---

Science and Heritage (Science and Technology Committee Report)

I congratulate all those concerned in producing this splendid and timely report, particularly as I understand that the committee’s inquiry was the first ever major parliamentary investigation into the science underpinning the conservation of our heritage. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, for giving us the opportunity for this debate, as well as for her wide-ranging introduction. This country has greatly benefited from the quality and quantity of its 1,800 museums and galleries, and their managers are worried about funding, both now and in the future. Even the unique British Library says that it may have to charge its readers. I shall refer to two examples from my personal knowledge, which come within the ambit of scientific heritage where there is concern over funding. First, the Churchill Museum, part of the Imperial War Museum, which won the European Museum of the Year award last year and uses new technology to fantastic effect in promoting its important message. Receiving no government funding, its entry fee is£14 per person. I have no doubt that there are special arrangements for schoolchildren and others in special categories, but it seems extraordinary that a museum with such a valuable message should have to make such a high charge for people wishing to visit it. The second example is the conservation centre which is part of the National Museums Liverpool where, for example, laser technology has been developed for conservation purposes. I am glad that the committee was able to visit Liverpool last year to see the rage of work being carried out. I recognise that government funding was eventually made available for the conservation centre and its work—and very welcome it was, too. There is always ongoing and continuing anxiety for the future, however. Perhaps in addition to those two examples, I might refer to training in heritage skills, to embrace new technology—which is again vital for the future and survival of so much of our heritage. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton, referred to this in her contribution, I shall not dwell on the matter, but it is an important area. I want to push the Minister hard on the issue of funding in view of the DCMS’s response to the report, which states that "““there remain uncertainties about the outcome of the forthcoming Comprehensive Spending Review for DCMS and other government departments with responsibilities for cultural heritage””." What exactly does that mean? If there are to be cuts where will the money go instead? I say this not in a spirit of criticism of the department and the people presently in it, but to give them the opportunity to pass on pressure to the Treasury. In my experience of various departments, pressure from your Lordships’ House has been quite useful. I am not a Member of the Committee, and although I have attempted to go through its weighty report, I have not read every word. I am not therefore sure about all the international comparisons and input that went into it, apart from the references and the visit to Italy. I say this because I think that this issue of scientific heritage is a subject on which the Council of Europe committee on which I serve, which deals with education, science and sport, might well be interested in pursuing. Input from the 46 member countries of the Council of Europe would produce a fascinating next stage of the subject. In this International Polar Year, it is appropriate to refer to activities in the Arctic and Antarctica. Some might say that that is more in the field of the environment than heritage, but a prime example of where heritage and science merge in Antarctica is the need to preserve the 100 year-old Scott and Shackleton huts. The Government needed some urging on this, but finally in February this year, I am happy to say they pledged £250,000 towards the preservation of the Scott hut. I hope that the Shackleton hut will soon receive similar funding. It may be that the funding covers both huts. I hope that the Government will be equally generous in supporting the current search for Shackleton’s ““Endurance”” by Blue Water Recoveries, which has set out its objectives as follows: "““This venture will be the first expedition ever to attempt to locate one of the world’s most famous shipwrecks below the ice cover of the Weddell Sea. Due to the depth of the wreck (below 3,000 metres) and the extreme polar temperatures of the Weddell Sea, we have a unique opportunity to find Endurance in almost pristine conditions—a time capsule of Shackleton’s harrowing voyage. The expedition will also support a programme of scientific research in this unique deep-sea environment, which shall increase our knowledge and understanding of this un-explored area enormously””." To go from the particular to the general, I very much welcome the report’s strong, underlying theme of the need for a co-ordinated and strategic approach in general. I welcome the response of the Arts and Heritage Research Council and the English Heritage proposals. I hope that English Heritage will receive the support that has been referred to by others in the debate. In particular, I approve the idea of the appointment of a director of research, chief scientist, champion for heritage or research, or whatever we choose to call it. Like my noble friend Lord Waldegrave, I do not expect everyone to remember who was responsible for what in the past, but one inevitably recollects rather well those things in which one played a part. I draw a comparison with the passage of the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 when, as the Lords Minister concerned, I had the pleasure of announcing the first appointment of a director for National Health Service research. That was a direct result of the insistence of many distinguished medical experts, then Members of your Lordships’ House. I hope that the Minister will have the same opportunity to carry out a similar pleasant duty by announcing the appointment of a champion for heritage research.