I refer of 24 July to Dr West of the Advisory Board for Redundant Churches about the Select Committee's inquiry into the Heritage Lottery Fund. I understand that the deadline for the Committee's receipt of evidence has been extended.

  As Chairman of the Church of England Church Heritage Forum, I am sending you this letter and its attachment as a submission to the Select Committee's inquiry into the Heritage Lottery Fund. The Forum is the co-ordinating body for the Church of England's national heritage bodies.

  The Heritage Lottery Fund has had a significant impact on church buildings even in the relatively short time since its foundation and, after the creation of the Joint Scheme with English Heritage, forms an important part of the partnership between Church and State over the upkeep of church buildings. Given the success of the Scheme, it was therefore a particular matter of regret that the Heritage Lottery Fund and English Heritage found it necessary to suspend the Scheme in May. The degree to which demand for grants outstripped the supply of funds indicated not that the applicant churches were being over-ambitious or greedy but that, for the first time, with the encouragement of the Heritage Lottery Fund and English Heritage, they were proposing comprehensive schemes of repair and refurbishment.

  We understand that the Joint Scheme will be revived next year but imposing more stringent conditions. We would urge that this does not mean that the Heritage Lottery Fund ceases to assist provision for interpretation, access or community facilities, and concentrates only on repairs. The ability of the Heritage Lottery Fund, unlike English Heritage, to assist churches' development for the future is vital for their survival. The aims of improving access and educational opportunities for all also form major parts of the core aims of the present government.

  We are grateful for the assurance in the July DCMS Spending Review that the Heritage Lottery Fund will continue to receive 16²/₃ per cent of Lottery proceeds after 2001. We would point out however that this represents a reduction from the 20 per cent originally allocated to the Heritage Lottery Fund and also denies the Heritage Lottery Fund a share in the portion at present going to the Millennium Commission, when that is wound up. It is also a matter of concern that there continues to be a wide gap between the total of grants awarded and the total paid out, which amounts only to one-third. In many cases this demonstrates the difficulty for parishes of securing partnership funding.

  We accordingly hope that funding for this unique stock of buildings will remain a priority for the Heritage Lottery Fund, and that the heritage funding remains a significant proportion of the projects funded by the National Lottery as a whole. We also hope that in its findings the Committee will stress the importance of Lottery funding for the heritage as an invaluable complement to, rather than substitute for, adequate public funding for churches and other historic buildings channelled through the highly successful English Heritage grant scheme.

 1.  CONTEXT

 (a)   The Church of England's church buildings

  1.1.  Forty-two cathedrals and over 16,000 churches in England are cared for by the Church of England. The variety of these churches is remarkable: ranging in date from St Martin's in Canterbury, already in use when St Augustine landed in AD 597, to new buildings such as the award-winning St Paul's, Haringay, opened in 1994; in size from St Paul's Cathedral, to St Swithun's, just a room above Kingsgate in Winchester.

  1.2.  The Church has been a vital part of the heart and mind of our heritage for centuries. It has led and been the voice of the nation's spiritual life: it has helped to set our values and moral standards: it has been, and continues to be, the inspiration for some of our greatest artistic achievements—the music of Byrd, Purcell, Tallis and Taverner; the writings of Bunyan, Herbert, Eliot and Milton; and the sculpture of Moore to give but a few examples. Our church buildings are a vital manifestation of these beliefs and inspirations. First and foremost they are places of worship, which is why the Church of England has the primary responsibility for looking after them. But in themselves, from modest parish church to glorious cathedral, they are a priceless part of our national heritage, as is shown in the table below:

—  Nearly 13,000 church buildings—three-quarters of the total—are listed by the Government as being of special architectural or historic interest; and that proportion will rise as 19th- and 20th-century buildings are reappraised. Some 40 per cent of Grade 1 listed buildings are or have been in ecclesiastical use, most of them as Church of England churches. In 1994 the then Chief Executive of English Heritage, Ms Jennie Page, described the parish church as "the most important single type of historic building in England". The majesty of England's cathedrals, abbeys and greater churches is recognised worldwide (Canterbury and Durham cathedrals and Westminster Abbey are, for example, designated by UNESCO as Cultural World Heritage Sites). Church buildings contain many of the masterpieces of English art and architecture, large and small. As archaeological evidence they are a key document to understanding England's history.

—  These buildings are major tourist attractions, something which in fact can take its toll on them in terms of wear to floors and so on. English Heritage surveys have shown that of about 70 million visits to historic properties in 1995, almost half were paid to cathedrals and churches. In 1997, the cathedrals and greater churches attracted 19.75 million visitors, other parish churches an estimated 12 million. The indirect impact which this has on the Balance of Payments is considerable, particularly as the number of tourists is growing: in the same year over one-third of tourists to historic buildings came from overseas, and over two-thirds of them visited churches and cathedrals during their stay. As Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, the then Minister of State for Social Security, said in the House of Lords in 1995: "we should indeed preserve our unique heritage for the benefit of both present and future generations, and there is an important commercial need to preserve and enhance our historic buildings for the tourist industry, which is so important to the economic health of the country."

—  Church buildings are at the heart of communities: the closure of village shops and post offices, for example, means that churches are often the only community buildings in rural areas; and church buildings are often also at the heart of urban communities as meeting places, headquarters of community projects and so on. Examples include the many churches which make their premises available for providing shelter for the homeless and those which host lunch clubs for the elderly; and

—  finally, there is the intangible but nonetheless very real part which churches play in people's understanding of England. Church spires and towers, rising over town and countryside, play an important part in defining the English sense of place, community and identity. England would be markedly different without its much loved churches and cathedrals.

 (b)   The partnership between Church and State over church buildings

  1.3  The dual nature of churches including cathedrals—as religious buildings and as part of the national heritage—has long been recognised by the Government. One of the most important ways in which the Government has recognised its need to support these buildings is through funding. For over 20 years the Government has grant-aided work to church buildings, in recent years through English Heritage; a similar scheme in respect of cathedrals was introduced more recently. These funds have been invaluable and have played a major part in ensuring that church buildings and cathedrals are adequately maintained. They have also helpfully "levered out" donations from other sources, in that English Heritage will fund only part of the cost of the project on the condition that partnership funding can be found.

  1.4  The Church of England has an excellent record over its buildings—all the evidence shows that our record compares favourably with those in respect of other types of historic building. We are proud to be able to say that by far the majority of our churches are in good order.

  1.5  Despite the Government providing valuable funding for work to churches, it is the local church communities which meet the vast majority of the cost of looking after these buildings. The cost of maintaining, repairing and running churches is over £100 million per year: Government funding through English Heritage, which is available to assist with only some of the cost of keeping these buildings in good order, is currently at a level of about £10 million per year.

  1.6  This record contrasts markedly with the situation in a number of other European countries where the community's responsibility for the upkeep of historic ecclesiastical buildings is met at much greater cost to public funds, either through state or municipal taxes or through a Church tax which is collected by Government. This arrangement is far removed from the voluntary contributions made by church attenders and others in this country.

  1.7  The contract is even more marked when it is recognised that the amount that churches pay in VAT significantly exceeds the grant funding by English Heritage. It is also important to note that the cost of maintaining, repairing and running churches of over £100 million per year is in addition to the funds that local church communities raise in order to finance the ministry of the church. It costs £20,000-£30,000 per year to keep a priest in post and the vast majority of this cost now has to be met locally. Total or average figures, whilst helpful, often hide the underlying reality. A very large proportion of the finer and older church buildings are found in small communities. Clearly when built almost all would have been in small communities, but some communities have grown whilst others have not. In the communities that have not grown the burden of maintaining these fine ancient buildings is proportionately greater. Many parishes are seeking support for both their ministry and their buildings from the wider community, and such help is gratefully received. However, there is a substantial gap which, in the case of repair of buildings, has beenfilled to some degree by English Heritage funding.

 (c)   The Church of England and the National Lottery

  1.8  The views of church-goers vary over the National Lottery. Some see the Lottery as harmless fun; others have profound anxieties about it. The Church of England's policy recognises the concerns held by some about the Lottery, but does not rule out accepting Lottery funds. The House of Bishops criticised several aspects of the Lottery in a 1995 policy statement, and set out its position as follows:

"The Church of England accepts freely its own financial responsibility in worship, evangelism and pastoral care. We see no basis on which Lottery money should be used by the Church in these areas." On the other hand, "the repair and maintenance of its historic churches and cathedrals and the upkeep of its historic archives and other artefacts are responsibilities which the Church of England undertakes in part on behalf of the nation as a whole". The bishops thought it would therefore be acceptable for individual Church of England bodies to decide whether to apply for Lottery funds for projects connected with these purposes. In fact many have done so, not only to the Heritage Lottery Fund but to other lottery fund distributors including the Arts, the Charities and the Millennium Lottery funds. The great majority of applications have, however, been to the Heritage Lottery Fund and have been made (since it was created) through the joint English Heritage/Heritage Lottery Fund Scheme.

2.   THE HERITAGE LOTTERY FUND

 (a)   The impact of Lottery funding

  2.1  The arrival of Lottery funding for suitable church projects has had a major impact upon church buildings. Since the inception of the Heritage Lottery Fund, for example:

—  456 grants totalling over £59 million have been awarded to church organisations. This represents 21 per cent of the total number of grants and 5 per cent of the total funds awarded;

—  Heritage Lottery Fund funding has been particularly helpful in respect of the upkeep of Grade II buildings which do not qualify for English Heritage grants;

—  The low number of churches coming forward for redundancy in recent years may in part be attributable to the ability of parishes to maintain the upkeep of church buildings with the assistance of Lottery funding;

—  Heritage Lottery Fund funding has also been of significant assistance to cathedrals.

  2.2.  However, not all of the experience has been positive:

—  There has been evidence of some confusion about boundaries between English Heritage and the Heritage Lottery Fund, and departmental policy priorities do not always seem to have been reflected in Heritage Lottery Fund grant decisions, eg in relation to the establishment of visitor centres;

—  There appears to be a disparity between the proportion of applications received by the Heritage Lottery Fund from church bodies and the proportion of grants that are awarded to church buildings. In the financial year 1997-98, for example, applications for grant aid through the joint English Heritage/Heritage Lottery Fund Scheme accounted for 48 per cent of the total number of applications submitted to the Heritage Lottery Fund. In the same period, the HLF gave 135 awards to ecclesiastical buildings (78 of which were within the Joint Scheme, the remainder being responses to applications that were made before the Joint Scheme came into operation) totalling £11,780,000. This represents 14 per cent of the total number of grants and just over 3 per cent of the total amount of money awarded in that year. This is significantly less than the 5 per cent of total funds awarded since the inception of the HLF;

—  Many applications to the Joint Scheme receive a grant from English Heritage and not the HLF (only a small proportion of these applicants object to Lottery money on moral grounds). Current figures suggest that about 53 per cent of applications to the Joint Scheme successfully gained a grant from either the HLF or English Heritage. While this is encouraging, it remains a fact that almost half of all church bodies who apply for a grant through the Joint Scheme do not receive any funds;

—  The recent freeze in grants to churches under the joint EH/HLF scheme—whilst understandable—has had a very negative impact and shaken confidence in planned maintenance programmes.

 (b)   The future of Lottery funding for heritage projects

  2.3  As is illustrated above, funding from the Heritage Lottery Fund (and indeed the other Lottery distributors) forms a major part of the support for the upkeep and adaptation as appropriate of these unique heritage assets.

  2.4  We acknowledge the assurance in the July DCMS Spending Review that the Heritage Lottery Fund will continue to receive 16Û per cent of Lottery proceeds after 2001. We would point out, however, that this represents a reduction from the 20 per cent originally allocated to HLF and also denies HLF a share in the portion already going to the Millennium Commission when that is wound up. It is also a matter of concern that there continues to be a substantial gap between the total of grants awarded and the total paid out (the latter amounting only to one third of the former). We would like to call, therefore for three principles to underlie the future operation of the Heritage Lottery Fund and the use of Lottery funds in relation to church buildings:

—  The funding of work to historic churches should remain a funding priority for the Heritage Lottery Fund;

—  Lottery funding for work to church buildings should be additional to other State grant-aid for church buildings, not least because of the moral objections which some congregations, denominations and faith communities have to the use of Lottery money. Lottery money is a welcome addition to, and should not be a substitute for, adequate core funding for English Heritage. (We acknowledge that in practice the "additionality" criterion is hard to apply in a context in which the Government funds the same work through English Heritage, but the spirit of "additionality" is most important to us);

—  The joint English Heritage/Heritage Lottery Fund scheme for work to places of worship is a victim of its own success. There is a crying need for more adequate State funding for work to historic church buildings. With the arrival of the new Lottery distributor our fear is that there will be less public funding available for heritage work. We hope that heritage work will remain a priority call upon National Lottery funds as a whole, and that the arrival of an extra Lottery distributor will not reduce the monies available for this essential work.

November 1998