ANCIENT MONUMENTS AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL AREAS BILL [H.L.] (Hansard, 27 March 1979)

§ Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON
My Lords, I should like to thank the Government for having introduced these Amendments. They go a certain way to ameliorating the situation about which we were all rather afraid. We all know that there are dangers, as the noble Baroness has said. I should have liked—possibly she might also, but I cannot speak for her —to see it go further in giving protection from these metal detectors in irresponsible hands. Putting these metal detectors into the hands of some people is like putting a dodgem in the hands of a child on a motorway. I have heard from the noble Baroness at very full length—and I am grateful—as to why the Government feel that it is hard to go further than they have gone. I understand that it is fraught with difficulty of a legal kind. So far as they have gone, I am most grateful.

§ Baroness STEDMAN
My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass. In doing so, I should like briefly to thank noble Lords for their informed and constructive comments, not only in this House but also in correspondence. I trust that my replies here and my letters have not only clarified much of the thinking behind the provisions but have 1471 also given reassurance where necessary. I am also gratified by the warm welcome which the House has given to this long-awaited measure.
Past experience indicates that the opportunity for such major legislation about our archaeological heritage comes only about once in a generation. It is therefore probable that this Bill will have to serve as the legislative framework at least until the end of this century. I believe we have produced a measure that will serve that purpose well because it makes adequate provision for preservation or recording in the face of inevitably increasing threats for our heritage without imposing impossible and unreasonable burdens on developers and others. I am very grateful to noble Lords for their help in improving the Bill and in getting it through. I hope it may have an equally safe and speedy passage in another place. I beg to move.

§ Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON
My Lords, we have been very lucky in the Government having a Minister in the form of the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, to move this Bill. She has done it with great tact and ability. There have been many fears from the mineral operators and people in cities, developers, about the effects of this Bill. We are at one with the Government in their intent to preserve what is best of the past for future generations' information. Archaeology is this. We want to preserve ancient monuments intact.
This Bill has consolidated a lot of previous small Bills which have never been effective because they have been so disjointed and people did not know the law sufficiently about any one point. The way the Government have gone about the archaeology areas Bill has been very satisfactory, certainly from the archaeological areas' point of view. I think that the mineral operators ought to be satisfied with the protections and, above all, the assurances that the Minister has given from that Dispatch Box.
There are one or two small matters that have come to my notice since. One or two county councils have expressed worry lest, with the increasing enthusiasm 1472 for archaeology, small splinter amateur archaeology groups can spring up in areas where there are already well established archaeological groups. Sometimes these small groups are able to go to the noble Baroness's Department of the Environment and collect grants, although not of enormous sums, I agree. One county mentioned that a small splinter group had received a sum of some £30,000 and was being slightly a pain in the neck of the established archaeological group. The one county I am thinking of, in particular, suggested that it might be better if the Department were able to consider with the council concerned and possibly disburse their charity to these bodies, their benevolence, through the local authorities. The latter would have advance information of motor planning or town planning and therefore would be able to channel the funds to areas where they would be more useful to the community because the matter would not have to be dealt with in such a hurry. That is not a big point, but I wish to mention it at this stage so as to bring it to the notice of the Government.
We have been particularly lucky with the Bill, in that all the complainants—be they the farming community, the landowning community, the CBI, mineral owners or mineral workers—have at the end of the day, so far as I am aware, all expressed themselves as satisfied with the way the Government have expressed their intention to proceed and operate the Bill, and to that extent the Government are to be congratulated. The noble Baroness has been the catalyst of the Bill for the Government and I congratulate her sincerely. So far as we can see from these Benches, it should prove a useful measure. If experience shows otherwise, whatever Government may be in power, it can be altered, but I agree with the Minister that this will be the definitive measure for some time to come.

§ Baroness STEDMAN
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, gave me notice that he would be raising the particular point he has asked about. I have had a short time to make some inquiries about it and I hope I may be able to satisfy him on that point. The body he referred to is the rescue unit which has for many years carried out rescue investigations in Kent. It has its own 1473 archaeological trust, and it is known as the Kent Archaeological Rescue Unit. The noble Lord is right in saying that the Department provides the bulk of its funds, and £30,000 has been allocated for 1979–80. That covers four projects of which three are in the post-excavation stage.
We certainly do not support splinter groups, and the Kent Archaeological Society is anything but a splinter group. Fortunately, many county councils are taking an increasingly active interest in archaeology. The Department and, I am sure, noble Lords, welcome that. Kent County Council are, we understand, considering the appointment of an archaeological officer, and that too is to be welcomed. We cannot understand why the continued support by the Department of a long-established rescue unit should be a matter of difficulty for the county council at this time. We understand that the unit has applied to Kent County Council for help and we understand too that it has perhaps not disclosed the amount it has received from the Department. If so, the unit has been remiss and we deplore that action on its part. However, there is no secret about our grants. We shall be happy to supply to Kent County Council any details of grants we have given to this organisation or others in their county if they care to approach us.
If the noble Lord has other particular points in mind and will write to me, I will go into them at greater detail. It is clear that this is a matter of administration, not something arising directly from the provisions of the Bill, which I hope may now pass.