-
- 1. Église de la Nativité-de-la-Vierge in Massat, Ariège
Photo: Didier Selles - See the image in its page
The idea floated by Rachida Dati of charging admission to Notre-Dame, which if implemented would lead to its extension to many religious buildings in France, is arousing passions. It even pits heritage conservationists against each other, with some - like Stéphane Bern - declaring themselves in favour of such a measure, and others - like us - opposing it (see article). Our opponents have put forward a number of arguments, both on social networks and in comments on articles published in the press, including the one we wrote in Le Figaro to defend other avenues of funding, which we have been promoting for several years now (see this article): a €1 increase in the tourist tax, and a 1.8% tax on Française des Jeux bets recovered from the considerable sums (68% of bets) paid out to winners.
They are right on some points, but assuming a kind of ideal world where France would be well managed, which unfortunately does not exist.
Other arguments are debatable at best, and we respond to them here.
So let’s look at all the objections made by our opponents. The first two fall into the category that we consider to be utopian.
-
- 2. Choir of the église Notre-Dame-de-la-Nativité
Massat (Ariège)
Photo: Didier Selles - See the image in its page
1) First objection: the State budget is sufficient to devote the necessary resources to heritage maintenance and restoration. This is obviously true when you consider that the budget allocated to this task by the Ministry of Culture is less than 4% of its overall budget, and less than 9% if you exclude the audiovisual budget. In our view, the maintenance of our historic heritage is one of the State’s key responsibilities, and should take priority over many others. This argument is valid, of course, but it would be acceptable if logic and common sense prevailed, which is far from being the case. Taking the necessary money from elsewhere would inevitably lead to strong resistance from those who would be deprived of resources, and we know perfectly well that none of this is possible.
2) The second objection is similar to the first. While it is claimed (which is not untrue) that the State is impecunious, it is not uncommon for hundreds of millions, or even billions, to suddenly appear out of the blue for certain causes, whether legitimate or not. The Olympic Games need to be organised? The government finds several billion. Do we need to help Lebanon? Finding 100 million is no longer a problem. The President of the Republic is imposing a culture pass (the value of which for culture remains to be proven)? That’s 267 million euros [1] that we can mobilise without any problem; just imagine what we could do for heritage with an extra 267 million euros a year, when the Minister of Culture optimistically claims that charging 5 euros for admission to Notre-Dame would bring in 75 a year.
This argument is just as valid, perhaps even more so. If the State decided to do so, it could save on certain unnecessary expenses, which would enable it to substantially increase the funding for historic monuments. But who seriously thinks it will? The State is not virtuous, let’s face it.
-
- 3. Nave of the église Notre-Dame-de-la-Nativité
Massat (Ariège)
Photo: Didier Selles - See the image in its page
3) Third argument: we want to add more taxes when France is already burdened with compulsory levies. We’re not the ones to dispute that. But what taxes are we talking about? Hundreds or thousands of extra euros, as is all too often the case, for example when Paris City Council increases council tax by 63%, or when the government creates new tax brackets? No.
The tourist tax increased by 1 euro per night amounts to fourteen euros for a two-week holiday in France, if you stay in a hotel or on Airbnb. That’s a pittance compared with the cost of even one night in a hotel.
As for the tax on Française des Jeux bets, who would it penalise? The lottery winner who, instead of being awarded €100 million, would only receive €95 million? The 1.8% tax on sport already exists and has not provoked any public outcry. And why would the English lottery bring in €360 million a year when the lottery for heritage in France currently tops out at a few dozen million?
4) Fourth argument : the additional tourist tax would penalise historic monuments that run bed and breakfasts in order to finance themselves, and the less wealthy, who sleep in campsites for example, cannot afford to make such an effort.
The terms of this tourist tax could be adjusted. While one euro per night would have the advantage of simplicity, it would not be unthinkable for the tax to be based (as the tourist tax already is), for example, on the price of the accommodation. As for listed historic monuments that sell accommodation, the aim being to bring in more money, it would be perfectly conceivable to exempt them.
-
- 4. Dry rot in the église Notre-Dame-de-la-Nativité
Massat (Ariège)
Photo: Didier Selles - See the image in its page
5) Fifth argument: the tourist tax is local, so it’s very complex to get the money collected by the local councils paid back to the State... When you see the imagination that the French State can show in tax matters (going so far as to charge taxes on taxes...) no doubt they will find a solution to resolve this issue.
6) Sixth argument: earmarked taxes are subject to a cap (as is the case with the sports tax on Française des Jeux bets) and therefore part of this money would be returned to the State budget. No one can take advantage of his own turpitude. If we are looking for funding for our heritage, we need to allocate the whole of this tax, without capping it, to heritage. A politically strong Ministry of Culture could undoubtedly impose this principle.
7) Seventh argument: in any case, the sums collected will be misappropriated by the State, which will not donate them to heritage. Admittedly, this is a risk. But whatever solution is found, even the payment of admission to churches, this risk exists.
So none of these arguments against our proposals seem acceptable to us, especially as they can be debated and improved. It would obviously be much simpler to do nothing. But then we should not be surprised to see our heritage disappear or fall into ruin, as for example the church of Notre-Dame-de-la-Nativité in Massat, in the Ariège (ill. 1 to 4).