NATIONAL HERITAGE
COMMITTEE 1992-97
Report by Rt Hon Gerald
Kaufman, Chairman of the Committee
Introduction
1. The National Heritage
Committee was established at the beginning of the current Parliament,
to reflect the establishment of the Department of National Heritage
after the 1992 election. The Department brought together activities
previously carried out by no fewer than six Government departments
and offices: Arts and Libraries; Education and Science (sport);
Environment (the built heritage); Home Office (broadcasting, press
regulation and the lottery); Trade and Industry (film, and export
licensing of works of art) and Employment (tourism). Responsibility
for charities and the voluntary sector was transferred from the
Home Office on 1 May 1996.
2. A list of the Committee's
reports over the last 4½ years is included in the separate
statistical summary of the Committee's work; this shows that the
Committee has covered most of the subjects mentioned above, either
in inquiries examining current Government activity, or sometimes
when covering issues where the Government had little involvement
but which were of considerable public interest (privacy and media
intrusion;[92]
relations between Rugby Union and Rugby League[93]).
On all but one occasion, we have made reports to the House based
on the evidence which we have taken.
3. I have been the Chairman
for the whole of the Committee's existence; in addition four other
Members have remained on the Committee since its nomination on
13 July 1992 (and another has served since later in 1992). This
continuity of membership is particularly valuable when the Committee
returns to subjects which it has examined previously (e.g. the
BBC). During this time, there has not been a single division
in the Committee; our ability to reach conclusions to which we
can all agree by consensus has, I believe, been a particular strength
of the Committee.
Scrutiny of agencies and other
non-departmental bodies
4. The Department of National
Heritage (DNH) has two agencies, the Historic Royal Palaces Agency
and the Royal Parks Agency. The Committee has not examined the
effect of their agency status, though it did take evidence from
the Historic Royal Palaces Agency during its inquiry into "Our
heritage: preserving it, prospering from it".[94]
5. By contrast, there are
a large number of associated public bodies, through which most
of the Department's work is carried out. Amongst these are the
Museums and Galleries Commission and individual museums and galleries,
the British Library, the Arts Council, the Crafts Council, the
Sports Council, English Heritage, the National Heritage Memorial
Fund, the Millennium Commission, the British Tourist Authority,
the English Tourist Board, the British Film Institute, the Broadcasting
Standards Council, the Broadcasting Complaints Commission, the
BBC, the Independent Television Commission, the Radio Authority,
and Channel 4. The BBC and the British Library have been the
subject of specific inquiries;[95]
many of the remainder have been examined as part of the Committee's
programme of studying most of the main parts of DNH's work.
Resources
6. The Committee has not
appointed specialist advisers, Members relying mainly on their
own previous knowledge of the subject and the information received
from witnesses. The Committee has generally conducted only one
inquiry at a time, and tends to meet once a week. The size of
the committee staff (one Clerk, one Committee Assistant and one
Secretary) is not a constraint on this method of working.
Relations with the Committee
of Public Accounts and the National Audit Office
7. The Committee has not
so far found much difficulty in avoiding overlap with the current
work of the NAO and the PAC. Some subjects have been covered
at different times by both committees, e.g. the British Library
and aspects of the National Lottery.
Parliamentary Commissions
8. We do not believe that
subjects appropriate for a commission have arisen in the Committee's
range of activities: detailed analysis of past actions has fallen
naturally to the NAO.
Obtaining evidence from Government
departments and Members
9. At one point we found
it difficult to persuade a Treasury Minister to give oral evidence
to the Committee.[96]
Otherwise, the Committee has not had any difficulty arranging
for oral or written evidence from Ministers, other Members, or
civil servants. There have been occasions on which the Committee
has come near to using its powers to compel the production of
information from the BBC.[97]
10. No appropriate occasions
have arisen where the "crown jewels" procedure might
have been used (where Members inspect highly classified documents
on Government premises).
Government replies
11. The Committee has had
some difficulty over the years on the timing and manner of publication
of Government replies. For example, the Government did not reply
to the report on Privacy and Media Intrusion (published March
1993) until July 1995;[98]
and more recently the Committee has declined on three occasions[99]
to publish as Special Reports replies received as letters or memoranda,
on the grounds that the Committee preferred not to be associated
with publishing replies with which it disagreed. It would be
preferable for this reason (as well as more convenient when a
reply is ready during a recess) for Government replies to be published
by the Government. We have already received four Government replies
by Command Paper (as compared with nine by memorandum or letter)
and see no reason why this should not become the norm.
12. This month we have had
occasion to publish a reply not as a Special Report, but as a
Report, including our own views on the Government reply.[100]
On this occasion the Department did not set out the Committee's
conclusions and recommendations, but merely referred to most of
them in passing. We believe that it should be a clearly understood
convention that a Government reply should set out each of the
Committee's conclusions in the Committee's own words and respond
to it directly. This would not prevent the Government making,
in addition, more general observations on the subject, as happened
for instance in the Command Paper on the British Film Industry.[101]
Effectiveness of reports
13. I do not believe that
the effectiveness of committee reports can be measured solely
by the proportion of recommendations accepted by the Government
at the time. Sometimes, our recommendations have been accepted
only after initial rejection. Sometimes, as in the Broadcasting
Bill, amendments carried in the House of Lords against the Government's
wishes have enacted our recommendations. I believe (and so does
the BBC) that the Report on the Future of the BBC[102]
was instrumental in ensuring that the BBC received a new ten-year
Charter funded by the licence. The Report on the British Film
Industry,[103]
now nearly two years old, is still regarded as a basic document
for those interested in that industry. Some of our recommendations
on privacy and media intrusion,[104]
initially derided by the Press Complaints Commission, were subsequently
implemented by the PCC.
14. For our Report on the
British Film Industry, the Committee experimented with producing
an illustrated cover, in addition to some black and white and
colour photographs inside the Report. This innovation was well
received, and we repeated the exercise with the report on Funding
of the Performing and Visual Arts;[105]
at least one other committee has also produced such an illustrated
cover.[106]
The Committee was dependent on the good will of witnesses and
others in providing numerous photographs from which to make a
selection, and I am grateful for their assistance.
Debates in the House
15. Four of our reports
have been mentioned on the Order Paper as being relevant to a
debate (and one has been similarly referred to in a European Standing
Committee);[107]
in addition one report was debated on an Estimates Day and another
on a Wednesday morning debate. I believe that these opportunities
for debates are valuable, and consideration could be given to
increasing the number of debates at the disposal of the Liaison
Committee.
Visits
16. The Committee has undertaken
seven overseas and 26 domestic visits. Of the overseas visits,
four have been to the US. The Liaison Committee has had to impose
limits on the costs of individual overseas visits for all committees;
and, in the case of this Committee, this has sometimes resulted
in the need to reduce the number of places visited. The visits
are valuable both for the information which can subsequently appear
in a report and also for the large amount of background information
gained by Members.
Committee involvement in appointment
of BBC governors
17. The Committee recommended,
in its report on the future of the BBC, that when (after consultation)
the Secretary of State proposes someone for a Governor's position,
the Committee should have the opportunity of interviewing the
candidate before the nomination
is confirmed, and that the relevant
select committee should have the same rights in relation to candidate
National Governors for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
The Government did not agree to this recommendation.[108]
92 Fourth Report, Session 1992-93, HC 294-I. Back
93 Third Report, Session 1994-95, HC 276. Back
94 Third Report, Session 1993-94, HC 139-I. Back
95 Second Report, Session 1993-94, The Future of the BBC, HC 77-I; Fourth Report, Session 1993-94, The British Library, HC 550. Back
96 See First Report, Session 1995-96, Funding of the Performing and Visual Arts, HC 23-I, para. 13. Back
97 See Chairman's remarks after Question 503: Second Report, Session 1995-96, The National Lottery, HC 240-II, p. 141. Back
98 Fourth Report, Session 1992-93, HC 294-I; Government reply: Cm 2918. Back
99 Third Report, Relations between Rugby Union and Rugby League, HC 276, Fourth Report, The Net Book Agreement, HC 383, Fifth Report, Bids to stage International Sporting Events, HC 493, all of Session 1994-95. The Government deposited the replies to the Third and Fifth Reports in the Library. Back
100 Third Report, Session 1996-97: Tourism: The Government Response to the Committee's First Report of Session 1996-97, HC 285. Back
101 Cm 2884. Back
102 Second Report, Session 1993-94, HC 77-I. Back
103 Second Report, Session 1994-95, HC 57-I. Back
104 Fourth Report, Session 1992-93, HC 294-I. Back
105 First Report, Session 1995-96, HC 23-I. Back
106 Environment Committee, Fourth Report, Session 1994-95, The Environmental Impact of Leisure Activities, HC 246-I. Back
107 Second Report, Session 1992-93, Export of Works of Art: the draft Seventh VAT Directive, HC 249 (published together with First Report). Back
108 Second Report, Session 1993-94, The Future of the BBC, HC 77-I, para. 61; Cm 2621, p. 54. Back