National Heritage Bill [Lords]
House of Commons, 19 April 2002.
New Clause 1 — Compensation to affected parties
Greg Knight (Conservative, East Yorkshire)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Earlier this week, when I tabled new clause 1, I think that I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) an attack of hypertension because she was very concerned that my aim might be to talk out the Bill. No such anxiety arose with my dear hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir Sydney Chapman), who is very laid back about such matters. May I tell both of them that I am not here to wreck today's proceedings?
I introduce this primarily probing new clause because the Bill is strangely silent on what happens if someone suffers a financial loss as a direct result of the declaration of an ancient monument. If the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission for England makes a decision as the result of the Bill and that decision results in others being out of pocket or losing out in some way, surely compensation should be considered. If no compensation scheme covers the scope of the Bill, surely one needs to be introduced. That is the aim of new clause 1.
I am quite happy for the details of such a scheme to be decided by the Government and I do not seek to prescribe in the new clause how it should be set up. I am confident that the Government would ensure that fair provisions were introduced if such a measure were needed, but we need to examine the principle of awarding compensation to those who lose out through no fault of their own, and we need to debate and clarify that issue before proceeding to Third Reading.
John Butterfill (Conservative, Bournemouth West)
I rise briefly to support my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight). Before being elected to the House, I practised as a chartered surveyor and know that the principle of injurious affection has been long established in British legislation. Under that principle, if someone's property is expropriated or diminished in value in some way for community purposes—for example, if a propriety's value is affected by a new road—that member of the public can be compensated for his or her loss.
It cannot be right that we as a society can take away the value of someone's property for a community purpose without offering fair compensation. I therefore believe that my right hon. Friend has done a great service to the consideration of the Bill by proposing the new clause, without which severe injustice could occur.
Sir Sydney Chapman (Conservative, Chipping Barnet)
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight) for introducing the new clause, although I invite the House to resist it if he feels that he cannot withdraw the motion. So far as I can understand his objectives, I think that they are two separate things. Before I consider those, I should say that I think that the new clause is technically outside the scope of the Bill, and I shall briefly try to explain why.
I shall put aside the fact that ancient monuments are scheduled, not declared—I do not rest on that argument. In fact, I believe that an ancient monument is scheduled under the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979. There are no provisions in my Bill—if I may so call it, for ease of reference—relating to such scheduling. My Bill only amends the definition of an ancient monument in the 1979 Act to include a vehicle, vessel, aircraft or the remains thereof.
In fact, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill) inferred, there are existing procedures for the payment of compensation in connection with scheduled ancient monuments. However, the compensation is not paid when the monument is scheduled as, at that point, it is claimed there is no loss. Compensation can be paid, however, under section 7 of the 1979 Act when scheduled monument consent is refused by the Secretary of State. A process of redress therefore exists.
The reference in my right hon. Friend's new clause to fishing rights is, I presume, in connection with the scheduling of ancient monuments on the sea bed—wrecks or prehistoric built structures—and the danger of nets snagging on and being damaged by those monuments or a fishing boat having to move to new sites. If his argument is that an ancient monument is scheduled, and that that bars a fishing boat from fishing on that area, which would automatically result in compensation, that is a very wide issue. It is not an issue for me; perhaps it is one for the Government. I think that a lot of fishing boats would suddenly turn up to claim compensation. I would also say, however, that fishing boats with fishing rights have those rights in different parts of our seas and not necessarily on just one narrow, restricted part.
There is already considerable consultation before wrecks are designated. If someone drags a trawl net across the sea bed within the restricted area surrounding a designated wreck site—incidentally, such sites are marked on navigation charts—they can be fined for doing so, as it is illegal. I do not want to provoke my right hon. Friend unnecessarily, but a stronger case might be made not for compensation being made to such vessels but for fines being imposed on them if they act without the law.
Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)
rose—
Alan Haselhurst (Deputy Speaker, Saffron Walden)
Order. It may be for the convenience of the House if the Minister winds up the debate. I call the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh).
Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)
I am most grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I simply want to put the mind of my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight) at rest that I am very relaxed about his new clause. I congratulate him on his drafting ability in that respect, but, for the reasons that my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir Sydney Chapman) so eloquently explained, although I welcome this opportunity to discuss the issues raised, I have great difficulty in envisaging circumstances in which these conditions would arise. I am firmly of the view that the new clause falls without the scope of the Bill, and, regrettably, we shall not therefore support it.
Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)
I also congratulate the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight) on his ingenuity. After all, if we consider the wording of the new clause, ancient monuments are scheduled under the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979, and there are no provisions in the Bill relating to such scheduling.
I spoke to the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire some time ago, and this is a fascinating subject. I understand that considerable consultation with all relevant parties, including the fishermen, is undertaken before a wreck is designated, to ensure, among other things, that their livelihoods are not put at risk. I also understand that there are more than 40 designated wrecks in British waters. I have sought advice on this matter, and have been informed that there has not been a case of any great controversy involving the effects on fishing of the designation of any of these wrecks. These debates are fascinating, because I have just discovered the name of the relevant body that conducts the consultation. The Advisory Committee on Historic Wreck Sites is made up of experts who advise English Heritage and the Government.
I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman has raised the issue, but the Government will resist the new clause. We believe that adequate safeguards are in place and we support the explanation that was given by the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir Sydney Chapman).
Greg Knight (Conservative, East Yorkshire)
I welcome the Minister's remarks. I am reassured to hear that consultation takes place with all those who may be affected, including representatives of fishermen. The fishing industry has suffered a lot over the past decade and it could do well without a further attack on it. I am pleased to hear that the industry is properly consulted, so I am reassured by the Minister's remarks.
I was rather concerned by the attack of my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir Sydney Chapman) on the fishing community. He suggested that some fishermen might fish above a wreck if they thought that they would receive compensation. He made that point in a jovial manner, so I take it that he was not seeking to impugn the honour of the fishermen of Bridlington.
Sir Sydney Chapman (Conservative, Chipping Barnet)
I certainly did not mean to suggest what my right hon. Friend has imputed. If I made a slight mistake in my choice of words, he must make allowances for the fact that I come from landlocked Chipping Barnet. We very much appreciate the probity of the fishermen who supply us with a basic need.
Greg Knight (Conservative, East Yorkshire)
In the light of the tone of my hon. Friend's intervention, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 — New functions relating to underwater archaeology
Andrew Dismore (Labour, Hendon)
I beg to move amendment No. 9, in page 1, line 11, after "waters", insert "and continental shelf".
Alan Haselhurst (Deputy Speaker, Saffron Walden)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 10, in page 1, line 14, after "waters", insert "and continental shelf".
No. 11, in clause 2, page 2, line 10, after "waters", insert "and continental shelf".
No. 12, in page 2, line 19, after "waters", insert "and continental shelf".
No. 13, in clause 3, page 2, line 38, after "waters", insert "and continental shelf".
No. 14, in clause 4, page 4, line 2, after "waters", insert "and continental shelf".
No. 15, in page 4, line 14, after "waters", insert "and continental shelf".
No. 16, in clause 5, page 5, line 7, after "waters", insert "and continental shelf".
No. 17, in clause 6, page 5, line 42, after "waters", insert "and continental shelf".
Andrew Dismore (Labour, Hendon)
I reassure my hon. Friend the Minister that it is not my intention to talk out the Bill, and I have had to pass on that message a few times. I also give that reassurance to my neighbour, the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir Sydney Chapman). He is an old hand at these matters and understands how the House works on a Friday. Indeed, he is such an old hand that I cannot resist the ungentlemanly comment of saying that he lays claim to being a scheduled monument in his own right.
Martin Linton (Labour, Battersea)
But not a wreck.
Andrew Dismore (Labour, Hendon)
No, not a wreck.
This group of amendments would apply the Bill to the continental shelf, and several issues need to be raised in this context. For example, oil rigs and gas platforms may not be the most beautiful objects in the seas around our coast, but they are vital to the national economy. When we extended our territorial waters over the continental shelf, we did so for economic reasons and to allow us to exploit the natural mineral resources that lie off our coast—for example, in the North sea.
People may wonder why I want to preserve oil rigs and gas platforms. They may think that they are not worthy of preservation. However, future generations may see the rigs and platforms as part of our national heritage and culture because of their importance to our economy over the past decade. Those generations might want them to be preserved. However, as the Bill is framed, they would have no protection at all.
The brief provided by the House of Commons Library offers another reason for extending the provisions of the Bill to cover the continental shelf. My hon. Friend the Minister mentioned the number of designated sites that already exist. In fact, according to the most up-to-date figures, there were 49 at the end of 2000. All of them were within the 12-mile limit, and most were within the three-mile limit. I asked the Library to provide me with an estimate of how many wrecks there might be beyond those limits, and it said:
"Estimates suggest there could be anything up to a million wreck sites in international waters around the British Isles. Most of these would be wooden vessels, difficult to detect with current technology."
It occurs to me that although we might not have the technology to examine the wrecks now, there is no doubt that diving technology is advancing rapidly. Before long people will be able to visit the wrecks and perhaps exploit them. We know that that can be done in deep sea by the work carried out by marine archaeologists on the Titanic and the German battleship, the Bismarck, which recently featured on television documentaries. I suspect that it will not be long before some of the wrecks on the continental shelf suffer similar exploitation.
I cannot understand why there should be a legal objection to my proposal. We recently debated the protection of marine wildlife and are thinking of extending conservation areas beyond territorial waters into the continental shelf area. Lord Whitty said in another place on 4 February this year that the Government are thinking of extending the implementation of the European Community birds and habitats directives beyond the 12 nautical mile limit of the territorial waters to areas over which we claim sovereignty. If we can do that for areas of natural importance, we should also do it for areas of historic importance to ensure that wrecked ships are protected.
Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)
Has the hon. Gentleman estimated the size of the continental shelf around the British isles, especially the coast of England?
Andrew Dismore (Labour, Hendon)
The usual assumption is a limit of 200 miles for economic activity purposes except when we neighbour another country and the continental shelf is shared. I recall that from my days of studying international law at university.
Some sites that are not covered by the Protection of Military Remains Act 1986 should be categorised as war graves at sea. They include: merchant and passenger vessels that are sunk, whether by enemy action or not; wrecked naval ships as opposed to those sunk or run aground by enemy action; aircraft, although they might be protected by existing legislation; and ships that are more than 200 years old. If we were to extend the legislation, we could provide valuable protection to those sites that are beyond territorial waters.
I know that the definition of ancient monument in the legislation is to be redefined to cover some of those categories. We could use that mechanism to provide additional protection for war graves that are not covered. Although such sites do not comprise naval ships, many people would think of them as war graves. For example, ships that were torpedoed in the battle of the Atlantic or as part of a world war one convoy are not protected unless they are naval vessels. I think that it is important to protect the graves of people who tragically died in those important years that preserved our national life.
More ancient wrecks may also need protection as the work of divers gets more sophisticated. That includes ships of the Spanish armada and the Napoleonic or French revolutionary wars. It could also include East Indiaman ships. At the moment, those ships are well protected because of the depth at which they lie, but they could soon become vulnerable.
It might be worth considering whether we can extend the Bill's provisions beyond territorial waters to include ships on the continental shelf. I am not suggesting that we should protect every one of the million wrecks at the bottom of the sea, but we might need the powers of protection in appropriate cases as and when they become detected.
Greg Knight (Conservative, East Yorkshire)
Affording protection will work only if the sites are policed. How would that process be carried out?
Andrew Dismore (Labour, Hendon)
I was going to deal with that when we discuss the next group of amendments. There is a provision in the 1986 Act which has yet to come into force. Protection is afforded at the moment through a voluntary code of practice that the diving communities operate among themselves. To an extent, they form an underwater neighbourhood watch that looks after such sites. My concern is that those wrecks would not be covered even under the existing legislation designed to protect them. I do not suggest for one moment that in the next few days people might go diving on wrecks that are further out, but the reserve powers that the amendment would provide should be available so that an important wreck found, say, 13 miles out could be protected.
Sir Sydney Chapman (Conservative, Chipping Barnet)
I am grateful for the contribution made by the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore), whom I know well and who is a near neighbour. I am aware of his great knowledge of matters archaeological and of the fact that he is a lawyer, so I am hesitant about quarrelling with him about his amendment.
My understanding of the scope of my Bill is that adding the words "and continental shelf" would extend its application to areas that are outside UK territorial waters. Moreover, the Bill covers only powers in relation to the waters of England; properly, there is separate legislation for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. That may cause problems—I do not know, as I am not a lawyer.
The provisions on underwater archaeology are intended to enable English Heritage to incur expenditure on the archaeological investigation and preservation of wrecks designated under the Protection of Wrecks Act 1973. Clause 1 covers wrecks
"in, on or under the seabed within the United Kingdom territorial waters adjacent to England."
As the jurisdiction of the 1973 Act does not go beyond the boundary of 12 miles, I do not think that it would be permissible to add to my Bill the words proposed by the hon. Member for Hendon.
Greg Knight (Conservative, East Yorkshire)
My hon. Friend raises a serious point. Will he enlighten us about what would happen if the amendment were accepted and the Bill was subsequently employed to try to affect areas that are beyond the jurisdiction of our courts? Would that make the whole Bill void or liable to a challenge before the European Court? If the amendment could have either of those consequences, those of us who initially had some sympathy with the hon. Member for Hendon might conclude that he should be prevailed upon to withdraw it.
Sir Sydney Chapman (Conservative, Chipping Barnet)
I have done a considerable amount of research on the provisions of the Bill, but I am not a lawyer—still less an expert international lawyer—nor would I pretend to be. I could go so far as to say that when I was deciding what profession to take up, I was advised to start at the top of the alphabetical list and work down. I knew that I did not want to be an accountant or an actuary, and I was in danger of not being able to spell the word "archaeology", so I moved on to the next one down, which was architecture. That is why I am an architect.
In all seriousness, my understanding—I would welcome the Minister's clarification later, if not now—is that it would be necessary to make changes to the 1973 Act, which would require separate legislation. Moreover, the fact that the continental shelf is a pretty large area could give rise to practical problems, as my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight) suggested.
I suspect that the amendment may not be appropriate in the context of my more modest measure, but I await the Minister's clarification of whether that is so.
Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)
The scope of the Bill, as I understand it, is restricted to allowing English Heritage to become involved in underwater archaeology in territorial waters adjacent to England. I would say, in the friendliest spirit, to the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) that the amendments are unnecessary. There is very little continental shelf within England's territorial waters, and continental shelf beyond that is not part of English Heritage's remit.
Like the hon. Gentleman, I am an international lawyer, having graduated from the Edinburgh university. The international law lecturer there when I was a student was a rapporteur on the North sea conference. I commend to the hon. Gentleman the latest conference report, of which there are three copies in the Library. In that spirit, I urge him to withdraw this group of amendments.
Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)
Extending English Heritage's powers to allow it to operate on the continental shelf outside the 12-mile territorial limit would require careful consideration and could affect interests beyond those of English Heritage—perhaps even international interests. It is a big issue for us to consider at this late stage of the Bill's consideration.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) made some interesting and far-sighted suggestions. I remind him that, within the limited context of the Bill, the amendments may not be as appropriate as he thinks. It was never our intention to allow English Heritage to operate beyond the 12-mile limit of UK territorial waters adjacent to England. Putting England on a 12-mile limit makes the position the same as in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, so we are removing an anomaly and the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir Sydney Chapman) should be congratulated on that.
The situation has been anomalous and, as the hon. Gentleman pointed out, the underwater archaeology provisions are intended to enable English Heritage to incur expenditure on wrecks designated under the Protection of Wrecks Act 1973 in or under the sea bed in UK territorial waters adjacent to England. The jurisdiction of the 1973 Act does not go beyond the 12-mile limit, so we have to resist the amendments.
Andrew Dismore (Labour, Hendon)
The amendments were designed to draw attention to a risk that is not immediate, but may emerge in the future. Economic activity such as oil platforms may pose a threat to wrecks that are not currently accessible, but may be in the future. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Andrew Dismore (Labour, Hendon)
I beg to move amendment No. 19, in page 1, line 19, at end insert—
'(4) For the avoidance of doubt, nothing in this Act shall permit any activity on or near any wreck prohibited by the Protection of Military Remains Act 1986.'.
This is a probing amendment designed to ensure that I receive, on behalf of the House, assurances from the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir Sydney Chapman).
Clause 6 amends the National Heritage Act 1983 by inserting a new section 33C, providing the commission with powers to meet the cost of, for example, surveying, excavating or other investigations undertaken in respect of a protected wreck, the removal of such a wreck or any part of it, the arrangements for its preservation and so forth.
I want to ensure that nothing in the Bill would in any way enable people, with the assistance of English Heritage, to do something forbidden by the Protection of Military Remains Act. That Act creates two different types of protection. First, it is possible to designate a site, such as an area containing naval vessels that were sunk or stranded as a result of military action by another country, or vessels of another country's armed forces, provided that they are within UK waters.
Only those vessels are protected by the legislation and perhaps we should consider whether to extend that protection to aircraft in the same way that the Bill extends the provisions of the National Heritage Act 1983 to aircraft. I have already gone through the other categories that are not included.
The effect of designation is to prohibit a series of activities on such sites—activities that mirror fairly exactly those that are to be permitted, indeed encouraged, by the amendments the Bill would make to the legislation.
The alternative form of protection under the Protection of Military Remains Act is for a protected place, whereby a specific vessel that appears to have been sunk or stranded while on military service is designated, whether or not its last resting place is known. Our earlier discussions are relevant to the fact that that protection applies anywhere in the world, not only in our territorial waters, to vessels that sank after the start of the first world war.
No sites have yet been designated under the Act as either controlled or protected sites. Currently, they are protected through the voluntary code that was introduced by those who engage in diving for recreational purposes. I want to do nothing that will detract from their activities. I think that they have behaved extremely responsibly in drawing up their seven-point plan to respect wrecks and helping to police the sites. However, I am concerned that technological advances may result in people attempting to interfere with sites that are, in effect, war graves.
Greg Knight (Conservative, East Yorkshire)
The hon. Gentleman is probably aware of the recent media programme that speculated about the cause of death of Glenn Miller, the wartime band leader, in which it was argued that his plane might well have been hit by unused bombs dropped by RAF planes on their return from raids on Germany. At the time of his death, Glenn Miller was serving in the armed forces, but my understanding is that the plane on which he was travelling was a civilian flight. Are the remains of Major Glenn Miller covered by the 1986 Act?
Andrew Dismore (Labour, Hendon)
My understanding is that they are not, first, because if the hon. Gentleman is correct the aircraft was a civilian aircraft and, secondly, because aircraft are not covered by the Act, which covers only vessels. In connection with previous amendments and just now, I made the point that aircraft are not protected. Perhaps we should at some stage—not today—consider extending the legislation in that respect.
We have, regrettably, had news of the plundering—presumably by treasure hunters and not by divers from the United Kingdom—of the wrecks of HMS Prince of Wales and HMS Repulse, two battleships that were torpedoed off Malaya in 1941. As technology advances, some sites will become increasingly vulnerable to misguided and ghoulish individuals who want to crawl all over the wrecks. I am grateful that the diving fraternity utterly condemns such activities and helps to police them to some extent.
Although no sites have yet been designated under the 1986 Act, the purpose of my amendment is to ask the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet to make it absolutely clear that nothing in the Bill would detract from the protections afforded by existing legislation to war graves beneath the seas.
Sir Sydney Chapman (Conservative, Chipping Barnet)
I am sure that, like me, the House is extremely grateful to the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) for raising this important issue. I hope to be able to reassure him beyond any doubt.
I have concluded that his amendment is not necessary for one specific reason. The Protection of Military Remains Act covers maritime military graves and other military wrecks from conflicts dating from the start of the great war—world war one. Those remain the responsibility of the Ministry of Defence.
As the hon. Gentleman would expect, I have made inquiry of the Ministry—and as he pointed out, no sites have been designated. That is a fair point, which adds power to what he has said. However, I understand from the Ministry that it is now drawing up a statutory instrument to designate 16 vessels as controlled sites within UK jurisdiction, plus five vessels in international waters that meet the criteria in the consultation document; those will be representative of the others that have been lost. Diving on those vessels will be prohibited without a licence.
I am satisfied that the Ministry of Defence is moving now, however lax it may appear to have been to date. The material point is that once a vessel has been designated under the Protection of Military Remains Act it will be protected by that legislation and English Heritage will have no remit in respect of it.
The hon. Gentleman may be interested to know that most of the 16 vessels intended to be designated as controlled sites within UK jurisdiction are not located in UK territorial waters adjacent to England, so they would be outside the scope of the Bill. Six are in Scottish waters, one is off Anglesey and four are in waters off the Falkland Islands. There are also five other vessels under consideration, all of which are in international waters.
I do not think that amendment No. 19 is necessary to achieve what the hon. Gentleman and the rest of us want to achieve.
Andrew Dismore (Labour, Hendon)
In his discussions with the Ministry of Defence, did the hon. Gentleman get the impression that we are trying to close the gate after the horse has bolted in thinking about protecting the Repulse and the Prince of Wales through designation?
Sir Sydney Chapman (Conservative, Chipping Barnet)
The hon. Gentleman may be in a better position to do that than I am, as he sits on the Government side of the Chamber. All I can do is to pass the message on to the Ministry of Defence. Perhaps he and I could question the appropriate Minister.
Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) on having tabled some far-sighted amendments. However, it is important that we try to see the matter in a broad perspective. The sites that he has referred to are important, but we believe that his amendments to this Bill are not necessary.
As the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir Sydney Chapman) said, once a vessel has been designated under the Protection of Military Remains Act 1986 it will be protected by that legislation and English Heritage will have no remit in respect of it. As the hon. Gentleman also informed us, the amendment is unnecessary, as most of the 16 vessels in UK jurisdiction due to be designated as controlled sites under the 1986 Act are located outside the UK territorial waters adjacent to England, and the 1986 Act applies only to vessels that sank after 4 August 1914.
I hope that after those reassurances, my hon. Friend will see fit to withdraw what he described as a probing amendment.
Andrew Dismore (Labour, Hendon)
I am grateful for the explanations by my hon. Friend the Minister and by the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir Sydney Chapman). The purpose of tabling the amendments was to air the issue, and I accept that it would not be appropriate for them to be pressed now—but I hope that the Ministry of Defence will at least take note of the debate and think what amendments should be made to other legislation. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 4 — New trading functions of the Commission
Andrew Dismore (Labour, Hendon)
I beg to move amendment No. 22, in page 3, line 36, at end insert—
'(1A) The Commission shall, before exercising its powers under subsections (1)(d) and (e) above, consult and thereafter take account of any representations made by the Government, or any equivalent body to the Commission, of the country concerned.'.
We are somewhat changing the subject now, and moving from international waters to international monuments. The Bill makes provision for the commission to produce books, films and souvenirs relating to monuments, buildings and so on overseas. I want to ensure that if we stray beyond our territorial waters to other countries, we do so in a way that will not offend anybody.
When the Bill was discussed in another place, Baroness Anelay said:
"I assure the House that English Heritage should not and will not operate in competition with existing commercial concerns. It will complement and not conflict with the services already offered by commercial concerns for operations outwith the UK. By developing relations with overseas bodies English Heritage will look to stimulate the market for UK commercial companies. Overseas agencies look to English Heritage for training and advice."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 31 October 2001; Vol. 627, c. 1493.]
I very much hope that that is the case, but I know from my own trips to countries like Greece, where I frequently visit ancient monuments and museums, that museum replicas are becoming big business; they are produced to a high standard, are often expensive and are an important part of the income of many overseas museum services. If we start to produce such material, we should do so in co-operation with the authorities of those countries and not, as Baroness Anelay said, in competition with them. I therefore seek an assurance that, in light of the co-operation that was discussed in another place, we are not going to compete with overseas museum services.
We should also have regard for the sensitivities of overseas countries. The Parthenon sculptures, for example, are a matter of great debate between Greece and ourselves. The sculptures are in the British museum, which produces an awful lot of material about them in the bookshop. There are two very different stories about how the Parthenon sculptures came to be in the United Kingdom. I shall not explore them now, although it is tempting. However, I share the Greeks' view, rather than the British Government's. If we produced plastic parthenons for sale in the British museum, the Greek Government might have something to say. They might also have something to say about the context and content of any books or literature produced.
We must bear in mind the fact that a lot of souvenirs represent things that are culturally sensitive, such as the Parthenon, which is highly symbolic for the people of Greece. If we go down that route, we should recognise the importance of selling high-quality products; we should not stoop to the tourist tat that is seen on the streets of some countries. We should produce items in co-operation with overseas countries so as not to offend them. We must make sure that we work in co-operation with them and are not in competition with them.
Greg Knight (Conservative, East Yorkshire)
The hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) is a powerful advocate. He has moved a number of amendments today, and has taken me with him on some of his arguments. However, he has needed all his powers of advocacy for amendment No. 22 because his case is weak. I am against what he is trying to achieve; he has not explained why we should put the commission under that duty.
The main issue is whether the commission should be able to trade. I have serious misgivings about allowing it to start trading and selling trinkets and would much prefer the Bill not to include such a provision. However, having accepted that that power is in the Bill, the commission must be allowed the discretion to produce items as it sees fit. For example, if it believes that there is a market at certain British sites for tacky replicas of the Empire State building, why should we have to consult the Americans about whether to go ahead with the proposal? The process would be cumbersome and unwieldy, and it would not work. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the amendment.
Sir Sydney Chapman (Conservative, Chipping Barnet)
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) for introducing the amendment. It gives us a chance to discuss a serious issue. We are discussing it in the context of the Bill being able to allow English Heritage to
"produce and publish, or sell, books, films or other informative material relating to foreign ancient monuments or foreign historic buildings",
and to
"produce or sell souvenirs relating to such monuments or buildings".
The amendment would require English Heritage to consult. That would impose a huge burden upon it, and an unnecessary one. I tend to agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight). English Heritage has a reputation for not producing tacky materials and souvenirs. First, I think that it has a sense of taste, but I recognise that that is subjective. Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, English Heritage always takes great care to understand and respect cultural sensitivities. I am sure that it would always act with propriety if it were to produce an item relating to a foreign ancient monument or building.
Greg Knight (Conservative, East Yorkshire)
Is there not another consideration? If the amendment were accepted, the process would prove so cumbersome for the commission that it would wipe out any profit that it made from selling items.
Sir Sydney Chapman (Conservative, Chipping Barnet)
I would not claim to be an expert in commercial processes, but I tend to agree with my right hon. Friend.
I rest my case, subject to what the Minister says, on the amendment being unnecessary. English Heritage justifies its reputation, given the way it has gone about things. It would consult where it was obviously necessary to do so. It would be unnecessarily cumbersome, to use the word of my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire, and bureaucratic to require it to consult in every instance. I invite the hon. Member for Hendon to withdraw the amendment.
Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)
I do not wish to disagree with anything that my right hon. and hon. Friends have said.
I hope that the Minister will assure the House that the Government will not support the amendments. Amendment No. 22 would pose quite an obstacle and raise an unnecessary hurdle. Foreign Governments have to be approached for picture copyright, for example, but there are other circumstances where it would not be appropriate for them to be approached.
In congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir Sydney Chapman) on taking the Bill through its consideration, we should be mindful that it emanated from another place. It has been on the table, so to speak, since 21 July 2001. The amendment comes late in the day, and we should be mindful of the reassurance of my noble Friend Baroness Anelay of St. Johns, to which the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) referred. It would be entirely inappropriate to use any opportunity today to revisit the issue of who owns the Parthenon sculptures, which are rightfully the property of the British museum.
Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)
As the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir Sydney Chapman) made clear, English Heritage always takes great care to understand and respect the cultural sensitivities that apply to any ancient monument, historic building or artefact. I have every confidence in asserting that it will continue to do so. We shall have something to say if it does not. It will not be in competition with the heritage authorities in any other country. I am confident that English Heritage would automatically extend the care that it already shows to any foreign monument or historic building on which it was working. However, it would be an unacceptable burden to expect English Heritage to consult, for example, with the Egyptian Government before publishing a book in England about the pyramids.
The amendment is unnecessary and I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) will show some faith in English Heritage as a fine organisation that displays a great sense of taste. I am sure that it will continue to do so, not only within the bounds of England and 12-mile territorial waters, but wherever in the world it operates.
Andrew Dismore (Labour, Hendon)
I have two short points to make. First, in response to the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh), this is the first opportunity that I have had to table amendments, as I did not have the good fortune to serve on the Standing Committee, so I cannot be criticised for that.
Secondly, the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight) asked why the amendment was necessary. I answer by referring once more, with trepidation, to the Parthenon. I recently visited the Parthenon and met the director of the site, Professor Pantermalis, with whom I had a long discussion. He gave me a copy of a catalogue from an exhibition at the Berlin museum which the Greeks are mounting jointly with the German museum authorities. The Greeks have lent a large number of sculptures to the German museum. It is a wonderful catalogue, showing hundreds of items that we will never see in this country because of the dispute between our Government and the Greek Government over the Parthenon sculptures.
Through the amendment, I am trying to avoid offending other Governments so that, wittingly or unwittingly, we do not end up in dispute with them. The cultural world is international, with exhibitions travelling from country to country. Because of that, we run the risk of causing offence. The net result would be that we cut off our nose to spite our face. That is my answer to the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire: the amendment was intended to ensure that we work in co-operation with other countries, rather than in competition with them.
Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)
Although I served on the Standing Committee, I had not intended to speak in the debate, as I hoped that the Bill would go through without hindrance. When the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) was fortunate enough to see the Parthenon, was he subjected to the admission charges? I gather that they have just been raised by 50 per cent., making a visit to the Parthenon a rather more expensive exercise than going to see the Elgin marbles in the British museum for free.
Andrew Dismore (Labour, Hendon)
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. On more than one occasion I have stressed to the Greek Government and all those involved with the Parthenon that when the Parthenon sculptures return to Athens, people must have access to them free, so that they can see them on the same basis as they can see them in their temporary home in the British museum.
I shall not prolong the proceedings. I see that the House is not with me on the amendment. However, I have made the point about the need to work with foreign Governments, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Order for Third Reading read.
Sir Sydney Chapman (Conservative, Chipping Barnet)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
It is with pride that I introduce the Third Reading of the Bill, which I know commands support from all parts of the House, as it did in the other place. Of course, it derived from the other place, where it was introduced by the noble Baroness Anelay of St. Johns. If the House is minded to give the Bill a Third Reading, the credit goes principally to her and all the endeavours that she put into this important measure.
I claim that the Bill has all-party support, simply because it derives from a 1996 White Paper entitled "Protecting our Heritage", which was introduced by a previous Conservative Government. Many of the provisions in the Bill were to be found in the Culture and Recreation Bill which was introduced in the last Session of the last Parliament but did not proceed because the general election was called.
The Bill transfers responsibility for underwater archaeology from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport to English Heritage. As hon. Members will know, English Heritage presently has responsibility only for archaeology on land sites.
As far as I am aware, all the relevant organisations and institutions support that principal provision of the Bill: not only English Heritage, but the Advisory Committee on Historic Wreck Sites, the Joint Nautical Archaeology Policy Committee and even the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds.
Two other provisions in the Bill give English Heritage the right to produce souvenirs, about which we have just spoken, not only in England but in relation to monuments or buildings in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and rightly so.
The Bill also deals with an anomaly whereby English Heritage may offer its services and expertise in England, but not outwith the United Kingdom. There is certainly a demand for English Heritage's expertise, goods and services outside the UK and the Bill gives English Heritage the powers to meet that demand. English Heritage will be able to charge for such services and so generate additional income.
It is worth pointing out that the Bill gives English Heritage the power to delegate its functions to another person if the finance is available to do the work that is within its remit but it simply does not have available the personnel or the time. That is a purely practical solution to a problem that can arise.
It would be remiss of me not to take this opportunity to thank all those hon. Members who have been involved with the Bill, not only those in the House of Lords, but those who served on the Committee, which was fruitful. I am particularly grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight) and the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) for introducing the amendments that have been withdrawn but which brought important matters to the attention of the House.
I also thank the Minister who showed me great courtesy and consideration as I attempted to pilot the measure through the House. His advice has been totally co-operative and I should like that to be put on the record, as also the great help that I was given on Second Reading by my hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) and, more recently, not only on Report but in Committee, by my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh). I am most grateful to them and I commend the Bill to the House.
Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)
I congratulate my noble friend Baroness Anelay of St. Johns on introducing the Bill as long ago as 18 July 2001, and my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir Sydney Chapman), whom I regularly describe as our national treasure, on so successfully bringing the Bill through all its stages in the House.
We welcome the Bill and the fact that it has all-party support. I welcome the transfer of responsibility for underwater archaeology from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport to English Heritage. That is a particular priority of the Joint Nautical Archaeology Policy Committee, which made it a cornerstone of its 1989 document "Heritage at Sea" and, more recently, in "Still at Sea".
My right hon. Friend the Member for South–West Surrey (Virginia Bottomley) made similar recommendations in 1996 in the Green Paper "Protecting our Heritage" and the English Heritage report "Power of Place" recommended that English Heritage should assume responsibility for maritime matters.
The Bill proposes that English Heritage should assume responsibility for ancient monuments in the sea or on the sea bed within UK waters adjacent to England, and we support that. The importance of the large number of wrecks that have been identified throughout the Bill's consideration, particularly today, and prehistoric submerged landscapes are particularly valuable to us as an island nation and a naval and mercantile power.
The seas around us offer a plethora of significant sites and remains, which form an important part of our national heritage. In Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, the lead agency for managing the physical remains of the historic environment already has responsibility for marine archaeology. By contrast, English Heritage is unable to survey underwater sites, fund work on them, give advice relating to them or assist the Secretary of State in the discharge of functions conferred on her by the Protection of Wrecks Act 1973.
Under the National Heritage Act 1983, English Heritage is not allowed to offer services outside the United Kingdom. I am delighted that the Bill will change that, recognising the fact that there is great demand outside the United Kingdom for the expertise, goods and services of English Heritage. That will enable English Heritage to generate extra income. It should not and will not compete with existing commercial concerns, but we recognise that overseas agencies look to English Heritage for training and advice, and would welcome its assistance. We support that.
We support the Bill, and congratulate all those associated with it, especially my noble Friend Baroness Anelay of St. Johns and my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet. I have great pleasure in commending it to the House.
Andrew Dismore (Labour, Hendon)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir Sydney Chapman) on the Bill. I know that it is a difficult job to pilot a private Member's Bill through the House, having had his support for the Bill that I brought forward last week. Despite my comments and criticisms of his Bill, I think that it is worth while. I was grateful for the opportunity that he has given me to research in the highways and byways of obscure legislation, and perhaps get some ideas for future law reform of my own in the next Session.
The hon. Gentleman has done a great service to the world of archaeology and the protection of our cultural heritage by bringing the Bill to the House. I believe that today will be the final stage, apart from Royal Assent, and he is to be congratulated on that achievement.
Edward Davey (Liberal Democrat, Kingston and Surbiton)
Like the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore), I rise briefly to put on record Liberal Democrat support for this measure, and to congratulate the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir Sydney Chapman). He has piloted the Bill through the House with his usual professional skill and eloquence. Many people will welcome this legislation.
On a personal note, in anticipation of English Heritage's positive response to a grant application for All Saints church in Kingston, I welcome the extension of that organisation's powers.
Kim Howells (Labour, Pontypridd)
I add my congratulations to the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir Sydney Chapman) on the way in which he has navigated this excellent Bill through the House—I am fed up hearing references to "piloting". It was my privilege to serve with him right the way through it, including in Committee. His Bill gives valuable new powers to English Heritage. Its passage through the House shows that there is widespread support for it on both sides. I reiterate the fact that the Government fully support it.
The Bill will broaden the powers of English Heritage, allowing it to trade in overseas countries and become involved in underwater archaeology in territorial waters adjacent to England. The hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) made the important point that that will further enhance English Heritage's status as a leading body in this sector. It has a well-deserved, worldwide reputation.
I should also like to repeat a number of reassurances to the House. I can confirm that the overseas trading provisions in the Bill do not give English Heritage powers to undertake these activities in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland, as they have their own heritage bodies. The devolved Administrations are content with all the provisions in the Bill. My Department has been in contact with Ministers and officials in the devolved Administrations, who have said that they are content with the Bill. I know that the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet will be pleased to hear that.
I can also assure the House that the Bill is compatible with the European convention on human rights.
Once again, I should like to say how pleased I am to offer the Government's support and to commend the Third Reading of the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill read the Third time, and passed, with amendments.