| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
25 Jan 2007 : Column 554WH—continued
Polling data show that visitors to north-east museums are more satisfied with their experience than those anywhere else in the country, but numbers alone cannot tell the story. Children on educational visits are increasingly likely to return with their parents. History
teachers have described renaissance-funded museums as manna from heaven. The work done by Renaissance North East and the Museums, Libraries and Archives Council has been crucial in connecting people through heritage to knowledge, information and inspiration.
The renaissance programme requires renewed funding so that it can fire on all cylinders, not only in the north-east but throughout the UK. The programme has already seen the creation of 500 new jobs and that can only lead to many more. With much departmental funding needed for the Olympics, as many hon. Members have mentioned today, I would nevertheless compel Ministers to try to find the extra £15 million that is needed to take the project forward to the whole country. Of course, my constituency would benefit greatly from a training camp at Gateshead international stadium, as the increased profile that that would provide would leave a sporting legacy and the extra investment would enable us to keep our foot to the floor with regard to cultural regeneration and preservation.
I shall highlight one more project that is capable of further including the people of the north-east in protecting our heritage. I have been working again with my north-east colleagues, especially my hon. Friends the Members for City of Durham and for Stockton, South (Ms Taylor), and with my predecessor as MP for my constituency, Baroness Quin, to try to ensure that the Lindisfarne gospels are returned to the north-east. I know that my hon. Friend the Minister is well aware of that undertaking. We have met him and we will soon meet representatives of the British Library. If we all co-operate, the return of the gospels is a real possibility.
The gospels are icons of the heritage of the north-east. The last time they were in the north-east, people queued for half a mile to see them. With the best will in the world, I cannot imagine such queues forming at the British Library. The return of the gospels is also a matter of social justice. As hon. Members in this Chamber will be well aware, it is a 600-mile trip to go from the north-east to London and back, and many people in the north-east simply cannot afford to make that trip.
Dr. Roberta Blackman-Woods (City of Durham) (Lab) rose—
Mrs. Hodgson: I will give way first to the hon. Gentleman and then to my hon. Friend.
Tim Loughton:
I think that we might be about to say different things. I fully acknowledge the plea made by the hon. Lady that the Lindisfarne gospels be taken back to the north-east of England, but will she acknowledge that the Lindisfarne gospels are a national, indeed an international, treasure? They can be seen in the British Library by many, many more people, I am afraid, than would go up to Lindisfarne to see them. We should value them in the context of the
development of literature and publishing, and perhaps occasionally they could travel around the country to maximise viewing opportunities.
Mrs. Hodgson: That is a valid point, but all we are asking initially is for the Lindisfarne gospels to visit the north-east. The last visit was a number of years ago. We have been told that a further visit will not even be considered until, I think, 2012, and consideration does not mean that they will actually come. I completely take on board the fact that other people need to see the gospels, but for them not even to be allowed to come to the north-east for people in the north-east to see them for another six or more years is not acceptable.
Dr. Blackman-Woods: Does my hon. Friend agree that in the north-east we do accept that the Lindisfarne gospels are a national treasure? We would, however, suggest to the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) that there is no reason why a national treasure cannot be located in the north-east, because we want people to travel to the north-east to see those wonderful gospels in the context in which they were written.
Mrs. Hodgson: I also point out that the colours used to create the gospels were extracted from local plants and minerals nearly 1,500 years ago in what was the kingdom of Northumbria. They are literally, therefore, a part of the north-east. More than 180,000 people visited the gospels when they were last on display in the north-east, and if they were returned, many more visitors would be expected. I know that the Minister is aware of the case and I look forward to meeting representatives of the British Library. I hope that the Select Committee might look into the case when it next meets. If we are serious about preserving our heritage, we need to be serious about sharing it. The chance to share such an evocative piece of our heritage with perhaps a quarter of a million people is, in my opinion, too good to turn down.
I am grateful to hon. Members for listening to me this afternoon. I hope that I have contributed a regional perspective to the debate. The battle to preserve our cultural heritage is being fought on many fronts. At regional level, people continue to live their heritage, not least through local terminology and local knowledge. That is why I believe in regional renaissance—linking the local with the national to create a shared heritage that we can preserve for many years to come.
4.44 pm
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con):
I add my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale), and the Committee that he chairs, on the excellent report that we are discussing, and on what has so far been a very well informed debate. I have learned an awful lot about cathedral music, even though it does not feature in the report. The report is timely, given the forthcoming White Paper. This is also the first debate on heritage that I have attended or even been aware of, in the last 10 years. It has enabled hon. Members to debate subjects such as archaeology, on which I shall focus. I declare an interest in that I am
treasurer of the all-party archaeological group, and I trained as a Mesopotamian archaeologist, which is very useful. It is gratifying that so many people took an interest in the Committee’s hearings as well as being here today.
I agree that too little attention is paid to heritage by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport both in the House and beyond. Yet heritage, and particularly archaeology, presses so many of the right buttons, particularly those that the Government are rightly trying to promote. It contributes enormously to education for adults and children, not just in history—how we got here and how our buildings, which we value, contributed to that—but in our understanding of the environment. How was it that the Romans, who had no fridges or electricity, no JCBs or gas-guzzling 4x4 vehicles, were able to build fine buildings—for instance, along the south downs—and sustain themselves with minimal pollution and waste, using the land efficiently and sympathetically? We have a lot to learn about how to appreciate our environment more by reference to the way in which our ancestors managed without our mod cons. Heritage is a great environmental learning tool, and that is something that all Members value greatly.
Hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Mrs. Hodgson), mentioned our heritage’s great role in regeneration and in re-establishing local identity. Deprived areas have benefited enormously from the renovation of industrial buildings, canals and waterways, with community use being given to old warehouses and military establishments. Helping people to learn where they came from has enormous benefits in terms of social cohesion and social inclusion. Heritage reconstructions and museums, too, are important.
One only has to look at a programme such as “Time Team”, which has been an enormous success. It is one of the few things that separate my son from his football on Sunday afternoons. It is a fascinating and educational programme. Many hon. Members may still have bare patches in their gardens from the “big dig” day last year, when tens of thousands of people, particularly young people, up and down the country dug up their gardens—much to the chagrin of their parents but to the great benefit of their education. The all-party archaeological group tried to do the same in the Palace of Westminster; alas, we were frustrated by the House authorities, who told us that it is a UNESCO world heritage site, which was a bit of a swiz.
Another area that has been mentioned is tourism. We should not do so, but we underestimate the enormous attractions and commercial and economic benefits to the United Kingdom. The “Heritage Counts” historic environment review executive committee report included the taking part survey that the DCMS commissioned to reinforce the benefits of social inclusion. The survey showed that in the last 12 months 69 per cent. of all adults, 48 per cent. of adults of black and ethnic minority backgrounds, 58 per cent. of adults with a limiting disability or illness and 56 per cent. of adults in lower socio-economic groups visited an historic environment site, with visits to a historic city or town being the most popular way of enjoying
heritage. People overwhelmingly visit heritage sites for personal enjoyment and relaxation; that reason was cited by more than half of all adults. Many people would go more often if they had more free time.
Visiting heritage sites is also good for one’s health. There are many benefits. One of the key messages of the Committee’s report is the popularity of the historic environment. Seven out of 10 adults visited a site last year, the majority for personal enjoyment and relaxation; and 400,000 offer their time as volunteers working for a range of organisations that care for the historic environment. That is enormously beneficial in so many ways that go beyond the remit of the DCMS, and it is fun and popular.
I question whether heritage is in the right Department, particularly at a time when it is competing for finance with the Olympics and given the other pressures and topical issues involving the media with which the Department has to deal. I do not denigrate the Minister’s genuine interest and that of some of his predecessors, but heritage is struggling to keep its head above water against competing interests. It is a cross-cutting area. It cuts into so many other Departments.
I congratulate the Government on some of progress that they have made on museums, which have not been mentioned much. I have always been a great advocate of free admission to our national museums: it is morally and educationally right. If we are to justify, as I do, having such great treasures of the world as the Elgin marbles in the British Museum, it is right that people from this country, as well as from Greece and other countries, should go there unencumbered by an admission charge. I am afraid that we cannot say the same thing about the new museum at the Acropolis, which managed to trash 13 layers of archaeology, going back to the bronze age, and now charges people for the privilege of seeing what is left.
Robert Key: My hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack) will recall that back in the 1980s and the early 1990s in our party it was not the done thing to refer to culture. As the founding Minister with David Mellor in the Department of National Heritage, I can tell my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham why heritage was lumped in with all the other things. It was simply that the Government decided—or rather, John Major decided—that we should have a Department of culture, but agreed that we were not allowed to call it so. That was why heritage ended up with the other bits that now make up DCMS.
Tim Loughton: My hon. Friend obviously has a great deal more experience, having been at the Department at its inception, but I fear that his use of the phrase “lumped in” belies how we have approached heritage, rather than placing it where it is appreciated in its own right and for its own values.
I reiterate the great concern that the Committee and many of us have expressed about the cumulative squeeze on funding over many years for English Heritage, which does a fine job. Simon Thurley has been a fantastic ambassador for heritage in this country, and long may he continue to be so. However, he has been hampered in what his organisation can do.
Three years ago, the all-party archaeological group, without all the back-up that Select Committees have, produced a comprehensive report on the state of archaeology in the UK. We interviewed many witnesses—other hon. Members present were part of that process—and we identified the problems with English Heritage. We interviewed civil servants from various Departments and asked them how many archaeologists their Department had. In none of the Departments that we interviewed—not even in the then Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, with its responsibilities for planning and local government, let alone in the DCMS—were any archaeologists employed. The Departments rely on English Heritage to employ archaeologists to give expert input into the formulation of heritage policy and decision making about important sites. If English Heritage is downgraded or if we lose it in its current form, we will lose an enormous amount of expertise, which cannot be replaced within Departments.
Sir Patrick Cormack: My hon. Friend rightly paid a tribute to Dr. Simon Thurley, which is richly deserved. However, does my hon. Friend agree that, as Sir Neil Cossons nears the end of his tenure as chairman, he also deserves the thanks of us all for the absolutely exemplary way in which he has conducted English Heritage’s affairs through some turbulent times?
Tim Loughton: I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. We owe Sir Neil Cossons a great debt of gratitude, not least for his enormous interest in Stonehenge and other important sites. I reiterate the comments that were made earlier about the debacle over his successor, Two eminent candidates—Lord Marland and Lady Cobham, entirely un-elitist as they are—have not been considered and the whole process leaves a rather unpleasant taste in the mouth. Culture should not be used as a political football.
I share the worries that have been expressed about the future of English Heritage. I hope that the Minister will be a doughty ambassador for the cause of English Heritage and all it stands for in his negotiations with the Chancellor. We ignore it at our peril. We also look forward to the White Paper, which represents a once-in-a-generation opportunity to ensure that we properly preserve our heritage for the future.
Back in 2003 the all-party archaeological group made recommendations that have made no progress in Government circles but remain as relevant today as they were then. We recommended that,
“The Department for Culture, Media and Sport...should adopt a new high-level objective of defining, protecting and sustaining the historic environment for the benefit of our own and future generations and it should accept the full consequences of this both in its own spending plans and in the business plans of its sponsored bodies; and the devolved administrations should be encouraged to do likewise.”
For all the reasons that I have mentioned concerning the cross-cutting nature of heritage, we recommended that
“DCMS should also establish an inter-departmental committee on archaeology, at ministerial level, chaired by the DCMS and including the Office of Deputy Prime Minister”—
now the Department for Communities and Local Government—
“the Department for Education and Science and the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs”.
“This committee should meet at least twice a year and minutes of its discussions should be published. This committee should be serviced by a strengthened team to provide policy advice at the DCMS”.
Too often, we found in our interviews with civil servants that one Department did not know what the other was doing, and Departments were often not clear about the extent of their responsibilities regarding heritage, planning, preservation and site listing.
“There is an urgent need to improve pay and conditions for employment in field archaeology so that they are commensurate with graduate entry level in allied professions such as local authority planning officers, civil engineers and university lecturers.”
The problem is that the vast majority of archaeology in this country is not led by universities, as it used to be, or by local museums with adequate funding, but is development-led. It is rescue archaeology, simply because developers have to pay in order to develop a site and usually do so at the lowest possible price, for understandable commercial reasons. Are we actually getting a full record of some of the sites that are going under concrete and will be lost for ever? We need to consider how best to record some of those important sites before foot upon foot of concrete or tarmac is poured upon them.
A third recommendation from the report is that
“Sites and Monuments Records... should be made statutory with additional funding from central Government to ensure that they meet a minimum standard of content and service delivery. Public accessibility should be improved, and recognition of the community and educational values of SMRs must be included in their development. The national, regional and local SMRs need to be reviewed to streamline the infrastructure.”
The problem is that we have very sketchy sites and monuments records throughout the country. We desperately need to know what we are dealing with and what we have got before it disappears for good.
I would like to put in a plea for one of the most successful schemes in archaeology in the past few years—the portable antiquities scheme, with which the Minister is very familiar, having been at the British Museum for the launch of the latest report last year. He has been very supportive of the scheme. Since its introduction in 2003, the portable antiquities scheme has given rise to more than 245,000 finds, which have been recorded by the scheme’s find liaison officers. I pay tribute to Liz Andrews-Wilson, who is the finds liaison officer for Sussex, covering the counties of East Sussex and West Sussex, as well as Brighton and Hove. She has done a fantastic job with limited resources.
Many previously unknown archaeological sites have come to light because of the work of the scheme, including a prehistoric henge monument in Kent, Anglo-Saxon cemetery sites in Norfolk, and Cumbria’s first Viking-age inhumation cemetery. Many important archaeological finds reported through the scheme have been acquired by museums, including the fantastic Ringlemere gold cup and the Staffordshire Moorlands pan, inscribed with the names of forts on Hadrian’s Wall.
To date, all historic environment records have signed a protocol to have full access to the portable antiquities scheme data. A code of practice for responsible metal-detecting has been endorsed by all key stakeholders; 55,000 copies of advice for finders of archaeological objects have been distributed; 1,073 talks have been given about the scheme; 1,187 find days were organised by the scheme in the past three years, which were attended by more than 45,000 people, many of them young people; 47 per cent. of the finders are from socio-economic groups C2, D and E, which compares favourably with the figures for museum visitors, with a particular emphasis on children; and 128 people have worked as volunteers. The scheme is fantastic and we should have had it before now.
4.59 pm
Sitting suspended for Divisions in the House.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |