National Assembly for Wales

Diolch yn fawr iawn. You're both very welcome with us this morning. Can I ask, firstly, because it's hot off the press, in terms of the budget announcements, as we expect them, from yesterday, how is that going to affect your situation financially, please?

Clearly, we're in a very different place today to where we were a year ago. If I could just preface my answer by saying that we've been through an extraordinarily difficult year, one of the most challenging in the museum's history. I understand you'll want to dig into that and understand it, but I just wanted to share with you that we are feeling really excited and optimistic about the future. There is so much that we're doing now that we feel is so important. We're working with Flying Start, with vulnerable families. We're working with refugees and asylum seekers. We're reaching more schools than we've ever done before. We've got fabulous exhibitions and projects. So, I just wanted to share that sense of real excitement and optimism for the future, because I think that's how we feel within the museum at the moment, and I hope we get to talk to you about that.

Clearly, we need to understand the full implications of the budget; we've mainly had the headlines. There are always two stories with the budget—there's the revenue and there's the capital. On the revenue, the headline is that we're getting a 3.5 per cent uplift. That means about £900,000 for the museum. We really needed about £2 million as a standstill position, so it is a bit of a shortfall for us. However, there is still further consideration about whether the Government is going to be able to help cover the increase in the national insurance contributions. That's actually about a £0.5 million pressure for us. So, if there is a solution to that, then the revenue position, hopefully, will be okay; we can manage with that. 

The really good news story was on capital. Our capital, again, comes in two chunks. Our grant in aid capital allocation has remained at £5 million, but we have been given approximately £8.2 million—an indication of £8.2 million—towards capital projects, specifically for National Museum Cardiff, St Fagans, the National Waterfront Museum in Swansea and for Llanberis. It's fantastic news. That money will make a really big difference. The concern we will have is about how quickly we will be able to draw down that money, because there will be a process to go through.

It doesn't come to us like the grant in aid. We will have to provide business justification cases for the allocations that are under £2 million. For the National Museum Cardiff money, that is, in effect, an instalment as part of the wider commitment that the Welsh Government has made to our £30 million urgent requirement in Cardiff. That, therefore, requires a full business case. There is a risk that we can't complete the full business case in time to draw down the money. So, all of those conversation will happen with officials, but it is great news that this commitment has been made, and hopefully that element of the budget will be passed at the appropriate time.

Diolch, Jane. That's really useful. Alun wants to come in.

I'm grateful to you. It's good to see a change in tone. Can you explain how the national insurance changes will affect the museum? I'd like to have a little bit more detail from you on that. I'm very interested in that. And also then what you said about the capital. With the UK Government going through a spending review process, which coincidentally started yesterday as well, and the Welsh Government looking at its capital programme for the end of this current Senedd, it would appear to me that a good position for the museum would be to certainly do what you're doing in terms of current capital allocations, but also to look ahead at what your potential capital need would be over the next foreseeable few years, and seek an agreement with the Welsh Government over a programme of capital works, rather than the rather piecemeal approach that seems to have characterised capital spend over recent years.

Thank you for the questions. On the national insurance, in the UK budget, the expectation was set for the employer contribution to increase. As I say, at the moment, that is unfunded. The cost to the national museum would be £0.5 million across the full year, and that is quite a lot to find out of the budget, again, when there's not a lot of time to plan for it. That hasn't been specifically addressed so far in the budget announcements, but that doesn't mean that it's off the table. I think what we've been led to believe is that there are further discussions to be had about whether the Welsh Government has the capacity to cover that for us as arm's-length bodies.

The capital allocation is really interesting. I would love us to be in the position that Cadw is in, where all of the capital funding comes as part of their annual allocation from the Government. But because we get it either through grant in aid or as projects, that creates two very different scenarios for us. When it's grant in aid, we obviously have an understanding about how it can be spent, there are guidelines, et cetera, and Kate and I are held accountable that it is spent appropriately and on time. But when it's project allocation, then we have to make the case, and that can be a very lengthy process.

It was interesting; the First Minister spoke to us at the public leaders forum a few days ago, and she was asking whether there are any ways in which we as the public bodies can see some efficiencies for the civil service, for the way of working of Government. And I do think this is a big one, because it's not just a lot of work for us, it's a huge amount of work for Welsh Government officials as well. Our business justification cases can bounce back and forth and back and forth over a period of months, just because the Welsh Government perspective of what might be needed might be slightly different from my team's understanding of what might be needed, and you have to find a middle ground, et cetera. So it can be a very lengthy process to be able to secure capital funding. That can take quite a lot of the year, and then you're left with very little of the year to spend it.

For me, the most efficient way that would enable us to deliver the maintenance programme we need in a way that would benefit both the way we work and the way that the Government could work would be to incorporate those project allocations into our capital grant in aid. We would be fully accountable for them, so it wouldn't be loosely spending money in some way, but it would mean we could start the year being able to actually work on those projects rather than taking months before we can get started.

Thank you. Heledd wants to come, and then I'll come back to Alun.

I just want to ask if we can take a note of that, because it appears to me to be quite an important point. 

Is this a problem you've experienced with the £1.3 million allocated in July of this year? 

It's a good example of it. It's a really good example. The £1.3 million was given around about May time, I think, the indication. It was announced when Lesley Griffiths was Cabinet Secretary. There are obviously complications, because we've gone through two further Ministers since then and a change in the Government officials. On the £1.3 million, when I was discussing it with Lesley and my team were discussing with her team, we discussed that it would be for the enabling works for us to be able to crack on with the critical stuff we need to do with the museum. But our understanding of what those works should be didn't necessarily align with what officials thought that money should be spent on, because they wanted to see very urgent work being undertaken, which I completely understand. But we couldn't do the urgent work because we needed the surveys to understand where the work was needed.

A small example: about 10 days ago we had major flooding in the ground floor and into the natural science galleries. Those were spaces that we didn't know were a risk until the day of that flood. So, we desperately needed to undertake surveys to understand where the water's coming in and therefore where we need to take the urgent works. And so, then the business case bounces back and forth over a period of time—not for any ill will, it's just trying to make the process work to secure the money. But I'm glad to say we did get the grant letter yesterday. We had to make the decision—and I had to check this with Kate—to start some spend at risk because we were going into December, and I knew we couldn't spend £1.3 million just in three months. I've got the full support of the board on matters like that. So, we did have to spend at risk, but now we know we've got that grant letter, and so we can proceed. 

So, from May to December—it took that long to get the final decision from the Welsh Government. 

Yes, on this matter. 

And so it was only yesterday that you had that. 

We had a verbal indication I think last week, but we had the paperwork yesterday. 

We fully understand the need for probity and propriety in the use of public money, and we have no issue with being scrutinised by officials, Ministers and committees over the money that we're given, particularly in-year money. But I think for us it needs to be proportionate and commensurate with the size and scale of the grant, and it needs to have an understanding of the need and the requirement to spend at pace in-year. So, for example, under the enabling works we've advertised at risk for two posts for people to join our estates and capital team to carry out the work next year, and we've done that recruitment at risk with the support of the board, but knowing that we can't simply wait until we had sign-off for the business case to then start that recruitment. 

And were the Government aware that you were having to do that at risk? 

We're having conversations with officials all the time, yes. We were making it clear that there were some works that we would need to do otherwise we couldn't get them done in time. We needed urgent works to the lifts, for example, and we simply couldn't wait; it's to do with the contractors, et cetera. So, we're having that dialogue all the time. The contrast is we also had an in-year allocation of £940,000. That was delivered through our grant in aid, we had the money immediately, we were able to spend immediately, officials know what we're doing, we can crack on and it all works. 

Alun wants to come back in, and then I'll go back to Heledd. 

What I'm reminded of is an absolute horror show. A decade and a half ago I was sitting in exactly this seat listening to another public body giving exactly the same explanation of the difficulties in dealing with the Welsh Government. In a decade and a half, nothing seems to change except Ministers. What is the justification for it? Because it's right and proper, and you accept, that barriers have to be put in place in order to demonstrate good use of public money and the correct prioritisation of the use of public money as well, and I accept that. But it seems to me that this is almost some sort of bureaucratic nightmare that you've been involved in, rather than a process.

How I've had it explained to me, and I understand it, is where it is a project it is subject to the better business case model. If you get a project under £2 million, you go through a one-step better business case model. It's called one step because officially it's only one document. However, it can feel like lots of steps because it bounces back and forth. If it's over that level, you have to do the five case business model, and then you have three steps. You have to do a strategic outline case, the outline business case and then the full business case, and that can take a year to 18 months, which is where we're at with Cardiff at the moment, and you bring external contractors in to help you make the economic case, et cetera. 

I think what would make a big difference for us is we don't see some of that work as being projects; it's the maintenance. So, if it were part of our core capital maintenance allocation that's just about good maintenance of your estate, then it shouldn't need to turn into projects. If the money that the Government very kindly gives us for capital could all be part of our capital GIA, we could just maintain the estate without having to identify individual bits of work as projects.  

I presume you've said this to the Government. 

The Government has responsibility. It's not just 'very kindly'; the Government have responsibility in terms of ensuring that you do have the funding in place to maintain, because they're not owned by you—they're owned by the nation, the collections. 

Yes, I accept that. I assume you've had this conversation with the Government, and your predecessors as well; this isn't new.

We've been talking about this for quite a while, yes—or since I've been in post.

Okay. Heledd.

No, that's fine.

Right. We have 45 minutes left. I know there are lots of things that we need to discuss, so we will need to move on, I'm afraid. But that has been very enlightening and important for us to hear. So, thank you very much.

Diolch. Can I just ask, in terms of clarity, in terms of numbers and reduction in terms of staff? So, you mentioned that, in April 2024, you expected a reduction of about 90 members of staff. Can you confirm those figures by now?

Yes. We basically lost—. Over the period between the middle of February and 1 April, we basically lost one in six staff in that period. So, 144 roles were lost to the redundancy scheme. It can be difficult sometimes, because you have part-time roles or people in different roles, but 144 roles were closed. Some new roles were created. Not all of those have been recruited into yet, because it has been a very pressured time during the season, just trying to keep the operation going while we'd lost all those staff. So, what we can do is give you an updated position on the staffing early in the new year as the staffing establishment has settled down. But, yes, we did lose one in six staff in a period of just under three months.

How's staff morale?

It had been really bad. And it depends—. The programme was a rolling one, so we did the whole organisation, and we did it under our Shaping our Future programme. We couldn't say, 'We'll just do a flat cut across the board', because it was really important that we rooted the whole process in our core purpose, so we were having to do different levels of cuts and restructures in different places, and that meant, at any one point in the year, a different team was being hit by it. We did almost every department by 1 April, but we decided to do the front of house changes in the autumn, firstly, because it was the most complicated change, because we were changing our operating arrangements. Because the other way in which we addressed the cuts was that we've reduced our opening hours in the winter, and there have been some other changes to make us more efficient in the way that we work. So, we'd done the front of house in the autumn, and our final contractual changes were completed for front of house a couple of weeks ago. So, it has been a difficult year and there have been some dark times for our colleagues. But, on the whole, now, I would say morale is improving significantly, and there is a real sense of excitement, looking forward. There is a sense that we've got through it, we really believe in the work that we're doing, we really believe in the programme that's coming, and I think there's a strong team ethos, that we've come through it together, we're supporting one another, and that we want to be able to concentrate on moving forward rather than looking back.

Can I ask how you're monitoring the impact? Do you conduct annual staff surveys and so on? Because, obviously, one of the things that you identified as a risk was the impact on staff taking on more responsibilities, because your remit letter hasn't changed in terms of what you're expected to deliver, and also just in terms of understanding, really, if the impact of cuts is having a negative impact on staff—that's something we can also feed back to Government.

Do you want to start on that?

Yes, shall I start on that? Because it is something that the board has taken a very close interest in. One of the things that we've been keen to establish is that this hasn't just been a cost-cutting exercise, and it couldn't just be a cost-cutting exercise and expect staff to do exactly the same at the end of this process that they were this time last year. So, I think foremost in our minds has been staff support. So, we've had all of the usual employee assistance programmes in place for them, support programmes et cetera. We do regular staff surveys, but we also hold staff briefings at least once a quarter, which are open to all staff and have anonymised comments and questions coming in. So, Jane reads those, I'm at every single one of them, and so is all of the senior executive team. So, we have a number of staff forums where we can hear concerns, and staff have been really open and transparent with us about those concerns where they impact themselves individually or as a team. So, I think, as a board, and, as an SET, we've had a really good sense of what the mood and morale has been across the organisation.

But I think, going back to my opening comment around this can't just be a cost-cutting exercise, this has to be a reshaping of the way that we work across the organisation. So, part of the Shaping our Future programme has been about cultural change and ways of working, and empowering more, delegating more, ensuring that staff at all grades feel that they are empowered to take decisions and that they have the necessary support and apparatus within a framework to be able to do that.

So, we're asking staff to work in slightly different ways, and some of those contractual changes reflect that. So, for example, we've gone to seasonal opening hours, where we close at 4 o'clock between November and March, but what we've been keen to do is retain those staff hours and ensure that those front of house staff are actually getting really good high-quality training and development for the first time. So, two, three weeks ago, we put on a training day for them specifically for the 'Streic! 84-85 Strike!' exhibition, where we brought together curators, people from the community, to talk to front of house staff and to train them up in that visitor experience so that, when people come through the door, they are there equipped to talk about the objects in the collection that are on display, and we had a really good response on that. So, that's the first time that we've tried to do something like that, and some of these changes have enabled us to do it. So, it's through different ways of working that we're hoping to address some of those morale changes as well.

And we've put a couple of specific interventions in to listen very, very carefully to the staff. So, one of the big concerns was that we'd have fewer people but the same amount of work. So, we've had an initiative, through every team in the museum, where each team has met at a very local level to say what they will stop, reduce or do differently, what their suggestion is, and that's been fed up. Then, as a senior team, we've taken an overview to make sure there's no conflicts between any of those things, and then we're able just to say to the team, 'Yes, let's make that our plan.'

The other thing is, as part of our second phase of Shaping our Future, we've introduced a work stream called review and learn, and we didn't want, as the senior team, to be marking our own homework, so we've asked a group of staff, from whatever backgrounds or whatever discipline, to do an evaluation of the way in which the cuts were made, lessons learned, any mistakes that need correcting, and also to develop some principles for change for the future, so that we can make sure that what we've done has been done in the right way and that we learn from it.

So, in terms of those lessons learned and measuring impact, because, obviously—. I'm sure you're not saying that losing all those members of staff hasn't had an impact in terms of services. You've mentioned in terms of seasonal opening hours, but also we've noticed a lot that some buildings have had to close, or there have been changes at sites that are evident in terms of visitor experience being impacted. So, I'm sure you're not saying that that reduction's been fine for the organisation and that's not missed in terms of some of those elements.

No, not at all. It's really difficult, isn't it, because people don't work for the museum as a job; they do it because they love it and they believe in the cause. What we know is that we have to do less now than we were able to do before. So, as you say, in the national museum in Cardiff, there are galleries that aren't open to the public because we haven't got enough staff to open all the galleries. It really affects our collections work, because everything will just be slower to do and more limited in what we do, whether it's the items that we acquire or that we loan, because there aren't the people there now to undertake the work that is needed. So, we have to manage the expectations of the public, that there is less of some work that we can do, other work will take longer, some places just aren't open as much as they used to be. So, it has definitely had an impact. But what we're trying to do is make sure that our core work and our core mission continues to be delivered.

Can I ask, once that's happened in terms of assessing, is that something you'll be able to share with the committee, because I'm sure we'd be keen to understand the impact and also any impact on income-generation activities et cetera as well?

Yes. My colleagues were only saying last week that it's only now that we're starting to feel the impact, because we had to do it all by 1 April, then you go into Easter and it's crazy, anybody in the visitor economy knows it's just crazy through the summer, so we just had to keep the wheels turning for the summer. And it's now that we start to realise, 'That bit's creaking, that bit, we're really struggling with.' So, I think, probably by April next year, we'll have a much better idea of the true impact.

Okay. Thank you. Can I just ask: are site closures still on the table?

Not at this level of funding now. Yes, with the level, the funding that we've got now, we are not considering closing any sites.

Thank you.

Okay. Before we move to Alun, I think Laura wanted to come in.

Yes. I just wanted to ask you: if you, in revenue, are going to get £900,000, hopefully, and you needed £2 million for what you think was necessary—there are rising costs, the national minimum wage is going up—you, potentially, because it's not guaranteed that Welsh Government will cover it, have £0.5 million coming out to cover the national insurance hole. What do you think that's going to mean for you? Do you think that's going to mean even more staff that’ll need to be cut?

No. We made a commitment to the staff that, unless we had really devastating news in this year's budget, what we were doing in the first part of 2024 was about restructuring and reshaping ourselves to be more resilient for the future. So, we will not be looking to lose roles as a result of the shortfall that we've got this year. It'll be about looking for efficiencies. It might be that some activities that we'd been planning to run we can't run et cetera. But it's obviously very new news for us, so our finance team are busy working away today on the implications and coming up with a plan.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you. In terms of where you're going at the moment and your thinking, where are you on charging for exhibitions at the moment?

We're really clear now on charging. There were lots of questions being asked last winter and suggestions that the museum should charge because of the scale of the cuts, and what we agreed with the Government at the time was that we needed a year to understand the position on charging. What we are really clear on is that we will not charge for entry. As Heledd says, the collection belongs to the people of Wales, and the people of Wales, we very strongly believe, should have access to that collection freely, at the point of access.

So, the question then is about: where can we, in order to be more commercial—everybody wants to see the museum be more commercial and generate more income—where is it that we can generate more income? And we believe that where there is an activity that requires extra resource, time and expertise around it—so, it's not just about opening up the collection, but it's about curating a particular experience, exhibitions, talks, tours—then those are the kinds of activities we will charge for. But no two activities are the same in the museum, so the idea is that it would be on a case-by-case basis. But, at the moment, we're just formulating that thinking, because we've been undertaking trials through the summer. We've done trials of underground tours charging at Big Pit. We've done 'pay what you can' at National Museum Cardiff for the Art of the Selfie and the strike exhibition, and we did an enhanced donation model at St Fagans. We've had the evaluation back on those. We're understanding what that evaluation has told us, and it has been really, really positive. Interestingly, the feedback on the underground tour charging at Big Pit is very positive. Ninety-eight per cent of the people who responded, and there were over 600 people who responded, said they would be happy to pay that or pay more. So, we're gathering all that information, and then we're bringing it to the board. Board will have a first discussion about it on Thursday, and it's something that board's very interested in, isn't it, Kate?

It is. Clearly, there's historical precedent for charging within Amgueddfa Cymru for the value add, for the additional offer, but I think it's absolutely right that the board takes the decision on this. Not to pre-empt what the discussion that the board will have, both on Thursday and then further into the new year, because this will take time, and the board will want to take its time, quite rightly, in making a decision around this, but I think where we'll probably get to is agreeing a set of criteria or principles or guidance within which we can charge for certain activities that then means that the senior executive team can take those decisions at an operational level, exhibition by exhibition, or a behind-the-scenes tour or for a sleepover et cetera. So, they can then have those discussions at an operational level and set prices or charging or donation models, whatever it might be, for those individual activities.

Where the board has a specific remit is charging for underground tours for Big Pit. That's because the trustees are mine owners under the mining regulations, and therefore we have certain responsibilities, strategically, around the operation of that mine and the governance of that mine. So, we'll be taking a specific decision on charging for underground tours early in 2025. And we need to do that at that point because if the team at Big Pit, who are fully supportive and now very enthusiastic supporters of charging for the underground tours, and that's been quite a 180 from the team there, if they are to implement that from 1 April to make it tidy for the financial year, they need a couple of months run-in to get the processes and the staff up and running. So, the board will be asked to make a decision on that, probably around January time, to allow that to run through.

And from the tone, I would expect the board to agree to that, if that’s what you’re proposing, and from the tone of what you’ve both said in answering that question. I think there’s a fundamental difference, in fact, between, for example, 'Streic! 84-85 Strike!'—. I’ve just booked tickets for that myself—a part of my life that you’ve put in the museum—and I’m anxious that my son understands what happened in that period, for example. So, that’s part of his Christmas. But it’s different, isn’t it? Because you're going to the national museum, and you’re going to a part of it, and you’ve got the national museum, which is free to access, in Cardiff, and the rest of it, but when you go to Big Pit, you go in order to go underground, largely. That is the purpose of visiting that museum. So, in terms of Big Pit, you are charging for entry in real terms. And I’ve visited Big Pit a number of times, as you can imagine, and the underground tour is the purpose for which you go there. I know nobody who’s visited Big Pit not to go underground, and so you are putting up a barrier there.

I can understand what the staff are saying; I’ve got no criticism to make there. And I can understand people who’ve actually been there, saying, 'This is good value.' And it is great value, it’s fantastic. I want my children to understand the lives of my grandparents and great-grandparents through the twentieth century, who worked underground. And that is the point and purpose of it. So, when you are charging for that, you are also placing a barrier to visiting it, and to that level of understanding.

If I could just come back with a few thoughts. The first thing is: we must remember that there are a wide variety of concessions, and we’re about to trial a new concession model that I don’t think has been done anywhere in Wales before, which is about people not needing to prove that they have a right to a concession. If you come forward and say, ‘I have a concession’, then we just take people at their word. So, there is going to be a testing of that approach.

The second thing is that if we were to move ahead with the charging for underground tours at Big Pit, there will always be free community days, free access for local people on those days, et cetera, which we did this autumn and were very successful.

I think it’s interesting to note that of all the visitors that come to Big Pit, 83 per cent of them go on the underground tour, usually. During the summer trial, 85 per cent still went down on the underground tour. So, the same proportion went underground. I think the offer at Big Pit is very rich around the underground tour. You can watch the fabulous film about King Coal. You’ve got the interpretation up in the bath house. So, there is a whole-site experience.

But there are two things I would say. The first is: it’s about a sense of value. You’re going down, you’re met, you’re kitted up with your light and your battery, and everything, and then you’re personally taken underground. You get to meet a miner, or the grandson or the granddaughter of a miner. They share their experience with you. There is something about recognising that additional value and expertise, which goes beyond just opening the doors.

And I also think, in terms of the public purse, there is a difference between the four walls of a museum and allowing entrance into it so that you can see a collection, and when you have to maintain the machinery of a lift and the mine workings, et cetera. That gear goes beyond the traditional free entry model for a museum. It is a very labour-intensive process and offer that you’re putting on. And, I think, what we’re finding is that people welcome the opportunity to be able to make a contribution. I was absolutely staggered by the evaluation, honestly. It was so positive. And the net promoter score—which is what many businesses use to show how much their visitors or customers would recommend the experience—the net promoter score during the trial was 94. That’s an exceptional level.

Just before Alun moves on, Heledd wants to come in.

Just on this point, I think the point that Alun’s trying to get at is: what about those who will see that there’s a cost and not come? So, how are you assessing the impact that will have, because, obviously, the whole concept of free entry is universal access? I’ve seen studies in the past where, at National Museum Cardiff, people would be very happy to pay, et cetera, and it may not necessarily impact on how they rate it, or the number of people of a certain background that may attend. But in terms of ensuring that the essence of free entry is maintained, are you uncomfortable that you have to undertake this? Do you have any concerns that it does go against free entry?

I don’t, and I’m a big, passionate advocate of free entry. It’s the opposite for me. I think it gives the respect and the value to the exceptional experience that my colleagues in Big Pit are offering in terms of—

But you could say that about any site, couldn't you?

No, because—

You could say it about any site—the exceptional—. So, St Fagans—

No, because—. If I could— 

Okay. If we could just let the witness answer.

[Inaudible.]—what I'm asking.

If I could just come back, though, what I would say is that if you go to St Fagans or you go to Cardiff or Llanberis, somebody isn't taking you around personally, sharing their life story and explaining every exhibit. You do that yourself as you go around. In terms of your concerns, of course we want to make sure that there is access for everybody, but as I said, we're broadening our concessions policy. We're offering free access for local people for particular events and on particular dates. So, we're making sure we're putting measures in place. But I don't have any concerns at all about whether this would be the right thing to do, and I will be recommending it to the board on behalf of the team at Big Pit as well, who feel the same. 

My question is: it's not about the experience of Big Pit or the experience and the knowledge and experience gained by visiting Big Pit, but a question of your policy and a question of you, not your colleagues. And I think that the policy of free access is a fundamental policy and I think it's an important policy, and I think that this breaks that. I'll be quite clear with you, I think that this breaks that policy, for the reasons I've given. You say that the actual number is 85 per cent, was it, of those who visited Big Pit who actually went on the underground tour. That's why you go to Big Pit. I live just a few valleys across from Big Pit, and nobody thinks, 'I'll go to Big Pit to have a cup of coffee.'

Okay. Because I'm so aware of—. I know that this is very important—[Interruption.] I'll just take one final question on this, then.

Could I make one comment on that?

Could I just ask my question? The question is: what conversations have you had with the Welsh Government and with Welsh Ministers about this? And what approach, what posture have they taken on this issue—on the policy issue, not on the experience issue?

I'm glad you've asked, because I think we need to rewind a year. Don't forget the expectation from us this time last year was that we would charge for entry. Now, we knew that we couldn't do that, and there were conversations with the Government, and then we agreed that we would trial approaches. But, referring back to my comments earlier, we've lost one in six staff. We've taken 15 per cent out of the cost of the organisation. It is very difficult to be an organisation that has its budget cut so radically—

I accept that.

—and is also told that it can't generate income from the very few opportunities it has to generate income. So, we have shops, we have catering, and then we have our brilliant expertise. If we cannot charge for the extra added value that we give to our visitors through the expertise of our staff, then our financial position becomes even more acute. So, the conversation with Government, in answer to your question, has evolved. I've had four Ministers in one year—different positions at different times. We've been very open with what we've done. We've shared the evaluation. They knew that we were taking these pilots, and they know the results of those pilots and that the board are considering it.

Okay. 

No, I want to come back to this, because this is important. What is the current policy of Welsh Government in terms of charging in, say, Big Pit, as an example? So, what is your understanding of current Welsh Government policy?

So, I think that the Minister was quite clear a couple of weeks ago when he said that it's a decision for the governing body of Amgueddfa Cymru. 

So, the Welsh Government has no policy, according to what you're—

We understand that—

The policy is free entry at the point of access to the site. But, as Kate has said, the Minister has made it clear that the board will be giving a steer, and then how that is applied will be an operational decision for the senior team. 

We've got just over 20 minutes left for the rest of the session. 

What has the impact been of funding reductions on the implementation of the tailored review recommendations, please?

Shall I start on that one? Well, as you've heard, it's been an incredibly intense and challenging year, but we've made really good progress on the tailored review. So, we have 22 recommendations that are now complete, another 38 that are business as usual. So, that brings us to about 60 that are either completed or are under way, and then a further 17 that require more work and more consideration. But those are also in train. We have one that is currently on hold, which is the decision to reimburse trustees, and when we took that to the board last March, the board asked that we bring it back in a further year's time because it wasn't the right time to look at reimbursement. So, I feel that we're making good progress in challenging circumstances, but I think some really good work has been put in to strengthen and modernise the way in which we’re governing ourselves.

I think it's fair to say that of those 17 that are currently on hold, not all of those are for the museum to implement. So, some of them are about the wider historic environment, et cetera, that Welsh Government—

Yes, and they're not on hold; they are in progress.

In progress, sorry, yes.

Okay. I think Mick wants to come in before we come back to Laura. Mick.

Yes, just really on that, I mean, the governance is in the form of a royal charter. Royal charters are a fairly ancient mechanism and they have a lot of problems with them and so on. I suppose the first thing is, in terms of what you're saying with regard to the 22 recommendations and so on, what actually has changed?

Yes, so, I think a lot has already been done to strengthen the leadership and governance of Amgueddfa Cymru. It started with the appointment of Jane and I this time last year as new chair and chief executive, rather than president and director general. So, there's been a lot clearer delineation between the governance and leadership of the board and the operational leadership of the organisation. And that was a really important milestone, I think, 12 months ago. 

Since then, I've been leading a lot of governance modernisation work. We've fundamentally shifted the way in which we run board meetings; we've scaled down our private or closed sessions, and we have a clear rationale for those things that we only take in closed sessions. So, we’ve shifted the emphasis to be more public, more transparent in the way that we do our business and we govern ourselves.

Since last September, 50 per cent of our board of trustees are newly appointed. That includes me and our vice chair, and we've recruited an additional five trustees since then. So, we've bolstered the skillset and the expertise and experience on our board in a number of areas that we didn't have over the past couple of years.

And then, I think the final piece, Mick, if I can just say quite quickly, is that I'm currently leading a review of the board's sub-committee structure, to allow us to get much more assurance and scrutiny over the full breadth of activities of Amgueddfa Cymru, so, that includes our learning, our education, our engagement work. So, that will allow us to do that for the first time in a proper and robust way, and we'll bring that in in conjunction with the new financial year in April.

And just very briefly—

Is the royal charter model the effective one to operate or is that something you are also looking at, whether there is a more twenty-first century structure and framework within which you could be operating?

Yes, so, I think we're quite clear that we would like to maintain royal charter status—that changing that is not on the table. The tailored review was really helpful, I think, for articulating the three legs of the stool of governance of Amgueddfa Cymru: one is the royal charter, one is the Charity Commission and our legal obligations as a large charity, and then third is as an arm's-length body and our framework document with Welsh Government. So, our governance framework, if you like, is fairly complex, but it's one that has worked for us over the past 100 or so years. We’re not minded to change that. I think the loss of royal charter status would be a huge loss for Amgueddfa Cymru and our standing as a national public organisation. So, that's certainly not on the table.

Interestingly, there was a separate tailored review of the royal chartered bodies across Wales a couple of months ago, carried out by Welsh Government. That looked at any potential tensions or conflicts between chartered organisations and their responsibilities as arm's-length bodies. That did not find any potential major challenges or tensions that could not be smoothed over with the usual mature dialogue and two-way communication that we all have with our sponsorship team. So, I'm content with the current model.

And the charter itself, although it might seem like an ancient document, it does evolve. So, the last iteration was in 2013. And, actually, the core of the royal charter is that it says that the museum was established for education and for collections, and in every change we've made this year, we've come back to that core purpose within the charter.

Yes, and whilst the royal charter is the backbone of Amgueddfa Cymru, it is accompanied by statutes and regulations that we keep under review and adopt et cetera—we adopt and can flex those as a board. So, as part of the tailored review, we will be looking at the statutes and regs to ensure that everything we're doing is absolutely contemporary and in step with good contemporary governance.

Thank you.

Thank you, I think my questions are covered.

Okay. Right, we have just shy of a quarter of an hour left of the session. We are moving back to Heledd.

Diolch yn fawr iawn. Just in terms of the Audit Wales report, we recently discussed it on the Senedd floor. Obviously, you've provided evidence. Are you certain that we won't see a situation like that arise again from the changes that have been put in place?

Do you want to take this?

Yes. I think Jane and I are quite confident that we won't see another situation like that. I think Jane and I tried to set a tone from the first week that we were appointed, 12 months ago, where we sat down and we had a very frank and open ways-of-working conversation and how do we deal with any disagreements that might arise between us. So, I think we have a really productive and constructive working relationship; we talk on a weekly basis, and then that's bolstered by the usual system of annual appraisals, one of which has just happened. That's a 360 appraisal with input from trustees and SET as well.

In addition to that, Heledd, we also have a revised early resolution and dispute policy, which the Public Accounts Committee was very keen to see, so they've been furnished with a copy of that. That plugs a number of gaps that I think were challenging several years ago; it allows us access to a broader range of earlier resolution approaches, and the ability to hopefully intervene in any disagreements or disputes in a much more meaningful and constructive way at an earlier start. And that policy covers for the first time not just staff, chief execs, but also trustees and myself as chair.

Thank you. Can I ask, in terms of Llanberis—obviously, the site is currently closed; was that a difficult decision? Because, obviously, with the redevelopment of St Fagans, much was made about the importance of keeping it open. So, why was the decision made to close, and are you concerned about any of the impacts of that?

No, it’s actually opening up some really exciting opportunities. It was a very clear decision to close it, because if you can imagine at St Fagans, we weren’t changing the actual historic buildings, as such; they were all kind of going to remain as they were. Every centimetre of the Llanberis site is being affected; every historic building, and the place is jam-packed with the collection, with the huge industrial items et cetera. So, it would have taken so much longer and cost the public purse so much more if we’d had to try and work around it. So, we were absolutely sure it was the right thing to close. But I became even more sure last week when I was there and the removals guys were in, and they were moving truckloads of slate, and these huge big machines and stuff, and I thought we couldn’t have had the public, it would not have been safe.

But what’s so exciting is that the museum carries on; the museum isn’t defined just by that site. So, we are going to be out at a minimum of three other sites. So, we have got an arrangement where our blacksmith is going to be working from Cei Llechi in Caernarfon, alongside Tesni, the blacksmith there, so that that whole story of our museum will be told in the heart of Caernarfon. Also, our slate splitters are going to have space at castell Penrhyn, which anybody will know is quite a major step, so that, for the first time, the experience of the quarry workers will be put in the place of power of the landlord and will enable us to tell the story in a whole new way through a partnership with the National Trust there. We’re also in discussions with Cyngor Gwynedd, where we’re hopefully going to be able to operate out of the Ysbyty Chwarel up on the hill, so that we will still have a presence in the park and the visitors can come and see us there, and we’ve taken on a little truck to do a food and beverage offer. And then we’re putting a programme together, where we’ll attend the big events through Wales’s calendar, and we will take the amgueddfa lechi out and about throughout Wales through the next year. So, we think people will experience the stories in new ways, they'll find us in unexpected places, and the team are really excited about what the next two years will mean for them for their own growth as well.

Thank you. I think we'd be keen as a committee to revisit as well, to see it—

Yes, we would.

—because we were very excited by the visit we had previously. In terms of amgueddfa'r gogledd, we've been trying to—

Sorry, can I interrupt, because I was interested in what Jane said in answer to the previous question, and I didn't want to lose it? You talk about taking the slate museum out of Llanberis in order to teach and talk about the history of slate, and I think that's great. I think it's a fantastic thing. But I'm thinking of my constituency in the Valleys. There's virtually nobody in my constituency who's visited the museum in Llanberis, or a very low proportion, and a similarly low proportion would understand the history of the slate industry in the north. I'm interested in making those connections, because I think, sometimes, we tend to take the balkanisation view that coal is in the south, slate is in the north, and never the twain shall meet. I'm interested in how do we tell the complete story of our country to ourselves, and whether there's an opportunity here, in that people in the Valleys of south Wales are more used to coal than slate, to actually learn about slate and the impact of slate on their fellow country people in the north.

I wholeheartedly agree. And it's interesting, just doing the project in Llanberis, people are asking those questions, particularly people who don't know the site or the history; they're talking about what were the comparisons between the coal and the slate. So, I think you're absolutely right, it is a moment to rethink how we tell that story for Wales as a whole, yes.

Two questions on Llanberis. One: in terms of funding, have you got the funding required for the redevelopment? There was a figure, I think £3 million, from Welsh Government. Have they provided that?

So, the great news this week—we have a £3.2 million shortfall. As long as we can make the case, the budget this week said that they have earmarked another £2 million, and there may be a conversation to be had about a further £1 million. We're also, obviously, proactively fundraising for that gap, and the team are doing a brilliant job on that. We are absolutely convinced we are going to be able to close that gap.

That's great news. In terms of amgueddfa'r gogledd, you'll know, as a committee, we were trying to get clarity in terms of what it meant for Welsh Government. Are you pleased now that that's been dropped by Welsh Government and the focus can be on the redevelopment of the National Slate Museum?

I am delighted. [Laughter.] I'm probably being too frank, but—

Clarity at last.

It was muddy, because the museum of the north wasn't the slate museum. There was an idea that the museum of the north might cohabit with the slate museum. Also, I live in the north. For anybody who lives in the south, I don't know if you would know what a museum of the south might look like. We have fabulous museums in the north, fabulous museums, and what we want to do with Llanberis is to strengthen the network of museums across to ideally bring in resources, around conservation, curatorial et cetera, that add to the offer at the museums of the north, because, at the moment, if they're looking to access expertise, they have to pay for travel and expenses for somebody from the south to come up. So, for me, the big excitement, the big opportunity is how we really build the museums of the north, rather than trying to create some new concept. So, as a northerner, I'm really pleased.

Can I come back on something?

Very briefly, because there's one other thing that we need to—

I say 'hallelujah', because I'm delighted to hear you say that, but the history of Wales is very different in different places, isn't it? I think of the part of Wales where I'm from and I represent: you've got the establishment of the national health service in Tredegar, you've got one of the biggest steel towns in Europe, as was, in Ebbw Vale, and you've got virtually nothing to tell the story of the national health service, virtually nothing there. We've got Number 10, The Circle, which is run by a local co-operative in the town, and then you've got a small museum in the general offices in Ebbw Vale, run largely by volunteers, former steelworkers.

I'm thinking about what you've said in this morning's session and what you've just said in answer to Heledd, that you've got fantastic expertise, knowledge and talent, and we've got a history. How do we bring those two things together? Because if I think about my own patch, if you like, my own part of the world, there's a history there to be told and a story that can be told to ourselves and to others, and you've got the expertise to help tell that story, and I'm interested as to how we maximise the value of the knowledge and the talent in the national museum to tell the whole of Wales's story.

I'm thinking you've got to come and join us, Alun—

After the election, I might have to. [Laughter.]

These are the conversations we're having in our own offices and board meetings. The national museum isn't about the four walls that people come into, it isn't about the footprint of seven sites and a collection centre; it's about the collections of Wales, the stories of Wales. And, really, if we're going to be a national museum, it's got to be about national reach, so that every community has the confidence to be sharing and telling its story. And that's what we can do, as the national museum, we can help with that, we can make links, we can empower, we can provide training. I want us to be an outward-looking museum for the whole of Wales, because one thing that's for sure after COVID is that there's much greater engagement, excitement and interest in people's local history. And so to be the national museum for Wales, we need to help local communities be able to harness that, build on it.

I was at the funeral yesterday of a very valued member of our Friends of National Museum Wales, and it was wonderful hearing the testimony to her. She was on our Friends of National Museum Wales and she was involved in every local museum in Newport, and that's the model—someone like Christabel Hutchings—where we make those connections and you make the stories in local communities really sing for Wales.

Okay, diolch. Just two questions, briefly. I'm going to give the final question to Mick, but before we move on to Mick, could I check about the national contemporary art gallery project? Has the Welsh Government responded to your business case for further funding for your work, as part of that? And if—well, that firstly: have they responded?

The conversations are almost continuous. I'm not entirely clearly what the funding situation is, because when we heard about the extra revenue we're getting, I was given an indication that they were to be prioritised for the likely uplift in pay for 2025-26 and towards the cost of Celf. I don't understand the detail of that at the moment.

Okay. And if that further funding was not to be forthcoming, what would the effect be on your work, if that had to come from you?

Well, we'd have to look across the piece, because we are responsible for science, history, archaeology, historic art, as well as contemporary art, so we have to make sure that we keep the brilliant work that's being done through Celf, but also we have a duty to look across the whole collection. So, we'd probably need to scale back the work that was done under Celf, but try and keep the momentum of the fantastic relationships that have been built.

Thank you for that. Mick, did you have a final question that you wanted to ask?

Very quickly, just on the widening engagement action plan—[Inaudible.]—about inclusivity, you mentioned 20 action points completed and so on. Just, really, a summary of what progress has been made on that, in real terms.

So, we are doing so much on that agenda. We have been working on improved access to the museums for people with disabilities, we've been working with groups that represent global majority communities to enable their stories to be heard and shared. We've recently launched the Perspective(s) set of—. Well, it's an exhibition, if you like, across all seven sites that gives under-represented communities the chance to share their different perspectives on our collections. So, there's been a huge programme of work. I would say that this programme, the widening engagement, is the absolute golden thread that is running through everything we're doing in the museum right now. And some of my colleagues have just been on the museum association's programme for anti-racist museums, and they've learnt such a lot from that that they're bringing back into the museum, and they've also been able to share the great, good practice. We're seen, probably, as sector leaders in this area. So, it's something that we feel very proud of, Kate, isn't it?

It is, and I think the board would probably look to external funding, like that given from the People's Postcode Lottery, the National Lottery Heritage Fund, the Colwinston Charitable Trust. The confidence that those external funders and donors have showed in Amgueddfa Cymru to deliver on the access and participation agenda has been absolutely fantastic, and we're enormously grateful. But I think the board takes a huge amount of confidence from their confidence in us to deliver on this.

Thank you.

On the paper from the British Council, obviously, much of it relates to education portfolios, but, of course, we can't silo some of these. Just to say that, culturally, in terms of that aspect of our work, the actual content of it, I think, is extremely disturbing, and it's almost an indication that we're becoming increasingly introverted in terms of languages, our outlook and our international perspective. And I think this is something that certainly warrants more engagement with the Children, Young People and Education Committee, but also I think it's something that ought to be looked at more closely. I think it has much, much broader implications for Wales in the medium to longer term in the future and how we're perceived.

Personally, I share your concerns on that.

I associate myself with what Heledd has taken up as well. Like Mick, I was interested in reading the report from the British Council, which I thought was excellent in outlining the challenges facing us. But many of the numbers refer to 2015 onwards, and I'd be interested to know if the research service has any indication of longer term trends, whether this is something that's happened in the last 10 years, or whether this is something that has a much longer gestation, if you like. I don't want to put the research service on the spot here—

I'll speak to my colleague who covers the Welsh language.

—but it might be useful for us to have a longer term trend to try to understand what is happening here. But I agree with the points that Mick has made.

—I would want to reassure you that we will be looking in greater depth at these papers, and we very much are grateful to you for your correspondence to us.