Should national museums and galleries be free to enter?

Write my answer and get scored

Whether a national museum should charge for entry is really a question about what such an institution is for, and both positions rest on something defensible. My own view is that free entry is worth its cost, provided the lost income is replaced rather than simply given up. The case for charging is practical. Collections deteriorate without conservation, historic buildings need climate control, and curators must be paid whether or not a school group arrives on a wet Tuesday. A ticket ties the cost of the institution to the people using it, and it protects a museum from competing directly against hospitals every time a public budget is written. The case for free entry is that the barrier a ticket creates is not felt evenly. A family of five weighing a gallery against a cheaper afternoon decides on price, so an admission charge quietly reserves the national collection for people who are already comfortable in it. Britain's experience after charges were abolished is instructive: visits rose sharply, and the sharpest rise came from the groups museums had struggled for decades to reach. In my opinion the deciding consideration is ownership. These objects were bought or received on the public's behalf, so a citizen should not have to buy access to something they already own. The workable arrangement is public funding sufficient to replace ticket income, with charges retained for temporary exhibitions, which are genuinely optional and often expensive to stage.