HL Deb 16 July 1959 vol 218 cc85-94

3.19 p.m.

Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.

THE MINISTER OF STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (LORD FORBES)

My Lords, this is a very short Bill and its sole purpose is to remedy what seems to be a defect in Section 7 of the National Galleries of Scotland Act, 1906. The Act of 1906 established the Board of Trustees—and here I quote: for the purpose of managing the National Galleries of Scotland and for such other purposes connected with the promotion of the fine arts in Scotland as may be prescribed". That is to say, as may be prescribed by Order of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. Further, the Act defined the National Galleries of Scotland in such a way as to cover not only the existing Galleries but any others that might be prescribed. So it gave ample power to extend the functions of the Board of Trustees.

The financial provisions of the Act were not, however, so widely drawn. Section 7 provides for paying, out of moneys voted by Parliament, the expenditure of the Board of Trustees on the management of the galleries that were brought under their control in 1906—that is to say, the National Gallery and the National Portrait Gallery. The section does not provide for meeting out of voted moneys the expenditure on any new functions which may be conferred on the Trustees or on the management of any galleries other than the two galleries that I have mentioned.

Now this was clearly not the intention of those who framed the Act of 1906. As they foresaw that the Trustees might at some future time have additional functions, surely they must have envisaged also that money would be spent on those functions, and we can only conclude that the financial provisions of Section 7 were so narrowly drawn in error. The Bill which is before your Lordships will amend the Act of 1906 so as to provide for paying, out of moneys voted by Parliament, the expenditure incurred by the Board in the payment of officers and otherwise in connection with the management of the National Gallery and National Portrait Gallery and"— and here, my Lords, follow the words added by the Bill— with the performance of such other functions as are conferred on them by or under the Act. Although the need for this amendment of the Act of 1906 came to notice in connection with the proposal to establish a temporary Gallery of Modern Art in Inverleith House in the Royal Botanic Gardens, Edinburgh, I should like to assure your Lordships that the Bill itself is in purely general terms, and will cover expenditure on any further development of the National Galleries. The second point I should like to make is that the Bill does not confer any new powers either on the Board of Trustees or on my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. All the powers that are required are there already in the Act of 1906; it is simply the expenditure on new functions of the Trustees that is not provided for, and that is the defect which this Bill seeks to remedy. My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.

Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Forbes.)

3.23 p.m.

LORD GREENHILL

My Lords, I have listened with some care to the explanation given by the noble Lord, Lord Forbes, of the purposes of this Bill, and I am reminded of the attitude adopted by the Under-Secretary of State in another place in dealing with this matter. Both the noble Lord and the Under-Secretary of State appear anxious to describe this measure as being a small, trivial thing, of financial interest only, and as arising out of an error made a half century ago when the Act of 1906 was passed. Indeed, if I may repeat some of the expressions used about this Bill, they reinforce what I have just said about this attempt to minimise the importance of this measure. The Under-Secretary of State, as reported in the OFFICIAL REPORT, described it as A short and simple Bill. He said: Its object is to remedy what appears to be a defect in Section 7…", as the noble Lord has just said. He also said that it is simply a financial machinery Bill. He further said: It arises because of the chance oversight of Parliament fifty years ago. On the Third Reading of this measure, the Under-Secretary of State said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 608 (No. 137), col. 395]: The genesis of the Bill was that the Secretary of State proposed to add to the functions of the trustees the management of a gallery of modern art at Inverleith House. I do not wish to emphasise what other reports say about Inverleith House, although I could quote from the report of the Arts Council. On page 75 it says: …it is clear that the building is far too small to provide, even on a token scale, all the services for which the new Gallery should be responsible". But I do ask what functions are to be added which the Trustees do not now already possess. In any case, is a new Act such as we are dealing with to-day necessary? Could not the Secretary of State prescribe by order, under Section 2 of the 1906 Act, that Inverleith House should be added to the three included under the title of "The National Galleries of Scotland"? As the noble Lord will be aware, the three are mentioned in detail in Section 2 of the 1906 Act, which reads as follows: 'The National Galleries of Scotland' shall, until otherwise prescribed, mean the several buildings situated in Edinburgh and known as the Royal Institution, the National Gallery and the National Portrait Gallery, and shall include any other buildings which may be prescribed. What reason is there, I ask, why the Secretary of State cannot, by order or otherwise, prescribe that Inverleith House should be added to these other three, and so include the whole under the general title of "The National Galleries of Scotland"? If he cannot do so, I should be much obliged if the noble Lord would tell me why not.

The new power conferred, we are told, is of a general character, and is not limited to any particular project. If it is of a general character, how does the general character differ from the powers already possessed by the Trustees; and what is the nature of the general character that is envisaged in any project at all? Now, my Lords, it may appear that what we are dealing with is, in a sense, a rather trivial matter. It emerged in the course of a discussion in another place that the amount of money involved in this measure is some £7,500. Presumably, that £7,500 is intended to include not merely the purchase of new works of art but also to cover the cost of running the place and paying for its general upkeep. If that be true, then it would seem that £7,500 is a very small sum indeed about which a measure of this kind should be raised at all.

But I think there is another aspect to all this. Let us bear in mind that what we are trying to remedy, presumably, is a measure fifty-odd years old already. Are we to ignore the fact that in this last half century or so there have been changes of such a magnitude as to warrant a reconsideration of the whole of our attitude towards National Galleries? The noble Lord will be well aware that very recently there have been two reports dealing with the general question of providing for the art needs of the people—one by the Arts Council and the other by the Gulbenkian Foundation; and he will know as well as I do some of the questions raised in these two reports. For example, we know that the changes in the financial position of individuals within the last fifty years have been such that there are comparatively few people now left in a position to purchase for their private possession some of the valuable works of art that occasionally come up for sale. He will know that there has been a tendency in recent years for purchases of this kind to be made either by national bodies by public bodies, such as local authorities, or by private trusts or the like; and that very large sums of money are necessary and are not available except through agencies of that kind.

He will also be aware that nowadays we have departed from an era in which there was, if one might say so, a cultural elite who appreciated the value of art generally, and that the appreciation of art has now spread very widely throughout the community. To-day an increasing amount of interest is taken by people in local government and in the community generally to see that the people as a whole should now come to appreciate the value of these works of art for their own enjoyment and for their own edification. It is no) my intention to emphasise the difference in cultural standards, as was done in another place, I gather, between the people of Glasgow and the people of Edinburgh. Whatever may be said about Edinburgh, at least I can say this about Glasgow: that we in Glasgow have at some cost to the ratepayer, tried to further understanding and appreciation and love of art by encouraging schoolchildren to come to our art gallery. I think that we have probably one of the most representative collections of any art gallery in the world. A collection of worldwide interest was given to us by the magnanimity of the late Sir William Burrell, a collection which, I think, must arouse the admiration of all lovers of art—though it may be said that we have not yet decided where to house the whole of this collection.

In the Local Government Act, 1948, power was given to local authorities to levy a rate up to 6d. in the pound in England and up to a fraction over 5d. in the pound in Scotland for the purpose of encouraging the arts, and I would emphasise this provision, which has been touched upon by both the reports to which I have referred. It is remarkable to think that, according to the Gulbenkian report, only about one-twentieth of this 6d. rate is being devoted to the purpose for which local authorities have the right to rate. I wonder whether I dare suggest a means whereby the understanding and love of the arts may be considerably increased. For instance, in Glasgow, where a penny rate brings in some £60,000 a year, a 5d. rate would make £300,000 a year available for the purpose of encouraging the arts—ballet and music, drama and art. I wonder whether it would not be possible to set up local bodies, to consist not only of elected representatives but also of men eminent in the various arts, to form a kind of trust that would administer the large sums raised by the local rates in the interests of the arts generally. This would not only place the encouragement of the arts under the guidance of a body set up for that purpose only, but also prevent the conflicts which usually take place in local government bodies when they come to discuss matters of this kind. In this way we might be able to derive an increased interest in art, which I think we should all agree is very necessary these days. It is rather humiliating to learn from these objectively written reports that the artistic tradition in this country compares unfavourably with that in other countries, such as France, Germany and Italy. Surely, in spite of the difficult times which the Chancellor of the Exchequer tells us are always with us, it would be possible to devote some of this money to the encouragement of art.

I am aware that some of what I have said may not be particularly relevant to the Bill with which we are dealing, but I am trying to point out to your Lordships that this amending legislation, brought forward after half a century, provides an opportunity whereby the Government can thoroughly reconsider the position. Perhaps at some early date they may be able to bring forward some further proposals which will really do something to raise the standard of art in this country.

3.34 p.m.

THE EARL OF HADDINGTON

My Lords, I should like briefly to support this Bill, which has been expounded with great clarity by my noble friend Lord Forbes, the Minister of State. I hope that it will find support from all quarters of your Lordships' House. It was in 1929 that the Royal Commission first recommended, in its Report, that there should be established a gallery of modern art in the capital of Scotland. From that Royal Commission sprang the Standing Commission on Museums and Galleries, which in its numerous reports has never ceased to advocate the same thing. So, after thirty years, we seem to be getting somewhere in this matter, although it is going to be only a temporary home for modern art in Scotland.

This Bill, as my noble friend has pointed out, makes provision for the setting up of a gallery of modern art in Edinburgh. That is done by order under the National Galleries of Scotland Act, 1906, and all the present Bill does is to provide the means whereby Parliament can vote the money necessary for its operation, and maintenance. Here comes a sore point, which was strongly expressed during the debate on this Bill in another place. A gallery of modern art is not much use unless there are objects of modern art—painting and sculpture—to put in it. There is no collection of modern art in Edinburgh at present—nothing to speak of at all. It will all have to be built up from scratch. And if this collection is going to be worthy of the capital of a great country and is going to be representative of modern British and foreign art, the purchase grant of £7,500 is quite inadequate. For example, a Braque was sold recently for some £36,000, and a Matisse, which I am told was entirely suitable for acquisition by this new gallery, was available at £20,500.

I think that the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill, if I may say so, is under a misapprehension as regards this £7,500. I am informed that it is purely a purchase grant for the acquisition of paintings, sculpture and the like, with which to stock the gallery. I do not think it has anything to do with the sum required for the maintenance, alteration, or reconstruction of this building.

LORD GREENHILL

My Lords, I hope that I have not given the wrong impression. I tried to convey that I regard this £7,500 as covering salaries, wages and general cleaning and upkeep, not for the improvement or alteration of buildings. But suppose I am wrong and the whole of the £7,500 were available for the purchase of new works, no one would pretend that it is by any means a big sum nowadays.

LORD FORBES

Perhaps I may intervene at this stage to say that the £7,500 is purely for the purchase of pictures and sculpture.

THE EARL OF HADDINGTON

That is what I understood; but I quite agree with the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill, for the reasons which I have just explained, that it is a wholly inadequate sum. However, this is no occasion to bring up the vexed Question of State assistance to the arts, which has been so fully debated in your Lordships' House and so often stressed in the reports of the Standing Commission on Museums and Galleries. I am going to say only this: let us be thankful for small mercies. We have got something, at any rate, and let us be thankful for what we have got. The Trustees believe that something useful can be made out of Inverleith House, at any rate as a temporary expedient. I hope that this Bill will obtain a Second Reading in your Lordships' House.

3.40 p.m.

VISCOUNT ELIBANK

My Lords, I would merely say from these Benches that I heartily support this Bill and also what has been said by the noble Earl, Lord Haddington, and the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill. I look upon this as a great step forward after fifty-three years, but I hope that it is only a stepping-stone to a greater future. I give this Bill my support from that angle.

3.41 p.m.

LORD FORBES

My Lords, I am sure we are all grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Haddington, for expressing his views. As we all know, the noble Earl is a great authority not only on antiquities but also on art in general. I am grateful also to the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill, for so ably putting forward his views on art—if I may say so, art all over the world—which are most useful in this respect. Certain noble Lords have expressed some misgivings about this Bill, but in general it has been welcomed. I think I can safely give your Lordships an assurance that this scheme—what I might call the Inverleith House scheme—like modern art itself is not as bad possibly as it is painted to be. The noble Lord, Lord Greenhill, asked me whether the Secretary of State could prescribe for the new gallery under the existing Act. The answer to that is that, although the Secretary of State can prescribe the management, be cannot provide any finance under the existing Act. We are trying to remedy that position by this new Bill.

There is the question of the £7,500, which is a Supplementary Estimate which now lies before Parliament. That is purely for the purchase of new paintings and sculpture. I understand that the new purchases will be purely purchases of paintings done during this century. They need not necessarily be by Scottish painters but can be by other painters. There has been some criticism that £7,500 is not very much, but I would point out that it is possible to get a Supplementary Estimate for any particularly valuable picture that is required; for instance, only a short time ago a Supplementary Estimate of no less than £30,000 was approved for this very purpose.

Perhaps I should say a word or two about Inverleith House, which I have seen and which I am quite satisfied has great possibilities as somewhere to house a modern art gallery in Scotland. It is a house which is in the Botanic Gardens in Edinburgh. It is quite easy to get there: you take a bus to the Botanic Gardens and you then have an extremely pleasant walk through the gardens to the house. It has an ideal lawn round the house, so that it will be quite possible to exhibit modern sculpture there. Another great asset about Inverleith House is that it is already owned by the Ministry of Works and it is not a question of buying another house. We have the complete approval of the Trustees of the National Gallery for this project. The noble Lord, Lord Greenhill, quoted from the Arts Council Report, where it said: …it is clear that the building is far too small to provide, even on a token scale, all the services for which the new Gallery should be responsible. But the noble Lord did not go on to quote what it said lower down on the same page, and perhaps I may be allowed to do so. The Council then say: Nevertheless, we welcome the opportunity it would provide for an embryo Gallery in which useful work could be done on a miniature scale and the nucleus of a collection for a larger Gallery be made.

THE EARL OF HADDINGTON

My Lords, perhaps I might interrupt for one moment. I think the noble Lord mentioned the sum of £30,000 as a Supplementary Estimate. Are we to understand that that is a sum voted in addition to the £7,500 for Inverleith House?

LORD FORBES

No. I am sorry if I misled your Lordships, but that £30,000 was purely to buy a picture which now hangs in the National Gallery.

LORD GREENHILL

It was the Netherlandic triptych.

LORD FORBES

I hope your Lordships will give this Bill an unopposed Second Reading.

On Question, Bill read 2a: Committee negatived.