THIRD MEETING OF THE MUSEUMS SUMMIT THINK TANK
19 JANUARY 2010
EUROPA BUILDING, GLASGOW
Attendees
Members of the Think Tank:
Dr Jim Arnold, New Lanark World Heritage Site; Professor Stewart Brymer; Baillie Liz Cameron, CEO Culture and Sport Glasgow; John Leighton, Director General National Galleries of Scotland; Frank Little, Museums Manager Culture and Sport Edinburgh; Dr Gordon Rintoul, Director National Museums of Scotland; Rachel Skene, Head of Tourism H.I.E; Ewen Smith; Jim Tildesley, Director Scottish Maritime Museum; Dr Sharon Webb, Director and Curator Kilmartin House Trust
Scottish Government
Fiona Hyslop, Minister for Culture and External Affairs (Chair), David Seers, Carole Robinson, Gail Clapton
1. Welcome/introductions
The Minister welcomed members to the third meeting. She was encouraged by the progress the Group had made and was keen that the momentum continue. The Minister valued the contribution of museums and galleries to the Scottish economy and welcomed the expertise and knowledge members brought to the table. In the current economic climate the sector would need to work with existing or fewer resources; tough decisions would probably need to be made. There was a need to consider how the sector contributed across all portfolios, utilise experience and to communicate this to the sector.
2. Action points recap
A briefing session from Museums Galleries Scotland to learn more about their functions had been arranged for 2 Feb at 10.00 at their office in Edinburgh.
A mailbox has been set up to invite comments and suggestions on the work of the Think Tank and could be found on the Scottish Government website. The existence of the mailbox would need to be promoted to the wider sector.
The next meeting had been arranged for 5 March in Dundee.
3. Subgroup paper on Making the Case
Since the second meeting the sub group had begun aligning the key contributions the sector makes to the National Performance Framework (NPF). The wider set of messages the group had previously identified, had now been pared down to 3 key points of value - contribution to the economy; education, role and promotion of talent ; and individual and community well-being.
A paper produced by the National Museum Directors' Conference, "Museums Deliver" made similar connections about the contribution of museums and galleries on a UK-wide basis.
AP: A closer alignment to the National Performance Framework to be undertaken by SG officials on behalf of the sub-group
The key contributions would need to be communicated to and by the sector. Some smaller council areas may not be familiar with the NPF and the outcome based approach may require clarification. The paper should be considered to be a working tool and show the importance of museums and galleries at national and, local level and how the sector contributes to other portfolios within the Scottish Government (mainly In relation to employability, health and wellbeing).
Subgroup paper on Working Methods
In discussing the paper, re the Group acknowledged the key role played by the sector however it was clear that the sector is very fragmented and lacks a collective voice. A new policy framework should help to bring the sector together in a way that could support delivery.
There was agreement that maintaining the status quo was unacceptable; there was an opportunity to look differently at the infra-structure. The Minister suggested that the huge diversity within the sector should not in itself be a barrier to cohesion. It was accepted that change was needed and that the sector needs to look at where it wants to be at a future date and then identify how they can reach this goal. The Group should look at the key strengths and what challenges lay ahead .
Structural change does not always address problems and looking at the core functions could produce different options. Changes have to be measurably for the better and not just for the sake of change. For some smaller members of the sector, for example Kilmartin an option of either a National Museums Framework or Partnership would produce no measurable difference since core funding would still be the main problem. In some areas, there was no funding at all. Over the years, there had been many reports and reviews all coming to very similar conclusions but ultimately, very little real decision making or action. There is now an opportunity to redress this and it is accepted that the focus will have to be on big issues and that hard decisions will have to be made.
A regional framework model could have huge benefits but there were costs associated in setting up this new structure. Joint working could produce efficiencies but the sector was not particularly good at working together outwith project delivery. The current structure has caused museums and galleries to work in silos. Combining resources and partnerships was key. It was recognised that the National Collections had a role in sharing expertise. A National Museum's framework could be considered.
Funding could be used more effectively. There was a question of whether central costs could be reduced.
Any new structure should not be a quick fix but needs to look to the future and the long term. Consideration should be given to the impact of museums and galleries across various Scottish Government portfolios.
There seemed to be two options emerging. The sector could re-engineer structures which could take years, involve great effort with little beneficial outcome. A lighter touch option would be to build on existing practice and partnerships. This would be a more outward focused approach working with local authorities and relevant agencies. The Minister's instinct was not to go for large structural change which could see much time spent on process.
Leadership, priority setting and partnership were key issues. Local government already had shared services in some fields and there were examples of some excellent partnerships between national and civic services.
AP: Membership of the working methods subgroup to be expanded. Scottish Government to invite members
AP: Group to consider which key strategic areas and external stakeholders the sector should engage with. (Frank)
4. Industrials.
The paper circulated¹ illustrated that the problems facing the industrial museums were not new. There were recurring crises over funding and the cost of site maintenance. It was noted that there was less partnership working involving the industrials. There were other industrial museums which perform well and often better than the 3 industrials whose funding was ring-fenced. A sticking plaster approach by providing funds during times of need was not the answer.
Industrial heritage could be promoted in a way which contributes to education and as a means to understand our future from our past. It was important to consider which parts of Scotland's industrial heritage and history we want to retain and how we do this. Provision of quality service was the key, and hard decisions need to be taken on how the best service can be supplied.
The Group felt that the Industrials are not sustainable in their current format and that other options should be considered. It was suggested that dialogue was needed with Historic Scotland who often had a role in site maintenance. The Biggar Gasworks was given as a good working example. Furthermore, attention should be paid to how the 3 Industrials currently operate in order to take informed decisions. Such decisions could be emotive and likely to attract negative reaction; nevertheless it could be possible to to be positive in promotion of any new model.
It was agreed that a sub group should consider the issues around sustaining Scotland's industrial heritage.
AP: Scottish Government to invite members to participate in the Industrials sub group. (Achieved - first meeting 5 Feb with members Jim Tildesley, Jim Arnold Gordon Rintoul and Ewen Smith)
¹ A Strategy for Industrial Heritage in Scotland - Scottish Museums Council 2006
5. Museums Galleries Scotlandmeeting updates
A briefing session with MGS was arranged for 2 February. Members were asked to offer suggestions about they would like the session to cover. It was important to consider the functions and value brought to the sector by MGS. The Group considered whether the current model of Scottish Government funding through MGS offered the best value for money at a time of financial restraint. Members asked for an overview of funding for the sector.
The MGS AGM would take place on 8 February and the Think Tank had been invited to take part. The Group discussed whether there was merit at this stage in providing an overview of the Group's activities. The Group agreed that members of MGS may not be aware of the role of the Think Tank and it would therefore be appropriate to provide a summary and update on work to date. The AGM also provided an opportunity to promote the mailbox to the sector and invite comments on the Think Tank process. The Group thought it essential to repeat the points that had been made right at the outset of the Think Tank process; there were no extra financial resources and that dismantling the sector is not part of the Group's remit.
AP: Members to offer suggestions to the Scottish Government about points they would like MGS to cover at the briefing session. (By 31 January)
AP: Rachel Skene to circulate draft presentation for delivery at the MGS AGM
AP: Scottish Government to provide a paper on funding streams.
6. Recommendations and Conclusions
The Group hoped to be able to make further progress on the Working Methods paper by the next meeting on 5 March. It may be possible to provide a first draft of recommendations thereafter.
7. AOB
Members were reminded of the press interest in the work of the Group and the need to ensure a consistent approach when responding to the media.
8. Next Meetings
05 March 2010 Dundee 10.30 am Discovery Point
11 May 2010 Edinburgh 10.30 am National Museum of Scotland