---

Science and Heritage (Science and Technology Committee Report)

rose to move, That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the ninth report of the Science and Technology Committee on Science and Heritage (HL Paper 256). The noble Baroness said: Our debate today concerns an inquiry which a sub-committee of the Science and Technology Committee undertook last year under my chairmanship whose purpose was to examine the application of science and technology to the care and conservation of our cultural heritage. Some people were somewhat surprised that we took up this issue because it is, as the government response rightly points out, "““an area that does not always receive the highest level of public attention””." Our reasons were twofold. First, it had been suggested to us that this might be an interesting, if hidden, area of science and technology to explore, as indeed it proved to be. Secondly, it fitted well with the theme of sustainability that had been running through a series of our investigations into subjects such as energy and water. This debate gives us a chance both to reflect back on what we said in that report, to consider the Government’s response and to take a look at developments in the past nine months since we reported. In this respect, the committee can feel reasonably well pleased, for this seems to be one of those rare occasions when a Select Committee report has proved to be something of a catalyst for action. Although by no means all our recommendations are being acted upon, it is very gratifying, first, that our recommendations were so well received by those involved in this field of activity and secondly, and most importantly, that so many of them are now being implemented. Before going any further, I start by giving thanks to all those who helped us with our enquiry; to those who wrote in with evidence and those who came to give evidence in person before the committee and/or participated in our seminars; to the museums and galleries which gave us a chance to see behind the scenes and visit their conservation departments; to the National Trust, which welcomed us to Blickling Hall to see the work that it is carrying out there; and to the Italian Government and the British Embassy staff in Italy who enabled us, on a very brief visit, to gain some splendid insights into how these issues are dealt with in that country. But above all I would like to thank and pay tribute to our specialist adviser, Professor Cassar, and to our Clerk, Christopher Johnson, without whom this report would not have been written or proved so pertinent. As chairman of the committee I, in particular, owe a great debt of gratitude to them both. There was one central and dominant conclusion to our report. It was that this is an area of science and technology, albeit a highly specialist one, in which Britain has in the past led the world but which has in the last two decades been in decline and which will decline further and much more seriously unless urgent action is taken. Conservation science or—as we preferred to call it, because it actually goes wider than just conservation—heritage science, provides the basic underpinning for preservation of our cultural heritage. As science and technology moves forward, so it is essential that there are those who are not only familiar with the old processes and techniques but can also access and make use of the new. Yet the generation of scientists who moved into the profession in the 1960s and 1970s and led it to pre-eminence are now about to retire, and unless moves are taken quickly to bring on a new generation to take over from them, this vital interface will be lost. Does that matter? Our answer was an unequivocal yes, because it behoves us as a society to make sure that future generations can benefit from and enjoy our cultural heritage as much as we do. That is what conservation is all about. Yet it was very clear that conservation, let alone the development of new techniques of conservation, ranked very low in government priorities. Indeed, we accuse the Department for Culture, Media and Sport of breaching the Government’s own sustainability code, which asks all departments to, "““ensure that the natural resources needed for life are unimpaired and remain so for future generations””." Conservation gets no mention in the department’s strategic objectives or in the public service agreements that it negotiates with its non-departmental public bodies—organisations such as English Heritage, the Museums, Libraries and Archives Council and the major museums and galleries, to which it devolves responsibility in these matters. Yet with the country’s earnings from tourism, much of it cultural tourism, now running at over £38 billion, the potential loss is economic as well as cultural. Put that conclusion side by side with our other main conclusion—the fragmentation of the sector—and the recommendations follow rather naturally. Few would deny that the sector is fragmented. There is a central split between the moveable—museums and galleries—and the immoveable—buildings, structures and landscapes—heritage sectors. There is a split between the university and the non-university practitioners, between the public and the private sectors and between the large and the small players. As a result, there is no central strategic leadership in the sector. The DCMS, rather than filling that void, takes pride in the degree to which it devolves responsibility to the NDPBs. Those, the Government note in their response, "““are provided with annual grants to fulfil certain statutory (and, in some cases, charitable) aims relating to the ongoing conservation of cultural heritage””." As a result, as John Fidler notes in his letter commenting on the DCMS response: "““There is no upward synthesis of needs and concerns...One could argue that DCMS’s strategy is to ‘divide and conquer’—ie manage England’s heritage in small parcels so that cumulative impacts are lessened or lost in the detail””." Our prime recommendation was that the sector needs to overcome these divides and get its act together. It needs more resources especially now that the pot of money from the EU framework programmes that temporarily eased things has dried up or, more specifically, been diverted elsewhere, and it needs to use those resources to recruit and train a new generation of scientists to take over from those who led the field for the past 25 years. However, although resources are an important part of this regeneration process, they are not everything. As Professor Randal Richards said in his evidence, which appears at paragraph 4.13 of our report: "““One way to get research in this area going is if somebody has identified national priorities and you can then put together a consortium of scientists, arts and humanities experts and archaeologists””." The big question remains who that somebody to identify national priorities should be. Our recommendation here was that the sector should not rely on DCMS to provide that leadership. It has shown no inclination or willingness to do so. Moreover, it has been dragging its feet over the appointment of a chief scientific adviser in spite of a clear recommendation from the OST that it should do so back in 2004. It had only got as far as appointing Dr Michael Dixon on a temporary basis to advise it on how it might go about finding someone suitable when we started asking questions about what was happening. Instead we suggested that the sector take up English Heritage’s offer of a temporary secretariat and get together under its own auspices to develop a national strategy identifying key gaps and priorities for research. We felt strongly that given the fragmentation of the sector, this strategy needs to be developed bottom up, rather than being imposed top down, so that the different players can buy into the process. We suggested that, once appointed, the obvious person to chair the group would be the new chief scientist at the DCMS. Side by side with this exercise, we suggested that the community take up the Arts and Humanities Research Council’s offer—which in its evidence had said that it saw itself, within the research councils, as ““the champion”” for heritage science—and look to it to co-ordinate the setting up of a cross-research council initiative to galvanise new research activity. In research council jargon, we suggested that it set up a time-limited, directed programme of research aimed at both bringing in other research council money and raising resources from other sources, including the EU. We badly need a champion here. It is notable, for example, that the DCMS did not attend the meeting in Brussels in January this year when the Commission launched its plans for a European research area network on cultural heritage. Yet we know from long experience that unless there is someone at such meetings to speak up for and champion our national interests, we end up drawing the short straw. What has happened since our report? I have already mentioned the DCMS response, and I confess that we were all rather disappointed at its somewhat lukewarm wording, which essentially endorsed our proposals where others were the prime actors but refused to acknowledge our core conclusion that heritage science was in danger of serious decline and in need of clear, consistent leadership. Its line is clear: "““The governance and financial structures in place ensure that there are specific organisations with responsibilities for conservation of cultural heritage, that substantial resources are made available by Government ... and that decisions are made by trained professionals operating according to clear organisational objectives””." In other words, it sees no problem. And that despite the fact that it had been warned in the OST review in 2004 to make itself, "““aware of where NDPBs’ science is unique or hard to replace and of importance to wider Government/UK, so that it can ensure that expertise is not lost (e.g. by decisions on funding) without proper consultation and recognition of the consequences””." There is, incidentally, quite a contrast between this approach to heritage science and the one which the department takes towards sports science where its NDPBs are supported by strategic leadership and funding, including the funding of the National Sports Medicine Institute. Leaving the DCMS aside, however, I think we can be very happy with the response to our report. The AHRC has been true to its word. In conjunction with the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council it has already appointed a director for that programme. Indeed, the director is to be our specialist adviser, Professor Cassar, so we have great confidence that it will be carried forward with verve and determination. The programme is to run for five years and Professor Cassar’s key priorities will be to network hard, to lead on the development of the programme and, not least, to establish a baseline level of funding and a comprehensive map of current research—reflecting our finding that no one seemed to know how much money was going into research at the moment. The AHRC has written saying that support for heritage science now forms a major part of AHRC’s strategy for the next five years, 2007-12. We are strongly committed to this area of work, and the development of the programme already features as a priority for the forthcoming spending review, contingent on the provision of additional funding. It has also—and this too is very reassuring—joined the EU consortium bidding to establish the ““heritage.net””, which, if successful, will be the first significant initiative to co-ordinate research and training in the cultural heritage field across the EU. We have also had a note from English Heritage detailing actions that it is taking following our report. It cleared with the DCMS that it had the statutory authority to provide the secretariat to such a group, but I agree with John Fidler that the department has thrown a red herring in this respect. English Heritage has now convened an ad hoc steering group of the main players and is putting to it a proposal to appoint an experienced individual on a one-year contract to begin work on the formulation of a strategy. That individual will be asked to prepare three separate reports identifying priorities for action in terms of needs, research and training and to have all three prepared by next spring so that the group may work on drafting a strategy document next summer. I stress, however, that these are still proposals from English Heritage and they have to be endorsed by others. A meeting is planned for 17 July to be hosted by the British Library, which will bring the various stakeholders together to discuss these plans. I end by noting that other good things are happening outside these initiatives—for which we can perhaps claim some credit for pushing people in these directions. I shall mention just three that have come to my attention: the new British Library Centre for Conservation, which opened very recently; the Textile Conservation Centre at Winchester; and the Birmingham Museum & Art Gallery’s new conservation suite, funded through Renaissance in the Regions. All, in their different ways, promote knowledge and techniques of conservation. It is good to know that those things are happening, but—and I come back to where I began—they are for the moment but a drop in the ocean of a world that remains, as the current position of the Textile Conservation Centre illustrates well, uncertain. In making our recommendations, our hope was to suggest an infrastructure of greater coherence and greater certainty for these developments. We are much encouraged by the degree to which our report seems to have proved a catalyst for action within the cultural heritage community, and we shall go on urging the Government to be a bit more positive and less grudging in their support. I beg to move. Moved, That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the ninth report of the Science and Technology Committee on Science and Heritage (HL Paper 256).—(Baroness Sharp of Guildford.)