---

Heritage

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.