THE COMMISSION'S OVERALL ROLE

  1.  The Royal Commission on Historical Manuscripts is the United Kingdom's central advisory body on archives and manuscripts other than the Public Records. Further details of its responsibilities are set out in its Royal Warrant, which is summarised in Appendix 1 below.[1] 1 The Commission is currently sponsored by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport.

THE COMMISSION'S RELATIONSHIP TO THE HERITAGE LOTTERY FUND (HLF)

Central advisory body

  2.  Among its regular activities the Commission offers advice to all the national grant-awarding bodies whose interests extend to archives and manuscripts. It has been the principal adviser in this special field to the National Heritage Memorial Fund (NHMF) since the latter's inception in the 1980s. The HLF, administered by the NHMF, is statutorily bound to seek appropriate advice before disbursing grants, and the Commission readily agreed to become an adviser to this body also. In this capacity it has helped to develop HLF policy with specific regard to the archives and manuscripts, and to appraise applications to HLF concerned with these heritage assets.

Fees

  3.  The Commission receives fees—determined by HLF—for its formal advice on individual cases referred for comment. Over and above this it gives (currently unpaid) advice to officers of HLF both on the formulation of policy and also on strategic considerations—for example on meeting national standards and priorities—which might influence the outcome of individual applications. The Commission is in discussion with (a reluctant) HLF about the need for a "retainer" fee to cover these additional aspects of its service to HLF.

Alerting HLF to needs and priorities in the field of archives

  4.  The Commission has presented to the Trustees of HLF two reports on the key funding needs of local authority archive services in Wales and in England respectively. It has collaborated with the Public Record Office, the National Council on Archives (NCA) and the Association of Chief Archivists in Local Government in the preparation of the recent report Our Shared Past which gives a more detailed overview or "map" of the archival needs of English local authorities. One of the principal objectives of this report is to inform the future strategy of HLF with regard to grants in the archives sector. [Similar mapping reports for Scotland and for the university sector are currently in preparation, by other bodies].

Also an adviser to potential applicants

  5.  The Commission also assists owners and custodians with advice on the care and custody of archives and manuscripts, and on many practical day-to-day issues including the availability of grant-aid. It is thus frequently called on to advise custodians considering an approach to HLF. It does not, however, become closely involved in the formulation of actual applications for HLF funding, but confines itself to matters of principle and information in order that it can be seen to be giving impartial advice in the national interest to the HLF. (The NCA, by contrast, has a Lottery Officer one of whose principal objectives is to stimulate and assist individual applications).

The Commission as an applicant to HLF?

  6.  To date, the Commission has not itself been an applicant for HLF funding, but it could become so in future, for example with regard to its publications and projects. It has made preliminary enquiries as to its eligibility for funding, particularly under the new criteria with regard to major works of reference.

DISTRIBUTION OF FUNDS BY HLF/CRITERIA/PROCEDURES

The Commission assisted HLF to define its objectives

  7.  When the HLF was being established we, along with many other advisers, were consulted by NHMF/HLF officials about the objectives which it should support. We identified as the most urgent need the lack of any source of public grant aid for the construction and fitting out of new archive buildings or for the improvement of existing buildings to bring them into line with today's best standards. No other body appeared to us capable of contributing the very substantial capital sums required to make a real impact on the problem of archive storage. We saw (and still see) this as the top priority in the interest of preserving the nation's written heritage. We suggested too that the Fund might support other, generally less expensive, objectives such as cataloguing (to make the heritage assets more accessible to the public); conservation (to ensure that they were preserved for future generations); and (in cases of urgency where the existing funding bodies could not meet the need) acquisition. We also urged HLF to interpret the term "national heritage" widely, in order to ensure that archives of strongly local significance were not excluded. These objectives were duly written into the first HLF guidelines.

 The slow rate of application from archive custodians is worrying

  8.  With only a few notable exceptions, archive services have such a weak funding base that they have been unable to muster the mandatory partnership funding to enable them to apply for lottery cash (see below, paragraph 18). At the same time, HLF was until recently constrained by legislation from actively soliciting applications. The unsurprising initial result in our field has been a disappointingly small flow of applications, whilst museums (more numerous and more used to seeking grant aid) have been quicker to mobilise.

The changing chances of success in obtaining a grant

  9.  Early HLF advice to archivists was that they should take their time in working up applications, in order to avoid the initial rush. It is now clear, however, that this was tactically unsound. Those who submitted applications in the first wave in fact stood a better chance of success because (a) the number of applications across the board has continued to rise steeply; (b) the proportion of lottery funds available to HLF has recently been reduced with the advent of the New Opportunities Fund and (c) the objectives which HLF can support have been widened by the new powers contained in the National Heritage Act 1997. For all these reasons the sums available to the HLF have shrunk dramatically in proportion to the number of applicants and the amount which the HLF can commit to any one application is more constrained than was the case at the outset.

The unsettling effect of repeatedly changing HLF policy and procedures

  10.  As a result of these changing circumstances HLF's guidance to applicants has also been subject to repeated change, at short notice and with too little lead-in time. This has proved confusing to some would-be applicants, and both unsettling and costly to others who had done as recommended and invested considerable time and resources towards making a detailed application under one set of published guidelines, only to be told that the goal posts had been changed. The appointment of an internal HLF libraries and archives adviser and the appointment (as mentioned above) of a NCA Lottery Officer has now served to improve communications.

Lack of any strategic direction in this field until very recently

  11.  Although the objectives which the HLF can support have been clearly defined, it has been difficult (on account of the demand-led nature of the operation and the small flow of archival applications) for the Fund to establish anything like a strategic approach in the field of archives. This contrasts with targeted programmes in other areas such as that for Urban Parks. With the appointment of the libraries and archives adviser and the publication of the mapping report (see paragraph 4 above) we hope that a more strategic approach can now be adopted. But to a large extent this will depend on the ability of the archival community to come forward with suitable applications.

Regionalisation

  12.  The increasing attention to regional balance in the distribution of funds by HLF also presents some problems with regard to archives. The distribution of heritage assets such as archives around the country, and thus the cost and extent of need in relation to their care, is distinctly uneven, often a matter largely of historic accident. The number of repositories, too, is so small (only some 250 publicly funded throughout the UK, with a heavy concentration in the south east of England) and their distribution around the country so uneven that these services can less easily be administered and funded on a regional basis than, say, sporting activities. The Commission continues to believe that in the national interest a UK-wide overview of the care and management of the written heritage is essential. In one or two instances we believe that a regional emphasis on grant-giving has already contributed to the eclispse of important archival applications which fell due for consideration at the same time as major museum initiatives in the same region, even though in national terms the archival application was a top priority.

Structural and communications problems within HLF

  13.  The rapid growth of the HLF's staff, from an initial complement in single figures to the present strength in excess of 150, has made for very considerable difficulties both internally and externally. There have been regular (and quite understandable) restructurings to adapt to the changing scale of the operation. New staff are continually being recruited, and naturally few of these are initially familiar with the needs (or even the vocabulary) of archives. From our point of view, there was also until recently too little internal coordination and overview of application and grants in the field of archives. The situation, however, has been much improved by the appointment of the policy adviser on libraries and archives, the institution of regular informal briefing sessions between this officer and the principal external advisers such as the Commission, and occasional briefing seminars provided by the Commission and others for HLF staff.

  14.  Applicants have complained to us:

(i)  that HLF's procedures for assessment of applications, have been heavily bureaucratic and long-winded;

(ii)  that there has been little or no opportunity for discussion and dialogue in the course of the evaluation process, which contrasts with procedures of other grant-awarding bodies;

(iii)  that the HLF Trustees are not involved at a sufficiently early stage in evaluation of applications and then seem to be inadequately briefed.

  We hope that these compliants have now been substantially addressed, for example by the appointment of the libraries and archives adviser who is devoting more time to communications with applicants, and by the introduction of rapid assessment criteria and a two-stage process for consideration of larger projects.

Need for explanation of rejections

  15.  We are also aware that some whose applications have been rejected have felt that insufficient explanations were given. Without breaching the confidentiality of its advisers' assessments, HLF should indicate to applicants the main reasons for rejection.

IMPACT OF HLF ON ARCHIVES

Great potential and already significant achievements

  16.  Public demand for access to archives continues to rise sharply. Family and local history, in particular, have become immensely popular leisure-time activities and there are now something in the region of a million reader visits to archives per annum. Yet archive services remain notoriously under-funded and, in the general population, many still have a low perception of the importance of archives. There is therefore still much to be done by way of increasing awareness and opening up access to these important educational and heritage sources. All the objectives which the HLF has identified for support in this field contribute in one way or another towards that central goal of improved access, which we strongly support.

  17.  The Commission welcomed the advent of the HLF as potentially the greatest single source of grant-aid that had ever been available to support the care of the nation's archives. To a large extent this is still our view. There have been some striking achievements. The new Ruskin Library at Lancaster University is already open, the Surrey History Centre at Woking is well on the way to completion and extensive refurbishment is under way at Flintshire Record Office (Hawarden). Shropshire Heritage Trust has received a substantial grant towards tackling the backlog of cataloguing for the archives in the Shropshire Records and Research Centre in order dramatically to improve public access to the records. Through the largest single grant in this field, the Churchill papers were saved for the nation. We believe this would have been impossible in the absence of the lottery. We understand that a grant is about to be confirmed to assist the creation of a Scottish Archival Network to make digitised catalogue data from 38 participating repositories in Scotland centrally available.

The "haves" and "have nots"

  18.  Viewed in terms of the greatest national needs in the field of archives, the results have been less impressive. Indeed it was a perception that the "have nots" never got to the starting blocks that led us into the recent "mapping" exercise referred to above, after informal discussion with Lord Rothschild. The partnership funding requirements, however modest as a percentage of total spend, have defeated the most needy applicants. (As long as there is no facility to make 100 per cent grants in cases of extreme need which meet a nationally determined priority, we can see no obvious way round this problem unless some other funding agency makes its resources available by way of partnership funding.) Those who have tended to benefit most have been the well organised, and often well funded, national and special organisations with more resources at their disposal to mount bids. Local authority archives have fared particularly poorly, partly because these services, carried out substantially on a non-statutory basis, are perceived to be of low priority within their own authority's spending plans and so cannot muster the resources even to start on a HLF application. The rejection by HLF of a joint bid for funding for a new record office and film archive by Norfolk County Council and the University of East Anglia sent particularly unfortunate signals which may have dissuaded others from entering into entirely sensible cross-sector partnership arrangements for the future of archive services.

Additionality?

  19.  Despite government assurances that lottery monies would supplement, and not replace, core funding in the heritage sector, we note in passing that both the Heritage Memorial Fund and the MGC/V&A Government Purchase Fund have been subject to serious attrition since the lottery came on stream, and that the income of the existing lottery distributors has now been top-sliced to fund the objectives of the New Opportunities Fund.

LOOKING TO THE FUTURE

Conclusions and recommendations

  20.  We believe that we have a generally good working relationship with the HLF, and we hope very much that HLF will continue to draw on the Commission's expertise when it comes to dealing with archives and manuscripts issues.

  21.  We hope that the "mapping report" and the Commission's own survey—currently in progress—of Archives at the Millennium (see Appendix 2)[2] 2 will stimulate first the archival community and secondly the HLF and other grant-awarding bodies to work up dedicated programmes in this field, to give a sharper strategic focus to their grant-giving and at the same time contribute to nationwide policy objectives in this field.

  22.  National policy with regard to the networking of computerised data is assuming a high strategic priority with the government's National Grid for Learning initiative. Archives will be among the suppliers of data to the new network(s) and will be looking to both HLF and the New Opportunities Fund for assistance. We welcome the recent report to HLF by Dr Seamus Ross which made policy proposals in this field. As a matter or urgency HLF and NOF must determine and publicise the boundaries of their respective operations with regard to digitisation and ICT so that there is no confusion among potential applicants.

  23.  We would urge HLF to maintain a strategic, UK-wide role in relation to archives and manuscripts even though we recognise that for political and practical reasons, such as the devolution of Parliamentary powers to Wales and Scotland, it has to take more decisions on a country or regional basis. In the Commission's view, the fragmentation of grant-aid that could result from an excessively regionalised policy could prevent the Fund from tackling the most urgent problems. It should not rest content with distributing more but smaller sums to what are in essence secondary objectives simply in order to be of wider appeal.

  24.  It is not only regionalisation but also the pressures on HLF funds that are moving it in the direction of generally smaller grants. As far as archives are concerned (where there are already a number of other bodies in existence able to give small grants, such as the Purchase Grant funds and the National Manuscripts Conservation Trust) a multiplication of small grants will tend to divert badly needed funds from the real issues of the day. Large grants, measured in millions rather than thousands of pounds, may be the only way to achieve certain desired ends such as the purchase of key national documents and archival collections or the building of much needed archive repositories. We were therefore pleased to see the recent announcement by the Chairman of HLF that a proportion of the available funds will be earmarked for large grants, on a competitive basis, and we hope that these will continue to embrace applications within the field of archives.

  25.  After the rapid changes of these early years of HLF operation, a period of stability is now urgently needed, to give potential applicants in our sector the confidence to submit applications. On these grounds we would think it desirable that the Fund use its new, wider powers under the National Heritage Act 1997 quite sparingly, at least in the period up to the end of its current mandate.

  26.  Overall, the Commission considers that the existence of the HLF and the availability of its funds has been a source of great encouragement in the under-funded field of archives. We hope that the HLF will have its mandate renewed. We welcome the efforts that are continuing to streamline its operations.

June 1998

2   2 Not printed. Back