| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
5.59 pm
Mr. Bennett: I, too, hope that the Bill turns out to be a good one, but I have to put down certain markers. I fear that, with the Government not prepared to commit any new resources, the legislation may not be enforced as effectively as the House would like. It is not reasonable to expect the police to be able to give the necessary time and attention to harassment cases in particular without there being resourcing implications. We should be worried about passing legislation without providing the necessary resources.
We should also ask whether the House did a proper job of scrutiny. I fear that we shall find that the Bill does not protect all those whom we want to protect. We may well find that one or two people whom we did not intend to be caught by the legislation will be. The lessons for the House must be that, although all-party co-operation is a good idea, it should not shorten proper scrutiny. I do not think that the Floor of the House is the proper place for detailed scrutiny. Even though we were trying to get the measure through House quickly, it would have been far better to send the Bill to a Standing Committee, even if the Committee had had to sit for long hours to carry out the scrutiny effectively. I hope that the legislation works, but, when the House looks back on this day and a half, I do not think that we will believe that we carried out our scrutiny role effectively.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill read the Third Time, and passed.
18 Dec 1996 : Column 989
Order for Second Reading read.
The Minister of State, Department of National Heritage (Mr. Iain Sproat):
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The Bill extends the powers of the trustees of the national heritage memorial fund on the projects that they can fund and the recipients eligible for funding.
As the House will know, the NHMF trustees distribute the heritage share of the national lottery proceeds. Our aim is to build on the existing success of the lottery as a source of funding for the national heritage. We are keen that everyone should be able to appreciate and benefit from that heritage. We want lottery money to be used to enhance opportunities for people--especially the young--to have ready access to our heritage, to learn about it and to enjoy it. We also want to ensure that any worthwhile heritage project can be considered for lottery funding, with no artificial barriers.
Under the existing legislation, which predates the advent of the lottery, the NHMF trustees can fund only those projects that involve the acquisition, maintenance or preservation of tangible heritage assets. Of course, that gives the NHMF plenty of scope to support worthwhile projects, and it is taking full advantage of those opportunities.
However, because of the current terms of the legislation, the NHMF's role as a lottery distributor is more restricted than the Government and the trustees wish. The NHMF cannot, for instance, offer funds for projects that promote access to our heritage or enhance understanding and enjoyment of it. It cannot assist in the development of heritage skills, and is limited in its ability to support nature conservation work.
We want to lift those constraints. We want the NHMF to back heritage projects comparable with those that other lottery distributors are supporting in their sectors.
Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow):
Will the Minister be specific about the inhibitions on undertaking conservation work? My understanding is that the national heritage memorial fund has been very good about supporting New Hailes, near Edinburgh, which is really a conservation project.
Mr. Sproat:
Perhaps I could come back to the hon. Gentleman on that project. The fund exists mainly to acquire, preserve and maintain tangible objects. Conservation can be part of preservation, therefore falling within the fund's current remit, but the NHMF trustees have been uneasy about any project that strays too far from the acquisition, preservation and maintenance of tangible objects. However, I shall look into the New Hailes example and see exactly how it was dealt with.
The choice of projects is, of course, a matter for the NHMF trustees. However, the trustees and the Government are clear that our heritage offers ample scope for the NHMF to undertake a wider role than is at present legally possible.
Projects that the trustees might want to consider funding could include the assignment of a professional educationist to a heritage site to train staff and produce
18 Dec 1996 : Column 990
We also want the NHMF to be able to support projects that enhance understanding of our national history or landscape, independently of its tangible remains.
Mr. Michael Stephen (Shoreham):
Together with other members of the Environment Select Committee, I visited the natural history museum this morning. The nation can be justly proud of the enormous collection held there--the largest in the world--of specimens from the natural world, and of the high-quality scientific research that goes on there. We were shown the efforts made by the museum to put its specimens on computer disk, and to make its collection available to all the scientists in the world through the Internet. I am sure that the museum will welcome my hon. Friend's comments about the availability of money for information technology projects.
Mr. Sproat:
I am glad that my hon. Friend visited the natural history museum, which is one of the finest natural history museums in the world, if not the finest. Anyone who has not discovered how many angles a beetle can be seen from with information technology would not believe it. The natural history museum is far advanced in such matters. I am sure that other museums will take up similar technology in a major way.
Sir Wyn Roberts (Conwy):
Will my hon. Friend confirm that the Bill will enable the Victoria County History of England, which is a national project, to apply for lottery funding?
Mr. Sproat:
I shall come to that in just a second. You yourself, Mr. Deputy Speaker, played an important role in that project. I shall deal with it in a few sentences. I ask my right hon. Friend to contain himself.
We have identified three types of project that fulfil the purpose that I mentioned. The first is an exhibition on a particular aspect of our history. Examples might be a museum exhibition on the life and work of an important figure in history or on the ecology of a particular region. The second is the creation of an archive--for instance, an oral record of the distinctive experiences of particular localities or groups. The third--this was identified during the Bill's passage through another place--is a major work of reference such as the Victoria County History.
The answer to my right hon. Friend is yes. I want to pay particular tribute to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if that is not a creepy thing to do, because your great work and valuable advice enabled us to include the project in the Bill. All those who value the county histories pay great credit to your work.
Mr. William Cash (Stafford):
Perhaps I should declare an interest, because my hon. Friend probably does not know that, together with Denis Mahon and others, I drafted the National Heritage Act 1980, which led to this Bill. Having read the Bill, I congratulate the Minister on it. We are now moving the national heritage memorial fund towards history and school projects, to enable people
18 Dec 1996 : Column 991
Mr. Sproat:
This is a big evening for congratulations. I thank my hon. Friend for his. It is a tribute to his original work on the 1980 Act that the new Bill is so short. He deserves credit for that.
The first of the Bill's two main elements is the opening up of the NHMF's statutory terms of reference to embrace a much wider range of worthwhile heritage projects. The second element concerns who is eligible for assistance from the NHMF. Existing legislation permits the NHMF to offer financial assistance only to public and charitable bodies that have been established for a specific heritage purpose.
That remit, of course, takes in much that is at the very heart of our heritage, but it rules out a great many potentially worthwhile projects. In built heritage alone, more than two thirds of historic buildings are privately owned. As the law stands, those buildings are outside the NHMF's terms of reference and therefore cannot be considered for lottery funding.
When the National Heritage Committee examined the national lottery earlier this year, the NHMF, English Heritage and other bodies all argued that limiting eligibility for lottery funding in such a way works against the best interests of heritage, and that the restrictions on eligibility should therefore be removed. The Select Committee agreed with that view, and so do the Government. We believe that ownership of property should not determine whether a project is eligible for lottery support. What matters is whether the project has heritage merit and will be for the public good.
There have been suggestions that the purpose of the proposal is simply to enable lottery money to reach the owners of historic country houses, but privately owned heritage includes buildings of almost every kind. There is considerable scope for the lottery to support heritage projects, such as historic townscape schemes as an element of urban regeneration, or conservation projects in the countryside. A number of such projects have already received lottery awards, but the NHMF has often been unable to help because much of the property concerned is privately owned.
Nor, of course, is the proposal confined to historic buildings. The new approach to eligibility will also apply, for example, to museums, land and artefacts owned by private individuals. There is of course nothing new about making public funds available for the benefit of privately owned heritage property. For many years, English Heritage and other bodies have been running grant schemes for historic buildings of outstanding quality, irrespective of ownership. Grants are subject, quite properly, to stringent conditions on matters such as public access, and there is provision for the means testing of applicants and for clawback of funds if necessary. The NHMF trustees accept that, if lottery grants are to be given to private owners of heritage property, such rigorous safeguards will be required.
6.1 pm
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |