The Accounting Standards Board (ASB) has scrapped proposals to make museums value their collections where practicable. Instead, the ASB has issued a set of revised proposals and a consultation asking whether the current system, under which museums are required to report information that is available on cost or value, should be maintained.
Alan O'Connor, project director at the ASB, denied there had been any pressure from museums to maintain the status quo. "This is not a climbdown," he said. "One of the possibilities under the original proposals was that museums need not report any of their heritage assets, but under the revised proposals, they would have to report more.
"There was a realisation by the board that the notion of practicability is quite subjective and difficult to apply, and many museums would have taken the opportunity to keep assets off the balance sheet. It is better to report what you can, rather than nothing at all."
Paul Davis, registrar at the Natural History Museum, welcomed the revised proposals. "We have got 75 million items," he said. "There is no meaningful way we could assign a value to them. No one has time for that."
But a spokeswoman for the British Museum said: "I am not sure how useful the new proposals are. An evaluation of the collection is only going to be partial and could be misleading."
Adrian Babbidge, an independent heritage consultant, said the proposals addressed a real gap in museums' accounting practice. "Museums are about collections and accounting for them," he said. "And this is a means of doing that."
Sally Cross, collections coordinator at the Museums Association, said: "While I think there is merit in museums being more confident in valuing objects in their care, and in taking the opportunity to give more information in the enhanced disclosures on their balance sheets, I don't think many museums would have been in a position to easily value their collections."
Alan O'Connor, project director at the ASB, denied there had been any pressure from museums to maintain the status quo. "This is not a climbdown," he said. "One of the possibilities under the original proposals was that museums need not report any of their heritage assets, but under the revised proposals, they would have to report more.
"There was a realisation by the board that the notion of practicability is quite subjective and difficult to apply, and many museums would have taken the opportunity to keep assets off the balance sheet. It is better to report what you can, rather than nothing at all."
Paul Davis, registrar at the Natural History Museum, welcomed the revised proposals. "We have got 75 million items," he said. "There is no meaningful way we could assign a value to them. No one has time for that."
But a spokeswoman for the British Museum said: "I am not sure how useful the new proposals are. An evaluation of the collection is only going to be partial and could be misleading."
Adrian Babbidge, an independent heritage consultant, said the proposals addressed a real gap in museums' accounting practice. "Museums are about collections and accounting for them," he said. "And this is a means of doing that."
Sally Cross, collections coordinator at the Museums Association, said: "While I think there is merit in museums being more confident in valuing objects in their care, and in taking the opportunity to give more information in the enhanced disclosures on their balance sheets, I don't think many museums would have been in a position to easily value their collections."
