Written evidence submitted by the Association
for Industrial Archaeology (AIA) (arts 227)
This submission is being made by Professor Marilyn
Palmer, President of the Association for Industrial Archaeology
(AIA), on behalf of that Association. AIA is the national organisation
for study, research and recording in industrial archaeology, bringing
together both amateurs and professionals. The membership numbers
about 700 individuals and about 50 affiliated societies, therefore
representing several thousand people interested in the recording
and preservation of Britain's industrial past.
In 1998, the Tentative List of World Heritage
Sites drawn up by DCMS recognised that "industrialisation
is one of Britain's major contributions to the world". Selections
for that List concentrated on "outstanding sites representative
of processing and manufacture, developments in inland transport,
prowess in generating and using power, and virtuosity in civil
engineering, all fundamental to the development of modern society".
This was followed by the inscription of no less than six industrial
World Heritage Sites between 2000 and 2009, establishing Britain's
pre-eminence in early industrialisation. This submission from
AIA is made in the context of this international recognition of
the importance of the industrial heritage in the UK.
SUMMARY
— Cuts in national and local authority
spending will seriously affect the activity of the many voluntary
organisations who provide the labour to maintain industrial heritage
sites.
— Such cuts will also affect the ability
of organisations seeking HLF grants to provide the necessary matched
funding.
— The HLF has played a major role in funding
many small projects in the industrial, maritime and transport
sectors and successfully harnessed the voluntary activity which
is the bedrock of the industrial heritage sector.
— HLF policy guidelines have proved sufficiently
flexible to respond to the needs and priorities of the heritage
sector and are not in need of major revision.
— HLF should not be expected to pick up
any shortfall brought about by the recent abolition of the DCMS
arms-length bodies such as the MLA, Renaissance in the Regions
etc. Its funding is additional to, not instead of, Government
funding.
In answer to the questions raised in your request
for evidence into the funding of arts and the heritage, the AIA
would make the following points:
1. 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
The conservation of the industrial heritage
is a relative newcomer compared with other sectors such as churches,
vernacular and polite architecture, being just over half a century
old (see Marilyn Palmer, Industrial Archaeology and the Archaeological
Community: Fifty Years On, Industrial Archaeology Review,
Vol.XXXII: No 1, May 2010, pp 5-20). From the outset, it was very
much a voluntary activity, although local authorities were quick
to realise the tourist potential of the industrial heritage and
have come to support many projects throughout the country, for
example the Bowes Railway in County Durham, the only operational
preserved standard gauge rope-hauled railway in the world. Although
run by volunteers, this is owned by, and receives funding from,
Gateshead and Sunderland Councils, through whose territory it
runs. In the face of spending cuts, local government will be faced
with the necessity of prioritising their statutory responsibilities
such as education, social care, housing etc. Museums and heritage
sites which are local authority-funded are unlikely to be a priority
and hence could have their funding reduced or cut altogether.
Similarly, there has been a high demand for grants for industrial
heritage projects from the Heritage Lottery Fund (HLF). Local
authority spending cuts will have a major impact on the availability
of partnership funding to match grants from other bodies, including
HLF. The vulnerability of the industrial heritage sector in these
respects has already been pointed out by Sir Neil Cossons in a
report recently commissioned by English Heritage.
2. What can arts organisations do to work
more closely together in order to reduce duplication of effort
and to make economies of scale?
I am unable to comment of arts organisations
in this respect, but would like to stress the major importance
of partnership working to industrial heritage in order to maximise
the use of resources, skills and knowledge. Recently, AIA ran
a day's workshop in conjunction with English Heritage and HLF,
resulting in a Strategic Vision for the Effective Stewardship
of the Industrial Heritage 2008-13 ( see http://industrial-archaeology.org/aihstrategy.htm).
Additionally, AIA obtained in 2008 an English Heritage National
Capacity Building Grant to run a series of day schools to train
volunteers who comment on planning applications in the recognition
of the significance of industrial buildings. Eleven such day schools
have now been organised, the AIA contributing its voluntary labour
as matched funding. Such partnerships are a very cost-effective
way forward in the heritage sector: voluntary activity is available,
but needs some pump-priming from central or local government in
order to make it effective.
3. What level of public subsidy for the arts
and heritage is necessary and sustainable?
A key role of most heritage—focused organisations
is the protection of the UK's significant heritage, especially
that which is at risk: English Heritage, for example, maintains
the Register of Buildings at Risk. Heritage per se, though, is
not always a great money-spinner: many sites, for example cultural
landscapes and national parks, are not subject to entrance fees
and so some public money is needed in order to conserve what the
public believe is of value and significance locally, regionally
and nationally. Public money, as pointed out in our response to
Q.2 above, is especially important at the start-up until the operation
of a heritage asset becomes sustainable when volunteers are recruited
and trained to manage the asset and the public are visiting and
providing income. A mixed economy is required consisting of public
money from central and local government, from Lottery and other
grants and from private individuals.
4. Whether the current system, and structure,
of funding distribution is the right one
The current funding system has worked well in
the UK compared with that in many other countries. HLF has done
an excellent job in supporting many small projects which would
not have been able to proceed without their financial assistance.
More than £770 million has been awarded to over 2,200 conservation
and activity projects in the industrial, maritime and transport
heritage sector, and more than 70% of these have included opportunities
for people to volunteer. HLF has the advantage of a UK-wide role,
while being so structured as to be able to respond to local needs
and priorities. It would be advantageous if they were enabled
to work more closely with English Heritage, Cadw, Historic Scotland
and the heritage service in Northern Ireland, to maximise the
strategic use of resources to identify significance, risk and
funding opportunities, while maintaining their otherwise separate
roles.
5. What impact recent changes to the distribution
of National Lottery funds will have on arts and heritage organisations
AIA is obviously pleased that HLF will have
more funds to give as grants and would hope that industrial and
transport heritage will continue to benefit since, as pointed
out above, it is an internationally significant aspect of the
cultural heritage of the UK. Industrial heritage is also a sector
which is appreciated at local and regional level, something that
HLF has done a great deal to support and encourage.
6. Whether the policy guidelines for National
Lottery funding need to be reviewed
The current Policy Directions in place at HLF,
and their mixture of trustees, managers, an expert panel and regional
committees, have proved flexible enough for HLF to respond to
the needs and priorities of the heritage sector and do not need
radical review. Regarding the transport heritage in particular,
much of this is in private ownership. If this is to be made more
accessible to the public, then there may well need to be more
flexibility around the awarding of grants to private owners as
long as the public benefit is high and greater than any private
gain there may be.
7. 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 abolition of the Museums, Libraries and
Archives Council has yet to be fully evaluated, as does the abolition
of regional bodies such as Renaissance in the Regions etc and
I am not competent to comment on this. However, I must point out
that HLF must be seen as additional to Government spending not
instead of and hence it should not be expected that HLF can pick
up the short-fall brought about by these changes.
— 7 and 8 The role of private businesses
and philanthropists in heritage funding.
Such people have long played a role in public
funding, but on the whole this has not had a major impact on the
industrial heritage sector. What is important here are small-scale,
local and regional projects which cumulatively make up the richness
of the UK's internationally-recognised industrial heritage. The
role of English Heritage, Cadw, Historic Scotland, local authorities
and HLF are key players, in conjunction with the volunteers who
provide much of the labour in the study and conservation of industrial
heritage, and need smaller, locally-based grants rather than the
major flagship projects normally funded by philanthropists. AIA
has always hoped that funding would be forthcoming from businesses
but, in the current economic climate, recognises that this is
probably unrealistic.
September 2010
|
