(iii) English tourism bodies
34. One advantage which Mr Smith attributed to the
Department's more strategic approach was "demonstrating the
benefits of having these seemingly disparate elements in one Department".[105]
Last year we commented on the apparent low priority given to tourism
by the Department among these disparate elements, despite its
great size as an industry, its economic importance now and the
even greater economic and employment importance foreseen for it
in the future.[106]
This year we examined the impact of the Comprehensive Spending
Review, the associated reorganisation of English tourism bodies
and the Tourism Strategy on the Department's management of tourism.
35. The Tourism Society argued that tourism as a
business was different in nature from other sectors which the
Department for Culture, Media and Sport sponsored.[107]
Both Mrs Elizabeth Jeffreys, the Society's Chairwoman, and Mr
Graham Wason, the Vice-Chairman, felt that tourism would benefit
from sponsorship by the Department of Trade and Industry, although
the Society's members were divided on the matter.[108]
Councillor Bob Harris of the Local Government Association thought
that there was a "synergy" between tourism and other
areas for which the Department for Culture, Media and Sport was
responsible, "a fundamental relationship between tourism
and the product that tourists wish to see".[109]
Mr Smith also argued that tourism was driven to a considerable
extent by these other sectors: museums and galleries; the performing
arts; the built heritage; film; and sport.[110]
This point was reinforced by others, including Mr David Quarmby,
Chairman of the English Tourist Board, especially in relation
to overseas visitors.[111]
Ministerial responsibility for tourism in the past has been the
victim of a game of pass the parcel.[112]
We see no justification for the game to be resumed.
36. However, the Department for Culture, Media and
Sport has to provide a continuing justification for its sponsorship
of this major industry through its achievements, particularly
in four areas: strategic leadership for the sector; management
of sponsored bodies; encouragement of links between tourism and
other sectors which the Department sponsors; and promotion of
tourism in dealings with other Government Departments.
37. As we have already noted in the context of the
Arts Council, the effectiveness of quangos depends to a considerable
extent on the capacity of the Department to provide clear leadership
and establish a framework within which quangos operate. We have
not considered the content of the Tourism Strategy in detail as
part of the current inquiry, but it is evident that it does help
to provide a vision and a framework for tourism and tourist bodies
in this country.[113]
The Tourism Society, although it thought that the Strategy had
shortcomings, welcomed much of its content and the consultation
process which preceded it.[114]
Mrs Jeffreys considered that "this Government has done more
to put tourism on the agenda than any other Government previously".[115]
Councillor John Price, Chairman of the Local Government Association's
Tourism Panel, said that the Association was "delighted to
see the new Strategy".[116]
38. The Department is changing non-departmental structures
better to deliver its strategy. In recent years, in the views
of some, the Department has had a tendency to encroach on the
responsibilities of the English Tourism Board. According to the
Tourism Society, the Department has undertaken tasks which were
previously for the Board and "this active involvement of
the Department in tourism activities has led to confusion over
the role of the former English Tourist Board and tension between
the Department and the Board, exacerbated by regular cuts in Board
funding".[117]
The Board itself makes a similar point in more diplomatic terms.
Of the arm's length principle, it states that "in a period
of major change ... the arm has of necessity to become shorter
... In order to ensure that the English Tourist Board can adapt
as quickly and effectively as possible to reflect Ministerial
objectives, the working relationship has had to become much closer
than would usually be necessary or appropriate."[118]
39. The establishment of the English Tourism Council
in place of the English Tourist Board is expected to lead to the
resumption of a more typical arm's length relationship.[119]
The concentration of the new body on strategic leadership for
the industry and on driving delivery of the national strategy
should enable greater clarity about the division of labour between
the Council and the Department.[120]
The Council should have a greater range of skills at its disposal,
including expertise on transport and sustainability, enabling
it to contribute more effectively to the wider Government agenda.[121]
The Tourism Society suggested that the new body had been designed
more by reference to the needs of Government than with a focus
on the customer.[122]
It remains to be seen whether the strategic gains within Government
will off-set the loss of a clearly identified national marketing
arm for English tourism.[123]
40. The third test for the Department's management
of tourism will be its effectiveness in developing relations between
tourism and other sectors within the Department's remit. The Tourism
Forum, whose membership included representatives of English Heritage,
Historic Royal Palaces, the Arts Council of England, the Museums
and Galleries Commission and the United Kingdom Sports Council,
represented a step forward in this regard.[124]
The English Tourist Board confirmed that there was continuing
liaison with other quangos and with bodies such as the National
Trust, but that each contact "tends to be on a project and
subject basis" rather than on a general basis.[125]
We note that one of the tasks for the English Tourism Council
in its proposed Funding Agreement is to re-launch the Tourism
Forum.[126]
We consider that more should be done to promote links between
the tourism quangos and other sectors for which the Department
for Culture, Media and Sport is responsible, such as the arts,
heritage and sport. We recommend that measurable progress in developing
such links form part of future Funding Agreements for the English
Tourism Council and the British Tourist Authority.
41. The performance of the Department and its tourism
quangos will also depend upon forging effective relationships
across Government. The Department has stated: "we want to
ensure that the full potential of the tourism industry is understood
and that its concerns and characteristics are taken into account
in all relevant policy decisions".[127]
Tourism is interwoven with many other fields of Government policy,
such as transport, regeneration, taxation and environmental sustainability.[128]
We have already noted that the English Tourism Council is expected
to contribute more effectively than its predecessor body to this
broader agenda. The Tourism Summit, involving Ministers from a
number of Government departments and senior figures from tourism,
which is planned to take place in the year 2000, is a welcome
recognition of this theme at Departmental level.[129]
42. However, the most important relationship for
the Department for Culture, Media and Sport within Government
remains that with the Treasury. We are concerned at evidence that
the Department for Culture, Media and Sport apparently continues
to be a less effective advocate for funding of tourism quangos
than its counterparts in Scotland and Wales. Funding of domestic
tourism in England is the equivalent of 20 pence per head of population;
the grant-in-aid to the Scottish Tourist Board is the equivalent
of £3.77 per head of population; that for the Wales Tourist
Board is the equivalent of £4.03 per head of population.[130]
Mr Quarmby said that he explained to Ministers "what we could
do if extra funds were provided and how more value could be delivered
to the industry if there were more funds available".[131]
We recommend that the Department for Culture, Media and Sport
undertake and publish a thorough analysis of the benefits which
could arise from additional investment in the English Tourism
Council, linked to performance indicators and measures of outcome,
well in advance of the next Comprehensive Spending Review.
(iv) English Heritage
43. The more strategic approach adopted by the Department
for Culture, Media and Sport, based on broad objectives and sector-specific
goals and frameworks, appears to have brought greater clarity
to relationships between the Department and its arts and tourism
quangos. However, we received much evidence questioning whether
the same benefit was apparent in the case of English Heritage.
44. A historic weakness in this regard was perceived
by English Heritage itself:
"In the past, English
Heritage and the Royal Commission on the Historical Monuments
of England felt that the Department had become too involved in
the detail of how we achieved our agreed objectives and used the
resources granted to us, without having a clear strategic overview
of its own priorities for the historic environment, and of the
way in which these linked across to those of the other cultural
sectors for which it was responsible".[132]
English Heritage viewed the outcome of the Comprehensive
Spending Review as a potential step forward in this regard.[133]
Others were more sceptical. The Victorian Society said that, despite
the stated aim of the Department to concentrate on strategic leadership,
"there is no sign that, for the heritage, the Department
has any strategic leadership to offer".[134]
Mr David Baker of the Council for British Archaeology felt that
the Government lacked an "over-arching perception of what
is needed for the conservation of the historic environment".[135]
The Garden History Society suggested that the historic environment
remained "marginal to the Department's core business of arts,
museums and sport".[136]
The National Trust also felt that the built heritage was "not
receiving a high enough profile" from the Department.[137]
It attributed the low profile to a lack of political will.[138]
45. In the view of some, this low profile was exemplified
by the lack of explicit reference to conservation of the built
environment in the Department's objectives. Mr Matthew Saunders
of the Joint Committee of the National Amenity Societies thought
the omission was "extraordinary".[139]
English Heritage itself had expressed its concern to the Department
about the absence of an explicit commitment in the Department's
objectives to the conservation of cultural assets inherited from
the past.[140]
46. Responding to these concerns, Mr Smith referred
to the following objective of the Department to
"broaden access for
this and future generations to a rich and varied cultural and
sporting life and to our distinctive built environment".[141]
Mr Smith said that the inclusion of the phrase "and
future generations" was intended to refer to the conservation
of the built heritage.[142]
He indicated, however, that he would be "happy to consider"
a fuller reference to conservation in objectives set out in future
Annual Reports.[143]
47. The evidence we have received suggests that such
a change would be worthwhile. Indeed, there is a strong case for
a more thorough review of heritage policy by the Department. There
are several reasons why such a review ought to consider heritage
policy in the context of wider Government policies. First, heritage
can make a significant contribution to regeneration and, in this
context, there is a good case for a clearer relationship between
English Heritage and the Department of the Environment, Transport
and the Regions, as the Urban Task Force has recently recommended.[144]
Ms Pam Alexander, Chief Executive of English Heritage, indicated
that English Heritage was not necessarily seen by the Department
of the Environment, Transport and the Regions "as an important
player".[145]
It should be the responsibility of the Department for Culture,
Media and Sport to develop a heritage strategy which demonstrates
to all relevant Government departments the contribution which
English Heritage and other heritage agencies can make to regeneration.
48. Second, it was suggested that the Department
for Culture, Media and Sport needs to tackle more thoroughly the
balance between access and sustainability in the heritage field.[146]
The Church Heritage Forum observed:
"A properly integrated
national strategy for the built heritage needs to deal with any
potential conflict between the strategic themes of the Department
for Culture, Media and Sport, including the laudable aim of promoting
access by the many not the few, and the overarching concept of
sustainability as fostered by the Department of the Environment,
Transport and the Regions and the local planning system".[147]
It is for the Department for Culture, Media and Sport
to send clear signals to English Heritage and others about priorities
in resolving any tensions between access and environmental sustainability.
Environmental appraisal should form an integral part of the formulation
of a new heritage strategy.[148]
49. In our Report on the Heritage Lottery Fund we
recommended that the Government "should now accept its central
role as the formulator of a national heritage strategy".[149]
National heritage strategy is beyond the remit of either English
Heritage or the Heritage Lottery Fund. A strategy must examine
the historic environment as a whole and not just those parts of
it for which English Heritage is responsible, a point made by
the Institute of Leisure and Amenity Management.[150]
For example, we would expect the strategy to examine areas such
as urban parks and the preservation of historic ships which do
not fall readily within the remit of any existing quangos.[151]
50. Mr Saunders envisaged that a heritage strategy
would be the result of a consultative process involving quangos
and other organisations, but also said that "in the end it
can only be ... the Secretary of State and the Ministry with its
overall view which can devise that strategy".[152]
In this context, the Tourism Forum and the Strategy which followed
may serve as a useful precedent. We recommend that the Department
for Culture, Media and Sport establish a Heritage Forum to develop
a new heritage strategy. This body should be established in close
cooperation with the Department of the Environment, Transport
and the Regions to ensure that integrated consideration is given
to the relationship of heritage policy to urban and rural regeneration
and to environmental sustainability. We would expect the Heritage
Forum to contribute to the early establishment of objectives for
the Department for Culture, Media and Sport which make explicit
reference to the conservation of cultural assets inherited from
the past.
51. The Institute of Leisure and Amenity Management
implied that the absence of a clear heritage strategy in Government
reduced the value of the Funding Agreement with English Heritage.
There were no clear heritage objectives to "cascade"
from the Department to the quango.[153]
The duties of English Heritage are laid down in statute, just
as the aims of the Arts Council of England are set out in its
Royal Charter.[154]
However, while the latter organisation has been set clear goals
by the Department in its Funding Agreement, the former has not.
The formulation of clearly identified goals for the Government
in the heritage field and a statement of the role of English Heritage
in meeting those goals should form part of the outcome of the
work of the Heritage Forum the establishment of which we have
recommended.
52. The Funding Agreement for English Heritage states
that its grant allocations will be as follows:
Table: Grant-in-aid Funding for English
Heritage, 1999-2001
Year
|
1999-2000
|
2000-01
|
2001-02
|
£ million
|
114.86
|
114.09
|
112.74
|
Source: Funding Agreement between the Department
for Culture, Media and Sport and English Heritage 1999, para
5.1.
This fall in support in cash as well as real terms
caused particular concern to the National Trust and the Joint
Committee of the National Amenity Societies because it comes at
a time when the Department's overall resources are increasing.
The concentration of the benefits from the increase in overall
resources on the arts and on museums and galleries was felt to
be disproportionate.[155]
53. One of the measures by which Government will
judge the success of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport
in meeting its aims and objectives is the "proportion of
buildings removed from the Buildings at Risk register".[156]
The Funding Agreement between the Department and English Heritage
requires the latter to "introduce a new target for annually
removing sites from the Buildings at Risk register".[157]
Ms Alexander estimated that it "will cost £400 million
in public subsidy to bridge the gap for the 1,600 Grade I and
Grade II* buildings" on the 1999 Buildings at Risk register.[158]
In 1998-99, £5 million of the £13.3 million offered
by English Heritage through its secular building grants programme
was targeted to properties on the register; at least a third of
spending on secular buildings and monuments will be focused on
such properties over the three years of the Funding Agreement.[159]
54. There are many factors affecting the preservation
of listed buildings, including those on the Buildings at Risk
register, in addition to the level of grants by English Heritage.
Initial responsibility for the care of a listed building lies
with the owner. In the case of about one in five buildings at
risk, the attitude of owners is problematic.[160]
There is a danger that grants by English Heritage can reward neglect.[161]
Principal responsibility for the enforcement of planning regulations
on owners lies with the local planning authority; the effectiveness
of local authorities in exercising their powers is a crucial determinant
of the fate of buildings at risk.[162]
We recommend that, in advance of the next Comprehensive Spending
Review, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, the Department
of the Environment, Transport and the Regions and English Heritage
undertake a joint study on the factors affecting the effectiveness
of the maintenance of Grade I and Grade II* listed buildings and
of the enforcement of listed building regulations, with particular
reference to buildings at risk, to inform future funding and target
setting.
101 Q 320. Back
102 Q
319. Back
103 Evidence,
p 67; Funding Agreement between the Department for Culture,
Media and Sport and the Arts Council of England 1999, para
5 and passim. Back
104 QQ
231-235. Back
105 Q
319. Back
106 HC
(1997-98) 742, para 8. On the economic value of tourism, see
Evidence, p 21 and QQ 22, 75. Back
107 QQ
2, 33. Back
108 Q
14. Back
109 Q
71. Back
110 Q
324. Back
111 QQ
29-30, 32, 90-91. Back
112 Q
19. Back
113 Tomorrow's
Tourism: A growth industry for the new Millennium,
Department for Culture, Media and Sport, February 1999. Back
114 Evidence,
pp 1, 2. Back
115 Q
39. Back
116 Q
54. Back
117 Evidence,
p 2. Back
118 Evidence,
p 24. Back
119 Ibid. Back
120 Evidence,
pp 22, 90. Back
121 QQ
76, 96. Back
122 QQ
2-3. Back
123 QQ
23, 43, 67. Back
124 Tomorrow's
Tourism, p 69. Back
125 Q
94. Back
126 Establishing
a new National Body for Tourism in England: Report and Action
Plan, April 1999, Annex 9. Back
127 Tomorrow's
Tourism, p 13. Back
128 Ibid;
Evidence, p 1; QQ 17, 31, 38-39, 77. Back
129 Tomorrow's
Tourism, p 68. Back
130 Evidence,
p 23. Back
131 Q
99. Back
132 Evidence,
p 50. Back
133 Q
170; Evidence, p 50. Back
134 Evidence,
p 107. Back
135 Q
141. Back
136 Evidence,
p 109. Back
137 QQ
102, 125. Back
138 Q
121. Back
139 Evidence,
p 39; QQ 137, 141. Back
140 Evidence,
p 51. Back
141 Cm
4213, p 17. Back
142 Q
322. Back
143 Q
323. Back
144 Evidence,
pp 39, 110; Q 162; Towards an Urban Renaissance: Final Report
of the Urban Task Force Chaired by Lord Rogers of Riverside,
p 252. Back
145 Q
172. Back
146 Evidence,
p 30; Q 101. Back
147 Evidence,
p 149. Back
148 On
the record of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport with
regard to sustainable development, see Sixth Report from the Environmental
Audit Committee, The Greening Government Initiative, HC
(1998-99) 426-I, paras 16, 33, 34, 51, 53, 55-57. Back
149 HC
(1998-99) 195-I, para 20. Back
150 Evidence,
pp 113-117. Back
151 On
parks, see Evidence, pp 109, 113, 115 and QQ 353-354. On historic
ships, see Second Report from the Culture, Media and Sport Committee,
The Preservation of HMS Cavalier, HC (1998-99) 196, para
10. Back
152 Q
159. Back
153 Evidence,
p 114. Back
154 Evidence,
pp 49, 67. Back
155 Evidence,
pp 30, 40; Q 140. Back
156 The
Government's Measures of Success: Output and Performance Analyses,
HM Treasury, March 1999, p 83. Back
157 Funding
Agreement between the Department for Culture, Media and Sport
and English Heritage 1999,
p 4. Back
158 Q
163. Back
159 Evidence,
p 54. Back
160 Evidence,
p 39; Buildings at Risk Register 1999, English Heritage,
June 1999, p xiv. Back
161 Evidence,
pp 40, 128. Back
162 QQ
142, 143, 146, 178-179; Evidence, p 124; Buildings at Risk:
A New Strategy, English Heritage, 1998, pp 22-23. Back
