Examination of Witnesses (Questions 100
- 110)
WEDNESDAY 23 OCTOBER 2002
SIR NEIL
CHALMERS, MS
SHARON AMENT
AND MR
NEIL GREENWOOD
100. That is the segment, following up from
Frank Doran's question, that you really have no debate on. You
input, but there is no reciprocity; there is no discussion of
the vision, there is no discussion of your objectives and how
what you are given relates to that. Have I got that clear?
(Sir Neil Chalmers) I think that is true. It is interesting
that four or five years ago I had a feeling that that sort of
discussion took place more, because we used to have an annual
meeting with officials where we did look at the long-term vision
and related it more to the financial bid that we were making to
DCMS, or its predecessor departments. Nowadays, as I said, it
is very much more the funding agreement, what you are going to
achieve in terms of targets, and much less about the long-term
strategy. That is something we would want to have turned around
so that we do put together both the achievement of targets and
the long-term strategy, and have that dialogue.
101. It seems to me that, as parliamentarians,
we should be in a dialogue with institutions such as yours to
agree where you are going rather than forcing you to go where
we agree to fund you. We have the thing the wrong way round to
a certain extent.
(Sir Neil Chalmers) I think there is a very important
point of principle there, and it is to do with exactly that. We
as a museum are bound, as are the trustees, to fulfil the obligations
put upon us by the British Museum Act, which says, "This
is what you are there for." The government of the day defines
what it wishes to happen in terms of its own policy, and it is
absolutely proper that it should so do, but what the government
policy of the day might be does not always fit comfortably with
the statutory obligations of the trustees. It is very interesting
that in the letter that my Chairman received from the Secretary
of State yesterday there was a very clear statement indeed of
the four key objectives that she, the Secretary of State, has,
which must be fulfilled by the grant-in-aid. I think that although
one might agree entirely with the Government's objectives, and
say they are perfectly understandable and supportable, for the
time being that could be the case, but there is a principle at
stake, which is the one you have just alluded to. I think this
is something that needs to be explored. In my written submission
I said there are issues about the relationship that we need to
have with the DCMS, and we should explore those so that we do
have a mature, clear view. That to me is one of the most important
things we have to look at.
102. Just to be clear, those four objectives,
laudable as they may well be, are given to you; they come down
like the Tablets with Moses. They are not actually anything you
have asked for, and they may or may not fit.
(Sir Neil Chalmers) They are government objectives
which are declared to us. There was a very big meeting in February
of this year when the Secretary of State and the Minister for
Arts, accompanied by the Permanent Secretary, held a meeting—in
the Tower of London, as it happens—for all of the bodies
in the various sectors sponsored by the DCMS and said, "These
are our priorities," and they were children, communities,
economy and delivery, to read directly from the Secretary of State's
letter of yesterday. We therefore had to think very hard about
how we were to respond to those.
Alan Keen
103. The last few statements you have made show
that you feel you are not working in cohesion with the Department,
that they are still driven more by budgets.
(Sir Neil Chalmers) I do not want to give the impression
that we have an impossible or bad relationship with DCMS. That
is not true. I think we work well with officials and with ministers,
and we have a good relationship. I am saying it is susceptible
of improvement. As I understand it—and this is what ministers
and officials say to us—they have a clear task to persuade
Treasury to give DCMS money which they can then use for their
purposes, and clearly therefore DCMS have to use the arguments
which are going to convince Treasury. As an institution that is
going to work with DCMS to get the best benefit for ourselves,
we would clearly want to have that sort of dialogue we have been
talking about so that we can help the DCMS to make most effectively
the case it puts to Treasury. What I would like to see is more
of this dialogue, this discussion between ourselves and the DCMS
about what we want to do as our core objectives, what the DCMS
want to deliver, and how this translates into bids to Treasury
and allocations to us.
104. Have you ever met anybody from the Treasury
side? We hear that in this Government there is duplication of
people involved in making decisions, both in Number 10 Downing
Street, and at the Treasury and in the Department itself. Do you
get that impression?
(Sir Neil Chalmers) I have met people from Treasury,
to answer your first question. There was one particular issue
that was exercising us a lot about six months ago, which was capital
charging, and indeed, our museum together with two of the other
nationals did a lot to try and get a resolution of a problem which
would have been exceedingly difficult for us by working with DCMS
and actually going to talk to Treasury direct. In the difficult
negotiations that led up to going free and the whole issue of
VAT, at one stage we did go and talk to Treasury as well direct.
Whether there is duplication or not I am not in a position to
say. I sometimes feel we are having a strange conversation with
DCMS, because we are talking to them and then they are talking
to Treasury, and I wish we could get round a table collectively
more often.
105. It seems pretty obvious that in your case
your buildings are full and the British Museum has a lot of space.
Is that how it is?
(Sir Neil Chalmers) I will let the British Museum
speak for themselves. Our building is full. It is full of visitors—it
is half-term at the moment—and it is full of collections.
We have a problem with expansion; we need more space.
106. Do you get together with other museums
to discuss the tactics of looking forward and being positive to
get more money?
(Sir Neil Chalmers) Yes. We have what is called the
National Museums Directors' Conference, which has changed over
the years from being a gentlemen's talking shop—and I use
those words carefully—to being a much more organised, effective,
I am glad to say, male and female lobbying organisation, and a
body that gets together and decides how it can best present its
case to DCMS. I think that is an improvement.
Michael Fabricant
107. I am curious about the consequences of
free admission to the museum. While I can understand that it would
result in slightly less amount of time being spent per visitor,
as you said, and I can also understand that this would result
in a slightly less amount of money paid per visitor, a very curious
thing in your written evidence is that the number of C2, Ds and
Es as a proportion of your overall visitors has actually fallen.
This would seem to be counter-intuitive. The whole raison d'être
of free admission is to broaden access to those who might not
normally come, either because they are deterred because of the
content of the museum or primarily because of the cost. Why do
you think that has happened?
(Sir Neil Chalmers) I do not know why there has been
a drop, to tell you the truth, but I am not surprised that there
has not been a major change in the social composition of visitors.
Over the years we have argued that there has been evidence in
a number of polls, most recently confirmed by the MORI poll that
was publicised quite widely in the press, showing that the principal
reasons why people come and do not come to museums are cultural
rather than financial. There is of course a financial element,
but if I may give a bit of background, our museum during the period
it was charging also had extensive concessionary schemes and was
free during a period every day. The result was that approximately
a third of our visitors would come in paying the full charge,
a third would come in on concessions and a third would come in
free. So the opportunity was there for people to come in free
if they chose.
108. Has it all been a political gimmick then?
(Sir Neil Chalmers) I do not think I would say it
was a political gimmick; I would not use those words. I think
it was a point of view of philosophy and belief. To my mind, the
most compelling argument you could put for free admission is the
one that Neil MacGregor put to you earlier, which is that you
passionately believe it is right. I think—and this is a
personal view—that the discussion that it would somehow
increase access and so on clouded that fundamental issue. My view,
and the view the museum has taken is that free admission as a
principle is wonderful if you do not thereby so damage your museum
in terms of starving it of resources that you impose other restrictions
on access by having to close galleries or close the museum for
a number of days a week or whatever. We would have had to have
done that if we had not charged. We would not have been able to
offer the services that we have offered, we would not have been
able to refurbish all the major galleries in the museum, and we
would not have been able to open the Darwin Centre without charging
for admission.
109. Do you think there is a very real danger
now that the quality of the museum will suffer?
(Sir Neil Chalmers) It will depend entirely upon whether
the Government continues to compensate us for the revenue we have
foregone. We have told the Government very clearly that if they
do not continue to compensate us at a level that takes account
of inflation and real visitor numbers, then we are not prepared
to see our museum damaged by lack of funding.
Miss Kirkbride
110. You say you are not prepared to see the
museum damaged; what action could you take? Are you able to unilaterally
go back and charge visitors?
(Sir Neil Chalmers) It is for the trustees to make
that decision, and they have declared very clearly to the Department
that they will retain the right to make that decision if in their
view the interests of the museum, and therefore of the country
we serve, are best protected by doing so.
Chairman: Thank you very much indeed.
|
