Examination of Witnesses (Questions 360
- 379)
TUESDAY 25 APRIL 2006
DCMS AND ODPM
Q360 Chairman: Can I welcome David
Lammy from the DCMS and Baroness Andrews from the ODPM. Thank
you for coming to give evidence to us and also thank you for coming
to listen to our previous session, which I hope you found helpful.
Perhaps I could begin by asking you about the proposed reforms
of the Heritage Protection System, why you think it is necessary
to make the changes and what evidence there is of the failures
of the existing system?
Mr Lammy: I think it is important
to set the changes in the context of the last five years, and
in that sense both the "Power of Place", and
a "Force for our Future" and what English Heritage
has been saying in its English Heritage accounts are important.
We have heard in the last session about access and education,
we have heard about the contribution that English Heritage is
making around regeneration. The other strand that comes out of
that work is protection and conservation. It is clear that we
have been able to make some changes without legislation. We have
been able to notify people when their houses are listed. That
was something we were not doing before; it just suddenly happened
to you. We have been able to avoid duplication and transfer some
of what my officials were doing in the Department for Culture,
Media and Sport to English Heritage to avoid the duplication that
existed previously, but there are things that we need to do with
legislation, and, indeed, that comes out of what the heritage
sector said themselves of the consultation. There were over 500
responses and, overwhelmingly, they said that we needed to move
towards a more simplified, transparent and accountable arrangement
in relation to heritage protection, and so what comes out of that
is the Historic Environment Record and a new designation regime,
unifying our consent regime but also looking to see how we can
support local listing, because of the appetite that exists in
the country, and how we can, with larger assets, through looking
at the pilots, work out managed agreements for the historic environment.
Those things require legislation. I think it is a good thing to
have a debate on heritage protection in the House, something that
has not taken place since the formation of English Heritage decades
ago; so I think the time is now appropriate.
Q361 Chairman: Can you give us an
indication when you expect the White Paper to be published and
when you are hoping for legislation?
Mr Lammy: I would want to publish
the White Paper after you have reported, and I anticipate that
would be in the autumn.
Q362 Chairman: And legislation?
Mr Lammy: Legislation is down
to other people in other parts of the system, so I cannot say
when that legislative slot might be found, but obviously that
would follow in due course.
Q363 Mr Hall: One of the most important
things the Government could do is to make sure that the White
Paper addresses the problems that have been caused with PPG15
and PPG16 in the light of the Shimizu ruling, which I think
was totally and utterly bizarre, by the way. Can you give the
Committee an assurance that that will happen?
Baroness Andrews: Yes, I can.
We are conscious of the anxiety that has been caused by the decision,
by the delay and, of course, revising PPG15 is going to be a very
important way of addressing a number of changes across the planning
system as well as what the HPR itself is going to pick up. We
will certainly be taking account of Shimizu, hopefully
restoring the levels of control that were in place before and
hopefully delivering a much stronger, clearer planning statement
for heritage protection generally.
Q364 Mr Hall: Could that happen in
advance of the White Paper or does it have to wait?
Baroness Andrews: No, I think
it does have to wait, for the reasons why Shimizu has to
wait on the Heritage Protection Review itself. In order to take
account of the broad sweep of changes that are coming forward,
waiting for the White Paper actually will then ensure that we
are completely consistent. Everybody knows the values which underpin
the White Paper, which will be reflected in new PPG15 and its
appendices, so we will have a very clear account of how we want
to see that implemented.
Q365 Mr Hall: In the meantime we
still have to suffer the consequence of the judgment and the damage
that it is doing to some of our historical sites?
Baroness Andrews: Yes, I could
not dispute that. One of the things I have been asking, not least
your own experts, in fact, and English Heritage, is whether we
have evidence as to the impact of Shimizu, whether we have
been collecting it systematically. There is clearly a range of
anecdotal evidence of damage. There is not much systematic evidence,
and I can understand why, because, of course, it is operating
at a local level, but the sooner we get it put right the better.
Q366 Philip Davies: Could I ask if
you think that world heritage sites in particular, as our sort
of flagship heritage, need some additional protections, as many
people have given in their evidence, including English Heritage,
and, if so, will that be incorporated into the White Paper as
well?
Mr Lammy: The answer is, "Yes."
I think it is important that they are brought into line with the
new designation regime. They obviously are a material consideration,
but I think overwhelmingly MPs that come from those areas that
are world heritage sites—the All-Party Group it self and
I have done quite a lot with the world heritage community, as
it were, in this country over the last few months—want to
see that, and, again, without legislation we would not be able
to make that change, and so I do want to see that. That does not
mean, of course, that there is a necessity for increased or changed
protection. I do not think people are calling for that. That would
make things very difficult for cities like Bath, where virtually
the whole city is listed, but it does mean that they should be
identifiable through a new designation arrangement definitely.
Q367 Alan Keen: With the introduction
of the Heritage Protection Reforms, what do you think will be
the main impact on local authorities?
Baroness Andrews: There will be
two new statutory requirements placed on local authorities. First
of all, they are going to have to operate the new unified consent
regime. What I think we would want to get across essentially is
that this is not a new burden. When we look at what can be achieved
by combining scheduled monument consent, which is a very minor
part as far as Listed buildings are concerned, we will be looking
at new ways of working and not new burdens on local authorities,
because we are bringing together disciplines which, as the Atkins
Report shows, in the best local authorities are already establishing
very interesting successful interdisciplinary ways of working,
but obviously getting that right under the new unified consent,
which we very much welcome, because its fits in with many of the
things we are doing for the reformed planning system in terms
of greater simplicity and focus, is obviously going to be the
main task for local authorities. The second thing, which I will
refer back to David, is, of course, the Historic Environment Record.
The question there is whether, in fact, every local authority
should have one, or whether, in fact, they should have access
to one, and that is the preferred route and it is commonsense
in terms of both the size of the task and the natural usefulness
in terms of what access it will give you, because it covers so
much of the country already, but that is, of course, another area
of very interesting and exciting development, I believe. There
are two other optional opportunities for local authorities too.
I noticed earlier, Mr Keen, you referred to local character, local
listing arrangements. Of course, one of the things we are looking
closely at is what else we might be do to build up and support
local listing arrangements without actually making them national,
without confusing them with a national designation system, because
they are not about that, they are about very well loved local
landmarks and buildings. So that is something that we want to
address as well through the process. The fourth option is the
question of the management partnership agreements which have been
piloted by English Heritage and which David will be largely responsible
for but which local authorities will be able to opt into as appropriate.
Q368 Alan Keen: Have you attempted
to cost the effect on local authorities?
Mr Lammy: When we consulted and
began to look and ask the sector: "How can we better protect
our historic environment?", it is right to say that some
of the options on the table would have meant a significantly increased
burden and there would have been costs attached to that. I also
say within government that the compact we have with our local
government colleagues is that where we place extra burdens on
them we resource those extra burdens, and that must be part of
the White Paper going forward; but let me just say that part of
the consultation, one of the options on the table, for example,
was where we looked to see and support local listing. Do we make
that statutory and mandatory? Were we to do that, it would have
cost implications. Another point of consultation and discussion
was: do we make Historic Environment Record statutory? I know
what Helen raised before, which is: "How do local communities
really take stock of what they have and support what they have
and know what they have?", but if we place that as a requirement
on all of the 350 plus local authorities, then that too has a
financial impact attached. We are looking at other ways of doing
it. Access to an Historic Environment Record that may either be
kept nationally or regionally is an option that would be less
expensive. Kay has already mentioned the unified consent regime.
That, I think, requires a new way of working, as opposed to an
added burden, simply because when you look at the amount of applications
there are around scheduled monuments across the country, we are
talking about three per authority that should be able to be absorbed
within any new arrangements. There are areas where we have to
analyse the evidence very clearly, and certainly that would be
the case with the pilots where we have the management agreements
particularly, but we are not saying that that is statutory, we
are saying that that is available to you, it is an option available
to you, it is a way of working should you require it. I think
we have to bottom-out and see where we get to on Historic Environment
Records, particularly when it comes to costs attached for local
government.
Q369 Alan Keen: You probably heard
me express concerns with English Heritage, even within my own
local authority, about the difference between the iconic sites,
which are definitely going to be looked after somehow or other,
and the rest of it. Not only is there a variation within local
authorities that I am concerned about, but there is a danger of
massive differences between the ways that different local authorities
look after the environment. Should it really be statutory, because
it does worry me? How do you think you would cope with those variances?
Baroness Andrews: You are absolutely
right. There is wide variation. Only half of all local authorities,
I think, keep a local list, which is significant. One of the things
that has interested me in your inquiry is, in a way, establishing
the gaps in knowledge about the way local authorities actually
work, the information and intelligence they have at their disposal,
the information we have, that English Heritage has. There are
a lot of gaps in what ought to be a clearer picture which would
allow us to make more guidance more efficiently and more help
more effectively available. I think it is at that level that we
need to be looking for change and improvement. I do not think
that putting a statutory framework around either local listing
or, indeed, around local authorities would necessarily be appropriate.
What we need is to work out why some local authorities are so
much better than others. What is it that they are doing, either
with their professional staff, with their resources, with the
way they are using their planning systems creatively, with the
way they are actually designating their conservation areas, how
they are handling their consent regimes? We need a lot more hard
knowledge about how to promote best practice, and I think that
precedes notions of statutory requirement.
Mr Lammy: I think there are two
aspects to this. First, the overwhelming thrust of government
across Whitehall is not to place new burdens on local authorities.
It is to see the continued revival of the locality and to see
these decisions made locally. If you had the ALG here, or the
LGA, they would be saying that they would be deeply concerned
were we talking about placing new statutory burdens upon them.
I think the second thing to say is also that, if we were to place
a new statutory burden or requirement on them, then the case for
that would have to be significantly made out and would have to
be required. If you look at the backdrop of where heritage finds
itself in 2006, I do not think we could say that that was the
case. We had 60 million visitors last year to our heritage sites,
a huge success (as you have already heard) in the heritage open
days, a huge success, over-anticipated, with BBC shows like Restoration
and Time-Team. Heritage is in a strong place with the public
and sitting alongside what we have been trying to do to encourage
local champions and local councillors to better understand and
take this up through the HELM project funded by ODPM. The way
forward must be to support locally, to encourage locally, not
just to encourage through means of training and workshops but
also to encourage financially. English Heritage also support conservation
officers to the tune of 1.75 million and require match funding
to increase the number of conservation officers, but that must
be the way forward, not to choose the statutory option, which
in a sense is a quick fix but adds to the burdens that local government
are saying they really do not want.
Q370 Mr Evans: To get it clear in
my mind, is it intended that the impact of these changes on local
authorities would be cost neutral?
Mr Lammy: No, I am not saying
that. What I am saying is that where there is a measurable impact
that we can agree, then the resources must follow; and we are
doing that analysis, of course. Part of that analysis is the Atkins
Report, it was talked about earlier, it will published, and we
would hope to provide much of that evidence alongside the White
Paper in the autumn.
Q371 Mr Evans: So if there are extra
costs, they will be costed out fully by your department and the
full 100% of the resources will be passed on to local authorities?
Mr Lammy: That is the undertaking
that I have made. I have acknowledged where there has to be an
understanding of what flows from the consequences of the policy
arrangement that we get to, accepting that policy has changed
vis-a"-vis local listing, is changing vis-a"-vis the
HER and that no new burdens are placed through the consent regime.
Acknowledging that backdrop, if there are costs, then they would
come from my department to meet those costs.
Q372 Paul Farrelly: I wanted to pick
up on something that Baroness Andrews said a moment ago as to
why in some areas it is good and why in some areas it is pretty
appalling. If you have a champion in an area who builds capacity,
then in our environment now, where there is a lack of skills and
a lack of finance to pay for those skills even if they were available
in some local authorities, you get virtuous circles in certain
areas and vicious circles in other areas that are trying to break
out of that historic lack of ability or placing priorities on
conserving the built heritage. In my area I am the patron, and
I apologise for saying this yet again, Chairman, of Urban Vision,
which is the architectural centre for North Staffordshire—it
could equally be called the architectural and heritage centre
for North Staffordshire. That was seat-funded by CABE but went
for its main funding to a regeneration zone that was funded by
the RDA—not your department, the Department for Trade and
Industry. The delays and bureaucracy in getting the money out
of them after they had agreed to set it up meant that, within
18 months of operation, we had to go back cap in hand, and you
have an RDA that says, "Actually we do not get measured on
outputs for design or anything to do with quality really, so we
cannot commit to giving you money." It is a hand to mouth
existence for bodies like this to exist. Your department has been
very good in terms of housing market renewal in saying that this
is a core need for our area, or areas like mine, where we have
not got the resources of individual councils and you so you draw
on this centre of expertise and not inflated management consultants'
rates. It is a hand to mouth existence and we are forever trying
to get money every three years; but design and heritage are not
time-limited issues by definition, so what we would like to see
is your department, particularly DCMS, championing those efforts
and I would like to hear more about what you are doing to help
build capacity and encourage those people and support those people
who quite often do it for nothing themselves.
Mr Lammy: I would go back to saying
that English Heritage have a fund that supports conservation officers
and other posts and levers in funds to ensure that local authorities
can have those conservation officers. That is the first thing.
The second thing is that pressure is applied locally when local
councillors are informed, and local officers are informed in that
sense, and HELM is key to that process, and we have seen real
growth in that project. I think 185 local authorities and individuals
are now engaged in that particular project. Let us see where we
get to with the Atkins Report. Indeed, we are doing another survey.
The 1.7 conservation officers was a survey in 2002 and it will
be interesting to see where that figure is now, but it is right
to acknowledge, I think, a couple of things within the figures.
One is that when you look at the 85 authorities that have conservation
officers and are leading in this area, I think you identified
that there can be different arrangements at district and unitary
level, and there are authorities providing services for smaller
authorities; so we have got to unpick a bit of that. There are
also authorities contracting out their services, and we have got
to understand that as well. There is financial support in this
area, and we want to see growth. I think, by virtue of actually
having a heritage protection debate and having that debate in
this House and having that dialogue with local government, we
are bound to see an improvement over the next period.
Baroness Andrews: In relation
to a couple of the key words that you used—championship,
leadership—they are extremely important. Leadership from
ODPM, working with DCMS is very important, something that I am
passionately committed to, as the rest of the department is, and
there are very exciting opportunities, I think, working through
the HPR to demonstrate that and to appear on joint platforms,
not least with David. Championship, through the champions that
you are familiar with, actually going through the officer level,
I think, is crucial as well, but in terms of building capacity,
we do it in a number of different ways and some of them are actually
quite difficult to detect sometimes because they go in through
the planning system itself and they improve the processes. I am
thinking, for example, of the Planning Delivery Grant, which,
as an end local authority, is to achieve a massive increase in
some instances in their staffing, 45% of that has gone on staff,
half of that has gone on specialist staff. It may not show up
in the various direct statistics in terms of conservation officers,
but the fact that you have more planners and, more interestingly,
planners coming from different disciplines, because the new planning
schools are actually recruiting from disciplines as different
as languages and philosophy, not just from geography, the built
environment discipline, and so we are looking, possibly, at more
generic skills across planning. Another way in which we are seeing
capacity building, we have got this Academy for Sustainable Communities
and in evidence English Heritage talked about the new skills that
were needed for regeneration, and you referred to the importance
of regeneration, and, of course, we are looking at place-making
in a new way now in this country in terms of building regenerative
communities and new communities, and we need new skills. The Academy
for Sustainable Communities in its curriculum will have the capacity
to look at how heritage skills all fit together, and I think that
is a great possibility, not least because the new head of the
academy is closely linked, as a peer reviewer I understand, to
English Heritage's own review; so there is a lot of symmetry there
too. We have to look, sometimes quite deeply, into the processes
to look for where there can be additional capacity grown.
Mr Lammy: I am ably corrected
that in my efforts to be cautious I said 85 conservation officers.
I should have said 700. There are 85, of course, Historic Environment
Records, and I think you can say that those are the local authorities
that are leading.
Paul Farrelly: I know, Chairman, there
are some wider questions you would like to prompt on the championship
aspect, but if I can just leave you with this point on capacity
building. Quite often these organisations have been championed
as a cry of desperation because it is not happening within the
local authorities. The great thing that has been achieved with
this and other originally CABE funded organisations around the
country is that they have not had an adversarial relationship
with local authorities but they provide expertise and their role
has been recognised. The difficulty is the funding, the role is
not recognised higher up the chain, and actually these are new
ways of providing capacity that should really not be time-limited
in their funding.
Q373 Helen Southworth: There has
been a fairly recurrent theme in the evidence that we have been
getting in this inquiry, which is that DCMS is ineffective in
standing up for heritage interests in government; so I give you
this opportunity to give us some hard evidence for DCMS's effectiveness
in this area.
Mr Lammy: I think you can probably
see that we are working very closely with our ODPM colleagues
and would not have been able to get to where we have got to on
heritage protection and conservation to move towards the White
Paper and then towards legislation without that joint working.
I think it is right to say also that on education outside the
classroom and on the Engaging Places initiative, which
is really examining the built historic environment in the classroom,
we had to work very closely with our DfES colleagues as well.
I think it is right to say also that we should recognise the contribution
of DEFRA and ODPM in the funding agreement for English Heritage
and we should acknowledge the DEFRA resource that has gone into
the historic environment, particularly through their rural funding
base in which we have seen 90 million go into this area. Paul
has also raised the work of our RDAs and, indeed, the work of
English Partnerships, which also goes to benefit the historic
environment. So I think when we look at a package of activity,
I think when we acknowledge that there are more people than ever
before visiting our historic environment, when we relate that
to the participation survey, the Taking Part survey which
we are constantly trying to better develop and deepen, when we
look at the efforts that have been made by the sector to address
Britain's ethnic minorities feeling engaged and feeling able to
take part in the historic environment, I think of the work of
the Black Environment Network, I think of the Anglo/Sikh trail
and I think of huge regeneration with the historic environment
as a key component of that, whether it is an Oxford, whether in
Liverpool, whether it is up in Newcastle. Right across the sweep,
this has taken more than just the Department for Culture, Media
and Sport; it has taken close working with colleagues across Whitehall
and close working with local government. That is not to say that
you have not heard, and I have read all the transcripts, some
of the people that have come before you saying, "We would
like to see more work done with our churches, or more work done
around VAT." You have got to unpick, I think, what people
who have not been as successful. Equally, I have heard people
say that, were we in another department on the consultation we
are currently doing on the Lottery shares, for example, heritage
might lose out because DCMS is the sponsor department for the
Lottery. I think these things cut in a number of ways, but I think
on any objective assessment heritage is in a stronger place in
2006 than it was around the timing we are doing the quinquennial
review of English Heritage, and that has been because we have
been working very closely indeed, and the fact that Kay and I
are here before you I think is testimony to that.
Q374 Helen Southworth: You have told
us about where you have got to today, but, as a follow up, what
do you want to see from those departments as the strong champions
of heritage over the next five years? What is your shopping list?
Mr Lammy: I think that there remains
progress to be made in the area of regeneration, and we would
certainly hope to see, for example, in the Thames Gateway, in
the Olympic build, that heritage is factored in, that the built
environment is on the table, and we are taking that seriously.
We want to see progress following the Heritage Protection Review,
capacity at local level, increased local listing and the ability
of a large, if you like, portfolio of land-owners, whether that
is British Waterways or whether that is London Underground, able,
through new management, to deal with their assets in a more efficient
way and in a way that is more cost-effective to them, and we want
to see the continued growth of the sector. As I say, I think the
picture is a positive one, but it can get better. We want to see
more educational outlets. You were asking English Heritage about
access and education. They have made progress. I think we could
go further, and I suspect that all of you would acknowledge also
that we can go even further in engaging all of our population,
both socio-economically and ethnically, in this great story that
is Britain's heritage. Organisations like the HLF, I think, have
widened and opened the door to that discussion. I have also talked
about public value and how, in a sense, we can move from a basis
that is, yes, statutory in terms of the department's relationship
with English Heritage, that is, yes, based on academic opinion
around our historical and architectural interests but, I think,
also in the twenty-first century has not just to be more simple
and transparent, which is what we are doing effectively with the
Heritage Protection Reform, but also has public value and the
public are able to say what they value also in their local environment
and we find new mechanisms for doing that. That is the future,
and that will take effort, yes, across Whitehall but also amongst
the sector itself.
Baroness Andrews: May I add something
to that, because I think it is so important. One of the ways in
which the planning reform is paralleling the Heritage Protection
Reform is in the emphasis on openness. People know what is going
on and have a stake in being informed very early on. One of the
changes that we have made in the planning performance is to require
a statement of community involvement from every local authority
as part of the local development framework plans, so that people
at a very early stage know what is going on by way of change and
development, not just that their views are taken seriously but
they know what their rights are in that process and the local
authorities know how to account for that. Given how attached people
are to their local environments, how they become so enthused and
active in protection and development issues, I think this is a
very positive step forward and it matches all the things that
we are trying to do through the HPR itself in making sure that
people have the right information at the right time to be properly
informed and to take an informed decision.
Q375 Helen Southworth: This is a
question for each of the departments. We have heard about "the
best and the rest", but we also know that usually there is
"the best, the rest and the abysmal". What are each
of you going to be doing to make sure that we do not have parts
of the nation that have poor response to the built heritage, that
do not comprehend heritage as an economic driver, that do not
regenerate and perhaps, most importantly, do not give their population
access to heritage? What are each of you going to do about that?
Mr Lammy: I think I have outlined,
and we have had some discussion on, the HELM initiative, which
in the end is about local councillors themselves and local people
themselves determining issues around the historic environment,
and I think that is vitally important. I think, if you look at
the RDAs, and I have visited the south-west region on eight occasions
since becoming minister, there you have a strong regional development
agency using the historic environment to best effect, notwithstanding
areas where they and others would like to have seen more progress
than that of Stonehenge. I think also in the north-west there
is a strong Regional Development Agency that well understands
these issues and the issues of importance to local people and
is making progress. English Partnerships is making progress. I
think that there have been issues in our rural communities, both
in the funding from Defra and the engagement of a lot of people
across the sector. I think of the contribution that Prince Charles
has made to craft skills and the work that English Heritage has
been able to put in. The work of our Sector Skills Council has
grown our craft skills right across the piece, and so my own view
is that we are doing that work, there is more work that must flow
in that direction and, indeed, English Heritage themselves are
better equipped, following their quinquennial review, to lead
and shape much of that work in the priorities that they set themselves
as our statutory advisers.
Baroness Andrews: It is a challenging
question, and I think there are many ways in which you could answer
it. If I can talk very briefly, I think it is extremely important
that we at ODPM communicate our enthusiasm for the creative possibilities
of planning in the new planning system because that puts regeneration
and heritage very much at the heart of what can be achieved. Just
as we want to see the planning process moving to the centre of
the local policy process, so we want to see heritage and regeneration
expressed and evidenced as part of what drives social and economic
regeneration. Part of that is about the messages that we send.
I am engaged at the moment on a grand tour of planning offices
and councils around the country to talk about what we all want
to see. Some of it is about communication and about making sure
there are very clear consistent messages. The other thing I think
about is what agencies and resource we have to make things work
better. For example, local area agreements have the capacity to
bring funding streams together, have the capacity to bring the
statutory and voluntary sectors together in new ways so we will
actually get more value for money and it is shown to be a better
way of working. We can get more out of the resources that we are
using because LAAs are now spreading nationwide, and we have got
some expectation of that. Then, I think there is a whole series
of issues about proof, showing what works and celebrating what
is being done. You were talking earlier about the role of education
and the way in which we should be looking at the education curriculum
in DCMS. It is absolutely vital to see that as part of the right
of every child to know the memories of the community and how they
fit into that. When I go round the country it is a great privilege
to see regeneration projects, and I see young people and old people
together working on building the collective memory of small neighbourhoods
which have been refurbished; for example, the refurbishment of
a local park, which can turn around an area which has an impact
beyond any scale of investment. We need to make those stories
and what they mean very clear to people who are reluctant to do
it because they have not got any direct experience and they do
not see the necessity for it. A lot of that is about enabling
our colleagues in local government to go forward and tell their
own stories but also to show that they have the evidence. I think
again of the work of the DCMS and the Atkins Report, which is
all building up a better picture of that and showing by comparison
that it does not take that much more resource and effort to get
a much bigger and better result.
Mr Lammy: Obviously you are concerned
with the historic built environment, but there are also huge players
in the field—the work of CABE, the Prime Minister's Better
Public Buildings award—and we are in the midst of a huge
building programme across the country and also the huge and significant
contribution of the Heritage Lottery Fund right up and down the
country where our public realm, our parks, our buildings and also
our buildings and historic environment play a huge feature in
pursuit of their values.
Q376 Philip Davies: Can I just press
you a bit further on the level of influence within Government
for promoting heritage. You mentioned that you worked closely
with DfES and we heard recently that the GCSE in archaeology had
been scrapped as a subject. Can you give us any evidence that
in your discussions and in your liaisons, that these other departments
take any notice of what you say? Nobody doubts that you discuss
these issues with them. What there is a doubt over is whether
anyone takes any notice of your lobby into these departments.
What do you think about the loss of GCSE archaeology as an example
of that?
Mr Lammy: If you take the Engaging
Places initiative and the three pilots in three regions of the
country, then we would not have been able to go forward without
the engagement of us, of CABE, of English Heritage and DfES colleagues
in taking forward, piloting and looking at the built environment
in schools in that context, and then building off the back of
that once we have learnt next year what the results of those pilots
are. If we take education outside of the classroom as a way in
which we have been able to ensure that the built environment has
been part of that, if you look at the Building Exploratory in
Hackney, it is a wonderful resource, not just for Hackney children
but for London in helping those people understand the historic
environment, education has played a feature there. In the end,
GCSEs and their uptake are about individual choices. I was with
kids in London Fields with a scheme sponsored by the Museum of
London last summer who were on a dig. There is a dig in my constituency.
There is an appetite there. How we configure that changes over
time and is very much about meeting the needs of the population
as it exists today. I make no comment on archeology within the
curriculum. That depends on the appetite amongst young people
to sit that particular subject at GCSE level. That does not mean
that there is not activity going on in local communities across
the country. It does not mean, for example, that we have not got
the Young Roots programme, which is an excellent programme funded
by the HLF, working with young people dealing with their historic
environment in ways that are relevant to them.
Q377 Philip Davies: Are you saying
that all of the organisations that have contacted us saying that
the DCMS is not particularly effective at promoting heritage within
government are wrong? I will just give an example. Last week we
heard evidence from Heritage Link in answer to a question that
Paul Farrelly asked (I believe it was) about whether they could
give any specific names of people in the DCMS or ODPM who were
really championing heritage—and I stand to be corrected
and I have not got the exact quotes in front of me, I paraphrase—but
I think the reply was "We have high hopes for David Lammy
who seems to say the right things but we could not come up with
anybody in ODPM who appears to be promoting heritage at all."
It is hardly a glowing reference really. Are all these organisations
wrong? Do you not accept that you really could do a lot more?
Mr Lammy: With respect, that is
a contradiction because you said that they are currently with
DCMS and they have high hopes for me. That is a contradiction.
If there is a suggestion that they should be with another government
department then you would have to name what that other government
department would be. When you unpick some of that comment I suspect
that the other government department might be the Treasury and
I suspect that there are stakeholders right across the system
that would like their sponsor department to be the Treasury. So
let us be honest about where we sit and let us be honest about
the huge progress made and about the advances that we can make
through heritage protection reform.
Q378 Paul Farrelly: I did ask the
questions and that was a pretty accurate paraphrasing. Baroness
Andrews, can I say that it is an issue of communication, as you
have said, particularly if ministers are relatively new to posts
with a great and wide range of responsibilities, so I am very
glad to hear about your communication tour to planning officers
around the country. Could I warmly invite you to North Staffordshire
to talk to our planning officers, where you will be greeted and
treated by myself and Mark Fisher, my close friend and neighbour
who is a former Culture Minister and other colleagues, so I welcome
that.
Baroness Andrews: I warmly accept.
Q379 Paul Farrelly: But it would
be remiss of me not to put this question bluntly: some of the
evidence we have heard is that the DCMS is not seen to be a champion
and does not have the clout, so we should take the responsibility
for heritage out of DCMS and put it into ODPM. I picked up my
wife's copy of Building Design magazine last night. It
has always got a number of provocative articles in it as the trade
weekly for architects, but the editorial said that we should transfer
it out because the Department has not got the clout. Some people
have said put it with ODPM because it reunites planning and heritage
and that has some logic to it. I have an unease about that, principally—and
this is no reflection on individuals particularly English Partnerships
who in my area are working on local and regional issues—because
I have a perception of ODPM as being more interested in relaxing
the planning laws than championing a tightening of the interpretation
and application of planning laws that they are supporting, as
it comes down to good design and the quality of our built environment.
I spend half my time fighting blots on the landscape in the form
of half a million square foot warehouses where design is not uppermost
in the minds of industrial architects around the country. Where
do you come from on this particular issue? Does it fit ill in
your Department, David, being divorced from the Department which
has responsibility these days for planning?
Mr Lammy: Paul, I think you have
heard evidence, from my recollection of the transcripts, I think
it was Heritage Link that said that they would be concerned if,
for example, heritage sat with ODPM because heritage issues would
get swamped by planning issues.
|
