My Lords, it is not ominous at all. It is a sign of heavenly support, and a signal that a telephone call is due—but I cannot delay your Lordships to make one at the moment. I shall make it immediately this discussion is finished.

The other principle that the Royal Fine Art Commission laid down was that no high buildings should be placed around Hyde Park, because once one was built, another would follow, and so on. That is exactly what has happened. Basil Spence's barracks in Hyde Park ruined that park; in fact, he has the distinction of having ruined two parks, because of his Home Office building, which towers above St James's Park.

If you go further round Hyde Park, what do you find—the Royal Lancaster Hotel, as it used to be known, a building of outstanding mediocrity, which is famous for only one thing. When the octogenarian Michael Foot, still happily and mercifully flourishing in Hampstead, arrived in a fainting condition at the door of that hotel, which should never have been built, they refused him entrance. It was shortly after then that they went out of business, which I regard as a very happy conclusion to a moralising tale.

Unfortunately, the buildings have gone on. Take the Regalian building overlooking Kensington Palace. That was opposed by the Royal Fine Art Commission, but there it is—overshadowing another of London's most beautiful spots.

I shall not linger over the London Eye. I believe that my views on the London Eye are probably known by one or two people. It was unanimously opposed by the Royal Fine Art Commission because we thought that it was totally unsuitable to have it overshadowing a world heritage site. That was the very point that was made by my noble friend in his Opening Speech—that a world heritage site is one to be respected. I have nothing against a London Eye in another position—but not here, towering over this world heritage site and ruining the view from the Horseguards Parade, destroying the proportions of St James's Park. The dying wish of the late Mr Welsh, who was such a distinguished chairman of the Royal Parks Agency, was that it should be stopped. Alas, it has gone on—and now we have the Vauxhall Tower to match it.

Views and spaces are essential. We have still a low and medium skyline, punctuated by occasional high-rise buildings. I am pleased to say that thanks to the initiative of the governor of the Tower of London, a new space has been created so that for the first time for hundreds of years one is able to see the Tower of London as a whole, as it should be seen. The visitors' centre is tucked away quietly in the corner where it can do useful work and reduce queues and crowds, but the great achievement is the opening of that space. I am glad to say that the Royal Fine Art Commission Trust acknowledged that achievement in its "Buildings of the Year" awards this year.

The Royal Fine Art Commission was swept away by this Government, abolished by a press release. That is a way of behaving that makes even the deprivation of the orthodox Archbishop of London by Constantinople, by fax, for the offence of coveting thrones seem liberal.

The question that we must now ask, which my noble friend touched on, is how this monstrosity got to be built. Another point, besides views and spaces, is the quality of building. Nobody could look at that building for a moment, whether or not they had a tutored eye, without seeing what a horrible construction it is. Now I raise this question—and I want the Minister to reply to this question only, and ignore all the other things that I have said. The reason why that building got planning permission was that there is no independent body to pass judgment on it—and independence can get things done. The Royal Fine Art Commission put an end to the horrific proposal, supported by the big battalions, including the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport at the time, and by the Speaker of the House of Commons, to put a kitsch statue of Sir Walter Ralegh right in front of St Margaret's Westminster—between St Margaret's and the Abbey. The only body to oppose it was the Royal Fine Art Commission.

My noble friend mentioned Mr Livingstone in another context. Mr Livingstone may or may not have crushed developers, but I think that my learned friend has certainly crushed Mr Livingstone tonight. However, he may arise yet again.

I said to the Commissioners, "I will go and give evidence", and I was given a classic Civil Service reply: "You, chairman, give evidence? That would be quite unsuitable". Unsuitable or not, I did. The Speaker sent the Chaplain of the House of Commons along. I am glad to say that, although the Fine Art Commission was abolished—in that extraordinary way—the posthumous triumph was there, because the appeal was allowed and that statue was swept away in potentia and, in Act II, swept away were all the notice boards that had been put up by the dean and chapter.

There has been nobody with an independent judgment here. The Secretary of State has supported this tower. The Deputy prime minister has supported this tower. It has been supported by the body set up to succeed the Royal Fine Art Commission as a watchdog.

I now come to my crucial question which I put to the Minister. When will CABE be given independent status? What is it? It is a creature of the department. It is a private company the shares of which are owned by the department, of which the Secretary of State has a golden share enabling him to determine the course of all its decisions. It is not independent. Having raised this matter on various occasions, we were promised that it would be given independence. The whole of the previous Parliament has gone by, and it is still not an independent body. When will it be so? When do the Government intend to take action on this matter?

Meanwhile, we repeat our deep gratitude to my noble friend for having raised this very important question and for having enabled it to be thoroughly discussed in this House.