HC Deb 31 January 1977 vol 925 cc191-202

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Stoddart.]

11.28 p.m.

Miss Janet Fookes (Plymouth, Drake)

Writing about Dartmoor, Mr. James Mildren, the environment correspondent of the Western Morning News, which circulates widely in the West Country, said: Oh Dartmoor, Thy Name is Controversy. Rarely has a journalist spoken a truer word.

There are competing, not to say conflicting, interests of all kinds. For example, there are the farmers who live by the soil of Dartmoor. There is the Army, which depends to a great extent on the use of Dartmoor for exercises since it is a remote area. There are china clay companies, which produce china clay which is of great importance to exports and to those employed in the industry. There are the ramblers and the nature lovers, who see Dartmoor as a marvellous place to get away from the madding crowd. There are the conservationists generally, who want to see that it is preserved from harm. There are the archaeologists, with their specialised interests. All those visitors now come flocking to the moor by car.

Dartmoor is largely a national park. That imposes heavy obligations on the committee of the county council that is charged with looking after those interests. It has to bear in mind national considerations when dealing with all these matters. It finds it ironical that the very popularity of Dartmoor is causing problems in itself. It is estimated, for example, that about 9,000 people will swarm out from Plymouth on a fine Sunday afternoon in the summer and that perhaps 7,000 more will come from the Torbay area. With the completion of the M5, the Dartmoor National Park is now within three and a half hours' driving for 18 million people. It is fervently to be hoped that they do not all come at once. Nevertheless, that is an indication of the importance of this exceedingly lovely wild stretch of countryside that I have come to love very much during my time as a Member for one of the Plymouth seats.

Dartmoor is also remarkable for the number of its ancient monuments, which are the subject of the debate. The National Park Committee might be forgiven if its preoccupation with other aspects of the moor led it to neglect this aspect. Happily, the National Park Plan, which is still in draft, although there is a statutory requirement to place it before the Minister in due course, gives ancient monuments a high priority. Indeed, it describes their conservation as a prime objective, stating that they should be preserved by all possible means.

There are so many ancient monuments on Dartmoor that it has been described in the past as an inexhaustible treasure house of Bronze Age relics, but I think we have learned in this modern age, when things can be swept away so fast by the pace of change, to distrust anything that is described as inexhaustible. It is only too easy to exhaust our heritage.

It means, in simple terms, that our remote forebears living about 2,000 years before the birth of Christ formed settlements on Dartmoor. They farmed, enjoyed some simple amusements and, like all of us now, were subject to death. All these aspects of life and death are reflected in the stones that they left behind. We can trace them by looking at the circular stone foundations of their huts, their enclosures, their burial cairns and their field systems generally.

There are even strange circles whose meaning is not fully known but which may well have been used for astronomical observations. Hundreds of years later, in medieval times, crosses were set up to help guide travellers across Dartmoor and to act as little centres of devotion. These, too, are now part of our heritage.

One of the finest groups of Dartmoor monuments, ironically enough, lies just outside the national park boundaries. They have been under threat of destruction since planning permission was granted in 1951 for tipping china clay waste. It is doubtful now that planning permission would ever be granted if it were sought. Nevertheless, it is in that sense a fait accompli. It has been a burning issue locally, and continues to be, and has, moreover, aroused national concern.

I quote two distinguished archaeologists, the late Sir Mortimer Wheeler and Jacquetta Hawkes, who wrote to The Times in November 1975 as follows: We are of the united opinion that the loss of these antiquities would constitute little less than a national disaster. I echo that, and would add that not only are these monuments most precious, but they are in a very lovely setting, in an area, to use the jargon of landscaping, of outstanding natural beauty. Furthermore, they are fairly accessible from the main centre of population, Plymouth, which is itself the regional centre, so it is very easy for visitors, school parties and the like to visit this particular spot. It is known as Shaugh Moor, and the actual area under threat of destruction is known on the maps as Area Y.

In the longer term there is a strong case for altering the boundaries of the national park to include this area. Indeed, this was envisaged in the Sandford Report, which reviewed national park policy and reported in 1974. It suggested that the existing boundaries should not be sacrosanct. It was of course referring to all national parks, but I think that that was particularly relevant to this area.

In the more immediate problem there is one encouraging sign. The two china clay companies operating in the area, Watts, Blake and Bearne, and English China Clays, are now in negotiation to see whether Area Y can be saved from tipping either by sharing tipping facilities or by exchanging land. I can provide the Minister with a map showing this more clearly if he wishes. I warmly commend the two companies for taking this very enlightened view, and I wish them well in these negotiations.

Why, then, the concern that leads me to ask for this Adjournment debate tonight? Ironically enough, on this occasion it is not the china clay companies but the Department of the Environment itself that is causing me acute concern. I have been reliably informed that the Department is organising a so-called rescue dig, beginning at Easter and continuing until August 1977. Presumably, it is intended to make a record of what is there before the area is obliterated for ever under mountains of china clay waste. However, I gather that this would involve stripping off the turf and removing and not replacing the stones, and that would be what one might term excavating to the death.

I hope that tonight the Minister will be able to reassure me, but if it is the intention of the Department to go ahead on the lines I believe to be intended, I can only beg the Minister, with all the force at my command, in no circumstances to allow the excavations to go ahead, at least before the china clay companies have been given a full opportunity to make some arrangement that would enable tipping to take place other than in Area Y. If he is to take any action, surely he should use his good offices to forward these negotiations.

We look to the Department to act as the guardians of this precious heritage of ours. I remind the Minister of the old adage—noblesse oblige. The Department is of high rank, and it carries an obligation to do all in its power to save these monuments on Dartmoor. I hope that we shall not be disappointed by what the Minister has to tell us tonight.

11.40 p.m.

Mr. Anthony Steen (Liverpool, Wavertree)

My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Drake (Miss Fookes) has performed a service to the nation by raising tonight a question of exceptional public importance and of deep national significance which goes beyond constituency boundaries and strikes at the root of our national heritage—the preservation of ancient monuments on Dartmoor.

We who represent cities such as Liverpool have seen the ravages of urban decay and the wholesale destruction of our fine buildings. We are therefore the first to appreciate the importance of preserving the great monuments and buildings of the past. The monuments on Dartmoor tell our island story of life lived thousands of years ago by our ancestors. I take it that the Minister will agree that each of these monuments must be preserved. If that is so, I must tell him that his Department seems hell-bent on destroying a unique complex of ancient monuments which have international acclaim. These consist of a dozen hut circles enclosing pounds, a cairn circle, a number of tumuli, a stone row and a number of important reeves. Those are on Shaugh Moor.

Although the area of these historic remains is of high landscape value, the real significance is the unique combination of two different cultures on one site—the early Bronze Age and the later rectangular field system. Not surprisingly, in 1971 the Department listed this network as an ancient monument. Yet the paradox is that the Department is to start an excavation to destruction here at Easter. The Minister will be horrified to learn that the operation involves deep digging and turf stripping. The stones of the monuments will be moved and the area laid waste.

Furthermore, the Minister will probably need to divert the public footpath, Shaugh Prior 55, which runs right through these ancient monuments. How is he to do that?

Will the Minister tell the House what regard he has taken of public interest? On whose authority has he authorised obliteration of these wonderful monuments? The public will benefit nothing from the archives resulting from the dig, but people do care for freedom of access to Shaugh Moor, the incredible views from there, and the interest and fun of discovering monuments on the ground at the very spot where their predecessors built them.

Will the Minister tell the House tonight that he will stop the dig going ahead until an inquiry has been held, and that he will not agree to be a party to an environmental crime—an act of vandalism—of such magnitude?

I cannot believe that the Minister, having heard these pleas, will be oblivious to what is happening—or has the turf been pulled over his eyes? He must be aware that by savaging relics of the past he will have a lot to answer for, both in the House and elsewhere. Will he therefore tell the House tonight that he will not willingly be a party to an environmental crime of such magnitude?

11.43 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Kenneth Marks)

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Plymouth, Drake (Miss Fookes) for the way in which she has reminded us of the broader aspects of the importance of Dartmoor as well as that of the ancient monuments on the moor and in the surrounding countryside. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Steen) pointed out—I am sure that those present in the House will agree with him—the importance of places such as Dartmoor to those of us who live in and represent the great cities.

I appreciate what hon. Members have said about the importance of the ancient monuments of Dartmoor. It is of paramount importance in British archeology. As the hon. Lady said, 4,000 years ago, when the climate was markedly milder than it is now, the moor was occupied by successive populations of hunters and farmers. In many areas physical remains of the period are plentiful. These take the form of the stone walls of circular huts, which occur either singly or in both enclosed and unenclosed village groups. Associated with them are extensive and superimposed systems of boundary walls dividing the moorland up into large "estates" as well as into individual farmsteads and fields.

Also to be found are stone rows and circles, the ritual monuments that, together with the numerous burial cairns and mounds, indicate something of the less material side of life then, and of the ways in which the people disposed of their dead.

However, over-exploitation of the land—it is interesting that that should have happened 3,000 years ago, as well—together with rapidly worsening climate, led to the deposition of a layer of blanket-bog over most of the area between the years 1200 and 800 BC. Densest on the higher and more level ground, this peat rendered the ground of little use agriculturally, while sealing beneath it the prehistoric land surface and in places the sites and monuments themselves.

Occupation of the moor continued, with much sparser populations. Thus, there survive many other hut circles, which can date from as late as the Roman period, as well as deserted medieval sites.

The Department has endeavoured to discharge its responsibilities under the Ancient Monuments Acts by scheduling, that is, giving a status and legal protection to, over 400 monuments. We already have under our direct care a large area at Merrivale, where there is a concentration of stone rows, cairns and settlements, and the deserted medieval village at Hound Tor. We are hoping to add the enclosed settlement at Grimspound, and a very extensive area of archaeological lansdcape in the upper Plym Valley, which contains monuments of many types and dates. The Plym Valley scheme has a special purpose—to preserve not only the monuments themselves but also their natural setting.

In the past, there has been concern about damage from the use of Dartmoor by the Services. More years ago than I care to remember, I was one of those who dug on that site, but not for archaeological purposes. There has also been concern about damage from afforestation. I am glad to say that the situation has greatly improved, thanks to improved liaison arrangements with the Ministry of Defence. We are not complacent about this, and are keeping the position under continuous review. As for forestry operations, I pay tribute to the Working Party on the Conservation of Ancient Monuments on Forestry Commission land, which was set up in 1975 by the Devon County Council and in which the Dartmoor Preservation Association plays an important part.

Both hon. Members have expressed concern over the future of Area Y, on Shaugh Moor, which is part of the area for which permission to work china clay has been held by Messrs. Watts, Blake and Bearne since 1951. This area contains several monuments and field systems, the loss of which would be a matter for regret. The Ancient Monuments Board for England at one stage advised that the whole complex of monuments in this area should be preserved. Its advice was conveyed to the Devon County Council. The Council took full account of it in its review of all aspects of the problem published in 1975, including possible alternative sites. When the report of that review was available to them the Ancient Monuments Board accepted that, if it was not possible to preserve the inviolability of the whole of Area Y, the county council's proposal for a North Saddleborough Tip was the solution least harmful to the general environment, including the monuments.

The county council decided not to revoke the 1951 permission. The Secretary of State decided not to intervene. This is not the occasion for a debate on that decision since it involves many considerations besides ancient monuments. It is fair to say that the monuments in Area Y are neither unique nor so extremely important that their preservation on the site must outweigh all other considerations.

In 1976 the Department carried out an archaeological survey of the monuments in Area Y in order to obtain information necessary to plan a programme of further investigation, including excavation, which will be essential before the monuments are affected by china clay working. We regard such investigations to obtain knowledge from the sites while they are still accessible as a matter of plain duty. The programme of investigation will extend over several years. The first stage will be begun, with the consent of the owners of the land and the mineral rights, in April 1977.

In view of what the hon. Lady has said about negotiations between the companies involved I shall willingly postpone the proposed excavations in Area Y if the tipping programme is halted. We have no information to suggest that this is to be expected. In those circumstances, we must continue with our preparation for a carefully-phased programme, unless and until conclusive evidence that they are unnecessary is forthcoming from the firms involved or the county council. We do not have such evidence at present. There is only just enough time to carry out the programme to a standard that is compatible with the significance of the monuments and we cannot put the programme at risk on unsubstantiated evidence. If the firms involved are considering this, I hope that they will let us know. I shall do all in my power to encourage such discussions and to encourage the postponement, and if possible the decision not to dig on the site.

While regretting the expected loss of these monuments, I must point out that there is a positive side, in that the knowledge that we expect to obtain from them will enlarge understanding of the archaeology of Dartmoor.

I should like to refer also to the monument No. 872. There has been an allegation that a channel has been recently dug through a prehistoric pound or encloure on Shaugh Moor in contravention of the Ancient Monuments Acts. The Department has examined the site recently in response to letters and the publication of the allegation in the Press.

The monument is not scheduled. It was considered by an inspector of ancient monuments several years ago—that is how it got a number—but the proposal was never put forward by the Inspectorate to the administrative division which gives notice of proposed scheduling and completes the formal procedures. The surviving departmental records do not reveal why the Inspectorate did not propose scheduling. The owner and occupier of the land were never notified that scheduling was contemplated, and there is no entry in respect of the monument in the register of local land charges as there would be if it were scheduled.

Misunderstanding may have arisen because an inspector of ancient monuments, in giving evidence at a public inquiry in 1971 into an application to work china clay on Lee Moor, submitted a list of monuments showing some as scheduled and others as proposed for scheduling. No. 872 was wrongly included in the scheduled category. This error has only just been found by the Department, while investigating the present complaint. It was of no consequence at the 1971 inquiry.

I am informed that the monument itself is virtually a wreck. It is flooded, and encroached upon by tipping. My advisers cannot say for certain whether the channel was recently dug or made some years ago, as, I understand, the firm believes. It has rushes growing in it, a fact which suggests that it cannot be very recent. The Department believes that the monument in its present state is not worthy of scheduling, but we shall consider whether to arrange an excavation of what survives.

I shall not leave this unfortunate incident—there has been a lack of information and communication—without making it clear that the Department is grateful to hon. Members and other people who draw our attention to damage or threats to monuments, whether scheduled or not, since we have not the staff to inspect them regularly. We follow up such information and make inspections where that seems desirable. We cannot always do that as quickly as we would like because our inspectors have a very full work load and their time is often committed for many days ahead. Accordingly, we would ask to be given a reasonable chance to look into complaints before accusations are made. We can often do a lot to safeguard monuments by advice and persuasion.

I regret any embarrassment that the 1971 error may cause to those who have been misled by it. It is fair to add that the Department was not given much time to look into the matter before the accusation was published. The first letter of complaint to us was dated 3rd January and the accusation appeared in the Press on 11th January.

Apologies are due to Messrs. Watts, Blake and Bearne, which has been wrongly accused of "wanton and unlawful behaviour". I should like to add that the Department has for many years found the firm most co-operative in voluntary negotiations to minimise damage to monuments, so far as its operational requirements permit, and in giving access to its land for the purpose of archaeological investigation.

I assure hon. Members that I shall keep the whole question under review, particularly in view of what the hon. Lady said about negotiations taking place between the companies. I shall do what I can. I shall discuss the matter with my noble Friend Lady Birk, who is responsible in the Department, and see what we can do in what has become an unfortunate circumstance.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at five minutes to Twelve o'clock.