| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
25 Jan 2007 : Column 573WH—continued
What has led those organisations to act as one and to speak out so boldly? The main and most obvious reason is the lack of funding for the heritage sector. On a personal note—I have been reflecting on this during the debate—we, as Members of Parliament, work in a heritage site, and we are spoilt. If we want £500,000 for a glass-covered walkway that nobody knew we needed, or a few million pounds for a visitors centre, we can get it. If we want a few million pounds for a website, we
seem to be able to get it. Would not it be great if Member of Parliaments could vote some of that money to the heritage sector?
It is absolutely clear that English Heritage is chronically underfunded. Over eight years from the beginning of the new century, it will have lost just over £24 million of funding in real terms. As the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Paul Holmes) pointed out, that is an enormous sum for English Heritage, but a pittance for many Departments. The Select Committee is right to conclude that the decline has
“led to justified fears that English Heritage will in future be unable to carry out its functions to the standard required.”
More importantly, the Committee points out that without financial and political support, the sector could
“lose confidence in English Heritage, which would be disastrous.”
I completely concur with those conclusions.
To see how badly English Heritage is being treated, one need look only at the debacle over choosing its new chairman. It is astonishing that it should be pointed out in the pages of our national newspapers that two well-qualified, leading candidates have not got the job, one of whom has sat on the English Heritage board and now sits on the National Trust board. It might seem facetious to say this, but it seems as though the only qualification that one needs to sit on a prestigious arts or heritage body these days is to be a member of or active campaigner for the Labour party, whereas links with the Conservative party will disqualify one even if one’s CV is eminently suitable in all other respects.
We now learn that the new chairman will receive a lower salary than the previous chairman and be expected to work for fewer days of the year. That sends out a huge signal about the importance with which the Government regard English Heritage, on to which they have loaded additional responsibilities time and again—through the National Heritage Act 2002 and the new responsibilities that it took on from the Department in 2005—while all the time cutting its budget.
As the report pointed out, direct funding from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport has increased by only one fifth for architecture and historic environment, while that for sport has trebled and that for the arts has increased by three quarters. I again echo the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford when I say that while those increases are welcome, the fact that heritage is falling so far behind is another signal of where it stands in the pecking order.
The biggest single boost to heritage funding in British history came through the Heritage Lottery Fund. We estimate that that sector alone has lost £1.5 billion since 1998 because of Government changes to the lottery. Our approach to this issue at the last election was well known: we wanted lottery money to be returned to the original good causes. We estimated that that move would bring around £4 billion of extra money to arts and heritage over a seven-year licence period. Instead, grants from the Heritage Lottery Fund are set to fall by almost £100 million a year between 2003-04 and 2007-08. Given all that, it will not surprise the House to learn that the heritage sector views with
enormous trepidation the comprehensive spending review and the impact of the lottery.
Another important aspect of the Committee’s report was its focus on fiscal policy. The Chairman was rightly critical of what he sees as the missed opportunity that the Chancellor was given by the European Union to reduce the rate of VAT for repairs to listed buildings. The position on VAT is strange indeed. We know that new buildings attract no VAT. We know that approved alterations to listed buildings attract no VAT. Yet repairs and maintenance, the most common undertaking for listed buildings, attract VAT at the standard rate. Somewhat perversely, that regime encourages the alteration or demolition of listed buildings but not their repair.
As the Select Committee pointed out, the current situation rewards neglect and works against the conscientious maintenance of historic assets. We need less regeneration and more new build. Furthermore, the current situation discriminates against small, non-VAT rated bodies that are unable to reclaim VAT after carrying out repairs with English Heritage grant money. The Treasury recognises the peculiarity of the situation as regards churches and memorials, and under the listed places of worship scheme it returns the VAT in the form of grant. The report makes a strong recommendation that the Government should consider a similar grant scheme for listed buildings, or at the least to relevant charitable institutions. Heritage Link is waiting for the Government to make detailed proposals.
On the privately owned sector, which opens private houses to the public, the Historic Houses Association has called for the introduction of limited fiscal relief for the maintenance of historic buildings, which would be particularly beneficial and cost-effective. It could help some 500 owners a year. The revenue for many is insufficient to fund maintenance and repairs, and grant support from English Heritage is now inadequate to fill anything more than a small part of the gap. As I said, heritage lottery funding support, which is already dropping, is not generally available for that purpose. These are factors that need to be closely considered.
A White Paper is imminent. It has been expected for a couple of years, and it will be welcome when it arrives. It has been 25 years since the last major update of heritage legislation, and although the Minister and I were not still in nappies, we were at school. Currently, various Acts deal with planning, listed buildings, ancient monuments, burial grounds and churches. Legislation is needed to clarify the situation.
Let me list what we would welcome in the White Paper. We would welcome a single register for historic sites and building. We would welcome an enhanced role for local authorities, but we will certainly want to question the Government closely on what resources will be available to local authorities. We would welcome a proposal to introduce management agreements for the conservation of heritage sites. We would also welcome moves to make the system more transparent and to allow the public access to information about the historic environment. However, we will ask the Government to strike a sensible balance between access and confidentiality. We would support any measure
that increased community involvement, although we have serious concerns about the remarks made by the Secretary of State last November. We do not particularly want to see a free-for-all, and we hope that English Heritage will still maintain a lead role in designating heritage sites.
At the last election, the Conservative party manifesto was an arts and heritage manifesto. I pay tribute to my predecessor as shadow Minister for the Arts, not least because he is now my boss; the hon. Member for East Devon (Mr. Swire) did important work in making the heritage an important part of our thinking in the run-up to the election. It is no doubt painfully obvious that I am relatively new to my post. However, I hope to make the same commitment to the heritage and bring the same passion to bear as we lead up to the next general election.
6.29 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr. David Lammy): It is a pleasure to follow my good friend, the hon. Member for Wantage (Mr. Vaizey). We were together last night at the Oxford Union, and he roundly beat me in debate by seven votes.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale) on the work of his Committee. I am particularly grateful that the Committee decided to inquire into this subject. Its current inquiry into museums, libraries and archives is hugely important. Much has been said today about strengthening my elbow in relation to conversations with the Treasury, and I am grateful that so many Members from all parties have said that heritage is important. That point came up in discussion; the hon. Member for Salisbury (Robert Key) certainly raised it. We have been in a place as a country where it was deemed that there was no such thing as society. To refer to my party, we have also been in a place where the “new” of new Labour suggested that modernity was everything. I do not think that we are in that place any more. It is absolutely clear that our history, social cohesion, sense of community and sense of civic pride is absolutely underpinned by our heritage and culture. It is hugely important, and I am grateful for all that hon. Members have said in that regard. That is my position and that of the Government on these matters.
Since becoming a Minister for culture, I have thought a great deal about how our shared past helps to define identity within the communities of 21st century England, and it seems to me that this sector is absolutely central to the very helpful debate that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has started on Britishness. My Department has a huge contribution to make to that discussion, and I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor knows and understands that.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State wrote about the role of the Government in protecting and improving the built environment in her essay “Better Places to Live”, which was published in 2005. In that essay, she said that decision making about the built environment could not be left to an elite who claimed to understand such things better than the rest of us; that we needed to increase public engagement and
widen the sense of ownership of our historic environment. She also acknowledged that, if we are to preserve the things that embody our history and our identity, and leave a strong legacy for future generations, we need a system of protection that is prepared, when necessary, to make unpopular decisions that go against current fashion or commercial pressures.
Since the publication of that essay, my Department, together with English Heritage, the Heritage Lottery Fund and the National Trust, has carried out a great deal of work on the value that the public attach to heritage, including a major conference a year ago today on the public value of heritage. We are working to improve the rigour of the evidence base and raise the profile of the built and historic environment in public debate. I am pleased about some of the figures that hon. Members have been able to cite. A great many of those figures came out of the work done to establish and verify that this matter is hugely popular with our constituents throughout the country. Part of that debate has been the consultations that we have completed on the review of the heritage protection system, which have paved the way for us to publish concrete proposals to increase the openness, efficiency and effectiveness of the heritage protection system. I shall say a little more about that a bit later.
It is important for me to point out the amount allocated by the Department to all of its sponsored bodies with responsibilities for our cultural heritage in this country, lest the debate and the report give the impression that a lot of money is not going into the sector. In fact, half the overall departmental expenditure in the last comprehensive spending review—more than £1.6 billion in grant in aid—was allocated to English Heritage, our sponsored museums and the British Library. That is a clear indication of the strength of the Government’s commitment to the protection and preservation of our heritage.
The Committee also highlighted the importance of encouraging a culture of preventative maintenance.
Sir Patrick Cormack: Sir Neil Cossons himself has put it on record that
“English Heritage’s grant in aid from Government increased by only 3 per cent. between 2000 and 2006. Inflation during this period was 8.5 per cent... Over the same period, the Government’s grant to Sport England has increased by 98 per cent.”
That does not really square well with the Minister’s figures.
Mr. Lammy: The hon. Gentleman is right in relation to English Heritage, but he may recall that in the previous spending review, English Heritage was subject to a quinquennial review that was quite critical. Much has been said about the role of Sir Neil Cossons and Simon Thurley in turning that organisation around. However, following the review it was clear that the organisation was bureaucratic and in need of serious modernisation, and that it was not the time to provide it with further funds. Owing to the efficiencies that it made during the previous spending period, largely due to the efforts of all its staff, it will be able to plough about £28 million back into the organisation in the next spending period.
It is important to understand where English Heritage has travelled from and where it is now, and we are obviously pleased that the most recent peer review has brought us up to date with the changes that have been made. The review has a bearing on the type of discussions that hon. Members would expect the Department to have with the Treasury at this time.
Nevertheless, it is important to understand that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs also promotes environment-related options as part of its environmental stewardship schemes. That support amounted to an estimated £90 million between 2000 and 2005, which is why the Treasury remains committed to negotiating at EU level a permanent reduced rate of VAT for repairs and maintenance work on many of our most important heritage sites, and particularly on our listed places of worship.
I recognise that the heritage sector feels strongly that there should be a zero rate for building repairs generally. We will continue to work with the sector to consider the evidence, and we will continue our discussions with the Treasury on that point. I cannot of course say much about the forthcoming spending review, except that I am grateful to all hon. Members for maintaining the case and for helping to articulate the contribution that the sector makes not only to the economy through tourism but to the life of the nation.
We welcome the involvement of the heritage sector in the Department’s advisory forum for the cultural Olympiad. English Heritage, the Heritage Lottery Fund, the Historic Royal Palaces and the Royal Parks are key partners in that work, as are other bodies such as Heritage Link. The Government have renewed their commitment to heritage as one of the lottery good causes beyond 2009, and they have pledged that the percentage share of the non-Olympic causes money that is dedicated to heritage will remain until 2019. We accept that using national lottery funding for London 2012 represents a loss of income for the non-Olympic good causes, but we rightly remain convinced of the huge benefits that will accrue to the sector.
I remind hon. Members that, although Australia’s heritage is not as old as ours, Sydney and Australia, and their museums and heritage sector in particular, gained hugely from the Sydney Olympics in the years following the games. All estimates suggest that we will benefit from the tourism and the spotlight on this country. I shall visit Sydney shortly to find out how its sectors benefited, but I am told that according to estimates, there was an increase in income of up to 30 per cent. That must have a bearing on discussions, notwithstanding what the Secretary of State said to the Committee last year. I am not able to add to that, because the discussions with the Treasury are ongoing.
The Government also remain committed to helping to preserve our historic churches. We are considering whether there is a role for the Government in ensuring that the guardians of all our listed religious buildings are able to tap into the expertise that is available. The listed places of worship scheme has given more than £54 million since 2001 and more than 8,500 buildings have benefited. Cathedrals have received £43 million from English Heritage since 1991 and the latest round of grants will soon be announced.
My commitment to cathedrals in this country is on record. They make a huge contribution to cities way beyond the people of faith in those cities. In the present context, there have to be determinations about the priorities within the family formed by our church buildings. We recognise that there are real needs, particularly in relation to our rural churches. We were pleased to be in partnership and to respond positively to and welcome the “Inspired” campaign earlier this year. Against that backdrop, it is important to understand that it was widely accepted 10 years ago that many of our cathedrals were on their knees, and that the money that has gone in has been very helpful.
I hear what hon. Members have to say in relation to cathedrals and churches—particularly rural churches, and I applaud the work of the Historic Chapels Trust and the Church Conservation Trust. They have done a fantastic job for the churches in their care. All of that, together with the “Inspired” campaign, must be part of the conversations that we continue to have with the Treasury as we go forward. Hon. Friends also drew attention to the need for adequate resources at a local authority level. My Department and English Heritage have made a full assessment of the costs of implementing the new reforms, which will be considered as part of the spending review. It is, of course, the case that we would expect those new burdens to be funded and for the capacity to be there. We are working with English Heritage on that. Online resources put out by English Heritage are available for everyone on historic management at a local level. We have, of course, considered that issue.
We are in the final stages of the heritage protection review, and it was right that we waited for the Committee’s report. I undertake to publish the White Paper before the Easter recess and I hope that hon. Members will be pleased about that.
On world heritage sites, I am grateful that so many colleagues from the north-east are here today. Although my Department has a leading role in protecting the historic environment, we work closely and effectively with other Departments, particularly in relation to world heritage. We now have 27 world heritage sites across the UK and in our overseas territories. They are all outstanding in their own way and the UK is in the top five of well-represented countries in terms of the number of sites that we have inscribed. Last year, the World Heritage committee added the Cornwall and west Devon mining landscape to the world heritage list, and this year the committee will consider Darwin in Down for inclusion—Charles Darwin’s historic home and workplace.
The inscription of the world heritage list is only the beginning. All of our sites must be and, indeed, are managed to the highest professional standards. We take our responsibility for world heritage very seriously. That is why we were pleased to welcome the UNESCO missions to London and Liverpool at the end of last year. We will be reporting back constructively to the World Heritage committee at the beginning of February. We will take the opportunity in the heritage protection review to clarify and strengthen our protection for world heritage sites. I also note the importance of management plans as part of that process.
The hon. Member for Salisbury rightly raises the profound and deep concerns that he has had over a long time in relation to Stonehenge. I put it on record that I agree that, notwithstanding the important issues of affordability, it is a national disgrace that successive Governments have been unable to sort out that problem. Despite the —
It being fifteen minutes to Seven o’clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the sitting lapsed, without Question put.
| Index | Home Page |