Examination of Witnesses (Questions 56
- 59)
WEDNESDAY 23 OCTOBER 2002
SIR NEIL
CHALMERS, MS
SHARON AMENT
AND MR
NEIL GREENWOOD
Chairman
56. Sir Neil, I would like to welcome you and
your colleagues to this opening sitting of this inquiry. If you
have an opening statement that you would like to make, we would
be glad to listen to it.
(Sir Neil Chalmers) Thank you for giving
us the opportunity to speak to you. If I may just summarise a
few points that we have made in our written submission to you.
Firstly, we are very keen to show the kind of organisation we
are. We are very well known as a museum as a place to which people
come to visit our exhibitions and to bring their school parties,
which is an exceedingly important part of our work. In addition
and what is not so well known is that we are also a major scientific
research institution, basing our scientific research upon the
collections that we hold and this is an extraordinarily important
part of our work. It makes us one of the leading two or three
natural history museums of the world. It is that dual nature which
gives the Natural History Museum a very special quality. We believe
that we are a well-organised and successful museum. We work around
the world in our scientific capacity; we have visitors from around
the world in terms of being a visitor attraction. As we make clear
in our submission, we generate income from many sources, the most
important of which and the biggest of which is our grant in aid.
Admission charging in the past has been a major additional source
of income. That has now gone and been replaced by additional grant
in aid, but we also raise money from a number of other sources,
not just sponsorship and trusts and foundations but also through
a whole range of business activities and activities upon our scientific
work which brings in commissioned research and other forms of
income. Going free, which is what we did last December completely,
was an important change for us. Its effects have been complicated
and I think it is important to emphasise that we are in a dynamic
situation. We do not expect the situation to settle down for some
time for a whole set of reasons. In the months leading up to the
time when we went free, people were clearly hedging their bets
and they were waiting until we went free so that they could come.
We also had the complicating effects of 11 September which changed
the whole pattern of visitorship to London and therefore to our
museum. So, we believe that we are going to have to wait some
months yet before we get a stable picture as to what the effects
are going to be. We are already collecting data, we are clearly
getting a large increase in visitor numbers, though visits are
shorter, to reflect some of the conversation that we heard earlier
today, and the amount that visitors spend as they visit us per
visit has gone down. So there is a balance between increased number
of people coming and the amount they spend per individual. I would
echo many of the things that Neil MacGregor said to you. We—and
I think it is true of all the national museums—need more
resources. It is as simple as that. We can do a lot to run ourselves
efficiently and effectively. We can see—and it is frustrating—how
much more we could do for the nation with relatively modest increases
in income. That is, I think, the major message that we keep on
making to our ministers and our officials and that we shall keep
on making in the future. We also mention in our submission—and
this may or may not be essential to your own interests—that
we believe that the time has come for a new kind of relationship
with the Department. The actual administrative arrangement that
we have with them is, I believe, somewhat clumsy, not always clear,
not always to the benefit of museums and therefore not always
to the benefit of the nation. Thank you very much.
57. Obviously I understand your wish for greater
funding but it is interesting, looking at the figures that have
been put out by the Department, that you are now the best funded
of all of the directly funded museums, that you received a considerably
better settlement than the British Museum and indeed that you,
in this financial year, have overtaken the British Museum in the
amount of funding that you receive. Can you explain to us, taking
into account that you would understandably like more, what arguments
you put to the Department that have resulted in this?
(Sir Neil Chalmers) The arguments are that we have
a very major job to do to preserve our collections—we have
some 70 million objects in our collections and that is an extraordinarily
large number of objects to be responsible for. We have a huge
audience to be delivering the benefits of our Museum to, the people
of this country and indeed the people worldwide, because, as I
mentioned, we use our collection as a scientific resource to help
improve the environment, to help improve people's health and a
whole range of other direct benefits. We make those arguments
and we make them consistently and we show that we use the resources
wisely and very carefully. I cannot read inside the minds of Ministers,
so I cannot say how they actually judge our arguments and how
they weigh those against the arguments they hear, I am sure very
well put, from other museums, but those are the kinds of arguments
that we put to them.
Ms Shipley
58. Are you one of the museums that has complained
about multiple short visits?
(Sir Neil Chalmers) We have not complained about short
visits. We have noted that the average visitor time has gone down
from about two and a half hours to just under two. We accept this
as a fact. We do not complain about it. I should say that the
behaviour of visitors when they come to a museum such as the Natural
History Museum is somewhat different from their behaviour if they
go to an art-based gallery. That is due to the nature of the objects
on display. If I go to the National Gallery or to the British
Museum, I am going to see something quite specific, and I say,
"That is something which I have come to admire and enjoy."
Maybe it is there for the first time; maybe it is there as a continuing
part of their collections. We have found that, with our visitors,
a great many of whom are families with younger children, they
will come for a day out, and they will want to explore an area—maybe
the Dinosaur Exhibition, maybe the Hall of Human Biology, or it
may be one of a number of other major exhibitions—and they
see this as a social experience, where they enjoy the whole set
of objects and messages that we are putting across to them about
an exhibition.
59. So it is a good thing then that people come
for a shorter time?
(Sir Neil Chalmers) I think it is too early to say
whether it is good or bad. I want people to stay in the museum
as long as they are happy for.
|
