very much greater than the figure he mentioned.

Tell us what it is.

My Lords, can my noble friend say how many of those charged and found guilty were Oxford people? Secondly, in support of the right reverend Prelate, may I ask my noble friend to say whether, if there were a network of accommodation throughout the country for homeless people, the Government would save a great deal of money?

My Lords, the basis of the complaint against all those who were charged (I think I am right in saying all those who were charged) was that they were not living at the address in Oxford at which they were claiming to live, and they were subsequently convicted in that sense. Regarding the second part of my noble friend's supplementary, I am afraid I must answer her in the same sense in which I answered the right reverend Prelate: that is another question.

My Lords, further to the question asked by my noble friend Lord Molloy, is it not the case that the Government have recently refused to appoint more inspectors with a view to collecting more money from the wealthy sections of the community? Why are the Government so hard on the poor and so soft on the rich?

My Lords, I am not sure that is a question I really need answer because the assertion inherent in it does not bear examination. However, it might be of interest to know that for the year ended April 1982 the department's investigators achieved benefit savings of £96·1 million through the detection of fraud, at a cost of some £33 million.

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

My Lords, there have been 29 accidents, including six fatal accidents, in which eight people have been killed. Two-thirds of the accidents have been attributed to pilot error, and the rest to engine or structural failure. All microlights now have to be registered with the Civil Aviation Authority, and all pilots are required to be licensed. A first draft of the airworthiness requirements has been drawn up by the CAA and circulated to interested parties. The authority expects to publish airworthiness requirements early next year.

My Lords, in thanking my noble friend for that very detailed and helpful reply, may I ask whether he can confirm that he is satisfied that all reasonable measures have been taken to reduce the risk of serious accidents? Secondly, will he consider whether flying clubs, rather than the CAA, could perhaps monitor the safety aspects of flying?

My Lords, so far as the first point made by my noble friend is concerned, this is a hazardous sport. Young men will always participate in hazardous activities, and, tragically, from time to time fatal accidents occur. One must draw a very careful line between overregulating an activity and making it impossible to carry on, while at the same time ensuring that all reasonable safety precautions are taken. As I indicated in my reply, the CAA has in fact already made very considerable progress in this field. I am glad also to say that the two associations active in the field—the British Hang-gliding Association, and the British Microlight Aircraft Association—are joining in consultations with the CAA, with a view further to improving safety.

My Lords, although we appreciate the fact that the Government may not want to have undue restrictions, we welcome both the bringing of these activities under air safety regulations, and pilot licensing. But surely the main object in the long run is to see that monitoring takes place and that the controls, such as they are, are enforced. Can the Minister also briefly say something about the noise aspect, which also has been causing concern?

My Lords, I note what the noble Lord has said. The points that he makes are entirely valid. So far as noise is concerned, two studies are at present in hand, and we shall consider what can be done in the light of the results of those studies.

My Lords, according to the radio this morning, hunting is the most dangerous sport that there is. Is there any suggestion of registering each horse?

My Lords, there are very few horses which would be encompassed within the term "microlights".

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

My Lords, as I told the noble Lord on 24th November in the debate on the welfare state, we accept the case for making good this abatement, and will do so as soon as the necessary resources can be made available.

My Lords, is the noble Lord the Minister aware that the unemployed are not concerned about whether the Government accept the principle? They are concerned about when they will get their money. How is the noble Lord's Answer consistent with the statement of his right honourable friend the then Secretary of State, who, on 30th April 1980, said that the rationale for the 5 per cent. abatement would cease at the time that unemployment benefit came under tax? Has it not been under tax since July of this year?

My Lords, obviously the noble Lord read only one paragraph of the debate to which he referred, because my right honourable friend also said that one of the other reasons for making the abatement was as a necessary economy in public expenditure. The rationale for that move still exists.

My Lords, is the Minister aware that the Government's attitude to the unemployed and the working class generally is the worst that I have seen since Baldwin and Ramsay MacDonald were in government, in 1926 and 1931? Is it not time that the Government stopped looking after their own class, and gave a little back to the working class?

My Lords, if I may say so, the noble Lord seems to have a very short memory. We have treated the working classes, as he calls them, a good deal better than did the Government who preceded us.

My Lords, while totally rejecting that assertion, may I put to the noble Lord a question of fact? Can he confirm whether the cost of the reinstatement would be in the region of £60 million, whereas the revenue gained from bringing the benefit into the taxable income bracket would be in the order of £650 million? Therefore, would not the noble Lord agree that, if those figures are correct, the failure of the Government to review the 5 per cent. reduction is financially totally unjustifiable?

My Lords, the noble Lord is right in that the cost of restoring the abatement would be of the order of £50 million or £60 million, as he said. But the question of the revenue from taxation is irrelevant because it has never been the case that tax from a particular source is hypothecated for any purpose.

My Lords, would not the noble Lord agree that involved here is a question of the morale of our country? Many people are greatly concerned; they have seen all of this before. As my noble friend Lord Blyton said, the Government first of all created the unemployed, and now they are whipping them.

My Lords, that may be the noble Lord's view, but it is not mine.

My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that to my certain knowledge there are unemployed people, responsible family men, who have applied for jobs at less than two-thirds of their previous wage on salary without success? Is it not unfair that such people should be deprived of 5 per cent. of the benefit which would otherwise accrue to them?

My Lords, the Government have to determine the order of priorities in these matters and, as we said at the time, the priorities meant that we had to make this modest abatement to unemployment benefit. I might perhaps add to those who complain about unemployment benefit coming into tax, that the fact is that most married people, for example, living on unemployment benefit, or essentially so, do not pay tax at all.

My Lords, are not the Government, in defence, really saying, as a pickpocket might say in the dock, "I am very sorry that I misappropriated this money. I shall seriously consider returning it in due course; but I must consider other priorities first"?

No, my Lords. We had to establish, as I have said to the noble Lord, Lord Monson, the order of priorities in this matter and we had to decide that there were other things on which we needed to spend the scarce resources that we have for these purposes at the time, and, as I say, we will make good this abatement as soon as we can.

My Lords, surely the priority is that it was not your money.

My Lords, I suppose that that applies to every penny that the Government dispose of.

My Lords, will the noble Lord answer the Question on the Order Paper? Is this not a form of double taxation? Is he really telling the House that the Government, after its 3½ years of professedly successful economic pruning, cannot afford the £60 million which they have virtually promised to return from July this year?

My Lords, we did not promise to return this money from July this year, as the noble Lord suggests. As I said in answer to the noble Lord a moment ago, the rationale lay in two parts in this matter. First of all, there was the question of the benefit coming into tax and, secondly, the question of containing public expenditure. The question of containing public expenditure continues to be of the greatest importance, but we shall make good this abatement just as soon as we can.

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

My Lords, as the Leeds Western Health Authority has taken no closure decision in relation to the Ida Hospital, the question is hypothetical. In any event, before an opposed hospital closure in the Yorkshire region can be referred to Ministers, the issue must first be considered by the regional health authority, of which the noble Baroness is a distinguished member.

My Lords, while thanking the Minister for that reply, may I wish him a very happy Christmas? Is he aware that the Ida Hospital was designated by his own department as a centre of excellence for rehabilitation, and that many of the excellent and most dedicated staff working there are very worried because there is a rumour that the hospital will close and that the patients will be moved to another hospital?

Yes, my Lords, I agree that, as the noble Baroness has said, the hospital was designated as a demonstration centre in medical rehabilitation. I would certainly also agree that the service provided is an important one for the district concerned. But that does not necessarily mean that these important functions ought to go on for ever in the same building.

My Lords, whether or not permission has been sought at the present time, the nub of the question is this: Will the Minister of State refuse permission? Before he considers it, will he take into account the viability, the excellent work in this hospital—which is not in debt—the assiduousness of the staff and its importance to the old, the lonely and the sick in this area, who look on this place as a home because many of them have nowhere else to go?

My Lords, if this matter comes before Ministers, these points will certainly be taken into account as, doubtless, they will be by the regional health authority, upon which, as I say, the noble Baroness sits, if the matter should ever come before it.

My Lords, does not the Minister think that the time has come when we want to encourage hospitals or hostels for these aged and infirm people who do not need to be in an acute general hospital but who do need to be taken care of in the way that has been spoken about now?

Yes, my Lords, geriatric provision generally is a matter of considerable importance. I should say that that is not the specific purpose of this hospital, which is dealing in the main with those who are, hopefully, to return to a normal life sooner or later but who have suffered some particularly grievous illness in the meantime.

My Lords, may I enlighten the Minister by asking him whether he is aware that the patients at that hospital are mainly geriatric patients, some of whom will not be returning home? Is he further aware that, if the patients are moved, then, to get other rehabilitation facilities as good as those in that hospital, a great deal of expense may be involved. Furthermore, is he aware that the buildings of the Ida Hospital are in excellent condition and are flat, that it is only a small hospital of 120 beds and that it is the ideal hospital for that kind of patient? Is he also aware that the hospital has kept within its budget, and has not been subject to industrial dispute? Should not that sort of hospital be patted on the back rather than closed?

My Lords, these are all matters which will certainly be considered by the district and the region in due course. May I correct one point which the noble Baroness made? The hospital, as she says, has just over 100 beds but only about 20 of them, in fact, are used for the rehabilitation role.

My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 this afternoon my noble friend Lord Cockfield will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement which is to be made in another place on the European Community United Kingdom Budget Refund 1982.

It may be for the convenience of the House if I announce that dinner will be available at the usual time this evening. The Committee stage of the National Heritage Bill will be adjourned at approximately 7 p.m. for approximately one hour. During this adjournment the Second Reading and remaining stages of the Electricity (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Bill and the Second Reading and remaining stages of the Lands Valuation Amendment (Scotland) Bill will be taken.

My Lords, on a business matter, may I ask the noble Lord the Chief Whip whether the Government have any intention, before the Recess, of making a Statement on the security risks based on and emanating from the South African Embassy which were revealed in our courts last week?

My Lords, I think that hardly comes under the heading of business as such. I have no knowledge of such a Statement to be made, but if there were to be one I would inform the House.

My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to regulate the use of automatically processed information relating to individuals and the provision of services in respect of such information. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a first time.

My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.

My Lords, before we give a Third Reading to this Bill, may we be told something about it? I have a very special reason for speaking now, and that is because I have a very sentimental attachment to the area. During the war I used to parade with my platoon of the HLI along this part, usually on the wildest of nights—and the darkest of nights, too. I want to know what is going to be done with this area that is so dear to my heart. I see that they are going to spend about £500,000. I am sure that the Secretary of State must know something about it. After all, he has given leave for this Bill to come forward.

Something else I have noticed is that, although it is going to cost £500,000, about one-third of that is for the cost of the land. It seems to me that the further north one gets in Scotland the dearer becomes the most useless piece of land. Perhaps we can be told something about this. It is not a very big piece of land. It is right on the foreshore, and skirts the foreshore. So far as I can see, all that is going to be done is that they are going to reconstruct an embankment here. I should be very grateful if the information that the Government have available could be unveiled to us.

My Lords, the noble Lord and, indeed, the House will be fascinated to hear that I, too, have an attachment to the Orkneys and Shetlands, since my great-grandfather was the Liberal Member of Parliament for that constituency for 15 years. I am sure that information is new to the noble Lord, Lord Ross. I agree with the noble Lord that the power to reclaim lands is set out in paragraph 5. Indeed, as the noble Lord will have noted, Part II of the schedule gives the trustees of the port and harbour of Lerwick powers which I am sure are familiar in such a case. It allows them to construct a stone embankment, which is set out in considerable detail in paragraph 4 of the schedule on pages 3 and 4.

The noble Lord will see that this is an estimated cost of £389,000 or so. This is preparatory to reclaiming land which is required to improve the port and the harbour at Lerwick. I am informed that the land reclamation work will be adjacent to the existing Shell oil base and will also have the purpose of relieving considerable congestion at the base. I hope that that will go the major part of the way to satisfying the thirst for knowledge of the noble Lord, Lord Ross. If there is any further detailed point on which I can help him, perhaps I may write to him.

My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, there is only one other point that I should like to ask. I should like to know whether or not he has had protests about this. After all, we are reclaiming land. This House is experiencing strange times, dealing with the Western Islands and the isles of Scotland. Lots of people are concerned. The concern is not so much about the crofters but about birds. If one is going to reclaim land, it is going to affect the habitats of many of the waders, which are dear to the hearts of many people in this House. Have there been any protests from people about this matter?

My Lords, I have a fairly detailed map of the port, harbour and town of Lerwick. I am not aware of any waders or wildlife which might have been affected in this particular area. Neither am I aware of any human protest which has not been considered and, if I may suggest, dealt with in the usual way. If I am wrong, and if there has been any protest, then perhaps I may ascertain the answer and write to the noble Lord.

My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.

My Lords, I think that there are certain fascinations about this particular Bill which will not have escaped your Lordships' notice. In days when we hear much of privatisation and of the curse of public ownership, it comes strange that the Secretary of State should set forth this Bill for our consideration. It actually gives powers to a local authority to run a bus service. Why are this Government forced to do this? It is something which they abhor. The simple reason is that the private individuals do not want to do it. There is no money in it. There is very little money in the Western Isles anyway; but I would have thought that all the proponents of this great principle would have been there opposing this Bill and demanding that something be done in respect of the privatisation of the bus services in the Western Isles.

The second point is this. Why should this be a private Bill? I am perfectly sure that your Lordships will have been tired of hearing my voice on local authority Bill after local authority Bill brought forward by this Government. We have had the Civic Government Bill. How many hundereds of clauses did we have? We had the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill. We have had at least three or four of those Bills.

It is my considered opinion that the Western Isles authority asked the Government to give them this power within a Government measure. But it did not suit the Government because it might have been proclaiming the failures of private enterprise in a part of the world which many people hold very highly indeed. So the Government said, No. I have read the correspondence that passed between the authority and the Scottish Office asking for a simple amendment. It would have taken no time at all, and would have cost nothing to the islanders. Had that been accepted in a Government measure, they would have had this power with the blessings of both sides of the House, I am sure.

However, it has to be done this way. Here you have the position in which a local authority, which is not one of the most wealthy, now has to spend thousands of pounds on getting this very necessary power, and they are advised to do so by the Government. It will be seen on page 2 of the Bill that it says:

"it is apprehended that certain existing omnibus services might be discontinued by those undertakers who now operate them and accordingly it is expedient, and considered to be of public and local advantage, that the council should be empowered themselves"

to run the bus service. That is a change in the attitude of the Government.

I would ask, thirdly, who is going to pay for this? What grants will be available to the local authority when they start running this service? First of all, they have to get the buses and then they have to operate and maintain the service. How is this going to be paid for? Perhaps the Government will tell us that they will get something out of the rate support grant, but that grant in Scotland has just been reduced to the lowest in a decade—about 61 per cent. of the reckonable expenditure for the whole of Scotland. Certainly, the percentage they will get in the Western Isles will be very much higher. But then there are very few people left to pay the residue which will be left to be paid by the ratepayers there. What grants will be available in respect of capital costs? Surely we are not going to leave it entirely to what I think is the most endangered species—not the redshank or the greylag goose, but the crofter. Are we to leave it to them entirely to make provision for this? What have the Government agreed in respect of grants (a) in respect of capital, and (b) in respect of maintaining these particular services? I think the House needs to have this information.

My Lords, the noble Lord has raised three points. I should like first to tell him and your Lordships that the Government are happy to give their blessing to this Bill. We, of all people, recognise the difficulties which are faced in the Western Isles, where the future of some bus services, and especially those which are essential to the inhabitants, is in jeopardy, and above all where it may not be easy to find alternative operators. I am sure the noble Lord, and your Lordships in total, would agree that it is clearly desirable that the local authority should have the capability to stand in and to provide the services when no other service is available. That is the main purpose of this Bill.

Regarding the noble Lord's point on privatisation, we hope that services will be provided, but the Bill in essence is setting forth a "long stop", if one can call it that, so that, should a private operator not be willing or find it possible to provide essential bus services within the Western Isles, then the Western Isles Council will be able to provide such essential services. The noble Lord has no monopoly in holding the Western Isles dear; nor indeed have your Lordships, since we have had many discussions on the flora, the fauna and the activities which are carried on by the inhabitants.

On the specific question regarding the grants which would be available, the noble Lord, with his usual clarity of mind, split the grant into capital and maintenance. I regret that I do not have the figures, even to the nearest £1,000; but I will ascertain them and I will write with the utmost speed to the noble Lord.

My Lords, surely at the present time the private organisations are being paid by the local authority under the Scottish Office and there is already something in the rate support grant for that purpose. Could we not have these figures?—because I want to find out whether it is going to cost more and, if so, how that is going to be met.

My Lords, we do not have these figures since we are merely seeking powers to provide bus services should the need arise. I will attempt to find out the answer to the first two points raised by the noble Lord and I will also try to find the answer to his second supplementary question. I will also ascertain the answers to the questions of detail, but I cannot give specific details today nor can I go further into details of the rate support grant for the rest of Scotland.

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.

moved Amendment No. 97:

Page 17, line 19, leave out subsection (4).

As the noble Lord, Lord Rennet, referred to the efforts that I made to try to get clarification, I feel I ought to say a word. It is perfectly true that on Second Reading I asked for a Reeling schedule, as that appeared to be the best way to deal with a problem like this. Unfortunately, the problem that has arisen is far greater than could be dealt with even by a Reeling schedule, as I think has become apparent as the Bill has progressed.

The noble Lord, Lord Rennet, was absolutely right when he said that the relevant part of the Bill is one and a half pages long and the schedule is 20 pages long; in other words, the tail that wags the dog has knocked the dog right out of the ring and quite unconscious. When we talk about two Bills, we are absolutely right, because what we have before us is a composite thing. We have two separate Bills, one dealing with the devolution of museums, and the other dealing with the setting up of this commission. So they are completely separate Bills which are gathered together, presumably, to save parliamentary time and so as to put as much legislation in one package as one can.

With the help of the guide, I have tried to go through the amendments with which we shall be dealing later this evening. Considering that it was done very much at the last moment, the amount of work that was put into it by the Minister and by the officials is very much appreciated. Nevertheless, I am already in difficulties. It is extremely difficult to follow and I am completely lost on some of the amendments. Without any doubt, it will have to be "refreshed" between each stage of the Bill. As amendments are either passed or accepted, the whole thing will change. The only answer is that, almost simultaneously with this legislation, there will have to be a complete consolidation: not just a consolidation of Schedule 4, but a consolidation of all the heritage legislation up to date. That is the only answer. We have now reached the stage where we need a promise from the Government that consolidation will take place.

We have support for this point of view. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, raised this matter. He told me that if he could have been here today he would have supported this point of view. The Government have agreed to publish this guide. I do not know, however, whether they realise that this means that the guide will have to be completely updated at each stage. It will have to be updated when it leaves this House; it will have to be updated when it reaches the other place; and it will finally have to be updated when it becomes legislation. It means that, hanging on to this very unsatisfactory arrangement there will be another document which will be separate from the statute itself but which will explain it.

More and more do I feel that this is a very bad second best. I believe that we must get the Government to agree to consolidation. If the Bill is to make sense this is the only answer. This must happen if people are to understand the Bill and if the duties and powers which are to be vested in the new commission are not only to be understood but carried out. We have reached a very serious stage. With all the goodwill in the world it will be extremely difficult to make the legislation work effectively and to put through legislation which is comprehensible and sensible.

This amendment would, if accepted, wreck this part of the Bill. I assure the Committee that we recognise the strength of opinion which lies behind the amendment, and which has made the noble Lord, Lord Rennet, bring it forward. I hope, however, that in the light of our discussions so far on the commission and the assurances I have been able to give, the noble Lord will feel able not to press his amendment. We have sought as much as possible to assist the Committee's discussions through the provision of explanatory material. We intend to give the most careful consideration to the points raised by noble Lords and to accommodate them where we feel this would help the running or the work of the commission.

I should like to draw the attention of the Committee to Amendment No. 99, standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Sandford, which lays down the functions of the commission in the body of the Bill. In particular, I hope that we shall be able to improve the overall concept of the commission set out in the Bill. Enabling the commission to do its job well and defining the job properly is the chief concern of us all. During the Second Reading debate, and afterwards, a number of noble Lords made representations about the complexities of Schedule 4 to the Bill and requested help to assist ready comprehension. Since then, Notes on Clauses—a term in itself—have been made available. We have also provided a special reference booklet setting out, side by side, the paragraphs of Schedule 4 and the relevant sections of existing legislation. But the schedule is amended. Both the noble Lord, Lord Rennet, and the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, made mention of this.

I have been asked whether this reference booklet can be made available, suitably updated, and when the Bill becomes law. The Government wish to be as helpful as they can about this. We therefore propose that the booklet should be made readily available as a departmental publication, and that this should be done before any of the provisions of Schedule 4 come into force. The format of the publication and any question of change will be decided nearer the time, but noble Lords can be assured that a suitable reference document will be made available and that, to answer the noble Baroness, it will be updated whenever we feel this to be necessary. That will obviously be between this stage and the next stage. If we had a Reeling schedule it would be equally as voluminous and would equally have to be amended all the time, so the extra amount of work involved does not raise its head too much.

In the light of this two-pronged attack—the fact that we are doing all we can to produce a reference document, to have it readily available and to keep it updated, and the fact that we are also looking as sympathetically as we can at my noble friend's amendment which is to be dealt with later—I hope the Committee will join me in hoping that this amendment will not be pressed.

I wonder whether the noble Earl would comment on a point about which I feel very strongly; namely, the consolidation of all this legislation. This is a most important and vital point. We should like the Government to agree to consolidation; otherwise, years and years will go by. The updating of the schedule will not make the legislation all that more comprehensible. Nothing will be done, and the heritage legislation will be left in this very awkward, complicated and difficult state. Consolidation of the legislation is essential. Unless we can obtain a promise during the passage of this Bill that consolidation will take place, I feel it will be pushed into the background and that nothing will emerge for generations.

I should like to support the arguments which have been produced by the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, and the noble Baroness, Lady Birk. The noble Earl, Lord Avon, has, as usual, been extremely helpful to the Committee. However, this is long-term legislation and the noble Earl has not yet succeeded in dealing with the objections we have to passing the Bill in this particular form. By the time we reach the Report stage I hope that the Government will be able to come forward either with agreement to a consolidation Bill or with some equally constructive suggestion.

There is a widespread feeling in the Committee that a pamphlet to be produced by the department is not a suitable answer. The noble Earl and the Government will, of course, want to look carefully at this question of producing a consolidation Bill, and will possibly need a little time to consider the matter. Nevertheless, we ought to have something a little better than a pamphlet. Therefore, I hope the noble Earl will be able to give a commitment that the Government will have a look at this suggestion. It is an important point. We cannot just let it go by on the assurances which we have had so far.

I, too, feel that despite all the help we have been given by the noble Earl, Lord Avon, who has tried to explain what the Bill is all about, the general public—and in the last analysis it is the general public who are going to count—will not know what is to replace the Historic Buildings Council for England and the Ancient Monuments Board for England. We are told that there is to be a commission, but as it stands the commission is such a hotch-potch, because of all the amendments, that people will not understand what it is all about and will not give it the proper help and respect which it ought to have.

Before we go any further, may I reply to the point on consolidation? I understand that this is a matter for the Law Commission, but I shall certainly take it back to my right, honourable friend and find out whether he is prepared to take into account the terms of this debate and approach the Law Commission.

Answering to this amendment the noble Earl, Lord Avon, laid a good deal of weight on the possibility of publishing a guide. He referred also to a forthcoming amendment, Amendment No. 99, to be moved by the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, which, it is true, would throw further light on the definitions of the purposes of the proposed commission. What it does not do is positively state the powers and duties of the commission. It does not say anywhere that the commission shall have the power to do certain things, or that it shall do certain things in certain circumstances. In common with the noble Lord's earlier amendment, which was an excellent one, Amendment No. 99 deals with the commission's general purposes, and so it does not help.

The noble Baroness, Lady Birk, has spoken about consolidation. So did the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, and the noble Earl, Lord Avon. We did not secure any pledge on consolidation. The noble Earl said that he would draw the attention of his right honourable friend to the desirability of consolidation, but in ordinary parliamentary Committee language, that is no sort of pledge and is nothing upon which this Committee should base its future actions. All that leaves us with the question, will the reference booklet, or kippered Keeling, save us? I am very willing to agree that it will help Parliament a good deal in its work—it has done so already. But can we imagine that the public—and particularly trustees in the situation mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord Perth, who are thinking of giving something to the commission—will find the reference booklet sufficient? It is extraordinarily complicated to read and I believe that people will not find it to be a sufficiently good guide. We shall not be doing our duty if we permit legislation to go forward with only that booklet as a guide.

Let us consider what will happen if this amendment were accepted by the Committee now. The Bill would be without a subsection of one clause and it would be without a schedule until the next stage. The next stage cannot be until after the Recess. I do not know whether the Government have any date in mind but it has not yet appeared in the details of future business. We are now nearly at the end of December and it will be six weeks before we could possibly come back to it at Report stage; five weeks if one deducts one week for holidays.

We could give the Government five weeks in which to draft a positive clause, and I believe all noble Lords know in their hearts that a positive clause is what this Bill ought to have; a positive clause laying down the powers and duties of the proposed new commission. That would not be so terrible because such a clause need not be more than one page long. If I am right, the schedule is already a perfectly good repeal schedule which could be moved back into the Bill as a straightforward repeal schedule in the ordinary way.

On the strength of what the noble Earl, Lord Avon, has said so far (and I observe and welcome the fact that he has plunged into discussion with his noble friends) I am not sure that it would be right to withdraw this amendment. I shall welcome any further expressions of opinion from members of the Committee and, above all, will welcome anything more that the noble Earl can say beyond what he has already said—which was that the Government will give careful consideration and will ensure that the reference booklet will be "readily available as a departmental publication". I do not know quite what that means. What does "readily available" mean? Does it mean, on sale everywhere and obtainable as readily as and at the same time as the Act of Parliament which it seeks to clarify? Unless it does mean that, it is of no interest to the people for whom we are legislating.

Before the noble Lord sits down, would it not be wise to hear discussion on Amendment No. 99 rather than to divide the Committee on this amendment?

There is a great deal in what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Kennet. He has done a service to the Committee by initiating this very important discussion. However, in view of what the noble Earl has said, I feel that he has gone as far as he can at this stage. I did not expect the noble Earl to say, "I will bring forward legislation to consolidate all heritage legislation at this point". Yet, if he had left it that it was purely the business of the Law Commission, I would have been very doubtful and unhappy and I would have supported the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, if he were pressing his amendment to a Division. But as the noble Earl has undertaken also to speak to his right honourable friend, and as he is aware of the expressions of opinion from all parts of the Committee—that the Committee feels very seriously and strongly about this matter—I feel that we ought to give the noble Earl that opportunity.

It is for that reason that, at this stage, we cannot support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Kennet. I hope that he will reconsider this because the amendments we are going to discuss today are not irrelevant to any part of the Bill. In fact, most of them deal with matters of finance, conservation and principle which will have to be dealt with whatever form the Bill takes. So long as we make it our business—as I am sure the Committee will—to keep the noble Earl and his right honourable friend on the ball so far as this question of consolidation is concerned, that is the most important point.

As I and many others have said already, this Bill falls into two parts and could quite naturally and easily be divided into two Bills. The first part could still go ahead even if it happens that this matter has to be held up because of consolidation; it would not affect the devolution of museums covered in the first part of the Bill. There is a great deal of ease of manoeuvering and I hope that we shall see some results a long time before we reach the next stage.

If I may respond very briefly to the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, so far as publication of the guide is concerned, it is our intention to follow the will of your Lordships. If it is at all practicable, we will do exactly what the Committee wishes. There is no question of hiding anything and we will do this in the best way that we can with the agreement of the House; this is on the question of publishing the added guide. So far as timing is concerned, I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, will not need me to remind him that this Parliament need not go on for all that length of time. Therefore, while I am not trying to push the Committee in any way, we do not quite know when the next general election might be.

I feel that the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, slightly forgot what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, when he spoke to his amendment to Clause 29. It is his intention in that amendment to put the aims and functions of the commission in Clause 30—and as my noble friend Viscount Eccles said, we can discuss that when we come to Amendment No. 99.

I am grateful to the noble Earl for giving us a foretaste of possibilities to come, if not of certainties. Can the noble Earl say anything about the possibility of even now drafting a short clause giving the powers and duties of the commission, because neither of the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, do that? They simply set out the commission's general purposes. It seems to me that it should not be beyond the wit of man to do what I ask. If the noble Earl will say that he will take a look at the possibility of drafting a positive clause between now and Report stage, then our present delays may disappear.

We are pre-empting Amendment No. 99 a trifle. We have already discussed this a little when debating Clause 29, and I believe that this is what we are going to do on Amendment No. 99.

I shall read those cloudy words with great care in Hansard tomorrow. Subject to due warning to the Committee that we may have to come back on this matter at Report stage if we do not find that Hansard is clear on this point of publication of the guide and the desirability of a positive clause, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

I believe that this would be a convenient moment to resume the House for the Statement. I beg to move that the House do now resume.

My Lords, I will, with permission, repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable and learned friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Statement is as follows:

"With permission, I would like to make a statement on the outcome of the Finance Council meeting in Brussels which I attended on 17th December.

"The Council discussed and adopted the Annual Economic Report for 1983, and budgetary guidelines for member states. It briefly considered the Commission paper on budget discipline which it had first looked at in July. The Council also reviewed international monetary questions.

"But the main business concerned the United Kingdom's refunds in respect of the 1982 Community Budget. The House will know that on Thursday of last week the European Parliament rejected the 1982 draft Supplementary and Amending Budget, which made provision for our basic Budget refund in respect of 1982, and for certain parallel arrangements for Germany. This decision resulted from a conflict between the Community's institutions. The Parliament believes that a lasting solution to the problem of budgetary imbalances in the Community should be found and implemented as soon as possible. So do we. But this has not so far been the Council's unanimous view. We share the Parliament's concern at the unsatisfactory nature of current ad hoc arrangements.

"But the fact is that it was clear as long ago as last May that there was no realistic prospect of reaching a long-term solution which could take effect in this calendar year. Instead, the Council agreed last May, and in detail on 26th October, on a method of ensuring a settlement for 1982 satisfactory to the United Kingdom. The immediate result of last week's action by the Parliament was to put that settlement in jeopardy.

"However, on Friday 17th December the Council was unanimous in confirming that the commitments contained in the October Agreement must be fully honoured. The Council noted an undertaking from the Commission to take steps to ensure that the United Kingdom will not be put in a worse position than had been intended under that agreement. They will take early action to this end, and will also draw up a work programme for the development of the Community's policies.

"It is thus now for the Commission and the Council to take the practical steps needed to give effect to the assurances which we have been given, and to prepare for new discussions with the Parliament.

"I am arranging for copies of the Council's conclusions on this subject to be placed in the Library."

That, my Lords, is the end of the Statement.

My Lords, may I first thank the noble Lord for repeating the Statement. Would he not agree that the European Parliament's rejection of the supplement to the Budget—that is, the repayment to the United Kingdom—was another disturbing development? Would he not also agree that it shows that there is a growing dissatisfaction with the imbalance in EEC spending policies? We note that the Chancellor has now decided not to withhold some British payments to the EEC and to accept a commitment to settle by the end of March. Is the noble Lord reasonably satisfied that the repayment will be made within this period, and, if there is a further hold-up, what steps would the Government then contemplate?

It does seem that the European Parliament believes that the United Kingdom budgetary arrangements must be resolved by structural reform and not by emergency adjustments. I was glad to hear the noble Lord confirming—or, at least, so I understood—that that is the Government's view also. Again, does not this development provide a good reason and opportunity for both the Commission and the Council to sit down and deal with this recurring problem once and for all? I assume—I shall be grateful if the noble Lord will confirm this—that this is the Government's strong opinion as well.

Reverting to the date of payment, may I ask the noble Lord to comment on the legality of the Parliament's action in this matter? While there is no time this year for a fresh Supplementary Budget, which could again be rejected by the Parliament, could not a transfer within the 1982 Budget be made, as there are still unexpended amounts allocated to the agricultural fund which might be used for this purpose? If the Council could transfer the necessary appropriations without parliamentary intervention, it would be fair to this country and avoid the tensions and the suspicions which further delay will inevitably cause.

My Lords, we too thank the Minister for repeating this important Statement. We on these Benches note with satisfaction the apparent belief of the Government that on the whole it was a good thing that the European Parliament precipitated this issue of the Community Budget. Would the noble Lord and the Government not agree that this was in no sense, and could not possibly be interpreted as, a move directed against the United Kingdom, as has been—I think unfortunately—suggested recently by certain newspapers and indeed by certain politicians? Is it not high time that the necessity for some reform of the common agricultural policy was squarely faced, together with the question of the proportion of the Community's expenditure that should be fairly attributed to the United Kingdom?

Finally, would not the Government agree that all these difficult and urgent problems would be much easier to solve if by any chance the members of the Community now agreed to increase the Budget to a considerable extent, possibly by raising the allocation of VAT to the Budget from 1 per cent. to 2 per cent.?

My Lords, I am grateful to both the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, and the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, for their response to the Statement. The action of the Parliament has, of course, highlighted the issue. We do indeed fully understand the sense of exasperation in the Parliament that a proper solution to this problem has not been reached. I entirely agree that what we need is a proper long-term solution and not a series of ad hoc solutions, every one of which gives rise to argument, dispute and misunderstanding. On the other hand, we do feel that the action by the Parliament has created a serious situation. It is to the great credit of the Community that the Council has unanimously decided that the agreement of 26th October must be honoured, and they are fully supported by the Commission in that determination.

Perhaps I may say, on the specific point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, that the Treaty of Rome does provide for the Parliament to have the power to reject the Budget where there are substantial reasons for so doing. On this occasion the action of the Parliament was not unlawful, but it was certainly unwise.

So far as the actual steps to be taken are concerned, this is a matter which has now been remitted to the Commission. We are determined to ensure, and indeed the Council of Ministers and the Commission have committed themselves to ensuring, a solution which will not only enable the money to be paid over by 31st March, but will ensure at the same time that the United Kingdom is not prejudiced as a result of that delay. We must now await the detailed proposals and proceed forward on that basis.

So far as the final point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, is concerned, he asked whether this did not indicate the need for an increase, among other things, in the "own resources". We would certainly not agree that any increase in our own resources ought to be made, and certainly not before these major issues have been fully settled to our satisfaction.

My Lords, is not the Council of Ministers in the position of any Cabinet which has submitted its budget to the duly elected legislature and has seen its budget rejected? Must it not, therefore, take the step that any ordinary Cabinet would take, namely to devise another budget and resubmit it? If it cannot agree on what should be in the second Budget, the Government may remember that quite recently the rule of majority voting in the Council of Ministers was revived—when it was revived, it was done at our expense—and it is surely not beyond the wit of man to imagine a coalition of members of the Council who could simply vote down, using the Treaty of Rome, the minority which would oppose a sensible Budget which the Parliament desires, which the Government desire and which we on this Bench desire.

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, raises a number of very broad issues. The constitutional position of the Parliament and the Council of Ministers in the European Community is very different indeed from that in the United Kingdom. I do not think one could usefully draw analogies between the situation here and the situation in Europe. As far as provision for the refund is concerned, what is in mind now, and is inevitably in mind because of the dates, is that provision should actually be made in the 1983 Budget or, rather, by way of an amending and supplementary budget for 1983, the original Budget having already been agreed. As regards the funds, they will not have been spent and it is simply a matter of carrying them forward from one year to the next.

My Lords, will the noble Lord expand a little on his answer to my noble friend Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos? Do I understand correctly that this particular problem of the refunds comes under obligatory expenditure and that, therefore, the Commission could still propose a transfer which would enable the refund to be made within the 1982 Budget?

My Lords, the noble Baroness raises an important point. My information is that it could not be done under the terms of the 1982 Budget, the supplementary budget having been rejected. The precise mechanism to be adopted is now under consideration by the Commission.

moved Amendment No. 97A:

Page 17, line 22, leave out ("towards the cost of) and insert ("and the Commission shall set up a charitable fund to receive such voluntary contributions and such other moneys (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").

I support the amendment. I feel that there will be tremendous opportunities in the future for people to leave property, money and even objects to the commission for its care as an alternative, or complementary to, those who have left such things to the National Trust, and so on. There may be other ways of using such charitable trust funds, but it is certainly a situation where one wants to give confidence to the general public to take the heritage seriously and to feel that the commission will be the right repository for anything they wish to provide.

May I also speak to Amendment No. 118A, which has a bearing on this question. The amendment moved by the noble Baroness would require the commission to set up a charitable fund to receive voluntary contributions and profits arising from commercial operations, and also to receive endowments. Amendment No. 118A would include the commission in the list of bodies in the Charities Act 1960 which, so far as they are charities, are exempt charities—that is, they are exempt from many of the controls exercised by the Charity Commission.

The amendments represent two different ways in which the tax advantages that have accrued from charitable status might be obtained for the commission. Let me straightaway say that the Government set great store by the role of the commission in obtaining voluntary assistance and in trading commercially and profitably. The Government would like to see the commission benefit from whatever advantages, in tax terms, can be obtained. But in exploring this issue the Government have noted that a number of organisations, such as the National Trust, which are charities and which engage in trading, have established trading subsidiaries which covenant their profits to the overall organisation. If the overall body were not itself a charity, the alternative approach is the creation of a charitable fund.

Let me take the question of exempt charity status first. This the Bill provides for the trustee bodies. It is important to note that the provision of such status must be regarded as carrying with it at least an implication that the body concerned will be granted charitable status if it applied for registration. There is no doubt about that in the case of the trustee bodies. But the situation in respect of the commission is more complex because it is a different kind of body. I cannot be definite about whether or not the commission would qualify for charitable status. That is a matter which could possibly be ultimately decided only by the courts. There are complications. For example, the commission's role in making grants to private owners for the maintenance of their houses may not be regarded as entirely of public benefit. Because of these complications consideration is also being given to the possibility of the commission establishing a charitable fund in order to fulfil the role of a recipient of trading profits and voluntary contributions. Again, however, there are complications. The relationship of such a fund to the parent body, the drafting of the rules governing the fund and the safeguarding of money held by the fund all require careful thought.

The Government have been exploring these different possibilities. The overall question of tax exemptions which we have already discussed is also relevant. This is a difficult area and I hope that the Committee will be prepared to allow us to reach considered conclusions and put forward whatever amendments we ourselves think to be appropriate. In principle we have nothing at all against the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, and in Committee terms I should like to agree to consider it.

I thank the Minister for that reply. This appears to be another example of where the Committee is happily knitting up the Bill for the Government, but we are happy to do that as long as the stitching that we put in is the stitching that the Government agree to.

The Minister made a distinction between the museums and the commission. He must pay considerable attention to what it is that we want. We are not saying that the commission itself should qualify as a charity, but that it should be able to set up a charitable fund which can be worked out quite separate from the rest of the work of the commission. In no way should the two things be confused. Giving out money to houses for repair should not be entangled with the charitable side. The charitable side must be entirely separate and it may well be that there would need to be a different composition or that some of the trustees may need to be different trustees for a charitable trust. Instead of a fund a charitable trust could be set up with certain purposes quite separate from the other purposes. I do not see any difficulty in this.

However, if the Minister is to reconsider the position and also a number of other sensible amendments which have been tabled, we hope there will be a constructive response and that he will come back with an entirely different Bill. I withdraw the amendment.

moved Amendment No. 97B:

Page 17, line 23, at end insert—

("( ) The Commission may make use of voluntary services where it thinks it appropriate to do so.").

The Government have every sympathy with the purpose of this amendment. It has always been our intention that the commission should be able to make use of voluntary services and indeed would be better placed to tap the private goodwill which clearly exists. However, as with all the helpful points on Clause 30, I should like, if I may, to consider the matter further with a view to bringing it forward at a later stage in the revised version of this clause.

The noble Earl has already given the Committee quite a number of assurances about Clause 30. In view of that, I am happy to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

moved Amendment No. 97C:

Page 17, line 25, leave out ("temporarily by way of overdraft").

If the effect of this amendment would be to remove any restrictions on the commission's power to borrow, then the Government obviously do not see such a wide power as very appropriate. The commission will be funded largely out of its grant-in-aid and is unlikely to be in a position to service any long-term loan debt. In any case, such borrowing would count against the overall resources made available to the commission by way of public expenditure. Therefore, the grant would be reduced accordingly and no net benefit achieved.

The Government think it best to keep the financial arrangements for the commission as simple as possible and restrict borrowing powers to those temporary facilities required to even out its cash flow pending receipt of grant-in-aid. The commission should be a managerial operation, not a source of capital.

I hope that with that explanation and on that basis the noble Baroness may feel that she does not have to press this particular amendment.

I did not like that answer one little bit; I did not find it at all co-operative, but I am certainly not going to press the amendment now. I shall read what the Minister has said very carefully and then come back to the crux of the problem either in the same way or perhaps by a different route. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

moved Amendment No. 98:

Page 17, line 27, at end insert—

("(7) For the purpose of exercising their functions the Commission may—

(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.").

I shall now call Amendment No. 98A as an amendment to Amendment No. 98.

moved, as an amendment to the amendment, Amendment No. 98A:

I would very much like to support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Montagu of Beaulieu. It is extremely sensible and follows through the flavour of what we are trying to do for the commission on the financial side. As regards the Minister's amendment, paragraphs (a) and (b) are perfectly right and what he is trying to do there is extremely laudable. But I am not very happy about paragraph (c), which says:

"with the consent of the Secretary of State, acquire land for providing the Commission",

et cetera. Why, when the commission is to acquire land—it may be for office premises; it will certainly be for reasons connected with its work—should it keep having to refer back to the Secretary of State? Once again, the commission is being tied down and controlled even before it has set foot on what is supposed to be independent ground. This also applies to the disposal of the land. If the amendment goes through like this, it will mean that, once again, there will be more and more consultations', more and more civil servants will be brought into it; there will be delays and talks. I think that this is absolutely unnecessary.

If you set up a commission and have confidence in it (otherwise you should not set it up at all) and if you have confidence in the commissioners (otherwise you should not appoint them), they should be able to do these things on their own instead of being kept on leads like little dogs or on reins like small children. I hope that the Minister will take back that particular paragraph and look at it again.

Perhaps I may just explain our thinking here. We are, of course, financing the commission by grant-in-aid. The commission may want to buy a house or rent a house: the capital sum may be £500,000 or it may be a small rental. Obviously, the commission does not have that kind of money, but we do not want to stop it having it. Therefore, we think that the best way is that it should come to the Secretary of State with its proposition and, hopefully, the Secretary of State will agree.

My noble friend's amendment to the amendment covers very much what I said on Amendment No. 97A about the actual position of the commission and whether or not it is in itself a charity, or whether, as the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, said, we should have to set up a charitable trust within the commission. Until we know that, it is very hard for us to accept an amendment of this nature because we should not know how to link it into the main Bill. It is a complex matter and one to which we are giving attention. We entirely agree with my noble friend's thinking. I imagine that he wishes to connect both the trading and tax affairs and, as I said when I spoke to Amendment No. 97A, we shall be producing our own solution at the next stage.

I thank my noble friend for that reply. Do I understand that in principle the commission will, in fact, be able to engage in trade and that there will be a vehicle through which such trade can take place?

That is our intention.

In view of that assurance, I shall be happy to withdraw the amendment.

moved Amendment No. 98B:

I do not really see the point of this amendment. It does not seem to take the commission any further. Surely the commission will have within its ranks, we hope, and also on its advisory committees, which it will be setting up, all the expertise that it will need. The Secretary of State has already made known that he wishes to consult with the commission whenever he has a problem. I do not see why one has to have yet another advisory council. It will make bureaucracy even worse. As someone has just said, let the commissioners get on with it and let them appoint the committees they need. I am sure that all the expertise will be there. But to have yet another advisory council will make bureaucracy far worse. I do not think there need be too much fear about this. I think we could leave it to the commission to run its own affairs and to give the right advice to the Secretary of State.

I have put my name to some of the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Dacre, and his colleagues in the British Academy. However, I am not very happy about this particular amendment because, like the noble Lord, Lord Montagu, I think it introduces a third tier, which we do not need. I think it makes even more important an amendment which was moved the other night by the noble Lord, Lord Dacre, and to which I also put my name, which was withdrawn after the Minister had explained why they did not like it. It was to the effect that the setting up of committees should not be a permissive function of the commission but should be mandatory.

At the next stage of the Bill I shall certainly be prepared to table or support such an amendment, that the word "may" should be "shall", so that the commission would be under an obligation to set up committees which would encompass the sort of people the British Academy have in mind—scholars and other academics, many of whom at the moment are on the Ancient Monuments Board—and would also bring in other people of equal distinction. In that case I do not think there would be a need for this form of advisory council. Although I do not like this amendment, I hope we shall rethink this matter and press the Government harder on the question of making it mandatory on the commission to set up committees.

May I first respond to my noble friend Lord Beloff about the invitation which the British Academy gave to the Secretary of State that they would offer to see him. I understand that my Secretary of State responded yesterday to this matter. Had he done so earlier, obviously we might not have had the amendments. One of the major benefits of setting up the commission is the amalgamation of the currently separate advisory and executive functions. Both these functions must, in the Government's view, be exercised by the commission. Setting up an advisory council would serve to continue a separation between the advisory and executive roles and, we believe, would create an unnecessary further layer of mandatory bureaucracy. I think that the latter point was made somewhat forcibly by the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, earlier in our discussions in respect of the British Library system.

I am sure that the commission will wish to set up advisory committees—and I noted what the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, said about making them mandatory—as they will be empowered to do, to draw in the widest range of expertise that is desirable. I believe that it is for the commission to decide on whether and how to do it, and I hope that the Committee will agree with this.

In the light of the lack of enthusiasm for this proposal, which I do not share since I think that a single advisory council would be better and less bureaucratic than a network of specialist committees, I am prepared, in the absence of my noble friends, to withdraw the amendment.

moved Amendment No. 99:

In supporting the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, I would ask a minor question about the amendment. It states many good things that the commission should do, but the one thing it does not state it should do is to conserve listed buildings and ancient monuments in England, whereas the original clause stated exactly that. I do not think I have overlooked anything, but the single use of the word "conservation" seems to have gone out with the bath water.

I do not think so, because my Amendment No. 99 complements and must be read in conjunction with my Amendment No. 92, and "conservation" appears there. Indeed, I would say that conservation is so important as to be stated as a broad aim and objective; whereas the functions are all set out in No. 99 as tasks the commission must discharge to achieve that aim. However, the noble Lord has raised a matter which could be looked at again between now and Report.

Some of what I have said already, particularly in respect of amendments to the previous clause, also applies here. The Government have much sympathy with my noble friend and wish to see some simple and comprehensible statement of the commission's functions in the main clauses to illuminate the difficult text of Schedule 4, and we have already discussed that. However there are problems from a drafting point of view in framing a provision which duplicates what is already provided for elsewhere in the Bill, and the question of what to say in the body of the Bill needs careful thought.

The Government feel that, as drafted, the amendment is not quite satisfactory. We feel, for instance, that subsection (1) may to be too positive, whereas in subsection (2) the drafting in terms of the commission having power to do "anything" seems rather wide, as does the power to undertake publicity "in any form"; and we have already discussed the question of committees and whether the power is needed in paragraph (d) to establish committees when that provision is aleady made.

On policy grounds, the Government are doubtful whether it is proper that the commission should have such wide grant powers as are proposed. In relation to subsection (5), the Government would want to look at the phrase "money's worth". But we are clear that the commission would be able to make use of voluntary services, other than money, without specific provision. I suggest that, as with the other amendments to Clause 30, the Government take this amendment away and use it as a basis for further thought, with all the other suggestions, with the idea of bringing forward their own amendment.

Having listened to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, on this interesting amendment, I think we could go along with it so long as when the Government are looking at the matter again they take into account the points that have been raised on this topic on other detailed amendments, both those previously discussed and those yet to be debated by the Committee. I also support the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Kennet—and I was struck in exactly the same way by the wording. As the functions of the commission are primarily those of conservation and preservation, I agree that those words should appear in the clause dealing with functions; it could be lopsided and ill-balanced to leave the emphasis entirely in the provision dealing with presentation and interpretation.

I appreciate what Lord Sandford said in reply to Lord Kennet, but I do not think we should leave out all reference to conservation and preservation, as the most important of the commission's functions, when talking about functions. We must also be a little wary about doing so much by way of tourism and various other means of exploiting monuments and buildings that we almost wear them out. Those of us who have been connected with this matter in the department have seen that problem, and therefore the right balance must be struck.

I am grateful to noble Lords who have taken part in this short debate and for the assurance given to me by my noble friend. The noble Baroness, Lady Birk, is right to say that any redrafting of the amendment must take fully into account everything else that has been said in our debates on Clause 30. Indeed, nobody would have been more surprised than I if the Government had immediately accepted my amendment as drafted, and accordingly I beg leave to withdraw it.

moved Amendment No. 100:

Page 36, line 10, after ("chairman") insert ("and members")

As the noble Earl, Lord Perth, said, taken together these amendments would mean that the members of the Historic Buildings Council for Scotland, like the chairman, could in future be paid, rather than just receive their expenses. The paragraph in Schedule 4 which provides, among other things, that the members shall receive only their expenses is needed for technical reasons, to re-enact provisions which now apply. We are not making any changes. The Historic Buildings Council for Scotland and the Historic Buildings Council for Wales are being left in precisely the same position as they now are. It is perhaps worth noting that the position is the same as that which now applies to the equivalent English body, the Historic Buildings Council for England.

As noble Lords are aware, the Secretaries of State for Scotland and for Wales decided that at the present time there should be no change in the arrangements for looking after the ancient monuments and historic buildings which are their responsibility. The retention of their separate advisory—and may I stress the word "advisory"—bodies in their present form is part of that decision. I hope that in the light of that explanation, my noble friend, unless he can find someone who is actually wanting to be paid, will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

I am quite ready to withdraw the amendment. As I said, I merely wanted to make a point. I hope that the noble Earl will draw the attention of the Secretary of State for Scotland to the fact that, anyhow, one Member of your Lordships' House believes that in this case Scotland should be treated on a permissive basis in the same way as the English members of the new commission. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

moved Amendment No. 101A:

Page 37, line 6, leave out ("outstanding") and insert ("special").

My name is joined with that of the noble Baroness, Lady Airey of Abingdon, in the amendment and the other amendments to which she has referred. I wonder whether I might add to those amendments Amendment No. 102EA, which is on exactly the same point, though it is spelt out rather more. Amendment No. 102EA is starred because I fear that it was put down only yesterday. I have just discovered that it is not on the grouping list and perhaps I may give the Minister a moment to find it. Subsection (3) of the amendment, on page 5 of the Marshalled List, deals with exactly the same point about which the noble Baroness has just been speaking; namely, that of the house which is "special" or "outstanding" for a reason that is not to do with the architecture. There are several other aspects of the matter.

This is the first time in the Bill where in course of amending the 1953 Act the word "outstanding" is to be re-enacted, and the amendment proposes that it be replaced by the word "special". In addition to what the noble Baroness has said, which dealt with a particular type of application of the word "special" in relation to a house, I would say that,

"a building of outstanding historic or architectural interest",

is a vital catch phrase. For 29 years it has been the aspiration of many owners—for many of them their only hope of salvation—that their houses would be judged to be "outstanding" in order to make them eligible, other things permitting, for a Historic Buildings Council grant. Of late it has come to mean even more than that, since an outstanding building now qualifies for conditional exemption from capital transfer tax.

The amendment, like all the others similar to it, is a probing one. I should stress that there is no intention to destroy the careful structure of HBC grants, since only in exceptional circumstances is it suggested that grant giving might go wider, to include the more ordinary listed building—all such being,

"buildings of special historic or architectural interest",

for on the face of it inserting the word "special", as proposed in the amendment, means that grant could go that wide. But there are exceptional circumstances, and there is some justice in giving grants to ordinary listed buildings that are now disadvantaged. If such buildings stand in a conservation area, for example, ordinary listed buildings are already eligible for the HBC grant under town schemes. Section 10B of the 1972 Act sees to that.

Indeed, grants, including grants for improvement, can also be made, in respect of work in a conservation area, for the purposes of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the area, and ordinary listed buildings frequently qualify for assistance under the section under which such grants are made; that, again, is Section 10 of the 1972 Act.

But in rural areas, where there might be only a very few listed buildings in a small group, or even one such building standing alone, nobody will designate a conservation area, and nobody will set up a town scheme. Therefore there are now no grants available in circumstances such as that. Hence, if for no other reason than to be fair to these houses in rural areas, some way must be found of stepping outside the "outstanding" boundary to help ordinary listed buildings when they do not qualify for Section 10B town schemes or Section 10 conservation area grants.

Amendment No. 102EA—I must again apologise for the fact that it might have taken the Minister by surprise—may help. It is a first shot at a special procedure to be used only with care and caution by the commission. Doubtless the commission would be careful; I imagine that it would hardly be able to afford to be otherwise. The situation in Scotland, and in Wales, is just the same. So though the commission does not yet cover either of those areas, the amendment makes an attempt to cover them, since the point is important. There seems to be a need to bring in the Province of Northern Ireland as well, but fortunately that is not attempted in the amendment.

If Amendment No. 102EA, or something like it, finds favour, then the "outstandings" can stay unamended, as can some other uses of the term, in regard to which amendments have not been tabled. The amendments help in that they make the whole of the area of "outstanding" and "special" rather more flexible. That, I think, together with the points that have been made by the noble Baroness on designating houses as "special" for the reasons she outlined, makes a very strong case for it to be considered.

As the noble Baronesses have said, these amendments attempt to widen the definition of historic buildings for which the commission may themselves make grants, and towards whose acquisition by the National Trust they may also grant aid. At present, they may exercise these powers only in relation to buildings of outstanding architectural or historic interest. This is a policy which was set in the Historic Buildings and Ancient Monuments Act 1953 which deals with the Secretary of State's powers, and we have deliberately followed them here for the commission. Substituting the world "special" would widen considerably the scope for making grants and, as the noble Baroness has said, that is the intention although they have both been at pains to say it would be in exceptional cases.

However, it is the reason that the Government are loath to take these amendments on board. The word "special" is to be found in the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 where it deals with the compilation by the Secretary of State or others of lists of buildings of special architectural or historic interest. I take it, therefore, that it is intended here to refer to all listed buildings. There are at present about 280,000 listed buildings in England. There will be very considerably more when the listing re-survey, now under way, is completed—perhaps as many as 600,000. Of the 280,000 now listed only about 5,400 (fewer than 2 per cent.) are Grade 1. This gives some indication of the extent of the difference in numbers between the outstanding buildings and the special buildings; although I must add, not all Grade 1 buildings are necessarily outstanding while others of a lower grading may be so.

The change of this one word could make an enormous difference to the number of grant claims made. There are not the resources available now to cope with this and the commission would not have them either. Although the commission will have grant-making powers and funds will be allocated for that purpose, we have to recognise that resources will always be to some degree, limited. That is why the Secretary of State's present role and the commissioners' role in the future is to preserve the most important historic buildings. There must be priorities for preservation and the vital thing is to preserve what is best for the heritage, in this case buildings of outstanding architectural or historic interest. Even with this restriction, the demands placed on the available funds would exceed the supply. We must consider that if greater demands are made, the resources available could only be spread more thinly and, given the pressures, probably to the detriment of those parts of the heritage which can at present be adequately preserved.

The noble Baroness went on to talk to her Amendment No. 102EA. This amendment would allow the commission to extend the scope of their own powers if they decided it would be appropriate. The Secretary of State will be able to do so on the advice of the Historic Buildings Council for Scotland or for Wales, as appropriate. The arguments I have been talking about apply here also.

As my noble friend was kind enough to say in her opening remarks, these amendments have been put down fairly recently and we have not had the opportunity to know what my noble friend had in mind or what the noble Baroness had in mind. I should like to read what they have said in some detail and perhaps my noble friend will consider my response and see if it has in any way changed her mind.

Would the noble Earl tell me whether it would be possible to divide the listed buildings into two classes, a Class A and a Class B, Class A being those which would be worthy of aid and Class B not?

They are already graded.

Speaking for myself, I thank the Minister for his reply and also for saying that he will read and look into the matter again. I will point out two things. One is that it is made clear in Amendment No. 102EA that exceptional circumstances make it appropriate in a particular case, so I do not think there are going to be a great many of those. Secondly, if, finally, they cannot see that this is the right way to deal with it, then, if we can find a way so that the houses that I cited which are in rural areas and may be single houses or houses that missed the net of either a conservation area or a town scheme, would be eligible for grant, because that was part of the purpose of these amendments, they could pick them up in that way. Otherwise, as far as I, personally, am concerned, I await to hear what the noble Earl has to say and come back on the next stage or see whether, perhaps, if we all met together between now and the next stage, we might be able to find some way of solving what has now turned out to be several problems rolled up into what look like identical amendments—but they are not so.

If I may speak for a moment, when I cited the case of Lyford Grange, I may say that it is an extremely isolated building but attached to it, and about half a mile away are some ancient almshouses, so that although it is isolated it is an enclave (as one might say) quite apart from its historical context which is the important point I am making. It is, as the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, was saying, very much in the country and could not possibly have been a conservation area, but it has very particular historical associations. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

moved Amendment No. 102:

Page 37, line 8, leave out ("comprising, or") and insert ("which is situated in England and which comprises, or is").

moved Amendment No. 102A:

Page 37, line 11, after ("garden") insert (", park, designed landscape").

I am indeed sympathetic to what my noble friend is saying, although I must be careful of how I choose my words or he will be twisting my arm again. We had an interesting discussion about designed landscapes when my noble friend Lord Montagu was kind enough to define them for me. With the added words we have, I must say that I am in a muddle as to whether a garden or a park is a designed landscape or what the definition is. I also was rather sorry that my noble friend did not go on to refer to "arboricultural" and "silvicultural" because I was interested to know what exactly the commission were going to let themselves in for if they took on this apect. There is a clear danger here of spreading the commission's functions wider than their resources can support. The Committee should consider this when thinking of giving these added responsibilities to them.

These amendments would allow the commission to make grants to the National Trust for the acquisition by them of land of special silvicultural or horticultural interest. But this is not what we are establishing the commission to do; it is the Countryside Commission which is responsible for these wider aspects of landscape management, including historic parks. It does not seem sensible to duplicate functions in this way.

We have had some interesting discussions and I should like to have a careful look at the Countryside Commission's remit. I should like to consider exactly how far we can go with gardens, monuments and landscapes at the moment, and see whether there is any loophole between the two. If there is, I shall certainly think about taking up an amendment on the lines which my noble friend has suggested.

I thank the Minister for that reply. I deliberately left out references to "arboricultural" and "silvicultural" because, had we known the position, we should not have tabled those particular words. I think that they have a basis but it may be said that they are more scientific aspects. That is why I emphasised the artistic side. In view of the reply of the Minister, I hope that we can look at the matter again, perhaps at Report stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

moved Amendment No. 102E:

I am afraid my noble friend is slightly ahead of me, because I do not have my copy of Hansard containing what I said last time. If my recollection is correct, we were talking about Amendment No. 96V, which I said was acceptable. I felt this amendment broadened the aspect. I think that was the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, and I think I said we would prefer something on the lines of Amendment No. 96V rather than this one, which went that bit further. As I say, I do not have my brief on Amendment No. 96 V, so the noble Lord has me slightly in the air on that point.

I do not know whether I can be of any help. The basis was the same, that the commission should undertake research. Amendment No. 96V, which I moved, was simply saying that the commission may undertake or sponsor research in furtherance of its functions. I do not know that there is all that much difference between that amendment and Amendment No. 102E, except that the tail-end is spelt out rather more elegantly. It finishes up by saying:

"and contribute to the expenses of public or local authorities having the care of monuments or historic buildings".

I would have thought that it was part of the commission's powers and duties, if they wished to do so, to do it that way or any other way. Maybe the earlier amendment was shorter, and that is why the Minister preferred it.

May I quickly come back? I apologise to the Committee for not having at my fingertips what I said last time. This amendment goes further than the question of research. It seeks to empower the commission to make grants to any public authority which has care of monuments or historic buildings. The grant-making powers that it suggests are far too widely drawn to the extent that every public authority would be eligible for grant; and, indeed, that grant could, as the amendment is drafted, cover any expenditure of the public authority, not just that on monuments or historic buildings. The commission will have wide powers to make grants in relation to this main purpose. It is for this reason that we preferred the earlier amendment to the latter one.

In the light of that explanation, for which I thank the noble Earl, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

moved Amendment No. 103:

moved Amendment No. 103D:

Page 38, line 22, after ("are") insert (", or are historically appropriate to,").

I hope that the Committee can accept this, because there are many instances, such as Sir Winston Churchill's memorabilia, and so on, which would never have been at Chartwell, for example, and might have been in No. 10 during the war. These are things which it should be possible to acquire under these terms.

As the noble Baroness says, this amendment seeks to widen a rather narrow category of objects which may be acquired by the commission to improve the historical completeness and presentation of buildings in their ownership or under their control or management. 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. However, I should prefer not to commit myself to this precise form of words because it may be necessary to make some small word changes to improve the construction of a subsection. Therefore, I would ask the noble Baroness if she would withdraw the amendment on the basis that we will incorporate this principle in an amendment put forward at a later stage.

I have to thank the Minister very much for accepting the principle. Of course, I will leave it to him to find a better form of words, and therefore I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

moved Amendment No. 103E:

Page 38, line 32, at end insert (", body listed in paragraph 12 of Schedule 6 to the Finance Act 1975 or body exempt under paragraph 13 of that Schedule.").

Perhaps I may respond and that may help the noble Baroness: she can read it on another occasion. This amendment seeks to widen the categories of buildings for which the commission would be empowered to acquire objects from their own buildings or those of the National Trust to any buildings owned by a wide variety of bodies, including local authorities and the national museums and galleries.

The commission are being established to provide a more cohesive central focus for the heritage, but their first priority will be preservation. As I am sure the Committee will agree, the commission will wish, and will be expected, to apply their resources first and foremost to that priority. Where the commission have buildings which they are preserving and presenting to the public then it is quite appropriate that they should be able to acquire objects, as we have just decided. But the Government do not believe that the commission should be applying any of their resources to the purchase of objects for buildings owned by a wide range of other bodies. If those bodies have the responsibility for their buildings then it is entirely appropriate that they should meet the costs of doing so. Help is, of course, available in appropriate circumstances from other sources such as the National Heritage Memorial Fund. I would prefer to leave it that way.

I think that in the circumstances I had better leave it that way and perhaps come back to this on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 103F:

moved Amendment No. 103G:

Page 38, leave out lines 39 to 42.

As the noble Baroness said, this amendment is addressed to a fundamental aspect of the relationship between the commission and central Government. It seeks to give the commission complete freedom to acquire historic buildings and their contents as they see fit, without reference to the Secretary of State.

I am sure the Committee agree that the commission must have the freedom to operate successfully, but there are varying degrees of independence. In this case, I do not believe we can give the commission a free hand. Any acquisition by them will have substantial financial implications, not just at the time when the purchase price must be found, but for any number of years in future, when money must be found for maintenance, repair and, perhaps, custody. This will significantly affect the resources which the commission require—particularly when one considers that acquisition of buildings by the commission will take place only if there is no alternative way to preserve them. Almost inevitably, such acquisitions carry with them the highest repair and maintenance costs. Since the commission will be very largely funded by central Government, the Government must be able to exercise some control over the extent of the commission's activities and future liabilities.

It is not sufficient to say, "Well, give the commission their money and let them do with it as they wish". The sum which the commission will receive each year from the Government is not fixed at random, but will be related to their needs. It is only right, therefore, that the Government should be involved in decisions which affect the extent of these needs. This is an essential part of the Government's continuing overall responsibility for the heritage. I do not think that that will satisfy the noble Baroness very much, but I hope that she will be persuaded to some degree.

Could the Minister enlighten me? As I understand it, this subsection refers to subsection (2), as well as to subsection (1). I can appreciate the noble Earl's arguments on subsection (1), which refers to property, but the reference to subsection (2) covers objects as well, and in that I would have very considerable sympathy with my noble friend.

I am grateful to my noble friend Lady White for intervening. I was about to get up and point that out to the Minister. I still think that the principle should operate so far as subsection (1) is concerned. My noble friend is absolutely right. Subsection (2) states that,

" the Commission shall have power to purchase by agreement, or to accept a gift of, any objects which are or have been ordinarily kept",

and so on. The lines which I want to delete state,

"The Commission shall not acquire or accept any property under subsection (1) or (2) of this section",

and so on. I do not think that that can be what the Minister meant, because his reply did not deal with that side at all. He was saying that the commission should not be allowed to spend money without the Secretary of State's control; in other words, they should not be allowed to go wild. But this also has to do with accepting gifts, and for a grown-up adult commission to have to go to the Secretary of State and ask "Can we accept this gift?" seems absolutely ludicrous. So I think that this ought to be looked at again.

I fully accept the noble Baroness's second point, and I will have a look at it. As she rightly appreciated, I was talking entirely about the financial implications in paying the purchase price of a house.

But, as I said, I will look into what the noble Baroness has said.

I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

moved Amendment No. 103H:

I should like to support this amendment. This matter was raised during the Second Reading debate. This scheme was very successfully evolved by the National Trust for Scotland some years ago. There they call it a revolving fund, but it is the same idea. There is no doubt that, on many occasions, the commission will be able to act as a wonderful catalyst to bring together a lot of interested parties, so that this sort of conservation work can be done. If the commission do not have these powers in the Bill, I hope that they will be given them.

As I understand it, this amendment is designed to give the commission a specific power to rescue historic houses, repair or improve them, or do whatever is necessary, and then sell them again. However, with one small difference, these activities are already provided for under subsections (1) and (3) of the new clause to which this amendment would be an addition.

The important difference, from the Government's point of view, is the need to obtain the Secretary of State's consent to acquisitions. I do not think that I need to rehearse the arguments I have already given; but with the assurance that this is in subsections (1) and (3) of the new clause, and with the idea that I am going to look again at the Secretary of State's consent to acquisitions I hope that the noble Baronesss may be satisfied.

In view of what the Minister has said, and as he is going to look at this again, together with the other acquisitions, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

I should explain, before calling Amendment No. 103J, that if it is agreed to I shall not be able to call the next amendment, No. 103K.

moved Amendment No. 103J:

Page 38, line 46, leave out from ("of) to the end of line 50 and insert ("any listed building in England together with land which is contiguous or adjacent thereto.").

I accept entirely the purpose of this amendment. At the moment, the clause which this amendment seeks to amend will only allow the commission to grant-aid compulsory acquisitions by local authorities of historic buildings in need of repair. The Secretary of State's present powers enable him also to grant-aid local authority acquisitions made under Section 119 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971. This allows local authorities to acquire any building of special historic or architectural interest. Following the general policy of transferring to the commission existing grant-making powers, the Government intend to put down an amendment to make the commission's powers the same. With that assurance, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.

With that assurance, and subject to how it works out and looks in print, we will consider the matter again. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

moved Amendment No. 103M:

As the commission's work develops in the way in which we all hope that it will and grows in stature, more and more people, I am sure, will look towards it to carry out schemes which at the moment are not carried out at all. Chatham Dockyard is a good example, although a special trust may be set up there. It is important that powers should be given to the commission to have the widest possible area of responsibility for the heritage as a whole.

The powers conferred by this amendment, which the noble Baroness explained to us, are wide ones, which would enable the commission to play a leading role in organising partnership schemes with a wide range of bodies or persons for the conservation of historic buildings and areas.

In so far as it is appropriate, the commission will be able to enter partnership schemes. It will have wide grant-making powers. In respect of any of these, it will be open to the commission to agree with another person or body appropriate ways in which they should use their grant money. There are specific legislative powers for partnership with local authorities in relation to town scheme grants and these powers will transfer to the commission. Other grant-making powers do not have the same sort of provision because there is a limit to the delegation of grant administration which would be proper.

Nevertheless, there is nothing to prevent the commission from discussing with all appropriate bodies and persons ways in which their grant money might, within the normal rules, be co-ordinated. Indeed, there is everything to be said for doing so in many cases. Since they will have a full range of grant-making powers to enable them to fulfil their responsibilities, they will be able to make an equally wide range of such agreements. I hope the Committee will feel that this is sufficient and that we should not have a specific power which, in the view of the Government, goes too far. The commission will have many responsibilities. I think we ought to be careful about adding to them, or we shall make it difficult for the commission to perform its duties as well as we would wish.

After that discourse about what it can actually do, I do not think we are all that far from what the noble Baroness wishes. I hope, therefore, she will find that what I have suggested is acceptable.

I feel that I ought to be sure that there will be lively and positive encouragement for things to be done which have not always been done in the past. One way of trying to set about that was to put it in the Bill. The Minister has said that the powers are there for there to be guidelines which the commission could send out to other bodies in order to try to encourage very much more these types of partnership conservation. Although the powers may be there, if they are going to be the same powers as the HBC has, this work may not take place. To get it under way is the problem. It is not only a question of money but of having the staff and being able to find a way round it in order to set these things on the road. If nothing goes into the Bill about this it will cause me concern.

I do not know whether any other noble Lords have ideas as to the way this could come about without there necessarily being an amendment similar to the one which I have moved. If alternatives can be thought of I shall be prepared to consider them. The fact is that nothing is happening at the moment. With the setting up of the commission we are trying to find a way of encouraging it to happen.

I wonder whether the reply which the Minister gave to this amendment means that he intends to consider the position again. I believe he said that he is going to do so. However, the Minister referred also to the powers which the Government already have. At this stage I feel it is appropriate for me to air some of the anxieties of the President of the British Academy, the Master of Selwyn College and the Professor of Aerial Photography in Cambridge, who has done a great amount of work on ascertaining where old field monuments, which do not show above ground, are to be found. The anxiety is that the conservation areas to which this amendment refers, and to which the noble Earl the Minister referred broadly in his reply, may not cover the tens of thousands of field monuments which, I am instructed by the President of the British Academy and his colleagues, have far greater potential for research and for the acquisition of new knowledge. Indeed, the two professors to whom I have referred wrote to me that, after reading Hansard, they wondered whether any noble Lords taking part in this debate realise that, while there are some 400 monuments in state care—comprising for the most part the ruins of great mediaeval buildings—and a large number of archaeological sites, there are also thousands and thousands of lesser field monuments which, they say, have far greater potential for research and for the acquisition of new knowledge.

I realise that the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, has written to the president of the British Academy to assist in this matter, and the noble Earl has replied very broadly to Amendment No. 99 which the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, has withdrawn. My intervention at this stage is merely to indicate the anxiety there is about the existence of field monuments which, I say for the third time, I am instructed by professors have far greater potential for research and for the acquisition of new knowledge than many of the monuments which are above the ground. I am sorry that I have not given notice of this question to the noble Earl, but perhaps he will consider this question of field monuments in the examination he is going to make.

Of course I can give that undertaking to the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, and I will bear in mind what he has said. The noble Lord may have been in the Chamber when it was said that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has offered to iron out with the British Academy the various points it wishes to raise. In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, I thought she was really making a case for including this matter in Clause 30. Can we look at that point too?

Yes, certainly. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

moved Amendment No. 103N:

I support everything that has been said by the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, and should like to make one other point. In the struggle to keep up our great estates, which has been continuing for many years (and which involves many Members of this House), one of the most important things is the forward planning for those estates. In preparing a comprehensive conservation plan for the whole estate, it is very much better to know which land is to be exempt. There was a time when the Treasury made it possible to get advice of this kind, but, unfortunately, because of shortage of staff, such advice has not been so available recently, If such advice will be available from the commission in future, it should enhance the possibility of the countryside being conserved in a very much better way and of the owners co-operating in this.

The Government fully intend that the commission should fulfil the role which this amendment would give it. The Government will need the expert advice of the commission on capital transfer tax matters, and specifically on whether buildings, land or objects fall within the scope of the exemptions given by the Finance Act 1976 to property of historic interest; we made this quite clear in The Way Forward, and this will be part of the commission's general advisory role. Their advisory powers are currently provided by paragraphs 1 and 40 of Schedule 4. However, the Government intend to bring forward at a later stage a revised advisory power which, while not being specific as to this or other detailed subjects, will fully cover what the noble Baroness has in mind. With this assurance, I hope that the noble Baroness will again be happy.

; I thank the noble Earl for his reply, and on that basis I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

moved Amendment No. 104:

Page 39, line 14, leave out from first ("the") to ("to") in line 16 and insert ("Commission are requested in pursuance of subsection (3) of this section").

moved Amendment No. 104B:

Page 39, line 38, leave out (", with the consent of the Secretary of State,").

We have taken the opportunity to reconsider this question and the noble Baroness will be pleased to hear that we can agree with her view.

moved Amendment No. 104C:

I should like to support this amendment. I remember some years ago discussing this matter with a senior civil servant from the Department of the Environment. He said it was impossible to do and there was no way of doing it. I thought at the time that this was a needlessly reactionary view to take. The fact is that it can be done. The noble Lord will be interested to know that his neighbouring county of Hampshire is doing this at the moment. In fact I was speaking only today to one of the planning officers, and 260 gardens are being listed at the moment in Hampshire. How they are doing it I do not know, but it can be done. If one county can do it, other people can do it.

It is very important, to my mind, that historic gardens are listed. They were mostly all man-made and made with the same skill and love and design as some of our great houses. We take great pride in our gardens in this country, and they are known worldwide. They have been disappearing at an alarming rate. I think it is essential that we should know what we have and that they should be listed in some way.

I rise to support this amendment also. But I wonder whether it goes far enough. I wonder whether this proposed list would apply to those tens of thousands of field monuments to which I referred earlier, which have been discovered in particular by the professor of aerial photographic studies in Cambridge. I understand that these field monuments are considered to be of great historical importance and form the basis of research. This amendment refers to designed landscapes, and I should like to see it go a little wider to cover those field monuments which have nothing to show above the ground but which are, I am instructed by my professor friends at Cambridge, of such importance.

The amendment which my noble friend described would require the commission and the Scottish and Welsh Historic Buildings Councils to prepare lists of gardens on an advisory basis. Such a procedure would potentially form a distraction to the new commission in its early years from what the Government see and I believe the Committee see as its major tasks. In particular the Government would not want to see anything slow up the programme of the accelerated listing re-survey which is now getting well into its stride.

I do not want to argue against the desirability of protecting historic landscapes. But the new commission will have to think carefully about its priorities and its use of resources and expertise. The Government see no reason why some work in the landscape field could not be done by the commission as part of its general advisory role. But the Government would hesitate to consider that such work, which would inevitably be partial and incomplete to begin with, needs specific legislative provision. If the new commission in time sees a pressing need for such provision, it will be able to ask for it, having been able to discuss and consider with other bodies in this field, such as the Countryside Commission, the extent of any remit that it might want.

What I really want to say to the Committee, while we are discussing these amendments, is that I do believe we should think very hard about how much we actually put into the Bill and tell the commission to do. I would consider this to be one of those things that they could certainly consider but which we need not legislate for. As my noble friend Lord Montagu told us, quite a lot of work is going on in an informal way. I understand that the HBC for England have been helping in this. I see no reason why it should not continue in an informal way. But I should hesitate to recommend the Committee to write this into the Bill.

I thank my noble friend for that answer, but I am not entirely satisfied. I think I must ask him whether he would be prepared to accept this or some similar formula with the word "may", so that this will be available. I take his point that this commission is going to have a lot to do and it may not wish straight away to do anything about listing, but it would keep it in the mind and there is no reason why, if the word were "may", it should be implemented straight away. I hope my noble friend would consider something on those lines.

I should like to speak in favour of the word "may". It could be that the promoters of this amendment would also consider this. The point of listing in the case of buildings is that once a building is listed nobody is allowed to destroy or harm it without permission. I do not think there is anything in the Bill—I cannot be sure because I cannot understand the schedule—which suggests that the new commission will have any function in advising the Secretary of State on refusing or granting permission to demolish or harm historic gardens or landscapes. It may be that the actual listing should not be begun until it is proposed to give such a power to the commission or to the Secretary of State advised by the commission. I do think there is a case for putting in a "may" clause now, if only so that we do not have to come back and legislate all over again when it is judged that the time is ripe.

I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, about this. I think it is important to have something in, even if it is only purely permissive. The whole question of gardens, et cetera, is one which noble Lords may consider from some points of view even more urgent than the other extremely important matters which the noble Earl mentioned. It is still, thank God, fairly rare for major historical buildings to disappear without people noticing. It is not at all rare now for distinguished gardens and landscapes to be harmed, particularly the former. It is because they are the more ephemeral and the more worth noting—noting, that is, sometimes, in order that they may be restored. Some very important work has been done recently on the restoration of gardens, particularly, for instance, one or two of the gardens of the late Gertrude Jekyll.

In the whole of this area there is a necessity to keep this in the front of our attention so that we can watch what is going on, keep an eye on it, record what is there and not let this part of our heritage disappear or slip away in the way that it is only too easy for it to do. The noble Earl should look at this again, with the "mays" instead of the "shalls".

I add my support to this amendment. In view of what has been said by the Minister and the noble Lords who have just spoken it seems to me that it would be a very happy compromise all round if "may" is substituted for "shall". Certainly the most important place would be in the second line of the amendment. There is another "shall" further down which could also be changed to "may"—

"and may publish such lists and plans"—

and then there is,

"may amend them from time to time".

I agree with everything that has been said about the importance of gardens and keeping lists and plans because they, too, are not only a part of the heritage from the garden and landscape point of view, but are a part of history itself when they are recorded. It would be a pity to miss out on this altogether. I hope that now the amendment has been tempered with permissiveness the noble Lord will be able to give a happier answer.

Speaking personally, I am very much in favour of what has been said because I am a great admirer of gardens, too. I will take this back to see whether I can obtain agreement to what the Committee so obviously wants to do. However, I must once again emphasise that the work we are considering now falls outside the basic remit in respect of ancient monuments and buildings. But having said that, and knowing the feelings of the Committee, particularly on design landscape as well as on gardens, I shall certainly have another look at this matter.

I am most grateful to the Minister. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

moved Amendment No. 104D:

Oh!

It is no good the noble Earl saying, "Oh!"; I am afraid it is true. It is one of those unpleasant truths that have to be told occasionally, and the moment has come now, when we are talking of the transference of functions from the department to the commission. One can keep all this very much "in house" when one is working in a department and battering away on one's own, or with help, but now we are making this change the time has come to shake up the PSA a bit. It needs it.

I refer, for example, to the decayed and neglected state of many of the historic buildings in Chatham. The Ancient Monuments Board drew attention to this in its recent report. Visitors who have seen them have commented on this. I also refer to the state of the historic buildings in Woolwich: and to the inept way in which architecturally and aesthetically the PSA sometimes treats buildings in its care. Unthinking alterations were made to the stable block at St. James's Palace. I am afraid—and I have seen this—repairs are sometimes effected at great cost with the wrong materials, so that yet more money has to be spent to put the damage right. Given good advice that damage could have been avoided and great economies made.

Often the advice that is given is very good, but the PSA do not take any notice of it. They are a very uncontrollable lot, and it is about time that somebody said so. If noble Lords do not believe it, they should go to Chatham and see the state of the roof there, and the alterations made to it. They should go to Woolwich; or to Chichester, to see where they have put up that Post' Office. I saw it, built and in use, but by then there was nothing I could do about it. I was Minister of the Department, and if it had been possible to kick it down I would have done so. It is absolutely appalling. There is no sensitivity to the surroundings. Your Lordships can see that this has been bubbling up for a long time, certainly in me. At the same time I must say that there are, on the other hand, because one must be fair, a great many successes. However, I am afraid the failures outnumber them, and the costs involved are astronomical.

I now refer to the amendment, having grasped the nettle very hard. Subsection (1) gives the commission the right to inspect. We can avoid any nonsense about security, because we can make sure that some of the commission's inspectors are positively vetted, although it does not necessarily follow that that will do any good. However, that is not the problem.

Subsection (2) places a requirement on the PSA to consult with the commission, at the PSA's own cost, which is quite right,

"as to the use and maintenance, proposed repair, restoration, alteration and extension"

of the buildings in its care, and on proposals to demolish any of them. All these aspects have to be taken into account if the great heritage of listed buildings in the PSA's control is to be looked after properly rather than allowed to decay, as is all too often now the case.

Subsection (3) gives the PSA time to set its house in order, with inspection by and consultation with the commission. It obviously cannot do that instantly. I am afraid the Augean Stables are far too large to be cleaned out in one fell swoop; time will be needed to sort everything out. Thereafter, the subsection requires reports to be made by the commission to the Secretary of State and to Parliament via the commission's own report. Frankly, this is a way in which the PSA can be not only controlled but harnessed, whereas a department is such a large section (and, as I have said before, a law unto itself) that that is extremely difficult.

Lest the PSA feels hard done by at being singled out—it probably does, and I do not blame it—subsection (4) applies to all other Government departments, because the PSA is not alone in neglecting and misusing the buildings in its care. The Home Office has some magnificent buildings in its care—mostly, unfortunately, attached to prisons—but they have been allowed to get into a parlous state.

The services do not have a particularly good record. They have many fine but neglected buildings in some of the restricted areas they control. The condition of these often pops up, and is reported in the press. One could also list the public utilities which always say that they do not have sufficient money. However, to be fair, the utilities are now taking a great interest in the environment and I know that many of the nationalised industries have appointed environmental directors. So there has been an improvement.

In Annex B to The Way Forward it says that it is essential that the commission be enabled to advise on the preservation and maintenance of historic buildings in the Government estate, and it proposes that it be given formal power to do so. The commission would, therefore, be concerned with matters concerning the fabric of these and other historic buildings and ancient monuments in the department's care and in the care of other Government departments. Therefore, for there to be buildings in the PSA's control or at least supervised by the commission is not a new thought. However, there is nothing yet in the Bill on that subject. Therefore, we need to ensure that not necessarily the exact words contained in this amendment but some words along these lines are contained in the Bill so that the buildings that are in the Government estate receive the care to which they are entitled because, God knows!, there is enough money spent on them as it is. I beg to move.

I should like to support the amendment in some degree. The noble Earl will remember that exactly two years ago I presented a report to the Secretary of State in my capacity as Chairman of the Working Group on the Alternative Use of Historic Buildings, and that report went into the subject of PSA buildings, railways and so on in some detail. One of our recommendations was that the PSA should start listing its own buildings. Therefore, I was delighted recently to see that the first volume of its publication has come out dealing with the buildings in its care in the North of England. It is a very fine publication which will, I gather, be followed by others covering the country.

The matter which I think is of importance is that the Government are going to look to the commission for advice on the historic buildings under its care. If they do not look to the commission, to whom will they look? If they are going to appoint a commission to be the expert on conservation of historic buildings, then they should use it to advise them.

I also would like to support this amendment, or the intentions behind it. There is a good deal in the architectural standards of the PSA which leave a good deal to be desired. I share very much with the noble Baroness a distaste for some of the modern buildings that it has put up—for example, post offices, telephone exchanges and so on—in highly sensitive central areas. But I do not think that that is something with which we can deal in this Bill, which is to do with heritage buildings. Nor do I think that we can deal with all the problems at once in this legislation.

What is required is that the commission should feel obliged, should feel under a duty, to advise the Secretary of State on the more urgent matters that need to be looked into—and improved care by the PSA of its heritage buildings is certainly one of them. It ought also to advise the Secretary of State as to the scale and nature of the inspection that ought to be introduced, and gradually to put pressure on over the years and not try to seek to get a set framework in this Bill.

The Government are aware, and I hope that they have been seen to be increasingly conscious, that many heritage interests express concern about the quality of conservation work carried out on the Government estate. Apart from the obvious point that resources are always limited, a good deal of this concern we believe is misplaced. So far as they are able, the PSA and other Government departments seek to take care of their historic property and much good work is done. I was rather hoping that perhaps the final curtain might be unveiled from our own frontage on our way in today so that we could see the superb work which they have done on that particular front.

It must be remembered that important as the care of the historic fabric is, it is the use of the buildings as hospitals, offices, et cetera which brings them within the responsibility of the PSA and Government departments, and that use—one could almost call them "working buildings"—will therefore inevitably have an edge in priority.

The Government think that the sweeping powers of inspection and statutory consultation envisaged by this amendment are inappropriate as between a ministerially appointed body and other Government departments. It is very unlikely that resources could be found to fund the necessary arrangements. And such rigorous oversight could well, at the end of the day, prove counter-productive.

The Government would prefer to see the commission proceed by advice and persuasion—and here I think I am at one with my noble friend Lord Sandford—being seen to be reasonable and responsible while still pressing the conservation case. The Bill already contains, in paragraphs 1 and 40 of Schedule 4, substantial advisory powers for the commission, and the Government have it in mind to widen those powers further. This has been particularly underlined by our discussion this evening. I feel that as attractive as the ideas of the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, may be, the way forward here is by advisory powers and that is the more likely way in which to make progress than the proposed amendment.

I thank the Minister for his reply. I mentioned the post office at Chichester merely as an example of what I consider to be architectural insensitivity. I did not consider that the putting up of modern buildings necessarily had anything to do with this Bill, although in that case it was put up in a conservation area. Therefore, it is in fact still relevant to the Bill.

The Minister brought in the question of finance and costs. I am absolutely convinced that if there were a tighter control from a commission which was specialist in the field in which it would be operating, then enough money could be saved and the work would be so much improved that we would not have to worry about it costing more. In fact, there would be a saving which could perhaps be handed over to the commission to be used for conservation or to the conservation fund donated by the PSA.

I take the point about advice and consultation. But I would not like to feel that the matter was left quite as open as that. Somewhere in the Bill it should be laid down that some advisory routes should be worked out between the commission and the PSA, otherwise matters will just go on in the way in which they have up to now.

There is no doubt that there is everywhere both a feeling of disenchantment and grumbling. It is far better to have the PSA because when it is right it has the ways and means of showing that it is right. There are umpteen other examples, one of which is Richmond Terrace. It is practically finished—it has gone. It is an absolute disaster.

Therefore, there must be some mention of it in the Bill; it must not be so sotto voce that nothing is said to make it clear that the commission has a right to be consulted by the PSA and also to state its view. Here we move away from the question of whether it is part of a Government department. The commission, after all, has been set up by the Government; it is appointed by the Prime Minister. Unless this provision is included I can assure the Minister, with all the good wishes and hopes in the world, that nothing will be done. Somewhere in the Bill this must be stated.

moved Amendment No. 104E:

Page 41, leave out lines 4 to 8.