| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): I call Mr. Tony Banks.
11.41 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr. Tony Banks): Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You can call me Quasimodo if you wish.
There are times when one finds oneself at the Dispatch Box after everyone has departed feeling that one would more suitably wring necks than bells, but, even at this unlikely hour, it is more pleasing to talk about church bells than to have six bells kicked out of me over the sale of World cup tickets. I thank the hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) for giving me notice of the main points that he wished to debate. It will enable me, I hope, to give him a constructive reply.
The hon. Gentleman is one of the characters of the House; I think that we can all, even at this late hour, agree on that. Certainly tonight, he managed to put the camp back into campanology. I assure him that the Government are firmly committed to the preservation of heritage in all its forms, including church bells, but there will always be conflict between preserving the best of our history and providing useful and practical facilities for today. We are
confronted with the dilemma regularly, particularly, for example, in respect of sports stadiums, cinemas, leisure complexes and shopping centres. I am facing such a dilemma over the Milton Keynes shopping centre. I assure the hon. Gentleman that, by comparison, Solomon's judgment was a bit of a doddle.
The hon. Gentleman has highlighted a specific example that he is interested in, and revealed extensive knowledge. He always surprises us, and tonight, he has told me things that I never knew or guessed at. I will now go away and assiduously study Bell Ringers News, The Ringing Times or whatever it was that he flourished at me. He asks: do we try simply to retain ancient fabric, or do we provide the best facilities for today's bell ringers? I understand his point. Inevitably, some compromise will be required.
English Heritage's statutory remit is, in part, to preserve the element of our heritage that is most important in terms of architectural and historical significance. In practice, of course, that generally means buildings that are listed grade 1, grade 2 star or grade 2 in conservation areas. That includes a large number of ecclesiastical buildings. Over the past five years, English Heritage has offered £57 million in grants for church conservation works and a further £18 million for cathedrals.
Given its specific locus, English Heritage does not offer funding for the restoration of church bells. However, English Heritage and the Heritage Lottery Fund are now in the second year of a joint venture to fund heritage works in churches and other places of worship. The Heritage Lottery Fund's remit allows it to fund works to buildings and structures that are not of outstanding architectural or historic interest. That enables the joint scheme to encompass a wide scope of projects, including church bells. I understand that 70 applications have been advised on by English Heritage.
The scheme has been a huge success. English Heritage and the Heritage Lottery Fund jointly provided £20 million in 1997-98. A further £20 million is available for 1998-99. However, there have been 1,194 applications. If they were all granted, the total cost would be £186 million. The demand is clearly greater than the funds available. However, bell ringing associations now have a new stream of funding. There may have been some difficulties in adapting to the rigours of public accounting, but the new pool of money is a huge bonus for bells and ringers.
The new stream of funding has created some debate about priorities for church bells. Bell ringing associations consider their church bells to be musical instruments and are understandably concerned to ensure that any works take advantage of technical advances that can improve the tone of ringing and the ease of playing. The joint scheme focuses primarily on the preservation of the heritage and conservation of historic fabric, but in assessing applications from bell ringing associations, English Heritage is most concerned about how the proposed works make use of existing bells, their frames and beams.
English Heritage fully appreciates the views of the bell ringers, and is working hard to accommodate them in its overall remit to preserve the heritage. English Heritage could not recommend heritage funding for a scheme that removed existing bells and associated apparatus wholesale. Equally, English Heritage would not see it as
a conservation success if the bell frame and other supports were retained at its insistence, but could not be used by the ringers. That would make no sense.
A great deal of time and energy has been committed to resolving the dilemma, in consultation with appropriate organisations such as the Council for the Care of Churches and the Central Council of Church Bell Ringers. I am sure that more practical compromises will emerge that allow for the retention of original fabric, while meeting the aspirations of the bell ringers.
The hon. Gentleman mentions the debate about repairing bells by welding cracks rather than recasting the entire bell. He seems strangely reluctant to encourage new technology in that case, although he is keen to use new technology for the bell frames. Welding cracked bells is a new technique that may need improvement, but it seems successful. English Heritage is not aware of any complaints about the results.
As the hon. Gentleman said, St. James the Great in Longdon did not receive funding from the joint scheme. That was because the proposed works incorporated too much new fabric to justify heritage funding. However, the decision did not impede the parish's ability to apply for millennium funding under the ringing in the millennium scheme. It was open to the parish to apply for funding from both streams simultaneously, as many other parishes did.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned an earlier case at Alstonefield. He has acknowledged the code of practice for conservation and repair of bells and bell frames, which is widely endorsed by relevant organisations in the professions. The code clearly states that unnecessary replacement or alteration of historic bells, including retuning, should be avoided, and that, where it becomes apparent that major replacement and alteration is inevitable, full consideration should be given to preservation of the bells and frame in situ. That is what happened at St. Peter's in Alstonefield.
There are many examples of English Heritage having negotiated an acceptable compromise, such as at St. Mary's at Pakenham in Suffolk, where it grant-aided the repair of a mediaeval frame to allow the existing five bells to be rung and enabled a sixth bell to be added to the ring on a separate small metal frame.
English Heritage has a wealth of expert knowledge and practical experience in the conservation of our heritage. The Government and English Heritage are keen to ensure that the very best of our heritage is preserved. Equally, of course, we must be alive to the fact that heritage is a living thing. To that end, English Heritage knows that a restoration project must both do its best to meet current needs and retain essential historic character. English Heritage's involvement in a project should therefore be viewed not as an unnecessary obstacle, but as assisting the overall preservation and promotion of our heritage for future generations to enjoy.
The hon. Gentleman put two specific points to me. On the first, English Heritage supports the code of practice, the first aim of which is to encourage the continuing use of bells to announce public worship. Sir Jocelyn Stevens has confirmed:
On the hon. Gentleman's second point, concerning particularly his own church at Longdon, the Heritage Lottery Fund is continuing to commit money to churches, including bells. However, it is not in my gift to determine which projects it supports. The church at Longdon had five months from final refusal by the Heritage Lottery Fund to the Millennium Commission's deadline. Surely that should have been enough time.
The Millennium Commission is considering whether, with reference to the millennium money, it might be able to offer further support to umbrella projects that it has funded, such as ringing in the millennium. There may therefore be a further opportunity for parishes to apply for
bell restoration. I wish the hon. Gentleman's church well in such a project, although, of course, no guarantee can be given here at the Dispatch Box on future applications.
My good lady wife--as they say--has been sitting in splendid isolation, listening to this debate. She has a great interest in it, and is here because she is herself a former bell ringer. I therefore take very close advice from her on those matters. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has raised a subject that is vital both to him and to many people in the United Kingdom. I give him my assurance that I shall keep the matter under close review.
Question put and agreed to.
"We grant-aid historic frames if they can be made to work. If they cannot be made to work we allow new frames to be built, while conserving the historic frame where possible."
20 May 1998 : Column 1083
That seems to be a reasonable compromise.
Adjourned accordingly at nine minutes to Twelve midnight.
| Index | Home Page |