Concern over plans to split English Heritage
Parliamentary debate raises worries over organisation’s financial viability
A parliamentary debate on the government’s proposals to split English Heritage into two organisations has raised concerns about its financial viability going forward.
A consultation paper into the future of the organisation proposes that from 2015 English Heritage will become a new charity charged with running the national heritage collection, including Stonehenge, Kenwood House, and Audley End.
Its current responsibilities for conserving England’s historic environment will be delivered by a separate body to be called Historic England.
Under the proposals, English Heritage will be self-financing by 2023, but will receive an initial £80m grant to address repairs to existing properties.
Jenny Chapman, who called the debate, said the most significant concerns centred on the financial model, whether the new charity could achieve self-sustainability in the timeframe proposed, and how that would affect its resources.
“It would be a tragedy if the quality of curation that English Heritage has managed to achieve were diminished,” she said. “The government’s intention is to give the charity an £80m one-off investment to tackle a significant backlog of conservation defects.
“That backlog has arisen, even with the grant-in-aid funding and the current arrangements, and there is concern that such a backlog could occur again.”
John Whittingdale, chairman of the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee, said that the £80m grant may not be enough to address the existing backlog: “Some people argue that the maintenance and repair backlog for English Heritage properties is even greater. Indeed, I have seen figures of up to £100m.”
Whittingdale also raised concerns that if properties became unsustainable, the new charity might take money from Historic England’s budget or divest itself of the properties.
Helen Goodman, the shadow minister for culture, said: “What will happen to English Heritage’s role as custodian of last resort?”
“Nothing will change under the new model,” said culture minister Edward Vaizey. “English Heritage will still be, potentially, the owner of last resort. A whole range of factors, depending on the particular situation, will influence whether it chooses to step in.
“When it becomes the owner of last resort, English Heritage tries to move the property on. Sometimes it will stay in the national collection, but often English Heritage will want to put it back with a different owner to continue its future.”
The debate follows a series of responses questioning the government’s plans.
The Council for British Archaeology would like to see contingency plans to cover possible risks to the collection following the removal of grant-in-aid in 2023, while Rescue, the British Archaeological Trust, questioned the “practical consequences if the decline in grant-in-aid is not matched by a corresponding increase in donations and other support”.
A spokeswoman for the Department for Culture, Media and Sport said that it would be making its response to the consultation this summer.
A consultation paper into the future of the organisation proposes that from 2015 English Heritage will become a new charity charged with running the national heritage collection, including Stonehenge, Kenwood House, and Audley End.
Its current responsibilities for conserving England’s historic environment will be delivered by a separate body to be called Historic England.
Under the proposals, English Heritage will be self-financing by 2023, but will receive an initial £80m grant to address repairs to existing properties.
Jenny Chapman, who called the debate, said the most significant concerns centred on the financial model, whether the new charity could achieve self-sustainability in the timeframe proposed, and how that would affect its resources.
“It would be a tragedy if the quality of curation that English Heritage has managed to achieve were diminished,” she said. “The government’s intention is to give the charity an £80m one-off investment to tackle a significant backlog of conservation defects.
“That backlog has arisen, even with the grant-in-aid funding and the current arrangements, and there is concern that such a backlog could occur again.”
John Whittingdale, chairman of the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee, said that the £80m grant may not be enough to address the existing backlog: “Some people argue that the maintenance and repair backlog for English Heritage properties is even greater. Indeed, I have seen figures of up to £100m.”
Whittingdale also raised concerns that if properties became unsustainable, the new charity might take money from Historic England’s budget or divest itself of the properties.
Helen Goodman, the shadow minister for culture, said: “What will happen to English Heritage’s role as custodian of last resort?”
“Nothing will change under the new model,” said culture minister Edward Vaizey. “English Heritage will still be, potentially, the owner of last resort. A whole range of factors, depending on the particular situation, will influence whether it chooses to step in.
“When it becomes the owner of last resort, English Heritage tries to move the property on. Sometimes it will stay in the national collection, but often English Heritage will want to put it back with a different owner to continue its future.”
The debate follows a series of responses questioning the government’s plans.
The Council for British Archaeology would like to see contingency plans to cover possible risks to the collection following the removal of grant-in-aid in 2023, while Rescue, the British Archaeological Trust, questioned the “practical consequences if the decline in grant-in-aid is not matched by a corresponding increase in donations and other support”.
A spokeswoman for the Department for Culture, Media and Sport said that it would be making its response to the consultation this summer.