Examination of Witnesses (Questions 340-359)
9 FEBRUARY 2004
YVETTE COOPER
MP, RT HON
LORD MCINTOSH
OF HARINGEY
AND MICHAEL
SEENEY
Q340 Chairman: They suggested to us rather
that having to have very detailed proposals and a developer ready
to go was a challenge sometimes.
Yvette Cooper: Certainly, as part
of the broader changes to the compulsory purchase system, they
will not have to show both that the land is suitable and also
that it is required for the project underlying the scheme. Instead,
they will be able to justify the compulsory purchase just on the
basis that it is carrying out development, re-development or improvement
which they think will be of economic, social and environmental
benefit to the area. So that provides greater flexibility in terms
of the overall CPO powers. I do not know how far that addresses
their concerns.
Q341 Chairman: It goes some way, I would
imagine. Are you disappointed at the use of the CPO powers that
you have given to RDAs?
Yvette Cooper: I think the RDAs
are still at an early stage in their work, and some of the land
procurement issues are complex. We have been trying, as part of
the bill, to recognise there are difficulties with the way the
CPO process works at the moment; that it needs to be speeded up
and made easier. We need to get out of a lot of the difficulties
and bureaucracy from the process and make that more flexible.
That should make things easier in the future, whether at local
or regional level.
Q342 Mr O'Brien: Both English Heritage
and the Heritage Lottery Fund makes grants to aspects of the historic
environment, sometimes duplicating. Is there not an argument for
unifying the grants regime with respect to the historic environment?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I have
already touched on the answer to that question. I think that there
is a degree of overlapping. There are things that you can do about
it in the short term: I mentioned the joint working arrangements;
I could have referred to the strategic memoranda of understanding
which English Partnerships have with English Heritage and the
Heritage Lottery Fund, so there is a good deal you can do. But
if you were going to make more radical changes, as I said earlier,
some of that would require legislation.
Q343 Mr O'Brien: Could something not
be done through orders in Parliament to try and streamline the
organisations and ensure that there is no duplication of grants?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I think
the organisations are doing an excellent job with the remit they
have been given; but I do not disagree with you that there are
areas of overlap.
Q344 Chairman: In terms of co-ordination,
the 1990 Town and Country Planning Act and the Listed Building
and Conservation Areas Act were done in tandem. We have got major
changes to the planning system involving primary legislation;
are you anticipating doing something on the heritage front in
the near future?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: In
so far as the work we have been doing on the designation review
affects that, yes, we are. When we come to publish the responses
to our consultation, I think there will be some quite positive
things to be said; but, again, I have to say that some of them
would require primary legislation.
Q345 Andrew Bennett: I thought the principle
of the Lottery was that it was not to be a substitute for government
expenditure. You are telling us that in putting these two grant
regimes together English Heritage will have a bit less money and
you are going to make it up from the Lottery.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: No,
I did not say that. There is still the arm's length principle
for the Heritage Lottery Fund, and that will be maintained. If
anything, there might be a move towards a more arm's length principle
for other bodies.
Q346 Mr Betts: Thinking back to the Heritage
Protection Review consultation, the period for consultation ended
on 31 October last year. When are we going to get the Department's
response?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Very
soon.
Q347 Mr Betts: Next spring?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Crocuses
rather than daffodils!
Q348 Mr Betts: My crocuses are rare!
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I cannot
do it in terms of birds!
Q349 Mr Betts: At the same time you put
your question, will you publish a template for taking what action
you can?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The
response will be looking forward. I think the current jargon is
"direction of travel"! It will be looking forwards rather
than backwards.
Q350 Mr Betts: But with an idea of timescale
attached to it as well?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: If
we can do that, yes.
Q351 Mr Betts: There are ideas around
having a unified list, but there is a suggestion that that might
need an awful lot more by way of resources to implement it properly.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I do
not think it is primarily a resource issues. It is a powers issue.
The problem is that under primary legislation the Secretary of
State has the ultimate responsibility. She has the power to delegate
the implementation of that responsibility as long as there is
a right of appeal to her, but that is an issue of how we implement
the existing legislation. I do not think it is necessarily an
issue of requiring extra resources.
Q352 Mr Betts: You could unify the list
to one whole and—
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Obviously,
there are one-off costs in any changes you make of this kind.
I would not anticipate that the resulting system would be more
expensive.
Q353 Mr Betts: It is an issue you would
be examining as part of—
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I would
go so far as to say we would not do it if it were going to be
significantly more expensive.
Q354 Mr Betts: Turning to the position
of the spot listing of buildings, which sometimes can hold projects
up almost at the last minute; have you any ideas of how that issue
might be resolved and how your department might respond to whatever
process you think is appropriate?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The
problem that has been identified by spot listing is when English
Heritage has not done its homework and does not know that there
are regeneration projects in the offing, and therefore has not
looked at the particular buildings in the area; and they recognise
that they ought to be able to anticipate the needs of the requirements
brought about by a regeneration project in advance, and therefore
not introduce a spot listing at a late stage. However, I have
to say I do not think spot listing is altogether a bad thing.
If it had not been for Geoffrey Ripon spot listing buildings all
round Covent Garden, it would have looked like Victoria Street
now.
Q355 Mr Betts: Do you think it could
be a bit more proactive rather than simply reactive?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I think
English Heritage recognises that if it anticipates that there
is going to be regeneration activity in any particular area, it
ought to be ready in advance with a view to what listing is required.
Q356 Mr Betts: Finally, perhaps both
departments could reflect on this. Very often, local authorities
retain local lists, which do not have any statutory basis at all;
but often the buildings on those lists are the ones that the professionals
might sneer at rather, but which the local community rather likes.
Are there sometimes some that ought to be saved, rather than the
examples that Sir Paul has given to the Committee; and how do
we resolve that sort of issue?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I know
what you mean. The responses to our review I think will show that
people value local lists but that they do not wish national lists,
for example grade II buildings, to be transferred to a local list
simply because there is a lower degree of protection for them.
Q357 Mr Betts: How do we deal with that
at local level. There is virtually no protection at all. It is
all very nice because it is on the local authority's list, and
that is it; when it comes to an application to remove it, it gets
removed.
Yvette Cooper: If it is not a
house, then obviously it has to go through the planning process
as normal anyway, and so local authorities can take account of
a whole series of material considerations and the impact on the
community of the possible use of a building and so on; so local
authorities can take that into account. Sometimes the concerns
can arise over private houses where it is possible under the permitted
development order to go ahead with demolition without applying
for planning permission and without there being any control at
all. Concerns have been raised about that, and it is one of the
issues we have looked at as part of the General Committee Development
Order Review. We have very recently received the research on all
of the permitted development orders, which looks at this among
other issues; and so we will be responding to that shortly.
Q358 Mr Betts: Will that response tie
in with the whole look at the Heritage Protection Review that
DCMS is doing, so that we have some sort of—
Yvette Cooper: We will certainly
make sure that on any of those related issues we do that.
Q359 Chairman: Everyone is aware of the
arguments in favour of equalisation of VAT at 5%. Is this an issue
that you are continuing to press the Treasury on, resolving the
issues with Europe, et cetera; or are you proposing any
other fiscal measures that might encourage the repair and maintenance
of historic buildings?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: It
is an anomaly. It is the case, and the churches in particular
press it on us, that repairs and maintenance to listed buildings
attract VAT at 17.5%, whereas alterations attract VAT at 5%, which
encourages people to alter them rather than to repair and maintain
them. The problem is that annex 8(h) of the 6th VAT Directive
is very precise about this; you cannot make any changes to this
without unanimity. There are exceptions that other countries have
used, but they are quite limited. They are limited, for example,
to social housing or social policy or housing with a social policy—something
of that sort. We have very considerable derogations from VAT in
this area. For example, we do not have any VAT on new buildings,
and we would be very unwilling to risk some of the advantages
we have got, despite the anomaly. We have therefore dealt with
it by an interim grant scheme, which particularly for listed places
of worship, which the Chancellor introduced in 2001, pays by grant
the difference between the 5% rate and the full amount. That has
produced more than £16 million since it was introduced in
2001. It is not ideal.
Chairman: It has been a long session,
but it has been very helpful. Thank you very much for your evidence.
| 
