1.0  INTRODUCTION

  1.1  The South Eastern Museums Service (SEMS) is the museum development agency for London, the 15 counties surrounding the capital and the Channel Islands. Our geographical remit is the largest of the seven English Area Museum Councils all of which receive core funding from the Museums & Galleries Commission which, in turn, is funded by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport.

  1.2  SEMS is constituted as a charitable company limited by guarantee and is a membership organisation to which local authority and the governing bodies of independent museum trusts subscribe. At present, bodies operating over 520 registered museums are in membership.

  1.3  SEMS provides specialist advice, information and grants to museums, the last of these being on a project basis at a modest level; the funding agreement with the Museums & Galleries Commission specifically precludes us from offering true revenue grants.

2.0  SEMS' RELATIONSHIP TO THE HERITAGE LOTTERY FUND

  2.1  Ever since the establishment of the Heritage Lottery Fund (HLF) we have continued to provide advice and information to applicants and potential applicants about the operation of the Fund, its criteria, priorities and deadlines in order that they can develop the best possible application for their institution.

  2.2  This contributes to achieving SEMS' stated purpose which is "to improve the quality and effectiveness of local and regional museums". We understand that it is an approach that HLF welcomes as it reduces the time taken by their staff in dealing with applications that are unlikely to succeed. Indeed, HLF recognises the value of SEMS' deep involvement in the museum community in the south east by providing printed information which we distribute on its behalf to our large mailing list.

  2.3  SEMS is also under contract to HLF to provide it with advice during the initial assessment on applications received from non-National museums and museum related organisations in the south east whether they are members of SEMS or not. Since the Fund was established, we have provided such advice on c 200 occasions. We understand that HLF particularly values the involvement of the Area Museum Councils in the assessment process because of their regional overview and detailed knowledge, built up over many years, of the applicant organisations, their collections, strengths and weaknesses. This is supplemented by the more specialist expert advice HLF obtains from the Museums & Galleries Commission who are also able to provide a national overview.

  2.4  SEMS is alert to the potential for conflicts of interest given its twin roles. We address this by:

—  ensuring that the advice given to applicants prior to the application being submitted to HLF is as objective as possible;

—  refusing to provide further advice to applicants after the application has been submitted;

—  being scrupulously objective in the advice provided to HLF; all written advice is seen and checked by a second member of our staff who has not been directly involved with the project;

—  limiting our advice to HLF to fields in which we have specialist knowledge/expertise.

  All Area Museum Councils are well used to handling these ethical considerations as many other grant making bodies, such as Regional Arts Boards and charitable foundations, seek advice from them on applications from museums.

  2.5  SEMS also undertakes occasional project monitoring for HLF (c 15 to date). This is only done when we have particular concerns about aspects of the project's implementation in museological terms as others are better qualified to fulfil this role in general terms and this function (unlike the provision of assessment advice) is not central to our purpose.

  2.6  Prior to the recent revision in the legislation covering HLF, SEMS was ineligible to apply for funds as we neither own nor manage heritage assets directly. We welcome the new criteria which will allow us to apply as an "umbrella" body on behalf of a group or network of museums thereby adding value to the project and achieving greater cost effectiveness.

3.  THE DISTRIBUTION OF FUNDS BY THE HERITAGE LOTTERY FUND, ITS CRITERIA FOR CONSIDERING APPLICATIONS AND ITS PROCEDURES

  3.1  HLF was originally established as a reactive rather than a strategic funding body. Applications could not be solicited and had to be handled on the basis of what happened to arrive in the post. This inevitably caused certain anomalies since some applicants were better prepared and, hence, quicker off the mark than others. They were necessarily the most important projects and, in some cases, were less strategically significant than others in the same field or locality for which no application had materialised at that state. This resulted in two difficulties—funds sometimes being allocated to projects that were "less than the best" and a potential superflity of developments in a relatively small area with no evidence of a comparable increase in the size of the market, ie supply outstripping demand, with consequences for the sustainability of all the institutions—both existing and new projects. The need for a strategic approach is addressed below (Section 4.3).

  3.2  As a newly created body it is not surprising that HLF has needed to refine and redefine its criteria and priorities from time to time. However, it does seem that some of these changes have been introduced at very short notice. In the museum sector, this has caused difficulties for some applicants who may have invested considerable time and funds in developing a project which suddenly falls "outside the goal posts". We believe that HLF should consider longer lead times before implementing such policy changes.

  3.3  SEMS broadly supports the criteria applied by HLF. By emphasising the heritage asset (be it building or collection) HLF is able to focus on material already held in trust for the public benefit. The recent broadening of the criteria to accord greater importance to public enjoyment, involvement and learning is also to be welcomed. The definition of heritage asset does, however, need to be reviewed since it currently tends to discriminate against contemporary collecting which is of particular importance to museums dealing with recent scientific and social history material. SEMS also supports HLF's presumption against the creation of new museum collections.

  3.4  The application process has gradually improved since the Fund was established. Smaller institutions originally found the forms baffling and the procedure labyrinthine. The former are now much clearer and the introduction of a two stage process should do much to reduce the time between submitting an application and being informed of the outcome. SEMS would urge HLF as far as possible to adopt transparency as its watchword in relation to the consideration of applications.

4.0  THE IMPACT OF HERITAGE LOTTERY FUND ON THE MUSEUM SECTOR

  4.1  HLF has been the single largest injection of much needed funding for the museum sector this century; perhaps ever. It has helped house and increase the accessibility of collections both great and small and should continue to do so. SEMS is concerned to hear the view expressed that "museums have had more than their fair share" and rejects this assertion unreservedly. Whilst it is true that the total figures are large, it must be remembered that a high proportion has gone to very large projects proposed by the great national institutions, mostly based in London and the capital cities of the other Home Countries.

  4.2  HLF is, after all, a distributor for the National Lottery and its funds should be seen to be reaching all parts of the Kingdom. Many smaller museums were originally unable to benefit because capital/building projects were not their primary need. The shift towards funding programmes of work (which SEMS welcomes warmly) will allow the communities they serve to reep the benefits that lottery funding can bring. It is crucial that the museum sector is not disadvantaged at precisely the point when many smaller organisations are able to access this stream of funding for the first time. A very great deal remains to be done to care for that part of the nation's inheritance that is housed in museums and make available to a wider public.

  4.3  Since its inception, HLF has been oversubscribed with applications and this will doubtless continue to be the case. The distribution of lottery funding inevitably means that there will be both winners and losers. SEMS believes that, for the museum sector, this is best addressed by relating the allocation of grant to national and regional strategies that have been accepted by the sector itself. We are currently developing museum strategies for each of the four regions served by SEMS. All the Area Museum Councils have been involved with the Museums & Galleries Commission in drafting a national policy framework which is currently out for consultation with the museum community. We would hope that HLF will take account of these strategies and policy framework when they are published. This should assist in ensuring that best value is obtained with funds which, although large, are not infinite. The relatively recent establishment of regional operations teams by HLF has already improved liaison in this respect.

5.  RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE FUTURE WORK OF HLF

  5.1  SEMS is aware of the pressures on HLF to constrain its operating costs and overheads and supports this view. With respect to the museum sector, we believe that economies could be achieved by:

(a)  Reducing the volume of bought in consultancy. The shift from funding capital building programmes to funding programmes of work should bring considerable savings. It makes it all the more important, however, that core specialist advice at regional and national level is retained. Whilst HLF's regional operations team are developing their own knowledge, "heritage" comprises an enormously side spectrum which they cannot expect to cover fully in-house. SEMS believes that the input from the Museums & Galleries Commission and the Area Museum Councils should be retained as a cost effective means of informing the process.

(b)  Considering the devolution of the Area Museum Councils of the distribution of smaller grants such as the new revenue programme to non-National museums. Since all currently operate grant programmes, the mechanism already exists. An independent evaluation commissioned several years ago by the (former) Department of National Heritage and the Museums & Galleries Commission commented very favourably on the effectiveness and economy of Area Museums Council grant programmes.

  5.2  The establishment of HLF regional committees in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland will be progressive development. SEMS would like HLF to consider the creation of such committees in the English regions, operating within the boundaries co-terminous with those of the Government Offices/Regional Development Agencies.

June 1998