Written evidence submitted by Zewditu Gebreyohanes
Protecting built heritage
1.1 I have worked in heritage policy for the past five years, with a focus on making sure that heritage preservation organisations are being run in accordance with their founding, statutory and/or charitable objects.
1.2 While I have knowledge about and experience of various heritage institutions – including the Victoria and Albert Museum, of which I am a Trustee – my particular area of expertise is the National Trust [hereafter NT]. Between May 2022 and November 2023 I was director of Restore Trust, a grassroots member-led campaign to return the NT to its original mission. In 2024 I authored a critical report for the Legatum Institute (now the Prosperity Institute) titled “National Distrust: The end of democracy in the National Trust”, which was endorsed publicly and in full by former NT Chair Sir William Proby.
1.3 I am imminently to publish a sequel to “National Distrust”, also about the NT but specifically focussing on the managed decline of the built and natural heritage in the organisation’s care. The research I undertook in the process of writing the report, and the findings of the report, seem relevant to the Committee’s inquiry; the NT serves as a case study for understanding the issues facing owners and operators of built heritage assets in the sector generally.
1.4 The NT's experience highlights the broader challenges facing owners and operators of built heritage assets, including physical decline, resource allocation, commercialisation and governance issues. These challenges have in turn affected what the heritage sites can offer, reducing accessibility, authenticity and public trust.
2.1 My research shows that the challenges facing owners and operators of built heritage assets are often partly of their own making, with institutional capture by activist-minded individuals causing ideological decline which results in the diversion of resources and energy away from core conservation activities. The prioritisation of non-core activities, coupled with the ever-present financial constraints, leads to the neglect of essential maintenance and conservation work, causing or exacerbating the physical decline of built heritage assets.
2.2 It is important to note that one of the root causes of the mission side-tracking is the fact that funding bodies – both public/state and private – have in recent years been providing financial incentives for cultural bodies to pursue agendas unrelated to their core work, particularly in relation to Equality, Diversity and Inclusion (EDI) and “decolonisation”. Heritage institutions act according to the funding opportunities available to them.
2.3 The failure by the custodians of built heritage assets, such as the NT, to include members, junior staff, volunteers and locals in a meaningful way in major decision-making processes undermines the potential of heritage institutions to use built heritage to regenerate local areas in a way that benefits communities and contributes to economic growth.
2.4 Many of the NT’s recent decisions – such as the controversial plans to preserve Grade I-listed Clandon House in its fire-damaged state rather than to restore it, in spite of the £66.3 million insurance payout – were taken without proper consultation and have generally been characterised by a lack of transparency. The resulting erosion of trust is likely to impact future funding and support for heritage conservation efforts, helping fuel a vicious circle which worsens the condition of built heritage assets.
2.5 Poor governance and the deliberate undermining of channels of accountability – internal and external – by the NT’s paid management, together with a lack of transparency, has reduced scrutiny of their actions, enabling approaches that are not in keeping with the statutory and charitable remits. This has exacerbated the managed decline and also further reduced public trust.
3.1 The NT is the biggest heritage conservation charity in Europe and one of the biggest private landowners in the UK. It is essential that it is a responsible and effective custodian of heritage, not only because it has over 500 built heritage sites in its care, but also because it is seen as a leader in the sector and should be setting a good example. However, its current model and system of governance has not been conducive to the proper preservation and maintenance of built heritage assets. It is therefore crucial that the NT is a central subject of study for the Committee if it is to tackle the managed decline of heritage assets and historic buildings effectively.
3.2 The Director-General of the NT, Hilary McGrady, and/or the General Counsel and Secretary, Jan Lasik, should be brought before the Committee to answer questions on why the NT has been prioritising non-core activities over its founding, statutory and charitable duties.
3.3 Heritage preservation organisations should have robust channels for internal and external scrutiny and accountability, and there should be transparency surrounding major decision-making and use of funding. One way to achieve this with organisations on the scale of the NT is to establish an independent Ombudsman. Where appropriate, such as within the NT, functioning democracy should be restored to enable members to keep the leadership to account.
3.4 A truly long-term solution which re-calibrates the heritage conservation sector more broadly would involve the reform of state funding bodies to ensure they no longer provide financial incentives for conservation institutions to become derailed from their core missions. This would help secure the future of built heritage assets across the country and would help channel grants and funding towards restoration and maintenance projects, creating jobs for skilled craftsmen and artisans and contributing to economic growth.
3.5 I would be happy to submit further evidence – written or oral – at the Committee’s convenience.
February 2025