ALL-PARTY PARLIAMENTARY ARCHAEOLOGY GROUP COMMITTEE
Tuesday 25 June 2002
Present:
Richard Allan MP
Lord Faulkner
Tim Loughton MP
Lord Redesdale (Chairman)
Examination of Witnesses
John Walker, Standing Conference of Archaeological Unit Managers. Ken Smith, Association of Local Government Archaeologists. Peter Hinton, Institute of Field Archaeologists. George lambrick, Council for British Archaeology. JOHN PRESTON, Institute of Historic Building Conservation. David Dawson, Senior IT Adviser, Resource. Stuart Davies, Director of Strategy and Planning, Resource. Maurice Davies, Museums Association. Mark Taylor, Museums Association. Janet Owen, Chair, Society of Museum Archaeologists. Nick Merriman, Society of Museum Archaeologists. Dr. Robert Anderson, Director British Museum. Roger Bland, Head of Treasure and Portable Antiquities, British Museum, J.D. Hill, Department of Prehistory and Early Europe, British Museum, David Clarke, Keeper of Archaeology, National Museums of Scotland. Dr. Richard Brewer, Keeper of Archaeology and Numismatics, National Museums & Galleries of Wales.
Chairman
73. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen, and thank you for attending. The All-Party Archaeology Group has been established to raise the profile of archaeology. We feel that it is important to understand the problems facing the archaeological community. To that end, we will write a report on ways forward for archaeology and ways in which legislation can be changed to help. We hope to publish that report in October or November. The evidence given today will be reported verbatim, which will be used as part of the report and eventually published on the Internet. I will begin by asking Mr. Ken Smith to give an outline of the Historic Environment Forum and to describe what it hopes to achieve.
(Ken Smith) The Historic Environment Forum is an informal group of individuals from independent bodies, all with interests in archaeology. It discusses and pursues matters of common interest to those organisations. The membership of the forum is drawn from the public, private and voluntary sectors. As a consequence, the forum can claim to reflect the views of the majority of the historic environment sector. The forum meets and deliberates to maximise the positive conservation of the historic environment.
74. We gave you a list of questions but obviously we will deviate from them. I thank you for the replies that you have already given. What does the historic environment mean to you, especially in the context of archaeology?
(Ken Smith) It means the physical evidence that we see, understand and feel for past human activity. It comprises sites, monuments, landscapes, buildings and settlements as well as our appreciation and perception of them. It is the product of human interaction with nature and the evidence of all past human activity that exists in the landscape.
Richard Allan MP
75. I note that the National Trust is in membership of the forum but English Heritage is not. Are you deliberately a lobbying group for the historic environment outside state agencies or are there people who cross over into English Heritage?
(Ken Smith) It is fair to say that we exist alongside and parallel with English Heritage. The forum’s membership reflects the public, private and voluntary sectors. Sometimes it is important to stand aside from national organisations such as English Heritage, to put the views of the independent sector – though a lot of our views overlap and we pursue them in parallel and in partnership. The forum is not meant to be wholly exclusive but it certainly values its independence on occasions.
Tim Loughton MP
76. A broad question. What do you need to make your job easier?
(Ken Smith) The broad answer would be better resources.
77. In what form?
(Ken Smith) Personnel and finance. For example, knowledge underpins everything. There is a quote in “Power of Place” that before we can do anything, we need knowledge. For my money, the sites and monuments records – or historic environment records as they are increasingly called within local authorities – are the fundamental underpinning of the majority of the work that is done by the historic environment sector. Without that information and without it being managed, curated and maintained through local authority outlets, the majority of the other work that is done through the planning process in terms of access, accessibility, social inclusion, education, tourism and the economy – all of which rely on HERs––
78. So that is your first port of call.
(Ken Smith) Certainly.
79. We have heard evidence that records coverage is very patchy throughout the country. Where are there particular problems?
(Ken Smith) In the main, problems stem from the fact that HERs are maintained on a voluntary basis by local authorities. There is no statutory requirement. That is a critical failing of the governmental process. The Government have been quite willing to place responsibility for maintaining SMRs and HERs on local authorities and to include them in various legislation. Archaeology is a material consideration in the planning process. But the Government have not taken the step of reflecting that responsibility in standard spending assessments. If that were the case, with the kind of work being done on baseline standards for managed records in partnership with English Heritage, which will finish at the end of this month, HERs could be put on a much more sounder foundation and make a much more positive contribution to the conservation of the historic environment. It is crucial that records should be a statutory responsibility for local authorities, so that they are not at the whim of cutbacks – sometimes imposed by central government.
80. But you think that should be a component of SSAs, rather than being funded directly in some way and outside other constraints on local authority funding.
(Ken Smith) The logical place for SMRs is within local authorities. Therefore the logical funding stream for local authorities is through SSAs.
81. Why? Such work is pretty low down on the list of priorities when competing against little old ladies who need home helps, education funding and so on. Can you envisage some way of providing a ring-fenced or alternative form of funding while not taking responsibility and the power from local authorities – which are probably best placed to service that requirement?
(Ken Smith) If a formula could be devised, I would have no problem with such a proposal. At the moment, the most appropriate route seems to be the SSA. If a different formula could be developed, we would be more than happy to look to it. Ring fencing is important, whatever the funding provision might be, so that the funding would not fall victim to the vagaries of local politics.
Richard Allan MP
82. We recognise that SMRs are a key element in the archaeological world in having a product at the end of all the research and excavation that people can use. Last week, we heard from representatives of the Royal Commissions in Scotland and Wales about some exciting projects that they undertake at a national level – albeit that those nations are much smaller than England. At a higher level, that work could be done by a body such as the Peak District National Park. That is not a local authority but a logical unit. The regional museum structure that we are developing at the moment is another option. Or it could be done by, as exists, a national archaeological record with local input rather than separate SMRs. Do you have views on each of those options?
(Ken Smith) I certainly have views. It is horses for courses. There is a national level at which data should be collected and made available. With developments in ICT, it should not be difficult to access through various portals and links local sites and monuments records. It is through local authorities, the local planning system and local education that the majority of the data is most appropriately provided. There is no earthly reason why, to formulate a national policy, national HERs should not be undertaken by the national monuments record that is part of English Heritage. A tiered approach is much more easily applied these days because of ICT developments.
83. Are you confident that we now have appropriate standards, so that someone can pull together data from an SMR in Cornwall and an SMR in Cumbria because they are using common standards?
(Ken Smith) Yes. I would take issue with the observation that coverage is patchy, insofar as there is comprehensive coverage of SMRs across England. There are gaps in Scotland. There is comprehensive coverage in Wales. All those record providers apply standards for data entry and phraseology. There is not a problem with standards. The problem is the baseline quality standard of individual SMRs. We refer to some as historic environment records because they include listed building data and historic landscape characterisation data. They are much more comprehensive than what used to be defined as SMRs. Because the personnel in a local authority might number one or less than one full-time equivalent, an authority may not have the resources to bring its records even up to the baseline standard. We are looking to enable the poorest to achieve a baseline standard and the best to go on pushing the envelope, to improve the quality and range of the records that they hold.
Chairman
84. Everyone in this room is aware that there was a move to make SMRs statutory as part of the Culture and Recreation Bill that was recently before Parliament. The argument against made by the Government was that they could not increase funding for SMRs because they are not yet a statutory requirement; and that SMRs cannot be made statutory because there is not the money available – a rather bureaucratic circular argument. In the present environment, it does not look as though the Government have taken on board that more money will be needed for SMRs. If no extra money is available, what is the worst-case scenario?
(Ken Smith) The worst-case scenario has to be combined with the potential negative implications of regional government. There is a distinct possibility that some SMRs will cease to function.
Richard Allan MP
85. What are the potential negative implications of regional government?
(Ken Smith) There is no reference to the historic environment in the regional government White Paper, which causes the sector considerable concern. The fact that the range of inputs for which historic environment data can be used does not appear at all is of concern. It is difficult to identify the historic environment per se within the cultural strategies that the regional bodies have produced and it is hardly reflected in regional planning or economic development papers. There is real concern that a significant opportunity is being missed at regional level to exploit the historic environment in the most positive and favourable way. It contributes to local sense of place and local distinctiveness and is an obvious tourist attraction. The relative loss suffered by the tourism industry as a result of foot-and-mouth was about £5 billion, compared with the few tens of millions that might be needed to put SMRs on a well-founded footing. The maths do not add up.
Chairman
86. I want to move on to the PPG15 and PPG16 review that is currently being undertaken, to which the Historic Environment Forum has some input. What is the case for the review of those PPGs?
(Ken Smith) I think that there is a place for a positive review of those two PPGs. PPG16 is now 12 years old and is the oldest of the policy planning guidance notes. It reflects the time in which it was drafted and time moves on. The forum is pleased to see the adoption by the Government of the positive principles espoused in PPG15 and PPG16 – principally PPG16 – and that it is intended to bring the rest up to the same standard, which we applaud and seek.
87. Do you believe that the office of the Deputy Prime Minister takes into account the archaeological context of the review?
(Ken Smith) I hope so. From a meeting that was attended by my colleague Jan Wills, it is fair to say that civil servants in the office of the Deputy Prime Minister are aware of and sympathetic to the ways in which the revised PPG should be applied. My feeling at the moment is that there is an open door and that it is opening wider. We have to bear in mind the implications beyond the review. It is not just the guidance that needs to be considered but the wider legislative background into which it feeds and is allied. I refer to matters such as building regulations, the Disability Discrimination Act and so on. All those have implications for the way in which the historic environment is managed. They need also to be reflected in the PPG review, together with the way that PPGs are implemented and necessary amendments to other statutes.
Richard Allan MP
88. We heard evidence last week about the new national arrangements in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. It was interesting to learn how archaeology has been fitted into different structures – whether a culture Department or an environment Department. In a sense, the lead Department for the historic environment is the DCMS but the Department that creates the regulations that most affect the historic environment is the Department of the Environment in the broadest sense – wherever it is this week. How do you find working across different Departments? Do you go to the DCMS to champion your cause to the Department of the Environment? How does it work?
(Ken Smith) Over the past few years it has become easier to access civil servants in particular. We look to the DCMS to champion the sector as a top-down approach while we take the bottom-up approach by accessing individual Departments, to complement the work of the DCMS. The fact that “Power of Place” was jointly commissioned by the DCMS and the DTLR was a positive move. The way in which DEFRA is beginning to acknowledge its responsibilities to the historic environment, particularly with its environmental schemes, is also positive. If the actions recommended in “A Force for Our Future” are implemented in terms of green Ministers and cross-cutting responsibilities across Government Departments, the historic environment will have a rosier future.
Tim Loughton MP
89. Your forum consists of local government officers who are responsible for looking after archaeology in their areas. Do you think that the power of developers is increasing at the expense of your power to fashion and conserve archaeology?
(Ken Smith) From a planning perspective, I do not think that the power of developers is increasing. On the other hand, there are implications for the planning system embodied in the planning Green Paper. There are negative aspects from the performance indicators to which some of my development control colleagues have to work. They have to process a large percentage of planning implications within an eight-week period, which often does not enable the most considered approach. The threats are developer-generated but they do not reflect increasing developer power. It is more that the system in which we are working is increasing the problem.
90. The implication is that developers are able to dictate their own terms rather more, simply because of the pressures on you and your staff – who are not able to undertake exhaustive investigations to determine what should be required as part of a planning consent. I am thinking particularly of house building pressures. Central Government have decided that the country must have X million new houses. The likelihood that developers will appeal and that the Secretary of State will overturn a planning rejection is that much greater. Does not that diminish your powers in terms of what you can practically do and bargain over with a developer?
(Ken Smith) That goes back in part to the status of the historic environment sector within local authorities. The historic environment is already a material consideration in the planning process but if it were placed on a statutory basis, that would give it a stronger hold. On that basis, it behoves the sector to be strong in the face of pressures to accelerate the planning process. One of the crucial elements in PPG16 is the need for predetermination assessment, so that planning committees are as informed as they can be. In one review of the heritage sector, 30 per cent of planning applications were deemed to have a historic environment impact and a further 11 per cent to have an additional archaeological impact. That totals 41 per cent of planning applications, which is an enormous proportion of the thousands of applications that go through. That is a big responsibility and undertaking and it is not reflected in the status that the historic environment enjoys within local authorities.
(George Lambrick) There is a wider issue. The historic environment goes very much wider than just the planning process. Returning to the previous question about Government responsibilities and the damage done to agriculture, completely different standards apply because of the class consent for the cultivation of scheduled monuments. There is a figure of 22 per cent for scheduled monuments being damaged by agriculture. That is not the sort of situation that one would expect to arise in the planning arena. The HER issues underpin agricultural advice as much as they do planning advice but most archaeological records relate to the countryside and rural management.