Written evidence submitted by The Royal
Institution of Cornwall (arts 101)
The RIC is writing as a) an independent museum
and charitable organisation and b) the recipient of Renaissance
in the Regions funding from DCMS via MLA. This submission is from
Hilary Bracegirdle, Director, and Georgia Butters, Head of Development,
and has been approved by Peter Stethridge, Chairman Elect, in
the absence of the current Chairman on business.
1. SUMMARY
Impact of cuts
— Renaissance has been transformational
and investment should continue so that front line services are
maintained.
— Local authorities are unlikely to
prioritise museums and may try to sell collections to cover running
costs.
— Museums risk being unable to respond
to Renaissance and other funding opportunities. We need base-line
funding and capital resources to match fund HLF, Knowledge Transfer
and other grants.
— Cornwall is heavily dependent on
the public sector and already has significant areas of deprivation.
The recession will cut deeply and quickly, sponsorship will be
harder to secure and all the work we have done to attract hard
to reach communities will be at risk.
Partnership working
— Renaissance has emphasised partnership
and given us the profile, confidence and language to enter into
partnerships inside and outside our sector.
— Similar, high-level interventions
should encourage cost-effective partnerships between libraries,
galleries, archives and museums, and with organisations such as
English Heritage and the National Trust. But establishing partnerships
and changes to the way we work require time and investment.
Level of public subsidy
— The heritage tourism industry contributes
£20.6 billion GDP to the UK economy (HLF). Independent museums
contribute £30,000 pa to their local economy for every 1,000
visitors (AIM).
— Continued investment from leisure,
culture and heritage budgets will support tourism and its ability
to help with post-recession recovery.
— Museums need a base core funding
of at least 1/3 of turnover to function at a professional level;
act strategically; react to funding opportunities and be entrepreneurial.
Museums can generate additional income, but not to the level that
will replace public subsidy.
Funding distribution
— The sector would benefit from aligning
priorities and funding methods (we have Regularly Funded Organisations
(RFOs), project based funding, outcome based funding, arms-length
funding proposed for Nationals, strategic commissioning etc).
We suggest replacing Renaissance by RFOs and Service Level Agreements,
which could be with groups or individual museums.
— We would welcome longer funding cycles
and agreements; an emphasis on creating sustainability and on
revenue funding; a more appropriate level of monitoring (which
balances accountability against freedom for the organisation to
decide how it delivers agreed outcomes).
— The Government should recognise the
contribution of heritage and the arts to the economy and channel
funding accordingly, for example through strategic investment
in tourism/heritage projects, education/heritage projects and
health/heritage projects, with some investment coming from other
Departments.
The impact of the abolition of MLA
— We welcome the abolition of the MLA
but not all its functions.
— We suggest Portable Antiquities scheme
BM, Purchase Grant Fund V&A, Accreditation to Museums Association,
Export Bar to DCMS. Replace Renaissance by RFOs and Service Level
Agreements.
— The immediate move to core museums
should be abandoned. Existing hub museums should become RFOs (at
existing or reduced levels as necessary) while programmes are
completed and the details of future Renaissance priorities and
funding are worked out.
Whether businesses and philanthropists can play
a long-term role in funding
— Businesses and philanthropists should
play a part. However they and grant-givers will only invest in
sustainable organisations. They will look for long-term commitments
from public sector funders and/or adequate endowment funds.
— Private investment in the arts is
predominantly focussed on London and the major cities.
— Business sponsorship, legacies and
private giving all take a long time to mature and can require
significant investment up front. Corporate Sponsorship needs servicing;
a £100k sponsorship might require £50k to service it.
— Businesses and philanthropists are
usually unwilling to support essential back-room activities or
core activities.
Government incentives to encourage private donations
— The Government should implement US-style
tax incentives and encourage rural and regional giving.
— Continued public sector investment
in heritage and museums is the key incentive for philanthropists
to invest in success.
— Independent Museums need to be allowed
to recover VAT income. At present admissions are exempt from VAT
which results in museums paying VAT across the rest of their functions.
— Government should also ensure that
local authorities continue to waive business rates where applicable.
— We welcome proposals to simplify
gift aid.
2. SUBMISSION
The RIC is writing as a) an independent museum
and charitable organisation and b) the recipient of Renaissance
in the Regions funding from MLA.
2.1 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
2.1.1 Renaissance has been transformational[43]
and investment should continue in some form, although we understand
the reason for recent and future funding cuts.
2.1.2 We have already had cuts of 30% which
were achieved through making one third of our staff redundant,
as well as other measures. We need to ensure that the next round
of cuts does not undermine the significant achievements that the
programme has brought, and does not affect front line services.
We must have sufficient funding to be able to respond to Renaissance
and other funding opportunities. We must have sufficient capital
resources for match funding for HLF, Knowledge Transfer and other
grants.
2.1.3 At a local level, Cornwall is an area
with significant pockets of deprivation and great pressures on
local government spending. Local authorities cannot invest in
their heritage and museums at the same level as central government—and
as museums are not mandatory, will not do so. There will be increased
pressure on local authorities to sell items to pay for services.
Indeed, Renaissance has already enabled greater security about
our Council grant, because it is predicated on an agreement by
the local authority not to cut our grant below its year 1 level.
2.1.4 The whole of Cornwall, and Truro in
particular, is heavily dependent on the public sector. We know
that already many people within Cornwall cannot afford to travel,
afford to pay to participate in culture, or feel excluded. If
we have to reintroduce entrance charges, charge more for schools
activities, cut our marketing budgets and our exhibitions programmes,
and stop our community projects, we will be excluding local people
from what is in effect their "National" museum.
2.2 What arts organisations can do to work
more closely together in order to reduce duplication of effort
and to make economies of scale
2.2.1 Much can be achieved through partnership
and the creation of CIOs. Renaissance has transformed the attitude
of museums towards partnership working both within and outside
the sector. The RIC now has formal and informal partnerships with
hub museums; about 40 non-hub museums; national museums and the
Royal Collections; national and local charities; Cornwall Council
Departments including Libraries, the Record Office, Historic Environment,
Adult Social Care, Children and Young People, Cultural Skills;
Arts and Business; Schools and universities; and other attractions
such as The Eden Project. Further, Renaissance has given us the
profile, confidence and language to enter into these partnerships.
2.2.2 However, much could be done at a similarly
high level to encourage cost-effective partnerships between libraries,
archives and museums, and with organisations such as English Heritage
and the National Trust. But establishing partnerships and changes
to the way we work requires time and investment.
2.3 What level of public subsidy for the arts
and heritage is necessary and sustainable
2.3.1 David Cameron has said Britain should
focus on its heritage and move away from a "Cool Britannia"
image in order to become one of the world's top five tourism destinations.
We have evidence of the great contribution of the heritage sector
to the UK economy via tourism but it requires public investment
to enable this to happen.
2.3.2 The Heritage Lottery Fund's recent
report (Investing in success: Heritage and the UK tourism economy)
shows that the heritage tourism industry contributes £20.6
billion GDP to the UK economy. The Association of Independent
Museums (Babbidge) has shown that independent museums contribute
£30,000 pa to their local economy for every 1,000 visitors.
These findings highlight the importance of continued investment
from leisure, culture and heritage budgets in supporting tourism
and its ability to help with post-recession recovery.
2.3.3 There is a base level of funding which
museums need to function at a professional level; act strategically;
react to funding opportunities and service the reporting requirements
of its funders; and be entrepreneurial.
2.3.4 Museums can generate additional income,
but not to the level that will replace public subsidy. For example,
although many museums charge for schools workshops the costs of
coach hire and limited parental income means that there is a ceiling
on how much a museum can charge a school for a facilitated visit.
This does not cover the full cost of delivering that session or
developing that service. Museum shops, e commerce and other commercial
activities will only ever contribute a relatively small amount
towards costs.
2.3.5 We therefore suggest that the minimum
required for a well-established, entrepreneurial museum to be
of high quality and offer a reasonable range of services, is around
1/3rd of turnover with at least a three year commitment. Funding
programmes for provision of key services under SLAs with KPIs
need to be on top of this.
2.3.6 The transfer of cultural/museum services
from LAs to independent trusts is a widespread approach. They
can be disastrous or relatively successful. The aims of improving
entrepreneurialism and reducing costs are worthy ones and certainly
can be achieved but the assumed "model" of a year-on-year
decrease in the level of LA investment is flawed. Surely as a
museum's performance and economic/social contribution increases,
the LA should "invest" more in it to get maximum value.
2.4 Whether the current system, and structure,
of funding distribution is the right one
2.4.1 The sector would benefit from aligning
priorities and funding methods. The Arts Council has RFOs. Nationals
are promised more arms-length funding. HLF and other funds such
as Wolfson/DCMS are project-based. Renaissance has moved from
management by expenditure to management by outcomes, but also
from a partnership of equals to micromanagement and mistrust.
Strategic commissioning is being promoted as the way forward.
2.4.2 We suggest replacing Renaissance with
RFOs and Service Level Agreements, which could be with groups
or individual museums. Plymouth, Exeter and Cornwall have made
a joint approach to MLA on this basis.
2.4.2 We would welcome longer funding cycles
and agreements and a move towards an emphasis on creating sustainability
and on revenue funding. We would welcome a more appropriate level
of monitoring, which balances the need to be accountable against
trust and freedom for the organisation to decide how it delivers
against agreed outcomes. We do not find quarterly control of budgets,
frequent changes of priorities and obsession with detail at all
easy to manage and for many projects more time is taken up in
reporting than in delivering.
2.4.3 The Government should recognise the
contribution of heritage and the arts to the economy and channel
funding accordingly, for example through strategic investment
in tourism/heritage projects and health/heritage projects, with
some investment coming from other Departments. It is a nonsense
that in some regions Renaissance was matched £ for £
by the RDA whereas in the South West it was dismissed as part
of tourism—not an RDA priority despite being a key economic
activity in the region.
2.5 What impact recent changes to the distribution
of National Lottery funds will have on arts and heritage organisations
Whether the policy guidelines for National Lottery
funding need to be reviewed
No comments.
2.6 The impact of recent changes to DCMS arms-length
bodies—in particular the abolition of the UK Film Council
and Museums, Libraries and Archives Council (MLA)
2.6.1 We welcome the abolition of MLA but
not all its functions.
2.6.2 We suggest Portable Antiquities BM,
Purchase Grant Fund V&A, Accreditation Museums Association,
Export Bar DCMS. Replace Renaissance by RFOs and Service Level
Agreements.
2.6.3 We need to stop any immediate changes
to Renaissance so that we are given time to finish current projects
and to prepare for strategic commissioning (or whatever new form
Renaissance takes). The recent underspend on Renaissance resulted
from a lack of time for Phase II hubs to gear up, and was shocking,
particularly as we had made one third of our staff redundant due
to a cut in our Phase I Renaissance budget and had no underspend.
2.6.4 We suggest that the immediate move
to core museums be abandoned and that existing hub museums become
Regularly Funded Organisations (at existing or reduced levels
as necessary) while the details of future Renaissance priorities
and funding are worked out.
2.7 Whether businesses and philanthropists
can play a long-term role in funding arts at a national and local
level
2.7.1 Business and Philanthropy should play
a part in funding the arts. However grant-giving bodies (including
HLF), businesses and individuals, will only invest in organisations
which are sustainable. They want to see long-term commitments
from public sector funders and/or adequate endowment funds.
2.7.2 Furthermore, Arts and Business has
shown that private investment in the arts is predominantly focussed
on London and the major cities. This matches our experience: in
Cornwall we were feted by Arts and Business as a huge commercial
success for achieving one Corporate sponsor of £10,000—very
minor when compared to the £600,000 we receive in Renaissance
funding.
2.7.3 Equally, we have invested in developing
philanthropy for the last two years with limited success as it
requires contacts with the wealthy—who are predominantly
London based. In times of economic downturn it will be even harder
to attract wealthy investors and trustees of grant giving foundations
to organisations outside London. Both MLA and the Museums Association
have accepted that we have taken every possible measure to explore
this source of funding and that any legacies or philanthropic
giving take a long time to mature.
2.7.4 Businesses and philanthropists are
usually unwilling to support back-room activities or core activities.
2.8 Whether there needs to be more Government
incentives to encourage private donations
2.8.1 The Government should implement tax
incentives such as those in the USA, but even there donations
have slowed considerably and are centred on major cities.
2.8.2 The Government should find a mechanism
or fund which encourages philanthropists to match its own investment
in the arts and heritage which can then be distributed nationally.
Likewise it should directly encourage philanthropy in the regions
and rural areas. It should recognize that continued investment
in heritage and museums is the key incentive for philanthropists
to invest in success.
2.8.3 Independent Museums should be allowed
to recover VAT income. At present admissions are exempt from VAT
which results in museums paying VAT across the rest of their functions.
Making admissions fees zero rated rather than exempt would allow
museums to recover VAT across the spectrum.
2.8.4 Government should also ensure that
local authorities continue to waive business rates where applicable.
2.8.5 We welcome proposals to simplify gift
aid.
September 2010
Above all, there has been a fundamental change in
ethos. Users are truly at the heart of everything we do and we
embrace methodologies such as Inspiring Learning For all and Revisiting
Collections. Furthermore, our many partners and the local authority
now understand the role that museums can play in contributing
to their priorities, from health and social care, learning, culture,
tourism and the local economy, to valuing volunteering and boosting
a sense of place.
Renaissance was set up to help museums just such
as ours, that had become inward-looking firefighters due to years
of underfunding. We are heavily dependent on Renaissance Funding
(currently 60% of our income) which allows us to do everything
that a well-funded county museums service should be doing, wasn't
doing prior to Renaissance and won't do again post-Renaissance.
Arguably, because we were probably the furthest behind at the
start, we have travelled the furthest.
43 It is hard to overemphasise the transformation that
has resulted from Renaissance's investment into the RIC. 30% more
people use the museum. Visits by children have increased by nearly
50%. The number of family events has tripled. Thousands of objects
have been researched, documented and repackaged. Galleries have
been redisplayed and environmental improvements mean that we can
now borrow from other major museums, nationals and the Royal Collections. Back
| 
