AREA MUSEUM COUNCIL FOR THE SOUTH WEST

  1.  The Area Museum Council for the South West (AMCSW) is a regional development agency for museums and galleries. It is funded by the Museums & Galleries Commission (MGC) and works in close partnership with local authorities and other regional organisations. Our region comprises the seven historic counties of Bristol, Cornwall, Devon, Dorset, Gloucestershire, Somerset and Wiltshire, together with the Isles of Scilly.

  2.  The AMCSW is a statutory adviser to the Heritage Lottery Fund (HLF). We have undertaken assessments of 72 projects on behalf of the Fund over the last three years and acted as project monitor. The AMCSW advises a number of national and regional grant distributing bodies in addition to HLF. We operate an internal code of conduct which aims to minimise any potential conflict of interest between our role as a development agency for the museum sector and as advisers to outside organisations (attached).[9] 9

SOUTH WEST REGION

  3.  The South West is the second largest English area museum council region and has 12 per cent of UK museums within it. Although the resident population of 4.8 million is low in relation to the size of the region, the South West receives 22 million visitors per annum (20 per cent of all tourism in the UK). Museums represent 27 per cent of tourist attractions and are, therefore, an important element in sustaining local employment and economic growth.

  4.  Sources of funding including sponsorship are extremely limited in the South West. Local authority funding for cultural and heritage projects is, in most areas, now non-existant. The HLF is therefore one of the prime sources for capital and project funding. A total of 51 awards have been made to museums in the region, representing a grant value of over £37 million. This includes eight awards of over £1 million, representing a total grant value of just under £29 million.

  5.  Whilst the far west has been conspicuously successful in attracting Heritage Lottery funding towards museum projects (largely due to the availability of ERDF), the same cannot be said of the rest of the region. We would ask that the needs of the region as a whole should be recognised when considering any regional allocation of lottery funding by HLF. We would ask that any future changes to grant policy and criteria are made widely known and notified to potential applicants well in advance of implementation.

  6.  An analysis of regional lottery funding within the South West region reveals a major discrepancy between the ability of larger professionally run museums to attract funding compared with the voluntary sector. Approximately two thirds of the museums are voluntarily run. Many of them have significant regional as well as local collections. There are many factors behind this, not least the difficulty voluntary run organisations have in devoting the time and energy required to make a successful application. We would urge that procedures are simplified. Much of the information which is required is already available and regulated through the MGC Registration scheme, Charity Commission and Company House returns. This might cut out a lot of duplication on the part of applicants and unnecessary monitoring by HLF.

  7.  The length of time between announcement of a grant and issuing of a contract by HLF has caused problems to many projects; particularly in respect of inflationary cost elements and time constraints on the applicant, eg termination of letting arrangements.

  8.  HLF support has enabled a number of key projects to proceed which would not otherwise have happened. HLF support, however, has not always been strategic and awards have been made to organisations which, on the grounds of heritage merit and public benefit, would, in our opinion, have been better directed elsewhere. While this is to some extent inevitable with a reactive fund which is dependent on applications being submitted, it does underly the urgent need for the production of a heritage strategy for the South West reflecting local and regional needs against which individual applications could be assessed. HLF strategy should take into account those produced by regional agencies and local authorities.

  9.  Many potential applicants have been put off from making an application due to the unnecessarily complex and sometimes confusing nature of the award scheme. In this respect, the HLF compares unfavourably with the Arts Council and Sports Council schemes.

  10.  Constant changes to HLF grant schemes and criteria have caused problems within the heritage sector as preparation of heritage bids often require a longer lead in time, particularly where this involves land or historic buildings. Resubmission to meet changes in criteria can be costly.

  11.  The case for continued Heritage Lottery funding of museums is a strong one. The material archive held by museums represents one of the most significant parts of this country's heritage. Maintaining this for the benefit of future generations and providing access to it for current audiences cannot be achieved without continued investment. In the South West only 23 museums have achieved a full refurbishment through a lottery funded scheme. There remains a considerable legacy of investment to be undertaken if museums are to meet their full potential and have the resources to deliver DCMS objectives for the sector.

June 1998