|Previous Section||Home Page|
Mr. Brooke : In the spirit of the question which the hon. Member for Workington asked, he knows that, because the balancing item is now larger than the deficit, it is difficult to know whether it is British exports which are being understated and what precisely is the nature of the capital inflow. I agree that we would be able to have a more interesting debate if we had precision on those figures. The hon. Member for Workington made reference to stock relief and went through an analysis in relation to inflation. I will not go into a discussion with him as to what caused inflation during that period but I can echo some of the things that he said about stock relief. In the 1980s, that provision became much less important as we reduced the rate of inflation, and it was abolished in 1984 as part of a package of measures enabling the rate of corporation tax to be reduced. Both the main and small companies rates are much lower than when we came to office.
The hon. Gentleman referred to rentals for industrial space in his part of the country. I am delighted that on the basis of his analysis the demand for industrial space to which he also referred seems likely to increase the amount of space available. There was the slightest constituency dimension to the hon. Gentleman's speech, and, as to his comments on development areas, it is the case that, in the first 10 days after I was born my father anonymously contributed three articles to The Times on the subject of County Durham that all the historians of the 1930s say were responsible for the creation of development areas. My father is now dead, and although he was sympathetic and a stimulus to the concept of development areas in the 1930s, I am certain that he would be delighted that the manner in which the market is operating is causing the enterprise culture to flourish in all parts of the country.
The hon. Gentleman's concluding remarks concerned the exchange rate. I was the financial correspondent for the Financial Times in Switzerland at a time when there were 12 deutschmarks to the pound and 12 Swiss francs to the pound. The remarkable achievement of Switzerland and Germany has been to run balance of payments surpluses over the ensuing nearly 30 years while enjoying a steady increase in the value of their currencies. In the early 1980s--the very period to which the hon. Gentleman referred--there was a swing of 2.8 per cent. in terms of Japan's trade position as a percentage of gross domestic product at a time when it had an appreciating currency.
In the first quarter of this year, export volumes increased by 6.5 per cent. by comparison with the last quarter of 1988, at a time when import volumes increased by only 3.5 per cent. That is clear evidence that the reduction in demand for imports is improving our trading position.
We have strayed some way from the terms of clause 33. The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East sought to suggest that there was less to clause 33 than meets the eye. I am certain that the small business men, seeing that the bands have changed, will regard it as a very worthwhile clause, and I commend it to the Committee. Question put and agreed to.
1989 Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Mr. Rowlands : If we accept clause 32, we shall be accepting a uniform corporate rate for all companies. I take this opportunity to debate the situation affecting not the smaller firms that were the subject of clause 33 but mature manufacturing sector companies of medium to large size.
I wonder whether the Government have noticed what is beginning to happen among such companies, particularly those in the consumer durable and white goods sectors, which still account for a significant number of jobs and for an important part of the country's ecomomy. I therefore question whether we should automatically endorse rates of 35 per cent. for all companies, irrespective of their current situation.
I represent a community in which the only manufacturing base we have left is what I call the mature manufacturing sector, which is in consumer durables, selling to a replacement market rather than one for innovative products. They are seeking to encourage consumers to replace washing machines and so on--the consumer durable white goods. As a result of this they are finding increasing difficulty in making such sales.
One of the major problems has been the increase in interest rates, which has led to a reduction in consumer power and therefore an increasing problem of growing stocks in this manufacturing sector. I raise this because I have a horrible feeling that we are about to enter another phase in which, for the Chancellor's policy to work, a number of our people will be put out of work. We went through it in the early eighties, and we were told we were over it by the Government, but now again we are seeing the terrible tell-tale signs. As a result of high interest rates and the dampening down of consumption, which I understand is the Government's case for high interest rates, the biggest impact will be not upon the imported manufacturing sector but on the domestic mature manufacturing sector. Sales in a whole area of our existing manufacturing sector will be affected by high interest rates.
The Treasury never understands what happens to the economy. It runs this system, but never looks closely at what happens in micro terms as a result of general, broad economic policy and use of fiscal instruments. For example, high interest rates are a blunt instrument which affects everybody and everything. In the communities I represent, in the industries I know most about because my constituents are still employed in them, stocks are rising, sales are falling and we are beginning to worry about whether we shall have redundancies once again in this sector.
I do not know what the answer is. Should there be a differential rate of interest for the manufacturing sector? Apparently not. So I raise the question whether there should be a differential rate of corporation tax. My right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) put down an amendment, which was not accepted for an understandable reason, to introduce such a differential. I ask the Minister whether he is happy with the fact that in this mature manufacturing sector there will be problems with employment. Will we go through a new phase of
Column 832redundancies? Will we yet again find ourselves being put out of work? On the other hand, does he think the economy will grow and we can see ourselves through this?
I am not happy, and I therefore seek the opportunity on this clause to arouse the interest of the Government in this problem. Please will the Minister tell me whether he believes that as a result of high interest rates we shall be out of work, as we were in the early eighties?
Mr. Brooke : I am delighted to respond to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands). At the risk of extending my family references, my grandfather grew up in Rhymney as the son of the secretary of the iron works, and I am delighted to have this link with the hon. Member. He addressed the set-off between inflation and interest rates, and posed various questions about what the future might hold for us and probed whether the Government understood what was happening. Of course the Government understand the effect of a period of high interest rates on the economy and the level of demand, and the impact of that on manufacturers in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. Without question, however, we regard inflation as a much more serious problem and one that must be defeated and cured. A period of high interest rates is, in our view, a sensible instrument to use to achieve that objective.
Since 1979--I am now addressing myself to the hon. Gentleman's query on behalf of his right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) about whether there should be a differential rate of corporation tax for the manufacturing side--there has been a major turnaround in the fortunes of manufacturing industries, which are now in a far stronger position than they have been for many years. Output has reached record levels. In 1988 alone it grew by 7 per cent., and the latest figures show that that growth is continuing. In the three months to February, output was 7.5 per cent. higher than it was in the same period last year. The pattern has been observable over a significant period ; over the past two years annual growth has consistently exceeded 5 per cent. We have not experienced such developments for a long time.
Mr. Rowlands : The Minister has drawn from his historic and family experience of our communities. May I bring him up to date? The area that I represent--along with other parts of the Principality and the rest of the country--has experienced threatened redundancies, shorter working weeks and rising stocks in consumer durables. Will the Minister answer a simple question? Dos he believe that for the Chancellor's policy to work more of our people must be put out of work?
Mr. Brooke : It is certainly not my right hon. Friend's purpose that people should be put out of work ; it is his purpose, however, that the level of demand in the economy should be somewhat reduced to achieve the beneficial effect on inflation that we seek. The hon. Gentleman cannot press me to make a specific forecast about what will happen in Merthyr Tydfil, which--in a pluralist system--will, by definition, depend on the companies involved. But there is no doubt that, first, manufacturing industry has been doing extremely well in the recent past, and, secondly, the Government see no reason for the differential rate of tax that the hon. Gentleman seemed, by implication, partly to suggest.
Mr. Rowlands : The Minister winds his words around. I do not ask him to make a forecast ; I simply ask him to confirm or deny that the potential consequence of high interest rates in a mature manufacturing sector is more people out of work. The Minister says that he wants to dampen down consumption ; one of the effects of that is increased unemployment. Does he agree with that proposition?
Mr. Brooke : The hon. Gentleman can say that they are only words, but the fact remains that what happens to wage rates in such circumstances directly affects what will happen in his constituency. I would find it difficult to make such a forecast.
What the Chancellor is seeking to do is bring the economy back to a state of equilibrium in which there is no excess demand, inflation can be wrung out of the economy and we can revert to the steady growth that the country has seen over the past seven or eight years--growth that it has rarely known before in its history. Question put and agreed to.
Clause 33 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
To report progress and ask leave to sit again.-- [Mr.
Committee report progress ; to sit again tomorrow.
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.-- [Mr. Heathcoat-Amory.]
Mr. Simon Hughes (Southwark and Bermondsey) : It was a great pleasure to hear on Thursday last that Mr. Speaker had selected for this evening the opportunity for me to raise the matter of the preservation of the Rose theatre in Southwark. I am very grateful to him for that.
When one is but the latest of a series of Members of Parliament for a constituency, the first of whom took his seat in 1295, one can reflect without too much need for research on some words appropriate for tonight :
"All the world's a stage,
And all the men and women merely players :
They have their exits, and their entrances".
We are here but briefly as politicians. The unusual privilege of being a politician normally allows one to make specific pleas for one's constituents ; it rarely allows one to make pleas that also go far beyond the interests of one's constituents on a matter of national and international importance, or to make pleas for something of enormous historical importance. But that is what I can do this evening.
I want to do two simple things. First, on behalf of my constituents and many others in this country and beyond, I come to Parliament, to the centre of the modern, national political stage, to make a plea that the recently discovered ruins of the Rose theatre in Southwark be preserved from today henceforth for all the world to enjoy. I come with a second plea specifically for the Government. I seek nothing more and nothing less than a simple declaration that the Government be willing to say today or, at the latest, later this week, that they are of the view that the Rose theatre should be preserved for all to see and that they will work actively to secure that. It may sometimes be thought that modern constituents in an inner-city working community do not think that ruins are of great importance. In fact, our local newspaper last year did a vox pop and discovered exactly the opposite. The people of Southwark and Bermondsey said that they overwhelmingly supported the preservation of our history and our heritage.
The Minister will know that it was less than a year ago that I raised with her predecessor in the House the question of the archaeological heritage of Southwark, an enormously rich area of archaeological interest because of its ancient geographical importance, being at the crossing point into London from the continent and elsewhere. More recently, on 21 February this year, my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) asked the Secretary of State
"what representations he has received from English Heritage concerning the archaeological discovery of the Elizabethan Rose theatre in Southwark."
The Minister replied :
"None so far."--[ Official Report, 21 February 1989 ; Vol. 147, c. 572 .]
I know for a fact that since then letters have been pouring into her Department with increasing rapidity and authority.
Things have moved on, because the excavation of the Rose theatre has revealed that we have discovered a treasure indeed. Over the last few weeks, it has become clear that the ruins of one of the great Elizabethan theatres
Column 835of Bankside--one directly linked with Shakespeare and lost to sight over 350 years ago--can now be seen and enjoyed at Bankside, by the Thames by Southwark bridge.
But next week, the foundations of the theatre are likely to be covered up and damaged substantially. They were discovered on land belonging to Imry Merchant Developers. I can say without equivocation that to date Imry, the landowner, has acted with absolute propriety and worked with English Heritage and the Museum of London to secure an opportunity for archaeologists to explore the theatre and to reveal the treasure that exists. I am grateful to the company, as I have said to the director in charge of the site, and I here repeat my thanks. But now we must go further. If the site is covered up at the beginning of next week, we shall lose a site of unique importance and an opportunity for all time.
The site is one of only eight theatres in London in the 16th century, four of which were on the south bank. The sites of the Hope and the Swan are likely to have been destroyed by commercial office developments. The site of the Globe has not been excavated and we do not know what, if anything, we shall find. We have excavated the site of the Rose as we have found it. Therefore we have found the first, and as far as we can be sure the only, in situ evidence of one of the Elizabethan theatres. No one knows whether we shall find any more, but we have found the site of the Rose ; it is unique and it may be all we possess of the physical structure of the great public theatres of London 400 years ago. Those theatres were unique to London from the mid-17th century.
The Rose was built in 1587 by Philip Henslow, the impresario, and his partner, Edward Alleyn. It is the earliest of the four Shakespearean theatres. It saw Marlowe's plays performed--it saw "Dr. Faustus" and "The Jew of Malta"--and Jonson, Dekker, Webster and Shakespeare himself performed there too. "Henry VI" and "Titus Andronicus" were probably performed by Shakespeare himself on the stage that we can see now. I found it timely indeed that last Saturday I enjoyed a performance of "Henry VI" by the Royal Shakespeare Company at the Barbican, only a mile away from the original venue of that play. The last known performance at the Rose was in 1603. Soon afterwards, the theatre was demolished and covered up, although happily this theatre is one of the theatres where we know all that was put on and the only one of which we have an illustration contemporay to Shakespeare's plays.
As a result of the dig, we have discovered an enormous amount about the Elizabethan theatre that we did not know but had only speculated about. Previous evidence was contradictory We had to hypothesise as to what the theatre looked like and how it worked. Now we can see it for ourselves. Today in The Times there is an illustration by C. Walter Hodges of what the Rose must have looked like, based on the now available information. It shows the polygonal inner and outer walls of the galleries, the sloping mortar floor, the foundation of the stage and the towered tiring house behind. The heritage of Southwark, England and the world has now accurately been discovered on Bankside not far from here.
I have received many letters and expressions of interest in recent days. One letter from a student at King's college, London, asks :
Column 836"Is not the site of the Rose theatre on a par with that of the Tower of Westminster Abbey? Many foreign visitors surely find their strongest association with England through her great writers and few sights could hold more attractive power than one associated with Shakespeare. Thousands go to Stratford".
On Bankside we have the real thing. This week we have the opportunity to decide how we make sure that the excitement which I, like others, have enjoyed, is shared by people in years to come. Another letter to me said :
"The discovery of the Rose theatre in Southwark provides one of the most important pieces of hard evidence on the nature of the Elizabethan theatre ever to have been found. Although it lies in the earth and rises but a few feet, it is a national monument to rank with Stonehenge."
On many occasions--by letter, parliamentary question and Adjournment debate --I have asked the Secretary of State to schedule the Rose and Globe theatres. I am aware of the procedure for scheduling and for designating areas as areas of archaeological importance. I first ask therefore that a decision be made this week to schedule the site of the Rose theatre and to designate north Southwark, contemplated as a possible area for such designation, as a sixth AAI. I hope that the Government will say that they are willing to consider that and I have today tabled a question to the Secretary of State asking specifically about scheduling.
I want to go further and to explore the ways forward, in the belief that they can be achieved. Given that the developers have so far been sympathetic and given that they now realise how amazing the discovery is, a breathing space is needed for them, the planners in Southwark and English Heritage, with Government support, to work out a way whereby the building that the developers want can be built in a modified form and yet the Rose can be preserved.
On an adjacent site, the actor, director and great friend of Shakespeare, Sam Wanamaker, is constructing a replica of the Globe. It would be a supreme dramatic irony if an American were to be recreating a model of our heritage while we were burying the original Rose theatre itself next door. We cannot allow that to happen. The remains of the Rose should and must be preserved and presented for the public to view as a monument capable of interpretation. Given the will, the time, the money and the imagination, it must be possible to find a way of keeping the remains visible to future generations. All options should be considered, but the important precondition is that the site is not filled in and that piles are not driven through the foundations, as proposed for next week. Reconstruction of the site elsewhere is not an option. That would not be authentic. Relocation is not an option, because it would not be the same as the original site. Covering the theatre up and opening it up again later is not an option, because even that would have risks to the site and some of the remains would be destroyed. The vibration of vehicles, the weight of vehicles and power-driving machines would cause additional destruction, apart from the immediate destruction caused by building work. However careful people are, covering in and opening up the remains would not be good enough. Sam Wanamaker's proposal--although in the right direction-- that the site could be viewed only through glass--whether light or darkly-- is not sufficient. The Colosseum in Rome is enjoyable because one is in the
Column 837place. Stonehenge is right and important because it is as it was. Fishbourne is right because one can go in and walk around. We must be able to do the same with the Rose.
Many people have written to me expressing their support. John Earl, the director of the Theatres Trust, a body set up by Parliament to promote the better protection of theatres, says :
"It is of vital importance that the preservation and proper display of the Rose should be achieved to the highest international standards".
He goes on to comment that linking it to a possible development next door is not secure enough. The archaeologists on site make it clear that it must be preserved in a way that can be appreciated. It would be ludicrous for us to seek to achieve a lesser objective. My colleague the hon. Member for Dulwich (Mr. Bowden) wanted to be here tonight and expressly sends support, as does my colleague the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman). Three parties are represented in the Southwark borough's three Members of Parliamentand they are supported by the local authority, the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Archbishop of Southwark, the Bishop of Southwark and many from the theatre world--performers, managers, historians and many besides. Many messages have come in from Britain and overseas. The most pre-eminent people in British theatre today feel that the Rose is so important that not only do they visit it ; they want to make it clear that it must be preserved. I hope that I am not exaggerating when I say that the importance of the preservation of the Rose cannot be overestimated. It is a miracle that it has been found, and it must now be kept to be enjoyed.
The Secretary of State and, I understand, the Prime Minister have now been alerted to the importance of the site. I hope that the Minister will tell us tonight that the Government are willing to say that the work done so far is good but that, now we have discovered the treasure under the earth, we must ensure that it is preserved. It is no good saying, "It is just another site and we cannot preserve them all." I was not here last Friday for the Adjournment debate about the Huggin hill palace in the City of London, although I have read the report of it in Hansard . The Minister made it clear that there were other Roman baths and that we might have to lose one. We cannot say that about the Rose. There is no other example of this part of our heritage in the country. It is unique, and must be recognised as such.
I shall end by quoting from others who have written in support of the case before us, but first let me sound a note of warning. It is not enough that we should continue to react at the last moment to each important find or to try at the eleventh hour to intervene in negotiations that have cliffhanger qualities. We should reform our planning structures so that, in future, we can protect sites in advance.
The Minister knows that this is not a one-off expression of interest on my part. I hope that she will see my bid tonight as part of my concern that we should not only increase the number of ancient monuments that we schedule and protect, increase the number of areas of archaeological importance that we designate and the financial wherewithal given for the work to be done, but we should ensure that local authorities protect archaeology and structure plans, that the Department's structure plan is made much more specific in its guidance and that the environmental impact assessment measure agreed last
Column 838year are specifically made to apply to the buried historic environment. We must do more, or we shall lose other sites, as valuable as the Rose but in different ways.
The conclusions of those who have visited the Rose are that we are confronted by our first sight of a playhouse that Shakespeare knew. My last quotation is from someone who wrote to me :
"It is all we have ever seen of the most important group of theatres in the history of Western civilisation and our first glimpse of the place where English drama reached its finest flowering. If we do not keep it the world will rightly judge us to be barbaric." We have an historic responsibility and I hope that, in partnership with all concerned, we shall discharge it this week with honour. 12.8 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mrs. Virginia Bottomley) : The hon. Gentleman said that this was noa one-off interest for him. I endorse that remark. He has raised questions of archaeological concern, particularly relating to his constituency, on several occasions--in questions, in letters and in the debate to which he referred, which took place shortly before I took over my present responsibilities.
I have much sympathy with the hon. Gentleman because I spent many years as a social worker in his part of Southwark. It is well known that helping people to have a sense of pride in the history of their community can play a very important part. I worked on the north Peckham estate, which is an estate where a sense of identity and an understanding of the past cannot be said to be the overriding preoccupation of its residents, so I can well understand the hon. Gentleman's wish for people to know and to understand the past of Southwark and to find ways to ensure that archaeological remains can be preserved and shared with others.
The hon. Gentleman also referred to the debate last Friday which concerned the impressive archaeological remains at Huggin hill in the City. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me another opportunity to discuss archaeology. I have been waiting for some months in my present role for such matters to be discussed on the Floor of the House because they are of growing interest and concern. As development grows and as the whole profession of archaeology strengthens, new techniques and new ways of understanding become available. At the museum of London, which played an important part at the Rose theatre, there are no fewer than 400 archaeologists over the year who participate in digs in London.
The remains at Huggin hill, ascribed by some as those of the palace of Julius Agricola, the governor of Britain--although there is some argument about that--are indeed impressive. I can inform the hon. Gentleman that we are keeping in close contact with all the parties there, and we are continuing to press for a satisfactory outcome for all concerned.
Equally exciting are the discoveries to which the hon. Gentleman has referred. Those excavations have been established to the satisfaction both of the museum of London and of the scholars of the Elizabethan and Jacobean theatre as the site of the Rose theatre, which, as the hon. Gentleman said, in its heyday saw performances of most of Christopher Marlowe's plays, with Edward
Column 839Alleyn--that famous actor of his day and later founder of Dulwich college--playing the title role of Dr. Faustus and the Jew of Malta. Perhaps of even greater excitement, certainly for Shakespeare scholars and enthusiasts all over the world, will be the fact that two of Shakespeare's early plays received their first performance there--Henry VI in 1592, in which some believe--the hon. Gentleman would count himself among them--Shakespeare appeared as a young actor, and also Titus Andronicus. For the first time we have clear evidence of the shape, size and layout of an Elizabethan theatre, which is crucial to the understanding of the production of the Elizabethan plays that have given so much to our culteral heritage of drama and theatre.
The excitement of this discovery--and for some the surprise--has led to an understandable wish for its preservation, especially because, as we know, such remains are irreplaceable. There are real practical and philosophical debates about the best way forward. How do we safeguard the best of our heritage in a manner consistent with the needs of a dynamic society? How do we also move towards the future? Some of those issues were discussed in our debate last week. I made it clear to the House then that we have seen very dramatic improvements in the relationship between developers and archaeologists.
In a controversial case in York concerning the palace of the Emperor Septimus Severus, there was speculation about how that could be preserved. As a result of good will and co-operation between the archaeologists and the developers, the developers have agreed to redesign the foundations to preserve the archaeology.
Much of that good will and co-operation stems directly from a very valuable code of practice produced by the Standing Conference of Archaeological Unit Managers and the British Property Federation. That partnership has resulted not only in co-operation, but in hard resources. While English Heritage has recently estimated that last year it made a contribution of about £7 million to archaeology, a further £14 million was contributed by developers for excavation. That reinforces the view that voluntary co- operation and partnership are working well in many cases.
As the hon. Gentleman said, the Rose theatre is not a scheduled ancient monument. Many will feel it essential for the protection of those remains, that they be scheduled. Indeed, only last week we received a request to this effect from the museum of London. Scheduling means that consent must be sought from the Secretary of State before any works that would disturb the monument may be carried out. However, it does not automatically mean that the site must be preserved for all time.
In considering the merits of any scheduling proposal, such as that put forward, it is necessary to bear in mind the fact that planning permission for the redevelopment of the site has previously been granted by the London borough of Southwark and that construction is indeed under way on another part of the site which is separate from the remains of the Rose theatre. It must also be appreciated that adequate time for excavation of the site
Column 840has already been negotiated between the museum of London and the developers, Imry Merchant Developers plc.
I was pleased to hear the hon. Gentleman pay tribute to the developers because I understand that the work has been carried out throughout in accordance with an agreement drawn up and fully adhered to by both sides. I know too that English Heritage, our agent in this area, has been keeping an informal watching brief on the site and that Imry Merchant has consistently respected its requirements. I have no hesitation in commending the developer's allocation of time, funds and equipment, which resulted in this dramatic discovery in the first place and which has allowed for the subsequent excavation of the site.
I am conscious also that Imry Merchant Developers plc is currently studying seriously the imaginative concept which hon. Members may have seen referred to in newspaper articles recently. The hon. Gentleman referred to Sam Wanamaker's idea for a below-ground Shakespeare museum, which would be linked by tunnel to the Rose site, emerging in an area from which the Rose remains could be viewed, at some time in the future.
I understand that Imry has evaluated this general concept so far as has been possible in the short time available, and that it is prepared to do whatever can be done in conformity with its general aims and objectives. It has indicated that the existing scheme could be modified so that it is compatible with such a scheme as has been put forward by Sam Wanamaker. This would involve the encapsulation of the site, and the covering of the remains, so that the filling could be dug out again at a later date and the remains seen from a viewing platform. I understand that this may not be sufficient to satisfy the hon. Gentleman, but it has been endorsed by English Heritage. I stress that is remains to be seen whether it will prove possible to put the plan into effect. I am, however, encouraged that Imry is living up to its track record for responsible reaction to new situations. Its actions once again prove how seriously so many developers rightly take their responsibilities towards the archaeological heritage. However, I stress that, regardless of whether the Sam Wanamaker scheme comes to fruition, the remains of the Rose theatre site will be preserved for future generations beneath the new development.
In terms of extending our knowledge of Elizabethan theatre, the Rose project has already been a remarkable success. The information gathered from the excavations has amply demonstrated that. The remains will be substantially preserved beneath the new building. Although we can do nothing to mitigate the damage that has already been done by the piling from previous office blocks, any further damage to be caused by the new building is minimal.
That brings me to the question of designation under part II of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979. We have discussed that matter previously. As I have said, English Heritage has recently consulted local authorities and a number of other bodies about the working of the system and about whether further designation would be desirable. We have received its advice and are considering it carefully and I shall consider the hon. Gentleman's remarks in that context.
Column 841I should like to congratulate the developers and the archaeologists on their splendid job. Like the hon. Gentleman, I hope that a way will be found to ensure that future generations are able to see this magnificent discovery and I commit myself to working with all the parties to find an effective outcome that will achieve the goal that we are all pursuing.
Question put and agreed to .
Adjourned accordingly at nineteen minutes past Twelve o'clock .
|Written Answers Section