Memorandum submitted by the Association
of Independent Museums
The Association of Independent Museums (AIM)
is a voluntary organisation which has a membership of 750 independent
museums across the UK. Most are small charitable trust, often
volunteer run, always committed to preserving the Nation's heritage.
Priorities for the forthcoming Heritage White
Paper
We believe that future priorities should include:
— Promoting and encouraging the widest
diversity in the museum's sector, not only by direct support of
National Museums, designated collections and Hubs through Renaissance
in the Regions, but also by ensuring that those outside of these
networks are not precluded from receiving funding and other support,
indeed, that such support is actively encouraged.
— Encouraging the various elements
of the DCMS community to work in partnership regionally and nationally.
In this regard, Renaissance in the Regions has been an important
initiative but one that is yet to deliver measurable results to
most regional museums that are not part of the hub initiative.
A great deal of effort is needed to ensure that the benefits of
Renaissance do not adversely affect those outside the hubs and
equally importantly the benefits trickle down throughout the sector.
— Enabling long-term partnerships between
heritage institutions at local, regional and national level. DCMS
can play a critical role in encouraging and supporting such partnerships
proving that they have a clear purpose and wide benefit. This
requires a proactive approach with demonstrable leadership both
from the department and its agencies.
— Promoting the need for more research
about the value and benefits that derive from investment in heritage.
Balancing heritage need and planning policy/Access
to heritage
AIM believes that the value of heritage assets
including museums, the built environment and natural landscapes
is misunderstood and undervalued. Often seen simply as a cost,
more work, led by DCMS, needs to be done to demonstrate the value
of these key assets. In promoting this the critical role played
by the country's heritage in creating a sense of place, identity
and image would help to ensure the sensitive integration of heritage
into new development.
Funding
The difficult financial position of many nationally
funded heritage institutions is well documented and there is an
increasing understanding of how complex it is to create sustainable,
self generated, income streams capable of supporting those expensive
to maintain institutions while maintaining the integrity of the
collections.
If this is true for national museums and the
like it is doubly true for independent museums. Most of AIM's
750 members rely entirely on self generated income arising from
paying visitors through the door.
Most are innovative and creative in maximising
these revenue streams. Many contribute substantially to the economic
well being of their localities through tourism multiplier effects
and in some cases through direct employment. Their value to communities
via their reinforcement of local identity is difficult to calculate
but invaluable as is their community engagement through volunteering.
Local authority support for such museums either
direct or through annual grants is disappearing rapidly as it
is a non statutory requirement.
Competition from Sunday shopping, change in
consumer behaviour, reduced leisure time, the skewing of the market
via the introduction of free access to National museums, changing
holiday patterns as a result of low cost air lines, home entertainment
and many other things adds increasing pressure to already insecure
finances. Further rises in minimum wage and the costs of bureaucracy
affecting all businesses adds further stress.
The Heritage Lottery Fund has been of unparalleled
benefit to the vast majority of AIM's membership since it inception.
It is hard to imaging a single factor that has provided support
to the sector enabling product enhancement, audience development
and sustainability to be enhanced. This is, however, a process
and a need that will never end, especially as the competitive
pressures grow. There can be no case for reducing funding to heritage
at this time.
Reduction in funds available from the Heritage
Lottery Fund will damage the independent museum sector in a way
that will be terminal to many. The sector recognises that id does
not have a god given right to such funding. Although frustrated
by the expense and bureaucracy involved in making bids and by
the ever increasing need to ensure that bids meet the broader
government based agenda's of inclusion and education the sector
does recognise that to be funded heritage must be relevant and
accessible and accepts that such objectives are a good thing in
the broadest sense. What the sector cannot accept is that there
is a reduced need to fund heritage and museums in particular.
Any downward pressure on HLF funding will damage the independent
sector forever.
The fear is compounded by the ever increasing
difficulty for smaller independent museums to raise capital funding
from more traditional corporate givers. The availability of such
funds is tighter than ever and corporate givers often increasingly
require tangible benefits which are either impossible to provide
or at odds with museum objectives.
The independent sector fully recognises its
responsibility to generate its own income but as described the
task is harder now, than ever. With this in mind there should
continue to be a debate about the need for ongoing revenue support
from whatever source where the case for heritage significance
can be proven along side a demonstration that a viable business
plan is impossible to deliver. Not every heritage asset can create
sufficient revenue to sustain its own subsistence. It will be
a sad world when important collections are "sold off"
simply because their public appeal, at the point in time, is too
limited to provide necessary income. Who can tell what will be
of interest to future generations? Often, small annual sums can
keep collections together but sourcing such support is ever harder.
Serious consideration must be given to this idea.
The roles of National bodies
Independent museums have often survived because
of their independence and entrepreneurial approach. There is often
conflict between the needs of national bodies and the independent
operator. Costly burocracy, "tick box" mentality and
the likes are at odds with independence. But . . . The sector
also understands the need to conform and meet standards of best
practice. Much can be gained. National bodies have a strong role
to play in setting these standards. There are also needs for such
organisations to lead a campaign for change and reform. The need
is that the organisations are "of the sector that they represent"
not apart from it. They must work with the full range of museums
and do more to understand the real issues that face practitioners
at the margins, working with them to bring them "into the
field", rather than alienate them from it.
There is a strong feeling within AIM that MLA
does not understand the sector and that it is simply promoting
a government agenda rather than representing a valuable, diverse
and extraordinary collection of museums to bring them and government
to a common ground of benefit to all.
There is a clear role for central bodies representing
the national picture. These must be properly funded and resourced
and must be allowed to represent the true value, needs and aspirations
of those who deliver real services every day, even if they do
not fit a neat model.
1 February 2006
| 
