The more than 1,700 workers who lost their jobs last year have every right to feel aggrieved as Trust weathers storm regardless of staff savings, writes Bendor Grosvenor.

Dr Grosvenor writes as follows in The Art Newspaper: ‘It has been a year since the National Trust announced sweeping redundancies, a move it said was vital to protect the charity from a projected £200m loss due to Covid-19. The redundancies came as part of a wider restructuring, designed in part to reduce the costs of running its historic houses. However, the Trust’s latest annual accounts call into question the need for such significant job losses. Far from making a loss, it ended the financial year 2020/21 richer than ever.

‘What the Trust calls its “primary measure of financial performance”, its Operating Margin, was 19.8% during the pandemic, not much less than its average margin in good years. It is true total income declined significantly, from £680m to £507m. But there were also reductions in spending that would have occurred had properties been open as normal, such as seasonal staff. A pause of £85m of conservation projects helped bring total expenditure down to £514m (from £699m the year before). The furlough scheme provided a cushion of almost £50m, and membership income remained stable, at £267m. Shrewd investment decisions, and the stock market’s recovery, have seen the endowment perform well, against the Trust's expectations at the beginning of the pandemic. In all, the total funds stand at £1.46bn, an increase of £175m on the year before.

‘Moreover, these figures were achieved before the full savings of the restructuring have made a dent in the Trust’s bottom line. In fact, this year the regular staff costs increased, mainly due to redundancy costs of £22.3m. Those who lost their jobs will be disappointed—but perhaps not surprised—to find that the number of the Trust’s most highly paid staff, those whose salary and benefits exceed £60,000, has increased too.

‘Some suspected the Trust of using the pandemic as a pretext for long-held plans to make its historic houses, the most expensive part of its portfolio, cheaper to run. A leaked Trust “vision paper” proposing a wholesale restructuring of its historic houses was written in May, less than two months after the first lockdown. It felt surprisingly well formed. This document, dismissed by the Trust's chief executive Hilary McGrady as a “starter for ten” discussion paper, spoke dishearteningly of “flexing our mansion offer”, and “rationalising” (for which read, reduce) the number of items on display.’