APPENDIX 2
Memorandum submitted by the Museums Association
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 The Museums Association is an independent
membership organisation representing museums and galleries in
the UK and people who work for them. The Association has over
4,500 individual members and 600 institutional members. These
institutional members encompass around 1,500 museums in the UK
ranging from the largest government-funded national museums to
small volunteer-run charitable trust museums. Formed in 1889,
it is a not-for-profit charity, receiving no government funding,
which seeks to inform, represent and develop museums and people
who work for them in order that they may provide a better service
to society and the public.
1.2 The Association's comments in this response
are focused on museums and their contribution to the UK tourism
industry. This contribution is considerable. Altogether, UK museums
receive about 100 million visitors a year and a third of overseas
tourists cite a desire to visit museums as a factor in their decision
to visit the UK (Marketplace Ltd, 2001). Museums have an important
role to play in spreading tourism across the UK, attracting visitors
to areas outside tourism "honey pots".
2. QUESTION 1:
WHAT IS
THE CURRENT
AND LIKELY
FUTURE PERFORMANCE
OF THE
BRITISH TOURIST
INDUSTRY FOLLOWING
FMD AND SEPTEMBER
11?
2.1 Museums experienced widely divergent
visiting trends in 2001, reflecting the ways in which the Foot
and Mouth Disease outbreak and the September 11 terrorist attacks
affected tourism patterns in the UK. Most rural museums suffered
a decline in visitor numbers because of Foot and Mouth Disease,
as overall visits to the countryside fell. Some museums, particularly
those with livestock, were forced to close temporarily. However,
some city and town centre museums saw increased visitors. These
increases seem to have come mainly from visits by UK residents,
as domestic tourists made more day trips to urban rather than
rural locations. For some, this increase in visits by UK residents
was enough to balance out a decline in visits by overseas tourists,
but not for all.
2.2 The experience of museums in the West
Midlands in 2001 provides an interesting case study. In that region,
a number of museums, mainly in smaller towns, showed an increase
in visitor figures over the year, and in many cases this reversed
a downward trend in previous years. The most extreme case was
Ludlow Museum, which has average visitor figures in June of 800-900.
In June 2001 they received 2,427 visits. Their annual figure for
2001 was 20,783 as opposed to 6,826 in 2000. Museums in Warwick,
Tamworth and Nuneaton among others attracted higher numbers of
visitors than in 2000, reversing a downward trend. Museums in
Hereford and some small towns also attracted higher numbers, but
in their case this continued an existing upward trend. However,
the gains did not balance out the overall losses. Museums in the
region with large numbers of overseas visitors suffered sharp
falls in visitor figures. For example, Shakespeare's birthplace
in Stratford-upon-Avon had a total of 406,206 in 2001 visitors
as opposed to 496,576 in 2000. Foot and Mouth Disease had clearly
had an adverse impact on visitor figures, even before the events
on September 11: the museum's average June visitor figure had
been over 100,000 and in June 2001, it was 89,297.
2.3 Good data is also available about visitor
figures at a sample of Scottish museums. If it would be useful
for the Committee to have a second case study, the Museums Association
could undertake to provide some analysis of the effects of last
year's events on visitor patterns in Scotland.
2.4 Given the complexity of analysing last
year's figures, it will be apparent that future performance is
hard to predict and depends on a complex range of factors. Recovery
from last year's events is one factor but there are others: notably
the culture of free admission, with admission now free to almost
all nationally funded museums in the UK.
2.5 Anecdotal evidence from museums paints
a mixed picture of the recovery from last year's events. Some
rural museums report that visitor figures made a strong recovery
this summer as British visitors returned to the countryside. However,
some museums have reported that they continued to experience a
marked lack of overseas visitors in 2002. Although at the height
of the Foot and Mouth outbreak there were fears that some rural
museums might be forced to close permanently because of the loss
of income suffered, the Museums Association has not learnt of
any museums which actually closed permanently as a direct result
of Foot and Mouth.
2.6 Recently published figures show a huge
surge in attendance at those English national museums which abolished
admission charges at the end of 2001. It seems likely that these
museums will continue to receive more visitors than when they
charged, although there is likely to be some dropping off from
the levels achieved in the first year of free admission. Moreover,
free admission promotes a different kind of museum visit; initial
research at some of the museums that have dropped admission charges
suggests that people are making shorter, more frequent visits
rather than seeing a museum visit as a whole day out. This will
impact on the rest of the tourism infrastructure in their local
areas but it is too early to assess the full extent and nature
of this impact. There is also some evidence to suggest that other,
paying attractions have suffered declining visitor numbers as
more people visit free museums. However, more research is needed
to ascertain the causes for any reductions in visitor numbers,
given that free entry was introduced in a very difficult year
for the British tourism industry. Recommendation: DCMS should
investigate the impact of free entry to the national museums on
the rest of the sector and, if appropriate work with the tourist
boards and national museums, to put remedies in place.
3. QUESTION 2:
DOES THE
GOVERNMENT HAVE
A ROLE
IN PROMOTING
AND/OR
SUPPORTING THE
INDUSTRY?
3.1 The Government certainly has a role
to play, and the Museums Association is concerned that this role
has been relatively neglected in the past, given the economic
importance of the industry. Tourism contributes five per cent
of UK GDP. It is worth £73 billion to the UK economy and
earns some £14 billion in foreign exchange (2001 figures).
The events of last year have underlined the vulnerability of the
tourism industry to external pressures and world events. This
makes it vital that the Government support initiatives designed
to strengthen the industry and make it more resilient.
4. QUESTION 3:
WHAT SHOULD
THAT ROLE
BE?
4.1 Some of the support which Government
needs to provide is indirect: for example, an efficient transport
infrastructure is vital to the whole tourism industry. However,
this response focuses on the direct support which Government can
and should provide for museums' tourism role.
4.2 Funding from the national lottery has
changed the UK tourism landscape in recent years. It has enabled
substantial capital investment in museums across the country,
both in new facilities and in improvements to existing museums.
The Government has a vital role to play in maintaining support
for the lottery to ensure that this funding stream continues to
be available, and in determining the high-level policy context
for lottery spending. Some of these issues are currently being
addressed through the Review of Lottery Funding and the Museums
Association welcomes this consultation. For museums, it is particularly
important that a specialist Heritage Lottery Fund continue to
operate. There is great benefit for the sector in being able to
deal with a funding body that has a detailed understanding of
the sector's needs and of the context in which museums operate.
The 2001 report on the future of England's regional museums, Renaissance
in the Regions, asserts the need for continued investment
in museum infrastructure by the Heritage Lottery Fund, and it
is vital that this is seen as a priority. Lastly, funding bodies
must not over-invest in new facilities and neglect improvements
to existing facilities. Too much lottery funding, which might
have been directed towards improving established museums, has
in the past been spent on unsustainable new attractions. Recommendation:
DCMS should ensure the continued operation of the Heritage Lottery
Fund. HLF itself should continue to invest in museum infrastructure,
with an emphasis on improvements to existing facilities, rather
than new museums.
4.3 Major London and regional museums receive
large numbers of visits from people travelling outside their local
area, whether from other parts of the UK or from overseas. However,
many museums do not currently attract as many tourists as they
might because a shortage of revenue funding has meant that they
have been unable to provide high-quality displays and programmes.
Persistent under-funding has meant that many important museums
in major towns and cities across the UK are unappealing to visitors
from outside the local area. Proper investment is needed to give
the UK's major regional centres museums with displays and programmes
of a quality that reflect the status and importance of these cities.
Renaissance in the Regions, proposes that central government
address this problem by providing revenue funding to a group of
key museums in each English region. Government accepted the report's
recommendations, but it remains to be seen whether sufficient
funding will be available to make any real difference to regional
museums. Recommendation: DCMS must provide sufficient funding
to enable the reforms to the regional museums sector proposed
by Renaissance in the Regions to go ahead.
4.4 Renaissance in the Regions includes
a proposal to provide focused financial support to independent
museums in particular to help them develop their role as part
of the wider tourism infrastructure, in partnership with the Regional
Development Agencies and Regional Agencies for museums, libraries
and archives. This proposal is costed at £5 million for each
of two years, a relatively small sum given the contribution tourism
makes to the economic prosperity of a region and should be funded.
4.5 In recent years, several high-profile
lottery-funded attractions have failed or run into serious financial
difficulties. Clearly, DCMS cannot be expected to bail out every
failing attraction or museum. However, where substantial amounts
of public money have been spent on an attraction, Government has
a responsibility to consider whether the benefits from that investment
should be secured for the longer term through the provision of
additional financial support. DCMS has provided some additional
assistance (for example, to the Royal Armouries), but on an ad
hoc basis. Recommendation: DCMS should have a more explicit policy
and more ordered approach to the problem of failing attractions
which have been supported through substantial lottery funding.
Future decisions should be made within a coherent strategic framework.
4.6 Our ability to analyse the impact of
last year's events on museum visiting patterns accurately, and
to predict future trends confidently is seriously hampered by
a lack of data. Scotland has better information available than
England: figures for visits to Scotland's visitor attractions
are published for VisitScotland on a monthly basis, with a timelag
of about two months; figures for England's attractions are published
by the English Tourism Council annually, with a timelag of up
to eighteen months. Clearly, the task of collecting visitor data
for England is more complex than for Scotland. However, for such
an important industry, this paucity of data is a major handicap.
Recommendation: the English Tourism Council should establish a
better mechanism for collecting and disseminating information
about attendances at attractions in England.
5. QUESTION 4: DO
CURRENT ARRANGEMENTS
FOR SUPPORTING,
PROMOTING AND/OR
REGULATING THE
INDUSTRY: MEET
THE NEED
ADEQUATELY; REFLECT
THE DEVOLUTION
SETTLEMENT APPROPRIATELY;
PROMOTE THE
QUALITY OF
PROVISION EFFECTIVELY;
ENCOURAGE PRODUCTIVITY
WITHIN THE
SECTOR?
5.1 In common with members of the Tourism
Alliance, the Museums Association is concerned that there is no
body with responsibility for marketing England to a domestic audience.
The British Tourist Authority has the responsibility of promoting
Britain overseas and the relevant tourist boards market Scotland,
Wales and Northern Ireland both internally and externally. This
anomalous situation needs to be addressed. The disastrously mixed
messages about visiting the countryside that circulated in the
media in the early days of the foot and mouth crisis clearly demonstrate
the need for a body to provide a coherent marketing strategy for
England's domestic tourism.
5.2 Although many elements of regional administrative
structures are still nascent and it will be sometime before it
will be apparent how much scope regional bodies will have, partnerships
at a regional level are of increasing importance in the promotion
of tourism, and in determining strategy. For example, the creation
of Regional Agencies for museums, archives and libraries presents
an opportunity for a cross-sectoral, strategic approach to tourism
and other issues at a regional level. These new structures will
enable museum development and other issues to be situated in a
broad regional policy context.
6. SUMMARY OF
RECOMMENDATIONS
6.1 DCMS should investigate the impact of
free entry to the national museums on the rest of the sector and,
if appropriate work with the tourist boards and national museums,
to put remedies in place.
6.2 DCMS should ensure the continued operation
of the Heritage Lottery Fund.
6.3 HLF should continue to invest in museum
infrastructure, with an emphasis on improvements to existing facilities,
rather than new museums.
6.4 DCMS must provide sufficient funding
to enable the reforms to the regional museums sector proposed
by Renaissance in the Regions to go ahead.
6.5 DCMS should have a more explicit policy
and more ordered approach to the problem of failing attractions
which have been supported through substantial lottery funding.
Future decisions should be made within a coherent strategic framework.
7 October 2002
| 
