Memorandum submitted by the Institute
of Conservation [ICON]
1. INTRODUCTION
Much of the discourse about collections in the
heritage sector is about their value, their richness, their potential,
and their capacity to draw in new visitors. We wholeheartedly
endorse these statements, but will focus in our response on caring
for our collections rather than on the value of the collections
themselves. We hope that the Committee will be inspired by the
many possibilities our collections can offer; but we also hope
that, in its examination of evidence, it will succeed in extracting
robust and factual answers on the questions which we regard as
central to the quality of caring for those collections:
— who exactly has lead responsibility
for that caring in each institution or agency;
— how appropriate standards are
embedded in the professional practice of those who discharge that
responsibility; and
— how those people are funded
and trained to provide the levels of collection care the public
has the right to expect.
We believe there is a serious weakness running
through the contemporary approach to collections and in the practice
of collections management. This weakness is to assume that the
presence and accessibility of our collections is something which
can be taken for granted. We do not wish in any way to dampen
the enthusiasm for unlocking the richness of our collections for
improved public access and enhanced learning potential. On the
contrary, unless these collections are actively cared for, they
will, over time, become less accessible as their physical condition
deteriorates.
Care of collections is rarely a headline-making
activity. There are occasional thrills when patient work on conservation
reveals an old master to lie beneath a later painting, when a
famous object turns out to be a fake; when an object previously
thought to be a fake turns out to be authentic. There are, occasionally,
historic moments in archives, such as the discovery of hundreds
of manuscripts by Vivaldi, previously believed to be lost, in
an archive in Turin nearly a century ago, or the more recent discovery
of the Macclesfield Psalter in Shirburn Castle. For the most part
however, care of collections is not a high-profile activity. In
a publicity-driven age, care of collections is at a distinct disadvantage—it
tends to be overshadowed by activities which are better able to
grab the headlines or attract project funding. It is also likely
to be sidelined by activities which more readily and quickly allow
institutions dependent on public funding to demonstrate that they
are meeting the targets set by government.
A much overused phrase, which the committee
is bound to hear repeatedly in the evidence it receives, is "collections
are at the heart of everything we do." It is not sufficient
for cultural institutions to simply restate this truism. Having
collections at the heart of everything one does is not an achievement—it
is an obvious statement of fact. The challenge for those institutions
is to account for how they discharge their responsibilities as
keepers and stewards of those collections.
The heart, we contend, is a part of the body
cultural which must be in rude health if its more visible and
active members are to function properly. As a general diagnosis,
the collections in UK museums, galleries, archives and libraries
are not the healthy heart of a thriving body. Unless those collections
are kept in better shape, they will not be able to meet the body's
needs in the future.
Icon is not making a case for greater attention
and support for care of collections as an alternative to greater
access and use. On the contrary, we see sustainable collections
care as a necessary underpinning to this access and use. Our vision
is of actively managed collections, with proper conservation and
care enriching our means of revealing and interpreting information.
Conservation both makes access possible and enhances the quality
of that access by unlocking the stories within objects.
This case was put most eloquently by the then
Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, Lord Smith of
Finsbury, who said:
"Conservation and the care of collections
is vitally important in ensuring that our past will be available
for future generations to learn from and understand. As always,
it is important that there is a balance between stewardship of
our heritage, care and access."
2. ICON, THE
INSTITUTE OF
CONSERVATION
Icon is the lead voice for the conservation
of cultural heritage in the UK. It brings together three thousand
individuals and organisations. It embraces the broad conservation
community and incorporates not only professional conservators,
but others who share a commitment to improving understanding of,
and access to, our cultural heritage. As a charity, Icon is committed
to public benefit through promoting public understanding of and
access to all the diverse elements of cultural heritage.
Icon operates the PACR (Professional Accreditation
of Conservator-Restorers) scheme which enables the public to identify
highly qualified and experienced conservators. Championing high
standards in conservation, Icon strongly encourages organisations
to use accredited conservators (ACRs) and to build requirements
for the use of accredited conservators into guidance documents
associated with the commissioning of conservation work and the
granting of funds for conservation projects.
To make the skills of accredited professionals
accessible to curators, fellow professionals and the public, Icon
operates the Conservation Register. There is no charge for searches
on the Conservation Register and the bulk of the costs of managing
it are borne by the profession itself. More than 20,000 searches
for conservators were carried out on the Conservation Register
in the last year.
A successful bid to the Heritage Lottery Fund
has enabled Icon to offer an internship scheme that will help
tackle the shortage of practical and preventive conservation skills
across the UK and increase the number of trained conservators
and collections care specialists. More and better-trained practitioners
will improve the condition of collections and make them more accessible
to the public. Up to twenty internships per year will be offered
over the four years of the scheme. Interns will be based with
experienced conservators in institutions across the UK. These
internships cover a very wide range of specialist skills—one,
in metals conservation, is the Imperial War Museum in Duxford,
working on preserving Britain's historic military aircraft; another,
also in metals conservation, will be at the National Maritime
Museum in London. There is also an ethnographic conservation internship
at the Marischal Museum in Aberdeen and and a collections care
internship at Manchester City Galleries.
Icon is a partner, together with the National
Preservation Office (NPO) in Collections Link, the new national
advisory service for collections management managed by MDA.
3. HOW DID
WE GET
TO WHERE
WE ARE?
3.1 In 2002, the predecessor body of MLA, then
called Re:source, funded study of "Collections information
and advice in the museums sector". This study noted:
— There is no common understanding
of the term "stewardship" and its concomitant responsibilities.
— There is a surprisingly low
level of knowledge and understanding out there. Often people do
not have sufficient knowledge and understanding to frame the appropriate
questions for the guidance and advice they are seeking.
— The increasing focus at national,
regional and institutional level on learning and access is believed
to be at the cost of stewardship of collections.
— There is great concern about
the future provision and sustainability of collections management
and collections care information and advice.
— Cost-cutting measures such as
the reduction of conservation staff at major national institutions
are seen to have an important practical and psychological effect.
— An absence of leadership and
strategy at a national level.
— The demise of the former Museums
and Galleries Commission Conservation Unit and particularly the
post of Environmental Advisor are cited as evidence of the absence
of national leadership in the area of collections care.
— The use of contractors by national
and regional agencies is compounding fragmentation and eroding
cumulative knowledge which was built up through advice and ongoing
relationships.
— People want practical advice
and problem solving that are context sensitive; they want guidance
to help them to make meaningful decisions.
— Printed and web resources are
not widely valued and people only use them when they have been
directed to them through direct personal advice and training.
MLA has made a start in addressing the penultimate
point by funding the creation of the new Collections Link service.
Apart from this the overall picture remains largely unchanged
since 2002.
3.2 A second report from Resource in 2002
was entitled "Collections Management-Preserving the Past
for the Future." The stated aim of this document was to develop
a framework to deliver improved collections management across
the sector. Unfortunately this never emerged.
3.3 Two years before this, the Heritage
Lottery Fund and Re:source published a report called "Stewardship".
This noted that in 1998, only 7% of UK museums had a in-house
conservators, around two thirds of whom were employed by national
museums. Two thirds of national museums also claimed that their
conservation provision was insufficient, but more than half had
no plans to expand it. Nearly a decade has passed since then,
and in the intervening years the proportion of museums with in-house
conservation capacity has almost certainly continued to decline.
While museums and other institutions are often able to meet their
current conservation needs by outsourcing to private conservators,
the increasing dependence on conservators who are sole traders,
with no capacity to train up the next generation of skilled professionals,
threatens to create a major skills shortage in coming years.
3.4 In its original manifesto (2000), Resource
said they would "recognise more explicitly the importance
of stewardship issues involving the conservation, care and development
of collections". Unfortunately, Re:source never achieved
this and, once it was reconstituted as MLA, stewardship largely
disappeared from its list of priorities.
3.5 This list is by no means exhaustive—it
omits related reports, studies and recommendations on collections
care from The Museums and Galleries Commission, The Scottish Museums
Council, Regional Museums Councils, the London Museums Agency,
MDA, and other agencies. For a number of years we have been enthusiastically
assured that "collections are at the heart of everything
we do" while little effective action has been taken by public
agencies to improve the quality of collections care in our heritage
institutions. Where improvements have taken place, they have generally
been the result of dynamic and forward-looking individuals leading
change in their own organisation. However these localised improvements
have taken place within a general context of decline in funding,
practical advice and skills development across the sector. The
number of organisations which set out to "develop a strategy",
"lead initiatives", "roll out best practice"
and "broker partnerships" has continued to proliferate,
while resources for front-line collections care and preservation
work have become harder to secure and sustain.
4. RECOMMENDATIONS
4.1 Spend Less on Strategy and more on Delivery.
4.2 Advocate the value of heritage for its
inherent value as much as for its contribution to wider social
goals such as regeneration or tourism.
4.3 Invest to make collections a useful
resource, by setting appropriate targets and policies and providing
funding.
4.4 Develop measures of the value of investment
in heritage collections which relate to the values the public
already espouse and which are more effective policy drivers than
crude visitor numbers.
4.5 Clarify the long term commitment the
State is prepared to make through its various agencies to protecting,
preserving and making accessible our nation's heritage.
4.6 Review the UK's tax regime to encourage
greater charitable giving to cultural institutions.
4.7 Consider introducing a statutory responsibility
for local authorities towards museums similar to the existing
provision for libraries.
4.8 Encourage DCMS-sponsored bodies to refocus
on the heritage assets under their care as well as on core collections
activities such as preservation and conservation which are critical
in enabling access and community engagement through exhibitions,
loans and outreach.
4.9 Secure a commitment from DCMS to act
as a stronger advocate for care of collections to other Government
departments, in particular, the Treasury.
4.10 Ensure the MLA partnership plays an
active role in advocating higher standards of collections care
through supporting the use of the Conservation Register, accredited
conservation professionals and the "Benchmarks in Collections
Care".
4.11 Identify sources of funding for frontline
support services in collections care. Since the restructuring
of regional agencies there is a lack of identified funding for
conservation and smaller institutions no longer have an obvious
place to turn for support.
4.12 Ensure that funds for increasing social
inclusion and diversity are not made available at the expense
of funding for low-profile collections care activities which support
collections and are required to underpin sustainable inclusion
and diversity activities.
4.13 Encourage cultural institutions to
undertake "conservation due diligence" when considering
acquiring new objects or collections, providing an evaluation
of the conservation measures likely to be required over the predicted
lifetime of the object.
4.14 Address issues of decay of retained
collections as part of the review of the ethics of disposal.
4.15 Expand training capacity in heritage
institutions to develop the practical skills base for future collections
care professionals.
5. FUNDING, WITH
PARTICULAR REFERENCE
TO THE
ADEQUACY OF
THE BUDGET
FOR MUSEUMS,
GALLERIES AND
ARCHIVES, AND
THE IMPACT
OF THE
LONDON 2012 OLYMPICS
ON LOTTERY
FUNDING FOR
THEIR SECTOR
5.1 The next few years will undoubtedly
see a reduction of funds available to the sector due to their
diversion towards the Olympics in 2012. This is likely to have
a particular impact on London's locally funded museums, galleries
and archives which will have to compete for funds. It is also
likely that DCMS direct funding to national museums will be curtailed—indeed
a cumulative reduction in real terms of 25% over three years is
being explored—at a time when they are being asked to do
more—not least put on a good show during the Olympics—with
inevitable consequences for the stewardship of collections.
5.2 Funding for the sector which might benefit
the collections is fragmentary. It includes central Government
(DCMS, MOD, DfES, DCLG, DCA, DTI (OST), local government, Lottery,
NHMF, charitable trusts, commercial ventures and sponsors, visitors
and charitable donations. Such diversity of funding sources is
not necessarily a bad thing, but is indicative of the overall
lack of strategic direction and reliable support for this sector.
5.3 Likewise, the sources of funding are
often highly targeted on specific priorities. The overall quantity
of funding available for the sector may rise or fall, but it is
necessary to drill down below the headline figures to look at
what the money is available for. Only rarely is it available for
ongoing collections care work.
5.4 The DCMS Annual Report 2005-06 says
"Capital funding for museums and galleries is due to increase
by nearly 82% in 2006-07, with a further increase of nearly 49%
in 2007-08." These figures are very impressive, but they
do not necessarily augur particularly well for collections care.
Some of the money will be spent on new access initiatives that
will not include collections care. Some of it will replace resources
already lost to local authority museums in LA funding cuts; some
is only available to regional museums; some is being spent not
directly on museums, but on layers of strategic planning which
are of questionable value.
5.5 DCMS prefers to leave its NPDBs to make
their own spending choices, so that funding tends not to be ring-fenced
for specific purposes, such as collections care. However, the
Department does set priorities for the sector which necessarily
influences how funding is spent. Current DCMS priorities for its
sponsored bodies and the sector in general make scant mention
of collections. This risks these activities being side-lined.
5.6 There is a copious flow of national
and regional strategy documents, but few of them propose significant
expenditure on front-line work, including conservation, mainly
because funding is not obviously available. Typically, a recommendation
for Year 3 from SEMLAC is: "SEMLAC will encourage and
support the development of partner funding applications for stewardship."
"SEMLAC will develop and obtain resources for its stewardship
strategy for the next three years". These worthy objectives
hardly reflect the urgent requirement for direct funding of collections
care.
5.7 Accessing information about available
resources is often as much of a problem as the level of resource
provision itself. The relevant strategic reports over recent years
(unevenly available over the regions) all point to a shortage
of funds. A typical analysis, from the SEMLAC strategy, says:
"Funding is required not just for immediate work to make
collections accessible for now and the longer term, but also to
nurture the skills of the conservation workforce. Recent investment
by HLF in an internship scheme is very much to be welcomed, but
a more sustainable solution is required. This should be a matter
of concern for the DCMS and the MLA."
5.8 Local authorities face particular pressures,
which invariably tend to whittle away the resources available
to museums, and their non-statutory provision, forcing them to
focus their efforts on the access and community agenda, without
recognising the centrality of collections to the achievement of
that agenda. The move to trust status may have eased pressures
temporarily for some, but fails to deal with the root problem.
5.9 Relatively new funding sourced through
DCMS for museums includes Renaissance in the Regions, Designation
Challenge funding, and the DCMS Wolfson Fund. The Renaissance
programme has stimulated investment in collections development
in regional museums, but by no means uniformly. Output is variable,
in part because money was awarded to hub museums in phases. Phase
two museums only started to receive significant funding in 2006.
Criteria for the DCMS Wolfson Fund include "improvements
to environmental controls in public access spaces and galleries
(though not to storage facilities for objects not on display)".
Icon welcomes the fact that environmental improvements can be
funded under this scheme. However we believe that if it is recognised
that objects require certain environmental conditions while on
display it seems perverse not to fund appropriate improvements
in storage environments too. While the funding is welcome, much
of it goes on "pure access" projects; and a fund of
£4 million per year could not have a major impact on environmental
management of collections at a strategic level, even if all of
it were devoted to environmental improvements.
5.10 Lottery funding has had a significant
positive impact on the sector, most notably through the Heritage
Lottery Fund. It is good news that the HLF share of lottery funds
has not been cut, but the pot is smaller due to impact of the
Olympics 2012.
HLF has historically funded capital spending,
not recurrent costs such as care of collections. This means that
there may be money for new storage, displays or environmental
controls, but that money is not normally available for sustainable
collections management. We understand that HLF is currently looking
at ways of evaluating its impact which will inform its future
decision making on grant-giving, such that lottery money is less
likely to go into projects which may face severe difficulties
in raising new funds after HLF money runs out.
One of the negative aspects of HLF funding has
been the increased emphasis on projects. Short-term gains made
through investments in projects may sometimes be negated by cuts
in revenue funding of core activities and posts, which are often
collections care related. Large new spaces displaying or storing
collections can generate additional staff and other posts which
prove not to be sustainable, particularly for local authorities.
Project funding can therefore create problems of sustainability,
in terms both of physical maintenance and of know-how.
5.11 A new and most welcome stream of funding
for the sector is the Arts and Humanities Research Council which
now embraces research in some museums, galleries, libraries and
archives. In our comments on their strategic review, as well as
in our response to the recent House of Lords inquiry into Science
and Heritage, we urged a more coordinated approach to funding
of the conservation science which underpins modern collection
care.
5.12 Museums, galleries and archives have
traditionally worked with small budgets, and have done so creatively.
Given the different sources of funding on which different types
of organisation are dependent, it is difficult to make an over-arching
comment on adequacy. With more funds, the sector could do more
and the recent Values and Vision document goes some way towards
outlining this for the cultural sector as a whole. The biggest
problem seems to be that growth in some areas (the arrival of
Lottery funding, or the injection of funds to regional museums
through the Renaissance programme) is often negated by cuts in
other areas (frequently, local authority funding). Museums and
galleries are generally capital rich but income poor. They often
suffer from an emphasis on exhibition and display rather than
on imaginative engagement with collections.
5.13 There is a need for measures to encourage
greater philanthropy. A review of the UK's tax regime to encourage
greater charitable giving to museums, galleries and archives would
be welcome.
5.14 As is being increasingly realised,
the provision for greater access needs to take account the interests
of future generations as well as the current one. Under present
funding regimes, such collection care money as can be found is
closely tied to imminent exhibitions and other access projects.
Meanwhile the longer-term requirements for the stability of heritage
items into the future have to be ignored, creating a legacy of
neglect which will cost future generations dear.
5.15 Business rates are a major financial
burden for many museums, particularly those under the management
of local authorities. Museums with trust status are able to claim
up to 100% relief on business rates. However many museums may
not wish to pursue trust status as this could undermine rather
than improve their funding base. If relief on business rates were
extended to all accredited museums, not just those with trust
status, this would release funds that could potentially be redirected
towards collection care.
6. ACQUISITION
AND DISPOSAL
POLICIES WITH
PARTICULAR REFERENCE
TO DUE
DILIGENCE OBLIGATIONS
ON ACQUISITION
AND LEGAL
RESTRICTIONS ON
DISPOSAL OF
OBJECTS
6.1 The 2005 DCMS consultation "Museums
and the 21st Century" raised many issues relating to collection
and disposal. One of the positive outcomes of the consultation
to date has been the establishment of a Collaborative Working
Group which is discussing the benefits of, and proposals for,
a National strategy for museums.
The group noted that there were fewer acquisitions
by museums today compared to the 1960s and 1970s. However, as
the graphs below illustrate, some museums were collecting at levels
in the 1960s and 1970s which were without historic precedent and
which may not necessarily be sustainable.
The group acknowledged the perception, probably
misplaced and founded on high prices for fine art, that museums
could not successfully secure external funding for acquisitions.
Icon shares the view that while there are particular problems
in fine art acquisition, these do not necessarily characterise
the museums sector as a whole. The volume of archaeological artefacts
and collections, for example, continues to be high. Indeed, the
only headline achievement involving collections in the DCMS/MLA
funding agreement for 2006-07 to 2007-08 states "maintain
an upward curve increase in the number of finds per annum recorded
through the Portable Antiquities Scheme (PAS)". There is
however no corresponding commitment to post excavation care. There
is also no designated recipient museum for excavation archives
for many areas of England, or indeed for any offshore archaeological
sites.
6.2 An approach towards acquisition which
involves collections care ensures good value for public money.
Icon recommends that sound collections care planning be part of
acquisitions policies. Icon recommends that where possible, cultural
institutions should undertake "conservation due diligence"
when considering acquiring new objects or collections—that
is, that a condition report be carried out on the proposed acquisition
and an evaluation of what conservation measures are likely to
be required over the predicted lifetime of the object; and that
these be factored into the financial decisions about whether to
acquire. These principles should also be applied to the acceptance
of long-term loans if the responsibilities for conservation are
to reside with the museum, gallery or archive. Failure to make
future conservation needs a factor in acquisition decisions may
lead, in certain cases, to items acquired at the cost of strenuous
fundraising efforts being withdrawn from display or use later
on because the institution cannot afford the conservation costs
of continuing to make them accessible.
This is of particular importance when considering
the collection of 20th and 21st century objects and archival material.
The large-scale acquisition of 20th century objects poses significant
challenges for conservation because the 20th century has been
such a tremendously fertile period for experimenting and developing
new materials. Since the development of Bakelite in 1909 many
hundreds of plastics have entered common use and we are learning
as we go along about how these materials degrade, responding to
factors such as light, humidity and temperature. Photographic
and film collections held in galleries and archives as well as
museums are another example of valuable cultural artefacts made
from modern and sometimes highly unstable materials. Sound and
video recordings often combine new and unfamiliar deterioration
problems with major access challenges. In 1986 the BBC commemorated
the 900th anniversary of the Domesday Book by publishing it on
video disc. Fifteen years later the disc and the system for reading
it were both obsolete and in response to problems of this nature
the Digital Preservation Coalition was established in 2001.
6.3 Icon supports the principle that collections
should be dynamic and should continue to be developed. This is
important to maintain their relevance for current and future audiences.
However, collections development does not have to mean an increase
in the number of objects collected. Large, underused collections
dilute already stretched collections management resources. A 2002
DCMS review identified that seventeen national museums were spending
an annual £34.5 million on storage and collections management,
around 15% of their total grant-in-aid. Icon agrees with the recent
reports of the Museums Association (MA) (Collections for the future,
2005) and National Museum Directors Conference (NMDC) (Too much
stuff, 2003) which propose that disposal policies be treated as
an integral part of collections development strategies.
Other suggestions arising from the MA report
include proposals for joint acquisitions and ownership, for the
increased mobility of collections, and increased number of loans.
Icon fully supports the active use of collections but would again
stress the need to consider the impact of these proposals on collections
management policies and resources. For example the diversion of
existing conservation resources to loans can have a negative impact
on core conservation activities within an institution.
6.4 Knowledgeable professionals are the
key to increasing access to collections and developing their use.
Museums, galleries and archives should be encouraged to be imaginative
in the use of collections. Conservation and conservation research
can play a role here, for example by presenting new ways for audiences
to engage with collections and objects, such as at the National
Conservation Centre (Liverpool), The National Gallery—Art
in the Making series, The British Museum—Mummy: the inside
story, and the Museum of London—LAARC (London Archaeological
Archive Resource Centre). Even traditional exhibitions which use
conservation as the subject matter have the potential to engage
new audiences—witness the recent very successful exhibitions
at Manchester Museum (Keeping it Together) and the Fitzwilliam,
Cambridge (Mission Impossible?) which was also accompanied by
lunchtime lectures and workshops. If it is accepted that collections
are the USP of museums, and the source of their intrinsic and
institutional value, there is a strong argument for making care
and conservation activities a more explicit feature—demonstrating
and sharing this knowledge rather than treating it as a "behind-the-scenes"
activity and a cost rather than an attraction.
6.5 Digitisation is often cited as a means
of opening up collections and making them accessible. Whilst this
is true, it should not be forgotten that digital preservation
has its own set of problems and that any access strategy incorporating
digitisation also needs to cover digital preservation.
6.6 The museum sector recognises that it
is time to revisit the issue of disposal. The MA has a consultation
in progress with the aim of producing a toolkit that will bring
together practical and ethical advice on disposal and guide museum
through each stage of the process. This debate must appreciate
the importance of depth of curatorial knowledge as being key to
good decision making with regards to disposal. There is an excellent
illustration of the complexity and cost of the process on the
National Maritime Museum (NMM) website.
Just as conservation evaluation has a role to
play in acquisition policies, Icon likewise believes that it has
a role to play in disposal decisions. Institutions need to be
hard-headed and realistic about whether they can look after objects
in their care to the standards they wish and which the objects
themselves require. There is an argument for actively seeking
to dispose of objects which may be judged to be exposed to higher
risk of deterioration if they are retained than if they are acquired
by another custodian better able to look after them.
Icon believes that traditional strong ethical
concerns about disposal may not always lead to the best outcome
for objects and collections. While there has been a strong ethical
presupposition against disposal, there is no such presupposition
against mere neglect. It is difficult to see how quiet decay in
storage for lack of conservation funds can really be an ethically
preferable alternative to managed disposal. It may be that the
museum sector can learn from the archives sector in which managed
retention is integral to acquisition and disposition policies.
Disposal will not solve the issue of resources
for collections care though it will help to ease the problem.
Many museums are dealing with this issue in a sensible and professional
manner through the development of national and regional specialist
groups.
6.7 MLA sets standards in the areas of acquisitions
and disposal for museums through the Accreditation Scheme for
Museums. The guidance provided by MLA as part of the Accreditation
Standard refers to the Museums Association code of ethics and
DCMS as sources of advice (though cultural property matters are
now handled by MLA itself). MLA is working with (and funding)
the development of online access to Cultural Property Advice through
Collections Link. This will be a valuable new resource for the
sector.
7. THE REMIT
AND EFFECTIVENESS
OF DCMS, THE
MUSEUMS, LIBRARIES
AND ARCHIVES
COUNCIL AND
OTHER RELEVANT
ORGANISATIONS IN
REPRESENTING CULTURAL
INTERESTS INSIDE
AND OUTSIDE
OF GOVERNMENT
7.1 General
Unfortunately, our sector has been characterised
in recent years by a chronic lack of clarity over who is responsible
for what; who has done what in the past; who is responsible to
whom; and where one goes for advice and leadership. The recent
reorganisation of MLA into a regional partnership offers the possibility
of a fresh start with more focused and effective leadership, and
it remains to be seen whether this will emerge from the new structures.
Collections Care has been the subject of a great
many reports, studies, action plans and strategic reviews in recent
years. The appetite for asking the same questions over and over
again seems not to be diminished by feeding; the lack of leadership
in following through on all this research, consultation and input
has become a depressing characteristic of our sector.
Until recently there have been at least three
tiers of organisation which think they have strategic responsibility
for collections care—DCMS, MLA and the regional MLAs. In
the case of museums there is a fourth tier in the Renaissance
Hubs. This unwieldy structure replaced a system in which locally
accountable regional organisations, the Area Museum Councils,
delivered support and small scale grants to member museums. They
also operated highly cost-effective collections care services.
The latter-day proliferation of strategy-drafting and the gradual
retreat away from provision of a range of real support services
constitute a flight from reality which has had negative consequences
for our national collections and from which it will take time,
resources, leadership and concentrated effort to recover.
The constant morphing of roles and responsibilities
in recent years is highlighted in the relationship between DCMS
and MLA. MLA was set up (originally as Re:source) as the "lead
strategic agency" for Museums, but DCMS decided in 2005 to
run its own consultation on the future of museums in the UK rather
than leaving this to MLA. Conversely in 2006 DCMS devolved its
non-strategic cultural property functions to MLA, including the
Export Licensing Unit.
7.2 Remit and effectiveness of DCMS
Icon accepts that the Olympics will be the major
focus of activity in DCMS until 2012 but it is important that
the heritage sector not be afflicted with planning blight and
lack of focus for the next six to seven years—the last six
have been quite chaotic enough. We are fortunate to have an energetic
and committed Minister in David Lammy MP, and are confident that
his personal commitment to culture and heritage will provide an
invaluable focus for building a positive future.
7.3.i DCMS Successes: Bringing in New Money
DCMS has been successful in gaining additional
funding for the sector, most notably for the Renaissance in the
regions programme.
7.3.ii DCMS Successes: Collaborative Working
Group on the Future of Museums
Although we are not entirely clear why DCMS
itself undertook a consultation on the future of museums, one
outcome of this has been very positive—the establishment
of a collaborative working group to follow up on its consultation.
This group has made a number of proposals for improved care of
collections, and Icon hopes that its advice to DCMS will be heeded.
7.4.i DCMS Weaknesses: Funding regime
The weakness of DCMS begins, we believe, in
the funding regime within which it operates. The PSA targets set
by the Treasury for DCMS are mostly concerned with its role in
sport rather than it cultural responsibilities. It is not surprising
if, working in this target-driven environment, the department
is correspondingly more focused on its sports work than on its
cultural work. PSA3 commits DCMS to "Increasing the number
accessing museums and galleries collections by 2%." In its
2005-06 Annual Report, DCMS largely reflects this "bodycount"
method of assessing its own impact. While increasing participation
is perfectly worthy goal we do not believe that simple increases
in visitor numbers represent anything like an adequate measure
of value for public money.
The 2004 DEMOS paper "Capturing Public
Value" eloquently set out the problems of setting quantitative
targets for arts and heritage, and suggested some ways forward.
When asked about the value of public heritage institutions, the
public who enjoy them do not speak of social inclusion, enhanced
mental health, crime reduction, and lower unemployment. They speak
largely in terms of the intrinsic values these institutions and
their collections embody. The challenge for government is to re-engage
with the public in the terms the public understands and appreciates,
and to devise more imaginative ways of capturing this value.
DCMS has taken an active role in developing
these discussions, notably through sponsoring the 2006 conference
"Capturing the Public Value of Heritage". This search
for a new discourse about the public value of heritage need to
be a key focus DCMS activity in time for the next Comprehensive
Spending Review. We should measure success in this regard by seeing
whether the post-2008 spending round remains focus on crude quantitative
targets or not.
7.4.ii DCMS Weaknesses: Advocacy
DCMS could do more to champion the sector inside
of government. This question has already been addressed by the
Committee in its report "Protecting and Preserving our Heritage"
earlier this year. The section of the Report on "Heritage
policy role within Government" acknowledges that in the case
of the historic environment, there are complex and overlapping
responsibilities and that to be effective, DCMS needs to be able
to navigate these successfully and make a clear case within the
framework of cross-cutting departmental responsibilities. As far
as museums, galleries, libraries and archives are concerned, the
picture is considerably less complicated than it is for the historic
environment as DCMS enjoys a much higher degree of direct oversight
in this domain. This means that we should be able to look to DCMS,
for example, to secure increased funding for archives in the future.
While museums benefits from Renaissance and there are good library
strategies in place, archives suffer from a relative lack of dedicated
funding.
7.5 Remit and effectiveness of MLA
The recent restructuring of MLA into a partnership
of regional agencies opens up both new possibilities and new risks.
On the positive side, it may lead to a greater consistency between
the regional MLAs, and end the practice whereby each separate
agency spent years commissioning consultants to map the sector,
identify best practice, and draft a regional strategy which was,
in most important respects, the same as the next region's. On
the other hand it is possible that the consensus approach may
not be particularly helpful for low-profile activities such as
collections care. If the partners all agree to focus on other
priorities there will no longer be a central MLA authority to
advocate collections care to them.
7.6 MLA Successes
Despite widespread uncertainty about its role,
remit and relationship with regional agencies, MLA has managed
to achieve some significant successes in recent years. These include:
— Implementing a leadership programme
for museums and archives, which may have a downstream effect on
investment in collections.
— Operating the Designation scheme,
which helps raise the profile of key collections although it does
not, in itself, attract any additional funding to meet their needs.
— Operating the Museums Accreditation
scheme, although there is a need for much more robust standards
in collections care for museums seeking accreditation.
— The Acceptance in Lieu Scheme,
now administered by the MLA, works very effectively and as a result
many items of national significance have been saved for the nation.
— Supporting the Conservation
Awards, which celebrate excellence in conservation and to which
was added in 2005 a special award for Collection Care. The awards,
which are administered by Icon, supported by Sir Paul McCartney,
and also funded also by English Heritage, the Digital Preservation
Coalition, and the Anna Plowden Trust, have served over their
10 rounds to focus attention on work in many collections, and
thereby contributed to a raising of standards.
7.7.i MLA weaknesses: Funding regime
MLA's stated purpose is "to improve people's
lives through access to these collections and resources—building
knowledge, supporting learning, inspiring creativity and celebrating
identity." This purpose is one which Icon fully supports.
We are not convinced however that the funding and governance regime
within which the MLA partnership is currently required to operate
enables it to achieve its purpose adequately.
The 2006-08 funding agreement with DCMS sets
out the key priorities and targets for MLA. These are primarily
about increasing visitor numbers, particularly of priority groups.
In the 32-page funding agreement document, the only key task explicitly
relating to collections is "to increase access to funding
and development opportunities for our sector's collections, resources
and services".
MLA documents contain many high-minded objectives,
such as to "establish a world-class and sustainable sector"
and "putting museums, libraries and archives at the heart
of national, regional and local life." These might well be
interpreted as implying a significant degree of attention to collections
care, but there is little evidence that this is the case. The
explicit priorities of the funding agreement with DCMS are naturally
reflected in MLA's own business plan for 2006-07. In this there
is a single planned activity under the strategic objective of
developing and funding a collections advice network—the
Collections Link service led by MDA in which Icon is partnering.
7.7.ii MLA weaknesses: Structure
The organisation has had a troubled history
and the confusion surrounding remits has been particularly apparent
between MLA and the Regional Agencies. The recent reorganisation
and creation of the MLA partnership may address these problems.
The organisation has focused primarily on strategy, but much of
this has also been carried out regionally. It is essential that
strategy be developed centrally and that it be translated into
effective support for collections care.
The move toward a purely strategic role for
both national and regional MLAs has resulted in the creation of
a collection care "void". There has been no obvious
successor to fill this void which was previously covered, to good
effect, by the MGC Conservation Unit and the Area Museum Councils
who supported standards, provided advice and co-ordinated activity
in this area.
7.7.iii MLA weaknesses: Standards in Collections
Care
The underpinning of collection care standards
now relies on the Museum Accreditation Scheme. It is welcome news
that this is to be included as the basis of a performance indicator
by the Audit Commission for assessing local authority services
as part of the Comprehensive Performance Assessment. We are concerned,
however, that the bar for collection care may be set too low and
that at present there is little incentive for improvement. Although
Accreditation does seek assurance on several aspects of collection
care, there is no formal requirement to demonstrate compliance
with the Benchmarks for collection care for museums, libraries
and archives developed by MLA over several years, even though
almost all its Basic Level criteria would appear to be entirely
obvious, minimal responsibilities for any museum aspiring to hold
a collection. This cautious approach may have been driven by awareness
by the MLA of the low level of resources available to museums
to meet these standards of collection care. There appears however
to be no clear policy to encourage attainment of the "Good"
and "Best" levels, nor indeed any overt promotion of
the benchmarks. In addition, MLA no longer has a post within its
staffing structure dedicated to collections care.
7.7.iv MLA Weaknesses: Cross-Domain Working
One of the benefits of bringing Museums, Libraries
and Archives together under a single agency was intended to be
cross-domain working. MLA reports that its successful cross-domain
initiatives are "Inspiring Learning for All" and the
"Workforce Development Strategy".
Collections and collection care activities such
as conservation and preservation have however not been treated
as a cross-domain activity. This has again resulted in patchy
data about collections and resources available for their care.
For example, surveys of conservation provision may be carried
out for museums within a particular region whilst ignoring provision
for archives and libraries (even though many organisations hold
more than one type of collection) because the funding has come
from Renaissance, which is for museums only. MLA recognises the
need to secure improved funding for collections care in archives,
and Icon hopes that this will be one outcome of the present enquiry.
7.8 Regional MLAs
Assessing the regionalisation of MLA, it is
difficult to see that there has been any overarching benefit to
the care of collections. It is not clear that regionalisation
was ever implemented in the first place in an attempt to produce
a demonstrable public benefit or meet a sector need. Individual
regional MLAs have, to be sure, managed to make some contributions
to collections care, but it would not be accurate to say that
this had been achieved because of regionalisation.
7.9 Regional MLAs: Weaknesses
Icon believes that a great deal of time and
resource has been used ineffectively in recent years as regional
MLAs have attempted to re-invent the wheel in various ways, usually
beginning with having consultants undertake a mapping exercise,
followed by the drafting of a regional strategy which has often
led to little practical activity of value. Much of the knowledge
and understanding of the old Conservation Unit of the Museums
and Galleries Commission has simply been lost, partly through
lack of understanding of what already been done, and partly from
an understandable tendency on the parts of each MLA agency to
"look regional."
7.9.i Regional MLAs: Weaknesses—Professional
Standards
For example, the MGC originally set up the Conservation
Register as an authoritative central resource for institutions
needing conservation and collections advice. MGC transferred the
Register to one of Icon's predecessor bodies, the UK Institute
for the Conservation of Historic and Artistic Works, which operated
it in partnership with a number of other bodies and significantly
raised its value as a public resource by making professional accreditation
of conservator-restorers (PACR) a requirement for registration.
Icon now operates the Conservation Register with no public funding,
and uses it to ensure that heritage institutions can access the
services of professionally-accredited conservators and collections
care specialists free of charge. Despite this, various regional
MLAs have from time to time indicated to Icon that they intend
to set up their own regional lists or databases of conservators,
which they recommend to heritage institutions seeking advice.
These initiatives are partly inspired we believe, by a desire
to be seen to be doing something helpful, and partly by a related
desire to promote and encourage local businesses.
These initiatives add no public benefit however,
since the Conservation Register already enables local searches,
and the public have already invested in it through MGC. Worse
still, while the Conservation Register requires professional accreditation
of the practices it promotes, local lists may not be based on
any objective criteria. We do know of instances where accredited
conservators on the Conservation Register have not being invited
to tender for work in heritage institutions, and where the work
has gone to an unaccredited practice. To the extent that they
have developed their own lists of preferred contractors—and
the precise extent of this is not entirely clear—regional
MLAs have actually been contributing to an erosion of professional
standards in collections care. Icon sees it as an important priority
of the new MLA partnership to reaffirm the importance of professional
standards in conservation and collections care, and to ensure
that the partner agencies use the Conservation Register where
appropriate.
7.9.ii Lack of Funding
The lack of adequate resources has been a serious
weakness for the regional MLAs, and will continue to pose problems
for the new MLA partnership unless new funds are made available.
For example:
— MLA Northeast has 93 museums,
319 libraries and 42 archival collections within its remit and
it runs a number of different programmes which cross these domains.
Its 2005-06 budget assumes income of £1.4 million and expenditure
on programmes of £790k.
— MLA East of England had an income
of £1.01 million in 2004-05, and spent £835k on programmes.
— MLA East Midlands had an income
of £938 million in 2004-05 and spent £812k on programmes.
— MLA London supports around 400
archive services, nearly a third of all UK archives, together
with more than 250 local and regional museums and over 1,500 libraries.
Its Business Plan for 2006-07 indicates projected expenditure
of £738k across all programmes.
For comparison, the income and expenditure levels
for each of these regional agencies are broadly similar to Age
Concern Camden (2004-05 income £1.7 million, expenditure
£1.6 million) or The Manchester and District Home for Lost
Dogs (2004 income £1.4 million, expenditure £0.9 million).
They are each dwarfed by voluntary organisations such as West
London YMCA (2004-05 income £7.9 million, expenditure £6.5
million) or the Welsh Air Ambulance Charitable Trust (2004-05
income £2.1 million, expenditure £1.9 million). Each
regional body has been expected to stretch a very small resource
across a very large number of different programmes covering a
wide range of institutions. Of course, the meagre resources which
the regional MLAs have had at their disposal only make the duplication
of efforts they have engaged in all the more frustrating. There
can be little surprise however, if they have struggled to make
a significant impact.
7.10 Renaissance in the Regions
The Renaissance in the Regions identified the
care of collections as a key area of activity under the heading
"PA4 Enhance the care, management and conservation of collections"
in the 2004-06 business planning period. This heading was dropped
in the 2006-08 business planning period after a review process
and the emphasis shifted farther towards access and education.
This made it very difficult to justify funding for collections
care activities in this period as it could be interpreted that
collections care activities would not be supported if submitted.
Directors and managers are very sensitive to the lead given by
DCMS /MLA when it comes to funding and will submit bids in the
areas that they feel are most likely to succeed. Therefore the
omission of reference to collection care jeopardises the inclusion
of this activity in future business plans. This proved not to
be the case in Birmingham where resources increased in the 2006-08
Renaissance funding round but feedback from others suggests that
it has been difficult to get collection care activities included
as directors and managers do not believe that they are a priority.
This view is effectively supported by MLA as collections care
is no longer identified in the Renaissance headings and sub headings.
The remit and responsibilities of hub museums
under the Renaissance scheme vary from region to region and is
not always clear, at least to interested outside observers. Regional
agencies seem to have passed different responsibilities to the
Hub museums within their region. This makes it difficult for those
seeking to engage with the sector to know who to contact for what.
The MLA Review 2004-06 noted that "through
Renaissance, we have funded 120 new collections posts: curators,
exhibition staff and conservators in England's regional museums".
These posts are very welcome, although the curatorial posts will
probably be more focused on interpretation and documentation than
on physical care, and it is perhaps noteworthy that the number
of new exhibitions staff exceeds the number of conservation posts.
Number of New Posts created through Renaissance
Hub 2004-06 Plans
|
| Region | Curatorial
| Research | Conservation
| Exhibitions | Total posts in hub
|
|
| North East | 12
| 0 | 4
| 2 | 55.9
|
| South West | 31
| 0 | 1.5
| 3 | 79
|
| West Midlands | 10.4
| 2.8 | 0
| 3 | 47.7
|
| Phase 1 Total | 49.4
| 2.8 | 5.5
| 8 | 182.7
|
| East Midlands | 15
| 0 | 0
| 0 | 23
|
| East of England | 3
| 0 | 0
| 3.4 | 17
|
| London | 2.6
| 0 | 0
| 0 | 12.4
|
| North West | 7.7
| 0 | 1
| 1.5 | 26.45
|
| South East | 11.72
| 0 | 2
| 0 | 25.47
|
| Yorkshire | 2
| 0 | 0
| 0 | 25
|
| Phase 2 Total | 42.02
| 0 | 3
| 8.3 | 129.32
|
| Full Total | 91.42
| 2.8 | 8.5
| 16.3 | 311.92
|
|
7.11 Heritage Lottery Fund
It has been the Heritage Lottery Fund that has done most
to develop and champion a view of heritage as socially and culturally
valuable. The work of HLF has broadened the social base for the
enjoyment of heritage so that there is now an acknowledged diversity
of contributions to the national story. Since its foundation,
HLF has funded over 2,000 projects for museums and collections
with grants totalling over £1 billion. Its contribution has
however not been confined to substantial injections of money.
The Fund has also worked to raise standards through offering good
guidance to its clients and requiring conservation management
plans as a condition of funding.
An example of the impact the HLF can have is its award of
£1 million to Icon to support 60 conservation internships
across the UK over four years. This was a share of a funding stream
of £7 million which HLF invested in the development of a
wide range of specialist heritage skills. Loyd Grossman, Chair
of the Campaign for Museums, welcomed this initiative with the
following words: "Over the past few years, several heritage
organisations have expressed considerable concern about the diminishing
pool of conservators. Well done HLF for addressing the urgent
need to train more people before this shortage puts the UK's incredible
treasure trove of heritage at risk."
7.12 Museums, Galleries and Archives
Our leading museums, as well as galleries and archives, are
not just the major customers for conservation skills—they
are also the incubators and developers for them. It is important
that they recognise this role and commit to developing the conservation
skills which they will expect to call on in the future. The move
to outsourcing conservation services in recent years has meant
that there are fewer in-house training opportunities than before.
For the present, institutions are able to buy in the conservation
skills which they often developed in-house in previous decades
before downsizing and outsourcing changed their workforce profile.
Icon expects that significant shortages of skills professionals
across conservation generally will appear in 10-15 years time
as an entire generation of conservators reaches retirement age.
While there are many examples of effective commitment to training
and professional development of conservators in our institutions,
we believe that overall, an effective balance between the short-term
financial benefits of outsourcing conservation work and the longer-term
cost benefits of having well trained and affordable conservators
available to undertake required work has not yet been found. Major
national institutions need to make a renewed commitment to training
new generations of conservators, and to the professional development
and accreditation of those who continue to work for them.
7.13 English Heritage
English Heritage has responsibility for a large number of
archives and object collections distributed among its properties.
The shortcomings of its funding have already been highlighted
by the Committee this year in its report "Protecting and
Preserving our Heritage". Close partnerships on effective
collections management between English Heritage and museums, galleries
and archives are not common. At the moment the two domains do
not generally share knowledge, skills or ideas. Icon believes
that there could be a greater sharing of resources, experience
and skills especially in collections care and in curatorial research.
MLA and English Heritage might also benefit from a closer relationship
on dealing with Tax Exempt Chattels, as they each have responsibility
for handling different categories of objects.
7.14 National Trust
The vast majority of the Trust's collections are indigenous
contents of particular properties in its ownership, indicative
of long historical links with the immediate communities. The collections
are thus inextricably linked in the wider context. The collections
can range from fine art to the every day garden implements. The
National Trust manages these units as a whole. Many traditional
methods of caring for the collections, in terms of housekeeping,
are also preserved in these properties. In 2005 the National Trust
published The National Trust Manual of Housekeeping. This
is an excellent reference resource for small museums and galleries
and Icon commends it very highly to the wider heritage sector.
The National Trust has also been among the more forward-looking
institutions in considering the effects of climate change on long-term
collection care. Among the effects anticipated are: greater risk
of flooding, torrential rainfall, higher summer temperatures,
increased levels of UV radiation, and increase in museum pests.
7.15 Collections Link
Collections Link is the new national advisory service for
collections management. Funded by MLA until 2008, it is managed
by MDA and delivered in partnership with Icon and NPO. Collections
Link provides fast, easy access to current best practice in 16
areas of professional collections management. It is aimed particularly
at small local museums which have no in-house collections care
services and no longer have an Area Museum Council to act as a
source of advice. Early indications of takeup of the service are
encouraging, but while it is a valuable resource, it can only
provide advice and not the face-to-face support those museums
formerly had.
7.16 National Preservation Office
The National Preservation Office, housed at the British Library
and funded by a consortium of libraries archives and other stakeholders,
provides an independent focus for preservation management practitioners
and organisations caring for library and archive materials. Working
on a very small budget, NPO provides enquiry and information services,
preservation management training opportunities and guidance on
how to develop preservation strategies. It has developed an invaluable
Preservation Assessment Survey tool which enabled it, in 2005,
to produce a clear picture of the condition of the country's library
and archive collections. The headline findings from this report
showed significant weaknesses in preservation practice, particularly
environmental control; with 13% of library and archive material
is in unstable condition and 50% of material stored in inadequate
accommodation.
7.17 MDA
MDA is the UK's lead organisation on documentation and information
management for museums. It has played a vital role in helping
museum professionals achieve national standards in the management
of their collections. MDA has developed professional standards
on behalf of the museums sector, including SPECTRUM, the UK Documentation
Standard for museums. MDA holds the contract from MLA to launch
and develop the Collections Link service.
September 2006
| 
