§ 2.35 p.m.
§ LORD ALPORTMy Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
§ [The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will take powers to designate any find of major historical, archaeological or cultural importance made during building operations in the United Kingdom an object of national importance, and to ensure that its discovery is immediately reported to the Ministry of Public Building and Works, and to make provision for a reward to the finder and compensation to the developer for loss resulting from delay or alteration of plans necessitated by the preservation or removal of the object concerned.]
§ THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES (LORD MITCHISON)My Lords, my right honourable friend the Minister of Public Building and Works has power to schedule structural finds as ancient monuments. Although there is no legal obligation to report such finds, the honorary county correspondents of the Ministry of Public Building and Works try to keep in touch with building schemes likely to yield discoveries; so, too, do the local archaeological societies throughout the country.
The procedure to be followed in respect of human remains and "treasure trove" is also governed by existing law. Human remains may not be removed from a place of burial without the Home Secretary's licence or, in certain circumstances, a faculty issued by 1022 a Bishop. If any treasure is found the circumstances must be reported to the coroner, who has the duty to make inquiry as to whether it constitutes "treasure trove". Other finds are the property of the landowner concerned, and in general experience shows that owners are willing to preserve them and to give or lend them to appropriate museums. In these circumstances it seems unlikely that further legislation would achieve as good results as voluntary co-operation, particularly as its interpretation and implementation would give rise to considerable difficulties.
§ LORD ALPORTMy Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he is aware that his Answer discloses the fact that practice in these matters here in the United Kingdom lags far behind the practice in Continental countries, on both sides of the Iron Curtain? Is it not necessary now to ensure that the preservation of finds of this sort does not depend simply upon the fortuitous existence of enthusiastic amateurs in the locality, but instead is taken on as a national responsibility, for which there should be national supervision and some form of national financial assistance?
§ LORD MITCHISONMy Lords, I am sorry to find that the noble Lord is so critical of voluntary efforts in this matter. They have, on the whole, been very successful. The noble Lord is well aware, I think, of the success that has attended operations of the Colchester Excavation Committee, of which he is the President. The arrangements made—I think in or near Colchester—for the removal of three Roman mosaic pavements that were discovered on the site of a proposed car park were the result of voluntary effort. If it were left to legislation, it would be extremely hard to find what ought to be done in terms that are really workable. How is a man digging in the ground to know about the archaeological or cultural importance, let us say, of a copper coin which he turns up? If it is gold or silver, it is "treasure trove": but copper coins may, on the one hand, be entirely without any significance for these purposes, or, on the other, may produce most interesting information. It depends not only on what they are, but on where they are found. Noble Lords will remember that the tracks of Roman merchants far beyond the boundaries of 1023 the Roman Empire were traced largely by small objects of that sort. But in practice a man cannot know, without expert advice, what is of this kind of value.
§ LORD ALPORTMy Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his tribute to the Colchester Excavation Committee, which on this occasion has done, I think, very good work, thanks to the efficiency of its professional advisers and also to the forbearance of the construction company concerned. But the Colchester Excavation Committee was formed only about twelve months ago. May I ask the noble Lord whether he realises that this was merely proving the point I was making: that if there had not been local initiative this find would not have been preserved? Is it not the responsibility of the Government to take a closer and more serious interest in this kind of activity which is of cultural importance?
§ LORD MITCHISONMy Lords, I think Her Majesty's Government have to use the best methods for the common purpose, and this kind of efficiency is not confined to Colchester. The Ministry have found it all over the country. It is a pity to legislate in terms which it is difficult to define, and would be difficult to enforce, when there is no real need for it.
LORD ST. OSWALDMy Lords, is the noble Lord aware that I have been imagining myself standing at his Dispatch Box and answering the same Question, and our Answers would not have differed a great deal? Do his findings in fact support what I should myself suppose: that if obligations were imposed there would be a temptation for a contractor to give instructions that no notice should be taken of a possible find of an importance which he, as the Minister has said, would not be expected to measure and might be inclined to bulldoze over, rather than inflict upon himself a statutory hold-up of operations? Would the noble Lord say that on this point, at least, for the first time we find ourselves in harmony?
§ LORD MITCHISONMy Lords, I agree with the noble Lord. The wisdom of the Labour Party in these matters is occasionally shared by noble Lords opposite.
§ LORD ALPORTMy Lords, in view of the disappointing nature of the noble Lord's reply, may I give notice that I will endeavour to raise this matter again, by Unstarred Question, at the earliest opportunity?