Eight years ago I was a member of the regional museums task force that was asked by Chris Smith, then secretary of state for the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS), to look into the parlous state of many of England's major regional museum services.
In our 2001 report, Renaissance in the Regions: A New Vision for England's Museums (authored by Stuart Davies), the task force proposed a radical new "long-term, self-sustaining programme" as the solution to the many problems identified. This programme had a new framework for regional museums, and it was adopted with enthusiasm by government under the Renaissance in the Regions banner.
It is difficult to overestimate the importance of this initiative. For the first time, government acknowledged that the welfare of the nation's non-national museums - crucial to their many millions of users - is a national, not solely a local, responsibility, and backed up this acknowledgement with funding in three successive spending reviews. Since that time government has allocated almost £300m to the Renaissance programme.
All of us in the sector knew that this was an opportunity we must seize. The price of failure would be the loss of ongoing government investment in regional museums, a loss of confidence in the museum sector, and, most unforgivable of all, a betrayal of the public.
Despite the pessimists who believed that the funding was a temporary fix and would evaporate with the next change of secretary of state, and despite the opposition of the "where's my money, then?" brigade, Renaissance has been a success. Or at least it has been enough of a success for government to accept that it is here to stay, that it has huge unrealised potential, and that it should be the bedrock on which to build a national strategy for museums.
We know Renaissance has been a success because there is a lot of evidence. The latest piece of evidence is the report of the Renaissance review advisory group, of which I am a member, under the leadership of Sara Selwood.
The group's report, entitled Renaissance: Realising the Vision, was completed at the beginning of March 2009, about a year after the group was set up by the Museums, Libraries and Archives Council (MLA) board, in an initiative I commend.
The group's brief was to track the development and achievements of Renaissance, assess these against its initial intentions as articulated in Davies's 2001 report, and make recommendations to the MLA for the future. This we did, and I would summarise our views as "so far, so good, but changes need to be made if we are to build on Renaissance's achievements".
So many people have now seen the Selwood report that its contents can hardly be described as confidential. However, at the time of writing, the report has not yet been released officially by the MLA and I still feel constrained in what I may say about it [the report has since been released, see link below]. But this does not prevent me from expressing some views on the situation as I see it.
First, a message for the DCMS and the new secretary of state: Renaissance has been a magnificent government initiative. As it says in the report: "Renaissance is the UK government's most important intervention in English non-national museums since the Museums Act of 1845."
You must not waver in your commitment to the long-term funding Renaissance requires if it is to fulfil its potential. Furthermore, do not abandon your quest for a national strategy for museums, based on Renaissance - we need this so we can structure and plan effectively, and to articulate our public value to society in general, and the Treasury in particular.
Second, a message for the MLA: you have not managed or governed Renaissance well - you know that; we know that; the hub museums know that. Confidence in your ability to manage Renaissance in the future is very low, and recent changes have failed to alter that perception.
The Selwood report is thorough and credible, and you must not respond to it in a defensive manner that persuades the sector that you have no more than self-preservation in mind - if you do, this will be glaringly apparent, to the sector and to government.
If new governance arrangements are the answer, please be big enough to accept this. Please reconceptualise aspects of Renaissance, and streamline it.
Do not allow your cross-sectoral agenda to damage the potential of the museum sector. Listen to what is being said to you.
David Fleming is the director of National Museums Liverpool
In our 2001 report, Renaissance in the Regions: A New Vision for England's Museums (authored by Stuart Davies), the task force proposed a radical new "long-term, self-sustaining programme" as the solution to the many problems identified. This programme had a new framework for regional museums, and it was adopted with enthusiasm by government under the Renaissance in the Regions banner.
It is difficult to overestimate the importance of this initiative. For the first time, government acknowledged that the welfare of the nation's non-national museums - crucial to their many millions of users - is a national, not solely a local, responsibility, and backed up this acknowledgement with funding in three successive spending reviews. Since that time government has allocated almost £300m to the Renaissance programme.
All of us in the sector knew that this was an opportunity we must seize. The price of failure would be the loss of ongoing government investment in regional museums, a loss of confidence in the museum sector, and, most unforgivable of all, a betrayal of the public.
Despite the pessimists who believed that the funding was a temporary fix and would evaporate with the next change of secretary of state, and despite the opposition of the "where's my money, then?" brigade, Renaissance has been a success. Or at least it has been enough of a success for government to accept that it is here to stay, that it has huge unrealised potential, and that it should be the bedrock on which to build a national strategy for museums.
We know Renaissance has been a success because there is a lot of evidence. The latest piece of evidence is the report of the Renaissance review advisory group, of which I am a member, under the leadership of Sara Selwood.
The group's report, entitled Renaissance: Realising the Vision, was completed at the beginning of March 2009, about a year after the group was set up by the Museums, Libraries and Archives Council (MLA) board, in an initiative I commend.
The group's brief was to track the development and achievements of Renaissance, assess these against its initial intentions as articulated in Davies's 2001 report, and make recommendations to the MLA for the future. This we did, and I would summarise our views as "so far, so good, but changes need to be made if we are to build on Renaissance's achievements".
So many people have now seen the Selwood report that its contents can hardly be described as confidential. However, at the time of writing, the report has not yet been released officially by the MLA and I still feel constrained in what I may say about it [the report has since been released, see link below]. But this does not prevent me from expressing some views on the situation as I see it.
First, a message for the DCMS and the new secretary of state: Renaissance has been a magnificent government initiative. As it says in the report: "Renaissance is the UK government's most important intervention in English non-national museums since the Museums Act of 1845."
You must not waver in your commitment to the long-term funding Renaissance requires if it is to fulfil its potential. Furthermore, do not abandon your quest for a national strategy for museums, based on Renaissance - we need this so we can structure and plan effectively, and to articulate our public value to society in general, and the Treasury in particular.
Second, a message for the MLA: you have not managed or governed Renaissance well - you know that; we know that; the hub museums know that. Confidence in your ability to manage Renaissance in the future is very low, and recent changes have failed to alter that perception.
The Selwood report is thorough and credible, and you must not respond to it in a defensive manner that persuades the sector that you have no more than self-preservation in mind - if you do, this will be glaringly apparent, to the sector and to government.
If new governance arrangements are the answer, please be big enough to accept this. Please reconceptualise aspects of Renaissance, and streamline it.
Do not allow your cross-sectoral agenda to damage the potential of the museum sector. Listen to what is being said to you.
David Fleming is the director of National Museums Liverpool
Links
Stuart Davies responds, MJ Comment, August 2009, p15
Renaissance review: report and summary
Stuart Davies responds, MJ Comment, August 2009, p15
Renaissance review: report and summary
