Examination of witnesses (Questions 100
- 119)
TUESDAY 14 MARCH 2000
SIR JOCELYN
STEVENS, MS
PAM ALEXANDER
and MR JEFFREY
WEST
100. It is not something you would like to take
on as a responsibility?
(Mr West) I think not. One of the interesting things
which has already been established by the responses we have had
back so far is the relatively small proportion of public parks
which are identified either as of historic importance or of national
historic importance. It is a far wider problem than the remit
of English Heritage alone. I think, though clearly we have a concern,
and we will do our best to make sure that database is maintained,
we are probably not the best body to maintain a database of all
public parks.
101. Pam Alexander, you referred to the guidance
that you are preparing currently, can you tell us anything about
the content of it?
(Ms Alexander) Yes. We are producing a manual for
professionals drawing up the reports on conservation and management
plans for the public parks, which will set out how they might
best identify the character, the value, the significance of the
park, not simply national significance but also local significance
and, I am sure in some cases, regional significance; how they
might outline the proposals for conserving, repairing and enhancing
the heritage that is in that park and what sort of brief they
ought to give to consultants working with them; and the likely
costs involved in producing such management plans. This is something
which will be relevant not just to historic parks and gardens,
I think, but to all parks whether they are registered or not.
We expect to be producing this for consultation this summer and
then we will be publishing the final manual next year.
102. Can I just ask you do you feel you have
been forced into a position to issue guidance and is this not
an omission?
(Ms Alexander) No, I do not feel we have been forced
into it. We have been developing our own grant schemes for some
time now and we have had a Parks and Gardens Grant which has offered
at Stage 1, grants at 80 per cent, for the production of conservation
and management plans. We felt that it was a sensible idea to pull
together guidance on how best to go about that. I think in all
of the areas of grant aid there is a huge amount of consultancy
going on, producing reports and plans. We felt that it was sensible
to give local authorities some support in the best way of producing
those efficiently and effectively.
103. Can I just ask you apart from providing
the guidance, if local authorities approach you where they have
a park which is not of national importance, can they come to you
for expertise and assistance?
(Ms Alexander) Yes, indeed, as they do, and of course,
also, we are advisers to the Heritage Lottery Fund on applications
for grant aid. We have produced already a substantial number of
publications offering guidance on restoration of historic parks.
I do not know, Jeff, whether you would like to add anything?
104. I was thinking more particularly about
parks that are not historic parks.
(Ms Alexander) Sure.
105. What you would call your average local
park with no special monuments, just a place where people go and
stroll or play tennis.
(Ms Alexander) Yes. Of course the advice we gave,
for example, back in 1990 on repairing storm damage was as applicable
to every park as it was to the historic parks.
106. Is that the only document you can produce
as being applicable to your normal urban park?
(Ms Alexander) No, we have others.
(Mr West) We have produced a limited amount of publications
and we can give a list to the Committee. We reported some when
we spoke to the Committee earlier. I think the important thing
to remember is that in the past a lot of the advice that we have
given has been given by our specialist staff, and a lot of it
in connection with the HLF's Urban Parks Programme, where we have
provided specialist advice both to the local authorities who are
proposing to make bids for that programme and then monitoring
it for the HLF. A lot of the practical advice that we have advised
on across the country, on several hundred urban parks and on their
proper maintenance, has actually been, yes, face to face advice.
I think the original question was about guidance and, yes, our
professional staff have been available to give that particular
information with bids for the Urban Parks Programme.
Mr Cummings
107. If I could perhaps take Sir Jocelyn back
to his remarks in relation to virtually all parks are maintained
through the Rate Support System. Obviously I come from a former
mining community and to walk through any mining community, present
or indeed former mining community, you would be faced immediately
with a rich social tapestry of advancement over the years with
the provision of homes for the elderly, years before the state
ever thought about it, and more particularly the provision of
Miners Welfare Schemes which arose from an Act in 1928 where we
did provide for ourselves but now, of course, either the parish
council have taken them over or they have been left with the Coal
Industry Social Welfare Organisation. The question basically is
there are many parks which do not benefit at all from the Rate
Support Scheme and they are still paid for either by the check
off system in their place of work or present coal mining communities
or indeed through the generosity of the public in the case of
former coal mining communities. Now you have asked the local authorities
to draw up plans for historic parks, would you encompass miners'
social welfare schemes in that particular database and categorise
them as historic parks?
(Sir Jocelyn Stevens) I think it is very clear that
you understand that the English Heritage role vis a vis
parks has really been an advisory one and a matter of compiling
a register. It has not been a funding role. We simply are not
funded to do that. We are under funded to do what we are doing
already.
Chairman
108. Do you want to emphasise that, that you
are under funded to do what you are doing?
(Sir Jocelyn Stevens) English Heritage funding has
been cut every year for the last six years. We are under funded
and I do not think there is any argument about that at our end.
Mrs Dunwoody
109. Are these significant sums, Sir Jocelyn?
What percentages are we talking about?
(Sir Jocelyn Stevens) Of cuts?
110. Yes?
(Sir Jocelyn Stevens) 18 per cent.
(Ms Alexander) We face a cut in real terms of £17
million over the next three years.
(Sir Jocelyn Stevens) Even at the very beginning of
English Heritage, which was 1984, we were not funded to fund public
parks. Where, therefore, we feel we must reject your criticism—pure
misunderstanding—to read MPs slam quango for parks neglect
is really not a justified statement.
Mr Cummings
111. I am trying to encourage you, Sir Jocelyn.
I am trying to encourage you, I am certainly not slamming you.
What I am looking for is somebody to embrace the heritage which
surrounds me and mining in my community which has been neglected
for so very, very long, since the industry was in demise. Do you
anticipate Miners Welfare Schemes being embraced within the terminology
of historic parks? You are not prima donnas I know that.
(Sir Jocelyn Stevens) Do you want to say something,
Jeff?
(Mr West) If I may. Two things, one, historically
important parks obviously will qualify for the Register, irrespective
of whether they are local authority parks or not, we do not discriminate
in favour or against local authority parks in judging historical
importance. More importantly, the local authorities are being
asked to draw up local cultural strategies for their areas. In
the past they have had local leisure plans or recreation plans
which have looked at the services provided by local authorities
themselves. One of the things that we are very keen to encourage
local authorities to do in their new local cultural strategies
when they draw those up is to look at all the assets that are
available, all the cultural assets that are available within their
area, whether or not they are managed by local authorities. In
the case of parks certainly we consider that parks should be covered
by cultural strategies both at local and regional level. That
would mean looking at parks which are not themselves managed by
the local authority.
(Sir Jocelyn Stevens) I do not think that probably
entirely satisfies your very real concern, Mr Cummings. What we
are saying is we mind very much indeed about the plight of public
parks. We accept that public parks, all over England, are very
much part of the heritage and are a very valuable part of the
quality of life, especially in areas such as you represent. We
have some experience of that and we are very much involved with
the plans for Chatterley Whitfield, which is not far away. What
we have never been given is the money or the challenge of going
out and funding the enormous number of parks, wherever they are.
You must realise this because of your suggestion that there should
be a new agency to do this work. It has not been done, we cannot
do it and it needs to be done. Why we felt put upon by the reports
was that we were blamed for not doing it when we have never done
it and we cannot do it. We regard the heritage as an enormously
important part of the quality of life and it frustrates us that
we see so much dereliction in our parks.
Mrs Ellman
112. The revival of the GARLAND initiative is
very much welcomed. Do you feel that will deal with the shortage
of skilled workers in urban parks?
(Mr West) We hope so very much. That is very much
one of the objectives we had in mind in encouraging GARLAND to
be revived. At the latest meeting which GARLAND had with LANTRA,
the land based industries body responsible for training, we have
taken the initiative in making sure that LANTRA talk directly
to the Local Government Association, the LGA, to make sure that
local authorities and LANTRA do make common cause. And of course
the horticulturalists, the horticultural industry is strongly
represented in GARLAND. That is one of its objectives, to raise
specifically horticultural standards.
113. The LGA are not directly involved in the
initiative, are they?
(Mr West) We hope that they will be. We hope very
much we will be able to encourage them to come on board. They
need to be, I agree with the implied point of that question.
114. Could I turn now to the question of the
proposed national agency. The major reason for putting that suggestion
forward was what we felt was a lack of a champion for parks. You
did make some comments at the beginning of this session about
your views on that. Could you perhaps say a little bit more? Are
you emphatically opposed or are you just waiting for a change
to take place?
(Sir Jocelyn Stevens) As I said before, something
has to be done. We are saying that it is all down to local authorities
who somehow have escaped their responsibilities or been unable
to afford them. We believe something should be done and that is
why we look forward to the Government's review of policies, which
I referred to, which I know you are aware of, to plug this hole.
Somehow the parks do not fall to anyone's responsibility. The
HLF have allocated something like £40/50 million of grant
as a rescue but this is only a fraction of the money needed. If
I may say, the Committee has put their finger on a very, very
sensitive unfunded, uncared for part of England's heritage. We
would like to include in the Government's review of policies a
study of who and how it should be done. It is one of the reasons
I think that the DETR and DCMS set up this review. Urban parks
are not the only problem in looking at our heritage, there are
other overlaps and gaps. It is very important that you have thrown
up a prime task for the Government's review, and that is to come
up with a new policy which might easily be a new national agency.
It seems a marvellous opportunity when we have got all the bodies
involved in the historical environment committed to the review
which English Heritage must deliver to Government on 22 September
this year. It is not a long time ahead. It is an extraordinary
opportunity to get all the various bodies, Countryside Agency,
etc, etc, to examine whether there is no alternative except a
new national agency. My view is that we have enough agencies,
enough quangos in England and a new one should only be created
if nobody else can do it. Maybe the review will throw up a more
efficient solution than a new Agency. That is really our position.
115. If English Heritage retained its area of
special expertise like maintaining the register of historic parks
and gardens and other things of that nature, would you think that
would open up the role for somebody else to be a general champion
of parks if you retained the things where you were expert?
(Sir Jocelyn Stevens) English Heritage has taken on
a lot of new responsibilities in the last few years and willingly.
As my colleague Jeff West said earlier, for us to take over all
parks, historic or otherwise, we would need a lot of new funding
and new staffing. It would be a completely new activity for us.
We have never shrunk when we have been offered new responsibilities,
we have accepted every one so far. Urban Parks would need an awful
lot of thought. We are not equipped or anything like funded to
do it. I like to take on anything, as you know, I am passionate
about the heritage but this is a huge problem. I do thank the
Committee, as I say, for bringing this to such prominence.
Mr Benn
116. Can I press you a little further on the
reasons why you do not support the idea of an Urban Parks and
Green Spaces Agency and how much of it is to do with what it might
take over from you and how much it is opposition to the idea in
principle?
(Sir Jocelyn Stevens) There will be very little for
it to take over from us because we do so little. That is what
we are criticised for. Our views are not coloured by the fact
that we might lose something. Our view—my view—about
another quango is that there are already too many. Getting together
to prepare this Government review of policies, we have already
got 16 bodies[3]
who are represented on the strategy committee and I have turned
down about another 30, all of whom have a real determination and
interest in the future of the historic environment. You have no
idea how many bodies there are. We have been saying "no,
no, we are going to have a maximum and they now all feel bad that
they are not on it. As I say it is a very crowded business, the
heritage. Also it is split between DETR and DCMS which is not
a help for those of us who report to both. It is a question of
whether it can be done better without a new body. If the review
finds that a new body is necessary we would be the first people
to agree, not because we fear losing anything. You have identified
an extraordinary gap in the care of the heritage and we would
like, with our colleagues at the review, to see whether we can
fill it from within the existing bodies before setting up another
one.
117. Do I take it from that answer that there
might be a case for rationalising in some respect a number of
bodies, giving it this responsibility and then the resources to
do something about it?
(Sir Jocelyn Stevens) What we are hoping is there
will be exactly what you say, a rationalisation of some of the
other heritage overlaps and problems. We are looking to this review
to produce new policies and initiatives. The urban parks are one
of the most important aspects it will be considering, certainly
it should be in the top three.
Mr Brake
118. Could I perhaps just get on the record,
if you are given the money and the staff to do the job of helping,
assisting, providing guidance on urban parks, non historic parks,
would you want that job?
(Sir Jocelyn Stevens) Of course.
Mr Brake: Thank you.
Mr Benn
119. Just going on to the register, you said
earlier that 55 public parks have been added since 1996. Is that
55 included in the total of 162 currently registered?
(Ms Alexander) Yes.
3 Witness correction: 25 bodies. Back
|
