Memorandum submitted the FDA
This response is submitted by the FDA, the union
of choice for senior managers and professionals and has been agreed
by the committee of its Culture Section. The Culture Section of
FDA includes many of the directors, chief executives and senior
professional staff across national museums, libraries and
archives. These bodies include:
— National Museum of Science and
Industry;
— National Portrait Gallery;
— National Maritime Museum;
— Royal Air Force Museum;
— National Museums of Scotland;
— National Galleries of Scotland;
— National Museums and Galleries
of Wales;
— National Library of Wales;
— The National Archives; and
1. FUNDING
The FDA is very concerned about the pressures
on funding that are becoming apparent through the 2012 London
Olympics and has already been campaigning on the issue. At its
Annual Delegate Conference in May this year delegates unanimously
agreed the following resolution:
This ADC congratulates those responsible for
the successful bid to bring the 2012 Olympic Games to London and
recognises the significance of the benefits that this will bring
to deprived areas in the east of London and elsewhere. It notes
however that the government, and especially the Department for
Culture, Media and Sport, not only carries financial responsibility
for the Games but also for the great national and regional museums,
and may be tempted to restrict their funding for culture to feed
the demands for Olympic funds from sporting bodies and other lobby
groups. It believes that museums, libraries and archives are a
unique national asset, treasured by many people both in this country
and visitors from overseas, who enjoy them in their millions each
year, and should be adequately funded for the work they do regardless
of the other demands upon the departmental budgets. We emphasise
the additional interest that these institutions will attract from
the even larger number of visitors attracted to London by the
Games, and believe it is vital that 2012 should see the cultural
institutions of Britain housed in well-maintained buildings, have
collections well stored and cared for, and have the expert staff
and competent managers needed to maximise this great opportunity
to publicise the culture of the British Isles and the wider world.
Since May these pressures have, if anything,
become more acute. Of particular concern is the exercise in July
that the DCMS required all its NDPBs to carry out which was to
undertake a paper exercise to show the impact of reducing annual
expenditure by 7% a year over the three years 2008-09 to 2010-11,
a cumulative real-terms reduction of 21% over the period.
Although we were told that the purpose of this
work is to provide a clear picture across the DCMS's NDPBs of
the significant impact such a reduction would have on the service
levels in their discussions with Treasury, it is difficult to
see why the request should have been made if there was not a real
possibility of the CSR producing real cuts in grant in aid. It
is also a matter of concern that it is not clear whether all NDPBs
have been asked to submit bids for the CSR, as was the case in
previous rounds.
It hardly needs to be spelt out that if the
CSR outcome were to be anything less than a level settlement,
then all the benefits that have come from the investment that
this Government has made in the national museums, particularly
the introduction of free admission, would be placed in jeopardy.
2. ACQUISITION
AND DISPOSAL
POLICIES
Acquisition. There is a need for the
Committee to carry out a second follow inquiry up to its 2000
report on cultural property. That report, Cultural Property,
Return and Illicit Trade, was fundamentally important in kick-starting
the Government's policies in this area. It led to the establishment
of the Illicit Trade Advisory Panel which in turn led to the UK
Government's accession to the 1970 UNESCO Convention, the Dealing
in Cultural Objects (Offences) Act and the guidelines published
by DCMS in October 2005, Combating Illicit Trade: Due Diligence
Guidelines for Collecting and Borrowing Cultural Material.
In 2004 the Committee held a follow up inquiry
and that served as another useful spur to further progress on
the part of the Government (Cultural objects: developments
since 2000 (2004). In the last two years, the publication
of Combating Illicit Trade aside, the rate of progress
has slowed and it is regrettable that the DCMS closed down the
Illicit Trade Advisory Panel in 2005 without as yet establishing
a promised successor body.
We also believe the Committee should press the
Government on early ratification of the Hague Convention, as it
is committed to doing but on which there appears to have been
little progress recently.
The DCMS's acquisition guidelines, Combating
Illicit Trade, is valuable because it the work of a subcommittee
of the Illicit Trade Advisory Panel drawn from professionals from
the sector. These guidelines probably mean that museums in the
UK have higher standards governing acquisitions than is the case
anywhere else in the world, but they deserve to be better known.
We would urge the DCMS to do more to make these guidelines known
by sponsoring a conference on the subject.
Disposal: We entirely reject the notion
of encouraging museums to make large-scale disposals, but there
may well be a case for targeted disposals of objects that fall
outside the current collections policy of the museum concerned
and which are not actively used by the public, especially if significant
resources are needed to preserve them. While disposal issues have
often given rise to hot debate among museum professionals we would
suggest that common sense is needed here. It is of the highest
importance for museums, especially national and designated museums,
to continue to retain reference collections even if some individual
objects in those collections are not frequently used by the public.
However, there may be other collections in museums that have grown
up in a haphazard manner and which contain objects which may require
substantial resources to maintain and preserve where there may
well be a case for disposal if these objects are not used by the
public.
3. REMIT AND
EFFECTIVENESS OF
DCMS AND MLA
There is a strong need for strong and unified
leadership in the sector as a whole, but we would not support
the proposal that MLA should become the funding body for the national
museums, as we do not believe that MLA has yet found its feet
as an organisation and this would not be an appropriate role for
it.
There certainly needs to be greater clarity
on the role and functions of MLA, its regional agencies and the
hub museums in Renaissance for the Regions, as the current situation
is confusing with different bodies apparently having overlapping
functions. We believe there is a need for a review of the relationship
between DCMS, MLA and the national museums and the hub museums,
as to how the Government's policies and programmes for museums
can best be delivered.
Conclusion
Our members are at the sharp end of delivering
the Government's policies in museums and we would be happy to
support these comments with oral evidence to the committee if
requested.
27 September 2006
| 
