The Department for Culture, Media and Sport's (DCMS) paper Understanding the Future, published in January, reheated the idea of introducing a single funding body for museums.
Perhaps museums would prosper better, the paper suggested, if they found a way to present a more unified front with a common direction and purpose; perhaps the existing structures are hindering progress; perhaps we should consider other options, such as the funding models of other European countries, or a single funding body.
It is not a new idea: when the Museums, Libraries and Archives Council replaced the Museums and Galleries Commission in April 2000 there was a good deal of pressure for it to become an overarching body responsible for the entire sector.
But as a result of strong opposition by the nationals and a lack of political will, it never happened. The nationals still maintain their direct link to the DCMS.
So what is new? The Gershon review, backed by the Treasury, demanding that all departments must find 'efficiency savings' of 2.5 per cent year-on-year, has had a serious impact on the DCMS. The suspicion is that the government would be more than happy to relinquish responsibility for the nationals to a quango.
And there has been a shift in the attitudes of the nationals too, with some national directors now open to debating the merits of alternative funding structures. It all looks more plausible than it did four years ago.
Those in favour of exploring the idea point to the fact that sport and art have consistently received higher levels of state funding than mus-
eums since the current government came to power. As Arts Council England has successfully lobbied for greater arts funding, they say, a similar body could do the same for museums.
The chairman of the MLA, Mark Wood, would like his organisation to be that body. The MLA is well-established and has a credible track record, he argues, and now it is ready for broader responsibility.
But while at least some in the sector agree that the MLA is the obvious candidate should the structure change, the consensus seems to be that if it were to truly represent the entirety of the UK's museums, it would need to be reconstituted.
Some ideas for how this might happen include looking at whether museums, libraries and archives should be bundled together at all; whether or not the new body should include organisations such as English Heritage; and the formation of an entirely new body that would encompass MLA in its existing form.
The thought of regional and national museums under the same funding umbrella is appealing to those in the regions who see the current structure as unfairly stacked against them: a new structure would have an impact on everything, but not necessarily for the worse, they say, pointing to the positive change created by the introduction of Renaissance.
If nothing else it might rectify, in the words of one regional museum director, 'a long-standing source of grief that a top slice [of funding] goes predominantly to the big London museums'.
But the biggest danger for regional museums is that, like the United Nations, a unified body would not necessarily mean equal representation.
A unified voice for the sector will only be successful if it represents the views of the whole sector, warns Simon Davies, the chairman of the Group of Small Local Authority Museums.
It would make little difference to most independent museums, says Diane Lees, a representative of the Association of Independent Museums (AIM). As most independents have little or no contact with government funding, only those involved in Renaissance or funded by local authorities would feel any difference.
But as long as existing benefits were not eroded and clear guidance given, Lees adds, AIM would not object to structural change.
And Lees' words point to the bottom line for the sector as a whole, that is, changing the structure is all very well, but will it really address the lack of government investment in museums across the country?
This summer the DCMS, in conjunction with the MLA, the National Museum Directors' Conference, and other interested organisations, is planning to turn the paper into an action plan. Will the plan include a single funding body for museums?
In spite of Gershon, the smart money says not: although some national directors are amenable to debating the idea, there are as many who are either undecided or actively opposed. It would be another layer of bureaucracy, they say, and would end the nationals' direct and historic relationship with government.
Moreover, even where national directors are willing to discuss a new funding structure, their trustees, to whom they are accountable, may not be.
Link: www.culture.gov.uk
Perhaps museums would prosper better, the paper suggested, if they found a way to present a more unified front with a common direction and purpose; perhaps the existing structures are hindering progress; perhaps we should consider other options, such as the funding models of other European countries, or a single funding body.
It is not a new idea: when the Museums, Libraries and Archives Council replaced the Museums and Galleries Commission in April 2000 there was a good deal of pressure for it to become an overarching body responsible for the entire sector.
But as a result of strong opposition by the nationals and a lack of political will, it never happened. The nationals still maintain their direct link to the DCMS.
So what is new? The Gershon review, backed by the Treasury, demanding that all departments must find 'efficiency savings' of 2.5 per cent year-on-year, has had a serious impact on the DCMS. The suspicion is that the government would be more than happy to relinquish responsibility for the nationals to a quango.
And there has been a shift in the attitudes of the nationals too, with some national directors now open to debating the merits of alternative funding structures. It all looks more plausible than it did four years ago.
Those in favour of exploring the idea point to the fact that sport and art have consistently received higher levels of state funding than mus-
eums since the current government came to power. As Arts Council England has successfully lobbied for greater arts funding, they say, a similar body could do the same for museums.
The chairman of the MLA, Mark Wood, would like his organisation to be that body. The MLA is well-established and has a credible track record, he argues, and now it is ready for broader responsibility.
But while at least some in the sector agree that the MLA is the obvious candidate should the structure change, the consensus seems to be that if it were to truly represent the entirety of the UK's museums, it would need to be reconstituted.
Some ideas for how this might happen include looking at whether museums, libraries and archives should be bundled together at all; whether or not the new body should include organisations such as English Heritage; and the formation of an entirely new body that would encompass MLA in its existing form.
The thought of regional and national museums under the same funding umbrella is appealing to those in the regions who see the current structure as unfairly stacked against them: a new structure would have an impact on everything, but not necessarily for the worse, they say, pointing to the positive change created by the introduction of Renaissance.
If nothing else it might rectify, in the words of one regional museum director, 'a long-standing source of grief that a top slice [of funding] goes predominantly to the big London museums'.
But the biggest danger for regional museums is that, like the United Nations, a unified body would not necessarily mean equal representation.
A unified voice for the sector will only be successful if it represents the views of the whole sector, warns Simon Davies, the chairman of the Group of Small Local Authority Museums.
It would make little difference to most independent museums, says Diane Lees, a representative of the Association of Independent Museums (AIM). As most independents have little or no contact with government funding, only those involved in Renaissance or funded by local authorities would feel any difference.
But as long as existing benefits were not eroded and clear guidance given, Lees adds, AIM would not object to structural change.
And Lees' words point to the bottom line for the sector as a whole, that is, changing the structure is all very well, but will it really address the lack of government investment in museums across the country?
This summer the DCMS, in conjunction with the MLA, the National Museum Directors' Conference, and other interested organisations, is planning to turn the paper into an action plan. Will the plan include a single funding body for museums?
In spite of Gershon, the smart money says not: although some national directors are amenable to debating the idea, there are as many who are either undecided or actively opposed. It would be another layer of bureaucracy, they say, and would end the nationals' direct and historic relationship with government.
Moreover, even where national directors are willing to discuss a new funding structure, their trustees, to whom they are accountable, may not be.
Link: www.culture.gov.uk
European funding models
According to a DCMS spokesperson, the European funding structures referred to in the paper are those of France, Italy, Germany and the Netherlands.
France: approved museums are funded by the Ministère de la Culture through the Direction des Musées de France (DMF). A handful of these, including the Louvre, have been designated 'Etablissements Public', and these receive greater autonomy with their own government fund. The DMF is represented in the regions by the Directions Régionale des Affaires Culturelles.
Germany: the 16 Länder and the various municipalities manage regional budgets, for which museums compete. Central government has a principle of non-interference alongside a belief that cultural funding is primarily the responsibility of citizens and their local communities. Partly driven by financial problems in the Länder, Germany is currently considering introducing 'cultural landmark institutions'.
The Netherlands: every four years 36 national museums, including 19 former Rijksmuseums that are now governed by a private foundation, bid for funding from the Cultural Policy Department, a subsidiary of the Ministry of Education, Culture and Science. The country's 1,000 or so other museums are funded by local and regional government and private funds.
Italy: most museums are managed either at a national level by the Ministry for Heritage and Cultural Activities, or through regional administrative bodies. There is a mixed-economy system with the national and regional government providing the majority of museum funding, with limited but increasing business support through sponsorship and other funding sources.
According to a DCMS spokesperson, the European funding structures referred to in the paper are those of France, Italy, Germany and the Netherlands.
France: approved museums are funded by the Ministère de la Culture through the Direction des Musées de France (DMF). A handful of these, including the Louvre, have been designated 'Etablissements Public', and these receive greater autonomy with their own government fund. The DMF is represented in the regions by the Directions Régionale des Affaires Culturelles.
Germany: the 16 Länder and the various municipalities manage regional budgets, for which museums compete. Central government has a principle of non-interference alongside a belief that cultural funding is primarily the responsibility of citizens and their local communities. Partly driven by financial problems in the Länder, Germany is currently considering introducing 'cultural landmark institutions'.
The Netherlands: every four years 36 national museums, including 19 former Rijksmuseums that are now governed by a private foundation, bid for funding from the Cultural Policy Department, a subsidiary of the Ministry of Education, Culture and Science. The country's 1,000 or so other museums are funded by local and regional government and private funds.
Italy: most museums are managed either at a national level by the Ministry for Heritage and Cultural Activities, or through regional administrative bodies. There is a mixed-economy system with the national and regional government providing the majority of museum funding, with limited but increasing business support through sponsorship and other funding sources.
