C O N T E X T 9 7 : N O V E M B E R 2 0 0 6 17 English Heritage; to introduce a new voluntary management system for complex sites; and to introduce a unified regime for applying for consent for works to historic assets. If the secretary of state was proposing any radicalism, it was not to emerge during the inquiry. Respondents to the committee’s call for evidence were therefore clearly hoping for more, in particular for a statement on the value of heritage to the nation, engendering a sense of personal identity, place and community, pride, and maintenance of community memory; improving a community’s quality of life; offering value as a cultural, educational and economic resource, and as a means to fulfilling cross-government objectives. Whatever the outcome of the inquiry and the government’s response to it, it was clear that expectations within the sector had been raised however comprehensive (or otherwise) the white paper would eventually turn out to be. Furthermore, there were expectations that heritage should address other pressing unresolved issues such as Shimitzu and go beyond only those identified by English Heritage through the HPR. Oral evidence was taken in six sessions in February to April from the national amenity societies; the redundant churches sector; the National Trust; the HHA and CLA; professional organisations including the IHBC, IFA and ALGAO; and ecclesiastical and industrial archaeological interests. Liverpool and Manchester City Councils, English Partnerships and the Northwest Regional Development Agency gave evidence at a session in Liverpool and concluded in London with the Heritage Lottery Fund; Heritage Link; English Heritage and the two government ministers. The inquiry produced four volumes documenting the written submissions, the evidence and its conclusions. The committee made 57 recommendations. The documents can be downloaded from www.publications.parliament. uk/pa/cm200506/cmselect/ cmcumeds/912/91202.htm. The government is obliged to respond formally to select committee inquiries and should have done so in this case by the time you read this (although it had not appeared by the time this article was written). The committee concluded that historic buildings were at risk unless the sector was properly resourced. It concluded that the government must start to provide English Heritage with the money and political support it needed. ‘We find the logic underlying DCMS’s explanation of why funding to English Heritage has decreased in real terms in recent years unconvincing, and it inevitably leads observers to conclude that its claim to attach priority to heritage issues is cosmetic and not borne out by the facts.’ The committee called on the government to ‘take action to ensure that English Heritage can fulfil its functions properly’ and warned that English Heritage should not be expected to fund its portion of the costs of setting up the government’s new heritage protection regime unless it received more funding. MPs questioned the extent to which the DCMS championed heritage in joined-up working across government and urged the secretary of state to convince the Treasury to supply the financial support which the historic environment deserves. The committee was particularly disappointed that the DCMS had failed to ensure tax breaks for repair work on listed buildings. ‘The present VAT regime for repairs distorts priorities, rewards neglect and works against conscientious maintenance of historic assets. The result can be either a slide towards demolition or a call on public funds for grant aid’. This conclusion aligned with the ODPM Select Committee’s views in 2004 in its heritage and regeneration inquiry. The prime minister also came under criticism for failing to include the UK’s heritage in his letter to Tessa Jowell outlining the challenges facing her department. It was felt that this did not auger well for a forthcoming Heritage Bill. The committee commented: ‘The omission of a reference to the importance of the historic environment from the prime minister’s recent ‘priorities letter’ to the DCMS is a surprising and worrying omission... We encourage the DCMS to restate the priority it attaches to the role of the historic environment, and the government should remedy this omission in its response to this report’. The committee also urged that the campaign demonstrating the growing public appetite for knowledge about the past should be maintained, and that continuing engagement with historic sites would be the key to their preservation. ‘Heritage assets, once lost, can not be replaced; they are a very special resource and we are only now beginning to realise their full benefits.’ Finally, and crucially for the IHBC in particular, the committee called on the government to ensure that local authorities receive sufficient funding to enable them to discharge their new responsibilities under the new heritage protection reforms. This was the first specific Parliamentary inquiry into heritage since 1993. If it has had no other benefit, it has articulated many of the key concerns of the sector. The evidence captured and published by the committee will be invaluable in moving the aims of the sector forward. It is hoped that David Lammy – despite his lack-lustre performance before the committee – will agree. Bob Kindred MBE was special advisor to the House of Commons Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee’s inquiry into Heritage Protection and also gave evidence to the inquiry on behalf of the IHBC.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjgyMjA=