1.  NORTH EAST MUSEUMS

  1.1  North East Museums is the Regional Museum Council advising museums in the historic counties of Cleveland, Durham, Northumberland and Tyne & Wear.

  NEMS' mission is to improve the quality of museum provision in terms of care of collections and public accessibility.

  NEMS is an independent membership organisation, which delivers its objectives through a range of core services and activities: advocacy, technical advice and information, fundraising and marketing, training, grants for museum developments, and special projects.

  Membership of NEMS is open to all organisations within the region which administer museums or wish to support the Regional Museum Council. NEMS has a current membership of 90 museums, art galleries and heritage sites. These range from small volunteer-run local museums to large regional open-air sites. Forty per cent of member museums are administered by local authorities. Other governing bodies include universities, regimental associations, museum trusts and societies, the National Trust, and English Herigage. Of the 90 museums in the region, 70 are registered with the Museums & Galleries Commission (MGC) Registration Scheme.

  NEMS' region does not include Cumbria. NEMS, however, liaises with North West Museums Service to ensure a coherent approach on issues common to the Northern region.

2.  ROLE OF YOUR ORGANISATION AND ITS RELATIONSHIP TO THE HERITAGE LOTTERY FUND

2.1  NEMS as adviser

  2.1.1  NEMS performs an important role in promoting the Heritage Lottery Fund to its members at a regional level, in order to make them aware of opportunities for funding—for example the new Revenue Grants Programme. This takes the form of one-to-one meetings, seminars, information bulletins and targeted mailshots to members.

  2.1.2  NEMS also advises its members on all aspects of the Heritage Lottery Fund (using the processes outlined above) in order to ensure that members make appropriate applications. This can involve: advising members at an early stage of the feasibility of a bid to HLF; explanation and interpretation of the application pack; advising members of the latest HLF policy directives.

  2.1.3  NEMS has a formal contractual relationship with HLF as an adviser to the fund on museum applications from the North East. NEMS also has acted as an informal adviser to HLF, taking part in discussions on the development of the Fund and providing information on and examples of museum practice in the region.

2.2  NEMS' relationship with HLF

  2.2.1  NEMS has a good relationship with HLF at an officer level, and recently hosted a visit from the HLF regional team for Scotland and the North East. Although NEMS has little contact with HLF Trustees on a day-to-day basis, we are in frequent contact with HLF case officers regarding existing and potential applications. NEMS also works closely with the HLF policy advisor for museums.

3.  DISTRIBUTION OF FUNDS BY HLF, ITS CRITERIA FOR CONSIDERING APPLICATIONS AND ITS PROCEDURES

  3.1  It was disappointing that funding to HLF was reduced considerably by the introduction of a new sixth good cause. Whilst NEMS welcomes the shift in focus from buildings to people, and the greater emphasis on access and education, there are a number of museums in the North East region with serious (but not grandiose) capital needs, which are now unlikely to be addressed at the required level, if at all. Museums that had worked to produce integrated plans for capital development, have had to rework these plans, discarding certain elements and phasing others over a longer period. This has led to delays which have jeopardised other funding sources (for example European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) from which source much match funding for projects has been derived).

  3.2  NEMS appreciates that a greater emphasis on phasing capital projects will enable HLF to better manage its more limited resources. However, it must be understood that ability of applicants to phase capital projects may be limited by a number of factors:

3.2.1  with new build, there is a limit to how much construction can be phased;

3.2.2  projects are often designed to be built in one phase to minimise disturbance—and its consequent impact on visitor numbers and revenue; and

3.2.3  increased phasing of a project can create problems in terms of partnership funding, for example deadlines for ERDF grants.

  3.3  We understand that HLF Trustees wish to reserve the right to make exceptional, large grants when they consider it appropriate. This can lead to problems for those advising on applications to HLF:

3.3.1  potential applicants will see large grants being made without necessarily understanding the background to them—which in turn will raise their expectations; and

3.3.2  there is the potential for applicants to receive mixed messages about the likely level of HLF grant.

  3.4  In the past, HLF has been perceived as too reactive and idiosyncratic in its distribution of funds. We understand that HLF is now attempting to adopt a more stategic approach, but there are still problems. For example, the recent announcement of biannual competitive bidding rounds came as a complete surprise—discussions with HLF officers had given no hint of this change. NEMS would stress the need for greater transparency and discussion of policy issues.

  3.5  Each new application pack is an improvement on what has gone before. The introduction of criteria (and a new Revenue Grants Programme) which focus on access and education are welcome. The introduction of Conservation Plans is also a good idea, encouraging applicants to adopt a more holistic approach to the development of their heritage assets.

  3.6  However, it is important that the Revenue Grants Programme supplements rather than replaces government funding of museums, which is necessary to support certain core activities not covered by the criteria for the Revenue Grants programme.

  3.7  The two-stage process is an improvement, but there is an argument for following the Arts Council Lottery Fund's three-stage process. HLF will not fund feasibility studies but the ACLF will. Whilst NEMS appreciates that reduced funds may necessitate this approach, it does create a problem for small organisations who don't have funds to "pump-prime" a project, but who need to go through the process of options appraisal and/or commission initial studies to support an application. Feasibility studies could be funded for organisations with a turnover up to, for example, £15,000 (similar to the Pilot Small Grants Programme). A rationalisation of these two grant processes would also be beneficial to applicants applying to both funds for the same project.

  3.8  In terms of procedures, applications to HLF do take a long time to process. This has led to problems in terms of partnership funding, for example, applications losing ERDF funding because they did not get a decision from HLF in time. This may be less of a problem with the introduction of the two-stage process.

  3.9  The time taken to process applications does impact on HLF's "customer care" role. On a number of occasions our members have contacted us to find out what is happening with an application because they have heard nothing from HLF.

4.  IMPACT OF HLF ON MUSEUMS SECTOR IN THE NORTH EAST

  4.1  According to latest HLF figures, the North East is ninth out of 11 English regions in terms of HLF grants. With only 20 grants to museums in the region, the impact of HLF could have been greater.

  4.2  There is a perception in the region that there is an unfair distribution of HLF funds, with most of the money going to London. This is borne out by HLF's own statistics, which show that more than a third of funds have gone to London or to (mainly London-based) national institutions.

  4.3  However, the North East is also ninth in terms of applications made, and our success rate of 45 per cent is above the national average.

  4.4  One of the most noticeable features of the museums sector in the region is the absence of smaller grants (less than £100,000). This raises the issue of how effectively HLF has worked to promote the Fund at a regional level (aside from work being done by AMCs). Since the announcement of the new sixth good cause, HLF has encouraged applications to scale down their expectations in terms of grants. This, combined with the introduction of the Revenue Grants Programme, should result in an increase in applications for smaller grants from the region.

  4.5  Another notable feature is that none of the region's Designated collections (Discovery Museum, Beamish, Bowes Museum) has received an HLF grant—although NEMS understands that all three are due to make applications.

  4.6  The dearth of applications from (and subsequently grants to) museums in the region may be down to a number of issues, including lack of local authority funding and difficulty in securing partnership funding.

 5.  PROPOSAL/RECOMMENDATIONS RELATING TO FUTURE WORK OF HLF

  5.1  Devolve administration of smaller grants (for example, revenue grants up to £50,000) to English regions. With regard to museums, AMCs are all well placed to administer a small grants programme for a number of reasons:

5.1.1  AMCs have experience of administering a grants programme of this scale.

5.1.2  because they work closely with member museums on all aspects of their operation, AMCs are better placed to adopt an holistic approach and to target grants in terms of regional priorities.

5.1.3  as noted above (Section 1) NEMS—like other AMCs—already performs an advisory, assessment and promotional role with regard to HLF.

  5.2  As a general point, greater acknowledgement is needed of the role that AMCs perform (promotion, advice, assessment) with regard to the Heritage Lottery Fund.

  5.3  Regional HLF teams should be based in the regions. When NEMS talks about HLF regional teams, some of our members are surprised and puzzled that they are based in London. The fact that HLF often uses "regional" to mean "England" causes confusion.

  5.4  Each region is different, and differing economic, social and cultural circumstances need to be taken into account when targeting HLF funding.

  5.5  The influence of the National Lottery White Paper is apparent in the new HLF guidelines. Whilst this is broadly welcomed, it is important that HLF does not become merely a vehicle for Government policy. It must be remembered that Lottery revenue is not Government money.

  5.6  A scheme along the lines of the Arts Council's Stabilisation Scheme would be welcomed by museums, particularly in terms of endowment. Both local authority museums who have seen their level of local authority support reduced, and independent museums who cannot draw upon a capital fund to support developments, are in need of endowment to provide some measure of long-term stability. Endowments could be used to create purchase funds or to provide for a rolling programme of preservation/conservation of buildings and collections. However, additional funding would need to be provided for this, as HLF's estimate of reduced funding for 1998-99 (down from £450 million to £250 million) and its expanded powers do not allow any leeway to offer this kind of support.

June 1998