House of Commons - Culture, Media and Sport

Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport First Report

FREE ADMISSION

51. The Government's view is that museums are integral to the development of society through providing an essential platform for learning for all and lifelong learning. It argued that no-one should be denied access to the treasures held by national museums simply because they cannot afford the admission charge.[70] The Government stated that one of the main objectives of free access was to bring the national collections within the reach of a wider audience.[71] Although not explicitly set out in the DCMS memorandum to us, the key indicators of success for this policy must be along the following lines:

an increase in the number of visits to the institutions in question, especially from first-time visitors;
an increase in the number of visits and visitors to these institutions from socio-economic groups hitherto under-represented amongst traditional museum and gallery visitors;
minimal negative effects on the quality of the individual visitor's experience; and
a positive effect on museum and gallery visiting as a whole across the wider sector.

52. The evidence gathered so far regarding the impact of free admission is enough to reveal some pretty clear trends, if not firm conclusions. A number of other factors may have had significant, but not always straightforward, effects on visitor statistics over the last two years. These include: specific exhibitions and new facilities; Foot and Mouth Disease; the events of September 11^th and the associated 'war against terrorism'; even the poor performance of the US stock market.

53. In addition to these complicating factors there was the evidence from research undertaken by MORI (across the population as a whole in August 2002) that suggested 40 per cent of the population were not aware that admission charges had been dropped at national museums and galleries. Moreover the survey indicated that a further 41 per cent of people were aware but had not made any more visits as a result; leaving only about 15 per cent of the population persuaded by free admission to make at least one or two more visits to a museum or gallery than last year.[72] These results were supported by another MORI survey but this time of actual visitors to the Imperial War Museum, London in roughly the same period. The awareness of free entry amongst this group was finely balanced: 49 per cent of visitors had known, 50 per cent had not, and one per cent were unsure. Of the informed group only 35 per cent said that free entry had significantly influenced their decision to visit.[73]

54. One final complicating factor was put to us by the Museums Association who asserted that the DCMS had "not so far issued guidance to museums to ensure that there are consistent mechanisms in place to count visitors now that tickets are no longer issued."[74] This point was also made by the English Tourism Council.[75] We agree with the Association that DCMS should certainly have taken the lead in establishing appropriate methodologies and should now work towards establishing a common framework to improve the accuracy and consistency of the counting and profiling of visitors for the purposes of improving policy.

Impact on newly free institutions

VISITS AND THE VISITORS

55. Many more visits are being made to the newly free institutions than in the same period last year. The Department reports an overall rise across the sector of 62 per cent in the first seven months of the initiative compared to the same period in the previous year. The Natural History Museum recorded a 70 per cent rise in visits and the Science Museum an 89 per cent rise. Outside London the Museum of Science and Industry in Manchester reported to us a rise in casual visits (excluding school groups etc.) of 102 per cent and for the Merseyside Museums and Galleries there was an increase of 83 per cent.[76]

56. According to the MORI evidence, as reported by the National Art Collections Fund (the Art Fund) and others, there has been an increase in visitors across the different social/economic definitions; but the biggest rise in visitor numbers has come from existing audiences.[77] The Government asserted that free access has increased the number of child visitors and over-60s visitors and also has encouraged visitors from other groups who would not have otherwise visited.[78] The DCMS said the evidence suggests that the growth in visits to sponsored institutions by the C2, D and E socio-economic groups between April 1998 and March 2002 outpaced the significant growth in the number of visits overall. This brought the proportion of total museum visitors from these groups to nearly 16 per cent from 14 per cent. However, the proportion of the whole population represented by these groups is 51 per cent.[79]

57. The Department clearly sees the change as no more than a start, saying that "it will take time and increased effort to achieve a significant shift in the composition of visits".[80] This position is supported by the Art Fund who wrote that while "the percentage increase [in "not typical" museum visitors] may be relatively low, the actual increase in numbers, over a short period...is a considerable achievement which should not be overlooked nor regarded as disappointing. Changing people's lifestyles requires a long-term approach."[81] The Natural History Museum described free admission as a blunt instrument with which to achieve "broadened access". The Museum said that the unveiling of the animatronic Tyrannosaurus Rex exhibition in 2000 had achieved a temporary increase in visitor numbers for 2000, equivalent to the recent increase in 2002 caused by free admission.[82] Re:source and the Museums Association also emphasised the need for research and work on a broader raft of measures to increase access and tackle the barriers to participation other than price. Re:source set out a number of alternative reasons for people not wanting to go a museum or gallery from a survey in 2001:[83]

per cent - nothing I want to see - museums are boring
per cent - difficult to get to - health reasons - poor transport - too far to travel
per cent - admission charges too high
per cent - inconvenient opening hours
per cent - my children wouldn't be interested
per cent - no time

58. We note that there was no reference in the memorandum from the DCMS to the ethnic composition of the museum-visiting population.

59. Supplementary evidence from the Natural History Museum set out the factors found to be inhibiting school visits, an issue that had been raised during oral evidence to us.[84] Interdepartmental consultation is clearly necessary, especially with the DfES, to ensure that there is the widest possible benefit from the policy of free admission to the national museums.

60. It is too early to draw firm conclusions about the actual impact of free admission, either for the institutions directly affected or for the wider sector as a whole. However, emerging trends and previous research indicate that free admission on its own is unlikely to be effective in attracting significant numbers of new visitors from the widest range of socioeconomic and ethnic groups. We recommend that the Department consult on how best to tackle the non-financial barriers to museum and gallery visiting to build on the overall increases in visit and visitor numbers that have undoubtedly occurred.

61. Alongside the rise in numbers of visits and visitors there is evidence of a change in the character of a large number of individual visits. With the lifting of charges many newly free institutions reported that the length of stay, the 'dwell' time, of their visitors is reducing.[85] This seems commonsensical, as the urge to "get one's money's worth" is reduced and as there can be increased visits from people working or living in the surrounding area. Mr MacGregor of the British Museum felt particularly strongly that more frequent but shorter visits were the way to enjoy what the British Museum, and the National Gallery (his previous domain), had to offer. Sir Neil Chalmers of the Natural History Museum was satisfied for people to visit for as long as they were happy to. However, this pattern of visits carries with it resource implications which we discuss below.[86]

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

62. The success of the free admission initiative seems to have been a double-edged sword in terms of the financial impact upon the newly free institutions. The compensation package agreed with the Department was based on what now seems to have been a modest, even conservative, estimate of the likely rise in visitors. In the case of the Natural History Museum compensation was set to reflect a rise in visitor numbers of 20 per cent. However, no allowance or provision seems to have been negotiated for the cost implications of a considerably greater throughput. The Natural History Museum estimates that the 70 per cent increase in visits would cost the museum an extra £500,000 this year to employ sufficient temporary staff to keep visitors looked after and safe.[87]

63. In addition there was a greater need for cleaning and increased wear and tear on the infrastructure. This experience is repeated throughout the submissions from the newly free museums and galleries, with the Imperial War Museum reporting increased estimates for maintenance at both the London and Manchester sites of £100,000 per year.[88] Also in Manchester, the Museum of Science and Industry reported a budget increase of £85,000 to cover extra cleaning, maintenance and front of house staff.[89] The English Tourism Council pointed out that many of the recent very substantial capital investments amongst national museums had taken place in advance of free admission and consequently plans may not have reflected the potential for the dramatic rise in visitor numbers that had in fact occurred. The Council stressed the importance of a commensurate investment by the national museums and galleries in customer services and visitor management planning (not to mention more cleaning of cloakrooms and toilets) to maintain the quality of visitor experience and thereby the world-class status currently enjoyed by so many.[90]

64. Unfortunately revenue from on-site sales and hospitality has not kept pace with the rise in throughput. While the total revenue from the institutions' shops and cafes has gone up, the almost universal experience is that the spend per head has gone down.[91] It was widely suggested in evidence that this was the result of the reduced duration of stay and fewer "day out" visits, which would include a meal (or at least some drinks) and most likely some souvenirs. During a shorter visit, to perhaps a more crowded site, the spending urge does seem likely to be more easily quashed. The Imperial War Museum put forward the view, first offered to the DCMS in 1998, that free entry changes the perception of a visit and that a visitor was more likely to minimise expenditure at a "free" site.[92] The Art Fund however, cited a MORI survey, where more than two out of five people questioned claimed that they would be likely to spend more during a museum or gallery visit now that entry was free.[93]

Impact on always free institutions

65. The introduction of free admission to other institutions seems to have drawn away visitors from the existing free museums and galleries. The evidence from the traditionally free institutions showed reduced visitor figures.[94] In the case of the British Museum at least, the aftermath of September 11^th and a depressed US stock market were likely to have had a significant effect on visitors from North America, a significant source of trade for the museum in the past.

66. The Tate Britain and the National Gallery expected to see reductions of 400,000 visitors in 2002 with a loss of income (from sales) of £800,000 each. The Tate also complained of the impact of serving twice the expected number of visitors at Tate Modern. The British Museum was expecting to see a ten per cent reduction in visitors this year. The museum attributed this to the introduction of free admission. However, the Department attributed the existing reduction to September 11^th.[95]

67. On the positive side, the change to the VAT regime, discussed above, applies to all the sponsored national museums and is worth, for instance, £750,000 to the British Museum in 2002. The Department point out in supplementary evidence that, although the most recent funding allocation left the British Museum's revenue funding down a percentage point in real terms on 1997-98 figures, the VAT recovery eliminated this reduction.[96] We find the consequent funding flat-line somewhat parsimonious in view of the status of the museum and the demands placed upon it including the challenge of coping with the withdrawal of the British Library and the obligations of the Treasure Act.

68. The British Museum is one of the institutions in this country that leads the world in quality and comprehensiveness. It has estimated that had it charged over the last ten years not only would it have earned about £80 million in fees and reclaimed VAT, it would have been in line for £8 million compensation for giving up charges.[97] In effect it was being doubly penalised for sticking to an approach now adopted by the Government as a basic tenet of its policy towards the sector. The Secretary of State was not persuaded by this argument for further resources.[98] Nonetheless, we firmly support the British Museum and its other arguments for adequate and sustained funding.

Impact on the wider sector

69. The Museums Association pointed to a number of issues where preparations for the introduction of free admission were not as thorough or creative as they might have been.[99] One example was the matter of the confusion suffered by visitors to charging museums in the regions when expecting free admission. In some cases resentment and hostility had been aroused by the imposition of charges when the impression has been received that "all museums are free now". The Association recommended that publicity around the free admission initiative should take pains to point out the scope of the policy and avoid creating a climate in which charging by any museum was seen as inappropriate or illegitimate.[100]

70. There were a number of examples cited in evidence where initial findings indicated that visitors to a charging museum had been drawn away by the fact that a relatively nearby national museum had gone free. The Museum for Children in Halifax (Eureka!) and York's three local authority institutions all seem to have lost out to the newly free National Coal Mining Museum for England in Wakefield and National Railway Museum in York. Museums in Macclesfield have lost out to the now free Museum of Science and Industry in Manchester.[101] The English Tourism Council was concerned lest the advent of free admissions distort the visitor attractions market for tourists already confused by policies on admission charges. The Council urged the Government to study the effects of free admission to the national museums and galleries on commercial attractions.[102]

71. In the light of this evidence, allied to the various findings of research that awareness of the change to free admission was relatively low overall, we believe that more could have been done by the Department in preparation for the change. Consistent methodologies for counting and sampling visitors should have been developed. Better information aimed at ensuring that free admission was more widely known about and understood (in terms of where it applied and where it could not) should have been widely promulgated. Finally, the apparent impact on institutions unable to offer free admission might have been ameliorated by guidance on the potential for creative joint marketing ventures between non-charging and charging institutions.

Conclusion

72. We whole-heartedly support the principle of free admission to the nation's key artistic, cultural and scientific storehouses but more specific work needs to be done to achieve the objective of broadened access. Since the Government has called the tune, it must keep paying the piper.

70 Ev 30 Back

71 Ev 32 Back

72 Ev 45 Back

73 Ev 68. Of those aware of free admission, 20 per cent had been influenced 'a great deal' and 15 per cent 'a fair amount'. Back

74 Ev 45 Back

75 Ev 54 Back

76 Ev 13, 32, 60, 61 and 65 Back

77 Ev 48 Back

78 Ev 33 Back

79 Ev 33 Back