---

Science and Heritage (Science and Technology Committee Report)

I was struck by Government’s response to the report and re-read it. I rather like the first line: "““The Government welcomes the publication of the report””." That is a lie. I do not think the Government welcome it at all. The rest of the response does everything in its power to repudiate that premise. I am obviously quite prepared to put the boot into the DCMS, and this speech is my way of setting that out. This report has laid bare the fundamental failings of the department in one of its responsibilities. I know it is the Department for Culture, Media and Sport—although there was a question on Radio 4 this morning about whether it should be called the Department for the Olympics—but heritage seems to have slipped bythe wayside. I have a personal interest in this. When the All-Party Parliamentary Archaeological Group did a report on the state of archaeology in the 21st century, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport sent its chief architect, not its chief archaeologist. I am not sure if that was a mistake, or whether it was just that they both started with A. This is one of the problems. The response sets out in an interesting way the suggestion that the committee is completely wrong in saying that there is a problem because the department has looked into the matter, is putting it into the hands of its bodies and now it is up to them. However, the committee considered these points; it took evidence from a large number of people and found a fragmented area facing a democratic time bomb in relation to the practitioners undertaking the work. There is a real problem with career progression and many of the posts that are funded are not statutorily protected—they are in local museums—and are disappearing. It is quite possible that in a few years’ time the DCMS will be able to say that nobody complains about a problem in the profession because there will be so little of it left that there will be nobody to complain. The response hides behind the fact that the department would do something, but has to await the outcome of the CSR. I have heard that let-out clause in every heritage debate. The Minister is laughing because he has used that argument against me on at least three occasions that I can think of. The problem is that the situation is serious and we cannot wait. The DCMS said that its other bodies should take on the responsibility, but I believe that the DCMS is abdicating its responsibilities. It is quite clear that it has to take the lead role in this. In its priorities and objectives, it can hide behind the fact that it has set out that one of the objectives is conservation, but if the profession cannot undertake that work and cannot meet the need, there is a problem that the DCMS has to deal with. There is an example that showed that its objectives affect every museum in country. It is the worthy objective of access. Access is laudable, and it is ridiculous to have collections that are not on open view, but many museums have spent so much money on access that conservation, which has not been given the same push by the lead department, has been left by the wayside. I was struck by the response, because I have never read a response with such a petulant attitude. Page 2 implies that we are swimming in money for conservation: "““English Heritage currently receives £132 million in grant in aid per year, and has been able to allocate £9 million of this towards all kinds of research including conservation research. These are not inconsiderable sums””." The committee obviously overlooked the fact that£9 million is a lot of money. However, we are talking about the need that is set out. It would be one thing if £9 million was being given to the national galleries to preserve their picture collections or to the British Library to deal with the conservation of paper or problems with acid and ink or for dealing with fine fabrics or silk, building materials or the fabric of buildings, but over the whole range of those areas,£9 million is a pitiful amount of money. There are obviously budgetary restraints, and I am not advocating that we should spend incredible amounts of money, but we should at least say that £9 million is a drop in the ocean with the backlog in all the collections. I, too, welcome the fact that AHRC, with the help of the committee, has taken on the leadership role and I am very pleased to see that English Heritage has taken on the role of secretariat. But, with a budget of £132 million this year—and, of course, we are looking at cuts next year—how will they fund this position? I have been in many debates where English Heritage has been given more and more responsibilities on a falling budget. Therefore, is it a sustainable post, or are we just putting on a sticking plaster for the moment because a committee has reported and obtained a good deal of publicity? If the DCMS is to take on the role and responsibility, I very much hope that it will indicate that that needs funding in the CSR. I have just a simple question: if we are waiting for the outcome of the CSR, has any indication of need to fund the position of the secretariat by English Heritage been written into its spending commitments? If it has not, and we are awaiting the outcome of the CSR—although we do not have to wait for the outcome of the CSR—it will not have the money. Therefore, this will be a temporary position. This is one of the committees on which I have most enjoyed sitting because it has brought to light an important area that has not been looked at in the past and has brought into consideration an area which is facing severe crisis. We should not underestimate the difficulties. The Government response has papered over that as if the crisis is of someone else’s making and does not exist. I very much hope that the Government will look again at some of these recommendations and will come forward with some more positive aspects. On the basis of their response to the committee’s report, I believe that the situation will get worse and not better.