TWELFTH REPORT
The Committee of Public Accounts has agreed to
the following Report:
ENGLISH HERITAGE: ACCESS TO PROPERTIES
INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
1. English Heritage's principal activities include
awarding conservation grants towards the cost of the repair or
maintenance of ancient and historic properties, the management
and conservation of over 400 ancient and historic properties in
their direct care, and the provision of advisory and education
services. English Heritage received a grant-in-aid of some £104
million from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (the
Department) in 1998-99.[1]
2. English Heritage make grants under the Historic
Buildings and Ancient Monuments Act 1953 towards the cost of the
repair of buildings of outstanding historical or architectural
interest. Grant recipients include public bodies such as local
authorities, charitable bodies, private owners and conservation
groups such as building preservation trusts. Conditions attached
to these grants require recipients to provide public access to
the property and, if they sell the property, to repay some or
all of the grant. In 1998-99, English Heritage made 114 offers
of building grants for secular properties totalling some £7.52
million.[2]
3. On the basis of a report by the Comptroller and
Auditor General[3]
we examined the Department and English Heritage about the payment
of grants, promoting public access to grant-aided properties,
and grant recovery.
4. Our main conclusions and recommendations on the
issues raised in the report are as follows:
- English Heritage must be satisfied that value
for money is being achieved from the grants they award to property
owners. However, their procedures for establishing how much a
grant applicant can be expected to contribute, and for ensuring
that grant-aided work is awarded on the basis of competition,
have not been followed in a number of cases.
- English Heritage require grant recipients to
provide public access to their properties. However, they need
to ensure that the information they make available to members
of the public on the properties that can be visited is accurate
and up to date, and to satisfy themselves that the access arrangements
are working as they intend. If owners fail to honour the access
conditions attached to their grants English Heritage should bring
them into line with their obligations, monitor subsequent compliance,
and where necessary, recover the grant.
- English Heritage need to ensure that grants are
recovered when properties are sold. At present they rely on information
coming to light rather than systematic action to ensure that they
are aware of all relevant property disposals.
5. We also examined English Heritage on the use of
their properties for private events, on which we make the following
main points:
- English Heritage encourage the holding of private
events at the properties they manage on the grounds that they
generate income and bring other benefits including a higher profile
for individual properties and for English Heritage as a whole.
English Heritage agreed to the use of one of their properties,
Kenwood House, for a private wedding reception, which involved
closing the House on the day of the reception and restricting
access to the flower garden during an 18-day period. The extent
of the restrictions placed on public access in this case are hard
to reconcile with English Heritage's policy of minimising disruption
to the public when holding private events at their properties.
- The then Chairman of English Heritage initiated
this use of Kenwood House, a public asset, for an acquaintance
on the basis of a voluntary donation of an unspecified amount
which the former Chairman eventually paid with his own personal
cheque. These arrangements fell below the standards to be expected
from public servants.
- English Heritage did not disclose to us the full
circumstances regarding the payment of the donation for the use
of Kenwood House when we first asked. Only in response to our
further written enquiries did it emerge that 11 days before appearing
before this Committee the Chief Executive had written seeking
payment of the donation pointing out that the then forthcoming
hearing might draw attention to this matter, that the donation
had been paid by the former Chairman of English Heritage, and
that the payment had been received only four days before the Committee's
hearing. We reiterate the importance of full and helpful answers
to the Committee's questions, so that the Committee's enquiries
are not frustrated.
6. In more detail, our conclusions and recommendations
are as follows:
On paying grants
(i) English Heritage have procedures for
assessing the need for grant support, but in five of the 20 cases
examined by the National Audit Office involving grants totalling
some £532,000 they had not undertaken a formal financial
appraisal of the applicant's means. They have now taken steps
to ensure such appraisals are undertaken in all appropriate cases
and the results recorded (Paragraph 11).
(ii) English Heritage generally require
work funded by their grants to be awarded on the basis of competition,
and in 40 of the 50 cases examined by the National Audit Office
there was evidence from tender evaluation reports that this had
been done. In six cases single tender action had been taken on
the basis of urgency or because English Heritage considered it
to be more cost effective. But in the remaining four cases it
was not clear on what basis grant work had been awarded. To be
able to demonstrate that they are securing value for money from
grants, English Heritage need to have evidence of the basis for
the decisions taken (Paragraph 12).
(iii) English Heritage's grant conditions
require recipients to ensure that the property is adequately insured
while repair works are in progress. English Heritage recommend
that insurance cover is maintained once repairs are completed,
but this is not a condition of the grant. The substantial sums
of public money invested in the repair of historic properties
should not be left at risk in this way. We note that in Wales,
recipients of grants made by Cadw: Welsh Historic Monuments under
the same legislation are required, as a condition of the grant,
to insure the property for the 10 years that conditions apply.
We recommend that English Heritage require similar protection
is in place for the public funds invested in grant-aided properties
in England (Paragraph 13).
On promoting public access
(iv) English Heritage recently updated their
records of those properties to which members of the public are
entitled to gain access. They have made this information available
to the public in the form of an access guide posted on their website,
and published in a commercial historic house directory (Paragraph
21).
(v) Members of the public, and owners of
grant-aided properties, rely on English Heritage publishing reliable
information about properties that can be visited. To this end
English Heritage must maintain accurate records of the grant conditions
they have agreed, when they expire, and the arrangements for visiting
individual properties. In compiling their access guide they found
that in 135 cases their records were out of date, and access undertakings
no longer applied. In following up difficulties encountered by
the National Audit Office they found that in some cases the entries
in their access guide were inaccurate. To make sure the access
guide is accurate they propose to require owners to certify annually
that they have given English Heritage correct information (Paragraph
22).
(vi) Although English Heritage require owners
of grant-aided properties to provide access to the public, they
know little about how the arrangements work in practice. They
have no information on the number of visitors to properties, or
on the level of entry charges, which could act as a potential
barrier to access. They now propose to collect this information
as part of the system of annual self-certification by owners,
and to make it easier for the public to provide feedback on the
response they receive when seeking access (Paragraph 23).
(vii) The National Audit Office were unable
to contact some 40 properties on the English Heritage website,
and were refused access to 12, in some cases because the website
entries were inaccurate. We recommend that English Heritage should
also seek direct evidence of how well access arrangements work
by carrying out test visits in a sample of cases themselves (Paragraph
24).
On grant recovery
(viii) When grant recipients dispose of
their property, English Heritage can recover grants under a clawback
clause in the conditions of grant. Although English Heritage have
recovered sums where information on disposals of grant-aided properties
has come to light, they depend on grant recipients notifying them
of their intention to dispose of the property. There is an obvious
risk that beneficiaries will be tempted to avoid repayment by
failing to notify. In Wales, Cadw: Welsh Historic Monuments intend
to secure their right to clawback grants made on any disposal
through a legal charge and we recommend that English Heritage
take similar steps to protect the public funds invested in grant-aided
properties in England (Paragraph 28).
On using English Heritage properties for private
functions
(ix) English Heritage agreed to the use
of one of their properties, Kenwood House, for a private wedding
reception on 9 July 1999. English Heritage's general policy is
to set fees for private events at their properties which recover
full costs and generate a proper return to the business. In the
case of the wedding reception at Kenwood House, mindful of the
prestige and publicity the event would bring, English Heritage
agreed to the use of the House on the basis of a written contract
to recover their costs. However, they did not recover the cost
of insurance cover or the cost of time spent by senior officers
at headquarters. To avoid the possibility of private events being
subsidised by public funds, English Heritage's events business
should recover all their costs, including management overheads
(Paragraph 38).
(x) English Heritage entered into this arrangement
for the use of Kenwood House in the expectation that, in addition
to their costs, they would also receive a donation of an unspecified
amount. They subsequently received a donation of £5,000 just
four days before English Heritage were due to appear before this
Committee. The payment was received from the former Chairman of
English Heritage on behalf of the ex-King of Greece. English Heritage
should put their arrangements for hiring out their properties
for private events on a sound footing that does not provide the
hirer with discretion over the amount to be paid (Paragraph 39).
THE PAYMENT OF GRANTS
7. English Heritage assess all grant applications
against three published criteria: the historic importance of the
property; the urgency and nature of the work; and the need for
financial help to ensure that public funds are required to get
the necessary repairs done. They have an internal panel, the Needs
Assessment Panel, to provide advice on the need for grant support.
They have arrangements for this advice to be supplemented by a
financial appraisal by their Management Accounts Branch of the
applicant's means to establish how much the applicant can be expected
to contribute.[4]
8. The National Audit Office examined a representative
sample of 50 grants for the repair of historic buildings and found
that in five out of the 20 cases where a financial appraisal had
been required, there was no evidence of an appraisal. The five
cases involved grants totalling some £532,000.[5]
English Heritage told us that in all 20 cases the Needs Assessment
Panel had met and discussed the case and that the Management Accounts
Branch had been present at each of these meetings. However, they
acknowledged that the Management Accounts Branch had not presented
formal written appraisals in five of the cases, as they should
have done. They told us that they had now given instructions that
in all cases a formal appraisal should be recorded.[6]
9. A key element in securing value for money from
grants is to ensure that work is awarded on the basis of competition.
English Heritage require grant recipients, as a condition of the
grant, to obtain at least three tenders for the proposed work
and to provide a tender evaluation report prepared by their professional
adviser justifying the selection of the proposed contractor. The
National Audit Office confirmed that competitive tendering had
been used in 40 of the 50 grants they examined.[7]
English Heritage told us that they believed the decision not to
seek competitive tenders in six cases had been justified:
- in one case by the urgency of emergency repairs
needed:
- in another case the decision was part of an agreement
with a developer that included a provision for profit recovery
which English Heritage considered offered better value for money;
and
- in four cases by the need to retain specialist
expertise over a number of phases of the project.[8]
In the remaining four cases involving grants totalling
some £240,000 tender evaluation reports had not been provided.
English Heritage provided no explanation other than to say that
"evidence exists elsewhere that the work had in fact been
competitively tendered".[9]
10. English Heritage's standard grant conditions
also require recipients to ensure that the property is adequately
insured while the works are in progress. English Heritage recommend
that insurance cover is maintained once the repairs are completed,
but this is not a condition of the grant.[10]
We asked English Heritage why, given the substantial sums of public
money spent repairing a building, they did not require the property
to be insured once the repair was completed as a condition of
the grant. They thought it important to insist on insurance while
the work was going on, and said that while they advised owners
as to the insurance they should take out afterwards, they considered
that they must leave owners to take those decisions.[11]
The Department thought it highly desirable that the person receiving
a grant should adequately insure, but considered that there were
a variety of factors including the wide range of repairs that
made this a difficult issue.[12]
In Wales, recipients of repair grants made by Cadw: Welsh Historic
Monuments under the same legislation are required, as a condition
of the grant, to ensure that the property is adequately insured
for the 10 years that conditions apply and they are required to
submit evidence of insurance cover annually.[13]
Conclusions
11. English Heritage have procedures for assessing
the need for grant support, but in five of the 20 cases examined
by the National Audit Office involving grants totalling some £532,000
they had not undertaken a formal financial appraisal of the applicant's
means. They have now taken steps to ensure such appraisals are
undertaken in all appropriate cases and the results recorded.
12. English Heritage generally require work funded
by their grants to be awarded on the basis of competition, and
in 40 of the 50 cases examined by the National Audit Office there
was evidence from tender evaluation reports that this had been
done. In six cases single tender action had been taken on the
basis of urgency or because English Heritage considered it to
be more cost effective. But in the remaining four cases it was
not clear on what basis grant work had been awarded. To be able
to demonstrate that they are securing value for money from grants,
English Heritage need to have evidence of the basis for the decisions
taken.
13. English Heritage's grant conditions require recipients
to ensure that the property is adequately insured while repair
works are in progress. English Heritage recommend that insurance
cover is maintained once repairs are completed, but this is not
a condition of the grant. The substantial sums of public money
invested in the repair of historic properties should not be left
at risk in this way. We note that in Wales, recipients of grants
made by Cadw: Welsh Historic Monuments under the same legislation
are required, as a condition of the grant, to insure the property
for the 10 years that conditions apply. We recommend that English
Heritage require similar protection is in place for the public
funds invested in grant-aided properties in England.
PROMOTING PUBLIC ACCESS TO GRANT-AIDED PROPERTIES
14. English Heritage require grant recipients as
a condition of their grant to allow a degree of public access
to the property, normally for ten years. In 1999 they decided
that to improve public information about access arrangements at
grant-aided properties they needed to publish an annual access
guide. They wrote to the 551 people who, according to their records,
had received a grant with conditions requiring them to open to
the public. English Heritage subsequently agreed in 89 of these
cases that the access condition no longer applied. At the time
of the Comptroller and Auditor General's examination they were
following-up over 100 cases which had not been resolved. Meanwhile,
they included 339 of the properties in their new access guide.
English Heritage posted the access guide on their website in August
1999 and in November 1999 published the guide in Hudsons, a commercial
historic house directory.[14]
15. We asked English Heritage how their records of
applicable access conditions came to contain so many errors, and
what they were doing to ensure they had accurate records in the
future. They told us that this had been the first time they had
ever tried to compile a record of all the grants they had made
over the last ten years. They had followed-up all the cases that
had been unresolved. As a result 55 properties were now to be
added to the website. However, they had discovered that 46 properties
were no longer open for valid reasons: for example 35 were outside
the ten-year grant period. In five cases English Heritage thought
there might be a case for grant recovery on the grounds that owners
were not going to be able comply with the access conditions in
the future. To ensure the access guide remained accurate, grant
owners would in future be required to certify, in an annual survey,
that they had given English Heritage accurate details.[15]
16. Until the introduction of their website, English
Heritage had not publicised details of how members of the public
could register a complaint. Although the website version of the
access guide included this information, the version published
in Hudsons did not.[16]
Responding to our questions, English Heritage also told us that
they would be asking customers to give them feedback on the access
guide. They acknowledged that it was not good enough simply to
have an invitation to give complaints over the web. It was also
important that the Hudsons publication invited clients and customers
to give feedback on what sort of response they received.[17]
17. The National Audit Office commissioned consultants
to obtain first-hand evidence of how access to grant-aided properties
works in practice. They sought to contact properties listed on
English Heritage's website by letter or telephone to enquire about
visiting arrangements. Out of the 317 properties they attempted
to contact on the website, they managed to contact 275 (87 per
cent) and tried to arrange visits to 80.[18]
English Heritage looked into the 12 cases where access was refused
and in five of them the owners confirmed that they did give access
at times on the website. English Heritage said that as that did
not accord with the National Audit Office's findings they would
be doing their own checks. In the remaining seven cases the website
entries had been inaccurate. They had corrected the entries for
two of the cases and they would be removing the remaining five
cases from the website. Asked whether they proposed to introduce
test visits to identify recipients not complying with grant conditions,
English Heritage told us that in future they would be targeting
their resources on cases where there appeared to be problems and
pursuing them as necessary.[19]
18. Although promoting understanding and enjoyment
of the heritage is one of English Heritage's statutory functions,
they have little information about the number of visits to grant-aided
properties. Similarly, while English Heritage recognise that owners
of grant-aided properties may incur costs in allowing public access,
and accept charges to offset such costs provided they are not
so high as to be a deterrent, they have no record of how many
grant-aided properties charge for entry, or how much.[20]
19. We asked the Department what they had done to
ensure that English Heritage implemented Government policy of
broadening access. They told us told us that they had pursued
this through their Funding Agreement with English Heritage, and
that the main focus had been on access to properties which English
Heritage themselves owned. They had set targets in the three-year
Funding Agreement to increase the number of visitors to English
Heritage properties from 11.6 million to 12 million a year. However,
English Heritage had agreed that in future, as part of the annual
self-certification, owners of grant-aided properties were going
to have to confirm the visitor arrangements and tell English Heritage
how many visitors had come and at what price, if any. As a result,
the Department were now going to get regular figures from English
Heritage about the number of people visiting grant-aided properties.[21]
20. English Heritage told us that one of the reasons
for publishing their access guide was to make it better known
that these properties were available to visit. They thought this
would have a significant impact on visitor numbers, particularly
at the smaller properties. They admitted that they had not monitored
whether grant recipients had been overcharging visitors in the
past, but they would now start doing so. They would also tell
grant recipients in advance that they were going to assess what
charges were reasonable.[22]
Conclusions
21. English Heritage recently updated their records
of those properties to which members of the public are entitled
to gain access. They have made this information available to the
public in the form of an access guide posted on their website,
and published in a commercial historic house directory.
22. Members of the public, and owners of grant-aided
properties, rely on English Heritage publishing reliable information
about properties that can be visited. To this end English Heritage
must maintain accurate records of the grant conditions they have
agreed, when they expire, and the arrangements for visiting individual
properties. In compiling their access guide they found that in
135 cases their records were out of date, and access undertakings
no longer applied. In following up difficulties encountered by
the National Audit Office they found that in some cases the entries
in their access guide were inaccurate. To make sure the access
guide is accurate they propose to require owners to certify annually
that they have given English Heritage correct information.
23. Although English Heritage require owners of grant-aided
properties to provide access to the public, they know little about
how the arrangements work in practice. They have no information
on the number of visitors to properties, or on the level of entry
charges, which could act as a potential barrier to access. They
now propose to collect this information as part of the system
of annual self-certification by owners, and to make it easier
for the public to provide feedback on the response they receive
when seeking access.
24. The National Audit Office were unable to contact
some 40 properties on the English Heritage website, and were refused
access to 12, in some cases because the website entries were inaccurate.
We recommend that English Heritage should also seek direct evidence
of how well access arrangements work by carrying out test visits
in a sample of cases themselves.
GRANT RECOVERY
25. The standard conditions English Heritage attach
to repair grants require the recipient to inform them immediately
in writing if they intend to sell or dispose of their interest
in the property so that English Heritage can consider recovering
the whole or part of the grant under a clawback clause. The National
Audit Office identified five cases of repayment to English Heritage
totalling £209,600 over the two years 1997-98 and 1998-99.[23]
26. We asked whether English Heritage had discovered
any cases where grant recipients had sold their property without
notifying them. English Heritage replied that they had found out
themselves about the sale of one of the properties referred to
by the National Audit Office and had recovered the grant of £44,000
in full. In the remaining four cases they had been properly notified
of the sale.[24]
27. In March 2000 the Audit Committee of the National
Assembly for Wales recommended that Cadw: Welsh Historic Monuments
should secure its right to clawback grant on any disposal of property
on which a maintenance grant has been paid, and that Cadw should
explore as a matter of urgency the options open to it for securing
stronger legal protection of its interests in these properties.[25]
In responding to this recommendation in April 2000, the Cabinet
of the National Assembly for Wales noted that Cadw was exploring
ways of ensuring that the disposal of a grant-aided property was
automatically brought to its attention. As a minimum, Cadw intended
to require a legal charge in respect of grants of over £20,000
to private applicants.[26]
Conclusion
28. When grant recipients dispose of their property,
English Heritage can recover grants under a clawback clause in
the conditions of grant. Although English Heritage have recovered
sums where information on disposals of grant-aided properties
has come to light, they depend on grant recipients notifying them
of their intention to dispose of the property. There is an obvious
risk that beneficiaries will be tempted to avoid repayment by
failing to notify. In Wales, Cadw: Welsh Historic Monuments intend
to secure their right to clawback grants made on any disposal
through a legal charge and we recommend that English Heritage
take similar steps to protect the public funds invested in grant-aided
properties in England.
USING ENGLISH HERITAGE PROPERTIES FOR PRIVATE FUNCTIONS
29. English Heritage are responsible for the management
and conservation of over 400 ancient and historic properties in
their direct care.[27]
We asked about the use of one of their properties, Kenwood House,
for a private wedding reception and in the light of the evidence
heard we considered it necessary to request further information
on this in writing. English Heritage said that they had developed
and encouraged such events at their properties on the basis that
these could greatly increase the number of visitors to their sites,
enhance visitors' enjoyment, generate income and significantly
raise the profile of individual properties and of English Heritage
as a whole. Many of their 409 historic sites had been used for
a wide range of such activities, including weddings and wedding
receptions and hiring to private and corporate clients.[28]
30. English Heritage told us that their policy on
third party events at their properties was to minimise disruption
to the public wherever possible, although there were exceptions.
In this particular case, the wedding reception for the daughter
of the ex-King of Greece, English Heritage had agreed to close
Kenwood House and some half of the estate on the day of the event,
9 July 1999, and to restrict access to the flower garden during
an 18 day period of set-up and take-down.[29]
31. English Heritage informed us that the closure
of the House and grounds to the public were matters which they
had taken very seriously and had been weighed against the benefits
of the event. They had taken legal advice about their powers in
relation to the House and grounds and had sought the views of
their Commission who had decided that they should host the event.
English Heritage had judged that the prestigious nature of the
event, involving a substantial number of royal guests, would bring
very significant international, national and local publicity.
Following our interest in the matter they commissioned a valuation
of the press coverage which calculated the known media coverage
at around £790,000 and potentially at some £2 million
across Europe.[30]
32. On the financial arrangements for this event,
English Heritage told us that at the time they had no formal schedule
of charges or specific arrangements for hiring out Kenwood House.
During their first meeting with the event organisers, Party Planners,
English Heritage had indicated that an event of the type proposed
might cost £25,000, on the basis of their knowledge of the
market for corporate and private hospitality. Party Planners had
felt that their client would wish to pay any costs as part of
a donation to Kenwood House rather than a fee and a note of this
meeting had referred to a possible donation of £25,000. English
Heritage told us that this sum had been intended to refer to all
the money receivable from the hirer.[31]
33. In practice, English Heritage had required Party
Planners to sign a written contract to recover all the costs to
English Heritage of the event. They told us that they had expected
this to be supplemented by an additional donation and that, while
they had not known what the value of any donation might be, they
had understood that it was likely to be affected by the total
cost of the wedding reception. In the event, the cost had turned
out to be considerably higher that initially estimated.[32]
34. English Heritage wrote to Party Planners in August
1999 with the final costs for the event of some £34,000 including
VAT. This covered direct costs incurred by English Heritage for
the wedding reception including additional staff costs. However,
English Heritage informed us that it was not their policy to charge
a management overhead for central staff and therefore senior officers'
time had not been charged for those staff based at headquarters.
While they had extended their buildings and public liability insurance
policy to cover Kenwood House shortly before the wedding reception,
they had also felt that it would be unreasonable to introduce
a new charge for this at such a late stage. English Heritage received
a payment of £25,500 from Party Planners on 28 October 1999
and the balance of some £8,500 on 4 January 2000.[33]
35. At the hearing we asked English Heritage about
the arrangements for payment of the donation. We were told that
English Heritage had received a donation of £5,000 very recently
and that the delay had arisen because it had taken some time to
sort out all the costs and because it had been difficult to press
for such a donation.[34]
In response to our subsequent written questions English Heritage
told us that the then Chairman of English Heritage, Sir Jocelyn
Stevens, had pursued the donation orally and had subsequently
confirmed in writing that English Heritage would be unable to
secure a donation beyond the amount received to cover their costs.
The Chief Executive had written to Party Planners on 8 June 2000,
11 days before appearing before this Committee, pointing out that
either the production of their Annual Report and Accounts for
1999-2000 or the then forthcoming hearing of this Committee might
draw attention to this matter. The donation for £5,000 was
received on 15 June 2000, four days before the Committee's hearing,
when Sir Jocelyn Stevens paid with his own personal cheque on
behalf of the ex-King of Greece.[35]
36. In the light of this information we found it
necessary to recall the Accounting Officer to provide an explanation
for the responses we received at the first hearing. The Accounting
Officer told us that she had been trying to be helpful in responding
to questions on a matter which did not arise directly from the
Comptroller and Auditor General's report.[36]
37. In response to questions about English Heritage's
charging policy we were told that for their overall private events
business their policy, in accordance with Treasury guidance, was
to recover full costs and generate a proper return. However, the
fees for individual events were charged at market rates and reflected
the overall benefits the event might bring. The basis on which
the English Heritage Commission approved this event was that the
costs would be recovered, and that there would be significant
prestige and publicity which would bring substantial benefits
to the organisation. Although English Heritage had expected a
donation, that had been a secondary consideration. Asked if they
would be pursuing similar events, we were told that while justified
on occasions, they would not want a large number of such events
at any of their houses as they would cause more disruption than
would be appropriate to English Heritage's overall responsibilities
for conservation and public access.[37]
Conclusions
38. English Heritage agreed to the use of one of
their properties, Kenwood House, for a private wedding reception
on 9 July 1999. English Heritage's general policy is to set fees
for private events at their properties which recover full costs
and generate a proper return to the business. In the case of the
wedding reception at Kenwood House, mindful of the prestige and
publicity the event would bring, English Heritage agreed to the
use of the House on the basis of a written contract to recover
their costs. However, they did not recover the cost of insurance
cover or the cost of time spent by senior officers at headquarters.
To avoid the possibility of private events being subsidised by
public funds, English Heritage's events business should recover
all their costs, including management overheads.
39. English Heritage entered into this arrangement
for the use of Kenwood House in the expectation that, in addition
to their costs, they would also receive a donation of an unspecified
amount. They subsequently received a donation of £5,000 just
four days before English Heritage were due to appear before this
Committee. The payment was received from the former Chairman of
English Heritage on behalf of the ex-King of Greece. English Heritage
should put their arrangements for hiring out their properties
for private events on a sound footing that does not provide the
hirer with discretion over the amount to be paid.
1 C&AG's Report HC 457 of Session 1999-2000 Access
to properties grant-aided by English Heritage, para 1.2 Back
2 ibid,
paras 1.4 and 1.6 Back
3 ibid Back
4 C&AG's
Report, paras 3.2-3.3, 3.5 Back
5 ibid,
paras 3.1 and 3.6 Back
6 Evidence,
Qs 49-50 Back
7 C&AG's
Report, paras 3.13-3.14 Back
8 Evidence,
Q53 Back
9 C&AG's
Report, para 3.14 and Evidence, Appendix 1, p14 Back
10 ibid,
para 3.17 Back
11 Evidence,
Qs 56-58 Back
12 Evidence,
Q65 Back
13 Report
by the Auditor General for Wales, Protecting and conserving
the built heritage in Wales, presented to the National Assembly
on 29 October 1999, paras 3.24-3.25, 3.28 Back
14 C&AG's
Report, paras 2.4, 2.6-2.8 and Figure 2 Back
15 Evidence,
Qs 3, 5 Back
16 C&AG's
Report, para 2.12 Back
17 Evidence,
Q3 Back
18 C&AG's
Report, paras 2.3, 2.13-2.14, 2.16 and Evidence, Appendix 1, p14 Back
19 Evidence,
Qs 2, 6-7 Back
20 C&AG's
Report, paras 2.10-2.11 Back
21 Evidence,
Q10 Back
22 Evidence,
Qs 88, 119 Back
23 C&AG's
Report, paras 3.17, 3.19 and Figure 13 Back
24 Evidence,
Qs 61-62 and Evidence, Appendix 1 p14 Back
25 National
Assembly of Wales: Audit Committee Report 00-01, March 2000, Protecting
and Conserving the Built Heritage in Wales, para 21 Back
26 Protecting
and Conserving the Built Heritage in Wales
- The Cabinet of the National Assembly's response to the recommendations
of the Audit Committee, following the presentation of their report
on 10 March 2000 - laid before the Assembly on 10 April 2000 Back
27 C&AG's
Report, para 1.2 Back
28 Evidence,
Appendices 2-3, pp 14-20 Back
29 ibid Back
30 ibid Back
31 ibid Back
32 Evidence,
Appendices 2-3, pp 14-20 Back
33 ibid Back
34 Evidence,
Qs 28-29, 32-33 Back
35 Evidence,
Appendix 2, pp 14-16, Evidence, Appendix 3, pp 16-20 and Evidence,
Qs 136-138, 156-168, 201-209 Back
36 Evidence,
Q136 Back
37 Evidence,
Qs 139-141, 178, 199-200, 209 Back
|