The email suggesting that I might like to contribute a short article to this edition on the long term impact of the introduction of universal free admission to the national museums and galleries asked me to consider whether it had proved to be “a tragic misdirection of funds”. The quote was not attributed; and it was a shock to discover that its author was in fact me, speaking in 1998.

The Government’s decision to introduce this flagship policy was not without its problems. The issue was divisive. The nine national museums which had introduced admission charges had done so of their own volition whilst others, led by the British Museum (free since 1753) held fast to the principle of free access.

As Shadow Culture Secretary at the time, I was at the receiving end of  privately voiced concerns about the new policy. Charging for entry, it was felt by many who had taken that route, had bought valuable freedoms. By extension, it was argued that making free access a condition of Government grant was a bullying intrusion into the ability of these great institutions to run their own affairs, as well as representing a huge extension of dependency on HM Treasury (whose largesse was not taken for granted).

It was this latter point which concerned me most as I pondered how to navigate through the various political and cultural elephant traps which the policy presented.

Whilst Culture Secretary Chris Smith had secured a good-looking funding deal from the Treasury, serious concerns were being expressed that it came with strings attached.   There was a fear that access to arts funding was becoming conditional on adherence to various specific political and social objectives; and meanwhile, Lottery funds available to the cultural sector were being diverted elsewhere.

There was a further argument that amongst the principal beneficiaries of the new policy would be foreign tourists whose enjoyment would in future be almost wholly subsidised by the UK taxpayer.

Lastly, there were concerns expressed by non national museums and galleries with no option but to charge for entry, which felt they were about to become victims of a State funded competitive disadvantage.

Ten years on, most of these fears have proved groundless. Even by 2006, DCMS were able to say that an extra 28.8 million people had flooded through the doors of the national museums and galleries, with significant increases in visitor numbers at those institutions which had previously charged. There had been a notable increase in visits by people on low incomes and from ethnic minority backgrounds. The non national museums had not collapsed. The magnificence of the national collections had not been damaged by encroaching political correctness.

Visitor numbers have continued to grow since then; but there is a need to update independent academic research into the extent to which the policy of free access itself has driven up attendance figures*. Benign economic conditions; a more creative approach to special exhibitions (charged for); an extension of membership subscription schemes; and the roll out of new Lottery funded capital projects will also have played a part. It is however clear that the policy has been a success; it should stay in place.

In the end, of course, there is no such thing as a “free” museum, and we are now in a radically changed economic environment. There must be at least a question mark over the extent to which the Treasury will continue to hold to its side of the bargain. It was, after all, Government austerity which led to the introduction of charging back in the 1980’s and we must hope that history does not repeat itself.  

* See Cowell “Cultural Trends”; vol 6 No 3; Sept 2007 (pp 203-224)