ROYAL COMMISSION ON ANCIENT AND HISTORICAL MONUMENTS FOR WALES: POLICY REVIEW (Hansard, 20 February 1989)

§ The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Lord Trefgarne)

The relationship between the Royal Commission (RCAHM(W)) and Cadw: Welsh Historic Monuments has been looked at in the context of a policy review of the activities and functions of the commission and the equivalent bodies for Scotland and England. This review is being conducted jointly with my right honourable friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland and the Environment. We shall be announcing conclusions in due course.

Meanwhile, my right honourable friend has decided that certain issues of principle can be settled now in advance of the completion of the policy review. There is the question whether RCAHM(W) should be merged with Cadw and the suggestion in a consultancy report by Peat Marwick McLintock that consideration should be given to the transfer of some functions from Cadw to the Welsh Commission.

Peats recommended that the Royal Commission should be retained as a separate body responsible for maintaining the national achieve of heritage information and managing the NMR. We are persuaded by this analysis and take the view that the Royal Commission should continue as a separate body.

Peats emphasised that the arguments for and against the transfer of functions were finely balanced. We have decided that the Royal Commission should in future be recognised as the lead national body for oversight of the system of Local Sites and Monuments Records. In exercising this responsibility the commission would need to ensure proper liaison with Cadw regarding local decision-making and conservation of the built heritage of Wales generally.

On the matter of transferring listing and scheduling to the commission, we have concluded that as its purpose is to identify buildings and monuments which should be given special consideration in the planning and development control process, listing and scheduling should be linked to considerations of conservation, rather than record, and for that reason we have concluded that it is more appropriate for Cadw to continue to provide advice to us on these issues.

We do believe, however, that the Royal Commission should be more formally involved in this function and that a mechanism should be established that encourages Royal Commission staff to advise Cadw on sites they may visit. We have asked Cadw to consider this and recommend as appropriate. Provided the RCAHM(W)'s input to advice on 493WA listing and scheduling is formulated in such a way, we take the view that the duty placed on the Royal Commission in 1908 to make its own direct recommendations to government on buildings "worthy of preservation" should be regarded as overtaken by the development of the statutory framework of listing and scheduling and dropped from its responsibilities.

Peats comment that, as experts on heritage information, the Royal Commission are best placed to judge priorities and to deal with the rescue archaeology grant system. However, we consider that there are good policy and practical arguments for the same organisation to handle all aspects of archaeological casework—schedule monument consent, negotiations with developers and rescue archaeology if that proves necessary. Accordingly, we feel that it is best for Cadw to continue to deal with rescue archaeology.

Whatever the future dispositions of functions may be, there will always be areas where both Cadw's and the Royal Commission's expertise and concerns need to be taken into account by each other.

With these issues of principle resolved, we consider that there is now a very satisfactory basis for a supportive and constructive future relationship between the Royal Commission and Cadw. The Minister of State at the Welsh Office has written to the commission's chairman to inform him of our conclusions.