Written evidence submitted by the National
Museum Directors' Conference (arts 206)
1. What Impact Recent, and Future, Spending
Cuts from Central and Local Government will have on the Arts and
Heritage at a National and Local Level
The UK's museum sector has been hugely successful
in the last 10 years. Statistics testify to museums' success in
attracting visitors:
— Between 1998-99 and 2008-09 the number
of visitors to national museums rose by 70%, with 40,291,579 visitors
in 2008-09.[59]
— The Taking Part national survey
of participation in culture and sport showed that 46.7% of UK
adults and 68.8% of children aged five to 15 visited a museum,
gallery or archive in 2009-10.[60]
— The top five UK visitor attractions
in 2009—and eight of the top 10—were museums and galleries[61]
and three UK museums were in the top five most visited international
art museums in 2009.[62]
The NMDC publication Museums Deliver contains
more evidence of the success of the UK's museums, demonstrating
the wide-ranging social and economic importance of museums in
the UK and highlighting their unique role in society from the
global stage to the local high-street.
Funding cuts will put this success at risk.
As museums are front line services with large fixed costs of caring
for collections and buildings, it is inevitable that cuts will
impact on public service. Likely impacts of funding cuts from
central and local Government include:
— Negative economic impact—in
particular on the UK tourism economy. Cuts will lead to the loss
of the UK's cultural pre-eminence and international reputation
through losses of expertise and profile, as well as damage to
the "UK brand", all of which will have an impact on
incoming tourism.
— Museums play a leading role in attracting
tourists to the UK and contribute significantly to the UK tourist
economy, the fifth largest industry in the UK. Britain's major
museums and galleries earned the country £1 billion in revenue
from overseas tourists in 2009.[63]
— Cuts will also impact on the UK's
creative industries—the fastest-growing sector of the economy—for
which museums provide a vital resource, inspiring and showcasing
creativity and the heritage on which it is built.
— Risk to collections—funding
cuts will mean increased difficulty for museums in the effective
management and care of the national collections. Government funding
is crucial—it is a much greater challenge to secure external
funding for collections care work as opposed to more public facing
activity.
— Cuts will result in the potential
loss of curatorial and research expertise. This will lead to a
resultant reduction in capacity for provision of expert advice
to Government, the commercial market, scholars, students and the
public; risks to the nation's scientific literacy; and risks to
the ability to conserve objects, since conservation expertise
is highly specialised and irreplaceable.
— Funding cuts will result in a reduction
in acquisition budgets, making it increasingly difficult to secure
key objects for museum collections. In particular there is a danger
that with the resultant difficulty in securing contemporary items,
collections will not reflect today's society.
— Reduction in access—large
funding cuts have the potential to cause a fundamental reversal
of building broad, democratic and universal access to culture
at a national and local level. They will result in a reduction
in access to the national collections, particularly outside London
and for hard to reach groups. A decline in visitor numbers to
museums will also mean a decline in income from ticket sales and
secondary spend in cafés and shops.
— Reduction in programming—particularly
education provision and outreach work. The high fixed costs inherent
to museums mean that there is very limited "discretionary"
spend, meaning programming will necessarily be reduced. Loss of
programmes will mean reductions in attendance, particularly of
hard to reach groups, as well as a reductions in eg media profile
and fundraising opportunities.
— Risk to buildings—a
reduction in capital funding will mean less investment to effectively
and efficiently maintain the buildings (particularly the fabric
of historic buildings) and plant within museums' estates. Many
museums already have a shortfall in budgets for buildings and
infrastructure improvements. It will then be a challenge to maintain
a world-class visitor experience, as well as to run safe and secure
buildings. There will also be a loss of ability to invest in measures
to reduce carbon emissions, meaning museums continue to use more
energy than they need to.
— A reduction in work with regional
partners—and an inability to develop new partnerships,
which will result in less access to the national collections for
people across the UK. Funding cuts at a regional/local level and
the subsequent reduction in regional museum capacity will also
make it more difficult to work in partnership with regional partners.
— Loss of capacity for innovation
and risk-taking within the cultural sector—as organisations
will be forced to focus on core business in response to cuts in
resource and capacity.
2. What Arts Organisations can do to work
more closely together in order to reduce duplication of effort
and to make Economies of Scale
— Museums are already extremely
efficient—since efficiency is built into the mixed private-public
funding model, and the high fixed costs of collections care mean
any reductions in funding cuts must be implemented elsewhere—and
so little is spent on back office functions.
— Museums are already working together
to make efficiency savings. Some examples include:
— The V&A has shared the Natural
History Museum's combined heat and power since 2006, resulting
in carbon savings to the V&A of 700 tonnes per year.
— The Natural History Museum, V&A
and National Museum of Science and Industry have undertaken a
joint procurement exercise for a single service provider for security,
worth £50 million.
— The National Gallery and National
Portrait Gallery jointly procure electricity and are exploring
ways to share services in back-office areas and work more collaboratively.
— The National Portrait Gallery is
moving its storage to within a section of Tate's facility at Southwark.
— Seven national museums are undertaking
joint procurement for shared market research provision—to
streamline costs and also enabling the exchange of benchmarking
data.
— A collaborative approach is already
taken by many museums. For example, the NMDC (funded by members)
helps museums collaborate on projects and research, share information
and best practice.
3. What level of public subsidy for the Arts
And heritage is necessary and sustainable
— UK museums have a successful mixed-funding
model of public subsidy and earned and donated income (see section
8 below). Public subsidy is crucial to enable self-generated income
to be raised. The independence, creativity and innovation afforded
by the current mixed funding model is what makes the cultural
life of the UK uniquely excellent.
— A necessary and sustainable level
of public subsidy is one which enables museums to provide core
free public access whilst maintaining buildings and collections
in a fit state for future generations. For a sustainable future,
we would expect levels of subsidy to stay broadly at their present
levels—more investment produces greater returns and public
benefit (see section one above for examples of the success of
sustained public funding).
— Public subsidy has a direct impact
on the tourism economy and is necessary if museums are to remain
primary tourist attractions (see section one above).
— Free admission to national museums
is key to ensuring access to the national collections—and
is a Government commitment. Free admission is impossible without
sufficient levels of public subsidy.
4. Whether the current system, and structure,
of funding distribution is the right one
— There are numerous problematic issues
around the current NDPB status of national museums—including
restrictions on the freedom to use self-generated income through
reserves and complicated and overlapping regulations thwarting
efficiency and income generation. Modest reforms would make a
big difference, although more fundamental reform would be costly
and could put collections at risk.
— For Ministry of Defence-funded museums,
the current annual funding round makes forward planning difficult.
Three to five year funding agreements would give greater certainty
and clarity.
— Renaissance funding has been a key
mechanism for improving and maintaining regional museum provision,
and it is crucial that funding continues. NMDC has concerns over
how this will be managed following the abolition of MLA (see below).
5. What impact recent changes to the distribution
of National Lottery funds will have on arts and heritage organisations
— An increase to 20% would have a positive
impact and would restore the imbalance resulting from diversion
of Lottery funding from arts and heritage to the Olympics.
— The HLF is a vital source of funding
for acquisitions and capital projects—an increase in funds
available will have a positive impact on museums' ability to care
for the collections they hold, to act as a vital educational resource,
and to continue to attract visitors and offer a world-class visitor
experience.
— Lottery funding will be increasingly
key as other sources of funding are reduced—however, any
increase in Lottery funds should not be used to offset reduced
government funding. Whilst Lottery funding is key in enabling
projects and acquisitions to happen which would not otherwise
be possible, it can never act as a substitute for core public
funding.
6. Whether the policy guidelines for National
Lottery funding need to be reviewed
— Policy should reflect the implications
of a reduction in government capital funding—Lottery funding
will play a more important role in conserving building fabric,
refreshing public offer and therefore maintaining the UK museums'
world-class reputation.
— There is a need to ensure arts and
heritage funds benefit the entire sector and not just community
organisations—the Big Lottery has recently focussed on voluntary
and community sectors, excluding statutory bodies. Funds must
continue to be available to national organisations and large scale
developments—which function as centres of excellence, supporting
other sectors and offering broader benefits to the public.
— The HLF should ensure it continues
to recognise that science is an important part of culture, and
be explicit in its support of this.
— Reduction in bureaucracy—the
HLF could reduce the administration burden by taking a lighter
touch approach to project management and monitoring, and simplifying
the application process.
7. The impact of recent changes to DCMS arm's-length
bodies—in particular the abolition of the UK Film Council
and the Museums, Libraries and Archives Council
— NMDC is concerned over the future
of MLA functions—particularly Renaissance funding, but also
other functions such as Government Indemnity, Acceptance in Lieu,
the National Security Advisor role and Accreditation. If these
are to be absorbed into the Arts Council, will museum issues be
adequately understood/represented? We need to emphasise that museums
aren't just about the arts.
— The MLA has a UK-wide role in relation
to various functions (including the National Security Advisor,
Acceptance in Lieu and the Portable Antiquities Scheme) and as
such there needs to be consultation with the devolved governments
as to how these services can be handled transparently and effectively.
— With MLA abolition there is an issue
of the strategic leadership/policy function for the sector—particularly
with loss of staff capacity at DCMS. The removal of MLA will break
the link between national and regional museums from a strategic
perspective. There may be a greater advisory role placed on national
museums, both from Government and within the sector.
— There is a need to ensure that the
risk of core funding being cut under the pretence of administrative
changes and efficiencies is avoided.
8. Whether businesses and philanthropists
can play a long-term role in funding arts at a national and local
level
— Yes—but they cannot be a replacement
for government funding. The mixed funding model is crucial.
— Raising private funds is difficult
for general maintenance and running costs—donors do not
want to "repair the roof". A loss of reputation and
profile is also likely to affect levels of private donation—donors
like to be associated with thriving, world class organisations.
— The extent and timing of support
from corporate sponsors and private donors means that it cannot
be viewed as a truly sustainable and reliable source of income
in the long term For example, the American model of reliance of
private funding brings a degree of compromise and vulnerability,
and a sudden downturn in private support has recently led to closures
of US museums.
— Opportunities for raising funds from
business and philanthropy are easier to find for some organisations
across the sector and in some parts of the country than others.
Major donations and sponsorship are much harder to achieve and
rely on outside London. Funding and internal capacity cuts make
it harder.
— Donors have expressed concern at
the notion that their funds may necessarily be used to "replace"
government monies. There are strong indications that a shift to
long-term funding support would need to be achieved over an extended
period and significantly incentivised, with assurance that donors
were not simply underwriting organisations where the level of
government support had significantly reduced and or been withdrawn.
— There is an opportunity for growth
but it will take time to develop for many organisations and needs
Government assistance/incentives (see section 9 below).
9. Whether there need to be more Government
incentives to encourage private donations
— Yes—changes to the tax regime
to support both regular and one-off giving to cultural institutions
would help enormously. Favourable legislation to support the setting
up of endowments is potentially even more valuable.
— The 2008 publication by Britain's
major cultural institutions, Private Giving for the Public
Good, outlines the need for greater support to encourage a
culture of giving and wider recognition of the contribution made
by cultural philanthropists. Specific strands of activity or policy
which would fulfil that agenda include:
— Incentives to encourage gifts to
British collections.
— Recognition for donors.
— Capacity building in the sector.
— The UK needs to develop a culture
where people believe it is right and proper to invest in the cultural
sector, regardless of tax incentives. A five to 10 year time-frame
is required for the development of a better culture of giving.
September 2010
59 Figures from DCMS Performance Indicators. Back
60
Taking Part: The National Survey of Culture, Leisure and
Sport Adult and Child Report 2009-10. Back
61
The Association of Leading Visitor Attractions (ALVA). Back
62
The Art Newspaper, No 212, April 2010. Back
63
Visit Britain. Back
|
