7. 5. Statement: The Future of Heritage Services in Wales — A New Strategic Partnership and the Future of Cadw

Part of the debate – in the Senedd at 5:04 pm on 4 April 2017.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of Ken Skates Ken Skates Labour 5:04, 4 April 2017

Yes, can I thank Dai Lloyd for his contribution and his questions? I believe I’ve said on numerous occasions now that this Historic Wales initiative could have huge benefits for local museums, not just in terms of skills—I’ll come to that point in a moment—but also in terms of promoting the sector more widely and attracting more people with an interest in heritage to visit not just national institutions, but also local museums as well. And I think, in particular, there are potential benefits with regard to skills development within the workforce, and I do believe that we can build on the recommendations of the Edwards review of local museums to link professional skills between the national museum and local museums. I do think that this is something that the national museum would like to embrace. I think it’s something that local museums very much need.

Moving on to other points raised by the Member, I think generally the outcome of this exercise has shown that many of the fears that existed at the outset of this process were largely unfounded. The steering group has members representing all of the national institutions and, crucially, the steering group has members representing all of the trade unions. I believe that the steering group has done a fantastic job in engaging meaningfully and thoroughly with the workforce in each of the institutions in reaching these recommendations. And I do not fear having an open mind as to what the future might hold for the sector, other than to say that that future must be bright and positive for all involved. That’s why I remain open-minded about the specific means of ensuring that Cadw is given the freedom that it requires to operate more flexibly and more proactively, and to build on recent successes.

If we look at where Cadw is today, it’s got a record number of members, a record level of income and a record number of visitors, but that’s down to a number of factors: one, giving the right people within the organisation the freedom and the flexibility to be as creative and inspiring as they can be. I want to make sure that the organisation is futureproofed, though, to make sure that there is not the potential for interference at ministerial level that could damage visitor numbers, income or membership numbers. For that reason, I wish to explore every option for giving the organisation maximum opportunity to be as innovative as possible. For that reason, I’m open to considering not just the options that have been presented in the review, but also to other options that I think should be explored as part of the process of examining what is best not just for Cadw, but for the entire sector.

In terms of the strategic partnership, I know that the Member welcomed one of the recommendations in the report. Based on the sentiment that he was conveying, it was my inference that he was welcoming a number of the recommendations, including a recommendation for far closer collaboration insofar as cultural tourism is concerned, as far as the promotion of world heritage sites is concerned and, of course, insofar as the sharing of back office duties is concerned, not least because there is already some degree of collaboration taking place, but it’s simply not enough. And I think what should be borne in mind by all Members, particularly those who opposed this initiative from the outset, is that we would not be here today, with agreement from all of the national institutions and the trade union representatives, had it not been for this Government proposing novel but radical action to put the sector on a more stable footing, and that is our objective—to make sure that the sector as a whole is able to weather the storm that will continue insofar as public finances are concerned.

In terms of talking about a merger, I think it’s just as dangerous for Members to rule out any potential pathways for the future for our national institutions as it is for Members to insist that one pathway over another should be pursued. What is best for the sector will surely be judged by the sector and by those who are involved in it, not just by those who run institutions, but by the whole workforce. But let’s agree on something: that whatever the future holds, we would all wish the sector to be in a far stronger, more resilient position in the years to come than it has been during this period of difficult austerity.