Written evidence submitted by Tyne &
Wear Archives & Museums (arts 04)
What impact recent, and future, spending cuts
from central and local Government will have on the arts and heritage
at a national and local level;
Investment in museums through the Renaissance
programme and other funding has led to unprecedented levels of
people engaging with museums, an increase in visitor numbers and
more diverse audience for museums. It has also changed the nature
of engagement with museums from a passive visit to a positive
experience which contributes to learning and personal development
and to health and wellbeing, with individual benefits also being
realised at community level. Conversely a reduction in investment
will threaten this. Whilst some the legacy of what museums have
achieved will last for a short while, its effect will be limited
if activities and programmes cannot be sustained. Museums provide
good value for the investment made by the public sector but reductions
in funding could disproportionately impact on outputs and outcomes.
Renaissance and related museum activities have not only helped
to change lives but have also had strong economic benefits, in
particular supporting tourism, and have significantly developed
opportunities for and the contribution made by volunteers as well
as really working to engage people with their museums through
consultation, coproduction and involvement of communities in programming
and management.
It is worth pointing out that investment has
also allowed museums to increase staff capacity and with it knowledge
and an increased ability to engage with audiences at a higher
level in terms of public engagement initiatives, and collections
expertise etc. Public confidence in museums has grown as a result.
Renaissance investment has also helped raise
standards of collections care. The Bowes is a good example of
this; Renaissance has assisted with the expansion of our conservation
department and related activities, consequently our knowledge
and confidence in dealing object movement and collections care
issues. It has also made us more able to support other museums
in the region through advice etc.
Cuts will inevitable impinge on our ability
to maintain standards and we will feel the loss of expertise through
lack of staff capacity.
What arts organisations can do to work more closely
together in order to reduce duplication of effort and to make
economies of scale;
Museums in the North East already work closely
together, for example collaborating on projects such as creative
apprentices, and on outreach activities. The North East Hub is
led by Tyne & Wear Archives & Museums, already a "federation"
of five district councils and a university to provide good value
in delivery of museum services. Museums in Tees Valley are currently
looking at how they can work more closely together whilst in Northumberland
Woodhorn, Berwick and Tynedale museums have come together to deliver
a more efficient service. Bringing together services across domains
must also be considered as has been achieved at Woodhorn and TWAM
bringing together museum and archive services.
NERMH initiatives such as Core Skills, the NECCF
and Curatorial Needs programmes are surely excellent examples
of working together as a sector to make the most of skills sharing
and dissemination to the whole region through training and support
networks. The development of the posts of Access Officer, Evaluation
and Diversification Officer working across organisations to raise
standards and develop best practice are also ways of economies
of scale through partnership and joint co-operation.
What level of public subsidy for the arts and
heritage is necessary and sustainable;
It is important that there is a plural economy.
Beamish, the Living Museum of the North, for example, runs its
core operations on the funding it can generate itself but has
enhanced, in particular, its learning and outreach work with public
funding. At TWAM the outreach and inclusion work which has led
to the very strong involvement of non-traditional audiences has
been funded through the Renaissance programme.
Whether the current system, and structure, of
funding distribution is the right one;
Whilst government will naturally wish to set
the agenda for the direction of funding, what is important to
museums is that this funding can be delivered with the minimum
of bureaucracy, that its purpose is transparent, and that it is
granted for a reasonable period of time (at least two to three
years) and that there is sufficient notice (at least six months)
as one programme comes to an end of what future programmes will
be.
What impact recent changes to the distribution
of National Lottery funds will have on arts and heritage organisations;
The changes to both the Heritage Lottery and
Arts Lottery will be beneficial for museums, supporting both smaller
grants and some larger grants—although many museums have
has significant capital investment there are still la number of
capital projects which, with lottery and other investment, could
produce significant benefits for jobs, for tourism, for lifelong
learning and for quality of life.
Whether the policy guidelines for National Lottery
funding need to be reviewed;
We strongly support plans to restore Lottery
to its original distribution proportions. Both in the north east
and nationally the proven benefits of significant arts, sport
and heritage initiatives supported by the lottery indicate just
what these sectors can achieve. Most recently the success of the
lottery funded Great North Museum has shown how well-developed
heritage projects can deliver exceptional outputs and outcomes.
Later this month the Museum will welcome its millionth visitor
since reopening, and this has been achieved in 15 months.
We feel that it is important that the ongoing
policy reflects both the reduced availability of capital funding
and current challenges to revenue funding. Whilst many cultural
buildings have been re-energized through lottery funding and have
delivered benefits in terms of tourism, jobs created and learning
outcomes, there are significant museums, galleries and other cultural
facilities which have the potential to significantly increase
their contribution to the local economy and society with investment
in capital infrastructure. The lottery has also supported ground
breaking revenue projects both at community and wider level. The
North East Hub's Culture Shock project for example (www.cultureshock.org.uk)
has not only created a fascinating digital archive but has allowed
people to debate relevant local issues through the medium of creating
500 digital stores documenting life across the north east.
As the lottery distributors have now established
themselves successfully and developed strong policy bases it seems
appropriate to allow them to shape programmes more effectively
and where they can identify gaps or needs to target activity and,
where appropriate, to solicit grants.
Whilst the Big Lottery has had specific responsibility
for delivery to the voluntary and community sectors, excluding
statutory bodies it is important that arts and heritage lottery
distribution benefit the entire sector although we would of course
expect applicants to demonstrate evidence of need and demand and
how they are linked to user communities.
Many organisations such as our own are actively
involved in fundraising from the private and charitable sectors,
from trusts and foundations, from individual giving, from sponsorship
and through corporate social responsibility. The opportunity to
develop lottery strands within heritage and arts which specifically
incentivize and increase investment in arts and heritage could
be an opportunity for development.
It is also hoped that in future there can be
a more joined up approach between lottery distributors. For example
projects involving historic and contemporary art may require joint
funding applications to Arts and Heritage lotteries—too
date these have been difficult to facilitate although we have
has significant support with the principle from officers in the
North East.
The impact of recent changes to DCMS arm's-length
bodies—in particular the abolition of the UK Film Council
and the Museums, Libraries and Archives Council;
The key concern which museums in the North East
have expressed is the loss of the high quality regional support
which has been provided by Directors of Engagement and their teams.
It is clear that many functions of MLA will need to continue (Government
Indemnity; Acceptance in lieu; accreditation etc). Who takes them
on is more difficult to determine. The Renaissance programme must
continue to build on the achievements of museums in the region,
both within and without the Hub, and we need a straightforward
and effective way of delivering the funding and monitoring for
this. It is also very important that the museum development function
continues to be delivered to support regional museum. In the North
East this works successfully with the Museum Development Officer
working within the regional Renaissance team and working closely
alongside MLA officers.
As a joint Archives and Museums service we have
benefited from the function of MLA across these two domains and
from the support regional officers of MLA in particular have given
to archives in the region. The relationship between local/regional
archives and DCMS and/or The National Archives needs to be clarified
and it is important that there are support structures which can
be delivered at a regional level for archives. One possibility,
depending on funding, is to have a closer relationship between
archives and Renaissance.
Museums and heritage also have a key relationship
to tourism, which is a priority are for the government. It's important
that new structure facilitate the development of heritage tourism.
If there is an intention to pass some of the national functions
of MLA which need to continue (eg Acceptance in lieu, Accreditation)
going to an alternative agency consideration should be given to
either a Heritage Agency perhaps incorporating elements of Heritage
lottery Fund and HLF or a Cultural Agency which represents a broadened
and reframed Arts Council.
Whether businesses and philanthropists can play
a long-term role in funding arts at a national and local level;
Museums in the North East already work hard
to engage businesses and philanthropist, TWAM has just established
a new fundraising trust outside local authority control which
is led by business people and will actively fundraise for the
museums and archives. In the North East however, there is a comparative
shortfall in the number of high net worth individuals with disposable
assets (amongst the wealthier people much investment is tied up
in fixed assets) and of head offices or large regional firms where
the decision on sponsorship is made locally. This significantly
reduces our ability for this type of fundraising. It is particularly
difficult to develop philanthropic funding to support revenue
costs.
One additional concern is where individuals
or organisations donate objects or collections which have ongoing
"maintenance" or care costs. A framework which promoted
the idea of endowments for care of collections alongside the donation
of collections could be of interest.
Whether there need to be more Government incentives
to encourage private donations.
Increased tax incentives focused on encouraging
philanthropy in this area would be welcome. Specific government
initiatives to support the engagement of businesses with culture
are also important. It is important that this work goes beyond
the "easy win" of encouraging business, for example,
to hire paintings for board room walls. Valuable as that is, there
is much more that business and culture have to offer to each other.
August 2010
| 
