National Heritage Bill [H.L.]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Energy (the Earl of Avon)

My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now further considered on Report.

Baroness Birk

moved Amendment No. 40: Page 25, leave out lines 4 and 5 and insert— ("(2) Subject to sub-paragraphs (3), (4) and (5), the trustees shall be appointed by the Secretary of State.") The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I think that it will make better sense if I also speak to Amendments Nos. 43 and 44. The object of these amendments is to enable the Prime Minister to appoint the chairman of the trustees. Noble Lords will remember that when we debated this matter in Committee, Members from all parts felt that the Armouries Museum, which is now being devolved and being made a trustee museum of its own, should be treated in the same way as the other devolved museums and therefore that the chairman and the trustees should be appointed by the Prime Minister. This is felt very keenly by the Master of the Armouries and by other people concerned.

Since the Armouries in the Tower of London is the oldest national museum in Britain, and the major part to its collection consists of the personal weapons and 520 arms of our sovereigns, it was felt that the appointment should be consistent with those of other museums and therefore should be appointed at the highest level. In Committee, the Minister in his reply pointed out that the reason why the Government were objecting to this was that the Armouries Museum was part of the Tower of London. and the fabric and upkeep of the Tower of London came under the Department of the Environment. With great respect, I do not think that this is relevant. The fabric of most of the other trustee museums—in fact all of them—comes under the Department of the Environment, as I know from the time when I was a Minister in that department.

Therefore, these amendments are to effect a compromise, leaving the appointment of the trustees generally to the Secretary of State, but providing that the chairman of the trustees should be appointed by the Prime Minister. This I think would give a fillip to the Armouries, the Master of the Armouries and the people concerned, and would also not make them feel, as they do at the moment. that they are being rather denigrated and made to be rather second-class museum citizens as they are in a different position from the others. I beg to move.

Lord Montagu of Beaulieu

My Lords, in supporting this amendment may I say that it may be recalled that on Committee stage we had a Division about this amendment. As a compromise, the point that the noble Baroness, Lady Birk. has raised was suggested: that, even if the Secretary of State continues to appoint the trustees, perhaps the chairman should be appointed by the Prime Minister. It may seem that the Armouries are taking unnecessary umbrage and feeling that they are being put on a lower status. That is a matter of opinion. Nevertheless, they feel this and one has to take into consideration their feelings. Certainly in view of the fact that the Armouries have an important place in this Bill it appears rather strange that they are treated so differently. I hope that the appointment of the chairman by the Prime Minister can he accepted, even if the Secretary of State continues to appoint the other trustees.

The Earl of Avon

My Lords, as the noble Baroness and my noble friend Lord Montagu have said, these amendments provide either that the Prime Minister shall appoint the chairman or that the Prime Minister shall appoint the first chairman but only appoint subsequent chairmen after consultation with the trustees. At Committee we discussed the question of prime ministerial involvement in appointments, and on a Division the Committee showed themselves in favour of leaving appointments at the Armouries in the hands of the Secretary of State for the Environment. Under both these amendments, the Secretary of State will appoint the majority of the trustees. I can see no good reason why he should not appoint the chairman. The Government continue to believe that the arrangements adopted in the Bill are the best.

Since the Committee stage I have pursued this subject with my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. The Government still feel that he is the appropriate person to appoint the chairman. I reiterate what I said in Committee: there 521 has been a close relationship between the department and the Armouries. This must inevitably continue as the Tower will be still managed by the Department of the Environment. I do not feel that the Armouries need a fillip. They have a great standing of their own. I do not believe that the standing of the Armouries should be in any way impinged by our discussions this afternoon. One might even say that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State might be getting rather worried about his own standing.

The Government wish to stress that our decision in no way affects the standing of the Armouries. We recognise their international repute. It is simply more convenient and more straightforward. If the noble Baroness is not prepared to withdraw her amendment, I shall be happy to abide by the wish of the House.

Baroness Birk

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his very clear and concise explanation of this issue. With great respect, it is all very well for him to say that this does not mean that they are any lesser bodies; it does not mean this and that. The point is that this is the way the people concerned feel. Speaking personally, one can argue that it may not necessarily make all that difference whether it is the Secretary of State. This could apply to all the museums or just to the Armouries. It is unfortunate. It is a very narrow view that the Government are taking over this matter, because it really is nonsense. I have discussed this with a wide range of people who have a great deal of experience and a diversity of views on the whole question of the museums. To say that its tie-up with the Department of the Environment means that the chairman of the trustees cannot be appointed or should not be appointed by the Prime Minister is, quite frankly, nonsense. However, as we have voted already so far as the trustees are concerned, and as I imagine so many people who are not in the Chamber at the moment would come in and vote against the amendment, as they did before, I shall not take up the time of the House. I hope that in another place they will think that it makes more sense and shows more humanity and sensitivity if they take the line which the noble Lord and I have put forward. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

The Earl of Avon

moved Amendment No. 42: Page 25, line 8, at end insert— ("(4A) In appointing any trustee, the Secretary of State shall have regard to the desirability of the person's having knowledge or experience of arms, armour, the Tower, management. administration, or any other subject knowledge or experience of which would be of use to the Board in exercising their functions.") The noble Earl said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment last Thursday when I moved Amendment No. 4. I beg to move.

The Earl of Avon

moved Amendment No. 48: Page 25, line 22, leave out from first ("chairman") to end of line 23. 522 The noble Earl said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment when I moved Amendment No. 7. I beg to move.

The Earl of Avon

moved Amendment No. 51: Page 26, line 27, at end insert—

Lord Beaumont of Whitley

moved Amendment No. 56: Page 26, line 40, at end insert— ("( ) Each report shall include a statement of action taken by the Board to promote the use of the Armouries by disabled people."). The noble Lord said: My Lords. I spoke to this on a previous amendment. I understand that this is one of the amendments which the Government have undertaken to make in some form or another. Since that is so, I beg to move.

The Earl of Avon

moved Amendment No. 59: Page 27, leave out lines 1 to 4. The noble Earl said: My Lords, I spoke to this with Amendment No. 12. I beg to move.

The Earl of Avon

moved Amendment No. 60: Page 10, line 23, at end insert— ("(4A) For so long as the Board have a right to occupy premises in the Tower, and so far as otherwise practicable, they shall secure that an exhibition of arms, armour and associated objects from among their collection is maintained and open to the public in those premises."). The noble Earl said: This amendment seeks to ensure that so far as possible the trustees of the Armouries maintain an exhibition, as they have traditionally done, within the Tower of London. Noble Lords will recall the discussion we had on this question at Committee stage. I said then that, unfortunately, we were unable to accept the amendment of my noble friend Lord Montagu which would have required the trustees to display a major part of that collection at the Tower because, without having an express right in the Bill to occupy premises at the Tower, the trustees would be given a duty which they had no power to fulfil.

I hope your Lordships will agree that we have found a way round this difficulty by giving them a duty to maintain an exhibition at the Tower for so long as they have a right to occupy premises there. If they have an agreement to use part of the Tower for their collection, as we fully intend they shall, then they must maintain an exhibition there. The amendment makes it clear that the exhibition must be open to the public. The amendment itself does not attempt to define the extent of the exhibition at the Tower, for that would seem to be unnecessary. I am sure that the Tower will remain the centre of the Armouries exhibition. I hope that noble Lords will agree that this is a good solution. I beg to move.

Lord Montagu of Beaulieu

My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for moving this amendment. It certainly covers the points that I raised on Committee and will ensure that the connection between the Armouries and the Tower of London will last as it should last.

Baroness Birk

My Lords, may I welcome this amendment which covers broadly the ground that the noble Lord and myself were anxious to get established.

Earl Ferrers

moved Amendment No. 61: Page 13, line I at end insert (" . Kew") The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 61. It may be convenient to the House if I speak to Amendments Nos. 62, 65, 67, 71, 156, 157 and 163 at the same time. At the Committee stage, there was a certain amount of discussion as to the name which should be given to the Royal Botanic Gardens. The noble Lord. Lord Strabolgi, suggested that they should be called the "Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew". At that time I intimated, possibly a trifle injudiciously, that there was little point in adding the address in order to make it clear.

The noble Earl, Lord Perth. suggested that they should be named the "Royal Botanic Gardens of England". It was in order to differentiate them from Edinburgh that he suggested adding the words "of England". I did say that we would consider the arguments made in Committee and, having done so, I conclude that Lord Strabolgi's suggestion of "The Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew" is the best. I might add that I was very grateful to your Lordships for the advice given and, as your Lordships will see, the Government, as usual, took it. I would only add that I think it was Sir Winston Churchill who once said that periodically one has to make a meal of one's own words; and I think that he added, "And not an unwholesome diet, either".

The amendment that I am proposing is that the institution should be known as the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew. It is also necessary to include a small addition at the end of Clause 22 to ensure that there is no confusion about the powers of the board. These words make it clear that these powers go wider than just the location of Kew Gardens itself. If they were not added, it might be questionable whether the board had the power to continue its present activities at Wakehurst Place or any other location in the future. I am grateful for your Lordships' suggestions. I hope that your Lordships will approve the amendment that I move.

The Earl of Perth

My Lords, I am sure that I am also speaking for the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, although he is not here, in thanking the noble Earl. Lord Ferrers, for the amendment. I think that "Kew" is totally appropriate. If I did suggest, "of England", it was because I wanted to make sure that there was no muddle between England and Scotland which both have their botanic gardens. Ours is the Royal Botanic Gardens, Edinburgh; here it is the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew. I thank the noble Earl very much for making the necessary change.

Baroness David

My Lords, in the absence of my noble friend Lord Strabolgi may I say that I know that he is very pleased that this has happened, and I would say how grateful we are to the Minister.

Earl Ferrers

moved Amendment No. 62: Page 27, line 8, after ("Gardens") insert (", Kew,"). The noble Earl said: My Lords, this amendment goes with Amendment No. 61. I beg to move.

Earl Ferrers

moved Amendment No. 63: Page 27, line 31, at end insert— ("(2A) In appointing any trustee, the Minister shall have regard to the desirability of the person's having knowledge or experience of the science of plants or any related subject, management, administration, or any other subject knowledge or experience of which would be of use to the Board in exercising their functions."). The noble Earl said: My Lords, this amendment is consequential upon Amendment No. 1. I beg to move.

Earl Ferrers

moved Amendment No. 64: Page 27, line 42, leave out from first ("chairman") to end of line 43. The noble Earl said: My Lord, this amendment is consequential upon Amendment No. 7. I beg to move.

Earl Ferrers

moved Amendment No. 65: Page 28, line 4, at end insert (", Kew,"). The noble Earl said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 61. I beg to move.

Earl Ferrers

moved Amendment No. 67: Page 28, line 22, after ("Gardens') insert (", Kew,"). The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is another consequential amendment following Amendment No. 61. I beg to move.

Lord Beaumont of Whitley

moved Amendment No. 69: Page 29, line 17, at end insert— ("( ) Each report shall include a statement of action taken by the Board to promote the use of the Royal Botanic Gardens by disabled people.") The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is one of the amendments to which I have spoken previously and which I understand is accepted. I beg to move.

Earl Ferrers

moved Amendment No. 70: Page 29, leave out lines 25 to 30. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 68. I beg to move.

Earl Ferrers

moved Amendment No. 71: Page 14, line 27, at end insert— (" (10) The Board's name shall not be taken to confine their activities to Kew."). 527 The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is consequential on Amendment No. 61. I beg to move.

Baroness Birk

moved Amendment No. 72: Page 17, line 3, leave out ("Commission for Ancient Monuments and Historic Buildings") and insert ("Heritage Commission"). The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 73 because they are alternatives. Noble Lords will recall that we had a long and lively debate at Committee stage as to what this new Commission should he called. It was generally felt from all parts of the Committee that to call it the "the Commission for Ancient Monuments and Historic Buildings" and then try to gather together those initials, and then use them for everyday usage or for answering the telephone, would be an enormous mouthful and would probably be reduced to something else which was not perhaps as good as would be obtained by considering the matter in advance. One of the problems was that, on the whole, everybody rather disliked the idea of having to use the word "heritage" but could not come up with an alternative. We have all since been rushing about consulting Fowler and the OED and anything else we could lay our hands on, but we are still left with this word "heritage". It is having a rather bad time at the moment, because on the whole it is rather a good word which means very much what it says.

There were other problems associated with this, and one was that a title should not be chosen which would either conflict or cause confusion with the National Heritage Memorial Fund. I am very glad, incidentally, to see the noble Lord, Lord Charteris, is in his place this afternoon. When this was discussed informally he indicated that he personally did not feel that the Heritage Commission would have that effect. Since then I have thought further about this, and it seems to me there is probably a better case for calling it the Heritage Conservation Commission. The reason is that we are talking about conservation and preservation and we shall be coming on to the functions later on. Nevertheless, preservation and conservation are the main functions of this new body, it seems to me. The two words are very similar but I think that "preservation" rather has the connotation of keeping something in its original state—in a way, sometimes, almost pickling it—hut it would certainly apply to archaeology.

One talks of "preserving" a tree, while one would perhaps talk of "conserving" a forest. We talk about preserving wildlife and in the countryside conservation context we would often use the word "preservation" as an alternative to "conservation". The advantage of using the word "conservation" is, first, I think, that "ancient monuments and historic buildings" is not by any means fully descriptive of the scope that the new commission will have, because it also has to look after those parts of cities, towns and villages where listed buildings are found grouped together in conservation areas and where their repair can be grant-aided under town schemes or where conservation area grants can 528 be used. Also, of course, it deals with archaeological work. Conservation, unlike preservation, also indicates the use of buildings for purposes other than their original purposes. That is how we are able to save so many of our buildings; for example, by converting old and redundant churches for other use and also converting old warehouses and so on.

The Conservation Commission was my first thought, and then I realised that that would again open it wide to the countryside or to nature, whereas Heritage Conservation Commission seems to me to carry both sides of it—and, quite frankly, unless we keep this long and perhaps not very accurate name for the new commission the width of the work of the new commission is not indicated. Therefor, if we take out "heritage" we are left with something rather woolly. On the other hand, "heritage conservation" pins it down very much more to what this whole commission is about. It also removes it, I think, from any possible confusion with the National Heritage Memorial Fund. Personally, having considered both of those, I would plump for the second of them. However, I should like to hear what other speakers have to say. I beg to move.

Lord Simon of Glaisdale

One can argue endlessly about a name. Your Lordships will remember that the great philosopher Bradley described metaphysics as finding bad reasons for what we believe instinctively. The noble Baroness, it seems to me, has given some very good reasons, but in the end it is a matter of impression. I am bound to say that "Heritage Conservation Commission" seems to me entirely felicitous.

Lord Montagu of Beaulieu

My Lords, we had a discussion on this at Committee stage and I think it was generally agreed that the present title is rather long and clumsy. It is also generally agreed by many people, inside and outside your Lordships' House, that the word "heritage" is a very over-worked word at the moment. Nevertheless, the fact that nobody likes it at the moment does not mean that it will not become even more respectable as the years go on. Indeed, perhaps the commission will make it more respectable, apart from anything else; so I hope that some further thought will be given to this, because it is a great mouthful and it is going to he abbreviated anyway. I think we may as well try to encourage people to use an expression which is sensible.

Lord Charteris of Amisfield

My Lords, if I may say something as chairman of the National Heritage Memorial Fund, we do not want to be dogs in the manger about the word "heritage". However. although, as the noble Baroness said, I did on a previous informal occasion say that we did not really mind whether it was called the Heritage Commission or not, I think that, on consideration, I should like to take those words back. The disadvantage of using the word "heritage" is, first, that I think, whatever happens, it is liable to get the new commission muddled up with us. Secondly, "heritage", as we understand it, has so much wider a connotation than the various things which will be looked after by the new commission. That has been demonstrated by what we have been able to do during the two and a half years of our existence, when we have grant-aided not 529 only buildings but a various and wide selection of museum objects—pictures and things like the Kennet Ciborium. We have also grant-aided the last active "blanket mire" in Europe near Blar-nam-Froileag and other bits of delightful wilderness, to say nothing of the habitat of the Greater Horseshoe Bat. Therefore I think it would be much better if we did not use the word "heritage" in the title.

Baroness Airey of Abingdon

My Lords, I should like to support my noble friend Lord Charteris. If we use the word "heritage", there are already two organisations—one besides ours—and everyone knows the National Heritage Memorial Fund. Surely, if we had a third one using the word "heritage" there could be great confusion. I do agree with my noble friend that what we have grant-aided goes extremely wide. I should like to add to the things that he has mentioned, for instance, Wimpole Avenue, an aeroplane and the famous vehicle "Bluebird", which everyone knows about, and also the manuscript of Tennyson's In Memoriam. Our scope is very wide, and the suggested title could cause confusion with an organisation which is more specialised. Therefore I should like to join my noble friend Lord Charteris in opposing the use of the word "heritage".

Lord Mancroft

My Lords, may I ask your Lordships to remember the debate that we had when the word "ombudsman" first came before us? Everybody complained about it: it was an ugly word; nobody would know what it meant; and it was not even English. Despite all that, that is the word which everybody now uses and I doubt whether there is one Member in 10 of your Lordships' House who knows what the correct legal definition of "ombudsman" is. May we therefore decide that whatever we eventually call this new commission, however ugly it be, it must be something that the public are going to call it, and let us remember that "ombudsman", ugly though it is, is what the public now says.

Lord Kennet

My Lords, may I point out that "ombudsman" has three syllables whereas Conservation Heritage Commission has 10? This is, of course, the difference; and if anybody could find three syllables for this one how grateful the House would be.

Lord Cottlesloe

My Lords, may I point out, leaving aside any question of the Ombudsman, that, if this is simply called the Heritage Commission, it is concerned with only a part of the heritage, the preservation of ancient monuments and historic buildings in England. The word "heritage" has a much wider scope, and it would be better to define it as it is defined in the Bill as drafted.

Lord Sandford

My Lords, I support the amendment we are discussing and go for the shortest of the alternatives proposed, for two reasons. First, it is quite unthinkable that the title proposed in the Bill will last for more than a week or two. If one attempts to use it either in its full form or in its abbreviated form for more than a few minutes one can realise that. The second is to rebut the point being made about 530 "heritage" being too wide a term for things covered by the Bill. If that were so, the Bill would not be called the Heritage Bill. Nobody objects to that, and if nobody objects to the Bill being called the Heritage Bill why on earth should the commission not be called the Heritage Commission?

But on the substance of "heritage" being too wide a term, in the sense it is used in the Bill, is it really true to say that the historic buildings do not contain almost all the elements with which the other bodies deal? In this Bill we are concerned with land: we are concerned with pictures; we are concerned-with furniture; we are concerned with gardens. What aspect of the heritage does not come into the things with which the commission will have to deal? I strongly urge the House to support Amendment No. 72.

Lord Skelmersdale

My Lords, when your Lordships discussed this question at the last stage my noble friend Lord Avon agreed to consider all the ideas and points put forward in that debate. The Government were open to suggestion, and continue to be so, about this important and rather difficult matter. If I may put in a "plug" for the team on the Bill so far. perhaps I might say that the difficult we manage to do at once, the impossible takes consultation. However, having considered everything that was said before and is now being said, I am still not convinced that any of the ideas that your Lordships have come up with is better than the title we have now. But I agree that it is by no means perfect. It is rather long and rather solemn—my noble friend Lord Montagu made that point—hut it has the most unusual virtue of being accurate.

My noble friend Lord Avon spoke before of the doubts about the word "heritage", and these have been exemplified by some of the contributions this afternoon. The noble Lord, Lord Charteris, and my noble friend Lady Airey do not like "heritage". The Government do not like "heritage" either, despite the point made by my noble friend Lord Sandford, who said: this is called the Heritage Bill, so why should not the commission be called the Heritage Commission? The answer is that the Bill falls basically into two parts; one concerns what one might call general heritage and the other is about the commission, which may or may not include heritage. The importance, as we see it, is that whatever the commission ends up being called it should have a title which is descriptive of what it is trying to achieve.

At the last stage my noble friend Lord Sandford invented a splendidly complex acronym for the title, using all its initials, but the Government feel that this could be shortened to CAMHB, standing for the Commission for Ancient Monuments and Historic Buildings. That would surely be known as "Cambie" in common parlance, which is a perfectly acceptable set of letters. At the moment, the Government believe that the title should be left as it is, and I hope that the noble Baroness and the noble Lord will not feel it necessary to press to a Division either this or the next amendment. I emphasise that this discussion is going on, and will go on, but I really cannot see, at the moment, a sensible outcome.

Baroness Birk

My Lords, it is interesting to hear the contributions from the House. I am grateful for the support from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, and the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, who I think hit the nail on the head in many of the points he made. I am not sure whether the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, was or was not supporting me. If, as he says, one gets used to a word, it seems to me that it is very much easier and simpler to get used to saying "Heritage Commission" rather than saying, "Commission for Ancient Monuments and Historic Buildings". It is not a question of a strange word but of a string of words.

I would have been inclined to leave it for the moment, but I do not think I am going to do that. The reason I am not going to do that is because everybody who has spoken, and those who have not spoken, have not come up with any alternative at all. They all agree that this is a very clumsy vehicle to use—"Ancient Monuments and Historic Buildings". They say that they are not keen on the word "heritage", but again this is something which explains exactly what the Bill is about. I have the feeling so far that, of the two, "Heritage Commission" seems to get rather more support than "Heritage Conservation Commission". For myself, I do not mind either of those two. I thought the name "Heritage Commission" in fact pinpointed it rather more. I feel I am not prepared to leave it to some thoughts coming up in the future, when so far nothing has arisen except saying, "We do not really like the Long Title but we will leave it as it is". I do not think that is the way to legislate.

Taking up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, I agree with him that it is also perfectly true that once one has chosen a title such as this, which is either one or two words—and, in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, "Heritage Commission" has fewer syllables than "Heritage Conservation Commission"—people quickly know what it means and what it is about. They know quite distinctly that this is quite different from the National Heritage Memorial Commission. It may well be that our pressing the amendment will also stimulate even more thought-buds in the lexical area of the Government's collective brain, and that they will then come forward with something else.

Thus, at this moment. I intend to press the amendment to see what is the feeling of the House. I hope that those who may not be entirely satisfied with the name "Heritage Commission" will support it even on the basis that it should be used as a catalyst to try to get the right wording. If, before we move to a Division, any noble Lord wants to speak out and show a preference for "Heritage Conservation Commission", I should be happy with either of those alternatives.

The Earl of Perth

My Lords, before there is any question of a Division, I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, that I was worried when I heard the noble Lord. Lord Charteris, say that he was worried that "heritage" could cause confusion with his own council. Would it not be sufficient if the Government said, "We are prepared, before Third Reading, to listen to any other good name and would be ready for someone to introduce it"? If we were to divide now on 532 the word "heritage", not being able to find a different name I, for one, would vote with the Government against the word "heritage" at this stage.

Baroness Birk

With the leave of the House, may I say that I omitted to ask the noble Lord, Lord Charteris, before he sat down, whether he felt the same objection applied to "Heritage Conservation Commission" as he felt applied to "Heritage Commission". I am sorry I overlooked that point.

Lord Charteris of Amisfield

My Lords, I think that my real objection is to the use of the word "Heritage". "Heritage Conservation" I find rather less objectionable than the other title.

Lord Skelmersdale

My Lords, with the leave of the House, just to answer the noble Earl, Lord Perth, I hope I made it clear that the Government's mind is entirely open on this matter. Therefore, there is no pressing case for him to vote with the noble Baroness.

Lord Kennet

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I think that the whole House has paid the greatest attention to what the noble Lord, Lord Charteris, has said. But he said in his first intervention that he did not want to be dog in the manger about it, which I suppose, to put it in strictly statutory terms. was not an overwhelming objection. I should like to add that, if we are going to effect any change, it should be a change towards the shorter form "Heritage Commission" rather than towards "Heritage Conservation Commission", which is almost as unsayable as the existing title, although it contains fewer words. So I would urge the House to go for "Heritage Commission" now. I think that within a very few months of its coming into operation the slight difference in the range covered by, on the one hand, the National Heritage Fund and, on the other hand, the Heritage Commission will become quite familiar to all those who are at all concerned with these matters.

Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal

My Lords, may I ask the Minister three questions?

The Earl of Avon

No, my Lords. This is Report.

Baroness Birk

He has not spoken, my Lords.

Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal

My Lords, I have not spoken before. Is it suggested that I have, and that I am therefore out of order?

The Earl of Avon

No, My noble friend cannot answer.

Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal

In that case, I will leave it.

Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal

moved Amendment No. 74: Page 30, line 43, leave out ("not") The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a repeat of an amendment which we discussed at the Committee stage. It deals with the very important issue of the tax régime under which the commission will operate. At the Committee stage we were somewhat surprised when the noble Earl said that the question of the tax régime was still under consideration. However, speaking for myself, I was also very gratified when the noble Earl said that he would be doing his best to secure Treasury agreement to some of the suggestions which were made on all sides of the Committee. The noble Earl promised to put down a number of amendments to support the undertakings which he had given. Unfortunately, those amendments have not been forthcoming. I thought, therefore, that we ought to run the amendment again.

Of course, one sympathises with the noble Earl the Minister in having to negotiate with the Treasury and try to tie it down. I hope he will be able to tell us how far he has got in that difficult and taxing—perhaps I should not use the word "taxing"—in that difficult and demanding task.

Before we hear what the noble Earl has to say, there are two points which I should like to make. I believe that it is very important not to create a kind of merry-go-round situation whereby the commission find themselves paying out taxes with one hand and then drawing them back in the form of grants-in-aid from the Treasury with the other. The only beneficiaries will be Treasury civil servants. This Government are devoted to the notion of reducing the number of civil servants, something which certainly I support wholeheartedly.

Secondly—I believe we said this once before, but it has to be said again—it is important to create a tax régime for the commission which is the equivalent of charitable status, so that anybody who wishes to give money to the commission will be satisfied that the Treasury is not going to get its hooks on any donations which are given. The commission therefore need to be in at least as good a situation as a charity would be.

Having made those two points, I had better hear what the Minister has to say. I beg to move.

The Earl of Avon

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for giving me this opportunity and for introducing his amendment in such a mild manner. Very seldom has such a short amendment been about to get such a large response.

535 When we discussed a similar amendment from my noble friend at the Committee stage I said that the Government were urgently considering the question of taxation. I am pleased to say that we have made considerable progress. It might be useful to the House if I outlined the tax régime which we should like to apply to the commission.

The Government's concern has been to create for the commission a tax régime appropriate to its status and to the nature of its responsibilities and operations. It is clear that, as several speakers said in Committee, it would be wholly inappropriate for the commission to be regarded for all taxation purposes as if it were a private sector company. On the other hand, the answer is not simply to exempt the commission from all taxes, duties and levies. Such tax exemptions would outstrip the merits of the case and would be far in excess of anything available to any other body, even the Crown.

The Government have carefully considered what form of exemption is most appropriate. The commission's primary aim will be the preservation of the national heritage, and its activities and purposes will be most closely parallel with those of a charity. Like a charity, it will attract significant private donations. Indeed, similar bodies, such as the National Trust, are charities and enjoy the tax benefits which charitable status brings. The Government recognise and have therefore decided in principle that the commission should he, for the purposes of taxation, treated in the same way as charities. I should stress that this does not mean that the commission will be a charity, but only that it will be treated in a similar fashion by the Inland Revenue.

As I explained in Committee, the situation with regard to charitable status is complex and there is some uncertainty as to whether the commission's full range of functions is wholly compatible with charitable status, particularly as regards the commission's quasi-governmental functions. The Government recognise, however, that these difficulties should not debar the commission from the most appropriate tax treatment. There is precedent for such arrangements. Similar provisions were made for the National Heritage Memorial Fund which, like the commission, is clearly on a par with charitable bodies but which has a closeness to Government which renders charitable status inappropriate.

I cannot at this stage give a detailed exposition of the mechanics of such arrangements, which will have to be tailored closely to the specifics of the commission's operations and finances. I am, however, aware of the justifiable interest of the House in these matters at this stage. and it might be useful if I set out the tax treatment of the National Heritage Memorial Fund which, as I have already said, sets a precedent for this type of arrangement.

The fund is, as are charities, exempt from income and corporation tax on income arising out of activities related to its main purposes: from capital gains tax, development land tax, national insurance surcharge: and from stamp duties on sales or transfers to the fund. Private donations by way of covenant—a point which my noble friend raised—are treated as if they were 536 covenants to a charity. The fund is also listed, by virtue of the Finance Act 1980, in the Finance Act 1975 as one of the national institutions to which beneficial capital transfer tax and capital gains tax arrangements apply. These exempt transfers to the fund from capital transfer tax and offer capital gains tax concessions to vendors to the fund. The National Heritage Memorial Fund does, of course, pay VAT, but this is no different from charities.

The Government have therefore in principle decided that the most appropriate course is to follow the National Heritage Memorial Fund example and to put the commission on a par with charities for the purposes of taxation. This would not require the commission to be a charity. The necessary legislation will be introduced in this year's Finance Bill.

Lord Montagu of Beaulieu

My Lords, as one of the Members of your Lordships' House who raised this matter in Committee, I should like to thank the noble Earl for his most satisfactory statement. It is one which I warmly welcome. I am sure that the comparison which has been made with the National Heritage Memorial Fund is a very good one, because that is working so well. Another very good reason is that it is most important for the public to have confidence that the new commission is working for the national benefit as a whole and that no tax of any sort, which would simply go round in circles, will have to be paid. Therefore I warmly welcome the noble Earl's statement, and I am sure that the whole House will welcome it, too.

Baroness Birk

My Lords, while welcoming the charitable aspects of the statement which the Minister has outlined, which put the commission in line with the National Heritage Memorial Fund, I ought perhaps to point out that some other aspects have not been covered. These will cause considerable anxiety and will create hardship for the commission. I have not seen in print the Minister's statement, but I believe he said that so far as taxation otherwise is concerned the commission will be treated just like anybody else will be treated and that VAT and other aspects of taxation, except for the charitable dispositions, will not be affected. I shall not go into VAT on this occasion. Nevertheless, for many years many of us have felt very strongly about the imposition of VAT on the repair and restoration of historic buildings and monuments, because it makes it so costly and often impossible to conserve buildings before it is too late.

Here, there is an added problem. As I understand it. VAT is not paid when the Government own a building. What will happen when some of these buildings are transferred to the commission? Surely the commission should not be left in a worse financial position? In other words, either the commission should be exempted from VAT or have financial assistance in order to be able to pay the tax. Otherwise. how is the commission to be put in funds to pay VAT? Although the refund of any tax paid or monies included in advance for others to use in payment of tax may be made via grant in aid, we need a firm assurance that it will be met in full and is not something that the commission has to find out of its grant in aid generally.

It will be very easy for the commission's financial position to slip quite quickly. The grant in aid which 537 should be used for the real work of conservation, restoration and the running of buildings and monuments may in fact be going back to the Treasury by way of taxation, be it VAT or some other form of tax. This is a basic and very important point; one of the most important questions of resources that we shall be discussing during the passage of this Bill. We need a clear answer to this point, which is an addition and not one covered by the general statement the noble Earl the Minister made. It was only covered in so far as it appears to leave the situation as it is at the moment. It would be quite wrong and difficult for the commission to operate in that financial context, and the commission should not be forced to do so.

Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran

My Lords, as one who intervened at Committee stage in connection with this matter, I warmly welcome the comments made by the noble Earl and thank him for his long and helpful statement in respect of the tax position.

Lord Simon of Glaisdale

My Lords, I too should like to thank the noble Earl for his statement, which seems to be entirely satisfactory. I have only one query. If this state of affairs is going to be enacted, as clearly it must be, I wonder whether the Finance Bill is preferable to this Bill for its enactment? I have in mind the urgency in any event of consolidation. I would have thought that consolidation would be simpler if it were put into this Bill rather than to be plucked out from a Finance Act.

The Earl of Avon

My Lords, with the leave of the house, I will respond to a couple of points. First, I should like to thank the noble Lords who welcomed my statement. The noble Baroness, Lady Birk, concentrated her remarks mainly on VAT. I would like to underline again that the fund is exempt from income and corporation tax on income arising out of activities relating to its main purposes; from capital gains tax; from development land tax; from national insurance surcharge; and from stamp duties on sales or transfers to the fund.

The noble Baroness was mainly concerned about VAT. At present the department pays VAT anyway, and so there is no worsening of the situation. The idea is that the commission will continue to do so. If one looks at taking on an actual building, when one goes to the Treasury part of the cost when one discusses it with them will be VAT on whatever the item is; so the grant in aid will take that element into account in such cases. The noble Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, suggested that it would be better that this were put into this Bill rather than into the Finance Bill. I will take advice on this point. If it is possible to do so, we will try to do it in another place.

Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal

My Lords, may I just pick up on the very last point made by my noble friend Lord Avon. He mentioned another place, but we do have another stage in this Bill yet to come before this House. I had better start by thanking and congratulating my noble friend lest I forget to do so. I do not know what he was doing over Christmas but clearly 538 my noble friend has been very busy. He has done an effective bit of arm-twisting and has given us an extremely satisfactory statement. My noble friend rattled off so many taxes at such a rate that I am sure he will forgive us if most of us want to check Hansard to make sure that he has got them all in and has not left out any which we regard as highly significant; I feel it is very likely that he has not done so.

To revert to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, a slightly different point that worries me is that if this provision goes into a Finance Bill, might not this put us into a situation where the matter is not debatable in your Lordships' House? Having got this far with the amendment, and having made such satisfactory progress on achieving the right tax régime—which is not a simple matter—it will be a pity if there were any elements in it which were not considered perfectly satisfactory and yet we were precluded from discussing the amendments that would be required.

Despite what my noble friend said to me earlier this afternoon, I am perfectly sure that your Lordships will be prepared to give him leave to speak if he wishes to answer this point. My recollection is that this House is very indulgent towards Ministers speaking twice and sometimes even three times at Report stage. If my noble friend can react at all to the question of what could be done at Third Reading, I am sure that we will all be very pleased to hear from him, but I do assure him that there is no intention of pressing this amendment at this juncture.

The Earl of Perth

My Lords, before the noble Earl, Lord Avon, answers his noble friend, may I just check that I understood him aright when he spoke on the question of VAT. I believe that almost everybody in this House dislikes VAT, but there it is. The noble Earl said that in the event of the new commission seeking a grant from the Treasury for some purpose or other, the VAT could be included in the amount required for the grant. If the noble Earl will just reaffirm that, it would give me great comfort, even though I dislike VAT in many other respects.

Lord Hayter

My Lords, is it the intention of the Government to leave the phraseology exactly as it stands in this Bill, and to say that the commission will not be exempt from any duty or any tax when it is given all those concessions? That does not seem to me to make sense.

The Earl of Avon

My Lords, if I may be permitted to respond a third time, your Lordships will see the danger of letting matters go on. In reply to my noble friend Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal, the advice I have is firm, and it is that tax amendments are appropriate to a Finance Bill and this is rather more a problem of getting it ready in time. If this device proves to be in any way faulty, I will see what we can do about bringing these forward more quickly. To the noble Earl, Lord Perth—yes, that is what I said. To the noble Lord, Lord Hayter, who asked whether the Bill should stand as it is now, we have only just completed our negotiations with both the Treasury and the Inland Revenue on this question and I am sure we shall be looking at the Bill to see what now needs to be done.

Lord Geoffrey-Lloyd

My Lords, I should like to join in the welcome given to the remarks made by my noble friend today, although I do so for a reason slightly different from the reasons which have been advanced by other noble Lords. Some of us are very anxious to see the new commission acting like an entrepreneurial charity. We had some doubts before as to whether the tax regime would be suitable for such a role. Therefore, I am very glad that my noble friend has set those doubts at rest, because I believe the arrangement will very much facilitate the enterprising yet charitable role that some of us so much hope to see in the commission.

However, it will be just as well to remind the Treasury and the Inland Revenue that, under the present proposals in the Bill, there is only just under £2 million-worth of revenue from the historical buildings and ancient monuments which is to be transferred, and something like £6 million-worth of revenue coming in from the Tower of London and Hampton Court, and so on, which is being withheld. So at the moment the Government are transferring only 25 per cent. of the income from the historic buildings and monuments. Many of us feel—and there are certainly reactions on the tax régime—that it does not look as if they are taking it really seriously. We should like to see a really important commission and one which would be able, as a result of entrepreneurial success, to do good works for other parts of the heritage; for example, what is so dear to the heart of the noble Baroness, Lady Airey, the preservation of some of the smaller manor houses of England which have not got the opportunity, for a variety of reasons, of being as entrepreneurial as the larger houses.

The Earl of Avon

moved Amendment No. 75: Page 31, line 6, leave out ("13") and insert ("17") The noble Earl said: My Lords, this amendment increases the maximum number of members of the commission from 13 to 17: the minimum remains at eight. This will give the Secretary of State additional flexibility and still allow him to achieve a balance between the need to represent a wide range of expertise and the need to keep the commission small enough to act as an efficient body. We did discuss this question at Committee stage. I beg to move.

Baroness Birk

My Lords, I welcome this amendment very much indeed. I cannot remember whether I moved the amendment but certainly I spoke strongly in favour of having a larger number of commissioners, particularly when they get to the point of setting up committees. I am pleased that the Government have taken this view.

The Earl of Avon

moved Amendment No. 76: Page 31, line 12. after ("namely.") insert ("history.") The noble Earl said: My Lords, with the agreement of the House, I should like to address myself to Amendments Nos 76, 78 and 79. The question of the knowledge and experience of members of the commission is an important one. We all want to ensure that 540 the right people with the right spread of skills and expertise are appointed to the commission. The list contained in paragragh 3 of Schedule 3 is a guideline. It sets out the kinds of knowledge and experience we think are most relevant to the commission's work. I think it important to bear these points in mind when considering what it should include.

We had a good discussion at Committee stage, when several suggestions were put forward about how the list might be improved. We have considered them all very carefully and these amendments are the outcome of our deliberations. We were concerned that "history" might be a little wide, but upon reflection we think there would be some advantage in including it, as it would cover a range of specialist areas, including the history of architecture, and we think that that can be safely deleted. I indicated at Committee stage that we preferred "town and country planning" to "planning" on its own without qualification. A large element of legislation which is relevant to the commission is embodied in the Town and Country Planning Acts, and I am sure that we must reflect that rather than the wider concept of "planning", which includes aspects which are largely irrelevant to the commission. I hope the House will agree with these three amendments. I beg to move.

Baroness Birk

My Lords. I should like to support these amendments and welcome them very much, as I think they are a great improvement, particularly in including "history" and taking out "history of architecture", because we have left "architecture" in. I also welcome "town and country planning". I think this makes a more comprehensive and balanced list.

Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran

moved Amendment No. 77: Page 31, line 12, at end insert ("(prehistoric, Roman and mediaeval)") The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is another amendment in order to assist the Government as to the view of archaeologists and to get a right spread of expertise particularly in relation to archaeology. The amendment I am suggesting is to insert after "archaeology" three branches—"prehistoric, Roman and mediaeval". I confess at once that I have no expertise whatever in this matter, but I am instructed by the professor of aerial photography at Cambridge, Professor St. Joseph, who also has the support, I understand, of the President of the British Academy in this matter. I am instructed that there has over the last seven to 10 years been a great explosion in archaeology as a result of the development of such matters as aerial photography. Buried sites of great interest have been discovered and I am told that they are the source of tremendous information and research in the knowledge of human history. They include villages, prehistoric settlements, new henges, foundations, mediaeval and early buildings, hill forts of the iron age, thousands of sites which are buried but very important. Therefore, when it comes to appointing the members of the commission, the plea is made from my friends in Cambridge—all of us belong to the fellowship of Selwyn College Cambridge, and that is how I come into the matter—that there should be 541 more than one person having knowledge of archaeology, that the membership should cover persons having knowledge of prehistoric, Roman and mediaeval architecture. The amendment that the noble Earl has introduced, including the word "history", was considered by the professor of aerial photography to see whether it would be suitable, but he still urges me to put it to the Government that the subject of archaeology is far wider than most people think, having regard to the great discoveries which have been made and are continuing to be made in this country. I beg to move.

Lord Renton

My Lords, I wonder whether it has occurred to the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, that the words he is suggesting should be inserted will in fact be interpreted—if it ever has to come before the courts, which I agree is unthinkable—as words of limitation. I do not suppose he really wants these words to be treated as words of limitation, but that, is what they are. For example, they would leave out Tudor architecture, seventeenth century architecture, with all the work of Inigo Jones and Wren, all the eighteenth century architecture, and so on. Of course this paragraph is completely unenforceable anyway, and, as I said in connection with Amendments Nos. 5 and 32 last week, therefore really not fit for legislation at all. But, if we are to have this, then I suggest we do not have words of limitation. The word "history" is not a word of limitation in the context. The word "architecture" is not a word of limitation, but, by the noble Lord's amendment, we shall be limiting the effect and meaning of the expression "architecture".

The Earl of Avon

My Lords, I, like the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, can produce no expertise on this subject. The Government have from the start recognised that archaeology should be one of the subjects on this list of areas of knowledge and expertise, and it is fundamental to many of the commission's functions. However, I do not believe that we ought to go on from there and break it down into its component parts. In general, as Lord Renton said, appending lists of specified types would tend to narrow the definition rather than widen it. Although I cannot pretend to be a great expert, it seems to me that there is a great danger that we may exclude things that we want to include—for instance, if I may give an example, industrial archaeology.

Nor should we give the impression that there should be one specialist in prehistoric archaeology, one in Roman and one in mediaeval. The noble Lord said that they were worried that there would be only one specialist in archaeology. I assure him that that need in no way be so, and the general balance will be maintained throughout. I hope that, with what my noble friend Lord Renton said and the few words that I have been able to add, the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, will be reassured and will be able to reassure his friends that we have a conscious knowledge of the general field of archaeology, but prefer to leave this in general terms as we have it. The noble Baroness was generous enough to say earlier that she was happy to see "history of architecture" left out. We might have put in prehistoric history and all the other histories as well, 542 which I think would have muddled rather than clarified matters.

Lord Renton

My Lords, may I, with your Lordships' leave, make an apology? By the placing of the noble Lord's amendments they qualify not the word "archaeology" but the word "architecture". We should realise that.

Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl, and for the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Renton in this matter. I raised this question of field monuments in Committee, if your Lordships remember, because it was felt that it was a branch of archaeology which might be missed generally in the formulation of the Bill. I should have thanked the noble Earl earlier for his letter to me explaining fully that the Government have in mind, and the Bill envisages, full coverage for these important field monuments that have been discovered during the last seven to 10 years. In view of what has been said, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

The Earl of Avon

moved Amendment No. 78 and 79: Page 31, line 13, leave out ("the history of architecture,"). line 14, after ("buildings,") insert ("town and country planning,"). The noble Earl said: My Lords, I have already spoken to Amendments Nos. 78 and 79. With the leave of the House, perhaps I may move them together.

Lord Sandford

moved Amendment No. 80: Page 31, line 14, at end insert ("and to the desirability of one or more of the foregoing also having knowledge of local government.") The noble Lord said: My Lords, I hope it will not cause alarm if I remind your Lordships that this is the point to which my noble friend Lord Ridley said he would have to return savagely if our pleas about local government, which were made in Committee, prove not to have prevailed. I am afraid that seems to he the case. I must, therefore, go through the argument again.

Looking back over the Committee stage, at column 808, I have to say that my noble friend Lord Avon appeared to have misunderstood the point that my noble friend and I were making. We were certainly not suggesting that local government should be in a position to nominate a member of the commission. We are all agreed that that process is very undesirable. Nor were we even wanting someone on the commission whose sole qualification was a background in local government. What we were saying, and I hope that we are now making it even clearer in this amendment, is that an acquaintanceship with the process of local government should be available to the new commission through at least one member of it. I should have thought that was a modest enough request to make on behalf of all three local government associations representing the 450 units of local government, without whose practical involvement this commission would be virtually powerless to act. 543 The commission may very probably abound with experts such as archaeologists, historians and conservationists who have expert knowledge of those fields. We are arguing that among them there should be at least one person not so much with knowledge—although that is the word that I have used in the amendment—as with experience in the operations of local government. In seeking to meet us, if that is what he is doing, by including in Amendment No. 79 the term "town and country planning" I submit that my noble friend on the Front Bench has done precisely what we were being urged not to do by my noble friend Lord Renton: namely, to introduce a term which has a limiting effect. It is the experience of the operations of local government with preferably, but not necessarily, also some experience of being, say, chairman of the planning committee, which would be useful.

We are urging on the Government, I hope successfully, that there should be somewhere on the commission, among all those people on it who are individually selected for their expertise and knowledge in the fields quoted, someone with experience of local government. That is about the most modest request it is possible to make on behalf of local government. I beg to move.

Baroness Birk

My Lords, I support this amendment although I am well aware of the reasons that the Minister gave for opposing it previously and although I believe he does not oppose it on the basis of being anti-local government. The way that the amendment is worded—"also having knowledge of local government"—could well mean that one of the commissioners could be doubling, with experience of local government and some other expertise. It is important that the relationships between what is now the Department of the Environment, which is now handling all this work, and local government should be carried on into the commission. It is essential, particularly when the commission becomes a quango on its own, that there should be at least one commissioner with knowledge of local government. Frankly, I imagine it will end up with a number of people having such knowledge in exactly the same way as have members of the Historic Buildings Council for England.

I would go one stage further. It is extremely important that there should be at least one commissioner who is very well versed in the relationships and the workings of central Government. Dealing with Government in both its fields, local and central, is extremely important and requires a certain amount of experience and expertise. Therefore, I welcome the amendment because it does not limit the commission to having somebody who is in local government and has no other wider knowledge or expertise. It refers only to "having knowledge of local government". I have not put down an amendment. but I hope that the Government will think about this and also bear in mind, even if it is not possible to include it in the Bill, the need to have knowledge of the workings of central Government, the question of departments and also how the Treasury works. It is very important that these skills should be available on this quango because it will 544 no longer have a department and Ministers to fall back on, as it has had up to now.

The Marquess of Aberdeen and Temair

My Lords, may I raise a point of information with the noble Lord, Lord Sandford? I entirely agree with his amendment and with what the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, has said, but there seems to be an interchangeability between the phrases "knowledge of" and "experience in". The amendment refers to "knowledge of". I know a lot about local government. I have done for 50 years. for journalistic and practical reasons when I was on the staff of the CPRE before the war, and this has persisted ever since, but I have never had experience of working in local government. Which does the amendment mean? Does it wish to be more definite? I entirely agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Birk. If one of these persons with other qualifications has experience in, or knowledge of, local government up to the level I have, how is anyone to test that? I shall be satisfied if I can have a reply to that point.

Lord Sandford

My Lords, may I answer the point just made by the noble Marquess, Lord Aberdeen and Temair? I have only put in the words "knowledge of because that is a little broader in its effect. If one has "experience in", which is what I am concentrating on, that is limited to people who have been elected and served as councillors, whereas, as the noble Lord said, there are a number of people with a very wide knowledge of local government, through having cooperated with it and so on, who would come into a slightly broader scope, and I am trying to be as broad as I can.

The Earl of Avon

My Lords, I am well aware from discussions here in Committee, and elsewhere, of the desire of my noble friend to involve local authorities in the work of the commission, to establish good relations between them from the start and as a symbol of this to include "local government" in this list of qualities. Local authorities will, of course, continue to have an important and valuable role to play in the presentation of the heritage.

However, the Government continue to believe that this amendment is not the right way to achieve this co-operation. I can only say what I said before, that members of the commission should be appointed for their individual skills and knowledge and for the expertise they can bring to the work of the commission. The paragraph in Schedule 3 which this would amend does not prescribe that certain groups or institutions should be represented. There are many additional areas of knowledge or expertise which it would be useful for members to have, and the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, mentioned central Government, for one. But we have not sought, for instance, to include them because the question of the commission's relations with other interests is incidental to the carrying out of its main function, which is what we are really concerned about.

I can assure my noble friend that local government will, indeed, be a subject much in the mind of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State when appointments come to be made. I