| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Dalyell: The Minister will know of the British museum's concern about the terrible dilemma of either paying off staff or being faced with charging for entrance, which for very good reasons they are exceedingly reluctant to undertake. Can he really be so complacent about the position?
Mr. Sproat: Not a tremor of complacency had entered my voice on the matter. The devastating report on the finances, organisation, management and general efficiency of the British museum came not from the Government but from an independent report that was commissioned by the trustees. It was in that report that the suggestion was made that imposing entry charges was one way in which to make up the shortfall that arose from--not to put it too disagreeably--the not wholly adequate running of the finances and organisation of the British museum in past years. The Government did not say that. The Government do not encourage or discourage charging.
Some museums, such as the British museum, do not charge, but others, such as the natural history museum, which my hon. Friend the Member for Shoreham (Mr. Stephen) visited today, the science museum, the imperial war museum and the maritime museum not only charge but are extremely glad that they have done so.
If the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) talked to Sir Neil Cossons, Neil Chalmers or Robert Crawford, or went to the maritime museum, he would find that they very much wish to keep a charging policy. That is up to them, just as it is up to the British museum's trustees to decide whether they want to charge. They have not looked after the finances as well as they might have liked, and if they can find another way in which to put finances back on a sound basis without going in for charging, that is fine; so be it. No pressure will come from the Government.
It would be interesting to know whether, if they were ever in power, the Opposition intend to abolish such charges, and if so, where they would get the money to make up for the charges that currently help the science museum, the natural history museum, the maritime museum, the imperial war museum, and so on.
The Government stand by our undertaking that lottery money will not replace existing funding. That of course does not mean that, in areas where lottery funding is available, expenditure programmes are immune from the constraints applying to public spending generally. Nor does it prevent lottery money from complementing other funding. In the heritage sector, it is entirely right that projects that are beyond the scope of English Heritage's grant programmes, generous as that is--in terms of either eligibility or affordability--should be able to be considered for lottery funding.
18 Dec 1996 : Column 993
What is important is that there should be agreed strategies on the role of the lottery in relation to other heritage programmes, so that the available funds can be applied where they are needed. With that in mind, the NHMF is having discussions with English Heritage and other bodies on future funding priorities in the light of the new powers conferred by the Bill.
I turn to the Bill's specific provisions. Clause 1 redefines the funding powers of the NHMF trustees, as set out in section 3 of the National Heritage Act 1980, which my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) helped to draft. There are three main changes. First, the NHMF's remit is extended beyond simply the acquisition, maintenance or preservation of land, buildings or objects of importance to national heritage. Under the Bill, the NHMF will also be able to support projects that encourage study, understanding and enjoyment of heritage, promote access to heritage, or develop skills relating to heritage.
Secondly, there is a new power for the NHMF to fund specified types of project which relate to important aspects of the United Kingdom's history, natural history or landscape, and which the trustees consider are of public benefit. That power encompasses exhibitions, archives and comprehensive works of reference, to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Conwy (Sir W. Roberts) referred.
Sir Donald Thompson (Calder Valley):
All over the country in the 1920s, war memorials were erected by public subscription. Some of them belong to local authorities, and many are onerous burdens. Will the Bill enable those war memorials to be looked after properly, providing, of course, that the correct procedures are followed?
Mr. Sproat:
I hope so. My hon. Friend raises a very important point, which we shall perhaps be able to go into in rather more depth in Committee when we consider particular examples.
The hon. Member for Linlithgow mentioned New Hailes. The NHMF has been able to support the acquisition of New Hailes by the National Trust for Scotland, because the National Trust is a public body. If the present owner of New Hailes had sought help from the NHMF for repairs to the building--the hon. Gentleman mentioned conservation, which might just fall under the remit of repairs, I suppose--she would not have been able to receive funding. It is in part to allow such added discretion for the trustees that we have introduced the Bill. It would have been possible to help New Hailes under the Bill even had it not been for the acquisition by the National Trust for Scotland.
Secondly, there is a new power for the NHMF to fund specified types of project that relate to an important aspect of the United Kingdom's history, and so on, including the comprehensive works of reference that I have already mentioned.
Thirdly, the current list of recipients eligible for NHMF funding will disappear. Instead, the NHMF will be able to support any project that the trustees consider is of importance to the national heritage and of public benefit.
18 Dec 1996 : Column 994
Clause 2 repeals existing provisions that require the NHMF to obtain departmental and Treasury approval for the payment of allowances to trustees and for certain staffing matters. We propose to table one small amendment to clause 2, which will concern the remuneration for NHMF trustees.
It is arguable that the work involved in assessing lottery applications is approaching the point at which it becomes unreasonable to ask trustees to give their time unpaid. We do not intend to make any immediate decisions about that. However, the NHMF is virtually alone among lottery distributors in that its trustees are precluded by statute from receiving substantive remuneration. We want to take the opportunity provided by the Bill to remove the current statutory bar. The current chairman has made it clear that he would not wish to make use of the change to receive remuneration himself.
I am confident that the Bill will be welcomed by all hon. Members with an interest in our country's incomparable heritage. It will effectively bring the whole of the heritage within reach of lottery funding, it will ensure that resources are deployed where they are most needed, and it will open the door to a range of exciting new projects--projects not only to preserve the heritage but also to help deepen our understanding of it and enhance our enjoyment of it.
I commend the Bill to the House.
Mr. Mark Fisher (Stoke-on-Trent, Central):
We welcome the Bill, which has the Opposition's general support. Lord Donoughue, on behalf of the Opposition, made clear our support in the excellent debate in the other place. We accept the case that the Minister has made for augmenting and widening the powers of the national heritage memorial fund and the heritage lottery fund trustees so as to give greater flexibility in the operation of the two funds.
At present, those funds are circumscribed by the fact that they are charged only with acquisition, maintenance and preservation, so a lot of imaginative opportunities are being missed. The hon. Member for Calder Valley (Sir D. Thompson) made a good point about memorials, which are much loved in communities throughout the country, and constitute an extraordinary record of our history and of the sacrifices that communities have made on behalf of this country. As the hon. Gentleman knows, there is an organisation that cares for memorials, but it is hugely underfunded, and relies purely on charitable money.
It is precisely such projects that will now be eligible because of the wider powers, and we look forward to exploring that aspect of the Bill in committee. Such opportunities are being missed at present, and the Bill properly opens the possibilities for their inclusion. That is one of the reasons why we welcome it.
We are enthusiastic about some of the specific powers, especially those concerning wider access. As we understand it, matters such as the cost of transport for school groups to sites, and the pricing policy of some heritage sites, would become eligible for assistance as a result of the Bill. The educational work of schools, youth initiatives and training in heritage-related skills, perhaps by means of bursaries, will be included So will the important issue of information technology, to which the Minister alluded briefly, and which we shall explore
18 Dec 1996 : Column 995
We welcome all those developments, especially the widening of the definition to include conservation of our natural heritage. At present conservation of our habitats, flora and fauna receives only about 9 per cent. of national heritage memorial funding; yet our hedgerows, heaths and sedges, and the extraordinary diversity and beauty of the British landscape in general, tell us a great deal about how our forefathers lived, and how we have created what is often a man-made landscape. As a society, we have not always been as careful as we should have been about that, or given the funding to preserve those great natural and man-made landscapes, so we welcome the fact that such projects will become eligible for funding.
We should like an assurance from the Minister that wider eligibility for nature conservation will also be recognised by the NHMF--the national heritage memorial fund--and that things will be on a more equal footing generally, not only through lottery funding but in terms of the conservation of nature and the built environment in general. Problems have undoubtedly been identified, as happened with the 1995 report on biodiversity. There is a great deal of work to do.
We welcome what the Minister said about the Victoria County History, since Staffordshire, the county of which I represent a part, is an especially fine example. I join the Minister in paying tribute to those who, like your colleague, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and like many Members of the House of Lords, have pressed for the change. I am glad that the Government have responded and clarified that aspect.
We have not always been as careful as we ought to have been about our local histories and oral histories, and our industrial heritage. We welcome the fact that those will now be taken within the ambit of the two funds.
We welcome not only the widening of the powers but the fact that more bodies will be eligible. The definition of eligibility for receiving funds should range more widely than the public bodies and charities established for a heritage purpose that it covers at present. As we understand the Bill, the new definition will mean that the criteria for eligibility for applying for funds will be both the heritage importance of the project and the public good. Anybody who is doing valuable heritage work will now be eligible to apply to the two funds and to receive grants.
Of course, that will include the private sector--another area that we need to explore in Committee. We welcome the idea in principle, but we foresee certain problems, which we can examine, although not necessarily tonight. In particular, we should like to hear an assurance from the Minister, either tonight or in Committee, that, just as the private houses he mentioned will be eligible, other areas of our heritage that are in private hands will be eligible, too.
For example, there are some wonderful examples of 1930s architecture in privately owned cinemas. Whether those will fall within the remit of funding remains to be seen. What about our industrial heritage, including premises that, although they may be in use at the moment, may also be listed buildings? There are many such in Yorkshire and Lancashire, and people have encountered difficulties in modernising and expanding them while maintaining the heritage.
18 Dec 1996 : Column 996
The Minister, in common with other hon. Members, may have received an interesting letter from a company called Leigh Spinners, from Leigh in Lancashire, on that subject. That is another area that is worth exploring in Committee.
By and large, we support the widening both of the powers and of the eligibility of recipient bodies, but I want to put on record the fact that there are some serious problems to be addressed. In allowing the private sector access to heritage lottery funding, it is vital that genuine access, rather than token access, be made a priority.
Inevitably, there will also be problems involving clawback, when there is appreciation or development of privately owned sites that have received funding. For instance, it is the public interest that theatres in the west end of London in private hands, which are often fine works by architects such as Masham, should receive grants. I believe that applications are in train to the arts lottery board. It appears that the Bill would allow application on architectural grounds for privately owned theatres to the heritage lottery fund. We support that, but the system of matching funding must be different from and more rigorous than that for applications from publicly-owned theatres.
There is also the problem of how means testing will be done on private houses and theatres, and how development appreciation will be clawed back if capital appreciation results from lottery funding. There are concerns that require clarification. It was not clear from the debate in the other place whether the Government have thought them out.
The Minister gave a rather bland assurance that the Government's position on additionality remained the same. Baroness Trumpington, on Second Reading, stated:
6.20 pm
"The Government have always made it clear that money raised by the lottery for good causes was and is intended to be additional to public expenditure. The Government will not reduce public spending programmes to take account of awards from the lottery. That commitment cannot, however, mean that the Government should set aside the issue of what they can afford to spend on any programme which benefits from lottery funds compared to any other public expenditure programme. The opposite view would be to give an automatic protection to lottery-supported programmes which was not available to others. Such a result would be absurd."--[Official Report, House of Lords, 4 November 1996; Vol. 575, c. 567.]
There is an internal logic in that, but if one thinks about her view, one sees that it lets the Treasury or the Department of National Heritage make allowances in apportioning grant aid. That opens the door to the end of the additionality principle--a process that is already evident in some grants.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |