Head to head: Is free entry to national museums worth celebrating?
The first in a new column where museum professionals go head to head
Ben Cowell is the acting external affairs director at the National Trust. David Barrie is the former director of the Art Fund.
Dear David:
The question we’ve been set is misleading. Nothing is ever free. The reintroduction of free admission to the dozen or so national institutions that introduced charges in the 1980s and 1990s has cost the taxpayer tens of millions of pounds annually since 2001.
Free entry was a totemic policy under the last government and, bizarrely in the current deficit-slashing context, it has become politically toxic for politicians to express anything other than their unqualified support.
But why is taxpayers’ money being used to subsidise additional visits to South Kensington by largely middle-class audiences?
Yours, Ben
Dear Ben:
Sure, nothing is free, but all the national museums and galleries put together account for about 0.5% of government expenditure. Admission charges never raised much money. They were often introduced simply to permit the recovery of input VAT, a perverse incentive that the Art Fund’s campaign removed.
The main effect of charges was to discourage visitors – which they did, all too effectively. With the restoration of free admission, there’s been a huge surge in visits – up from about 7 million to nearly 18 million. Is it possible that politicians of every party support it because they actually believe in it?
All the best, David
Dear David:
I don’t doubt that charges discourage visitors, although the Department for Culture, Media and Sport’s (DCMS) own Taking Part survey shows us that the price of entry is rarely one of the main reasons that people give for why they don’t go to museums.
In truth, how do we know that the increase in visits isn’t simply the same people going more often?
My concern is that free admission is a blunt instrument for promoting access. The price of retaining it is has been higher cuts on other parts of the DCMS – including English Heritage, which has recently had to abolish its entire outreach department.
Best wishes, Ben
Dear Ben:
The point of free admission is simple: to encourage as many people as possible to enjoy the riches of our greatest museums and galleries by eliminating the one barrier to entry that can most easily be removed. There are lots of people who choose not to explore these wonderful collections, but if charges were still in place, there would be many more of them.
All the best, David
Dear David:
A lot of “free” schemes (such as those for swimming and theatre) have now been cut or curtailed, because they benefited people who would otherwise be perfectly willing to pay.
Are museums any different? I’d happily give a fiver to get in to the Victoria and Albert Museum – so why not charge me? The revenue could be spent on targeted schemes for promoting access among the many who currently stay away.
All the best, Ben
Dear Ben:
Suppose, optimistically, that museums could spend any money raised from admission fees on outreach schemes – rather than seeing it clawed back by the Treasury – what would the effects be?
There might be more visits from lower socio-economic groups, but visitor numbers overall would again plummet, and the deep-rooted causes of social exclusion would hardly have been touched.
Free admission may be a blunt instrument, but the huge increase in visits proves that it’s an extremely powerful one. We should all celebrate this golden civic ideal, and be ready to fight for its survival.
All the best, David
Dear David:
The question we’ve been set is misleading. Nothing is ever free. The reintroduction of free admission to the dozen or so national institutions that introduced charges in the 1980s and 1990s has cost the taxpayer tens of millions of pounds annually since 2001.
Free entry was a totemic policy under the last government and, bizarrely in the current deficit-slashing context, it has become politically toxic for politicians to express anything other than their unqualified support.
But why is taxpayers’ money being used to subsidise additional visits to South Kensington by largely middle-class audiences?
Yours, Ben
Dear Ben:
Sure, nothing is free, but all the national museums and galleries put together account for about 0.5% of government expenditure. Admission charges never raised much money. They were often introduced simply to permit the recovery of input VAT, a perverse incentive that the Art Fund’s campaign removed.
The main effect of charges was to discourage visitors – which they did, all too effectively. With the restoration of free admission, there’s been a huge surge in visits – up from about 7 million to nearly 18 million. Is it possible that politicians of every party support it because they actually believe in it?
All the best, David
Dear David:
I don’t doubt that charges discourage visitors, although the Department for Culture, Media and Sport’s (DCMS) own Taking Part survey shows us that the price of entry is rarely one of the main reasons that people give for why they don’t go to museums.
In truth, how do we know that the increase in visits isn’t simply the same people going more often?
My concern is that free admission is a blunt instrument for promoting access. The price of retaining it is has been higher cuts on other parts of the DCMS – including English Heritage, which has recently had to abolish its entire outreach department.
Best wishes, Ben
Dear Ben:
The point of free admission is simple: to encourage as many people as possible to enjoy the riches of our greatest museums and galleries by eliminating the one barrier to entry that can most easily be removed. There are lots of people who choose not to explore these wonderful collections, but if charges were still in place, there would be many more of them.
All the best, David
Dear David:
A lot of “free” schemes (such as those for swimming and theatre) have now been cut or curtailed, because they benefited people who would otherwise be perfectly willing to pay.
Are museums any different? I’d happily give a fiver to get in to the Victoria and Albert Museum – so why not charge me? The revenue could be spent on targeted schemes for promoting access among the many who currently stay away.
All the best, Ben
Dear Ben:
Suppose, optimistically, that museums could spend any money raised from admission fees on outreach schemes – rather than seeing it clawed back by the Treasury – what would the effects be?
There might be more visits from lower socio-economic groups, but visitor numbers overall would again plummet, and the deep-rooted causes of social exclusion would hardly have been touched.
Free admission may be a blunt instrument, but the huge increase in visits proves that it’s an extremely powerful one. We should all celebrate this golden civic ideal, and be ready to fight for its survival.
All the best, David