HC Deb 20 October 1992 vol 212 cc409-16

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Lightbown]

10 pm

Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow)

I shall be succinct, Madam Speaker, because I hope that the chairman of the all-party heritage group, the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack), will have an opportunity to catch your eye.

On Friday 25 September, just before the right hon. and learned Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor) rose to make a personal statement, Hansard records that I rose to intervene on Pitchford hall. Had I persisted further, Madam Speaker, you would undoubtedly have ejected me from the House. It was, in fact, a last desperate attempt to focus attention, before it was too late, on the dispersal and auction of the contents of Pitchford hall. That leads me to my first point—that in such situations there must be some kind of holding solution, a breathing space.

The market place is not always the wrong solution. I am not saying that. I am saying that one cannot act sensibly under the shadow of Sotheby's or Christie's hammer. My right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, suggests that there should be an early warning system, possibly reporting to the House through the new Select Committee on National Heritage. The sale of Pitchford hall could not have happened at a worse moment in 600 years as the mind of the right hon. and learned Member for Putney, then the decision-making Secretary of State, was elsewhere.

Secondly, I quote, to put it as succinctly as possible, from Angus Stirling of the National Trust. He said: The historic entity has been broken up. Most if not all of the contents will disappear from the house and even though there were relatively few pieces that were very fine and valuable, it was the totality of the collection brought together over 300 or 400 years that made this thing so unique. It is a very rare thing to find in a house of that stature and age. That is the considered view of the National Trust.

From personal experience of 48 years of cordial and harmonious relations with the Scottish National Trust I know that visitors who come to such a place like to see a lived-in, organic, growing entity of a house rather than a shell. In my view, Oliver and Caroline Colthurst could not have tried harder to prevent separation of house and contents.

My third point is to ask why the advice of English Heritage was ignored. It is a pleasure to see the Secretary of State for National Heritage in the Chamber and I appreciate his courtesy. We were fellow members of the all-party heritage group and I know that he cares deeply for these issues.

The chairman and senior officials of English Heritage have confirmed to me that Pitchford phase 5 could have been financed out of own resources and that no extra money was required. How much has already been spent from public funds? What is the situation in respect of the Getty money? Did the Department know of the possibility that there would be additional money from Getty funds? Does the Minister accept that version of events, and, if so, on whose advice did his predecessor act? Is it true that Pitchford was turned down because it was too far from a motorway?

The Committee, of which I was a member, which considered the National Heritage Bill understood that extra money would be available in special cases. Georgina Naylor of the National Heritage Memorial Fund knows that I want to ask whether it is still policy to provide extra money as the Committee was promised—which pledge, to be fair, the Government have honoured in respect of Kedleston, Nostell priory, and Belton.

The Historic Houses Association is concerned about more fiscally attractive maintenance funds, which could be more effective in respect of day to day work and would avoid catastrophes such as Pitchford because the money would be tied up and invulnerable to a Lloyd's-type situation.

The protection of the heritage is not a rich man's hobby but a cultural reaction. When I was with the all-party heritage group in the Netherlands last week, we were struck by remarks by Doctor Vliegenhart of Het Loo and Doctor Van Staaten of the Kröller-Muller museum, that one of the glories of coming to Britain is visiting lived-in houses which have been entities for a long time.

I have spoken for only six minutes because others have the right to put their point of view.

10.6 pm

Mr. Patrick Cormack (Staffordshire, South)

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) for his courtesy in informing me that he had secured this Adjournment debate and for suggesting that I might contribute to it. I am glad to do so. I am grateful also to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage for being present on the Front Bench. It is unusual for a Secretary of State to attend an Adjournment debate, and for my right hon. Friend to do so is indicative of his commitment and interest.

I wish to emulate the constructive nature of the remarks of the hon. Member for Linlithgow, who in no sense is critical of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State or my hon. Friend the Minister. However, anyone who visited Pitchford and met the Colthursts must be saddened that that entity has been lost. It was the quintessential English house—not a great stately home, but a manor house with contents accumulated by generations of families and set in lovely parkland. It was architecturally distinguished and the largest black and white house of its type in the country.

It is a great pity, to put it mildly, that that entity was not kept together and a particular shame because there are not many houses like Pitchford in the country. In fact, it is a property that one could properly describe as unique. The owners had fallen on difficult times through no fault of their own, but were anxious that the house should be kept together with its contents and its parkland. It is sad that that could not be done, as the sums involved were small.

The contents, alas, have been dispersed and the house sold. That must be a good thing because for a house of that kind to be left standing empty and uncared for throughout the winter would create considerable problems. We must hope that the purchaser will choose to furnish it in a seemly manner, look after the parkland, and care for that bit of England. It also has a glorious church nearby, with one of the finest wood effigies in the country. I would love my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who has never been there, to spend a night or two with me as I live only 20 miles away and I would very much like to show him that place.

We can learn lessons from Pitchford. Recrimination will achieve nothing. I well remember, in 1976, in the House, asking the then Secretary of State for the Environment—the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore)—if he would receive a deputation to discuss a last-minute rescue attempt for Mentmore. He did receive it, with great courtesy, but although Lord Goodman and I and a number of others pleaded with him, he was unable to help. Mentmore went under the hammer, and its contents were dispersed.

Mentmore, however, focused attention on a problem. It was because of Mentmore that the National Land Fund was reconstituted as the National Heritage Memorial Fund, following an amendment tabled in Committee by the hon. Member for Linlithgow. We worked together on that. Out of a disaster came something very good, which has benefited the heritage ever since.

I hope that we have learnt some lessons from the Pitchford disaster. Pitchford could have been saved. The various schemes that were suggested were not perfect, but they contained the seeds of something that could have worked: I am convinced of that. We need a fail-safe mechanism, and I hope that at an early stage my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will call together those of us who have an interest in these matters—they will obviously include the chairman of the memorial fund and the chairman of English Heritage; perhaps they will also include the chairman of the all-party heritage committee and one or two leading Opposition Members—so that they can sit down and discuss how the solution to a future Pitchford can best be found. For future Pitchfords there will be: Pitchford itself has gone, but there are other lovely houses with fine contents, set in parklands, which are at risk. Already this year, Pitchford and Groombridge have gone.

I thank the hon. Member for Linlithgow for initiating the debate, and for giving me the opportunity to participate. I hope that my right hon. Friend will come up with a positive reply.

10.11 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for National Heritage (Mr. Robert Key)

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) for raising the subject of Pitchford hall. The hon. Gentleman has always had a particular interest in preserving the national heritage on both sides of the border, and I know and admire his family's record and their long relationship with the National Trust for Scotland. I look forward to his continuing contribution to the work of my Department. I also welcome the opportunity to explain to the House in more depth the decision made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor), the previous Secretary of State, that English Heritage should not take over Pitchford hall.

I am grateful for the efforts of my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack), right up to the last minute. We spoke on the telephone, on the motorway, and at my home at the weekend. I recognise the contribution that he has made to the debate.

Let me begin by making it clear that Pitchford has not gone; it is not lost. Its case has gained a great deal of public attention, especially in the west midlands. My hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Mr. Conway) has been in the House tonight, and has talked to me at length. He has explained that he is now detained elsewhere. He has made clear to me the feelings of his constituents, and he was quick to come to the Department to explain how strongly he felt on the issue.

Let me begin by answering the questions that the hon. Member for Linlithgow put to me before I refer to the background to the argument. The hon. Gentleman says that there should be a holding solution—an early warning system. It is important to remember that, although the sale of Pitchford hall took place in September, my noble Friend Lady Blatch first started to monitor the position last February. That was done by the heritage department within the Department of the Environment. Articles first appeared in the press then. It was from that moment on that heritage officials began to monitor the position.

The hon. Member for Linlithgow referred to Mr. Getty. Let me make it clear that there was never any approach to us to contact him and that he did not contact us about the issue. I understand that that was an entirely private matter between Mr. and Mrs. Colthurst and Mr. Getty which in the end, I believe, came to nothing. We were never involved in that issue, though following a telephone call from the hon. Member for Linlithgow I asked whether we had received any information about it. We had not.

The hon. Member for Linlithgow asked about the amount of public money that had been spent on Pitchford hall. English Heritage contributed about £230,000 over a period of about eight years for the fabric of the house. There was never any substance in the rumour that the reason that the Department of National Heritage was not interested was that Pitchford hall was too far from the motorway to be a tourist attraction. I do not know where that fairy tale came from, but it is most certainly not true.

As to the conditions for a grant from the National Heritage Memorial Fund, the important point to remember is that at no stage did the fund seek any extra grant from the Government. We were not asked by the fund to consider that proposal.

As for the Historic Houses Association, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Putney and I have met representatives of the association on a number of occasions and discussed with them many of the problems that affect owners of historic houses. There are about 700 houses of Pitchford hall's quality in this country and about 1,400 members of the Historic Houses Association. Therefore, we were anxious to ensure that any action that was taken by the Government and English Heritage should not put in jeopardy the ability to look after that large number of houses that rely upon shared resources, which are pretty meagre at the best of times.

However, I take on board the point made by the hon. Gentleman about the significance of maintenance funds. The Department of National Heritage is addressing that issue. We have had positive discussions with the Historic Houses Association along those lines. Therefore, we are absolutely clear about what the association regards as potentially a new way forward that would help both the association and its members.

I can understand why Pitchford has appealed to so many people. Hon Members will have seen the photographs of that fine black and white timber-framed house nestling in a wooded valley, with a stream flowing past. As my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South said, it is quintessential Olde England—a reminder of less turbulent times. Pitchford hall is not, however, some idyllic fantasy. It is a house of real quality, comparable with Little Moreton hall and Speke hall, which are already cared for by the National Trust. It is that quality which has been recognised by according to it the highest statutory protection—a grade I listing. I emphasise the point that I made earlier: Pitchford hall itself is not at risk. The house appears, happily, to have found a new owner. The grade I listing applies to the new owner just as much as it did to the previous owners, Mr. and Mrs. Colthurst.

Mr. Dalyell

The Minister referred to Little Moreton hall, which is absolutely beautiful—my wife and I made a lovely visit there—but it is denuded of most of its original furniture. It is the contents, often bric-a-brac, which are so vital to a place like Pitchford.

Mr. Key

As they say, I am coming to that, but it happens to be true. I accept the importance of the accumulation, the accretion of family belongings, even if they are not of the first quality. The term bric-a-brac may indeed apply. As the hon. Gentleman says, one of the important qualities of the English country house is that it is lived in. That is why people appreciate the English country house so much.

If any alterations to Pitchford were ever proposed, either internal or external, which would affect Pitchford's character as a grade I building, the consent of the local planning authority would need to be sought. It would have to consult English Heritage and the Department of the Environment. My Department would be consulted if there were any disagreement between those bodies. Similarly, planning permission would need to be sought for any development or change of use, though our understanding is that the new owners wish to live in Pitchford as a family home.

Pitchford seems to be particularly suited to family ownership. It has been a private family home for over 500 years. Country houses were built to be lived in and are generally better cared for and retain more of their special atmosphere and quality if they continue to be lived in rather than treated as museum pieces. The preservation of Pitchford's unique character remains entirely compatible with residential use. This is in part a tribute to Mr. and Mrs. Colthurst, who did so much to secure the condition of the hall with the assistance of the grants from English Heritage. They have also in recent years opened Pitchford to the public during August to share their pleasure in the property. I have had many letters from members of the public who have enjoyed Mrs. Colthurst's tours of the house so much that they have written to me praising her hospitality. It is indeed sad that the Colthursts' losses in the insurance market have prevented them from completing their work at Pitchford and from remaining in the house.

Country houses are one of the great cultural achievements of our nation and we owe a debt of gratitude to all those who put their own resources into maintaining them, especially those who allow us to share them inside as well as out. It is neither possible nor desirable for Government to take over all such properties. One cannot simply buy for the nation the atmosphere of a house such as Pitchford—something would be lost, whatever. Taking over country houses should always be a last resort. I believe that properties that have remained in private ownership should, as far as possible, remain a living part of our heritage. But if the private sector fails in its responsibilities in caring for our common inheritance, we shall not hesitate to take action.

Only the other week I visited the Crescent in Buxton, one of the country's foremost Georgian buildings, also listed grade I, and now in a sorry state of disrepair. I have made it clear to the owners that if they fail to implement a satisfactory repair programme, the Secretary of State will, for the first time, use powers available to him for over 20 years to serve a repairs notice on them and, although I hope that that would not be necessary, ultimately to take compulsory purchase action.

Pitchford hall is not like Buxton. The Colthursts, with English Heritage's help, made great efforts to maintain the fabric of the house and it is thankfully not at risk in that way. So the case for intervention would have to be very strong.

The case was made first by the National Trust. It took the view earlier this year that, although the hall itself was not at risk, it would be desirable if the contents of the property, were to remain in situ. If the house were sold privately, the contents would be dispersed at auction and the family association lost.

The value of keeping a house and its contents together is always a more difficult issue. My hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South has referred to the case of Mentmore and to the outcry which followed that decision. After Mentmore, hon. Members of all parties—not least the hon. Member for Linlithgow—determined that new arrangements should be established and they were, as my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South outlined.

It was, therefore, to the National Heritage Memorial Fund that the National Trust quite properly looked for publicly funded support when considering taking Pitchford as the trust itself did not have the resources. The National Trust has a responsibility to its members and, indeed, to the nation to ensure that it does not acquire property which it could not afford properly to maintain and run. It therefore requires the establishment of an endowment fund, to which it might contribute from its own resources, which will produce a stream of income sufficient to fund any foreseeable expenditure. In the case of Pitchford, it would also need to fund works which could accommodate greatly increased numbers of visitors passing through its fragile structure, as public access would be greatly increased.

The National Trust bill would have been significantly more than £13 million, well beyond even the National Heritage Memorial Fund's increased resources without pre-empting virtually all other heritage expenditure.

However, the chairman of English Heritage, given the public interest in Pitchford, suggested to Ministers that if they gave the highest priority to keeping Pitchford and its contents together he might be able to secure that end by harnessing NHMF money with English Heritage money and private sector resources. That was a very different proposal from the one that the National Trust had put to the NHMF. It would be cheaper not only in the short term but, with luck—I repeat, with luck—in the long term, given that the level of public access would have remained at about one month a year.

This, then, was the decision for Ministers. Pitchford hall itself was not at risk. Its contents, while not comparable with Mentmore's, had clearly had a strong appeal for visitors in their appropriateness to the house and in representing a single family's changing taste over the centuries, especially the 19th and 20th.

Against that was the pressure on English Heritage's own resources and the concern about the implications, even if everything went smoothly, for the priorities already established. Taking on Pitchford would have had a significant impact on major parts of the body's programme. Even if the house could have been successfully leased, English Heritage would have accepted responsibility for the full cost of the essential repairs to the historic fabric and other costs, which would have been a continuing drain on its resources.

Pitchford would have reduced English Heritage's ability to save important buildings actually at risk of destruction and to bring to a proper standard of repair properties already in its care. There is a backlog about which the National Audit Office has already commented. Pitchford would also have reduced the body's ability to help other private owners, as it had the Colthursts, to maintain important houses.

Mr. Dalyell

What puzzles those such as Lord Montagu of Beaulieu—who authorised me to say that, had he still been the chairman of English Heritage, he would have regarded Pitchford as a resigning matter—is where on earth the figure of £13 million comes from. The costs of running a house such as Pitchford should not be anything like £13 million. Where does the figure come from? How is it made up?

Mr. Key

That figure represents the cost of putting together the endowment fund. The National Heritage Memorial Fund would have been able to find something in excess of £3 million, but we estimate that it would have probably turned to the Government for in excess of £10 million to make up the balance. Those are not just my figures—they are the sums which would have been needed to form a fund sufficient to cover the running costs of the house and the repairs that would have been necessary.

Other houses on which work is done, and which would have been deprived of resources, may not have the same high and photogenic profile as Pitchford hall, but that work forms the core of the effort to preserve the best of the built heritage in England. We have increased the grant in aid to English Heritage by 35 per cent. in real terms between its establishment in 1983 and 1991–92 so that it can achieve its objectives in these areas. Even so, to divert resources from its priority tasks to Pitchford would have jeopardised its ability to carry out its statutory duties for years ahead.

In its recent report, the National Audit Office focused on this very issue, spelling out the consequences for English Heritage's work of taking over Brodsworth hall in south Yorkshire, for which it had not planned.

In weighing up these issues, my right hon. and learned Friend and I had before us the views of our statutory advisers, English Heritage and others, including the National Heritage Memorial Fund, which did not apply for any extra Government grant and, of course, the views of informed and interested members of the public. In the circumstances, we had to conclude that retaining Pitchford's contents in situ could not take precedence over all else.

It is, of course, very sad for the Colthursts that they have been unable to continue to live in the house, but I trust that Pitchford hall will continue to flourish in private hands for centuries to come.

Lessons have been learnt on all sides. I welcome the suggestion by my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South that we should get together—indeed, I have an open door. I look forward to visiting Pitchford so that I can see for myself the glories of that particularly English country house.

Mr. Dalyell

I beg the Minister to be a bit careful about the Mentmore example. It so happens that the Roseberys are my friends and constituents, and there was a strong argument for bringing much of the beautiful furniture from Mentmore to Dalmeny, which is open to the public. I strongly agree with what the Minister said about the fragile structure of some houses, and that we should not have too many feet tramping through places such as Pitchford—otherwise one gets into the sort of difficulties that Craigievar has had, and people damage what they have come to see.

Finally, I beg the Government to reflect on the £13 million and consider whether they are not in danger of going for complete, end-of-century solutions, rather than for interim solutions. In dealing with fragile houses such as Pitchford, interim solutions may be the best policy.

Mr. Key

It is my clear intention and determination to ensure that our common heritage is looked after in a proper manner. It is clear to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and me that we have a responsibility to ensure not only that the heritage is looked after properly but that it is passed on to future generations in an appropriate state. We also bear in mind the fact that we have a responsibility to create the heritage of the future. That is part of the purpose of the new Department of National Heritage.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes past Ten o'clock.