Examination of Witnesses (Questions 154
- 159)
TUESDAY 19 DECEMBER 2006
ASSOCIATION OF
INDEPENDENT MUSEUMS,
NATIONAL TRUST,
WORDSWORTH TRUST
Q154 Chairman: For our next session
can I welcome Bill Ferris of the Association of Independent Museums;
Olivia Morris and Sarah Staniforth from the National Trust; and
David Wilson, the Director of the Wordsworth Trust. You will have
heard the previous evidence and the enthusiasm expressed about
the Renaissance in the Regions programme and the reassurance that
it has led to benefits right across the sector. Would you agree
with that?
Mr Ferris: No. I sit here representing
I guess 700 or 800 of the "cottage industries" as we
heard it described in the first bit of evidence, which is perhaps
unfortunate because most of the independent sector that I represent
are actually trust status museums. All of these good things that
you were hearing about just now I think independents would probably
say they have been doing for a long time. There is a significant
element of a constituency that I think feels excluded by the Renaissance
process. I also sit here as an independent museum and hub member,
of which are a number of others, who would give exactly the same
evidence as I heard before; it is a wonderful thing from the "inside".
I think it is in its early days. We must not lose sight of that.
I think there was a legacy of overblown expectation at the beginning
of the process where the impression was given that the trickle-downs,
as the rest of the community would describe it, would happen more
quickly. It is inappropriate to expect it to be a nuclear reaction.
I think it is a chain reaction but it is a much slower one. The
independent sector is used to working in partnership and networking
and so on for its survival, and I think there is frustration in
some areas that the networking and the skilling down is not as
actively sought by hub members as it might be. One of the major
issues with Renaissance is its patchiness across the country.
There are brilliant examples and there are very poor examples
and very often they are all happening in different regions. The
move by MLA to create the family of regional MLAs is a good thing
because hopefully that will give some leadership and direction
so that good is practice is spread throughout, which is very necessary.
I think there is also a clear regional difference in funding.
I come from the South East and we are a phase two hub. We are
not the best of the funded phase two hubs and yet we probably
have twice to three times as many museums in our area as other
areas and that makes it terribly difficult. That is an issue and
I think population both of our audiences and of the museums themselves
is a big issue within Renaissance and the funding splits probably
need to be looked at a little bit more carefully. In some areas
phase two hubs, because they have had the time to plan with less
resources, have probably had to be more creative in some situations
and partnerships can be better developed as a result. Often as
well in some of those areas the networks were already better established
and in some of those phase twos there is some really good work
going on. I would say that; I am in one in the South East! That
is not to criticise phrase ones because there is good work in
some of those as well. I think there is some lack of understanding
from my own membership sometimes about what is Renaissance-funded.
We in the Association of Independent Museums love museum development
officers as an example, because they help our smaller members,
but very often people do not realise that this support is coming
through Renaissance. However, that is simply a badging issue.
Finally, there is a major constituency of significant regional
museums that were not hub members for a whole range of reasons
who miss out almost entirely. A very, very good example is the
SS Great Britain, winner of the best museum of the year
2005, because it is a ship and it is not a designated collection
so it was not able to benefit from designated funds. It is not
a hub member but it has a very professional staff and a good structure
so it does not need things like museum development officers and
the support that many of the smaller members might benefit from.
It has no core funding, it has to raise 100% of its own income,
and Renaissance has effectively passed it by. There is a legacy
of it having felt that it was promised originally first partner
status to the hub which was never delivered. There are a number
of examples of that around the country.
Ms Morris: I think there is a
lot that Bill has just said that the National Trust would support.
We are an independent museum and we are a charity as well. We
do welcome the fact that the Government has over the last five
years recognised the value of museums and put the funding into
the Renaissance in the Regions. There have been some fantastic
opportunities and benefits that it has delivered. I would say
for the trusts, like for many independent museums, it has been
rather patchy across the regions. Where it has worked—and
we have had some investment, but not very much money-wise, from
Renaissance in the Regions—is through the small grants scheme
where storage was given at Cherryburn, but most of the primary
involvement has been through sharing of best practice and training.
So it has worked very well in the West Midlands where we have
managed to do courses, looking at everything from care of metalwork
to controlling museum environments and also looking at management
and leadership courses which are very important to the museum
profession, but often what we have found is that the relationships
that have developed have been through the professional contacts
that were already there rather than there being any sort of strategic
overview. The point that Bill was making about the medium museums
losing out would probably be the same for the Trust, particularly
as we do not have any designated collections. There is not that
funding there and probably most of our properties are not small
enough that there is a need for extra help. Often we rely on internal
expertise and funding for help with things such as conservation
care. The hubs do seem to operate quite differently. It is not
clear who they are going out to and who they are trying to reach.
There is a perception that it is municipal museums which have
benefited most and that rural museums such as those that we look
after are missing out again. We cannot just blame the hub and
Renaissance in the Regions completely. There is a need for us
to meet them half way. We would like Renaissance in the Regions
in the next phase seeing how they can help people like us help
ourselves. We think there is a lot the Trust can offer to the
hubs, particularly around skills and conservation, in how we work
with volunteers and the ethical standards we have put in place.
We could do a lot around secondments between local authority museums
and the National Trust. Hopefully with them all now in the same
kind of family, there is an opportunity to plan for these kinds
of opportunities to be put in place.
Mr Wilson: We could offer as much
to the hub museums as the National Trust could because we have
a big conservation programme. We do a lot of training. We train
a lot of volunteers for the NVQ. We can offer much more but we
can only do it with finance. One of the problem with Renaissance
in the Regions as a title is that it is apt to be misleading.
It is actually Renaissance in the Urban Centres and that may reflect
the government's intention to drive socio-economic groups C, D
and E, to greater use of the museums and also to increase the
usage of museums by schoolchildren in particular which is very
laudable. Both those things are very laudable so we would support
those. The problem is that it is very difficult to see how an
independent museum such as ours, which is in a rural setting,
will ever benefit. We are in a phase two hub, the North West,
and therefore we know that phase two will take some time to develop
and get the funding that the phase one hubs will have done. We
might start to see some trickle down effect in a year or two years'
time but certainly thus far there is none at all. The problem
that organisations like mine face is that we have no central government
funding for our core activity, the collections management. This
is a really important area for us. We have to raise the whole
of our revenue by ourselves and that is about £1.4 million
a year. It is a very tall order.
Q155 Chairman: If funding is reduced,
would your attitude be that this is something you would be very
much opposed to because your hope would be that the trickle down
effect will occur if funding is maintained, or would you feel,
"We have not seen much benefit from it so far so it probably
will not affect us that much"?
Mr Ferris: I think I would need
a guard to leave the room if I agreed with you. The reality is
that there are 800 independent museums. If they were all to see
a financial benefit to core funding the Renaissance budget would
need to quadruple and go up by 10 times. Our community adds vastly
to the vitality of the sector and requires the support. I do not
think there is an independent museum around that would suggest
a reduction in Renaissance funding. If we are all honest, we are
beginning to see more partnership activity happening as the maturity
comes on. The strategic direction is what matters. The funding
that exists will hopefully increase, although we do not live in
cloud cuckoo land. Increased funding, if it happens does need
to reach the parts that it currently does not reach. Indeed, even
with no increases more must reach the wider community The "hub
nots" must get money as well as the hubs. It is about that
strategic direction, building on the good practice that exists
throughout and an absolute minimum of maintaining the existing
funding. It cannot be a good thing to reduce it.
Ms Staniforth: Money is always
important but it is not the whole answer. The sustainability of
museums is founded on a very clear understanding of their financial,
social and environmental responsibilities. Museums have a long
way to go to helping themselves to finding a sustainable solution
and, in a way, being given grants may conceal their underlying
issues about sustainability. Museums have been very focused on
some aspects of their sustainability to the detriment of other
areas. The issues about the costs of collections' care have been
slightly swept under the carpet. What is really fundamental to
the future of museums is understanding their total responsibilities
and finding ways of addressing those and, if they cannot find
those answers financially, to look at cutting their cloth accordingly.
Mr Wilson: The museum has to look
at what it is about, what its purpose is and so on. I can only
talk in terms of specifics of my own collection. We are a designated
collection. We are the Centre for British Romanticism, a world
movement, a very important cultural movement. Everything we do
exists to promote that movement and awareness of that movement.
We are also a museum that has a major educational programme so
we are a living collection. Our collection is used. It is not
a collection that goes into a vault and is never shown. It is
a working, living collection. We do attempt to cut our cloth accordingly.
We are very rigorous about the way we manage our affairs. We generate
a very significant amount of our income from our own activities,
currently about £650,000 a year and going up. While I am
totally supportive of the Renaissance in the Regions policy and
the support for the hub museums, there has to be further support
for those who are not clearly within the hub structure. There
needs to be a positive trickle down of money towards those other
independent museums. Otherwise we risk losing these incredible
collections. What is important about my collection is the context.
The collection is of pictures, books and manuscripts. We have
one of the greatest collections of manuscripts in the English
language, the Wordsworth Collection, 90% of Wordsworth's manuscripts.
Those things are cared for in the very place that generated them.
It would be an act of terrible cultural vandalism for those things
to be removed from the landscape simply because a little bit of
money cannot be found to support the core collections' management
activity.
Q156 Chairman: You do see the Renaissance
programme as offering perhaps the best chance eventually of benefiting
your collection?
Mr Wilson: I think it offers a
chance. I hope there will be other opportunities for supporting
my organisation but certainly I think it has some potential for
offering some support further down the road.
Q157 Rosemary McKenna: Is there any
evidence to suggest that the national and university museums which
now give free entry are affecting those museums which charge?
Mr Wilson: I am not certain about
this. It is difficult to tell. Our visitors come from a range
of places, probably about 30% from overseas and the rest from
the UK. Many of those will come from urban centres. They will
be city dwellers who just happen to be on holiday in the Lake
District. We generally do not find resistance to people paying
for entry but that may reflect the special nature of what we are.
As well as a museum, we are a heritage site in the sense that
we own Wordsworth's house so it is like visiting an important
house as well as a museum and there is of course the major collection
centre. There is a range of activities on our site and also we
run two major historical exhibitions every year. It is not as
if you are just coming to see a static collection in a museum.
Therefore, we do not tend to see resistance to people paying for
that. There is also the fact that they are on holiday. I suspect
that when people go on holiday they budget, to a certain degree,
to spend money on some form of entertainment and they may see
us in that sense.
Ms Staniforth: From the National
Trust point of view, because many of our museum properties are
in rural areas, we are less affected by the national museums'
free entry policy than museums that are based in those cities.
However, having said that, our membership numbers have certainly
reduced this year and I think one looks to what are the other
demands on people's time and purse. Those are not just other museums.
There are other leisure activities—shopping, even. One issue
is about the cost of visiting museums but one also has to look
at the other barriers to people visiting museums. It is not just
the price of admission. It is also the way in which we address
our audiences. It is also, in the case of those museums in the
countryside, the ability of people to get to the museums. For
the National Trust methods of transport are an increasing challenge.
Many of our visitors have to come by car simply because there
are not public transport routes to our rural properties. That
is going to have an increasing impact on our visitor numbers and
therefore we have to say, "Are the visitor numbers the be
all and end all or is it the people we manage to attract through
what we offer them?" We must not use numbers of visitors
as our only performance indicator but who those visitors are and
what they are getting out of the visit when they get to our properties.
Mr Ferris: The last point is very
important but unfortunately for most independents number of visitors
equates to income so numbers do matter. Geography is clearly important.
In London and the south east there is some impact. Interestingly,
particularly on the education market, where most independent museums
would still charge for education visits, it is a kind of double
whammy because the hubs and the nationals are investing heavily
in excellent programmes which are to be applauded, which means
that their service is increasing and they are offering the ability
to visit for free, so you get caught in an unfair competition
trap in two ways. The other issue is one of PR. There is nothing
more infuriating than to hear the chairman of the National Museum
Directors' Conference on Radio 4 in the morning saying, "Free
entry to all museums has been a wonderful thing". Our visitors
turn up and you ask them for however much on the door and explain
that you are a charity all the rest and they think that you are
trying to rip them off, frankly. There is an issue about a perception.
It should be that we should be celebrating the lucky few but making
it clear that it is the lucky few, although some of them would
argue that the funding that they get is nowhere near sufficient
to fund their own free entry. That is an important point to make.
If you are going to fund free entry for some, you have to do it
properly because the costs are enormous in our business.
Q158 Rosemary McKenna: There is quite
a drive on, is there not, to try and encourage people to holiday
in the UK? A lot of independent museums are in places where people
would go on holiday. I recently visited the Castle of Mead in
Scotland and it is just wonderful. The Trust has restored that
beautifully, but it is very expensive for people on a budget who
are holidaying in the UK. Is there anything that you can do? Obviously
you share best practice but is there anything that you think would
help the independent sector to attract more visitors?
Ms Staniforth: Can I say something
about membership organisations? One of the things about the National
Trust is its membership base. We have 3.4 million members now
and of course those members are in effect getting free entry to
our properties. In return, they are supporters who are helping
to underpin all of the conservation activities of the National
Trust, not just the museum activities but our activities in conserving
the countryside. Many museums have their friends organisations
that fulfil a similar role. It is demonstrating support for a
museum through membership and through friend's organisations that
has that engagement with the local community. That engagement
with local community and support of local community is another
way in which museums will find sustainability.
Mr Wilson: I agree with that but
there are other things that all museums can do. One is to cultivate
their relationship with the local press and another is to advertise.
We have significantly geared up our promotion of the Wordsworth
Trust this year through advertising and through having regular
briefings with the press. Communication with the press is quite
extensive. As a result of that we have seen a significant increase
in our visitor numbers. After foot and mouth and 9/11, our visitor
numbers were running at around 50,000 to 55,000. This year we
are up to about 66,000, a very significant increase, and it has
been done on the back of promoting what we offer and using our
network of friends and patrons to push the case. I do think there
is a role here for central government in pushing the cause of
museums. Museums are not about static collections; they are about
collections that enrich people's lives. What we are about in my
organisation is enriching the lives of people who come into contact
with us and we do that through providing access to our collections,
teaching people about our collections, about their relevance,
their importance and what they represent; and how they are important
to people's lives today. The learning process, because it is about
learning in a wider sense, is what museums can offer people. That
is a great cause for central government, both the DfES and DCMS,
to push. I think that would help all museums across the country.
Q159 Rosemary McKenna: None of you
has mentioned Gift Aid. Are you all proactive? Have the changes
helped in Gift Aid?
Mr Ferris: The Association of
Independent Museums took a leading role in saving Gift Aid after
the Chancellor made one of his famous raids, which was despicable.
It is settling down. I do not think there is a definitive answer.
Gift Aid is important to us. There is no doubt about that. Can
I take you back to what we were talking about just now and then
come on to Gift Aid? The issue with independent museums is that
we might be charities but we are really businesses. You have to
be. The things that independent museums do not want to be is dependent.
Core funding and assistance with core funding is always a good
thing but most of us would always want to be executing good business
practice to bring in visitors. It is about marketing; it is about
audience development and good business planning. One of the areas
that Renaissance has an opportunity to assist independents is
in providing good business training and best practice. Some areas
are already doing it. There are simple examples. The south east
offers a free, professional photographer to go round all the small
museums and take some professional photographs so that they can
use them in leaflets and that sort of thing. That is a small example.
I think it is about making sure that the instincts that already
exist, the added value that independents have, are encouraged.
I do not think any of us are saying that we want to become dependent.
On the Gift Aid issue, in my own museum's case, the historic dockyard
at Chatham, our Gift Aid take has gone up about 70% with the new
arrangements because we have had the confidence to invest in good
till technology that does not allow the front of house member
of staff to go beyond a certain point without asking the question:
"Are you a UK taxpayer?" We did not do that before because
we thought we were going to lose it. Again, it is the entrepreneurial
spirit. Independent museums will grab whatever is there to grab.
To us it is worth probably this year £100,000. On the visitor
side we turn over about a million pounds so it is significant,
10% of turnover. There is no doubt that it is critical. The annual
ticketing for us has been brilliant because it has allowed us
to engage even better with the community. This year we will have
had close on 10,000 local people using our site every weekend,
whereas before they had to pay every time. That is in a way being
funded by Gift Aid so it is a jolly good thing. We do not have
a capacity problem but the complexity of the new systems is a
pain and has put a number of members off implementing them, the
10% plus rule or the annual ticketing rule, because how do you
deal with security and all the rest? I suspect the Chancellor
has not saved a penny because we are entrepreneurial enough to
have gone out there and found a way to make it work. It has just
made our lives more difficult and that is so annoying because
we are charities and we do exactly what Gift Aid suggests we should
do. Nobody bothered to come and talk to the sector before the
abolition was first suggested, although we were consulted on the
changes that were made after creating a fuss about the proposed
abolition.
Ms Morris: For the National Trust,
we would agree about the complication. It is even more difficult
for us because we are many sites. We are not just one site. The
way each of our properties will interpret how you implement Gift
Aid will possibly be different. For us as well it has been quite
expensive because we rely very heavily on volunteers, particularly
front of house volunteers, and simply training them up in sales
skills to ask, "Will you give another 10%?" to members
who are already thinking, "I pay my membership" or,
"I have already given £7 towards entry so I have already
contributed towards the Trust", is quite difficult. We are
now implementing it but it is something that need not have come
in and it has made it a lot more difficult. It is also a very
complicated message when we are already trying to put across an
educational message: "You are already contributing to the
Trust. Also, here is another 10% that you are going to contribute
to the Trust." Probably for all independent museums that
is the main point. Also, the way the government saw that we were
trying to do some sort of loophole was very unfortunate.
|
