In 2002, in the last Comprehensive Spending Review, regional
museums asked for a total of £267m - and got £70m over three years. This was, not unfairly, heralded as a triumph, given it was the first time that central government had provided ongoing funding for England's non-national museums.
This year, it genuinely looked like it was museums and galleries' turn - at least in England. (The situation in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland is, as mentioned before, currently under review.)
Buoyed by this, the national and regional museums put together a joint bid for £115m a year, presumably with the hope of getting some of it in April this year: 'year three' of the last funding round, and 'year one' of the new one. The bid asked for an extra £50m a year for the nationals, £35m for the regions, £15m for regional/national partnerships, and £15m for acquisitions.
Once the bid was in, there were constant hints that the department for culture was backing it and that it understood the impact that low salaries, lack of acquisition budgets and constant scrimping was having.
So to end up with no discernible increase this year (at the time of going to press, detailed breakdowns were unavailable), £17.5m in 2006/7 and £32.5m in 2007/8 is somewhat underwhelming. Of that, the national museums did best, with large museums getting, on average, 0.5 per cent above inflation, and smaller ones around 1.5 per cent.
Renaissance in the Regions gets no uplift this year, although it does retain the promised £30m already allocated. It gets £2m extra in 2006/7 and £15m extra the year after that. How it will be spread around all nine regions - the promise in the chancellor's statement last July - remains to be seen.
There are a few other bright spots: an increased capital budget for national museums; the extension of the highly successful Portable Antiquities Scheme; a new Gift Aid scheme; and the ongoing negotiations around VAT relief for university museums.
But, overall, it is certainly less than everyone hoped for. Of course, most people, in public at least, are reluctant to sound anything other than grateful and congratulatory. And it could have been much worse; the Arts Council received a standstill budget and English Heritage is facing cuts of up to 5 per cent.
But you can't ignore the fact that the department for culture did not negotiate a good settlement from the Treasury back in July, which points to weaknesses in its lobbying technique. And that also, in a tight spending round close to an election, it was sport that pipped culture to the post.
It seems ironic that museums, that have been trying so hard to demonstrate the impact they have on education, health and social welfare, should fall foul of the political football of children's sport. Ironic - but when you think about this government, perhaps not that surprising.
It is never going to be easy for museums to compete with things like health, education and sport in terms of government spending priorities, but they are beginning to make their case as institutions worthy of support.
Perhaps this time, though, their approach was too gentle. Museums need to continue to work together, increase public support and lobby more aggressively if they are to avoid future funding setbacks.
Jane Morris, editor
museums asked for a total of £267m - and got £70m over three years. This was, not unfairly, heralded as a triumph, given it was the first time that central government had provided ongoing funding for England's non-national museums.
This year, it genuinely looked like it was museums and galleries' turn - at least in England. (The situation in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland is, as mentioned before, currently under review.)
Buoyed by this, the national and regional museums put together a joint bid for £115m a year, presumably with the hope of getting some of it in April this year: 'year three' of the last funding round, and 'year one' of the new one. The bid asked for an extra £50m a year for the nationals, £35m for the regions, £15m for regional/national partnerships, and £15m for acquisitions.
Once the bid was in, there were constant hints that the department for culture was backing it and that it understood the impact that low salaries, lack of acquisition budgets and constant scrimping was having.
So to end up with no discernible increase this year (at the time of going to press, detailed breakdowns were unavailable), £17.5m in 2006/7 and £32.5m in 2007/8 is somewhat underwhelming. Of that, the national museums did best, with large museums getting, on average, 0.5 per cent above inflation, and smaller ones around 1.5 per cent.
Renaissance in the Regions gets no uplift this year, although it does retain the promised £30m already allocated. It gets £2m extra in 2006/7 and £15m extra the year after that. How it will be spread around all nine regions - the promise in the chancellor's statement last July - remains to be seen.
There are a few other bright spots: an increased capital budget for national museums; the extension of the highly successful Portable Antiquities Scheme; a new Gift Aid scheme; and the ongoing negotiations around VAT relief for university museums.
But, overall, it is certainly less than everyone hoped for. Of course, most people, in public at least, are reluctant to sound anything other than grateful and congratulatory. And it could have been much worse; the Arts Council received a standstill budget and English Heritage is facing cuts of up to 5 per cent.
But you can't ignore the fact that the department for culture did not negotiate a good settlement from the Treasury back in July, which points to weaknesses in its lobbying technique. And that also, in a tight spending round close to an election, it was sport that pipped culture to the post.
It seems ironic that museums, that have been trying so hard to demonstrate the impact they have on education, health and social welfare, should fall foul of the political football of children's sport. Ironic - but when you think about this government, perhaps not that surprising.
It is never going to be easy for museums to compete with things like health, education and sport in terms of government spending priorities, but they are beginning to make their case as institutions worthy of support.
Perhaps this time, though, their approach was too gentle. Museums need to continue to work together, increase public support and lobby more aggressively if they are to avoid future funding setbacks.
Jane Morris, editor
