| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Howie of Troon: No, I shall continue. We have been concerned with this since 1988; we can spare
another five minutes, another 10 minutes if I am provoked. Do not provoke me. We preserve canals all over the place and there is no architecture in them; they are engineering from beginning to end. And so the list continues.Amendment No. 1 is designed to obtain parity of status and esteem between architectural and engineering qualities stated in the Bill rather than being left to be covered by other parts of the Bill.
Let me turn briefly to Amendment No. 3. The amendment seeks to add "or structures" to "buildings" on page 2, line 4 of the Bill. The Institution of Structural Engineers is a body of people who actually know about such things. They describe their profession as designing and making buildings, bridges, frameworks and other structures. They distinguish between buildings, bridges and other structures. They see a structure as something in itself. It is quite right to do so. Buildings are really a subset of structures rather than the other way about, as people sometimes seem to think.
I wish to turn to the Bill. I find one point curious. There may be a reason for it and I have no doubt that the Minister will be able to explain what the reason is, if there is one. In the schedule, "buildings" and "structures" are differentiated. They are separated out in the schedule but not in the main part of the Bill. I am merely saying that if "buildings" and "structures" are distinguished, as they ought to be, in the schedule, they should be distinguished also in the main part of the Bill.
I regret having to detain the Committee at some length on this matter. However, after our adventures on the Environment Bill which settled a point which caused me and my professional colleagues of good deal of bother over the years, I do not think the Government will step back instead of stepping forward. I beg to move.
Lord Monkswell: I rise briefly to support my noble friend Lord Howie of Troon. The Government are faced with a problem of logic. We are talking about a National Heritage Bill. Heritage is that which is inherited--something from the past. In new Section 3(1) the Government have seen fit to list,
- "scenic, historic, archaeological, aesthetic, architectural, artistic or scientific interest".
Surely it is not necessary to have that list of characteristics when the subsection contains the word "historic". Surely "historic" is all that is needed. As soon as one starts producing a list, as the Government have done here, things are almost inevitably left out. It is very unfortunate that "engineering" has been left out in this case because it suggests that the Government, or whoever has drafted the Bill, are thinking in terms of the superficial appearance of things rather than the reality of the ingenuous mechanisms and structures that are behind the facade, as my noble friend has so succinctly demonstrated.
That takes care of the Government's position regarding Amendment No. 1. As I see it, they can either accept my noble friend's amendment or take out the other different characteristics apart from "historic" listed in the subsection. However, it does not resolve the
Government's problem with regard to Amendment No. 3. As my noble friend pointed out, there is a problem in that in one part of the Bill "structures" are included while in another part of the Bill they are not included. Following the contributions from this side of the Committee I hope that the Government will take steps to resolve the problems which we have pointed out. In particular, I hope that this short debate will give the Government the opportunity to demonstrate that they have some regard for engineering structures, the engineering profession and the contribution engineers have made to the heritage we currently enjoy.
Viscount Caldecote: I would not want to follow the noble Lord, Lord Howie, in his views on the looks of Tower Bridge, but I would like to make two points on the amendment. First, there is a distinction between the preservation and the interest of engineering things and scientific things. Perhaps I may give the Committee one example. The Iron Bridge Museum, about which many Members of the Committee will know, has a splendid example of an engineering structure in its bridge and also, in the other parts of the museum, of the engineering developments of the Industrial Revolution. It is a fine example of preserving items of engineering interest. On the other hand, the electron microscope has made an enormous difference in the scientific world. If there is a place where the original electron microscope is preserved--I hope there is--that is a great scientific project whose preservation should be celebrated. There should be some way of funding such a preservation. Those two things are entirely different, although in the Bill as drafted we say that we shall preserve things of scientific interest but not of engineering interest.
Secondly, next year is the Year of Engineering Success and we shall celebrate the great importance of engineering, its success and its contribution to our society today. If we are to celebrate the present and the future contribution of engineering to our society, should we not also equally preserve the engineering achievements of the past? To do one without the other seems most illogical. The argument that one cannot put one more word into a Bill of this kind in order to make it a better Bill is not a strong argument at all. I very much hope that my noble friend will accept the noble Lord's amendment to include the word "engineering".
Lord Inglewood: If there was ever any doubt that your Lordships' House was not interested in and concerned about engineering, this debate has put paid to it. The noble Lord, Lord Howie, explained fully that his intention in proposing this group of amendments is to ensure that engineering is treated as an aspect of the heritage in its own right and not simply as an adjunct to history, archaeology, architecture or science. The noble Lord has of course played a distinguished role in the world of engineering and I fully understand his reasons for raising this issue. Indeed, he is a very well-known champion of the profession. I hope that I can give him an assurance that the Bill as drafted will fully meet his concerns. We shall consider very carefully the points that have been raised in the debate because the last thing we want to do is to have a Bill on the statute book that does not properly cover engineering matters.
The Bill inserts into the National Heritage Act 1980 a new provision to define the scope of the funding powers of the trustees of the National Heritage Memorial Fund. Under the terms of that provision the trustees' powers will be exercisable in the case of things of any kind which are of scenic, historic, archaeological, aesthetic, architectural, artistic or scientific interest. The legal advice we have been given is quite clear that the provision as it stands--and in particular the reference to things of historic, aesthetic, architectural or scientific interest--is quite sufficient to encompass objects of interest in relation to engineering and its history. The noble Lord referred to the Government's acceptance of his proposal that relevant provisions of the Environment Act 1995 should refer specifically to the concept of engineering interest. I do not believe that is directly relevant to this Bill. The list in new Section 3(1) of the Bill is already wider than the definitions in the Environment Act and I am quite clear that the list fully encompasses anything which can be said to be part of our heritage.
Given that the list of heritage "interests", if I may call them that, specified in the Bill is rather long, I am reluctant to add another one when there is no substantive need to do so. If the Bill were to include a specific reference to engineering--this point was made by the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell--then an equally valid case could be made on behalf of a whole range of other specialisms; for example, medical, bibliographical, horticultural and so on.
The problem is then that if the list is extended in that way it is not that it simply becomes inherently unwieldy, but the fact that something omitted may in turn become the source of misunderstanding and concern. Neither do we favour the insertion of the word "structures", as proposed in Amendment No. 2. The projects for which the trustees will be empowered to give financial assistance include, among other things--and I emphasise that--the construction or conversion of buildings and the carrying out of other works. Moreover, the provision makes it clear that the projects specified are not themselves an exclusive list.
Again, we are fully satisfied that a project involving the repair of an engineering structure would be eligible for assistance. We are concerned that if this amendment is added to the Bill--and we consider it to be unnecessary--it could then trigger a whole cascade of amendments to add to what is already clearly an illustrative list.
In saying that I am not overlooking the current Section 3 of the National Heritage Act, which includes the phrase, "land, building or structure". But the new Section 3 inserted by the Bill formulates the National Heritage Memorial Fund's powers in an entirely different way and does not require the retention of that phrase.
In the context of this debate it may be helpful to Members of the Committee to draw attention to the existing power of the Secretary of State to list buildings of special architectural or historic interest. The terms of this provision enable engineering structures, for example, Tower Bridge, to be listed albeit that I know
the noble Lord, Lord Howie, has made it quite clear that he believes it to be a monstrosity. Nevertheless, in terms of the subject that we are debating that makes the case for me.One thing that I would like to emphasise is that I hope that no noble Lord will believe that anything I have said in response to the helpful contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Howie, indicates that the Government or the National Heritage Memorial Fund trustees underestimate the importance of our engineering heritage. After all, a number of lottery awards have already been offered for projects relating to engineering history, including one with which the noble Lord has himself been much involved. I can give an absolutely clear assurance that the trustees will continue to have power under the terms of the Bill to assist such projects.
I hope that the remarks that I have addressed to the Committee convince the noble Lord to agree with me that his amendments are unnecessary in the context of this particular Bill and that his proper concerns are met four-square. Perhaps, in a slightly perverse way, they may turn out to be unhelpful. I am reluctant to move in the direction that the noble Lord has suggested, but I can give an undertaking that we shall look very carefully at what has been said this afternoon with a view to double-checking our interpretation of the words in order to make quite sure that we are satisfied that the very important points that the noble Lord made are properly covered. Against that background I very much hope that he will not want to press his amendment this afternoon.
4 p.m.
Lord Monkswell: I am very glad to hear what the Minister has said because it sounds as though the Government are listening and are respectful of our position. Perhaps I may pose him a problem. I was going to use the example of Tower Bridge, but perhaps that has been flogged to death already this afternoon. Perhaps I may put forward an alternative scenario; namely, a windmill in East Anglia. There are two ways of looking at an old windmill: one is that it is a beautiful, aesthetic structure although when they were built they were not considered to be so. But many people think of them in that way now. It might be felt that one of these windmills should be preserved for that reason.
There is another dimension and that is the engineering within the windmill, including the ingenious mechanisms contained in their manufacture, which is so important to our heritage. We could have a situation where the internal mechanics were stripped out of a heritage facility and just the facade left. That would be a great concern. I hope that the Minister will recognise that, given the current wording of the Bill, that is the sort of risk that those of us who know about these ingenious engineering aspects of our heritage will be concerned about. The Minister may be able to give me some reassurance and I would welcome that, but I wonder whether he can.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page