Listed Historic Buildings

Question

14:58:00

Asked by

To ask His Majesty’s Government, following Historic England’s publication of the latest Heritage at Risk Register, what plans they have to ensure adequate support for listed historic buildings.

The Government are committed to protecting the historic environment for the benefit of present and future generations. DCMS and its arm’s-length bodies deliver funding to the heritage sector, including £8 million last year to rescue buildings on the Heritage at Risk Register. In 2024, 124 historic places from the register were saved, bringing treasured heritage assets back to life. Some 150 buildings were added, which highlights the need for continued support for our most vulnerable heritage.

My Lords, the Listed Places of Worship Grant Scheme comes to an end in April. It represents a group of buildings that host hundreds of thousands of weddings, baptisms and funerals, right at the heart of their communities—and 80% of those buildings host some 31,000 social action projects, such as warm spaces and food banks. Will the Minister ask her ministerial colleagues whether they would be prepared to answer the correspondence from the Church of England on the future of this scheme? Would she personally be willing to meet my right reverend friend the Bishop of Bristol and her team to discuss this as a matter of urgency?

I would be very happy to meet the right reverend Prelate’s colleague, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bristol. The Government are very clear that the Listed Places of Worship Grant Scheme has been incredibly valuable in assisting more than 13,000 listed places of worship to recover VAT or repairs through the grants, totalling over £317 million since it was established more than 20 years ago. On the outcome of any discussions about the future of the project, departmental budgets have been set following the Budget announcement in the autumn, and the outcome of the departmental business planning process, including any implications for this scheme, will be announced soon. However, I shall follow up the letter referred to in the right reverend Prelate’s question.

My Lords, much of our built heritage up and down the country is literally crumbling, and the backlog of repairs is getting longer and longer. That is in no small part due to the different rates of VAT. When we were part of the EU, we were always told that we could not vary the rate of VAT on restoration, as opposed to new build—but we are not in the EU anymore, and we can set VAT at whatever level we like. Will the Government look, as a matter of urgency, at having parity between restoration and new build, or at least look again at trying to reduce the costs of restoration for our built heritage, which is among our greatest national assets?

Decisions on tax policy are for the Chancellor, which are made in the context of the overall public finances. The noble Lord will note that my noble friend Lord Livermore is here, so I am fairly confident that he heard the point that the noble Lord made very clearly.

The right reverend Prelate raised the social good done by listed places of worship, of which half churches are listed—including, of course, the majority of all food banks that take place at those premises. Is the Treasury looking at understanding through the Red Book the value to the NHS of the work being done by those churches? Without that work, a lot of the issues will fall on the NHS, which would cost a great deal more than the grants being offered.

I understand that my noble friend Lord Livermore would be happy to look into that point.

My Lords, I note my interest as steward of listed buildings in Devon, one of which was recently removed from the Heritage at Risk Register, courtesy of works funded by Natural England’s Countryside Stewardship scheme. Given the continued disaster that is the restoration and renewal programme, do the Government know how long it will be before the Palace of Westminster is added to the register?

My noble friend the Leader of the House has noted the issues with the heating. I will not comment on the heating, but it is quite warm in the Chamber today—so that at least is positive. The restoration and renewal programme is a matter for Parliament. I understand that a debate is coming up very soon on this issue, which I encourage noble Lords with a particular interest to take part in. I cannot comment on whether the Palace will be added to the Heritage at Risk Register, but clearly there has been lots of discussion about the issues facing what is an invaluable building for parliamentarians but which is also of historic and cultural value to the country.

My Lords, does the Minister agree—I am sure she does—that the historic environment is an enormous social and economic asset to this country? Sometimes we overlook it because we are so familiar with it, but it is particularly important in social regeneration, no matter the community, which is why it was part of the previous Government’s levelling- up programme. How will our Government optimise all the benefits that the historic environment can bring, particularly in the context of the growth agenda?

I am very happy to agree with my noble friend about the value of heritage. Indeed, in preparing for this Question I read a fascinating list of properties, buildings and even high streets—including one I lived very close to until quite recently—that have benefited from investment and restoration. This benefits local communities and contributes to economic growth and preserving heritage for present and future generations.

My Lords, I believe that every one of us has the incredible privilege to work in this listed historic building, but there are 4,891 listed buildings on the Heritage at Risk Register. Does the Minister agree that there really should be a successor scheme to the one she just referenced: Historic England’s high streets heritage action zones programme, which ran from 2020 to 2024? It unlocked the potential of 67 historic high streets, created social cohesion and drove economic growth, which is precisely what the Government want. Will she please commit to a successor scheme?

That programme is a fantastic example of the value of heritage as an investment in our communities. As someone who felt very strongly that the South Norwood area, which is where I previously lived, could really benefit from this sort of investment, I absolutely recognise its value. The noble Earl will be aware that the initial £95 million of public investment unlocked more than £140 million of further private and public investment. On future commitments, as previously referenced, we are going through the business planning process, so any future funding for individual programmes is currently being assessed and will be announced soon.

My Lords, will the noble Baroness tell the House, if she has the information, how many of the sites on the Heritage at Risk Register are world heritage sites, and how many of those are therefore in danger of losing their world heritage status? What steps will the Government take on that? I draw attention to my interest, being involved in world heritage partnerships across the UK.

That is a very interesting question. It is not one that I have the answer to, but I will write to the noble Lord to ensure that that information is available and place a copy of the letter in the Library.

My Lords, I refer the House to my interests in the register. I was also the chairman of the All-Party Group on Listed Properties for many years, a body that I wish to get back up and running again, I hope with support in this House. I also live in a listed property. I share the right reverend Prelate’s concerns in relation to the Listed Places of Worship Grant Scheme and the concerns about VAT. For many years up to 2012, a lower rate or a zero rate of VAT applied for properly approved listed property works. That was removed by a Conservative Government, but that does not mean that it was the right thing to do. In the face of the high cost for listed property owners of specialist builders and specialist materials, getting planning consent can add dramatically to the cost. There is also the issue of insurance premium tax. Listed property owners face far in excess of the usual increases in insurance because the market is restricted. It is not fair that the Treasury is enriched through insurance premium tax on top of that. Could that be looked at please?

I hear the noble Lord’s concerns. From a government perspective, we would be very keen to understand how this would be funded, given the overall economic situation we find ourselves in. If he has any suggestions on that point, I would be very happy to hear them.