Adrian Babbidge’s scientific contributions

This is the second of two papers that together present an interim report on a study of visit numbers to UK regional and local museums. It identifies trends in museum visiting between 1891 and 2015 within the context of socio-economic change, and discusses the principle causes of annual variances (sometimes of substantial magnitude) at a local level. It suggests that changes in visit levels are generally within the control of a museum rather than the consequence of external influences, and questions how far the experience of the period since 2001 is comparable with what has gone before.

This paper is the first part of a study on visit numbers to UK regional and local museums. It reviews the limited past research on the topic, examines the motivations for counting such visits and the means required to do so, and explores the methods used from the early nineteenth century to now. A concluding section discusses the theme within the context of modern public policy on museums. In relating historic context to current practice, it shows that, irrespective of the general use of visit numbers as a proxy for public interest and institutional importance, the practice of collecting museum visit numbers continues to be inconsistent and their publication erratic. It suggests that the lack of accepted good practice makes this an area for improvement.

The election of the New Labour Government in 1997 led to the end of a strand of museum policy that had begun with the publication of the Survey of Provincial Museums and Galleries (the Rosse Report) in 1963. Comparison of the substantial data relating to the usage, governance, management and resources of museums in Rosse with the position at the end of the twentieth century shows how the museums landscape has (or has not) changed during the intervening period. Both National and non-National museums have seen their financial resources grow in a way that has outpaced Gross Domestic Product (GDP). This is both a reflection of, and stimulus for, increasing public interest in the heritage. However, the museum sector has not been the stable entity of popular perception, and museums have closed or amalgamated as well as opened and developed new projects. For most of the 40 years government policy for museums has been ad hoc, and it is only since 1997 that museums have been the subject of strategic direction, exemplified for non-National museums by the Renaissance in the Regions initiative. The £147 million to be spent on this scheme by 2007/08 represents an unmatched level of investment. However, it has focused resources on the large regional museums rather than the previous more equal distribution, increasing the risk that the museum sector will atomize rather than continue the process of coming together that had been taking place previously. Rosse's main recommendation, the creation of area museum councils, endured for 40 years. Renaissance's larger budget makes current levels of support vulnerable without some formal (perhaps legislative) framework to anchor it within government. While this approach is increasingly popular in other European nations, it still represents a challenge for cultural policy in the nations of the UK.

The new millennium finds UK museums confronting change in their markets and a new political environment.Recent research has shown that the museum market is static. Sustainability may be difficult for many, with only those that are small and run by volunteers escaping financial difficulties. Alongside these market factors, and following the election of the Labour government, museums are being expected to confront new challenges. While much government policy continues the thrust of the previous administration ‐ especially the focus on the national museums and galleries ‐ there have been some distinctive shifts, especially in respect of admission charges. Besides devolution to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, an increasingly important English regional agenda has developed, in which museums are expected to play a significant role.Other influences have also had a considerable impact, such as the advent of Best Value, which requires museums funded by local councils to demonstrate their efficiency and effectiveness, and the National Lottery's significant investment in museum capital projects. While this has created some exciting new projects, it has also added to museums’ running costs at a time when market conditions are difficult. Additionally, limited opportunities for employees to progress and develop, and uncompetitive pay, make museums an unattractive career choice, thereby depriving them of the talent that will be needed to meet the public's changing needs.All these issues provide a reason for central government to understand better the issues faced by the museum sector as a whole, and regional museums and galleries in particular. Without such national guidance, and opportunities for strategic change and rationalisation, museums may close in a disordered way, and their collections lost. In this way, the legacy of this generation to the next may be in danger.

Twenty years ago the legal issues which obfuscate disposals from museum collections were described as ‘a muddy corner of the law through which some may attempt to drive a coach and horses’.1 Today the water is no clearer and the postillions are more inclined to make a splash. It may be timely, therefore, to examine how English law bears on what can be one of the most controversial of museum issues.The laws of Scotland and Northern Ireland differ, of course, from those of England and Wales, and this paper does not consider their situation. Nor can it be prescriptive. Only Acts of Parliament and Statutory Instruments have the force of law; the courts alone can interpret the law authoritatively. The views expressed herein are not those of a lawyer, but of a practising museum worker. They are no more than personal opinions. Proposed disposals from museum collections should be subject to legal advice specific to each circumstance.

‰ accountability, the monitoring of performance and incentives for good performance; ‰ separation of strategy from delivery, and a focus on management rather than policy; ‰ an inclination to introduce market mechanisms for delivery, including competition and contracting-out; ‰ responsiveness to customer preferences; and ‰ disaggregation of large bureaucratic structures, but with autonomy having to be earned within a framework of strong central control.