---

Science and Heritage (Science and Technology Committee Report)

It was a green Jaguar. I prefer red. We want to preserve these artefacts so that they can be accessed. There is always the debate about what is authentic. I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, took us down a very interesting road in that respect. As the noble Lord, Lord Waldegrave, and the noble Baroness, Lady Platt, made absolutely clear, conservation must take place before access can be given. Access cannot be at the expense of the preservation of artefacts and there must be a balance, as both noble Lords pointed out. It seems that, despite the committee’s report, there appears to have been very little evidence of any change of perception within the DCMS on the importance of developing the science base for conservation. In its response to the committee, the DCMS said that it regarded these matters as falling within the remit of its NDPBs and noted that, "““the Government does not believe that the governance and funding structure that is implied in such an arrangement necessarily imperils the maintenance of the science base for conservation or indeed the long-term preservation of cultural heritage””." How mealy-mouthed can you get? Its own NDPBs and the national museums, however, all gave evidence to the contrary. The DCMS’s response also cites the wording of one of its five strategic priorities as an example of its commitment to sustainable cultural heritage. It is an isolated example, unsupported by the PSA targets linked to the department’s strategic objectives, since these are all about increasing visitor numbers and wider participation and not about stewardship for the future. The report recommends that the DCMS appoint a chief scientific adviser who can provide the required leadership for developing heritage science. Seven months on from the publication of the report, the DCMS has not yet made any announcement on the appointment of a chief scientific adviser for the department. As we heard, Mike Dixon, the interim chief scientific adviser, has submitted a report to the DCMS on the appointment of a future permanent CSA. If the recommendations of this report are followed through, that person could have a major impact on the advancement of heritage science. Will the Mike Dixon report be published? Can the Minister tell us when the DCMS plans to make an appointment or even advertise an appointment? What practical measures has the DCMS taken since the report was published to support the implementation of its recommendations? The DCMS recently underwent a capability review, which makes 31 references to the Olympics and no reference at all to heritage in the context of forward plans. Is the DCMS really a safe pair of hands for the future of heritage science? As we also heard, the report recommended that the DCMS make a fairly small financial commitment to the future of heritage science in the United Kingdom by providing English Heritage with sufficient funding to run its small secretariat, which, as we heard, it has set up for the proposed national heritage science strategy. Why did the DCMS decide to make no additional funding available? Can the Minister tell us whether it will review this decision? How will the national heritage science strategy be sustained beyond the lifetime of the designated English Heritage post? Who will take responsibility and who will provide funding? The DCMS recently held a consultation on the future of museums in the 21st century and part ofthe focus was on the future of the workforce. Will the DCMS ensure that the importance of the sustainability of the conservation science workforce forms part of the picture that emerges when it publishes its final report, because we have heard of the skills shortages and the worries for the future throughout this debate. The Arts and Humanities Research Council and the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council have announced a new science and heritage research programme. The amount of funding which this programme will have at its disposal has not yet been announced. When will the funding level be announced? Why is there such a contrast with sports science, mentioned by my noble friend Lady Sharp and a number of other Members of the Committee, where the DCMS takes leadership? This committee has come back with a superb blueprint, but it is clear that the DCMS needs to grasp the nettle. As my noble friend Lord Redesdale made so clear, its response is totally unsatisfactory and needs revising. I hope that the Minister will deliver a clear vision today, not simply a set of excuses.