UK’s free museums are in trouble, should tourists start paying?

In Britain, free entry to most museums and galleries is a point of national pride, up there with the NHS, properly brewed cups of tea and David Attenborough. But the fact is, someone has to pay for them, and the question of who is becoming an increasingly fraught one. Last week, Tracey Emin lit up the debate once more by suggesting that rich people should pick up the tab — or at least more of it. In recent years, the discussion around free museums has only intensified.

A lot has changed in the 25 years since the New Labour government introduced its policy guaranteeing universal free entry for visitors to the permanent collection of the UK’s national museums and galleries. There was a pandemic for one thing, which sapped their financial reserves and put more strain on a fundraising model already strained by the economic downturn. Access to EU cultural funds was reduced post-Brexit, and high-profile protests have led several museums to cut ties with big-ticket benefactors and encourage more scrupulous vetting of gifts.

The Tate and the National Portrait Gallery, for example, no longer accept gifts by the Sackler family over their ties to the opioid crisis in America. They vigorously deny the allegations.

Some of this has been offset by a rise in ticketed temporary exhibitions (prices of which have also risen) alongside the free permanent collections. It’s a hybrid model popularised by the Tate and adopted by all the big museums who increasingly rely on blockbuster exhibitions of artists such as Lucian Freud and Lee Miller to help keep the likes of Van Gogh’s “Sunflowers” and Da Vinci’s “Virgin of the Rocks” open to all. That said, it doesn’t recoup enough: running costs have shot up; visitor numbers have fallen; and government grants are failing to bridge the gap. Between 2010 and 2023, core funding for UK arts and cultural organisations fell by 18 per cent. But while free entry is all well and good, who is footing the bill? The short answer is no one, or rather, not enough people. It’s a patchwork of funding and the result is museums that are in dire financial straits. Last week, the National Gallery announced that it would be making significant cuts in the face of an £8.2m deficit in the coming year. This could mean fewer public programmes, less international borrowing of artworks, and higher ticket prices. The gallery is not alone; in its latest survey, the Museums Association found 61 per cent of respondents had planned service cuts in 2024 to 2025, compared to 51 per cent the previous year. The Tate, meanwhile, is operating with a deficit budget, and last year cut 7 per cent of its workforce in an effort to reduce the funding deficit left over from the pandemic.

Emin included herself when she said that wealthy people should be automatically taking out memberships at museums and making donations in order to keep them free for the wider public. The grand dame of the YBA generation has long fought to make art accessible for all with her foundation in Margate that offers studio space, residencies, and mentorship to those who might otherwise struggle to get a toehold in the art world. Her point of view frames funding museums as a civic obligation, a moral duty of those who can afford it — coinciding with the long-held belief that art is a right, not a luxury. It would make a “hell of a difference” if people with deep pockets dug into them a little deeper, said Emin.

Emin isn’t the first to spotlight private donors as lifelines for museums in a funding crisis. Speaking in January, V&A director Sir Tristram Hunt suggested that ministers be more openly grateful to the power patrons of UK arts institutions — and urged Rachel Reeves to do more to entice generous non-doms back to British shores after tax changes in the 2024 Budget triggered an exodus. “Philanthropically minded individuals” should be welcomed, he said, pointing to two “game-changing” £150m donations made to the National Gallery in 2025 by Silicon Valley investor Sir Michael Moritz and his wife Harriet Heyman, and the Julia Rausing Trust.

This year’s most anticipated exhibition is likewise brought to you by a Belarusian-American hedge fund billionaire. In a few months, the Bayeux Tapestry will touch down at the British Museum from Normandy thanks to a sponsorship deal with Igor Tulchinsky. Valued at about £5m, according to the Financial Times, it’s the biggest ever in the museum’s 273-year history. In a speech last week, George Osborne, chair of the British Museum and ex-Conservative chancellor, personally thanked Tulchinsky for “step[ping] up to the plate in a way we never imagined possible”. The museum will likely benefit financially and reputationally from this historic loan, which is expected to be one of the most popular shows in the British Museum’s history.

So, is it a simple case of richer people stepping up? Yes and no, suggests Alison Cole, the director of the Cultural Policy Unit think tank. “Membership schemes are a great way for the public to support museums, but they are no substitute for proper and sustained government investment.” Likewise, Jenny Waldman of Art Fund, whose National Art Pass is one of the UK’s most extensive cultural membership schemes with more than 142,000 members, agrees that while donations and memberships make a real difference, “ultimately, with or without [that] additional support, our museums need sustainable, long-term public funding”.