Ancient and Historic Monuments (Wales) (Hansard, 20 June 1984)

§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Wyn Roberts)

I am glad of the opportunity to put the record straight following the appearance of the article in The Guardian on 3 March. I appreciate the 452 concern that this article has generated among those who, like my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and myself, care about our heritage and, in particular, ancient monuments and sites of archaelogical interest. The Government have an excellent record on these matters and I value this opportunity to answer The Guardian's allegations. My right hon. Friend has carried out a personal investigation into the specific cases referred to in that article. As a result, I can best describe its content s as grossly distorted and misleading. It is riddled with factual errors and with uncorroborated statements and glaring omissions.

Before dealing with the specific cases mentioned by my hon. Friend, I should point out that the article refers only to individual cases in Glamorgan and Gwent and that sections of the Glamorgan/Gwent archaeological trust have been conducting a public campaign in recent months to make known their own views on archaelogical priorities and procedures—priorities not always shared by others equally expert nor, indeed, by all members of the trust itself. The recent criticisms in The Guardian were not supported by comments from other parts of Wales nor did they extend to other parts of Wales, where just as much work of archaelogical importance is being carried out by the Government or with the help of Government funds.

The article refers to Caerleon and the highway site at Bulmore in Gwent as among the most important Roman sites in Europe. It fails to mention that, because we share that view, we have provided for the construction of a building to cover and protect the Roman baths at Caerleon — at a cost of over £350,000. This will ensure the permanent preservation and presentation to the public of these remarkable remains. It is odd that this important work is not mentioned at all in the article; but I suppose that, as it clearly demonstrates a determination to conserve the Roman remains at Caerleon, it would not sit easily in an article seemingly intent on proving the opposite.

As to the alleged 10 development threats at Caerleon, only one application has been determined by the Welsh Office so far. This was an application by the National Museum of Wales for permission to extend its museum building at Caerleon for the benefit of visitors to the site. Permission was granted, subject to certain conditions. The bodies which the department consulted before considering the application, that is, the Royal Commission on Ancient and Historical Monuments in Wales, the Council for British Archaeology, the Glamorgan/Gwent archaeological trust and the relevant local authorities, were completely content that we should grant permission.

I am aware of the three proposals referred to as major threats by The Guardian. One relates to proposed extensions to an existing school building—it is currently under consideration. The second — in respect of proposed works at the south gate site—has not yet been received. The third — and most serious — is at a formative stage and I understand that, even if it is pursued, any firm proposal is probably more than a year away. In any event, in all three cases, the sites in question have already been scheduled by the Department as being of national importance and any works will, therefore, require the Secretary of State's consent. I can assure my hon. Friend that any applications will be most carefully considered.

The allegation in The Guardian is that we grant such applications too freely. But, once again, the article has got it wrong. During the past two years, we have received 85 453 applications for scheduled monument consent to carry out works at sites of national importance throughout Wales. The majority of those applications related to conservation, presentation or excavation works, and, therefore, prima facie, are to be welcomed. They are not for the most part applications for development in the usual sense.

My right hon. Friend has granted unconditional consent in only four of those 85 cases. The remainder have either been refused — all in connection with proposed development schemes — or, in the majority of cases, granted consent subject to conditions which meet the necessary archaeological requirements. In all such cases, before any decision is taken, expert archaeological or architectural advice is obtained from within the Department and from national bodies such as the Council for British Archaeology and the Royal Commission on Ancient and Historical Monuments in Wales. Of course, such advice has sometimes to be weighed against wider social factors, including the need for development for the benefit of the many people who live and work in the area. However, the advice we receive is always carefully considered and, in the vast majority of cases, fully accepted and acted upon, as the statistics clearly show.

At Bulmore, it is alleged that a vast area "nearly a mile long" needed statutory protection. In fact there has been a broad consensus that, in addition to a field scheduled in 1971, an area measuring approximately 300 m by 250 m should be scheduled. That has been done. So that we can obtain more information about the surrounding area, there has been a full geophysical survey. If the results show that there are additional sites of importance, we shall not hesitate to schedule them and thus give them statutory protection.

Although there was some delay in completing the procedures necessary to schedule the additional area agreed, that delay did not lead to the loss of any remains of significance. The only work carried out in this area was the stripping of some 50–60 sq m of topsoil. That exposed the top course of a Roman stone wall, which was not harmed. No further work was done in that area.

The Roman wall illustrated in the article — which, incidentally, is not a town wall but a much less significant farmyard wall — was discovered, together with other remains, on a further area of land away from the fields being scheduled. This particular area of land was previously not thought to contain Roman remains and there had been no suggestions that it, too, should have been scheduled. However, the owner delayed the proposed work to enable the finds to be recorded by an archaeological investigation undertaken by the National Museum of Wales and funded by the Department. In view of those discoveries, a further area of land has subsequently been scheduled.

According to The Guardian article a huge scheduled site of 22 acres at Usk disappeared from the Welsh Office's memory". That statement cannot be reconciled with the fact that the area in question was scheduled by the Welsh Office in 1966, that the owner and local authority were notified, that an entry was made in the land charges register and that the Department has recently considered an application for scheduled monument consent for the erection of a new house, which will slightly impinge on the scheduled area. 454 The Glamorgan/Gwent archaeological trust has not objected to this development, as it will not disturb any Roman remains there.

We are accused of refusing funds for excavation of threatened sites at Cowbridge in the Vale of Glamorgan. We have no record of being asked for funds for that purpose, but we do have a record of a request from the Glamorgan/Gwent archaeological trust for help in obtaining permission from the local planning authority for excavation work to be carried out in the area. Because of the intercession of the Department, permission was obtained for the trust to carry out the excavations, which have now been satisfactorily completed.

The Guardian article states that Marsh house at East Aberthaw was not afforded statutory protection because it was assumed by the Welsh Office that it was already a listed building. The fact is that, until a matter of weeks before its demolition, there was no suggestion that the building was worthy of protection. The article states that it was demolished so that the site could be used as a dump for waste ash from a power station. The fact is that consent for the ash dump had been granted to the Central Electricity Generating Board nearly 20 years ago. Demolition was begun in 1982 because the owners were concerned that it was unsafe and there had been reports of children playing in the ruins. The Department was then asked to consider scheduling the building and demolition was stopped for site visits and full assessment. At that stage we found ourselves compelled to take the view that what then remained of the building was not worthy of scheduling, and scheduling action was accordingly not taken.

As my hon. Friend said, the article alleges that at Coity castle my right hon. Friend granted consent for development work and informed archaeologists only after the developers had dug to a depth of 8 feet". In fact, officials had informed the Glamorgan/Gwent archaeological trust of the proposal as soon as a planning application had been received. Neither the trust nor any of the other bodies consulted objected to the proposed works and consent was granted, subject to the trust being given notice of commencement of work, so that it could hold a watching brief. It appears that the developers subsequently began "clearance" works on the site without informing the trust, but it is wrong to suggest that the developers had dug to a depth of 8 ft. It is also nonsense to suggest that the trust had not been informed of the scheme: it had been consulted in advance by the Department.

At Coed-yr-Hendre, in Mid-Glamorgan, The Guardian relates a bizarre story of how the Welsh Office suggested that a thin high needle in the middle of a quarry should be protected but dropped the idea when it was pointed out that the only way archaeologists could gain access would be by helicopter — an amusing, but worrying, case, if true. The facts are very different, and recount a successful outcome, whereby the Department negotiated an agreement with the developers that a full year would be allowed for excavation of a substantial area before any quarrying was allowed. Small success stories such as this, we know, do not sell newspapers, but I see no justification for standing the story on its head and turning success into a failure.

The same is true of the proposed road scheme at Chepstow, which would, according to The Guardian article, destroy the remains of the Norman priory and a Roman settlement. It fails to mention that, of the possible 455 routes for the new road, the Department's preferred route has the backing of the Historic Buildings Council for Wales, avoids the former priory church and crosses the priory area on land, some of which has already been investigated without result. The road will be on an embankment, and works excavations will be limited in the main to drainage trenches so, if there is anything of value below the surface it will not be destroyed. Furthermore, there will be an opportunity for archaeological inspection of this and other areas of ground uncovered as the works progress. This is perhaps the reason why the Glamorgan/ Gwent archaeological trust did not register any objection at the recent public inquiry, an inquiry which The Guardian hoped would provide an opportunity for the archaeological case to be heard. All the trust has done is to ask for an opportunity to conduct further investigations, a request to which we have already agreed in principle.

I hope that, by referring briefly to many of the individual cases mentioned in The Guardian article, I have illustrated what I meant in my opening remarks when I dubbed the article "grossly distorted and misleading". I hope the House will also understand why it is, perhaps, too generous to describe large parts of that article as "factual errors". They quite clearly present a totally false picture of the true state of affairs in respect of archaeological achievements in Wales.

I must also refer to the implication which runs through the article that we are not making sufficient funds available for archaeological and other conservation work in Wales. Finance for the ancient monuments activities of the Welsh Office has been increased from £1,105,200 in 1981–80 to £1,881,650 in 1984–85. Expenditure on maintenance and repairs of buildings in our care has now been doubled. Grants to owners have now been quadrupled and grants to the archaeological trusts in Wales have risen by about 25 per cent. during the same period. Finance for Historic Buildings Council grants has gone up from £898,500 to £1,584,000. Of course, money is not limitless, and each area of expenditure has, understandably, its claimants who would like to see more spent. However, I believe that we have provided enough money to meet the main needs. I think that we are entitled to some credit for increasing expenditure on the level of conservation at a time of economic difficulty when it has been necessary to cut expenditure generally.

Having referred to specific cases and the general financial provisions, I should perhaps deal with another part of The Guardian article which has caused concern in various quarters — the current strength of our ancient monuments inspectorate. The article states that when the Conservative party took office, there were five inspectors in Wales and now there are only two at work. What it does not mention is that one had recently had a baby and would be returning to work soon, one new appointee was to join the Department on 2 April and that the post of principal inspector had been advertised and has now been filled. The omission of important facts such as these can be as misleading as the more blatant misrepresentations. The inspectorate is in good heart. It comprises individuals of high quality and absolute integrity. The advice that it gives is known to be of that calibre and it is respected by all thoughtful people in this field.

Before concluding, I should like to take up the reference to "Cadw: Welsh Historic Monuments". "Cadw" is, of course, Welsh for "keep". My right hon. 456 Friend announced in the House in January the proposed establishment of this new unit, which will administer and promote ancient monuments in our care and carry out other existing statutory functions in respect of monuments and historic buildings in Wales. The Guardian article suggests that its creation implicitly recognises that the Welsh Office has made a poor fist of its responsibility for the physical fabric of the Welsh national memory". The reality is that the Welsh Office record on conserving and protecting ancient monuments is good, but my right hon. Friend and I believe that there is much that can be done to improve the display, presentation and proper marketing of the ancient monuments in our care. It is our conviction that the care and protection of those monuments can, and should, go hand in hand with a more attractive and imaginative presentation to visitors of this important part of our national heritage. For that reason, additional specialist staff will be employed in the new unit to work alongside existing officials so that traditional conservation work can be carried out in unison with the task of making monuments more interesting and informative to visitors. I emphasise that the preservation of monuments will remain the prime objective and that the director of Cadw will be responsible to a steering committee which my right hon. Friend will chair and which will include the chairmen of the Historic Buildings Council for Wales, the Ancient Monuments Board for Wales and the Wales Tourist Board. Far from viewing the establishment of this new unit as recognition of past failures or a lack of concern, it is clear evidence of my right hon. Friend's determination to see that our heritage is both preserved and widely appreciated. It is also evidence of his determination to provide an effective link between all those concerned with every aspect of the care, presentation and appreciation of ancient monuments in Wales. The Guardian's alarmist view of the new unit is certainly not shared by the vast majority of those who have sent comments on the consultation paper which has been circulated. A large number of people including some members of the Glamorgan/Gwent trust have been quick to disassociate themselves from the absurdities of The Guardian article.

In conclusion, I should emphasise that we do, indeed, have an effective system for protecting our sites of archaeological interest and importance, which has operated smoothly and with a very large measure of consent from all those affected. Perhaps the key point to remember in considering The Guardian article is that in no case in the Gwent/Glamorgan area has scheduled monument consent been granted contrary to the views expressed by the Gwent/Glamorgan archaeological trust and the other expert bodies wich are consulted; there can, therefore, be absolutely no justification for criticism from that quarter of the way in which the consent procedures have been operated.

Where archaeological sites of the very greatest importance are concerned the work taking place at the Roman baths site at Caerleon — to which I referred earlier—speaks for itself. In the wider field of ancient monuments generally, my right hon. Friend's establishment of the new organisation Cadw reflects his determination to ensure that our heritage is effectively conserved for the benefit of the people of Wales, that the good standards of presentation that already exist at some of our monuments are extended to the others, and that 457 everything is done to increase their attraction and interest to the general public, including our many visitors from other parts of the United Kingdom and abroad.

In conclusion, I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this matter and thus allowing me to put the record 458 straight and to respond on an issue which—no matter how ill-conceived — has caused concern among those who care about our heritage.