---

Science and Heritage (Science and Technology Committee Report)

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Rising, for introducing an element of balance into the debate which will enable me to plot a path midway between two perspectives. I did not see that path very clearly until he spoke. The report is cogently argued and makes some very important points, and I am all too well aware of the expertise of those who contributed to this debate. The Members of the Committee were supplemented by two noble Lords who had ministerial experience in the area that we are discussing today. Consequently, a formidable array of challenging speeches was made on this important issue. I am conscious that, as ever with reports of this kind, there was a certain pre-emption of the Government’s likely response, so one or two contributions foretold dismal pessimism on my part. If I partially fulfil that in some way, I will have met the forebodings of some Members of the Committee while not advancing the Government’s cause a great deal. I shall not be pessimistic, but I am realistic about what we can achieve. I shall deal first of all with something of a canard about the way in which the department is wildly enthusiastic about sport, while having limited commitment to museums and heritage. It is not so. The difference is clear. The noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, expressed this point, and others did too. Noble Lords should recognise the difference between the relationship of the department to sporting bodies, such as Sport England, and the museums and heritage sector. We can both direct resources to Sport England and establish priorities. We can expect to get things done. It will be recognised in this Room that many noble Lords have a significant role in museums and will not accept that the DCMS is in a position of direction. I went to the British Museum this morning. We were talking about the issues of the sculptures from the Parthenon and part of the illustration was a brilliant display of how the latest scientific techniques can enhance one’s appreciation of them. The museum illustrated the way the sculptures might have been painted in the past and produced images of how they could have looked in the great days 2,000 years ago. It was done through computer graphics in an extremely interesting way, and it is a real challenge to think about the Parthenon in those terms. The other message that was fairly clear was that we will carry on talking about the future of the Parthenon marbles and about our relationship to the understandable and well-documented position of the Greeks on these issues, but we do not expect government policy to intrude in that area. We all understand why. After all, we know that the British Museum is established by statute. Its trustees have direct responsibility for its work and have had a responsibility to the British nation over several hundred years. The DCMS, even if it dreamed of it, has no capacity to interfere directly in such circumstances and exercise such powers. I accept, of course, challenges on how far the Government have made progress in areas in which the committee is greatly concerned, and I shall try to answer the detailed points that were raised. However, I will not accept unfair criticisms suggesting that somehow the DCMS ought to equip itself with a chief scientific adviser—who once or twice began to sound more like a gauleiter than an adviser—who would aid the department by giving instructions to all and sundry on how we could make a better job of protecting our heritage. That is not how the DCMS can be expected to work. Even if we started down such a track, the criticism would be even more ferocious than that of the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, about our failure to act with sufficient speed. I pay tribute to the committee for its work and to the chairmanship of the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp. We are taking a great deal of the report seriously on board. I was asked about time scales. There are two determinants on that issue. When the issue of resources emerges, it will be recognised that we have to await the Comprehensive Spending Review. The department is governed by that in the same way as all other government departments. It is unfortunate that I am responding to this debate at this particular time. I have no doubt that I shall be responding to a similar one after the CSR has been decided and after the department has identified its priorities and where its expenditure is going in greater detail. I have not the slightest doubt that the debate will be exceedingly lively on that occasion. I apologise for being unable to be more definitive today. If it is for one moment suggested that the Government have a limited commitment to the museums, let us look back over the past decade. Many of us hoped to see the rapid removal of museum fees and to make access to our great museums free as soon as we came into office. It took us four years to realise that objective because it was an issue of resources. These things do not come without cost; there was a significant loss of revenue once charges were taken away. Of course, the Government had to guarantee that the institutions did not suffer from such loss of revenue. It will not do for us to gloss over the revenue issues, but I emphasise that expenditure on our heritage has been significant. We stand proudly on our record, which is evidence of our commitment for the future. I do not gainsay the fact that resources over the next four to five years will not be as extensive as they have been over the past five or six—the Chancellor has made that fairly clear, after all. Public expenditure will be restrained to a certain degree, but I emphasise that that does not alter the Government’s real commitment to this important sector. The committee has done its most successful work in highlighting that we perhaps do not sufficiently appreciate the relationship between the application of science and our heritage in these terms. It is suggested that the department ought to be able to answer all these questions on resources. The committee says that we have inadequate resources for heritage protection, and that that is a threat to heritage science; it is expressed in fairly cataclysmic terms. The problem is that the committee is like the department: producing a roll call of the resources involved in this work is exceedingly difficult. The noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, indicated that there were contradictions between different contributors to this area in her opening speech. One colossal and significant resource, the amount of this work done in universities, is nothing to do with the department as such. We do not control the resources for universities, nor are we in a position greatly to influence them. However, no one doubts that that is an area of significant resources. My point is that the committee has helped to identify areas where the department needs to make progress and develop an understanding of which resources can be employed. I ask the committee to recognise that identification is different from direction, however. Although I can see the case for the chief scientific adviser—and am therefore somewhat at odds with the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Rising, who says that he does not—the advice we are currently getting will be considered over the course of the summer, so that we have a position on the issue. The committee has therefore helped to stimulate this work. It is not as timely as many members of the committee would wish. However, I can guarantee that this part of the work of the committee and this recommendation have been taken seriously and will be brought to fruition very soon. In response to this debate, I therefore want to emphasise the gains which have obtained from the work which the committee has carried out. It has thrown light on an area which has been relatively under-considered in the past. I cannot identify a debate which has concentrated on this important area before. It also brings together the work of scientists, technologists and, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton, indicated, craftsmen. It has brought all those features into an area where too often perhaps they have been underestimated in terms of their role, although I recognise the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Waldegrave. We also are proud of our great institutions with regard to science and the Science Museum, where we have taken care to enhance understanding of those achievements. However, it cannot be anything but good for us to appreciate rather more the relationship between the development of scientific techniques to enhance, protect and develop our heritage, which is a great element of the burden of what the committee has to say. In response to the committee, I have to say that I cannot be precise about spending at this present time. I certainly cannot be precise about the time at which a chief scientific adviser might be appointed, but I am giving an indication of the timeframe in which the decision will be taken. I cannot give the assurances that the committee want with regard to funding for the future. However, the report has been what I think that the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, said that she hopes that it will be—a catalyst for action. That is how the department is responding. These are not easy areas at this point in time. We all recognise the constraints on expenditure and there is never a recommendation from a committee which has not got implications for priorities within government. The committee is to be congratulated on identifying an important area of work which perhaps had not been identified in quite the graphic way in which it has been by the committee. I pay due tribute to all the work that has been done and I thank all Members of the Committee who have contributed to the debate. I have no doubt that the committee has greatly appreciated the support that it has had from others who have contributed, however difficult that may have made my job in responding to the committee’s report.