---

Heritage

I was 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 it 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””. 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.