BACKGROUND

  The Association of Independent Museums was established in 1976 by a group of committed Directors and Curators of new independent museums. Its first Chairman, now Sir Neil Cossons, Director of the National Museum of Science and Industry, London, remains President of the Association. Currently AIM has 750 members throughout the United Kingdom, comprising independent museums, some local authority museums, suppliers to the sector, students and interested individuals.

INDEPENDENT MUSEUMS

  An independent museum is a museum or bone-fide heritage project, which is administered outside the traditional central and local government frameworks for museum provision. Typically, independent museums are set up and managed as charitable companies. In the 1980s and 1990s they have contributed much to the changing face of the nation's conserved heritage, focusing on visitor requirements, attractive presentations and earned income to support the core activities of conservation and research.

  There are about 2,500 museums in the United Kingdom some 1,500 of which are independent. 900 of these have been included in the Museums and Galleries Commission's Registration scheme. A third of the 32 non-national museums which have been designated as museums of national significance, are independent.

  Independent museums are diverse, ranging from small local organisations, mainly operated by volunteers, to large regional or national organisations. Their collections are also very varied covering the whole field of museum work and a significant number are associated with historic, craft, industrial or transport sites. 70 per cent of the total have opened since 1970. In many cases new independent charitable companies have been established to provide educational, community and tourist facilities which could not have been achieved by public sector departments in isolation. With their emphasis on earned income and fund-raising, independent museums represent very good value for every £1 of public funds invested in them. They are notable for the extent of voluntary commitment. From boards of trustees, who in the main are directors of the respective charitable companies, to those who volunteer operational services as guides, restorers, caterers, researchers etc. Typically, independent museums have small paid staffs relative to the size and significance of their operations.

INDEPENDENT MUSEUMS OFFER

—  Commitment and enthusiasm from governing bodies, staff and volunteers.

—  Knowledge, expertise and specialist resources.

—  Entrepreneurial skills.

—  Flexibility and rapid response.

—  Cost effective service provision.

 THE FUTURE FOR INDEPENDENT MUSEUMS

  AIM's report New Visions for Independent Museums examined the environment in which museums were to operate during the 1990s. It emphasised the importance of:

—  Sound Management.

—  Mutually supporting consortia and networking.

—  Corporate planning and management training.

—  Improved marketing.

—  Reviewing under-utilised museum assets.

—  Identifying new users for museums.

—  Seeking commercial and other partnerships.

—  Accessing developments in information technology.

—  Ensuring that independent museums are of sustainable size and capable of withstanding short-term financial pressures.

  AIM's 1998 research project, New Visions for Museums in the Twenty-first Century is scheduled for publication during September 1998.

AIM'S OBJECTIVES

  The purpose of AIM is to improve standards in independent museums throughout the United Kingdom, to represent their interests and to contribute to national heritage policy making. The Association is regularly consulted by the Department of Culture Media and Sport, the Museums and Galleries Commission, Heritage Lottery Fund, Area Museum Councils and other relevant bodies.

  AIM produces six Bulletins and three Focus papers per year. It also undertakes specific research and publication on topics of interest and relevance to the heritage sector and organises an annual lecture at the Bank of England in London. It has set up the Bob Harding Memorial Fund which provides limited educational grants and bursaries for the purpose of training individuals in the field.

AIM MANAGEMENT AND ORGANISATION

  AIM is a Company Limited by Guarantee (Company Number 1350939). Charitable status is expected during the next six months. Management is vested in its Council which is elected by the membership and meets six times per year. Council Members are neither remunerated nor do they receive expenses other than for exceptional and specific approved purposes. AIM has no paid officers other than a modest fee paid to the Editor of its Bulletin. The current and principal officers are:

Chairman	Jonathan Bryant	Chief Executive, River and Rowing Museum
Secretary	Sam Mullins	Director, London Transport Museum
Treasurer	Alan Sewell	Financial Controller, London Transport Museum
Membership	Christine Alison	Curator, Saffron Walden Museum
Recruitment	Dr Simon Penn	Avoncroft Museum of Buildings, Bromsgrove
Mailing List	Diane Lees	Galleries of Justice, Nottingham
Editor	Diana Zeuner	Park Cottage, West Dean, Sussex

  1.  Above all, the Association of Independent Museums wishes to commend Heritage Lottery Fund for the exceptional contribution it has made to improving museum provision throughout the United Kingdom. It has provided a large number of museums with an unprecedented opportunity to enhance their facilities and services to the public, and has encouraged new developments which could not have been funded in any other way. As a mark of respect for the work of Heritage Lottery Fund, AIM invited the outgoing chairman, Lord Rothschild, to give the Association's annual lecture at the Bank of England, in December 1997. Tribute was paid to his and the Fund's pioneering work.

  2.  This said, and arising from Heritage Lottery Fund's work during its first three years, are a number of concerns and issues. AIM welcomes the opportunity to bring these to the attention of the Culture Media and Sport Committee. Some are issues of principle and policy. Others, of detail and administration. All are presented as objective comments which are intended to be helpful. We are aware that some of the points are currently being dealt with and we hope that others can be in the very near future.

  3.  The first observation concerns Heritage Lottery Fund's role in respect of national policy and priorities for museums. Neither the Department of Culture, Media and Sport, nor its advisory body the Museums and Galleries Commission have an established set of priorities for museum provision across the United Kingdom. As a consequence, and because Heritage Lottery Fund has had substantial funds to allocate to museums, it has found itself in a position to establish national policy by default. Following its recent public consultations, and with additional appropriate expertise available to it, AIM believes that Heritage Lottery Fund is now in a better informed position to take a strategic view in respect of its support for museums.

  4.  As to whether government intends to formalise Heritage Lottery Fund's policy making role, or ask it to observe policy established by the Department of Culture, Media and Sport, or the Museums and Galleries Commission, we await the outcome of the current spending review and subsequent announcements expected later this year. AIM's view is that responsibility for policy overall lies with the Department of Culture Media and Sport.

  5.  Heritage Lottery Fund's early terms of reference obliged it to respond to demand, rather than encourage particular applications for financial assistance. As a result of this, the distribution of funds, improvements in existing museums and completely new developments have been driven by those in the best positions to submit applications of merit. While some excellent new projects have been supported, their spread by subject matter, population and geography may be open to question.

  6.  Unlike other distributors of lottery funds, Heritage Lottery Fund commenced its work from, virtually, a standing start. Whilst a number of early operational weaknesses have been dealt with, our strong view is that there still remains some way to go to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the fund's administration and decision making. We do not advocate increases to the cost of administering Heritage Lottery Fund. Quite the opposite—we wish to see the highest possible proportion of lottery funds going to sound projects rather than on executive and consultant expenses. A number of the following issues relate directly to this point.

  7.  We recognise of course, the clear requirement for prudent distribution of public funds and that this requires an appropriate allocation of resources for staff and advisors to assess and monitor both applications and the proper disbursement of funds. We observe in practice, however, that a high proportion of Heritage Lottery Fund officers and advisors have insufficient experience or knowledge of the projects under assessment, to make meaningful and qualitative judgements. Too often, AIM members have found it very difficult to get authoritative or helpful comments from Heritage Lottery Fund personnel. We believe that the Fund needs to have better qualified people in place, who are able to command the peer group respect of applicants. These observations are not restricted to staff. We have noted that some consultants to Heritage Lottery Fund have found themselves quite out of their depth in respect of the nature of projects under assessment and, that in certain circumstances, even expert advisors have failed to grasp, or been inadequately briefed on the project in question.

  8.  Lengthy timetables for decision making have caused very serious difficulties for some museums. In some cases such difficulties arise from the time limited availability of matching or partnership funds. More serious however, are the problems caused when Heritage Lottery Fund priorities have shifted during the assessment period and an otherwise supportable project finds itself high and dry because of new criteria or policies. Much work, effort and expense goes into the preparation of a sound project and its submission to Heritage Lottery Fund. There is something inherently wrong in a system which allows an application to be judged on criteria different to those which applied at the date of submission.

  9.  Most applicants to Heritage Lottery Fund do not realise that their biggest problems can start once a grant has been awarded. The key point is the length of time it appears to take to finalise the terms of grant contract. Clearly some situations will be more complex than others, but it seems quite extraordinary that some contracts are not concluded for six months or more. During this time, the project specification may be overtaken by, for example, developments in new technology, and yet further difficulties and delays can arise if applicants wish to modify or update the specification on which their award was based, to any material extent.

  10.  Some museums have found that during the execution of an approved project, Heritage Lottery Fund has sought to involve itself too deeply in the detail of project specification. A number of recipients have experienced problems because the Fund wishes to become involved in the detailed design of, for example, buildings, extensions or exhibition content. Heritage Lottery Fund has a legitimate right to comment on and approve plans, but it does not make sense for it to try to determine design detail. AIM does not consider that an operational bureaucracy which seeks to control project detail is the best use of lottery funds. AIM's view is that Heritage Lottery Fund should make proper and general assessments of potential projects, provide appropriate support where necessary, and monitor implementation from a financial point of view.

  11.  An important general point should be made regarding the number of completely new museums and other types of cultural facility which have been supported not only by Heritage Lottery Fund, but also the Millennium Commission and Arts Councils. Each new museum, science centre or other form of educational or cultural attraction must sustain itself in an already highly competitive environment of paid admission leisure and recreational activities. We simply do not believe that the level of public use claimed for some new projects can be achieved or sustained. What is clear however, is that audiences will be drawn from many existing museums which depend for their very existence on visitors' allocation of time and money.

  12.  The net effect of all such new attractions, including the Millennium Experience at Greenwich, on the market for visitors' time and disposable income is huge. Only when they are completed and opened from 1999 onwards, will we really understand what has been created and what decisions may have to be taken regarding the future financing of operations, repairs and renewals in cultural attractions throughout the United Kingdom.

  13.  With these issues in mind, AIM generally welcomes Heritage Lottery Fund's current view that it should be supporting programmes and improvements in existing museums in preference to creating additional new facilities. We feel that more needs to be done to support education and access programmes, improve collections management and IT systems and encourage appropriate refurbishment and renewals. It should be noted that many independent museums are able to meet their regular operational outgoings from earned income, but without additional financial support, face genuine difficulties in maintaining the standard and quality of education programmes and collection care activities.

  14.  If, as appears likely, significant cultural and heritage assets in museums may be put at future risk due to competition, AIM believes that Heritage Lottery Fund should make provision to help museums in cases of genuine failure. We have in mind the encouragement of collaborative ventures between museums, the purpose of which is to increase efficiency. We also consider that Heritage Lottery Fund should support measures to secure the future of important collections of historic material where the museums which hold these, face difficulties.

  15.  AIM's 1998 research project, New Visions for Museums in the Twenty-first Century, is well advanced and its report, by Professor Victor Middleton, will be published in September of this year. The report will provide further information and recommendations on a number of the points considered above.

June 1998