Education, Culture and Sport Committee, 05 Nov 2002

Meeting date: Tuesday, November 5, 2002

Official Report 182KB pdf

---

Scotland's Museums

Item 2 is consideration of issues relating to Scotland's museums. Members will be aware that last week we received a report on Scotland's museums from Mike Russell and Jackie Baillie. The committee agreed to take evidence this week from the Deputy Minister for Tourism, Culture and Sport on the Executive's plans for Scotland's museums. I welcome to the committee Dr Elaine Murray and Bob Irvine, who is head of the sport, the arts and culture division in the Scottish Executive. Do you want to make any comments on the paper that you have seen or on your plans before we move to general questions?

I will be very brief. To see members all sitting down at the other end of the table makes me think that they have heard that I have a cold and are keeping as far away as possible.

I welcome the briefing paper and the interesting ideas that Mike Russell and Jackie Baillie have set out. I apologise for my not being Mike Watson, because his being here might have provided more continuity, given that he was at the conference on museums yesterday. However, Bob Irvine was also at the conference and we shall do our best to respond to questions about what came out of it.

On our intentions, we are still in a period of consultation following the national audit, so any future policy direction will be informed by the results of that consultation; however, I cannot at the moment give the committee concrete responses to some questions. We are considering the views of others and will take into consideration the committee's views and the submissions that it makes.

I attended the final session of the conference yesterday. There was a measure of agreement that the key issues are—not necessarily in order of priority—the lack of a strategic view of what museums should be achieving, which is reflected in the paper that Jackie Baillie and I drew up, and the shortage of resources in the sector. The two matters are almost inextricably linked, because the shortage of resources is also forcing museums to chase any small amounts of money that are available, which is skewing their core purpose. There is a view that the museums sector is not unique, but is part of the wider culture and heritage sector. Links need to be built there, because different parts of the sector suffer from the same problems. Are those the key issues? If so, what current thinking is there about resolving those problems?

Mike Russell's paper is correct to identify the fact that resources are flagged up as the number 1 issue throughout most of the museums sector and that there is a feeling that there should be change. However, I do not think that there is yet a coherent opinion about how that change can be effected. As the paper says, different models are under consideration and different people have different views. I am aware of concerns about resources and I am sure that I am not treading on anybody's toes by saying that our department is concerned about resources. However, we do not have additional resources within our budget and strategic views about where moneys go are made in a wider context.

I accept those points, but there is surely a need for the Scottish Executive to take a strategic view of what the museums sector—and, indeed, the culture and heritage sectors—should achieve. As I understand it, that was to some extent the purpose of the national cultural strategy. Three and half years into the first session of the Scottish Parliament, we still do not have any such strategic view. Is it fair that museums are saying that although that might have been acceptable in the first year and problematic in the second year, it has led to genuine crises in funding in the third year? We do not know when the situation will improve, but given the time scales that you are working to, it will not be before the Scottish Parliament elections next year.

Mike Russell's interpretation is a bit of an exaggeration. One of the reasons that we had the national strategy and the consultation process is that we recognise that there has to be a more strategic view of the way in which the museums sector is supported. We also need to develop a more strategic view of the mechanisms of the culture sector, which will not be done at the end of a session. That is something that needs to be looked at after next May. We need to examine much more holistically whether the structures that support the culture sector in Scotland are the most appropriate ones for a meaningful cultural strategy.

If I understand you correctly, you are saying that there will be no resolution of the issues until after next May.

No, I am not saying that.

In that case, what strategy will you use to persuade people that you know what you will do after next May?

In spring, we will publish a paper describing our position on the consultation on the museums sector. There is, however, a much wider cultural picture to be considered in terms of supporting mechanisms that are not necessarily in their best configuration. We have to consider the wider issues about the relationships between different parts of the cultural sector.

What advice would you give to museums that fear for their collections and fear that they might go bust between now and May?

What do you mean, "What advice"? I do not know what you mean.

What advice would you give them? We have heard from the Dundee Heritage Trust and Verdant Works. I have made representations to you about the perilous state of the core collection in the Scottish Maritime Museum, where conservation staff have had to be laid off. What advice would you give to museums that are seeing deterioration in their collections and have genuine doubts about the time between now and May while the process continues?

We would be forced to advise that there is no additional money in the budget at the moment. We have to be up-front about that. There is no immediate quick financial fix.

If people have particular issues about specific museums, I am happy to take representations. We are happy to discuss the issues and to see whether there are ways in which we can assist. There is not, however, a pot of gold sitting under my table waiting to be dipped into.

Your advice is that there is no money.

We have been up-front about the amount of money that is available and there are no substantial additional sums of money.

Judging by present trends and the evidence in front of us, will we therefore see further attrition of the museums sector between now and next May?

Yes, if that is what is happening. Apart from the strategic change fund, there are no additional sources of funding within the museums sector for this financial year. I do not believe that anyone has tried to pretend that there are.

I want to pursue the question of resources. An important part of resourcing is to have the strategy in place and I am pleased to hear that it will be in place in the spring—I am assuming that will be in April.

Dr Murray indicated agreement.

It has not escaped people's notice—and it was touched on at the previous committee meeting when we were scrutinising the budget—that substantial resources have been made available at UK level, in relation to which a consequential formula will apply to Scotland. That came on the back of the excellent work that was done in the report "Renaissance of the Regions: A new vision for England's museums". Although the model might not be transferable to Scotland, there are lessons to be learned.

Can you clarify whether you are saying that there will be no new resources in the new financial year?

No—I am talking only about this financial year.

There is therefore the prospect that new resources will be attached to the strategy. I am not asking you what will be the level of resources. I am asking whether that might offer some hope to the museums that are desperately struggling.

We will in future spending rounds obviously be arguing for our portfolio. Issues to do with museums would clearly hold a high priority within our thinking. However, I cannot guarantee that the money we ask for will necessarily be granted.

Forgive me minister, but I want to push you on that point. You have already been through a comprehensive three-year spending review. Those sums should have been identified already. Are you saying that they have not been identified? I am not asking you for numbers because I appreciate that you will not want to give them. I need to be clear on whether the bids have been made and the spending has been identified. It might not be good to suggest that we wait another three years.

I concede that. Obviously the museums will not be content to wait another three years.

Members will be aware that ministers do not get everything that they ask for in the spending review. Some of our bids were successful and some were not. I hope that the current process will enable us to identify where further investment could best be made. Any bids made on an annual basis or bids made in regard to end-year flexibility would have to be submitted in the light of that knowledge.

So if museums are in difficulty now, they should approach the Executive for assistance, despite the fact that there might not be lots of pots of money available in this financial year.

I hope that the picture will arise out of the discussions that have gone on yesterday and throughout the consultation process and, indeed, through the national audit, which also provided a lot of information. We need to make as good a bid as possible. Discussions such as those that are taking place with partners and other stakeholders are an important part of bidding for additional resources. We need to have that picture and have the appropriate strategic direction.

Local authorities obviously play a key role in resourcing museums. What discussions are you having, or do you intend to have, with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities in the light of the paucity of funding that is experienced by museums?

My second question relates to Glasgow. I noticed an item in today's press that described the need for a strategy and for resources. The Executive recognised Glasgow's need in the previous financial year by awarding £3 million. Given the importance of the collections and the real contribution that museums that are run by local authorities, particularly in Glasgow, make to the economies of our cities, are you minded to do that again?

What Jackie Baillie says about local authorities is absolutely correct. One of the problems with local government reorganisation—during which I was a councillor and involved in the sector—was that the previous arrangements under which regional authorities supported much of the cultural sector fell to pieces. It became continually more difficult to get the smaller authorities to buy into the national picture. Unfortunately, all the surveys that have been done since then have shown how local authority funding for the cultural and museums sector has fallen—Jackie Baillie is correct to identify that.

I have not met COSLA representatives, although Mike Watson has. In a couple of weeks' time, we will be involved in a major conference involving local authority partners, which will examine the implementation of the national cultural strategy. The museums and heritage sector will be under consideration, so there will be on-going discussions on those issues in the near future.

Glasgow is to be congratulated on the job that it has done in retaining the quality of its museums and its cultural sector despite the many problems in the city. There are many lessons for other local authorities to learn from that example. I have much sympathy for the position that Glasgow has taken because of the national importance of much that is in its collections. Mike Watson is probably more aware of that than I am, as he represents a Glasgow constituency. We certainly want to continue our discussions with Glasgow City Council on how support can be maintained in the city and the part that Glasgow plays in the national picture.

Glasgow is definitely a national player. To a certain extent, that is true of all the cities. It has always been a gripe of other cities—that are not funded as are the national galleries and museums in Edinburgh—that they provide important regional resources and, in some cases, national resources. We will be looking at that relationship.

Do I take from that that you are considering the hub-and-spokes approach?

I think that we will consider that approach. I am not trying to predetermine what will happen in the consultation period, but we have had conversations about that model and it has certainly not been ruled out. We would like to consider it.

May I ask a final question?

You have asked two questions.

I asked one question with two parts.

I will return to you, as other members want to ask questions.

Okay.

I want to ask about one source of funding that it is alleged is currently available to museums—the strategic change fund. I take it that that fund aims to assist museums to adapt to change. Evidence in the paper by Jackie Baillie and Mike Russell seems to show that museums find the fund difficult to access and that there is a lack of understanding about the precise criteria on which funding can be given. What function does that funding currently fulfil? What benefit is it to museums at this interim stage?

The Executive does not administer the strategic change fund—it is administered by the Scottish Museums Council. Criteria have been developed by the sector itself, so if museums find it difficult to access the fund, they should discuss that with the SMC. I am not saying that I am not interested in hearing from the museums, but there would need to be discussions with SMC about the criteria.

Half a dozen awards have been made. I was disappointed that Verdant Works' bid was unsuccessful in the first round—I am sure that members were, too—but it has been encouraged to apply for the next round. The SMC is working with Verdant Works on that, so the door is not completely shut. The awards to the six museums in the previous round revolved around issues that the paper mentioned in respect of the museums sector's educational function. I made the announcement at Almond Valley Heritage Centre, where there is a strong educational element. It has received money to build capacity. It is doing many things that we believe museums do—and can do even better—in being part of the wider agenda. The paper refers to the need for the museums sector to be seen as part of the educational and social inclusion agendas. Changes should be considered so that people value their museums more and museums are given a lifelong learning role. I hope that communities will value their museums more than they currently do and that museum capacity will thereby be built.

Mike Russell mentioned possible attrition in the museums sector. Do you agree that the problem with such attrition is that it does not necessarily pay attention to the importance of museums and their order of priorities and that it happens almost by accident? Do you agree that that argues strongly for the proposition that is at the heart of the paper that we need a strategy that prioritises the importance of museums and recognises that they have an individual value that should be acknowledged through funding?

That is part of what the national audit was about. The development of the strategy is about priorities. I do not know whether Ian Jenkins is referring to the priorities of the museums sector, the priorities of individual collections or the individual functions of museums. Different answers could be given to the question. The national audit and the process that we are discussing are about identifying what is valuable, supporting that and having a strategy. I recognise that there are many problems in the museums sector and we have touched on reasons why those problems have been exacerbated over the years, and particularly problems with local authority support in many areas. However, there are museums that have been set up as independent museums that are not funded by the Scottish Executive. They were set up as independent museums or trusts; risks must have been recognised when they were set up. The Executive has not withdrawn support for them; rather, such support did not exist in the first place.

I understand that, and would like to move on. Do you agree with the director of Kilmartin House Trust, who said:

"The Heritage Lottery Fund has supported and funded the birth of many excellent facilities (Kilmartin House included). However, there is a significant risk in continuing to fund a large number of essentially capital projects without addressing the needs of revenue funding"?

I do not know precisely how it could be done, but would you be able to consider redirection of heritage lottery funding to acknowledge the fact that opening new museums, however desirable that might be, is not sensible if existing good museums are foundering? Would not that money be better used to keep open good, established and really important museums?

I have visited Kilmartin House, which is an excellent facility. Unfortunately, it is one of the museums that do not receive local authority support. I cannot direct the Heritage Lottery Fund because it is a UK-wide body. However, the issues that Ian Jenkins raises have been recognised. There is not much point in investing huge amounts of capital in creating facilities if they cannot be run. Indeed, some changes in lottery funding have reflected that view; for example, both revenue and capital funding are now awarded.

Moreover, the committee might be aware that the Department of Culture, Media and Sport has initiated a major review of lottery funding, which will—I hope—address some of the issues about the balance between capital funding and on-going revenue support.

The report highlights the fact that some museums have had to do away with their education officers. I have no doubt that you agree that they form a crucial part of the value of any museum, so is there any way in which the education department or your department could recognise the special part that education officers play in the educational and cultural life of the country and in making museums important? Without education officers, some museums simply lie there not doing—and not able to do—what they should be doing.

It is quite true that education officers do a great job. I agree that the educational importance of museums has not necessarily been recognised in the past. As Ian Jenkins said, education officers can add tremendous value to the educational experience of individuals, school groups and so on. However, I am afraid that I cannot really go on to Cathy Jamieson's patch.

Feel free.

That would be a bit cheeky of me. However, the issue must be recognised but, again, I cannot immediately identify a source of funding to address it. Indeed, it might well be better to fund education officers through the education system than through the culture and sport division. That said, I cannot disagree with the comments on the value of education officers and the way in which they can enhance the role of museums within the education system.

It would be a shame to appoint culture champions in schools and not make the same people available to museums to let them do their job.

Exactly.

I would like to explore that further, minister. You will be aware of my constituency interest, particularly with regard to New Lanark. Packages of funding were agreed with Historic Scotland in the past, which allowed revenue funding to support the development of the museum there. The arrangements have now changed and I am exploring that point with the Minister for Tourism, Culture and Sport.

Historic Scotland has opportunities and responsibilities to examine not just the built environment, but how we use that environment to the best interest of Scottish culture. Part of the continuing review of Historic Scotland, which the committee suggested be undertaken, could be a consideration of how the organisation can support the development of the widest possible experience of the built environment, museums and culture in Scotland.

I am obviously aware of your constituency interest, convener, and of the fact that funding has been transferred from revenue support to buildings maintenance. Historic Scotland has argued that that was agreed by the trustees.

That was under duress.

I am aware that you are in correspondence with my ministerial colleague on that issue. I am not sure that the issue would be within the current remit of Historic Scotland—

Indeed.

However, we are, as you are aware, actively considering the Education, Culture and Sport Committee's suggestions for a review of Historic Scotland. It might not be Historic Scotland's role to support the development that you describe, but the way in which the organisation interacts with other bodies could help to enhance people's experience of culture.

It is unfortunate that Historic Scotland receives a lot of bad publicity in relation to parts of its remit. The educational content of some visitor centres, which Historic Scotland runs extremely well, is very high and Historic Scotland is very experienced in using heritage in a highly innovative and educational manner.

Indeed—if only that could be expanded to those areas of Scotland where Historic Scotland does not have any properties. That could be to the advantage of all those who cannot always make the trips to Edinburgh.

I was not just thinking of—

There are other places, but—

There is Skara Brae and there are other places.

Many outlying areas would benefit from the kind of experience that Historic Scotland has provided elsewhere. It is clear from the report that a lot of independent museums are looking for support—and not necessarily just financial support. They seek curator support and expertise on how to maintain collections and how to catalogue them. That support is available within the system, but it is not possible to access it. We need to continue to examine that issue.

We are very interested in looking at that, particularly the support role of the National Museums of Scotland and others. As you have mentioned, support does not necessarily have to be financial; it can be in the form of expertise.

I would just like to mop up on one point. In response to Jackie Baillie's questions, you talked about the possibility of new moneys becoming available in the new financial year. Could you remind us where such increases are shown in the three-year budget?

I was speaking about future bids. As you are well aware, those moneys do not exist at present.

So the actual situation is that, in the three-year plan for that area of your department, no increase is showing.

We were not successful in achieving an increase for the museums sector. I have said that on many occasions.

It is important to be absolutely clear about that. As I have said,

"Hope deferred maketh the heart sick."

We know that this is not a question of a budget commencing on 1 April being redrawn; we are talking about bidding within a three-year bidding cycle. Therefore, the possibility of new money not being available on the last day of March but becoming available on the first day of April simply does not arise.

I do not think that I have claimed that it would. What I have said is that, when we have the results of the current exercise, we will be considering where we need to make bids, from whatever pots of funding happen to be available at the time.

Do you think that that is the proper response in light of the difficulties that the Scottish museums sector currently faces?

I do not think that there is any other response that I can make under the current budgetary arrangements.

With respect, minister, that is not the question that I asked you—although I accept that you are constrained. I asked you whether you thought that your response was the proper one in light of the well-documented difficulties that the Scottish museums sector currently faces.

Mr Russell, I would love to have a magic wand that would enable me to provide millions more for the museums sector. Unfortunately, I do not.

I still do not think that that is an answer, but thank you.

Sorry, minister, but I need to clarify the matter, as I received a different impression from what you said. Last week, we took evidence on the budget. I appreciate the fact that you were not here, but the evidence showed clearly that the level 2 figures for the next three financial years had risen, although there was no detail about how they had risen. Are you saying that there is no additional money for museums?

No, I am not. Sorry.

That is the point about which we need absolute clarity.

Absolute clarity.

Mike Russell and I are talking about entirely different things. From April 2003, you will have made your bids as part of the comprehensive spending review and will have an increased budget that will rise year on year. Within that, there could well be money for museums. Is that correct?

Yes, there is additional money within that. I was trying to say that, in terms of the specific projects relating more widely to the museums sector, we did not achieve as much as we might have achieved. However, I am not saying that there is no additional funding. There is, of course, additional funding.

Is it not the case that, when you get additional funding in your budget, you can prioritise the way in which you spend that money, subject to your achieving the targets to which you have previously agreed?

We will have to assess where the needs are. That is right.

So you could choose to vire money from one heading to another.

We could, but we would have to make a decision on where we took the money from.

I have a list of suggestions.

I was trying to say that the moneys are not external. There is the possibility of making adjustments within the budget. However, that would mean disappointing someone else.

Indeed.

Convener—

One final question, Mr Russell.

We must be absolutely clear about this and I am not sure that we are. I do not think that Jackie Baillie and I are going in opposite directions; I am being more consensual with Jackie about the issue. Let us talk through the situation as we understand it. There will be no additional resources for the museums sector between now and 31 March.

What do you mean by "additional"?

I mean "more than" or "an increase of".

There is nothing specifically—

Let me put it another way. We are looking for new money for Scottish museums.

Jackie Baillie has clarified that there would have to be readjustments in the Scottish budget.

You said that you would have to bid for the money.

Yes, but I was talking about external bids. I am sorry if I am not being clear enough. There is obviously the money that is in the budget at the moment. As Jackie Baillie says, we could make decisions to take money out of certain sectors and put it into others. That possibility exists. There are other moneys, through end-year flexibility, for which we could bid on behalf of the museums sector. We would not necessarily be successful in that bid but, nonetheless, if we could identify areas where moneys from that pot could be used profitably, we could put in bids.

Has there been an increase in the year-on-year funding for the museums sector this year?

Yes. The strategic change fund rose from £500,000 to £1 million this year and it will rise to £1.5 million next year. There was also an increase in funding for the SMC's overall programme, although I am not sure of the exact figure. The National Museums of Scotland similarly received an increase in funding in proportion to running costs and other expenses.

I want to be clear in my mind about what has been said. There has been a year-on-year increase in funding for the museums sector. However, according to the information that we have received, that is not adequate to meet the needs and aspirations of the sector. The same is probably true in every sector of Scottish life. You have said that there is no flexibility in your existing budgets for this financial year to put more money into the pot to improve the situation, but that there may be flexibility in your existing budgets to move money about, should the review suggest that £X is needed. You have also said that there may be opportunities, through end-year flexibility or if the chancellor makes more moneys available through a future comprehensive spending review, for further moneys to be allocated to the sector. Is that the position that you are outlining?

Yes, although the latter scenario does not look as likely as it has been in the past. That is a fair summary.

So the strategic change fund to which Mr Irvine referred is, by the minister's admission, not controlled by the Scottish Museums Council. Therefore, in terms of fulfilling the strategic objectives, that is perhaps a red herring, by the minister's admission.

No, I do not think so. I contest that.

You cannot have it both ways.

I contest that.

I think that Mr Russell is saying that more money going to the museums sector, regardless of which avenue it went through, would be to the advantage of the sector.

Yes, except that the report that Jackie Baillie and I produced shows that there must be a strategic view of the way in which that money is allocated, as the possibility of museums simply chasing the cash has caused problems. With respect, the situation is not quite as you put it, convener, although the general view is acceptable.

As there are no more questions, I thank the minister for her time. It would be useful for the committee to see the level 3 figures as soon as they are available.

We will return to the issue.

Members have copies of the report by Jackie Baillie and Mike Russell. I suggest that we put the matter on the agenda for our meeting in two weeks' time, when we will draw up our submission to the Executive's consultation. Members will be able to add points that have arisen out of this afternoon's evidence or from experiences that they have had over recent days.

I spoke to Jane Ryder yesterday at the conference. There were one or two points that she wanted to make, concerning factual issues, which we should consider. I am not entirely sure whether she is right or whether we are right. Nonetheless, Jane is going to write to Jackie Baillie and me, and we will circulate that letter when we receive it.

Does she have a copy of your report?

She does. It seems to have been widely read, judging by my experience at yesterday's conference.

Is it widely appreciated?

Yes, I think that there is a general appreciation of it. However, that could always improve, as we know.

Like everything.