8 hours ago
9
For a quarter of a century, visitors to the UK’s national museums and galleries have enjoyed universal free entry to see permanent collections.
The policy, introduced by the New Labour government in 2001, has been widely credited with improving access to culture and significantly increasing footfall to some of the country’s best-known attractions.
But as funding pressures deepen across the sector, and running costs increase, a policy once treated as untouchable is now under renewed scrutiny.
The tension was brought into focus this week, when the National Gallery announced it was to make significant cuts in the face of an £8.2m deficit in the coming year, which could mean fewer free exhibitions, reduced international borrowing of artworks and higher ticket prices.
The gallery said it would cut spending on “public programmes, and activities where, for a number of reasons beyond our control, we can no longer justify their costs”.
The announcement fuelled fears that free access may become harder to sustain – concerns heightened by the recent Hodge review of Arts Council England, which recommended charging international tourists to access permanent collections at national institutions.
“It’s shocking to learn that the National Gallery is in such financial difficulties – but the answer should not be to make visiting museums and galleries more prohibitive,” said Alison Cole, the director of the Cultural Policy Unit thinktank.
“There is the risk that some form of charging for entry may be reintroduced, eroding our landmark universal free admission policy and precipitating all the unintended consequences that flow from that.”
According to Cole, while charging tourists or raising ticket prices may appear “tempting”, evidence suggests that free entry could be economically effective. “Free entry encourages over 25% of visitors to pay for ticketed exhibitions, with many also spending more in cafes and shops,” she said.
The situation has already been considered by the Treasury, which reportedly explored ending free entry for overseas visitors as part of spending cuts in the 2025 budget, and also modelled scrapping the policy entirely.
The plans, which could have saved up to £480m from the Department for Digital, Culture, Media & Sport’s annual budget, were eventually dropped after pushback from ministers, including the culture secretary, Lisa Nandy.
The Museums Association, which represents more than 1,800 UK institutions, has consistently defended free entry, warning that charging could damage tourism and have knock-on effects for retail and hospitality.
Its director, Sharon Heal, said free entry had delivered “a huge range of cultural, learning and economic benefits”, adding that charging international visitors could cause reputational damage to the UK.
Jenny Waldman, the director of the charity Art Fund, said the real issue was chronic underinvestment. “We are seeing lots of innovation, from shared touring exhibitions to creative community fundraising. But in order to thrive, museums need sustainable, long-term public funding to help meet the annual costs of keeping the doors open and welcoming everyone to our public collections,” she said.
The UK is an outlier among leading cultural nations in not charging at the door. France’s Louvre charges £28 for entry, Spain’s Prado £13, the US’s Museum of Modern Art £22, and the Vatican Museums £17.
Against that backdrop, a growing number of senior museum figures – some of whom once supported free entry – have begun to argue that the policy may no longer be fit for purpose.
They include Nick Merriman, the former leader of the Horniman Museum & Gardens and English Heritage, who told the Daily Telegraph last week that while free entry had driven up visitor numbers, it had done little to diversify audiences. “You just get more middle-class people going,” he said. “In principle, why not charge? Most people, for the national museums, are willing to pay.”
Roy Clare, the former head of Royal Museums Greenwich, called for a “more sophisticated approach”, arguing that free access did not need to apply “24/7 or 365”.
Mark Jones, the former director of the Victoria and Albert Museum, and interim director of the British Museum from 2023 to 24, described universal free entry as “regressive and inequitable”. He has said that taxpayers on modest incomes are subsidising access for tourists who can afford to pay, while charging could also help alleviate overcrowding.
Writing in the Art Newspaper, the art critic and historian Ben Lewis said it was time to “dump the British art world’s gold-plated, diamond-encrusted sacred cow” and introduce entrance fees.
The debate is unfolding against a stark financial backdrop. Between 2010 and 2023, core funding for UK arts and cultural organisations fell by 18%. In its latest survey, the Museums Association found 61% of respondents were planning service cuts in 2024–25.
At the Tate, staff staged a seven-day strike last year in response to repeated restructures, redundancies and below-inflation pay rises, with some workers reporting they had to use food banks.
Noel McClean, of the Prospect union, which represents workers at the National Gallery, National Portrait Gallery, and Tate, said workers were “bearing the brunt” of the crisis. “If nothing is done, drastic action may follow,” he warned. “There are already fears that free access could be at risk – yet it is vital for social, economic and educational purposes.”
While national museums remain free for now, many regional and independent institutions have already begun charging where entry was once free, including the Kettle’s Yard in Cambridge. Oxford city council also voted to introduce a £4 standard fee to visit the Museum of Oxford.
