National Heritage Bill [H.L.]

The Earl of Avon

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

The Earl of Avon

I assure my noble friend that the Government are prepared to accept the underlying principle and will offer our own amendment in substitution at the next stage.

Lord Montagu of Beaulieu

I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

The Earl of Avon

I think the noble Lord, the Deputy Chairman of Committees, put Amendment No. 52, and I believe my noble friend is speaking to 740 Amendment No. 53. I believe Amendment No. 52 was covered on the earlier occasion.

The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Derwent)

Is Amendment No. 52 moved or not?

Lord Montagu of Beaulieu

That amendment is to leave out the word "and" in order to achieve the next amendment, which follows on grammatically. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Baroness Birk

May I ask the noble Lord the Deputy Chairman what happened to Amendment No. 39? Was it not moved?

I should like to support my noble friend Lord Montagu on this amendment, to which I have added my name, especially as I speak as someone who has little bent for science at all yet has found enjoyment in the Science Museum; I have also seen people with their children finding the Science Museum an absolute delight. That applies to many of the exhibitions and also to what takes place in the museum. I did have the pleasure of having quite a lot to do with it when I was a Minister at the Department of the Environment. If this was a deliberate omission—no doubt the noble Earl will tell us the reason—I find it strange, because it is following a sort of tradition that science has to be dour, grave, unamusing and unenjoyable whereas the other museums concerned with pictures, costume, music or the arts in some form or other, one can enjoy. I think this amendment is important; it is not just a trivial matter for laughter, though it is in one way, and it does seem to expose an attitude which I think we should be doing our best to undermine in this Bill.

Lord Geoffrey-Lloyd

As the first Minister of Education to have had a scientific education, I support this. I hope that the noble Earl will have good news for us.

The Earl of Avon

The Government do, of course, accept that enjoyment should be clearly reflected in the words used, and we do accept the principle of the amendment. I would say to the noble Baroness that in no way was this omission deliberate in the sense she mentioned. It was partly a point of grammatical style. What we shall have is "public's enjoyment of … the development of science and technology", and I should prefer to have another look at where to put the word "enjoyment" rather than "enjoyment of development", though if the Committee would like the word "enjoyment" in at that point, I shall be happy to accept that. May I leave it to my noble friend either to accept "public's enjoyment … of the development", or let me try to put it in at another place between now and Report stage?

Lord Montagu of Beaulieu

I should be very happy to bow to the superior drafting of the noble Earl's 741 experts, and I am glad to withdraw the amendment on the understanding that "enjoyment" will be introduced in a Government amendment at Report stage.

Baroness Birk

I speak only to support the noble Lord's amendment because it will, as he said, bring consistency into the Bill with the other museums.

Lord Jenkins of Putney

I find myself in favour of this proposal and at this stage I need not interrupt the noble Earl, but we shall see what he has to say about it first.

The Earl of Avon

I was only pausing for a moment to see whether there were any further suggestions for amendments to the terminology. So far as the Government are concerned, we share my noble friend's feelings and are happy to accept the principle of the amendment. However, it is not clear that all the areas listed in the amendment are relevant to the responsibilities of the Armouries trustees. I am thinking in particular of "commerce" and "industry". We should like to consider this carefully with a view to bringing forward an amendment at a later stage. We would, of course, take into account what was discussed on Amendment No. 4. If your Lordships have any other suggestions regarding deletions or additions, I shall be happy to hear them.

Lord Montagu of Beaulieu

I thank my noble friend. In view of that satisfactory statement we look forward to the Government amendment. I am therefore happy to withdraw the amendment.

Lord Jenkins of Putney

I think it might perhaps be appropriate on this amendment to say a word about the question of appointments.

The Deputy Chairman of Committees

May I interrupt the noble Lord because I am completely out of order? I apologise to the Committee. After Clause 12 stand part I should have put to the Committee that Clauses 13 to 15 stand part of the Bill. Therefore, I shall do so now.

The Deputy Chairman of Committees

I again apologise. We can now continue with Amendment No. 61.

Lord Jenkins of Putney

I was referring to the question of appointments and whether they should be made by the Secretary of State or by the Prime Minister. I expressed myself in favour of Amendment No. 60. In doing so. I was talking about the general sense of the amendment—that is. the appointment of a person having knowledge and experience of arms, armour, military history, and so on. It is generally-agreed that that would be a sensible thing to do. In that I did not mean to express approval of the proposal, which is part of that amendment, to substitute the Prime Minister for the Secretary of State.

This raises the whole question of appointments in this country. We are a much over-appointed country and a much under-elected country compared with the United States of America. It may be thought that the Americans go rather too far electing, as they do sometimes by pulling a handle, almost everybody down to the town hall janitor. It seems to me that we do not go far enough. We have established in this country a general proposition of lists of the great and the good from whom leading civil servants draw persons to fill all the positions of influence in the state. This general proposition seems to me to be fallacious, and I do not think it is cured by making the Prime Minister responsible for everything. The procedure which actually goes on, whether the person who technically makes the appointment is the Prime Minister or the Secretary of State, is somewhat similar. As everyone knows there is a sort of trawl. Names are put up at various stages, sifted out and arise, in this case, for the Minister of the Arts. He looks through them and passes on to his own Secretary of State a reduced list, which finally goes on to the Prime Minister who makes the choice. Of course, he or she can choose not to have any of the people and appoint someone else instead.

The whole procedure which goes on throughout the whole appointment business is one about which many of us have grave doubts. I am not sure that it is appropriate on this Bill to raise this general question, but it seems to be a question which ought to be dealt with because the notion that practically everyone in the country holding this type of position over the whole range of appointments is ultimately appointed by the Prime Minister is a thoroughly bad one. The difficulty is that once one gets into the habit of believ- 744 ing that prime ministerial appointment is the only really important thing, then everyone wants to have prime ministerial appointment or they feel rather under-graded. Therefore, if the Bill stipulates the Secretary of State, some people will say, "No, no, others are appointed by the Prime Minister, so this appointment must also be by the Prime Minister". So the whole thing turns on the Prime Minister who, in the vast majority of cases can, in fact, know very little about the people whom he or she technically appoints. The whole system is undesirable and should be changed. I am equally sure that this Bill is not the appropriate occasion to change it. although it is possibly the appropriate occasion on which to air it.

Having said that, my view is that we ought to go a little further down the scale. If I were to amend an amendment—a process which I am not much in favour of—I would substitute the words "Minister for the Arts" for "Secretary of State" in this case. He is the chap who will do the initial solving of lists, and I should prefer that he had not only the actual duty of looking through the names, but was actually responsible for making the appointment rather than pushing everything up to the top stage. Having aired the problem, I do not propose to vote against the amendment.

Lord Geoffrey-Lloyd

I support my noble friend Lord Montagu. The arrangement in the Bill does seem, probably unintentionally, to discriminate against this fine museum and I feel that the Committee would like to avoid that if possible. Can the noble Earl tell us whether he can do anything to meet these views?

The Earl of Avon

I should just like to put the Government's point of view and to say why we have done this, and then I should like to listen to the views of the Committee. Let me say right at the outset that it is not our intention in any way to demote the Armouries or to say that they are of lesser importance than anything else. I repeat: that is not the intention.

The Secretary of State for the Environment is now responsible for the Armouries as an integral part of the work of his department—this is the next point—as he is for the Tower within which the Armouries are and will be largely located. He will, therefore, be well placed to appoint the members of the board of trustees and to approve their choice of Master of the Armouries. Perhaps that does to a certain extent answer the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, when he suggested the Minister for the Arts. The reason why we are suggesting the Secretary of State for the Environment is that he has had control over the Armouries and he is the Minister responsible for the Tower.

The precedents on this are slightly diverse but the position of the Victoria and Albert and the Science Museums have been quoted, and they are somewhat different, not least because the Prime Minister herself expressed the wish to be involved in the appointment of their trustees. As they are large institutions with wide-ranging interests, it is considered absolutely appropriate to follow the practice in respect of, for example, the British Museum. The Government put forward their proposal because they did not think that the Armouries fell into the same category. However, if 745 the Committee wishes to support my noble friend then of course we would be totally willing to consider the matter.

Baroness Birk

I see a great deal of merit in, and have considerable sympathy for, what my noble friend Lord Jenkins of Putney has said. Indeed, I had the same feeling when we dealt with the National Heritage Memorial Fund, although we did not seem to get very far and in the end, because in that case two Ministers were involved, we all felt that we would only go forward if there were a prime ministerial appointment. I also feel that there are a great many advantages in having a Secretary of State involved especially if he is interested in the particular subject, museum or gallery.

However, we are in a difficult position as regards this matter. The Master of the Armouries and his staff feel that theirs will be a rather second-class museum in this context if it is not followed through so that, at the same time as the other museums are being devolved, they also are being devolved. As the Minister seems to be open-minded about this matter; as those people feel very strongly about it and will feel extremely aggrieved; and as they are covered in the same Bill, I think it would be better if they came under the same type of selection appointment umbrella.

Lord Craigton

Having listened to the arguments, I am satisfied with the Bill as it is.

Baroness Phillips

I should only like to enter the general argument, but not unfortunately to support my noble friend. There has constantly been propagated the great virtue of election as opposed to appointment. That comes rather oddly from a House whose Members are, by nature, either appointed or are there by the hereditary principle. My noble friend says that it should be elected; at the moment it is not elected. I can only say that, like many other people, I have been elected and I have been appointed and I know which is the better position. If you are appointed you are your own man—you are able to say exactly what you feel without any kind of intimidation or threat. If you are elected there is always the implied idea by the people who have elected you that, if you do not follow their ideas, they will not elect you again.

Our great institutions have always been run very satisfactorily by people who are appointed because of their knowledge or because of their feeling for the particular group to which they have been appointed. It would be rather unfortunate to go into the whole realm of everybody being elected whether it be boards of governors or appointees to boards of trustees, because in the end we shall get somebody for a transitory period, perhaps three years, and not someone who will be there for a lifetime and dedicated to the subject.

Lord Reigate

I should like strongly to support my noble friend Lord Montagu. It seemed to me at first that the argument for having the same status as the others was unanswerable. The noble Baroness, Lady Birk, mentioned the National Heritage Memorial Fund, in which I took some interest. She will remember that the real reason was not that we had two Ministers who might squabble about everything, but simply and solely to raise the status of the National Heritage Memorial Fund. I do not think that the 746 extent of the patronage in this field is such to overburden the Prime Minister. It is extremely important that we should keep the same kind of status for all these authorities.

There is in my view another argument. Frankly, I find armour a very boring subject, but I should have thought that it had much more to do with the Office of Arts and Libraries than it has to do with the Department of the Environment, and on that ground alone I am sure that the Prime Minister is the right person to make the appointment.

Lord Beloff

I should like to support my noble friend's amendment on two grounds. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, spoke about appointment and election. I should have thought that the only bodies of importance in the United States which are not elected are the trustees of the great museums—and the museums are the best run institutions in the United States. As far as appointment-by-whom? is concerned, 50 years ago there was no Secretary of State for the Environment and I would not, as a student of the machinery of government, be certain that in 50 years' time there will be a Secretary of State for the Environment. We may want to alter the situation in that department long before then. We are told that we are legislating for the future. There will, I think, be a Prime Minister, and therefore I support the amendment.

Lord Mowbray and Stourton

I should like to support the Government's view on this matter having twice been in the Department of the Environment, the machinery of which the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, knows so well. The interest shown in the Tower and the Armouries by the Department of the Environment is enormous. There is no question or doubt in my mind that the Secretary of State for the Environment has far more intimate knowledge. If the Prime Minister had to be involved in this matter she, or he, as the case may be, would only have to go to the Secretary of State for the Department of the Environment to get the information concerned. Why not leave it as it is, with the Prime Minister in the end getting advice? The Secretary of State is actually, day to day, responsible for all the functions of that wonderful place, the Tower of London, through the various offices involved. I do not think that one need be worried about this point. I have twice been in the Department of the Environment in a very junior, bottle-washer capacity, but I have seen that it works and I would strongly suggest that we leave it as the Government have put it.

Viscount Eccles

Is there an amendment to bring the Tower of London within the purview of the commission? I do not think that there is, but I thought that some people wanted it. In that case, I support the Government because the department's knowledge of the Tower is tremendous and if it is to remain with the department then we must remember that the Armouries are part of it. It seems rather difficult to say to the Secretary of State, "You are responsible for the whole of the fabric of all these buildings but not for appointing the museum trustees". I do not feel very strongly about this. As regards all the appointments with which I have been concerned, which were finally in the gift of the Prime Minister, the Prime Minister 747 consulted me as the junior Minister. I have some very interesting examples. I appointed someone as the director of one of our national museums and the Prime Minister of the day, who was the noble Earl's father, sent for me and said, "You cannot have that man". I said, "Prime Minister why not?" He said, "I do not think that you should do so". I told him, "He is an old Etonian". He said, "You can have him".

Lord Geoffrey-Lloyd

I hate to disagree even in the slightest extent with my noble friend Lord Eccles, but he has based his argument largely on the idea that the Tower was not going to be moved to the commission. Maybe the Tower will not be moved to the commission, but many of us feel that as regards the tourist management of the Tower, it would be much better if the commission took over that side of the work. Indeed, I think that the Government in their consultation paper suggested that that might be possible, in which case I suggest that the argument of my noble friend rather falls to the ground.

Baroness Birk

Before any decision is taken and in answer to what the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, said, the fact remains that, though part of the collection is still in the Tower of London—and later on we have an amendment to keep the greater part of the collection in the Tower—nevertheless under the Bill the Armouries have been devolved as a museum on their own. Therefore, as they are a museum, the fact that they are located in the Tower of London and have a connection with it I would suggest, with respect, is irrelevant to the point that we are now discussing as to who should make the appointment. I believe that the method should be consistent with the way in which appointments are made to the other devolved museums.

As regards the Tower itself, as it is a Royal Palace nothing is said in the Bill about it. There are some amendments down to make an enabling clause for Royal Palaces, but I honestly do not think that that is quite relevant to the discussion which we are now having.

Lord Montagu of Beaulieu

We have had quite an interesting discussion on this point. I moved this amendment in order to bring consistency into the whole matter. Regardless of what the Department of the Environment thinks, I know that the staff of the Armouries feel very strongly that they would like the trustees to be appointed by the Prime Minister. They believe—they may wrongly believe—that they are in some way being slighted and demoted as a result. I hope that the Government will be able to accept this amendment, but, if not, one could perhaps think of a compromise at the Report stage whereby the chairman is appointed by the Prime Minister and the other trustees are appointed by the Secretary of State. I just make that suggestion, which might appeal to the Government. I think that there is considerable support in the Committee for this point, and I hope that my noble friend may be able to meet me on it.

The Earl of Avon

We have not so far had a Division and, as this is a non-controversial matter, I think we ought to see which way the Committee wants to vote 748 on it. By going backwards and forwards I find it hard to make a decision myself. I could consult and come back next time, but why do we not make up our minds now?

The Deputy Chairman of Committees

Is the noble Baroness going to move Amendment No. 71?

Baroness Birk

May I move Amendment No. 71?

The Deputy Chairman of Committees

No, not really. The noble Lord, Lord Montagu has not moved it. Amendment No. 72 may be moved.

The Earl of Avon

May I intervene? I should be perfectly happy to have the arguments on Amendment No. 72, if it is the will of the Committee.

Baroness Birk

I am grateful to the Minister. This is again a question of inconsistency so far as the Armouries Museum is concerned. These amendments are concerned with bringing its funding into line with the funding of the other museums. Amendments Nos. 71 and 72 are paving amendments to No. 75. There does not seem to be any good reason why all the museums cited in this Bill should not be given the same financial provisions. Those national museums which at present enjoy trustee status are funded directly by money provided by Parliament. This method of funding has always worked well with these museums.

The present Bill seeks to extend this method of funding to cover the Victoria and Albert Museum and the Science Museum, but it provides a different financial arrangement for the Armouries and for the armed forces museums; namely, that they may be funded from money provided by their respective Secretaries of State. There may be a good reason for this arrangement so far as the armed forces museums are concerned. That I am not sure about. If not, that could be amended in the same way. But it cannot be argued that the reason for this different method of funding is because of the small size of the Armouries and the armed forces museums, when none is smaller 750 than the Wallace Collection, which is funded directly by money provided by Parliament.

Therefore, I feel that there is no reason why all the museums cited in this Bill should not be treated in the same way. It surely makes sense to give them all the same financial provisions as have proved to be the basis for the present structure and running of our other national museums. If this were done, all the museums cited in the Bill would be required to present their reports in the same way to their respective Secretaries of State, who should be required in turn to present a copy of each report to each House of Parliament. For those reasons, unless the Minister has something that we have overlooked, I cannot see that there is any reason why these amendments should not be accepted. I beg to move.

Lord Montagu of Beaulieu

I must apologise for not having moved the amendment which was consequential on this amendment, but I should like to support the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, and say again that I think that the inconsistency is unfortunate. It would be much better if the Armouries were funded directly from Parliament and not from the Secretary of State.

The Earl of Avon

Of course I appreciate the reasoning behind these amendments which the noble Baroness has explained. They are designed to give the Armouries the same Vote status as is proposed for the V and A and the Science Museum. The provision of a different régime for the Armouries and a grant in aid paid by the Secretary of State rather than supply granted directly by Parliament, I hope your Lordships will not in any way think of as belittling the status of the Armouries. That is far from our intention. The inclusion of the Armouries in this Bill is indication enough of the Government's view of their status.

The proposed finance régime does not reflect on that. However, there are differences between the Armouries and, for example, the V and A. The latter is considerably larger and wider ranging than the Armouries and thus has much greater administrative requirements and resources. The Armouries also have a rather different background in the sense that they are currently part of, and will be sponsored in the future by, the Department of the Environment. In providing vote status for the V and A and the Science Museum we are simply following the precedent set by existing trustee bodies such as the British Museum.

The DoE of course has a large number of sponsored bodies, including the Nature Conservancy Council. All of these bodies, without exception, are funded by way of a grant in aid from the Secretary of State. I doubt whether that is to be held as a reflection on their status or importance. Thus the Department of the Environment's experience is of grant in aid bodies, and given that, and the size and the specialised nature of the Armouries, it is considered entirely appropriate that such a system should be applied.

This is an area in which again there is no right or wrong. It is a question of what is most appropriate in all the circumstances. With this close relationship with the Department of the Environment, and the fact that their experience is grant in aid, I hope that the Committee might feel able to accept what we have. 751 However, I shall listen to the rest of the debate with interest.

Baroness Birk

There does not seem to be any expression of opinion about this matter. In these circumstances—and I take it that the noble Lord, Lord Montagu, takes the same view, otherwise he would have spoken—we ought to withdraw the amendment at this stage, read carefully what the Minister has said—because I should like to read it as well as having listened intently to it—and then see how we feel about it and, if necessary, come back on Report.

Baroness Birk

I support the amendment, to which I have put my name. It was probably considered implicit in the Bill that what is proposed would happen, but I suggest it is necessary to include a provision of this type because, as we have said on many occasions when debating the Bill, we are talking not just about now or the near future but the very 752 long-term future. We are anxious to enshrine in the Bill the connection between the Tower and the Armouries, because they are so intertwined, and to ensure that the major part of the collection remains there. The amendment would leave sufficient flexibility for other exhibitions to take place and, therefore, for part of the collection not always to be in the Tower.

Lord Simon of Glaisdale

I have a question, of which I gave the noble Earl notice, that I have been seeking to ask about the Armouries, and this seems the least inappropriate amendment on which to ask it. What is to be the relationship between the Armoury in the Tower of London and the collection at the Wallace Collection? At one time the director of the Wallace Collection was the Keeper of the Armoury of the Tower. It may be that was because he was the preeminent expert in the field in this country. It meant that acquisitions and bequests were co-related. I should be grateful if the Minister would help me on that, and excuse me if I have asked it at the wrong time.

Lord Jenkins of Putney

I hope the Government will accept the sense of the amendment, although they may not wish to accept the actual words. They may have to make some qualification: in the event of war occurring, they must have special arrangements—especially in the event of nuclear war—for art objects to be removed from London into a bunker in Wales. I suspect—perhaps the Minister will tell us—that the Crown Jewels are among those objects. Although the population itself is not to be evacuated, art objects are. What sort of judgment one makes of that is a matter for the Government—I think it is the case—and the question is whether the Crown Jewels are among those objects. If they are, then, in accepting the amendment, the Government would have to include words to provide for the eventuality of their movement to Wales in the event of war.

Lord Cottesloe

The Committee was at pains in earlier discussions of the National Heritage Fund to ensure that it was possible—and your Lordships considered it very desirable—that objects of special importance to the heritage, when accepted for the nation, are enabled to remain in the houses to which they belong and in which they have been accumulated. Surely the same applies, in much greater degree, to the objects in the Armouries of the Tower of London.

The Earl of Perth

I hope the Government will find it possible to accept the amendment because, in a sense, the Armouries have had two blows this afternoon. One was on the question of who should appoint the trustees and the other was on the source of funds. Many of your Lordships know that this is a matter about which they are anxious, not immediately but in the future, and that being so, and because I feel one should pay attention to the views of those directly concerned, I hope the Government will accept the amendment.

Viscount Massereene and Ferrard

I support the amendment. Historically and visually one could not have a better place than the Tower of London in which to deposit the finest Armouries in the country.

The Earl of Avon

I say at once to the noble Earl, Lord Perth, that these are not intended as blows. As I have been at pains to say throughout our debates on these amendments, the Government fully appreciate the Armouries for the excellent collections they are: it is purely a question of administration so far as we are concerned. The noble Baroness was right to say that it is our intention to keep the Armouries where they are; there is absolutely no question about that.

However admirable and understandable the amendment is, there are difficulties, as several noble Lords have said, about including such a requirement in the Bill. For instance, if it were accepted, it would be necessary to provide the trustees with some means of fulfilling the obligation it would impose in them. There would have to be in the Bill the express right for them to occupy accommodation in the Tower. That, obviously, they will do, but at present it is not, as it were, enshrined in the Bill.

I would, however, assure noble Lords that it is our full intention to enter into an administrative agreement for the trustees to occupy part of the Tower, and we fully expect the trustees to observe the tradition of displaying the greater part of their collection there. While the amendment is not acceptable as it is, I now know, having listened to the debate, the aim of my noble friend Lord Montagu, and I will go back to see whether it is possible for the draftsman to incorporate the spirit of what he wants in the Bill.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, raised the point of the relationship between the Wallace Collection and the Armouries. I understand that the Master of the Armouries at present unofficially acts as adviser to the Wallace Collection on the care of the Wallace Armoury Collection. There is nothing formal to put into the Bill, and one hopes that the same sort of relationship, which is really a personalities one, will continue. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, mentioned the collection of jewels and asked whether they would be transported. I have no knowledge of that and I have a slight suspicion that if I had, I should not be allowed to tell him, though I may be wrong. In any event, I shall look into that point as well. I agree with my noble friend on the spirit of the amendment, as the Committee obviously does, and I hope it will be possible to incorporate in the Bill something along the lines proposed in it.

Baroness Birk

I thank the Minister for those remarks. There is one matter on which I should like to feel clear; perhaps I have misunderstood the position. He referred to the trustees having to ccupy a part of the Tower. The amendment simply says that the major part of the collection should be within the Tower of London. Does the noble Earl mean that the words "within the Armouries" should be added? In that case, I would understand what he was saying, but surely one need not say that the trustees must occupy, say, a part of the Victoria and Albert or part of the Science Museum. I am probably being rather obtuse, but I am not clear on the point.

The Earl of Avon

The difficulty is that the Tower of London remains a Royal Palace in which the Armouries are, so there must be an arrangement with the Tower for the occupation, as it were, of the 754 Armouries, and incorporated with that would be something very much on the lines about which we have been talking. I said that we would see if we could get something in the Bill along the lines of the amendment.

Lord Montagu of Beaulieu

In view of that very satisfactory reply by the noble Earl, I am very happy to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

The Earl of Avon

My noble friend is quite right, because it would be going around in circles if there were to be a power for the Armouries to charge for admission within the Tower. If we leave the financial arrangements as they are at the moment, the grant in aid will come from the Department of the Environment, which will of course be collecting the money outside the Tower. So if one were to take a separate kitty for the Armouries within the Tower, that would be taken into account in regard to any grant in aid. So, as my noble friend was anticipating, it would be going around in circles if there were such a power.

My noble friend might be comforted by one thing that I should like to say. I understand that the Armouries can charge for any activities in which they are involved outside; such as if they loan objects, or do anything of that kind. They are enabled to charge on those occasions. I hope that that is the assurance that my noble friend was seeking.

Lord Reigate

I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Baroness Lane-Fox

I should like to ask my noble friend that consideration be given to the inclusion in 755 each report of a statement of action taken by the board to promote the use of such places by disabled people, as well as to a similar provision in other appropriate parts of the Bill.

The Earl of Avon

I fully appreciate my noble friend's point. I shall look into it and see exactly what should be done.

Lord Craigton

The botanic gardens are world known. There has never been any confusion, but I think that confusion would be created by the addition of the word "Kew", as though it referred to something new, I cannot agree with the noble Lord.

The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Earl Ferrers)

I am bound to say that my feelings go along with those of my noble friend 756 Lord Craigton. The noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, made a perfectly good and reasoned case for inserting the word "Kew", but the Government feel that the right title of the institution is "Royal Botanic Gardens", as stated in the Bill, and we do not see any need to include as well the address, as it were. Indeed, confusion could flow from that because of the fact that the institution is already present at another location—the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, mentioned Wakehurst Place, in Sussex—and it may in the future take on further locations; it certainly has powers to do that. If the formal title became "Royal Botanic Gardens. Kew", it would be a little difficult to explain to the uninitiated why an institution that is stated by Parliament to reside at one location was also present at one or more other locations.

If I may put it another way, I would say that by the Bill we are creating a legal entity that in the future may operate at a number of different locations, only two of which, Kew and Wakehurst Place, are at present known. It is not necessary, and indeed it could be confusing, to include the name of one of the locations in the formal title of this legal entity. I hope that in view of what I have said, the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, will consider withdrawing the amendment.

The Earl of Perth

I have understood what the noble Earl has said in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, but would it not perhaps be better if it were made clear that what we are talking about are the Royal Botanic Gardens of England? After all, I am not sure whether the Royal Botanic Gardens of Scotland—in Edinburgh—did not come first. If they did not come first, they are certainly equally eminent. I think that it would be a great pity if there arose a situation in which, when one was talking about the "Royal Botanic Gardens", everyone thought that somehow Edinburgh did not count. So if the Government cannot accept the amendment as it is written, I hope that they will think about changing the title to the extent of adding, "of England". Then it would be possible to go anywhere in England to set up a new location, whether it be at Wakehurst Place, or anywhere else that is suitable.

Lord Jenkins of Putney

I, too, rather hope that the Government will find a way of avoiding unnecessarily offending the Scots. The Scots are fairly easily offended, and to go out of our way possibly to offend them on this occasion would perhaps be misguided. Therefore, whether or not my noble friend presses his amendment, it is my hope that the Government will be able to say a few words indicating that they take the sense of what he is seeking to express in the amendment.

While I am talking about Kew, I should like also to express the hope that nothing will be done to change the policy under which the gardens are at present conducted. That policy is admirable in every respect, not only in the way that the gardens are run but in every conceivable way; but also through the fact that it only costs 10 pence to go in. That price has been held at that level for a very long time and I think it would be a very sad thing if the consequence of what we are doing this evening were to be that that price, which has resisted inflation all along, were to take off with 757 everything else. Let us hope that the Government will be able perhaps to give us an assurance on that as well.

Lord Cottesloe

May I suggest that the Government might consider another variant and describe the Royal Botanic Gardens as the "Royal Botanic Gardens at Kew"? The words "at Kew" would be exlanatory and not part of their title—to which some exception might be taken.

Earl Ferrers

With regard to the latter point, I think we should still be in the same confusion if the title was to be the "Royal Botanic Gardens at Kew" which would be the legal entity, whereas in fact the Royal Botanic Gardens at Kew would also be operating in Wakehurst Place. I think that to avoid confusion the title would have to be kept as it is. I understand the predicament of the noble Earl, Lord Perth, when he reminds us that there is a Scottish Royal Botanic Garden—a very eminent one, too. Following the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, I would not wish to do anything to offend Scotland. I am sure that nothing in this Bill would do that; because one must remember that the Bill makes it clear that its provisions do not extend to Scotland or to Northern Ireland and the Royal Botanic Gardens in Edinburgh are the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Scotland. At present there is no reason to think that there should be any change in that respect.

When the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, says that he hopes the policy will continue to be the same, I think that we shall probably come to this a little later on, for, of course, the policy inevitably will become the responsibility of the trustees. There is no particular reason to think that it will change. Clearly one cannot give an overriding assurance that it will never change, but it will be the responsibility of the trustees.

The Earl of Perth

I am not entirely happy about this. Do I understand it now that there are two Royal Botanic Gardens of equal status? Or is the noble Earl saying that the Royal Botanic Gardens in Scotland is not really a Royal Botanic Gardens or that we have got to qualify it in some way? This is a Bill which is dealing with England. Why cannot we make it the "Royal Botanic Gardens of England"?

Earl Ferrers

I certainly do not hold any overridingly strong views on it. All that I was trying to explain is that the Bill makes it perfectly clear that it refers only to England and that the Royal Botanic Garden at Edinburgh will still remain the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Scotland. Certainly I will look at the point which the noble Earl has put forward. If there are overriding reasons to alter it, we shall certainly take the point into account.

Lord Strabolgi

I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Perth, and to my noble friend Lord Jenkins for their support. I think that the suggestions that have been made by the noble Earl merit consideration by the Government. The Government should get this right because it is causing concern in Scotland, and I think they ought to be sensitive about it and not assume, as the noble Earl has said, that these are the only Royal Botanic Gardens in the United Kingdom. Therefore, I 758 hope that the noble Earl will consult with his right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and see whether something to define that these gardens are in England should be put in the Bill. I am glad to note the noble Earl's undertaking and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Earl Ferrers

The concern which my noble friend Lord Craigton has reflected is a very proper one. It is that those appointed as trustees should be fully equipped with the knowledge and experience to 759 participate in the running of the Royal Botanic Gardens. He said that the phraseology of his amendment was deliberately imprecise. In fact, it may be a little too precise. I would tell him that I would be prepared to accept this amendment in principle, but that I should like to have an opportunity to reflect on the exact wording of the amendment to ensure that it is technically correct and that it is drafted so as to cover all the types of knowledge and experience which we shall need, and at the same time is not inadvertently restrictive.

I think that the reference will need to be to the Minister of Agriculture and not to the Secretary of State. I am also a trifle worried about the word "responsibilities"; because if this is taken to refer back only to the list of functions which are at Clause 22(1) it could be too curtailing. For example, experience in finance or management or in industrial relations could all be very useful attributes in trustees and any amendment which is put into the Bill, I would suggest, should not imply an exclusion. It may be that the Minister should have regard to the desirability of the person having knowledge or experience which is relevant to the functions and management of the Royal Botanic Gardens. I think the wording needs to be carefully considered. If my noble friend Lord Craigton would be prepared to withdraw his amendment, I will give this matter more thought and come up with an appropriate Government amendment at a later stage.

Lord Craigton

The Minister has rehearsed all the arguments and difficulties that I had in preparing this amendment. In view of what he has said, I have much pleasure in asking the Committee to allow me to withdraw it.

The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Wootton of Abinger)

Is it the noble Lord's intention that Amendments Nos. 79 to 83 should not be moved?

Lord Jenkins of Putney

That is right.

Earl Ferrers

My noble friend is quite right when he says that Kew has its finger on the pulse of what is happening throughout the world. He stressed during his speech on Second Reading the international importance of the gardens in the study of the world plant situation. I would certainly accept that this international role is an important facet of the activities, and must remain so. I remind the Committee that the Bill states in Clause 22(1)—in some detail—the functions of the gardens, and that Schedule 1, paragraph 29, as it stands obliges the board to report regularly on the exercise of these functions. This will inevitably require information on 761 the situation on plants in other parts of the world. I am sure the board will be fully aware of the need to make its account of these matters in the report as comprehensive as it can.

If my noble friend's amendment was adopted, the report would need to go further than this. The board would be obliged to give comprehensive statements of the world's situation in relation to any function which it might have carried out. That in turn might involve them in considerable extra work in assessing and reporting on the world situation. I do not think that that is the intention which my noble friend has in mind, but that would be the result.

The trustees under the Bill as it is at the moment would not be excluded from describing the world situation where they consider it appropriate; but it would be imprudent to place on them a statutory imposition to do this in each of their reports. I hope that my noble friend will think that, in view of what I have said, the Bill would be best left as it is with the obligation not placed upon them to do this in every report but leaving it to the judgment of the trustees whose knowledge and conscientiousness I have no doubt will enable them to do this at every moment where they think it appropriate.

Lord Jenkins of Putney

I think that I find myself on the side of the Government in this matter. It appears to me that the purpose of the subsection is to make sure that any question of increasing the fees charged would be subject to very careful attention. I should have thought that, if this subsection were left out, it would leave the trustees a freer hand in the matter. This is one point on which I feel they should not have that free hand. If that is the purpose of the amendment, I would be on the Government's side rather than on that of the amendment.

Lord Craigton

I do not think the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, was speaking to this amendment. However, I am afraid that I am not entirely satisfied with my noble friend's answer. I know that what is said on the Front Bench is going to be done. If it is all done—and so many of us have heard this so often—that is fine and grand. But if at the gardens anybody with a narrow, restricted view were to read exactly what the Bill as drafted now says, then I really believe that he could restrict that information which is so vital to the rest of the world. We are not talking about Britain; we are talking about world functions. We are talking about the destruction of the forests, and all sorts of things which may not be a function of Kew Gardens but are a function of the connections that they have with Kew Gardens, and it is up to them. They are better able than anyone else to report to the world how things are going on, what is the tendency, what are the trends. I am not satisfied with this situation.

I should like the Minister to take this away and to draft this amendment in a way which makes it absolutely certain that, within reason, the exercise of their functions is in a world context and not in the context of Britain. The way that the Bill is now drafted, that is how it could be read by somebody who wanted to read it that way.

Lord Jenkins of Putney

The noble Lord is quite right. What I said earlier related to the next amendment and not to this one. Therefore may I withdraw what I said and regard it as being said next time?

Earl Ferrers

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, for explaining his difficulty. I hope that it will not prevent him from saying what he said again, otherwise I may forget what he said. My noble friend Lord Craigton is always persuasive. Of course, I shall take this amendment back and look at it to see whether there are any ways in which we can meet what he wishes. However, I remind him of this fact: if we put this imposition on the trustees in making their report, the amendment means that the Bill will read: The Board shall make to the Minister a report on the exercise of their functions and the current world situation related to them". If we put that imposition on the trustees, they may well find themselves obliged to go to considerable extra work and expense in order to find out what the world situation is when they come to report on something which they have done which may have an impact or a part to play in the world situation. I would have the fear that my noble friend's words, if put into the Bill, would actually impose something on the trustees which they may not wish and which may prove to be considerably expensive. I should have thought that at present it would be better not to have those words in, but I will certainly consider what my noble friend has said.

Lord Craigton

If my noble friend is talking about extra expense, I must remind him that what we are talking about is saving the world. Man is destroying many of the living things of the world, and, if preventing that involves extra work and extra expense, of course we should be prepared to pay for it. But, in view of what he has said, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Lord Simon of Glaisdale

In view of the fact that the noble Lord has not moved his amendment and the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, has already spoken to it although it has not been moved, perhaps I could raise a drafting query on this clause relating to subsection (8).

Under subsection (1)(f), the board is under a duty to afford for members of the public opportunities to enter. Under subsection (2)(c) the board may, subject to the provisions of this Act, require payment for certain things which do not include entry.

If one compares a similar provision for Clause 2, which is Section 3, one sees there that the board is given a specific power to charge for entry, and the change in terminology would certainly seem to have some legal significance; but when one turns to 763 subsection (8) it says that the Board shall not set without the Minister's consent and the Treasury's approval, the fees charged for such entry.

The noble Earl will tell me if I am wrong, but presumably that entry is the entry referred to in s