| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
25 Jan 2007 : Column 567WH—continued
“give a stronger signal to local authorities that the historic environment matters”
and that it may need additional statutory duties in order to be able to stress that it matters; and I concur with that also.
Members will realise from my introduction that I want to focus on the need for local authorities to take their role in protecting the historic environment incredibly seriously. The Minister should tell his colleagues in the DCLG that if they want to make changes to the planning system, they must not jeopardise the conservation of our heritage. That is particularly so when planning applications relate to the area of a world heritage site, or the buffer zone around it. I am thinking particularly of the one in my
constituency of Durham city, although I stress that Durham has a number of beautiful listed buildings that belong to our mining heritage, the university and churches.
I hope that the Government will continue to press local authorities where necessary to produce world heritage site management plans. Durham city council with its partners has produced such a plan. It has significant weaknesses, most notably because it cannot overrule local authority planning policies. It is not always up to the standard required to protect the built environment—in particular, to protect it from development around the buffer zone. I want the Minister to think about how his Department and the DCLG can monitor management plans and, in particular, the impediments to their effectiveness.
I agree with the Committee that more must be done. My local authority may be surprised, but it supports paragraph 155 which states that if the Government are serious about their historic protection reforms, they must fund local authorities adequately so that they can take that role seriously. Officers who are in charge of and can provide good advice about conservation must not have their time taken up with routine planning applications. The issue is not all about more funding and time, because the officers must use their powers more effectively; however, the Government must take that point on board.
I agree with the Committee that more must be done to support English Heritage. It does a wonderful job in my constituency. The more development there is in historic towns, the greater the need for such organisations. They must be not only valued, but properly supported.
It is notable that four MPs from the north-east have attended today’s debate. We take our culture and heritage extremely seriously, and I hope that we can continue to raise such issues in Parliament.
5.52 pm
Paul Holmes (Chesterfield) (LD): I congratulate the Committee Chairman, the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale), and Committee members on producing the excellent report before us. Having spent much of the past five or six years on the Select Committee on Education and Skills, I know how much work is involved—how many weeks it takes to read vast amounts of expert evidence and to take vast amounts of oral evidence. At the end, it is not that one does not see the wood for the trees, but one takes the final report for granted after spending so much time on it. It is only when an outsider—in this case, me—reads the report with fresh eyes that one realises the excellence of Select Committee reports. The report before us is a tour de force.
I congratulate all hon. Members who have spoken. They have ranged widely— from St. Paul’s cathedral through Bethesda chapel, Turton tower, Stonehenge, the Lindisfarne gospels and listed ships to demolished barns. They have highlighted the role of heritage in enhancing community well-being, tourism and the projection of soft diplomatic power abroad, and they have highlighted the sector’s chronic underfunding, which is further threatened by the comprehensive spending review and by Olympic overspend robbing it
of more lottery funds. There has been eloquent testimony from throughout the UK about the way in which heritage is central to our lives.
The Committee’s report is an excellent review of the state of the heritage sector in England. It is a devastating indictment of the Department’s failure to understand heritage, to value its full potential or to make the case for it to other Departments such as the Treasury, the DCLG, and the Department for Transport in respect of Stonehenge. The report is also an indictment of the failure even to maintain the already inadequate funding of the heritage sector.
As people have said, this debate is timely given the looming tourist opportunities associated with the run-up to the Olympics in 2012, the ongoing heritage protection review and the soon-to-be published heritage White Paper—or, at least we hope it will soon be published. I hope that the Minister will give us a firm publication date for it.
The Government’s response to the report was weak and complacent. It showed little understanding of the heritage sector’s concerns and in many cases failed to reflect the reality experienced by heritage organisations and practitioners. The report found that funding for the heritage sector, and for English Heritage in particular, has fallen dramatically over the past decade, with cuts of nearly £10 million in real terms since 2000-01, further cuts up to 2008 and the threat of even more devastating cuts in the comprehensive spending review, with cuts of between 5 and 7 per cent., or the so-called flat cash cuts that we now hear about. English Heritage funding has already reached a level that threatens its ability to carry out its current functions, let alone the extended responsibilities being discussed in the review. Government plans to demote the chair of English Heritage to a one-day-a-week role further underlines the DCMS’s failure to fight its corner against other Departments.
Let us remember that the sums involved are quite small—they really are the small change of Government spending. In the Department for Work and Pensions, which I shadowed for four years in the previous Parliament, or in the Department for Education and Skills, which I have scrutinised for the past five and a half years on the Select Committee on Education and Skills, the amounts that we are discussing would just be rounded up at the end of a page. They are not that significant. The portable antiquities scheme, which was referred to earlier in detail, is one small example of that.
The scheme is invaluable in recording archaeological finds. It has brought many previously unknown sites to the public eye and has saved many finds that would have otherwise been lost in overseas antique markets, flea markets and so on. The portable antiquities scheme is a booming scheme. Rachel Atherton, who is the field liaison officer for Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire, recorded 1,476 finds last year, compared with just 693 the year before. The scheme also plays a massive role in education, yet there is a great fear that it will be hit badly by the forthcoming comprehensive spending review.
What does that fantastic scheme cost? For 2008-2011, which is the period for which those involved are most worried about future funding, it would cost between £1.5 million and £1.6 million a year of DCMS
funding to maintain it, yet there is a fear that unless such small amounts are ring-fenced and protected by the DCMS, we could lose the scheme.
The heritage protection review aims to simplify and streamline the listing and scheduling systems into a single system. Doing so would bring greater transparency and community involvement, which everyone in the heritage sector supports. However, as the Committee’s report makes clear, although that would mean reduced costs in the long term, there would be significant set-up costs in the short term. Will the Minister give us an assurance that English Heritage will be given the additional funding to cover the extra costs and duties that will required under the new regime?
A large proportion of the heritage sector’s work takes place in local authority planning offices, which host the historic environment records. Those offices will need the resources to upgrade and digitise hundreds of thousands of paper documents, when the changes to heritage protection that are anticipated in the forthcoming White Paper take place. They are valuable changes, which would help increase transparency, cut bureaucracy and simplify management procedures, but there are heavy up-front costs to pay to achieve them.
Many local authorities employ only a single heritage officer and almost half—43 per cent.—do not even have a heritage champion. For the heritage protection review to work, local planning authorities need a local professional heritage service with sufficient clout and funds to deliver what is proposed. Unless a statutory duty to provide costly historic environment services is included in forthcoming legislation, there is a danger that the aim of universal access to high-quality heritage planning and records will be destroyed by local authority cuts, owing to funding shortages.
Hon. Members have already commented on the danger to the Heritage Lottery Fund if it has to shoulder a further burden in the next few years in order to meet the costs of Olympic overspend. That would endanger the principle of additionality, which is what the fund was set up for in the first place, and reduce overall resources for an already underfunded heritage sector. The Committee was right to say that the Secretary of State should give an assurance that no further money than that that has already been promised will be diverted from the lottery to the Olympics. The loss of yet more lottery funds to the heritage sector is potentially devastating. The Government’s response to the Committee was not reassuring, and I hope that the Minister will be able to give us a commitment that no further lottery funds will be lost—
6 pm
Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.
6.11 pm
Paul Holmes:
I finish with three brief points that the report deals with. It recommends that the merger and replacement of planning policy guidance on the historic environment and archaeology should be
undertaken without delay after the publication of the heritage White Paper. However, the Government’s response suggested that amendments may be made to PPG15 in respect of the listing of buildings, but not until some years after the legislation, leaving a hiatus of five, six or—who knows? —seven years.
Five-year delay or not, why should PPG16 on archaeology not also be updated? Many issues could be considered—for example, the requirement that archaeological work must be undertaken by an accredited professional. Perhaps the definition of archaeological assets could be widened to include artefact scatters and paleo-environmental deposits. Perhaps class consents could be looked at again. It has been thought that once a scheduled ancient monument has been ploughed, the damage is done and no more harm will occur. In fact, ploughing causes incremental damage every time it takes place and archaeological material previously below the danger zone gets brought up into it each time ploughing takes place.
The Shimizu decision has already been discussed; I hope that the Minister will give an assurance that the simplification of procedures for conservation areas will not lead to a watering-down of protection, and that a resolution to the Shimizu decision will be reached rapidly without undermining heritage protection.
VAT on repairs has also been discussed. The current VAT regime encourages damaging alterations and the neglect of building maintenance, encouraging demolition and the loss of important historical assets and community locales. The Government should take action to create a scheme analogous to the listed places of worship grant scheme or extend that scheme to secular buildings and refund the VAT on the maintenance of historic assets.
In conclusion, heritage is an essential national asset, critical to our economy and tourism industry. It consistently features among the top reasons why visitors choose to come to the UK. It is highly important in developing strong local communities and local identity and in aiding regeneration. Heritage is not elitist, but extremely popular; 70 per cent. of adults visit historic locations. More than a million people supported the “History Matters—pass it on” campaign last year.
The Department for Culture, Media and Sport must make the heritage sector a higher priority in the Government, both by emphasising its importance across Government Departments and fighting with the Treasury for better funding. The heritage protection review will greatly improve planning guidance, maintenance agreements with owners and community engagement with heritage, but it must be given the necessary legislative strength and funding to enable it to fulfil its potential. Good planning requires community involvement and consideration of broad issues of community well-being. The heritage White Paper could deliver that, but DCMS must fight its own case against others in the Government who seek to water down planning protections and speed up decisions for the benefit of business rather than that of communities.
6.14 pm
Mr. Edward Vaizey (Wantage) (Con): Thank you, Sir John, for guiding the debate through such tempestuous waters. The fact that such an important debate has been interrupted so many times could be a metaphor for the difficulties that heritage faces.
I join others in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale) and the members of the Select Committee on their excellent report. As he pointed out, it is the first major report on heritage from a Select Committee for a dozen years.
I also pay tribute to the many hon. Members who spoke. The debate reflected the important links of Members of this House with so many vital heritage organisations, such as the Historic Chapels Trust and the Churches Conservation Trust, and with Stonehenge and our maritime heritage. Indeed, we have a resident expert archaeologist, and those with an important understanding of local authorities. I hope that it is not invidious to pick out two important contributions. The first was from my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack), who does such crucial work as chairman of the all-party group on arts and heritage. It is worth remembering, particularly for a whippersnapper like me, that he was tabling a Bill to protect our historic churches even before the Minister was born.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr. David Lammy): What about you?
Mr. Vaizey: I had been born; I was three years old.
I pay tribute, too, to the hon. Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Mrs. Hodgson). A fortnight ago, I paid a cultural visit to Gateshead. It is worth making a point to bolster her case. Gateshead technically has a town council representing 290,000 people, and it has built two of the most important new arts centres in the country. That is a formidable achievement, and shows what can be done when a visionary leader and a visionary chief executive work together.
I do not need to tell hon. Members about the importance of our heritage. We have more than 400,000 listed buildings and monuments in this country, 9,000 conservation areas and, beyond those designated assets, a wealth of heritage that is all around us: distinctive landscapes and buildings with features that might not reach criteria for formal designation but enrich our lives and our experience of places. The key point is that our heritage is not simply preserved in aspic. It is a living, breathing sector that contributes not only hugely to our economy but to our general well-being.
Some 3 million people are members of the National Trust, 2.5 million school children visited heritage sites last year and 400,000 volunteers work to look after our heritage—the largest voluntary sector of its kind in Europe. Heritage plays a vital role, as hon. Members have pointed out, in our urban and rural regeneration and in our sustainability. It is estimated that investment in our heritage can spark investment from the private sector that is four and a half times greater. As my hon.
Friend the Member for South Staffordshire pointed out, that is probably the chief reason that people visit this country.
Our heritage does not stand still. English Heritage has just listed the American air base at Upper Heyford, which 20 years ago was a working air base at the front line of the cold war. Now it is an important part of our heritage. As a country, we are a world leader in adapting our heritage for modern use, whether at the Royal Exchange theatre in Manchester, the Tate Modern or the Baltic, or through converted churches, new housing in listed warehouses or artists’ studios used by Brit artists in the east end. In short, our heritage not only matters but is contemporary in every sense of the word.
One of the reasons that heritage continues to matter is because of the astonishing commitment and hard work of our main national heritage organisations and their regional and local branches and of other important groups, too—not only the Historic Chapels Trust and the Churches Conservation Trust, but the Victorian Society, the Twentieth Century Society and many others.
It is with a heavy heart that I have to say that the overwhelming message that came out of the report was a depressing one. As the report stated at the beginning, “anxiety pervades the sector”. There is widespread alarm throughout the heritage sector. Every single heritage organisation that I have contacted said the same. Heritage Link described the Government’s response to the report as “complacent” and “carelessly drafted”, and as showing
“little understanding or acceptance of widespread concern over Heritage Protection Reform and funding issues”.
The National Trust has described the Government’s response as “disappointingly complacent.” Heritage, said the trust,
“appears to remain something of a Cinderella issue within a Cinderella Department—lacking resources and ambition”.
The Campaign to Protect Rural England said that it is
“very disappointed by the Government’s apparent failure to act on the Committee’s recommendations”.
The Archaeology Forum also said that it was
“disappointed with the Government response”.
The Historic Houses Association found the Government’s response “extremely disappointing”, “brief and general” and clinging
“to an unfounded hope that...all would nevertheless be well for the heritage”.
The Joint Committee of the National Amenity Societies described the Government’s response as “not good enough”,
“light on commitments and long on flannel”,
and that word again, “complacent”.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |