More cuts at English Heritage
July 6 2013
Not strictly art history this, but worth mentioning: English Heritage's budget has been cut again, this time by 10% for the year 2015/16. There has, however, been little in the way of protest from the cultural sector. I've often wondered why it is that 'the arts' have such a strong political voice, and are comparatively protected from cuts, but heritage does not. By many measures, it is more incumbent on the state to protect its physical heritage assets (from Dover Castle to Bletchley Park) than it is to keep a contemporary dance troupe in clover.
Of course, the primary responsiblity for this short-term cut must lie with the government. But I believe that part of the problem is a failure of leadership in the heritage sector. The case for heritage is not properly made in goverment, despite the clear evidence that more people visit 'heritage' sites than take part in 'the arts', and despite the fact that heritage is more important to our tourism industry (and thus the government's growth strategy) than the arts.
Proof of this is the fact that the budget for English Heritage has been cut in real terms consistently since long before the current economic crisis. In 2004/5, English Heritage's grant-in-aid budget was £127,901,000. Now, nearly a decade later, it is just £83,056,000. I can't do the inflationary maths, but I bet few other government departments have suffered such a consistent funding squeeze. Indeed, I was working in politics at the time the English Heritage budgets began to be cut, in 2004, which were days of plenty, and arts spending was rising massively. We tried to criticise the government for the cuts, but heritage never had the traction of the arts. Nobody in government seemed to be on the receiving end of a clear and concise case for heritage. It seems they still aren't.
Partly to make up for the history of cuts, which have led to a backlog in heritage repairs, the present government has now granted English Heritage a one-off capital grant of £80m. This will also help establish a seperate, independent body to look after sites such as Dover Castle. The long-term future, therefore, looks like being one of a further reduction in state support for heritage, as English Heritage is forced to become increasingly independent.
An intriguing glimpse of what might be going wrong at English Heritage is the recent story of their blue plaque programme (which are placed on the homes of the great and good after they die). The Telegraph reports:
The programme, which involves commemorative signs being attached to the former homes of celebrated personalities from the past, has been drastically scaled back by the English Heritage, which has seen a reduction in Government funding. The numbers of plaques being awarded has been reduced and nominations for new ones suspended entirely.
The three resignations - including by the chairman and vice chairman - mean the panel has lost more than a quarter of its membership. Some of the remaining eight members are also said to be considering their position over the changes, and the body itself is now facing an uncertain future.
You have to wonder why the scheme is so expensive in the first place, and why such a large and fractious panel is required. Surely the decision as to who merits a plaque can be made in minutes with common sense by no more than one or two people. And since the plaques do wonders for the value of a property, the cost of making and installing them could be borne by the householder.
Update - see my more recent post for what the real terms cut amounts to.
