FIELD MONUMENTS BILL [Lords]

HC Deb 19 January 1972 vol 829 cc605-38

10.30 a.m.

Resolved, That if the proceedings on the Field Monuments Bill [Lords] are not completed at this day's Sitting, the Committee do meet on Wednesday next at half-past Ten o'clock.—[Mr. Channon.]

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Paul Channon)

I beg to move, That the Chairman do now report to the House that the Committee recommend that the Field Monuments Bill [Lords] ought to be read a Second time. I hope that the Committee will agree to recommend that the Bill be read a Second time. It is a modest but not insignificant Bill, and it will be of considerable help in the protection of some of our ancient monuments, an objective which I am sure is supported in all parts of the House.

The Bill relates exclusively to field monuments. I could, if the Committee wished it, deal in some detail with the way in which ancient monuments legislation works in general, but I can see from the attendance today that a number of hon. Members will be familiar with the subject. Unless asked, therefore, I shall not deal with it in detail.

The Bill is a modest Measure, dealing only with those ancient monuments which can properly be described as field monuments. What are field monuments? I suppose that the most obvious examples are burial mounds and earthworks, but there are many other types—hill forts, linear earthworks, and deserted mediaeval villages. They vary considerably in size, though the great majority are very small. There are, for example, about 45 field monuments in West Lothian, of which two are already in guardianship. In the Gower Peninsula there might be as many as 30, of which five are in guardianship. There is a large number of field monuments throughout the country—I estimate about 100,000 individual sites, though nobody knows exactly.

In toto, these monuments amount to a very important national heritage, and they are arousing increasing public interest. Of the 100,000, about 8,000 are scheduled by my right hon. Friend as ancient monuments. They form the most important category, and their preservation is of national importance—that is the definition chosen for scheduling. I am sure that the whole Committee will agree that those monuments should be preserved.

However, as I think all members of the Committee will realise, in recent years there has been a new threat to the preservation of field monuments. There has been a considerable change in agricultural techniques. Methods of ploughing, for example, involve a much deeper disturbance of the surface than was the case in the past; much more pasture-land is becoming agricultural, and there is much more afforestation. The Department of the Environment carried out a pilot survey in Wiltshire and showed that well over half of 640 field monuments had been damaged during the past ten years some to the point of destruction. The county of Wiltshire forms a most important example, and I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Michael Hamilton) is present today. Wiltshire may have over 2,000 monuments, which is by far the highest concentration in Great Britain. It is therefore of particular importance.

It was realised some time ago that, as a result of the changes I have mentioned, thousands of scheduled field monuments were simultaneously threatened by erosion and destruction. In theory, they could be protected. Under the existing Acts owners have to give three months' notice of intention to carry out any work affecting scheduled monuments, during which period the Secretary of State has the opportunity and the power to stop the proposed works, subject to compensation. However, over the years it has become the practice not to require notice of ploughing over field monuments, on the grounds that ploughing was light and was not thought to harm the monuments.

What are the possible solutions to the problem? The whole Committee will probably agree that it would be ridiculous to assume that we could forbid further ploughing. It would be unfair to the farmers, and it would impose enormous financial and administrative problems. Thousands of farmers would be required to give statutory notice of ploughing. Compulsory protection would require millions more pounds and many expert civil servants to provide compensation payments within a short period. If the Government adopted that approach it is doubtful whether it would work. Would the statutory notices be received, and would it be a fruitful way of proceeding? It is highly doubtful, and I am sure that the results would not be at all satisfactory.

However, hon. Members on both sides of the Committee will probably agree that the situation could not be left as it was. The previous Government set up a Committee under Sir David Walsh to examine arrangements for the protection of field monuments. The whole Committee will wish to thank Sir David and his colleagues for their unanimous report on the subject, which has been widely welcomed by all concerned, including those interested in the archaeological aspects, and farming and landowning interests. The Bill, which is based on one of the most important recommendations in the report, has also been widely welcomed, and I hope will be found to be non-controversial in the House.

Sir David Walsh's Committee made 44 main recommendations and a total of 70 recommendations. In general, with one or two very minor caveats, all have been welcomed by the Government. Some will take longer than others to implement; for example, some will need more staff. However, by far the most important and certainly the most urgent of the recommendations is that which the Committee made for a system of acknowledgment payments.

This brings me to the problem and the solution incorporated in the Bill. The Field Monuments Committee, under Sir David Walsh, concluded that the good will which farmers and other occupiers already felt towards their monuments would be sufficiently stimulated if they could be provided with an explanation of the importance of the monuments, and offered some tangible acknowledgment of the hindrance to their operations arising from the existence of those monuments. The Committee accordingly recommended a system of voluntary agreements between the Government and occupiers of scheduled monuments threatened by agriculture or forestry. Occupiers who were prepared to respect their monuments and keep them free of weeds and vermin would in return, be entitled to annual payments in acknowledgement of the consequential interference with their operations.

I think that all of us would like to congratulate the Committee on the imaginative solution which it found. I regard it as a good one, because it is founded on the two principles of good will and voluntary agreement. It has been agreed by both the archaeological and land-using members of the Committee, and welcomed alike by the archaeological world and farming, forestry and landowning interests, including the National Farmers' Union and the C.L.A. There need be no fear that the scheme will inhibit agricultural production; it is limited to monuments which are both scheduled and threatened in the way that I have described.

I estimate that no more than about 8,000 monuments or groups of monuments, comprising about 17,000 individual sites, such as burial mounds, will qualify. The majority of the sites will be small. Some may ask whether this will be too narrow. Should not threats other than from agriculture and forestry qualify? It must be remembered that other types of development are subject to planning control, which allows the merits of a development to be weighed against those of the monument. Agricultural operations on the other hand, have—with the agreement of successive Governments—not been subject to that kind of planning control.

What will happen if the occupier refuses to enter the scheme? I suppose there could be such cases—though I hope not—perhaps because the site is particularly important to the farmer rather than for lack of good will. Each such case would have to be considered on its merits. If the monument were important enough it could be protected under existing powers and the farmer would have the right to appeal and, if need be, to use the special parliamentary procedure that exists in this case. The scheme is voluntary. It is not envisaged that the occupier will be expected to commit himself for more than one year at a time, although when further experience has been gained it may be possible, again by agreement, to extend the period in appropriate cases. Nor will any new right of public access be conferred by the agreement.

Since thousands of monuments will qualify, the scheme must be easy to understand and as simple as possible to administer. There will be explanatory leaflets and appropriate publicity. Perhaps there should also be a system of annual standard payments, varying with the size of the monument.

On all these points we shall need the advice and help of farming, forestry and land-owning organisations. I am glad to say that this has been readily available; we are already in close touch with them. A further meeting will probably take place this week. Some hon. Members may have received a letter from the National Farmers' Union, written on 14th January, welcoming the acknowledgement payment scheme along the lines recommended by Sir David Walsh. Detailed negotiations will begin shortly.

I now turn to the cost of the scheme and the staff. The build-up will be gradual, but I estimate that when all agreements have been made for monuments which will qualify the eventual cost will be about £150,000 a year. The rate of the standard payments will fall to be settled in the consultations which are about to begin.

As I have said, about 8,000 monuments are involved, including about 17,000 individual sites. Agreements will need to be reached with, and payments made to, individual occupiers. Therefore, a fair number of staff will be needed—eventually up to about 30. Of these, about six will be professionals—inspectors of ancient monuments—up to a dozen might be clerical or executive officers, and there will be about a dozen wardens, who have a specially important task. They will spend their time in the field and will be our first line of personal contact with occupiers who wish to put any problems to them. The wardens will also inspect the monuments—not only those covered by the scheme but others in the area. That will help towards implementing another recommendation of the Field Monuments Committee, namely, that scheduled monuments should be inspected regularly.

The fact that we are willing to make these resources of money and staff available shows that the Government attach high prioriy to this important requirement.

I now turn to the Clauses of this simple Bill. The first Clause covers the essential features of the scheme, and the remaining Clauses and Schedules are largely consequential. Clause 1 sets out the circumstances in which monuments will qualify for acknowledgement payment agreements and those to whom the payments will be made. It leaves ample room for the detailed arrangements of the agreements and the periods to be varied, by agreement, in the light of experience.

The payments are to be in respect of scheduled field monuments endangered by agriculture or forestry. They will be made to the occupier rather than to the land-owner, because it is the occupier who will need to avoid the monuments in the course of his day-to-day operations. Owner-occupiers will, of course, be entitled to the payments, and land-owners generally may wish to be associated with the agreements. Some of them may well conceive this to be in the interests of good estate management.

There are so many types of field monuments, some of which I have mentioned, that it would be difficult to provide an exhaustive definition. A field monument is therefore defined as a monument scheduled under the Ancient Monuments Acts, which means that it is of national importance.

The Clause is broadly worded; in particular, the content of agreement dealt with in Clause 1(3) allows flexibility for possible future needs or for special cases. The agreements will be voluntary. In any case, there is no intention of preventing anything that will not harm the monument. For instance, although the farmer would naturally have to refrain from cultivating the monument, grazing would be quite acceptable—perhaps even welcomed in appropriate cases. There would also be the need to keep the monument free of weeds and vermin, which could damage it. That would be suggested by the requirements of good husbandry. Indeed, some farmers who plough monuments simply because this is the easiest way of dealing with weeds and vermin may be glad to accept the acknowledgement payments instead.

Clause 2 is largely consequential, and links the agreements with the statutory provisions of the Ancient Monuments Acts whereby the person responsible for a scheduled monument has to give three months' notice of any work affecting it, being free thereafter to proceed unless the Secretary of State has meanwhile placed the monument under his statutory protection.

The Clause is designed to meet a case where the occupier decides not to renew an acknowledgement payment agreement. Although he must naturally continue to be bound during the period covered by the agreement, it would clearly not be right to expect him to wait up to a further three months beyond it. Accordingly, the Clause provides that the statutory notice may be given at any time during the currency of an agreement, and will expire either at the end of the period covered by the agreement or three months after the date of the notice, whichever is the later.

Clause 3 simply relates the Bill to the Ancient Monuments Acts, and will facilitate consolidation of ancient monuments legislation in due course. It contains the customary privilege Amendment inserted in another place.

Part I of the Schedule deals with technical legal points covering certain limited ownership and Part II to the enforcement of the agreements, all this with due regard to the differences between English and Scottish law.

In this country experience has taught us that the best guarantee for the protection of ancient monuments rests in the good will of occupiers and owners, which, in this country—except in very rare cases—has always been forthcoming. I should like to pay tribute to the way in which it has been forthcoming. This scheme is no exception.

The scheme commits itself to the voluntary principle of proceeding by agreement but, at the same time, it recognises that in the current situation of field monuments the occupier should not be left to carry all the consequences of his own good will. It provides some monetary acknowledgement of the contribution that he makes. The scheme was not only proposed, but also welcomed, by both the archæological and land-using interests, and I hope that that is a good omen for the future.

This is a modest Measure, which could have important consequences. It may remove a serious threat from thousands of monuments, all of archæological importance and many of significance to our countryside and environment. If so, this little Bill will make a much more than modest contribution towards the preservation of field monuments and of what most of us would regard as an important part of our national heritage. I hope that the Committee will agree that the Bill should be read a Second time, and will recommend accordingly to the House.

10.47 a.m.

Mr. Tam Dalyell

It is quite true that what has brought this Bill forward and brought the situation to a head is that modern deep ploughing has transformed the situation of the ancient monuments. New methods of agriculture have made it much easier and, indeed, much more attractive to destroy these ancient monuments than was the case even a few years ago.

One of the things which interest us is the money aspect. We are interested in how the Government, and indeed the Walsh Committee, arrived at the figure of £150,000. We are told that there are some 8,000 of these ancient monuments, not all of which, I admit, come within the scope of the Bill. However, some arithmetic must be done because this works out at roughly £20 per farmer per monument per year.

Some of these barrows are extremely small, and for £20 a year a farmer can rent and grow corps on a good deal of ground—in fact, a far larger expanse of ground for £20 rent a year than would be covered by most of the typical barrows. I am not criticising too much, but I think we have to be persuaded that this is a reasonable figure. I think that when the Minister winds up we ought to be told how this figure was arrived at and what remuneration and compensation are thought fit for occupiers. I agree with the Government that it should go to occupiers rather than to landowners in this case.

There is another question which I think the Committee should reflect on. The Minister kept on saying that it was part of our heritage. This goes without saying, but how much of this particular heritage ought to be preserved? I think that those of us who are interested in preserving our heritage really have to do ourselves credit and be selective. Those who say that everything must be preserved regardless, do the cause of preserving more harm than good.

Having talked to a number of archaeologists and having once indulged in digging, my reflection is that perhaps a more rational approach would be to select certain things that are clearly worth preserving on the star basis which the Walsh Report talks about. In relation to other barrows, I think it is worth considering whether we ought to have a system of photographs and records and then a conscious decision as to whether a particular monument is worth preserving. I do not think there is much to be said for preserving 8,000 sites.

This raises another question for the Government. If money is not available for archaeological preservation, ought it automatically to be channelled into the preservation of barrows, however prehistoric, rather than to be used otherwise? An example that springs to mind is that of Roman Lincoln. The Minister knows as well as I do that there is a very real problem, in that archaeological discovery in urban areas can be far more valuable than in country areas, and far more worth preserving, but of course far more expensive to preserve. As he knows well, there is considerable competition for funds in this field. I think one is at least justified in asking on Second Reading what the overall coherent philosophy of the Government is in this, whether the money that is available is best spent in paying out in this way to farmers. or whether some of it, at any rate, should be diverted to archaeological societies in a few of our old cities, where there is a crying need for something to be done quickly.

The Minister referred to the archaeological interests that had agreed in toto with the Bill and accepted it, and I should like to know which archaeological interests he has consulted. I, too, have talked to archaeologists. Perhaps it is true that, like philosophers and economists, they are a fractious lot, but, having said this, I think we ought to know what is the official archaeological advice which the Government have received.

I continue on this theme of competition for funds. If I were the distributor of funds, I think I would wonder whether they ought to be diverted over a large number of barrows, or whether they ought to be concentrated, for example, in the preservation of a few areas of ancient field systems. It is known to the Department and to the Minister that the ancient field systems are unique in the whole of Western Europe because much land, unlike the continent, was marginal in Britain. For example, there are over 30 acres of Durrington Walls in Wiltshire. I do not know whether it is in the constituency of the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Michael Hamilton). This is a site which is bigger than Avebury, and I should like to know whether part of the £150,000—it might have to be a significant proportion of it—is to be earmarked for a site such as Durrington Walls. I am not saying that every ancient field system should be preserved; this would be extremely costly and might not be worth while. All I am asking is that the Department of the Environment should look around the country, select perhaps three or four ancient field systems, decide what it wants to preserve and than divert funds and concentrate them. I should like an answer on this point.

This is linked with another thing which the Miinster said in his speech, that there would be reliance on good will. I think the Government are quite right to rely on good will. But if one is dealing with Durrington Walls or any other site of over 30 acres, this requires a good deal of good will, and a farmer or an owner-occupier might feel that he should be compensated for what he is doing for the nation. I would myself favour some form of restrictive covenant in such a case to see that the land is not ploughed up.

There is another competitor for funds in this field, and that is the whole operation of rescue dogs, as it has come to be known. I think I am right in saying that during the construction of the M4 no fewer than 150 archaeological sites of some interest were discovered, and, if I may be local for a moment, in the motorway between Edinburgh and Stirling, the new M9, there are a number of objects which might have required more excavation and more interest than they have received. But the truth is that one cannot suddenly stop an extremely costly motorway operation, costing thousands of pounds per day, just for some possible archaeological interest. This raises the question of what the Government can do to help rescue digs and those who are prepared to take emergency measures.

The Minister was kind enough to refer to the 45 sites in West Lothian. I am glad to say that it was my family who suggested to Professor Stuart Piggott that he should excavate Cairnpapple, and I have a long interest in this. I am not saying that very much of value in West Lothian has been destroyed because of motorway construction. What I am saying is that I suspect that there are places —for example, in Wiltshire—where there is a good deal of value, which are suddenly put in jeopardy and where even a small amount of money, quickly used, could be of benefit.

I turn now to the question of annual payments in acknowledgment of the consequential interference with agricultural operations, and to raise an issue which was pinpointed by the noble Lord, Lord Greenwood, in another place. Lord Greenwood said that it was the thin end of a rather dangerous wedge to start paying people for not doing wrong. This goes against the root principle that the polluter must pay. All I am asking for is a clarification of policy, because I think that Lord Greenwood's question was never answered, and at least it deserves an answer.

Before I become critical, I should like on behalf of the Opposition to pay tribute to the many custodians, some amateur, some in full-time pay and some in part-time pay, who look after our ancient monuments. In the experience of many of us, they are very devoted people. I am sure this is the same in Wales as in Scotland, and it would be remiss, during this debate, if we did not pay tribute to the amount of work that they often do over and above the call of duty.

I would now, without carping unduly, begin to become a little critical. In a sense perhaps the Bill, although it is quite an important move in the right direction, does not get to the root of the matter. I should like to know why the Walsh Committee has not been implemented in toto. If it is said that this is due to problems of parliamentary time, in our opinion this is an entirely phoney objection. It might be parliamentary draftsmen's time—that is another matter —but not parliamentary time. The Minister sees a number of hon. Members here in this room who have a genuine interest in this subject. It is not the kind of Bill on which we want to start any obstruction at all, and I really do not see why parliamentary time should be given as an objection to implementing in full the recommendations of the Walsh Committee.

I am glad that the 12 wardens have now been appointed. The Minister referred to them as the first line of defence. I should like to be clear about what teeth these wardens actually have. I can see that a lot can be done by good will and a lot can be done by cosy chats. I am all for cosy chats in this field, but there must be the occasion, from time to time, when wardens need powers. What can they actually do with the farmer or the owner-occupier or the landowner who is "bolshie" and difficult and does not want to know? It is quite certain that there will be some farmers who take no interest in this subject and who merely say "You are disturbing our large-scale operations", to whom £20 does not matter very much, and who will not be co-operative. What I am asking is what are the teeth in the Bill which will enable the wardens to do their duty properly?

Turning to another recommendation of the Walsh Committee, has anything been done about aerial photography? This is not simply a fancy idea because, as anyone interested in archaeology knows, it is extremely important. The Walsh Committee said that air surveys should be commissioned. I should like to know what has been done, because it really gives us a far clearer idea of what our heritage is. Has anything been done about aerial surveys?

I come to the seventh recommendation of the Walsh Committee: A consolidated record of all known field monuments should be held by the County Planning Authorities so that they may be aware of all such monuments in their areas. The truth is that some authorities are very good and keep these records. But the Department, the Minister and we know that there are some authorities which have done absolutely nothing about it, and I suspect they have no intention of doing so. What is going to be done by the Department to make sure that the lagging authorities live up to their duties in this respect?

In recommendations 13 to 17, the Walsh Committee said: Both the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Forestry Commission should obtain a declaration from applicants for grants either that no damage would be done to a scheduled field monument or that statutory notice had been given to the Ministry, and if the declaration is not completed satisfactorily the matter should be reported to the Ministry. What has been done about this?

Coming to Recommendation 14, the liaison procedure with the Forestry Commission, again I should like to hear something on the wind-up.

Recommendation 15 is important: The Ministry of Defence should review their procedures to ensure that field monuments in training areas are respected, and a regular check of the condition of such monuments should be made. This particularly affects Salisbury Plain. It may be that the hon. Member for Salisbury is going to speak. I am not attacking the Ministry of Defence, because in some areas it has done more than most, but I think we should be clear as to whether or not they are taking it seriously. I should like an answer from the Government.

On mineral extraction, the Committee says: The Ministry should approach extraction and development groups to invite their cooperation". Have the Ministry done this? My information is that they have not, though I am prepared to be corrected if I am wrong.

Then there is the issue of the labelling of monuments: The Ministry should make a careful review of the more important monuments and where the threat to survival can be lessened by erection of a notice board and/or marker posts, these should be provided. I gather that I am not the only one who has detected an absence of marker posts. I should like to know what has been done about this recommendation. I hear assent from my hon. Friend the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Blenkinsop) who knows a great deal about these matters. If he assents, that is good enough for me.

Coming to the improvements in machinery of control, the Walsh Committee said: The following improvements in the legislation should be considered: (i) the period in which a prosecution can be initiated, for damage to a monument, should be extended to three years; I do not set overmuch store by prosecutions, because I am not sure that it is really the way to implement the conservation policies that most of us in this room would like, but nevertheless I should like to hear if there has been any discussion with the Attorney-General.

The Walsh Committee said that the length of the period of statutory notice should be increased from three to six months; I gather that this has been taken care of and there is no problem here. It also said that notices once given should not remain valid indefinitely; there should be provision for withdrawal; and for an automatic end to their validity after two years; This is important because nothing brings the whole system of notices into disrepute as retaining in force instructions of some kind or another which are dated. It brings all instructions into disrepute. When there are too many notices, the consequence is that people tend to take less and less notice of them.

The Committee said that powers of compulsory guardianship should be extended; I should like to know the Ministry's view on that. I do not necessarily agree with the Walsh recommendation, but I should like to know what has happened. It continued … the Minister should be granted powers to enter on private land to erect a notice and/or marker posts to define the limits of a monument; Possibly this is required only rarely, but in some cases it is important. Again, a rather important point, the adequacy today of the definition of an ancient monument in the Act of 1931 should be considered and the definition widened if necessary; I should like to hear the Government's views on the whole problem of definition.

It has been said to me—and this is why I asked earlier about the archaeological advice that the Government had received—that some archaeologists are of the view that this is really an attempt by the Government to do something that looks all right. In fact, the Bill before us this morning looks more effective than it really is. It has been put to me on several occasions that this is an excuse for not implementing in toto the Walsh Committee Report.

In the interest of fairness, however, I am bound to say that I have a letter from Robin Fedden of The National Trust, saying that he was wholly satisfied with the Bill and that it was a step in the right direction. Like the Department, I have been in contact with the National Farmers' Union and they are satisfied, and there are a number of other bodies who are also satisfied. But it is fair to say that there are archaeologists who are not satisfied and who see this as an attempt to do something which appears to be more effective than it actually is. I should like to hear the Department counteract that criticism. The way they can do that is by saying what they are going to do about the rest of the recommendations of the Walsh Committee.

I have a constructive suggestion. This is that far more energy ought to be put by the Government Departments as a whole into the possibility of a number of the less important sites—I am not saying that this should apply to the key sites, because that would be absurd, but to those sites which are expendable—being adopted by schools. Here I speak with some personal experience. During the time I worked at a secondary school, I took part in several archaeological digs on sites of no importance at all, but a great deal was learnt by the pupils about archaeological methods. In the hands of imaginative teachers, of whom we have more and more, a great deal could be done to bring the past home to pupils, who might have no other idea of what ancient times were like. Actually doing a job in the fresh air, in the fields, is often more effective, and has more life to it. than reading about neolithic times, or whatever, in the classroom. There are many barrows that could be adopted by schools and looked after by them.

This meets something else that the Minister has said. The Minister, and the National Farmers' Union's brief, both refer to the need to keep barrows weed-free, to look after them and tend them. Something inside me tells me that there are many farmers who will not use their precious expensive labour in maintaining barrows throughout the summer. They have better things to do. Though some barrows will be well cared for, many more will be regarded by the farmer as a superfluous and costly chore and will be allowed to get weedy and deteriorate. Equally, one could think of many schools. even primary schools, which really would be rather pleased to have young children taking a pride in looking after archaeological sites.

Therefore, I suggest to the Department that they ought to talk to the Education Department and the Scottish Education Department to see whether a circular could be sent round to the schools to see what could be done on a local basis. There really is scope here for imagination. It would save expense and give pleasure, and it would be of educational value to the schools. I am sure the teachers would accept such responsibility.

Perhaps we in this country are not as good at looking after, shall I say, the "second division of our heritage", as other countries are. When it comes to our great monuments, I believe that Britain is as good as anywhere in the world, if not better, but I am talking about "league 2" and "league 3". I recently had the good fortune to be in China. If China, with all her problems, can really take seriously her archaeological sites and put much needed resources into their conservation, at least the British can do the same. This goes for other countries too. Hon. Members who have been in Israel and in some European countries, particularly France, will know what they have done. I am sure that we can at least measure up to the standards of neighbouring countries. Therefore, in a constructive spirit, yet wanting my questions answered, I put these ideas forward.

11.11 a.m.

Mr. Michael Hamilton

I will not detain the Committee for more than two minutes. I give the Bill a very warm welcome. My hon. Friend will agree that on occasions I have been critical of his Department in terms of conservation. It therefore gives me great pleasure to be able to welcome the Bill unreservedly. My hon. Friend's Department can take justifiable pride in this Measure.

My hon. Friend has said, quite rightly, that there is a wealth of monuments in Wiltshire. They include the great monuments of which the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) has spoken, such as Stonehenge, in respect of which it must be said that this Administration and its predecessor have done most noble work. Nothing has been too much trouble in caring for it. If a power line requires to be put underground in order to protect that monument, it is put underground.

The Bill is aimed at the humbler monuments, but it is none the worse for that. In passing, I want to express my concern about the monument known as The Moot, at Downton. I have not given a warning on it, but perhaps my hon. Friend could look at it. I am a little uneasy about it. It is the site of an early Saxon Parliament. Its future needs watching by my hon. Friend's Department. If, at a later date, he can give me any reassurance about that monument, I shall be relieved.

The Bill serves to demonstrate the present enlightened attitude of the Department of the Environment towards our monuments, and I wish it every success.

11.14 a.m.

Mr. David Clark

I join my hon. Friend in giving a welcome to the Bill. My hon. Friends and I have certain worries about the Bill—not so much about what it contains as what it does not contain. I shall be more pointed than my hon. Friend, and ask for a Government assurance that this is only the beginning of a series of Bills which the Government intend to introduce in implementing in full the Walsh Committee suggestions. We should like that assurance if we could possibly have it.

We certainly welcome the Bill. It is a small move towards strengthening the way in which we can protect our national heritage. Everyone welcomes this. This country is experiencing a renewal of interest in our national heritage—if I may use the common phrase. With increased leisure and education and—perhaps even more important—the much more adventurous approach to education, we find that schools are taking a particular interest in local history. One must pay great credit to the C.S.E. boards in schools for encouraging this.

One can already see the awakening of interest not only in Romano-British history but in early industrial history. I represent a constituency which straddles the Pennines in one of its lower sections, where the Roman roads run from the legionary fortresses at Chester across to York. We have the remains of two Roman fortresses in the constituency and one just outside.

My hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) put forward many constructive suggestions, and I want to develop one or two of his points. He suggested that we should not be concerned with every field monument but should operate in terms of priority. I suggest that we should work on the basis of priority not only in the historical but in the regional sense. We must consider our heritage not only in terms of historical value but on the basis of whether it can create interest.

It would be very wrong to concentrate entirely on Roman excavations in the Chester area or, in the North along the Hadrian's Wall, and ignore other ancient fortresses in the Pennines or other parts of the country. That has happened in the past, especially in the industrial cities of Lancashire—in places like Wigan and Manchester—where Roman forts once existed which are virtually non-existent now. In the city of Manchester one can see the remains of the Roman walls, but one has to go through a saw mill, and the Roman fort is situated under the arches of the railway track leading from Liverpool to Manchester. If there is to be priority, I suggest that we operate it on a regional basis.

With the motor car and the increased use of leisure, people will visit archælogical sites if they are properly sign-posted. Great steps have been made in this way with National Trust land, and along the Hadrian's Wall. Some excellent access agreements have been negotiated.

My hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian mentioned aerial photography. Certainly one very eminent archaeologist —I believe that he comes from Cambridge University—uses this technique a great deal. I believe that when some R.A.F. aerial photography was published, just after the war, at least one Roman fort was discovered, in the Kirkpatrick area near Castle Douglas, in South-West Scotland. This aerial photography is unbelievably clear. On the ground one could hardly recognise the site, but from the air one can see the outlines of the forts, the main gates, and where the main buildings were.

Has complete access been given to archaeologists and to R.A.F. aerial photographers? If not, will he undertake to have discussions with the Minister of Defence to see whether it is possible to permit distinguished archaeologists to examine all R.A.F. aerial photography?

In his introduction the Minister mentioned the question of national importance. We are obviously all concerned with this. One point that worries me, however, is that the Bill gives no indication that the help given to occupiers to retain field monuments is to be made public. The field monuments may be there, but is there any guarantee that people can see them? That point needs answering. I raise it because part of my constituency falls within the Peak District National Park, which has probably the best record of all the national parks in this respect. We have found that there has been restricted public access, not necessarily to field monuments but generally. It is only right that we should encourage not only interest in but access to places of this nature. I therefore ask the Minister whether he has any thoughts on the question of discussing access when grants are given. For example, if the field monuments are in the National Park, will he have discussions with the National Park authorities to give priority for access to them?

Furthermore, in the case of access agreements the National Parks authorities pay compensation. If a National Parks authority negotiates access to a field monument, where the owner of the land may be receiving a grant under this Bill, will compensation for access to that monument come out of the very limited revenue of the National Park, or from Government funds? If the Minister cannot answer that question now he may be able to do so in the future. It is an important point.

I asked the Minister's hon. Friend yesterday about the access provided by the Forestry Commission in its forests. I was very pleased to see that out of the 300 forests owned by the Commission open access was allowed to no less than 230.

There are only 12 to which they allowed no access at all. Perhaps the Minister could have discussions with his hon. Friends and with the Forestry Commission to ensure that, wherever possible, the public have access—even if only limited access—to these field monuments. We feel that this is important, and that my hon. Friend should make sure that none of these ancient monuments falls within the 12 forests to which the Forestry Commission—perhaps for very good commercial reasons—feels unable to grant public access.

My last point is on the question of wardens, and I am really flying a kite at this stage. I was very pleased to hear the Minister say that the real functions of these wardens would be in the field, as I have found the general environmental problem to be that so often we pass the Act in Parliament, yet we do very little to enforce it. For example, we have a very good system of public footpaths; the law is fairly clear about them, but we are losing miles and miles each and every year because there is no one to enforce the law. On the surface the local authority has power to do so, but how many local authorities have appointed footpath officers? Very few, and they are very stretched in trying to guard the footpaths.

Mention was made of the opencast excavation of clay, or opencast mining. We found that the planning procedure is very carefully laid down, but my experience is that time and time again the operators ignore the planning permission; they go further than their terms of reference. There is very little redress on this point; once a big hole has been excavated, what can one do? One of the great difficulties is that few local authorities have appointed excavation officers. I give credit to the West Riding; finally it has appointed an officer to go round the country checking on excavations to ensure that the terms of agreement are being adhered to.

Instead of having all these multifarious officers to deal with fairly minor but important aspects of our heritage, is there not a case for giving statutory powers to local authorities to appoint environmental officers not only to look at field monuments, but to keep a check on general large-scale planning permission? I put that forward as an idea.

With the hope that the Minister can give us some answers, I certainly give a welcome to the Bill.

Mr. Ifor Davies

It was not my intention to intervene in this debate. It occurred to me that the Bill has been described as very simple and very modest, but as the debate has proceeded it has become obvious that the Bill has attracted great attention. Many points of emphasis have been made which deserve to be highlighted.

The Minister very kindly made reference to my constituency in his opening remarks, and referred to the sites at the Gower Peninsula. My hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell), in a very excellent speech, highlighted many important matters. He referred to the motorway going through his constituency, and brought out some very important archaeological matters. There is no chance—at least I hope not—of a motorway going through the Gower Peninsula, but I think it is extremely important to take note of the emphasis laid this morning on drawing attention to these sites. I wish to pay my tribute to the inspectorate, for example, and to those people who, over the years, have made a contribution to the protection of what is now the business of this Bill.

Incidentally, the operative word here is the protection of " certain " ancient monuments; it does not mean preserving them all, as my hon. Friend so rightly said. We need to review this matter, to make quite sure that we are not preserving things that need not be preserved but lay emphasis on the "certain" aspect.

My hon. Friend was quite right in drawing attention to the need for good will in operating the Bill, and in securing the co-operation of the education authorities. I believe that many young people in our educational establishments would welcome very much the opportunity, as stated by my hon. Friend, of taking an interest in these matters, and a great deal could be done in that direction.

I am glad that attention was drawn to the question of costs, as the figure quoted here is eventually £150,000 a year; I take it that that will be a maximum figure. We ought, therefore, to have some indication that the Minister is satisfied that everything possible will be done, not only in having good will, but in having the active co-operation of our young people in this matter. Their attention should be drawn to the emphasis that we are laying on the importance of preserving and protecting "certain" ancient monuments.

Like other hon. Members here and in another place, it is right that we should welcome the Bill. Although it is modest, it can make a very important step forward in the direction in which we all hope we shall proceed to fulfil the other recommendations of the Walsh Report.

11.25 a.m.

Mr. Channon

By leave of the Committee; I very much welcome the debate we have had this morning; it has been extremely valuable. I will try and deal with all the points raised, and will certainly consider very carefully what hon. Members have said. There will be other opportunities of returning to it, either during the debate, or I will get in touch with the hon. Members concerned.

May I thank very much my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Michael Hamilton) for his extremely kind remarks, which will be very warmly welcomed by those involved in this extremely important work, and also the remarks of the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Ifor Davies) about the Inspectorate of Ancient Monuments. I believe that these are some of the finest of our public servants, who do a wonderful job regardless of what Government is in power, and I am glad that the Committee has recognised their great work over a long period of time.

My hon. Friend raised the point about the Moot at Downton; perhaps I could write to him about that. He was kind enough to say that he had not given me notice, and I will make inquiries about it and will be in touch with him.

Hon. Members have referred to the importance of schools and education authorities in getting young people involved, and I take note of those remarks. I will consider what we can do. I do not think it needs legislation; it needs stimulation in some way.

The hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell), in his extremely informative speech which needs a great deal of study, and other hon. Members, raised the point that one cannot protect everything. This Bill is, of course, selective, as the hon. Member for Gower points out. There are about 100,000 field monuments in all. This will protect about 8,000 of them. We can at least be said to have been selective to that extent. If we let many of the 8,000 go, it would be very deeply regretted by people in the locality. I also think that we should have to excavate, and aerial photography would not be enough. If we had to excavate even a reasonable proportion of those 8,000, it would be extremely expensive.

The point of aerial photography has been raised by a number of hon. Members. We use aerial photography quite a lot. I should imagine that the R.A.F., when they take their aerial photographs, are not particularly dealing with archælogical points and I doubt whether their photographs would be of interest to archæologists. I will, however, consider what the hon. Member said and will make inquiries. I will also consider the important points he raised about access agreements, and perhaps we can return to this subject at a later stage.

I entirely agree with one thing he said about the Bill, which is true of practically all legislation passed in this House. We pass Bills and then somehow we imagine that the great British public knows they have been passed and that things will actually happen. That is by no means sufficient, and continuing action is always necessary. Certainly, wardens will be very important in this respect.

May I now deal with some of the points raised by the hon. Member for West Lothian. I think his first point was that this would cost £150,000, and if the mathematical computation was made it would come out roughly at £20 per site and that, in his view, would very often be too much. I agree with him, but I do not think it is fair just to divide this by the 8,000 and say that it is going to be £20 each. There will be some sites that are very large and which will have to have a great deal more than £20; there will be some sites which will be very small and the figure will be lower than that.

I cannot go much further than that today. I think the exact detailed arrangements for the allocation of the money is something on which we should have discussions with the bodies particularly concerned with this matter. However, it certainly would be the intention that the payments would vary very widely, depending upon the size, condition and the special circumstances of the monument. It may be possible to have some sort of formula that will meet most cases. But although the average split would be £20, it does not mean to say that most people would get £20, because some sites would be much bigger and some would he much smaller.

Mr. Dalyell

I am curious to know how the figure of £150,000 was arrived at by the Walsh Committee. Was this simply an arbitrary figure or was there some basis for it?

Mr. Channon

I think it was the sort of figure that the Government thought would provide for a reasonable scheme. If I can give the hon. Member more details about that, I shall do so later, but I think the intention was to provide a scheme that was not derisory and yet which was not ludicrously extravagant, and this was thought to be the right sort of sum. I am not sure whether it is, but I think it is worth a try.

There was only one point on which I did not agree with the hon. Member, and that was the starred basis. At one stage he was rather keen on the treatment of starred monuments. This was one of the Walsh recommendations which we have some doubts about, and the Ancient Monuments Boards are not keen on this suggestion.

Mr. Dalyell

Why is that?

Mr. Channon

We have to be guided by the experts, and the Ancient Monuments Boards themselves are reluctant that there should be starred monuments. They think it would reduce the value of being a scheduled monument if some were starred and others were not. However, all these points will be considered and opportunities will exist for further discussion about them, if not in this Bill at a later date.

I come to the important points raised by various hon. Members about the generality of the Walsh recommendations. With one exception, the Government accept those recommendations of the Walsh Committee requiring legislation. The one recommendation on which we have some doubt is the recommendation for the powers of compulsory guardianship to be extended. At the present time our view is that the powers of compulsory guardianship are wide enough.

I should have liked to have seen a Bill put before this Committee dealing with all the recommendations of the Walsh Committee. This would be an extremely long and complicated Bill, going into many Clauses, and there is no parliamentary time for it this Session. Consequently, the Government, knowing full well that we would face criticism, quite rightly, from hon. Members who took this view, had to decide whether to wait until we could do the whole legislation or come forward with some modest proposal which would deal with what I believe to be the most urgent recommendations, which is why we have come forward with this. I can give the hon. Member the undertaking for which he asked me, that the Government accept those recommendations which require legislation, with the exception of the one dealing with powers of compulsory guardianship, and they intend to bring in a Bill at a convenient legislative opportunity, which, I fear, will not be in this Session, to implement those recommendations.

I can well understand the scepticism which the hon. Member meets with individual archaeologists who believe that it is just an attempt to fob them off by dealing with one of those points, but I can assure him that the Government do accept the legislative recommendations of the Walsh Committee. We also accept virtually all the other recommendations. There are one or two little ones which we are not able to accept in full at the present time, the question of starring being being one of them. I hope that will in some way allay the hon. Member's anxieties.

Mr. Dalyell

It does not entirely allay them. If I am being told by the Department that there is a shortage of parliamentary draftsmen, this is something that all hon. Members understand very well, as it is a real problem. On the other hand, if I am told that there is a shortage of parliamentary time, I think this is a bogus reason because the Government must know perfectly well that on a Bill of this kind hon. Members of the Opposition who are likely to be put on it either have a genuine interest or want to be constructive. It is not the sort of Bill on which there would be endless controversy.

Mr. Channon

I can assure the hon. Member that it is not bogus. It is not only a shortage of parliamentary time, but, as he quite rightly says, it is the shortage of draftsmen's time as well. It is a Bill which would probably contain over 50 Clauses and would be extremely complicated to draft. In fact, one of the major considerations that led to the Government's decision was the shortage of draftsmen's time, not only now but during the framing of the Bill. I personally believe there is a shortage of parliamentary time, because so-called non-controversial Bills of this kind lead to the consumption of a great deal of parliamentary time.

My hon. Friend the Minister of State at the Welsh Office and I who dealt with the so-called non-controversial Countryside Bill when we were in opposition know full well the extreme demands that made upon parliamentary time with, on that occasion, the maximum amount of good will on both sides of the Committee. I believe that exactly the same would quite likely take place if there were an Ancient Monuments Bill with all the interesting issues we have debated today consuming a lot of parliamentary time. Perhaps it should, because it is not something which Parliament often debates and it would be very interesting to have to deal with these matters. I assure the hon. Member that I am not trying to put him off. It is a shortage both of parliamentary time and, a very important factor, of parliamentary draftsmen's time in this extremely full Session of Parliament.

The other point raised by the hon. Member was whether this was the right way to spend £150,000, if this was the extra money available, or whether £150,000 should be spent in this way. Of course, extra money is being spent on ancient monuments. The total amount of money spent is approximately £2½ million a year. We have just announced an extra £100,000 for excavations next year and, of course, Lincoln will get a share of it. Last year I saw some very interesting work that has been done over the years in Winchester, in which the Department played a small part, and I think that is another interesting example. I entirely agree with the hon. Member about the importance of urban excavation of cities of this kind.

He asked me about Durrington Walls. They are fully protected by the Government under a preservation order, so they are not really analogous to the smaller field monuments dealt with in this Bill.

He asked me about details of the agreement mentioned by the Walsh Committee and inquired what agreement has been reached with the Ministry of Agriculture and the Ministry of Defence. We have reached agreement with both these Ministries on the lines suggested by the Walsh Committee. The Ministry of Agriculture have agreed to inform farmers applying for ploughing grants by a paragraph on the form ensuring that a grant is given when they apply in the way that Walsh dealt with it. The Ministry of Defence have issued a specific instruction to troops on firing ranges to take particular care where there are ancient monuments which might be threatened.

I do not know whether my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Michael Hamilton) has any knowledge of how this is working on Salisbury Plain, but if any hon. Member has any knowledge that either of these arrangements are not working, I shall be only too delighted to take the case up. Certainly, there is complete agreement in the Government about this issue.

Mr. Dalyell

I understand that they are worried about deep ploughing in Durrington Walls. Am I to understand that this cannot take place under the preservation order?

Mr. Channon

Durrington Walls is covered by a preservation order and should, therefore, be receiving full protection, but, in view of what the hon. Member has said, I shall make full inquiries about the case that he has in mind and will write to him.

The hon. Member asked me about recommendation No. 16 of the Walsh Committee. Some approaches have already been made to extraction and development groups about mineral extraction, and a more general approach will be made in the very near future.

He also asked me about labelling. There is some labelling, but I accept that more needs to be done. I think that it may be necessary to legislate to make this compulsory; that is one of the matters that we should have to consider if a Bill were to be brought in to implement more of the Walsh Committee's recommendations.

I was interested in the reference to motorways. It has recently been announced that we are to spend an extra £50,000 a year on excavations when motorways threaten monuments. That will more than double the present expenditure on excavations of this kind, and we are certainly trying to help in this way. I should like to remind hon. Members of the Dover case, where my right hon. Friend arranged for the level of the road to be raised so that an important Roman site was left undamaged and extra time was allowed for the site to be excavated. I certainly accept the hon. Member's point; all of us would like to spend even more, but efforts are being made which should be of real benefit.

Mr. Dalyell

I am not sure that we are asking for more money at this stage, but some of us would like to see the money spent more quickly. As the Government know very well, the problem with motorway construction is that a site is discovered and it may be a matter not of days but of hours, and, as there is such an enormous amount of money tied up in motorway construction, it is quite unrealistic to expect it to be brought to a halt even for more than two days. Therefore, I should like an assurance that the Government will think of ways in which a decision to spend money or not to do so can be made more quickly. I think that this is very difficult.

Mr. Channon

I will certainly consider what the hon. Member says. In the Dover case, the extra time was an important factor which helped, but I note what the hon. Member has said and I will examine the matter to see whether there is a way of speeding up the process. Perhaps the hon. Member and I can get in touch about that at a later stage.

The hon. Member asked me what official advice we had received from archaeologists. I can assure him that we have had very considerable discussions with the Ancient Monuments Boards and the other organisations. Perhaps I could cover that later in my remarks. If I fail to do so, I will let the hon. Gentleman know; we have had very full discussions, though I quite accept that there may be individual archaeologists who will not necessarily agree. In general, however, the Measure has been very much welcomed so far as I have been able to discover.

Hon. Members have asked what powers the wardens have. They have no powers, but, in the last resort, the Secretary of State has the power to make a preservation order and monuments can, as has always been the case, be given statutory protection. In that case, they can be fully protected. What the Bill seeks to achieve in the ovewhelming majority of such cases is to do it by good will and agreement rather than by resorting to statutory powers. However, the statutory powers exist and, in a case where an agreement could not be made, it would be necessary to decide whether it was sufficiently important to use those statutory powers.

Some of the recommendations of the Walsh Committee are for the local authorities to consider and, as the hon. Member knows, there is nothing that I can do to compel the laggard authorities. However, we shall certainly use what persuasion we can to encourage laggard authorities to take the necessary steps as recommended by the Walsh Committee.

The hon. Member also asked me about Lord Greenwood's remarks about polluter payments and the new principle involved here. I expect that you, Mr. Fitch, would rule me out of order if I were to quote Lord Greenwood, but perhaps I could say that he said that he did not want the point taken too seriously. I think he made it in passing in his speech, the text of which I have in front of me, though I accept that this is in a way a novel principle. Except in cases of compulsory protection, the Government have not previously offered people financial inducements in respect of their own monuments. However, in a way no new principle is involved, as the Acts already provide for compensation in cases of compulsory protection, and it is now extended to voluntary protection.

We examined the possibility of doing this in another way, by purchase, leasing or compulsory protection. The costs involved would be very much higher. It is roughly estimated that a capital sum of about £7½ million would be required to purchase, some £4½ million or a little more for leasing, or over £4 million for compensation for compulsory protection. The Government would also have to meet continuing maintenance liabilities in the first two cases.

As against the very high costs for the other methods of proceeding, it seems to me that £150,000 a year is a much better financial burden, and I think that ancient monuments are not wholly analogous to historic buildings or other ancient monuments for which other arrangements can be made. With historic buildings, there are already very strong powers; they are already in beneficial use, and owners can reasonably be expected to maintain them. It seems to me that an ancient monument is very often an unusable ruin and is a liability rather than an asset to its owner.

One can argue whether the principle is right or wrong, but I believe that what is more important in this case is the question whether this will mean that more of these monuments will be protected than otherwise would have been the case. All the evidence so far shows that the scheme will be warmly welcomed and widely used and that many thousands of monuments will be protected or at least put out of danger than would otherwise have been the case. Personally, I believe that to be a good cause, and I think all the members of the Committee, including the hon. Member, share that view. We shall have an opportunity to discuss these matters in fuller detail during the Committee stage if hon. Members agree to give the Bill a Second Reading, and if there is anything that I have not covered, I will return to it on that occasion if hon. Members wish.

I am most grateful to hon. Members for the spirit in which they have dealt with the Bill, for the constructive criticism put forward and for the very interesting and provocative ideas raised, all of which we shall study, and I hope that the general conclusion of our deliberations will be beneficial to the field monuments covered by the Bill, which I think is the aim of all members of the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved, That the Chairman do now report to the House that the Committee recommend that the Field Monuments Bill [Lords] ought to be read a Second time.

Mr. Channon

Before we rise, Mr. Fitch, may I say that I understand that this is the first Committee over which you have presided. May I hope that all your Committees will be as equable, as well-disciplined and as speedy as this one. I am sure that we owe it largely to your conduct in the Chair, and we are all grateful to you.

Mr. Dalyell

I am afraid that there is not much hope that all your Committees will be as equable, but I should like to associate myself with those remarks.

The Chairman

I thank the Committee for those kind remarks.

Committee rose at eleven minutes to Twelve o'clock.

THE FOLLOWING MEMBERS ATTENDED THE COMMITTEE:
Fitch, Mr. (Chairman)	Fisher, Mr. Nigel
Blenkinsop, Mr.	Gibson-Watt, Mr.
Channon, Mr.	Goodhew, Mr.
Churchill, Mr.	Hamilton, Mr. Michael
Clark, Mr. David	Harper, Mr.
Cunningham, Mr. George	Pike, Miss
Dalyell, Mr.	Ridsdale, Mr.
Davies, Mr. Ifor	Sinclair, Sir
Dunnett, Mr.	Trafford, Dr.