Culture, Media and Sport CommitteeWritten evidence submitted by Prospect
Introduction
1. Prospect the union represents staff at the National Media Museum in Bradford, the National Railway Museum in York, the Science Museum in London and the Science Museum at Wroughton, near Swindon, all of which are part of the Science Museum Group (SMG), which also includes Locomotion: the NRM at Shildon, County Durham and the Museum of Science and Industry in Manchester. Our membership at the SMG includes curators, conservators, photographers, gallery Explainers and Visitor Experience staff, of various grades, and so covers a good cross section of the group’s employees. Nationally Prospect has over 5,000 members in the heritage sector. These members are concentrated in the UK’s national museums and galleries.
2. In our submission we will:
Present our understanding and view of recent events concerning the SMG.
Outline how the SMG has dealt with the economic downturn and cuts in government funding, with our comments.
State our concerns.
State what we wish to see resulting from the current crisis and this inquiry.
State how we can help build a more positive and sustainable future for the SMG.
Our view of Recent Events Concerning the SMG
3. On 9 May, together with our sister unions at the SMG—the Public and Commercial Services Union and the First Division Association—we met with Adele McAlister, SMG Director of HR, and Jane Ellis, SMG Director of Finance for a quarterly business update meeting. Jane gave a presentation on the SMG’s financial position. She told us that by April 2014 the SMG’s government funding would have been cut in real terms by 25%, a reduction in cash terms of over £7 million a year. It was expected that the SMG would receive a further 10% cut in funding in the spending review for 2015–16. Such a cut for 2015–16 would have a severe effect on the SMG’s operations. We asked if it would mean shutting one of the group’s museums. Jane’s reply was that even shutting a museum would not solve the problem.
4. After the recent press speculation and the public comments by Ian Blatchford, Director of the SMG, Prospect wrote to Ian welcoming the fact that he had made public statements over “the real threat that the SMG faces if the spending review results in a further 10% cut” but also reminding him that “In recent years Prospect has repeatedly asked the SMG to make public statements on the impact of continuing cuts in grant in aid . . . As we have said previously, a solution is needed that will break the damaging downward spiral whereby efficiency savings and securing extra income simply results in further cuts in grant in aid.” We went on to say that “Prospect will be seeking a solution that keeps all of the SMG sites open. Whatever the outcome may be, we would welcome an early assurance that any decisions the Trustees may make in the autumn will not be made in isolation. We hope that you will agree that in advance of any decisions, staff, and their unions, will be given a proper opportunity to contribute to the debate over the future of their jobs and the museums they work in.”
5. Although, when he first arrived at the SMG, Ian met in person with the trade unions, since early 2012 he has not consulted or negotiated directly with us. He has delegated these duties to Jonathan Newby, Chief Operating Officer, and Jonathan responded to our communication, welcoming our support and stating that “We will not be putting our plans to the Trustees until the early autumn which is when we would expect there to be detailed consultations. I agree that it would be helpful for us to remain in touch in the intervening period however we may not have much in the way of tangible plans in the early stages.”
How has the SMG dealt with the effects of the financial crisis and the cuts in government funding to this point?
6. The SMG reacted to the financial crisis of 2008 in two ways: it launched a programme called “Securing our Future” to look for ways to find savings and generate income and it instituted a new recruitment policy called “Measures for the Downturn” which involved the extensive use of short-term employment contracts and the increased use of Trading Company employment contracts (the SMG employs staff on Museum contracts, which derive from Civil Service contracts, and Trading Company—now Enterprises—contracts).
7. The election of the current government saw the start of a series of cuts in government spending for the SMG effective up to the end of the financial year 2014–15 as follows: 3% in Emergency Budget in June 2010; 15% in October 2010 Comprehensive Spending Review; 3% in 2012 Autumn Statement; 2% in March 2013 budget.
8. Ian Blatchford joined the organisation in the autumn of 2010 and in the spring of 2011 he announced his plans for dealing with the 15% cut in government funding that had been announced in October 2010. He dispensed with many of the projects from the “Securing our Future” programme but did take forward the one aimed at increasing income from visitor giving (public donations). He also set in motion a planned two year programme to find 10% savings in staff costs.
9. We welcomed the initiative to increase the amount of visitor giving and this has proved to be a success. We did not oppose the planned 10% cuts in staff costs but sought to work with the SMG to ensure that this was done in such a way as to minimise the effect on staff and reduce the need for redundancies. To this end we encouraged the SMG to adopt a voluntary redundancy programme across the organisation and to make the best possible use of redeployment opportunities as well as other options available in its own “Managing Change” policy to minimise the impact on existing employees, such as natural wastage. We also emphasised our belief that it was important that the SMG made clear to government and all interested parties the effects of the cuts in government funding for fear that in appearing able to absorb significant cuts it would simply invite further cuts in the future.
10. Unfortunately, the SMG refused to act on our concerns. It carried out its programme of staff cuts on a piecemeal, department by department basis while presenting an outward appearance of “business as usual”. In March of this year the Science Museum celebrated welcoming “its three millionth visitor of the [2012–13] year… the highest number of annual visitors to the museum since complete records began.”
Our Concerns
11. We feel that the SMG’s response to the financial challenges of recent years has been ultimately self-defeating in a number of respects:
12. Continual cuts to Funding Unsustainable
We have mentioned some of the efforts to deal with the economic downturn and reductions in government Grant in Aid (GIA). However, although savings have been made, they have exacted a high price in terms of staff numbers and morale and have not solved the problem of ensuring a stable and sustainable future for the SMG. Our fear that each pound saved via efficiencies and each extra pound gained via commercial activities or donations would prompt the Government to cut a further pound, or several pounds, of GIA appears to have come true. The cultural sector, of which the SMG is an important part, is a significant net earner for the British economy but it needs investment to thrive. Although we support attempts to raise additional funding from other sources we believe that there is limited scope for further commercial development or donations from the public. The SMG receives a significant amount of its funding from government and this will continue. Government must recognise the importance of the cultural sector and ensure that it has adequate funding to maintain and increase its contribution to the British economy and society in general. The culture and heritage of a nation is central to its own identity and to its attractiveness to visitors from overseas.
13. Staff Bearing the Brunt
While we welcome an increase in visitor numbers at the Science Museum, the reality is that the SMG has only been able to maintain its offer to the public so far because of the goodwill and dedication of its staff in very difficult times. The SMG’s programme to reduce staffing costs by 10% has, to date, resulted in the redundancy of about 100 employees. Prospect conducted a survey of its members concerning this programme and this showed:
most of the work of redundant staff has been retained within the organisation and shared among remaining staff;
these staff are doing more work, often working above their grade as well as below their grade; and
almost half are working more than their contracted hours without compensation.
The findings cited above must be seen against the background of falling living standards for most staff due to an extended period of pay restraint and increased pensions contributions for many. Some staff, such as Explainers in York, who are some of the lowest paid staff in the organisation, have suffered further significant reductions in their take home pay due to a change in rotas. This is in contrast to the payment of significant bonuses to a limited number of senior executives in 2011–12. We do not yet know if such bonuses were paid again in 2012–13.
14. Poor Engagement with Staff and Unions
In recent years management’s attitude to communication with staff and working with the recognised unions has been poor. In the survey quoted above, 87% of respondents stated that they had received much less or a little less information about the programme to reduce staff costs than they would have liked. The SMG is committed to conducting a staff survey every 18 months but it has not held one since September 2010. Management has not worked positively with the unions to find savings in staff costs in a way that would reduce the need for redundancies. Consequently, we believe that more staff than necessary have been made redundant and that important expertise has been lost to the organisation. A long standing member of staff with many years knowledge and experience gained in curating the mathematics collection was recently made redundant and the SMG has now announced a major new mathematics exhibition which will rely on outside expertise to bring it to fruition. We raised many concerns about the way the programme to find staff savings was being carried out but these were dismissed by the various levels of senior management within the organisation and by the Department for Culture Media and Sport (DCMS), the responsible government department, which refused to engage with them on the grounds that they were “operational matters” for the SMG. This was the same response the department initially gave to concerns over the possibility that one of the northern museums might have to close. This attitude to staff and unions is possibly what Ian Blatchford meant when, in the Science Museum Group Annual Review for 2011–12, he referred to the “touch of ruthlessness” that was liked by “those with the money and connections to realise our vision” but it is not the way to create a stable and sustainable future for the museums and an engaged and motivated staff. The staff give their all for the SMG and they deserve to be treated better.
15. MOSI
We do not understand why the SMG took on MOSI in 2012 when it must have been clear that its funding would be an issue at the end of the current spending round.
What we would like to see
16. There are a number of things that we would like to see happening as a result of the current inquiry:
None of the SMG’s museums to close. We need a joint statement from the DCMS and the senior management of the SMG that none of the SMG’s museum sites will close.
We wish to see an end to the cycle of savings and efficiencies simply leading to further cuts. The cultural sector is a net earner for the economy but it needs investment to thrive.
A full explanation as to why the SMG took on MOSI, including the SMG’s expectations at the time and any assurances given regarding the funding of MOSI beyond the current spending round.`
An end to short-term responses on the part of the SMG to the reduction in funding. The museums need a stable and sustainable future and the staff need to have the confidence to give their all for the organisation. There needs to be an end to the extensive use of short-term employment contracts and an end to the use of inferior Enterprises contracts to employ staff who should be employed on Museum terms and conditions.
A step-change in the SMG’s attitude to engagement with its staff and the recognised trade unions. Next to its artefacts, the SMG’s employees represent its most valuable asset. Our survey showed that since the start of the programme to find savings in staff costs staff morale has fallen. The organisation needs to value its staff at all levels and to involve them more in decision making processes. Staff have a lot to offer the organisation, far more than is currently being utilised.
An end to bonuses for senior executives when the vast majority of staff are suffering pay freezes and pay caps. This money should be used for the benefit of all staff.
Positive engagement with all stakeholders (including the communities served by the museums) to find a long-term, stable and sustainable future for the museums that make up the SMG.
How we can help
17. Prospect, together with the other recognised unions at the SMG, is more than willing to sit down with senior management and other interested parties to help find a positive stable and sustainable future for the Science Museum Group. We have relevant expertise at both the local and national level.
June 2013