BRITISH MUSEUM BILL

HC Deb 20 December 1962 vol 669 cc1499-547

Question again proposed, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

6.14 p.m.

Sir C. Black

As I was saying, when the interruption occurred, there is much that is nebulous about the present set-up of the administration and the staffing arrangements of the Museum, and this state of affairs is likely to continue unless the Bill is amended to deal with the situation.

Members of the Museum staff, although recruited through the Civil Service Commission, are often blissfully unaware that they are not civil servants and have next to no legal status or contract of service. As servants of the trustees under the Act of 1753, they cannot, at the same time, be servants of the Crown. Members of the staff are employed at the pleasure of the trustees. In the event of dismissal they have no statutory rights of natural justice and no statutory right of representation by a Civil Service or other professional organisation.

I submit that in any new legislation it should be made clear that the Museum staff should be on a parity with the scientific civil servants regarding conditions of service. Some members of the staff have worked for many years in the Museum without ever setting eyes on a trustee or seeing the director in their laboratories, and one cannot expect the rudiments of good personal relations in circumstances where no personal relations whatever exist.

I am referring now particularly to the Natural History Museum. I think that it must be obvious that much depends on the quality of the director. There has been a great deal of legitimate criticism of the method of appoint- ment. There should be an advertisement when this position becomes vacant and open competition for the post and a more obvious and serious attempt made to find the best possible candidate for the position.

At the next lower level in the service of the Museum the selection of keepers and deputy-keepers of the departments depends far too much on the sacred principle of what has become to be known as "Buggins' turn". The working conditions in the Natural History Museum, of necessity, are rather strange. The scientist who works on, say, fish in the Museum finds that his professional colleagues and friends are the men who study fish in Washington, Leningrad, Capetown and Sydney.

Those in other parts of the Museum whose work relates to fleas or fungi are comparative strangers to him. It therefore follows that these people, by occupation and circumstances, are keen individualists, and the more original and distinguished they are in their scientific work the more difficult they are likely to be to manage.

Our friend "Dr. Buggins" may have spent thirty years looking down a microscope in his laboratory and may have earned international distinction through his learned researches. But in all probability he has received no schooling, and has no experience whatever, in administration and leadership. Thus, when the evil day comes and he is called away to assume control of his equally individualistic colleagues, it will be a surprise if he makes a success of the job. Much of the present trouble and low morale in the Natural History Museum is due to the failure to find, or even to seek, any solution to this problem of qualification for control.

I should like in this context to touch upon, in only a sentence or two, a still unresolved issue which has a grave bearing on the administration of the Natural History Museum and casts light on dark corners which require the attention of the Bill. In an Adjournment debate on 3rd February, 1961, I raised the case of my constituent, Dr. Denys Tucker, the principal scientific officer at the National Natural History Museum, who, in the summer of 1960, and only a few weeks after the appointment of a new director, was dismissed from the post which he had held for eleven-and-a-half years. I do not propose—and I doubt whether I should be in order if I attempted to do so—to deal with that particular case at any length, but I invite hon. Members who may be interested in the administration of the Natural History Museum to read die report of that debate. I think that they cannot do so without a conviction that conditions in many respects in the administration and staffing are by no means all that they ought to be.

Since Dr. Tucker's dismissal, one of his colleagues, Dr. Peter Crowcroft, another constituent of mine, has resigned from his post in the Museum in protest and, several months later, accepted an invitation to become director of the South Australia Museum. Another, Dr. W. E. Swinton, has left to become head of the division of live sciences at the Royal Ontario Museum. At least five others are currently considering offers from overseas institutions. Conditions cannot be in all respects as they should be if this continuous exodus is taking place of men eminent in the scientific world who leave because they are dissatisfied with the conditions and circumstances of their employment at the Natural History Museum. It is common knowledge that the qualifications and experience of such scientists are in short supply in the world. I do not think this country can afford to lose these men, particularly for the reasons that they are leaving.

It is nonsense to maintain a Civil Service office in New York to persuade British scientists to return home while, at the same time, we maintain an establishment in South Kensington under conditions which drive them out. I do not want to take further time of the House, as I know other hon. Members wish to speak, but I ask my right hon. Friend to consider very carefully this aspect of the matter. It is not touched by the Bill, but the satisfactory staffing, administration and conduct of the day-to-day work of the Museum is all-important.

It must be clear from what I have said, and from any inquiry which could be held, that conditions are, and for a long time past have been, far from satisfactory. Unless this aspect of the matter, as well as those dealt with in the Bill, can be satisfactorily resolved we cannot hope to get the Museum in future that we want to have.

6.25 p.m.

Mr. Ede (South Shields)

I should like to make an explanation about the tribute, of which I am quite unworthy, which the Chief Secretary paid to me in listing the present trustees. I owe it to the House and to my colleagues who are trustees. When I became Home Secretary, in 1945, I had no idea that that would make me a trustee of the British Museum. I doubt whether many holders of the office have known that they would become trustees until they received the first notice to attend a meeting. I attended, and so did my right hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Creech Jones), who was then Colonial Secretary.

We attended the next meeting and I was unwise enough to utter one sentence at that second meeting. It so happened that the then Speaker of the House, Mr. Speaker Clifton Brown, was present. He said, "I am glad to see that you take an interest in this work. It would be a very great advantage to the Standing Committee of the trustees if you would join them so that their views could be made known in the Cabinet." Foolishly, I consented. The time came when the country was fated to be less-well governed and I disappeared from the Home Office, but my colleagues on the Standing Committee paid me the very great compliment of suggesting to the electing trustees that now I was no longer an ex-officio trustee I should be appointed a trustee.

That occurred on 31st January, 1952, and in May of that year I reappeared on the Standing Committee by the election of the general body of trustees. That is all there is in it and at the moment I do two unfortunate things. I increase the average age of the trustees by my presence and considerably lower their standing in the realms in which they more specifically dwell. From time to time I utter a word of warning that something which is proposed would not live for two minutes in this House. I suggest that it is desirable, in view of the part which this House plays, and will have to continue to play in the work of the Museum, that there should be some connection between the Cabinet and the Standing Committee of what in future will be the body of trustees so that public opinion can be voiced at a reasonably early stage on some of the matters which arise.

As a trustee, I have been in the negotiations on this Bill. They originated with the Prime Minister. I think that one or two of the points with which he wished to deal were well worth raising. The appointment of a trustee ought not to be a life appointment. The fixing of the time limit under the Bill with some slight elasticity is a good thing. My colleagues —I believe that I speak for all of them —on the Standing Committee do not like the separation of the two new museums. I join with them in that because I feel that the idea that one set of people in the country are interested in the humanities and another set are interested in the sciences, and that the two live in quite different worlds, is one of the dangers we have to face in the age in which we live.

While science plays a bigger part in our life than it did before 1860, and while it undoubtedly influences opinion more than it did then, there are still the great abiding humanities and the ancient civilisations which so largely still form our own way of thinking. That ought to be borne in mind by the scientists and some of the people who appear to have lost interest in humanity somewhere just after the fall of Rome, and who have constantly before them some of the questions which are raised by the predominantly scientific outlook of the present age. I hope that in making the appointments of the trustees at least there will be some distinguished men who will be on both bodies, because then, at least, the two cultures will be recognised.

I join with the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Sir C. Black) in recognising that there are some things which are quite archaic about the administration of the Museum. A body which was established in 1753, which still derives most of its powers from an Act of 1753, and which, at one time, included one duke and several other members of the peerage, as the Minister mentioned, obviously ought to be able to slough off some of the accumulation of a couple of centuries.

I hope that we can decide whether the servant of the Museum is a civil servant or is not. This question has come before us very acutely. Two Lord Chancellors have given the opinion that they do not know. Law Officers of the Crown have said the same thing. Lord Radcliffe, who is a trustee, at a trustee's meeting, after examining the question, said that he did not know. It is not often that we get as many distinguished lawyers as that to agree on anything, particularly to agree that they do not know. I can see no reason why a statement should not be made on this subject during the course of the proceedings on the Bill.

I want to make this comment on the specific case raised by the hon. Member for Wimbledon: while we could not determine, in the eyes of the lawyers, whether we were dealing with a civil servant or not, we took good care to see that the rules of natural justice were applied. As chairman of the sub-committee which had one of the final decisions to make, and who has received a great deal of abuse ever since, I will say, as one who has often had to attend tribunals as a friend of a member of a union, that I am quite certain that the procedure was followed on that occasion most carefully. I am prepared to defend the decision which was reached on any relevant occasion on the ground that natural justice was applied and was observed.

The Bill clears out of the way all past legislation. When we come to the point raised by the hon. Member for Wimbledon, which is not concerned with the statutes in the Fourth Schedule to the Bill but with the way in which the place is run, there are what are called Museum statutes, which are rules for the conduct of the two museums, which have been laid down in the past and are observed in the day-to-day administration of it. They are not affected by the Bill.

But for the first time the trustees in future will have the power thoroughly to revise all those statutes and to remove those which are quite archaic. I was told once—I never took the trouble to verify how far it went—that on a subcommittee of the Standing Committee on which a Member of the other place was present, he would take the chair. If two of them turned up, the senior in rank would take the chair. For example, in the days mentioned by the Minister, if a duke turned up he would be in the chair, and I suppose that if he were not there the marquess would take the chair, and so on, right down, until in the end, in these days, we might get landed with a life peer in the chair.

Obviously, that relates to a condition of affairs which we have long since abandoned in the ordinary social and administrative life of the country, and I welcome the greater freedom which future trustees will have in being able to control the affairs of the Museum in the light of statutes which they themselves can draft and apply, and I wish them every success in their efforts in that respect.

I also share the feeling that Prime Ministers' appointments are rather overdone in the two Clauses of the Bill in which they are mentioned, and I should welcome the opportunity of seeing more of the learned societies making nominations, and other bodies likely to be interested in the work of the Museum also being entitled so to do.

The hon. Member for Wimbledon mentioned the question of how many evenings a week the Reading Room was open. For years the trustees have been willing to provide the staff and the facilities for the Museum Reading Room to be open on at least five evenings a week, but they cannot get from the Treasury the staff to deal with it. After all, even learned and erudite people, as are most of the staff of the Museum, are entitled to have a reasonable working day when they are giving their minds to their profession, and it will involve some increase in staff.

With the great extension of opportunities for study in this country in such services as university extension lectures, there may be many people who are voluntarily undertaking that form of further education who want to look up their references and to check in the reading room some of the things which they have heard; and unless they are free on the two nights which are now available, they are denied that opportunity.

I hope that the Government will consider even including the Workers' Educational Association, who do a great deal in the extra-mural activities of the universities, among the bodies who are allowed to nominate one member, so that the interests of this body of working students, who are carrying on their ordinary avocations during the day, may be appropriately represented when their interests are under discussion.

One considerable advantage arises from the Bill if the powers given under it are wisely used. At the moment, once an object gets into the British Museum on the north side of Great Russell Street, it cannot be moved out of it to any other place. It is proposed to build the new library on the south side of Great Russell Street, but we are in the unfortunate position that at the moment we cannot move anything from the north side to the south without breaking the law.

On occasions of national emergency, such as a war, it is sometimes necessary to move very considerable parts of the contents of the Museum to remote parts of the country to ensure that they are in reasonably safe positions, because many of the objects are priceless as objects of the Museum's attention. There is a power in the Bill—it was in the negotiations on the Bill from the first, even before the Prime Minister appeared on the scene—as regards the recognition of other places as receptacles for some of the contents of the Museum.

I am sometimes astounded in the range of interest in the Museum. People from the Dominions and from foreign countries come to London merely to see some object which is in the collection or to consult one of the books. It is highly desirable that such people should know exactly where to find what they want to see. When we were dealing with the first point that I mentioned, we were faced with a problem of where we could find storage places for objects which are not often required, but with a collection as miscellaneous as this the Museum never knows what will be asked for.

A person from the Dominions or some part of Europe or from the United States comes to London and wants to see an object. He goes to the British Museum. If he is wise he will write two or three days before, saying what it is that he wants to see. If the object is stored too far away, it may be some time before the Museum is able to put him in touch with the object he, has come, sometimes several thousands of miles, to see and in which he has a genuine interest, which is evinced by the fact that he has come such a distance to see one object.

I hope that in designating new repositories care will be taken to ensure that they are not too far away from the existing museums. I suggested that they should be within the Metropolitan Police district, or somewhere within a certain radius of London. Then, either the object could be brought to the Museum for the student to see, or he could be given a note to the keeper of the depository which would enable him to see the object where it was being stored. I hope that some limitation will be placed upon the radius from London within which these further depositories may be sited.

One Clause of the Bill has caused a great deal of trouble. I refer to Clause 5 (1, c) dealing with objects which may be disposed of. The trustees have the power of disposal if (c) the object is in the opinion of the Trustees unfit to be retained in the collections of the Museum. The word "unfit" is very general. Some people might want to apply some form of censorship to its exercise.

The case of material in the Natural History Museum which has been infested with parasites is easy to recognise. The condition of a book may become so bad merely physically that it ought no longer to be on the shelves of the Museum. There are some people who are not concerned about the physical condition of a book. They are concerned with what is printed in it. I hope that we shall be able to find some form of words to enable us to ensure that this phrase in the Clause will not present an opportunity for a veiled form of censorship.

I regret that we still find from Clause 6 that we are entirely in the clutches of the Treasury. The Clause contains these expressions: subject to such conditions as the Treasury may direct"— and— such salaries, allowances and other remuneration as the Treasury may determine. The hon. Member for Wimbledon quoted examples of people who have gone to Dominion museums. I do not regret their going merely because of the loss that we sustained, because I think that a great Museum like this is bound to provide suitable persons of experience for some of the very considerable appointments in the Dominions and in America. What I regret is that the salaries we are allowed by the Treasury to pay are so inadequate that it is almost certain that a post in the Dominions, and particularly in America, will attract such people to leave the service of this country and go overseas.

In Committee, many of the points which have been raised today will have to receive very serious consideration. I support the general idea behind the Bill, but I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will not be surprised when I say that in my view some of the details need to be examined very carefully. I should like to pay a tribute to the way in which the Government have consulted the present trustees at each stage in the formulation of the Bill. It is not to be expected that the right hon. Gentleman and myself, on all subjects, will ever be in agreement, but we managed to get near enough to agreement to be able to say that the principles in the Bill are agreed between the Government and the trustees and that on the details, about which there are differences, there should still be room for accommodation between one side and the other.

6.48 p.m.

Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies (Isle of Thanet)

I welcome the provisions of the Bill generally. I want right away to take up the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) on one point. I do not share his view that this country has lost from the British Museum and other museums the leading experts in the arts.

Mr. Ede

I did not say that.

Mr. Rees-Davies

The right hon. Gentleman said that we were in danger of doing so. I do not think that we are. I do not think that high salaries attract the men with this talent. If they wanted to, they could, with the talents that many of them possess, make gigantic fortunes as private collectors.

Mr. Ede

I am not at all sure that it is not the effect on the wife. The wife's influence over the husband is sometimes unnecessarily strong.

Mr. Rees-Davies

I cannot speak for the National History Museum, or for the natural talents of women, but I have some little knowledge of at least those who serve in what one might call the more applied and fine arts. What I shall say this evening relates mainly to that aspect.

We have had an interesting debate and I make no apology for saying that I intend to break entirely fresh ground in the things I have to say. I want, first, to look at the functions of the Bill and see just what are its aims. There is nothing in the Bill which seeks to define the character, scope and extent of the British Museum. I entirely disagree with the view that one should try to correlate the British Museum, the Natural History Museum and the other. I dissent from that view entirely.

The world of the arts today is becoming very professional. There are not many people with wide knowledge of the different aspects of art, but there are certain things about this country and its heritage, one of the greatest being that we have some of the finest collections of different arts in the world. Easily the most shocking example to show that heritage off is the British Museum. There can be no gainsaying that in the British Museum we have the greatest African and primitive art collections and probably the finest collection of Oriental art.

Neither of these two magnificent heritages is shown at all. Indeed, the whole question of African and primitive art is a complete and utter disgrace. It is tucked away at the bottom below Benin and other bronzes, and is not shown at all. I make that criticism in no destructive sense because in everything I say I mean to be helpful so that we will achieve betterment and contentment among those who have the difficulty of working in very difficult conditions; and all of this does not necessarily require the expenditure of vast sums of money.

Not everything—and I know that what I am about to say will probably be contrary Ito the views of everyone else—that America does is wrong. I agree that most of the things that the Americans do are wrong, but not everything. I believe profoundly that in working towards the proper presentaton, collation and handling of the arts, they lead the world. Those of us who have had the opportunity of visiting and examining the structure of museums and the method of operation in the United States cannot fail to have been deeply impressed by the measure of success that they have achieved.

We must remember that they have been achieved not by the expenditure of any State money, but simply because of the great personal patrons of America; great men like Frick, Mellon, and others, and by the generosity—one might even call it the desire to achieve fame through their wealth by setting up great collections—of wealthy people who have given the opportunity to the American people generally to be able to see what the rest of the world sought to save for themselves.

How are we to achieve those things? That is the theme of my speech tonight. What dominates the British Museum—and I am speaking about men for whom I have the greatest respect, for I know many of them and some are my friends and I must, therefore, tread warily because, when speaking on this subject, one is dealing with the heart of the establishment of Britain—is the library, for it is the dominating factor. Over 70 keepers have the task of keeping the library, while I believe that about 15 or 20 other keepers deal with the rest of the Museum, lock stock and barrel.

Of prime importance is to get the library into its splendid new building and away from the rest as soon as possible. The greatest thing that the Government could do to start off a real understanding of the whole question of the arts is to hurry up and complete the building for the National Library, although I agree that it is right that it should remain as the British Museum. Having done that one must then consider the balance.

Whether or not one calls it part of the British Museum or gives it an entirely separate title I know and care not, but I want to see the creation of an Oriental museum. We have the greatest Oriental collection and people who want to see magnificent Tang horses and superb early sculpture from India and Japan want to be able to go to one museum for that purpose and not have to make various journeys to scattered places.

I want to know, for example, whether the format of the Bill requires, under the Clause which deals with it, a separate Treasury Order to come back to Parliament or, when the library is set up, it can create an Oriental museum automatically. Is that possible under the terms of the Bill? Whether or not the Minister agrees with me is beside the point, but the Bill should ensure that if the trustees come to the conclusion, in due course, that there should be a separate Oriental museum, they will be able to establish one without having to come to the House of Commons for further legislation.

When considering our collection of African art, the state of affairs and the way it is exhibited is deplorable. Many people—and this was the only part of the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Mr. R. Thompson) with which I disagreed; and I know that he served in the Ministry of Public Building and Works with distinction in this field—have different tastes. I disagreed with my hon. Friend when he said that the trustees had done the right and most important things. That entirely depends on what one collects and likes.

Many people may think that the most important things are connected with Leonardo da Vinci while others may prefer Benin. There are people who consider that great examples of primitive art are more important than the greatest Impressionist paintings and, therefore, it is important to realise that different people have different tastes and ideas. So it is just as important to some people that there should be a superb presentation of primitive and African art.

In New York there is a Museum of Primitive Art, to which parties of people are invited to attend when in that city. There is also a great museum of modern art connected with the great name of Rockefeller. There they are, cheek by jowl, one across the road from the other. One is smaller than the other. One has a great deal of money while the other has much less. The Museum of Modern Art is wealthy while the Museum of Primitive Art is not.

In the British Museum, in this tremendous colossus, we have some of the world's greatest collections. They are kept in one great morass, so that the public cannot quickly and easily get around to see the items which they would like to see. Why is it that the Tate Gallery is packed and the British Museum is empty? The reason is that the Tate has some understanding of presentation. It is not the fault of the keepers of the British Museum that they cannot have this presentation and it is not wholly a question of money. It is largely a question of the architecture, the structure of the British Museum and the way the thing is set out.

To do the job properly one must, so to speak, have separate entities and set out one's presentation. And to get this presentation one must get new patrons. I suggest, therefore, that same provision should be made in the Bill to ensure that people may become patrons of the British Museum; and not trustees. For the trustees there must be some link with this House but, fundamentally, the people who run museums—and I am on the side of the pro's against the amateurs—are really the enthusiastic amateurs who take a genuine interest in the great collections, as in America.

The great museum in Philadelphia has a president who is a well-known lawyer. I had the pleasure of staying with him when I was in the United States to attend the American Bar Convention and that gentleman, although a well-known lawyer, spent much of his time devoted to the patronage of the arts. As I say, the wealthy people in that country who are so inclined are free to become patrons of museums. They pay a subscription, and I believe that many of the great industries in this country and the leaders of industry might like to lend their names to becoming patrons of some particular part of our museums. Some of them might be on the natural history side, concerned, perhaps, with industries which are affected by natural history, while some who have talents in the fine arts might like to assist in having their names as patrons associated with the British Museum.

I hope that, in that way, with the influence of the amateur associated with the skill of the professional, we may be able to get the first-class amenities which we so desperately need. I can give examples of this need. It is very difficult for those who are beginners to get knowledge quickly and easily. In the fine arts one can only get knowledge by looking. It is only by living in museums almost daily and by going to auction rooms, or to fine collections, or whatever it is, that one can get the professional eye.

Young people want to be experts quickly. None of our museums has the facilities, accepted throughout the United States, to enable a person to put on headphones and, by paying 6d., listen to a lecture in the room, giving the details. Walkie-talkie and wireless sets are used in that connection. There is no public relations department in the British Museum of which I am aware which enables television to be able to bring the T.V. cameras right into the Museum, as, for example, is regularly done in Boston, Massachusetts.

If we turn to another field, it is essential that we should be able to lay out all the arts particularly if one is handling furniture and other fine arts. When one is handling furniture, silver, porcelain, or glass for goodness' sake put them into one room to show the century to which they belong. Then women can understand what they are looking at. There are very few rooms for this in the British Museum, although there is to some extent in the Victoria and Albert in the way in which one can find them in the Frick collection, where one can go from room to room and see period by period.

We have to try to modernise our approach. We have, therefore, to set up a structure in the Bill which will ensure such modernisation. There is a very real feeling among the young people of today particularly to want to enjoy every kind of art. Goodness knows, they will not be able to own them, at prices at which they are today, or at least not many of them, but they may perhaps be given the opportunity to be able to go not as a penance to the British Museum, but as a pleasure.

This is what we have to achieve. I do not believe that the Treasury will hold back the money—because I rather take the view that the officials in the Treasury are, on the whole, a rather intellectual bunch of people who try to help the arts, although they may not succeed. I may be wrong in this, but I am bound to say that there is a lot of good common sense in the C.P.C. pamphlet called "The Government and the Arts", which has been written by four of my hon. Friends on this side of the House, under the chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Sir H. Kerr).

I think that the day is coming when, because of the money which the House may have to give, there will have to be some real control and infinitely greater co-ordination under the Ministry of Public Building and Works and it may be that people from the Treasury and Ministry of Education, who have been associated with the arts, may have to be seconded or even upgraded in the development in the Ministry of Public Building and Works so that we can co-ordinate these things.

It may well be that my hon. Friend ought to be Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Fine Arts. It probably will come without having to interfere with many of the great extra statutory duties which lie on great bodies like the Arts Council and many others. In this matter of the Museum it has now been clearly decided by Her Majesty's Government that the Treasury shall retain the power. If it does I hope that we shall not have quite as many trustees as 25; I think that that is too many. I think that there can be too many differences of opinion between the powers that be, and I would have preferred to have seen a settlement for 15 and no more.

I would prefer the structure of the number set up by the Natural History Museum, but when the structure has been strengthened and we are sure that it is flexible enough to have separate museums, under the heading of the British Museum, then let us see that we can ensure that these men, working in their own field, with, perhaps, subcommittees of the trustees, will be enabled to get in this country the type of presentation which the public will enjoy so that the Bill, which gets rid of all the archaic anomalies of the past, will be the foundation of what I believe will be one of the greatest future industries in this country—the tourist industry. That will happen, I believe.

I believe that that will happen before many years are passed. We have to ensure that people not only throughout England but throughout the world will come to this great metropolis because we shall not only have the greatest collections to show, but the unrivalled talent of showing them to their best effect.

7.5 p.m.

Dr. Barnett Stross (Stoke-on-Tront, Central)

The right hon. Gentleman, who introduced this small Bill with his usual facility and grace, will have noted, as we discussed it, that it will obviously get a Second Reading, although everyone has criticised one or other of its provisions and hopes that improvement can be effected in Committee.

I read in the Preamble of the first enactment which led to the British Museum being created—the one in 1753 —these words: Whereas all arts and sciences having connection with each other". Those are the first words in the Preamble, and today, in this Bill, we are to divorce the sciences from the arts by separating the two sections of the British Museum. In principle most of us think that this is a mistake—that it is wrong.

So much is the education of the country becoming specialised that we are all aware of the danger that men may not be able to communicate with each other. They have no method of understanding each other's functions in life or what their professional interests mean to them. This has been made apparent in the speech of more than one hon. Member. We do not want another Tower of Babel in this age of ours, and we ought to do everything possible on principle to say that we do not accept a divorcement between the arts and the sciences.

Our new universities are all moving towards the acceptance of this. For example, in North Staffordshire, in the four-year course at the Keele University, the first year is called the foundation year. Everyone must pass in that first year at his first attempt. That year is spent studying the root of our common civilisation. After that, any subject used for specialisation must be supported by a secondary subject in an entirely different sphere—an opposite sphere. If science is being read, there must be a subsidiary subject in the arts, at a slightly lower level of attainment. If we are doing this in all our new universities and accepting it in our older ones, too, it seems a great pity that in this Bill we are separating the Natural History Museum from the British Museum. Where that is concerned, I am at odds with the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies).

I would add only this to what I have just said. Has the right hon. Gentleman noted that the science library is to stay with the parent organisation? It will be one of the greatest, if not the greatest, science reference libraries in the world. If we are separating the two institutions, it seems strange that we are retaining the science reference library with the art side of the British Museum. Moreover, as time goes by, more and more of the people who will work at Bloomsbury will be recruited from the ranks of the scientists, because the preservation, conservation and labelling of material more and more needs the assistance of the scientist. That seems to be an added argument for not separating the two sections.

Enough has been said about the creation of the two trustee bodies and the excessive patronage of the Prime Minister, so I need not say anything about that at all, but my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) has warned us that the word "unfit" in Clause 5 (1, c) to describe objects which may be sold, exchanged, given away or otherwise disposed of is perhaps rather dangerous.

The fact that there is an explanation of the word in the Explanatory Memorandum does not help us at all, because that explanation will not matter when it comes to interpretation. The Explanatory Memorandum speaks of objects found to be forgeries or wrongly identified—that is fine. If the objects are rotten, they are also unfit, as they are when riddled with worm, or infested, but we have all read—

Mr. Fletcher

My hon. Friend speaks with approval of getting rid of objects found to be forgeries, but does he not realise that, for instance, in ecclesiastical history, at any rate, some of the most important documents of antiquity are forgeries, but to students of history they are no less important than genuine books?

Dr. Stross

My hon. Friend should not address that question to me but to the Economic Secretary. It may well be that for historical reasons a forgery may, in certain circumstances, be more exiting than the original—I do not know. However, I am sure that my hon. Friend will get an opportunity to make his point in a few moments.

As I was about to say, we all know that there was great controversy as to whether or not the Elgin Marbles were by Phideas. Evidence was given before a Select Committee that they were not by Phideas but were late Roman work by some sculptors at the time of Hadrian. That evidence was accepted for quite a long time, but was later controverted, and we now all know that in all probability they have nothing to do with the time of Hadrian but are genuine works of the 5th century B.C. by Phideas. I know that it is a sort of lunatic effort, but suppose that at some time in the future a lot of people changed their minds acid the critics agreed that the Elgin Marbles were not by Phideas. Are they then to be thought of as "unfit"—that is why I am so afraid of this word—and then let my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon (Mr. F. Noel-Baker) have his way, and give them back to Athens?

I am very nervous about both Clauses 4 and 5. As long as our trustees remain stable and sane, I am sure that they will not do anything so stupid as to give these great Marbles back, because we know perfectly well that if they had not been bought by Elgin they would probably not now be available for anybody in the world. At the time of the purchase, the Elgin Marbles were being used by the Turkish garrison soldiers for target practice. Again, tourists thought nothing of chopping off a hand or a foot or a nose, or any fragment, and taking it home. Further, the Athenians themselves at the time made no resistance to the transaction, and showed very little, if any, interest in the Marbles at all.

If they were to be returned, would they go back to where they originally came from, or would they be put into a museum? Most people think that they would be put into a museum. Well, we have them in a museum where they are very likely to be seen by more people than would see them in a museum in Athens. They were legitimately bought, and there can be no excuse whatever for sending them back—

Mr. Rees-Davies

I share the hon. Member's view about giving them back but, in this sphere and in others, it would not be wrong, would it, in the discretion of the trustees, to exchange objects or, indeed, to lend objects for a period of years provided that the trans- action would not damage the object being lent? Would not the hon. Gentleman agree with that?

Dr. Stross

Lending is very different from exchanging. If we are to start exchanging things, who will bequeath anything any more to the great institutions? They will not do so. To lend for a strictly limited period is another matter.

One of the things of which we should be most proud is the freedom of access to this institution, and to others, without charge. Italy used to allow people to enter its museums without charge but today there is a charge, which means that Italian people of the working class —and they are the majority of the people in that country—are too often denied, both fox themselves and their children, access to treasures in their own country. I think that our method is infinitely better.

I want to reinforce the plea that the Treasury should immediately find the money necessary to let students go to the British Museum on five nights a week, and not on two nights as at present. Originally, it was open until 9.30 p.m., but it is now limited to 9 o'clock on those two nights a week, because 9.30 is rather late if the staff are to be able to return to homes some miles away. But what possible excuse can there be to deny citizens who have to work for their living during the day the right to pursue research, and to educate themselves, on five evenings a week?

What nonsense it is to have this enormously expensive piece of machinery, unique in the world, and yet to deny people this access. I am told that on the present two nights a week, between 175 and 225 people are to be found there. What little extra cost will it mean to enable so many hundreds more to go there on the other nights? I would not press for it to be open on Saturday nights—there is a limit to what we must expect from staff—but the extra money should be found to enable it to be open for the five nights for which the Trustees have been begging for the last two years, and having their plea denied. I hope that the Economic Secretary will give an answer on that point, because we all feel very strongly about it. It is the taxpayers' money that supports this expensive, unique and marvellous institution. It should be used as fully as possible.

7.18 p.m.

Mr. Austin Albu (Edmonton)

I want to refer very briefly to the Natural History Museum and to the National Science Reference Library. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross), who spoke so eloquently about the two cultures, drew attention to the fact that, for the first time, the Natural History Museum is to be separated from the British Museum, although the title is still retained. Ever since 1881 the two have been attached by a rather thin umbilical cord, which has now been broken.

The question whether the trustees should be the same or separate is a practical one, and it does not involve us in great philosophical arguments. The practical question is not only that of the best way of running one body concerned, as my hon. Friend was concerned, with arts, and another with sciences, but also that, in running them, remembering that each has two functions—to be places for the exhibition of objects and places of research.

The balance between the two institutions varies. In the British Museum itself, the exhibition of objects is partly for scientific reasons—archaeological, and so on—while the exhibition of objects in the Natural History Museum is entirely scientific. The practical question is how to get the best body of trustees. There may be a case, although I cannot see it very strongly, for some overlapping of trustees.

There is a good deal of misunderstanding about the Natural History Museum. Since the time when it moved to South Kensington, it has seen great development particularly in the field of scientific research. Today, I understand that it is only 10 per cent, a museum whereas it is 90 per cent. a research institute for natural history and biology. In these fields, it has a worldwide reputation as a research institutio. It has among its staff people who are absolutely the top men in the world in their research subjects.

During the last twelve years, the staff at the Natural History Museum has increased by 43 per cent. In addition, there is a very substantial number of part-time scientists working there. On top of that, the Museum has many visitors who come there to work and do research from universities and institutions at home and abroad.

The Natural History Museum—perhaps this is a matter of greater interest to the Treasury, because it is seen to be something of a revenue-earning body as well as a spending body—does work which has substantial practical results. It receives many inquiries and conducts a great number of researches for the public health authorities. Such work is done in the department of zoology and the department of entomology. The department of palaeontology does a good deal of work in connection with overseas geological surveys, particularly in Commonwealth countries, and also it makes a substantial economic contribution to the oil companies by helping them to know when to stop deep drilling in their explorations.

At present, this Museum, like the main part of the British Museum, is very short of space. The hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies) says that he did not think it was question of money, but went on to say that the buildings were out of date. I did not quite understand how he could reconcile those two comments because, if one wants new buildings or substantial changes in existing buildings, the museums must have more money. The Natural History Museum certainly needs more money very badly. It needs a new wing for its zoology and entomology departments. It needs the completion of its new block for palaeontology and mineralogy.

Hon. Members have criticised the fact that the Museum, like some other institutions, is directly, or through its trustees, responsible to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I am not quite sure whether it would be better somewhere else, although I think that there is a case, as was said by one or two hon. Members, for transferring it. One or two hon. Members have put the case for it being, for instance, under the Minister of Public Building and Works, who is now responsible for what one might call the national exhibition of buildings throughout the country. What is absolutely essential, however, whichever Government Department is finally responsible for it, is that the trustees—this is the real point about the trustees—should have a genuine and keen interest in the work which these institutions carry out. It is not necessary, nor, I think, possible that the trustees should all be experts in all the fields in which the Natural History Museum works, but they should have a love and understanding of the work as well as a wide, general practical experience. Only in that way will they be in a position to feel strongly enough to put up the case for more money to the Treasury.

I remember the former Minister of Education, now Lord Eccles, twitting the universities with having nobody to to put the case for them in the Cabinet because they had to go direct to the Treasury, He said, "I fight for the schools and the colleges of technology". It is extremely important to have a strong and keen body of trustees who will fight for money for the museums. If they do not understand the value of the work, particularly the research work which goes on as well as the museum side of it, they will be unlikely to put up a case sufficiently strongly and well to the Treasury.

I agree with those who have said that we ought to consider in Committee whether some of the professional bodies and associations should be represented among the trustees. I think of the Institute of Biology, the Royal Entomological Society, the Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, and so on. I like the suggestion made, I think, by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) that there should a representative of the Committee of Vice-Chancellors.

Particularly in the case of the Natural History Museum, the Minister for Science should have almost a statutory say, or even a statutory right of appointment. I say frankly that I am surprised that the Parliamentary Secretary for Science is not here. We are dealing with an institution which is intimately concerned with scientific research. I should have expected the hon. Gentleman to be present in the House.

I pass now from the Natural History Museum, to which I wish all the best of luck in its new independence—though there will not be all that difference if it does not get the money—and I tarn to the National Science Reference Library. This is the direct interest, almost the direct responsibility, in a way, though not the statutory responsibility, of the Minister for Science. We had a debate about it on 14th March, 1961. I put a number of questions to the Parliamentary Secretary for Science, not all of which were answered. There were at that time some anxieties about the general control of the library by the authorities of the British Museum.

I think that the main anxieties were about the possible duplication of interest. The library serves the purpose of being the library for the Patent Office, which is the responsibility of the Board of Trade, and it undoubtedly will be the most important scientific reference library in the country, and, therefore, should interest the Minister for Science. Of course, it will now be part of the British Museum collection; the British Museum already has got part of it.

There was a good deal of anxiety also about the separation of the two parts of the library, the current books and periodicals, which will be situated on the South Bank and the non-current, which will often be referred to, of course, and need to be referred to quickly, which are to be maintained at Bloomsbury. I want to be absolutely certain that these matters are being fully considered.

I say at once that, from all 1 have heard, there seems to be general agreement that the plans produced for the library under Sir Frank Francis have been developing very satisfactorily, but there is concern that what we are now doing is creating a permanent arrangement and people want to be absolutely certain that, whoever the authorities of the British Museum may be in the future, they will continue to take an interest and have as good a realisation of its function as the present authorities have. I suggest, therefore, that there is reason for some strengthening of the scientific and technological side of the trustees of the British Museum. This may well be necessary under the new arrangement.

Do not the research councils have an interest in this matter? It is very important to realise that the library serves a very specialised purpose. It makes an enormous contribution to industry, and this contribution will undoubtedly greatly increase in future. This is, I think, a slightly uneasy cuckoo in the nest of the British Museum. I should never suggest that the British Museum library should not hold on its shelves every book which is published, but there is no logical reason why a specialised library like the National Science Reference Library should be in the British Museum. I emphasise again that no one is unhappy about what has been taking place during the past few months, but those concerned with the library want to be absolutely certain that the interests of the users of the library for what is a very specialised purpose will be looked after in the future.

Having said all that, I, like my hon. Friends, give a qualified welcome to the Bill. Like all small Bills, its effect will depend entirely on the energy and enthusiasm which the Government finally apply to its principles, and this, in the end, whatever the hon. Gentleman opposite may say, comes down to interest and money.

7.29 p.m.

Mr. Niall MacDermot (Derby, North)

I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Mr. Albu) has spoken so knowledgeably and interestingly about the Natural History Museum, because I was getting a little anxious about the fact that it has been mentioned so little in the debate. As one who read recently the intresting collection of essays published by Sir Gavin de Beer, who was until fairly recently Director of this Museum, I was aware that such interesting matters should be brought to the attention of the House, but I did not feel competent to do it.

I wish to raise a point which has not been dealt with so far. It concerns Clause 4 and the new power to lend objects. I am surprised that there has not been more discussion on this point. I do not know whether the numbering of the Clause led to hesitation on the part of my hon. Friends, but it seems to me that this is a matter which may give rise to very great difficulty. I confess that I am torn both ways on this subject. On the one hand, I want to see more loan exhibitions in provincial centres: on the other hand, I am very concerned about the safety of irreplaceable art treasures.

I know how starved the provinces are of their fair share of our artistic heritage, too much of which is concentrated in London. I know that those provincial galleries which make a practice of arranging loan exhibitions do a very great service. I think particularly of the Cecil Higgins Museum at Bedford which other members of the Bar and I, going to Bedford on circuit, have found a most pleasurable place to visit because there is nearly always an interesting loan exhibition on view there. Most of those exhibitions come from the Victoria and Albert Museum.

The interest to be weighed in the balance against that is the safety of art treasures. I am a little anxious about the wide powers being given and to whom they are being given under the Bill. At present, the British Museum has power to loan objects if they are duplicate books or manuscripts or objects for public exhibition in any gallery in Britain under the control of a public authority or university. Even with this limited power, I do not think that people realise the risks, danger and damage which may result. This is not something which gets publicity.

I do not wish to mention particular exhibitions, but I understand that within the last few years valuable works of art which have been loaned from the British Museum for public exhibition no further afield than London—they have been moved only from one part of London to another have been returned to the British Museum in a damaged condition. Here we are concerned with the loan of objects for exhibition not merely in London or in this country but in any part of the world.

I could quote a few other examples to illustrate the dangers that I have in mind. A committee of art experts and chemists met in London about 1950 under the auspices of U.N.E.S.C.O. to consider the position about ikons. It found that the amount of movement of ikons that had taken place for loan purposes had caused very serious permanent damage to the ikons.

Another example is the Indian Art Exhibition which hon. Members may have seen in this country in the years shortly after the war. It was probably the finest exhibition of Indian art ever held. The articles, I believe, were brought to this country by the Royal Navy. At some stage in their journey—I do not know where it happened—a railway truck containing exhibits for the exhibition broke free from the train, ran away and was involved in an accident with serious damage resulting to some of the art treasures. I do not think that this received publicity at the time because those organising exhibitions naturally do not want to publicise the risks attendant on transporting art treasures across the world.

I remember having a conversation with the late Professor Thomas Bodkin, one of the most fascinating talkers on the subject of art that there has ever been. He was the director of the Barber Institute of Fine Arts at Birmingham. He told me how he had been prevailed upon, rather against his will, to loan some of the finest pictures in that collection for an exhibition on the Continent. The pictures were duly returned to this country, hut, owing to some administrative misunderstanding, they were held up for a long time by the Customs in this country.

It is not merely a matter of protecting works of art against physical damage and against the possibility of someone battering them. They have to be kept at the right temperature. Temperature and humidity can do permanent damage to works of art. Professor Bodkin told me that after had had rushed down to 'the coast—he was a man of considerable energy and initiative—he managed to get them released quickly, after pulling strings at a very high level. He said that this experience firmly persuaded him that never again would he lend any of the works of art under his control for exhibition.

I believe that there is real concern among some of the staff in the British Museum about the provision which we are being asked to pass in Clause 4 which would give the trustees the power to lend for public exhibition, whether in the United Kingdom or elsewhere, any object comprised in the collections of the Museum. There is a proviso saying that, in deciding whether or not to lend, the trustees shall have regard to various interests.

Which body should decide this question? Should it be the trustee's or the keepers? My view is that in a matter of this kind those who have the knowledge are the people to take the responsible decision. The keepers at the British Museum have a tremendous sense of responsibility. They believe that their task is to preserve this most wonderful heritage from the past for future generations. They and they alone are the people who are able to judge the risks attendant on lending works of art for exhibition here and abroad.

One can see at once the risks involved in allowing non-technical people to decide this question. The Mona Lisa, which is being transferred to America, is a vivid illustration of this. That action was taken in face of the unanimous contrary advice of all the experts of the Louvre and of the French Academy. They were all overruled by political decisions. I think it scandalous that a work of art like that should be transferred across the world against the advice of all the experts, particularly to serve an ephemeral political purpose. I do not think that politicians have the right to deal with works of art in that way and for that purpose.

We can see what will happen if this kind of decision is to he left to trustees. We all hope to see as a result of the Bill an expansion of our museums and museum service. We also hope to see great improvements in display and in the organisation of exhibitions. No doubt our trustees will develop very close and friendly relations with the trustees of comparable museums and bodies abroad. We realise the sort of pressures that will develop. One will say to the other, "You lend us some of your works of art for our exhibition and we will lend you some of our works of art for your exhibition." Perhaps there will not be political considerations such as that to which I referred just now concerning the Mona Lisa, but there will be strong pressures on the trustees to allow too indiscriminate loaning of works of art, and the contrary advice of the experts will be overruled.

I should like provision to be written into the Bill that no work of art should be removed from the premises when the director of the department concerned, the keeper or whatever his proper title may be, advises that it would be contrary to the safety of the work of art in question.

I should like to refer briefly also to Clause 5 concerning the disposal of objects. Paradoxically, perhaps, in view of what I have said, I should like to see somewhat wider powers of disposal. My hon. Friend the Member for Swindon (Mr. F. Noel-Baker) made a persuasive case for giving a power of exchange. He instanced the case of our Greek treasures, in which we are extremely rich —some might almost think over-rich—in one period and very poor in the earliest works which some consider to be the finest works of Greek art. If it would be possible to effect an exchange which would be of mutual benefit to us and to the Athens Museum, and which, incidentally, would give great pleasure to the people of Greece, that is something which we should earnestly consider.

I am inclined to agree with the view expressed by the Minister in introducing the Bill that that is something which should not be done except with the approval of Parliament. I should, however, like provision to be written into the Bill whereby on the recommendation of the trustees there might be power, subject to, say, affirmative Resolutions of both Houses, to dispose either by way of gift or by way of exchange when there is a strong case for doing so and where this is thought to be in the interests of this country as well as of the other country concerned in the transaction.

7.42 p.m.

Mr. Eric Fletcher (Islington, East)

I should like, first, to comment on two points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. MacDermot). He made some important observations on Clause 4 and I entirely agree with what he said about it. It might, however, assist the House to be reminded that, as it stands, Clause 4 is more favourable to my hon. Friend's point of view than is the existing Act of 1924 which is being repealed.

Under the existing law, the trustees merely have to be satisfied that provision is made for the safety and insurance of specimens, whereas by Clause 4 of the Bill they must have regard to the interests of students and others. So far, so good. I do not, however, dissent from my hon. Friend's proposition that further safeguards might be introduced into the Bill.

My hon. Friend and others have spoken about Clause 5. I am glad that there is no provision in the Bill which would enable the trustees of the British Museum to part with the Elgin Marbles. Lord Elgin rendered a service both to this country and to those antiquities in bringing that valuable collection to this country, where they have been well preserved ever since, where they are in a much better state of preservation than they would otherwise have been had they been left there, and where their esthetic beauties have been admired by so many people.

The wide interest which has been shown on both sides of the House, not only in the Bill, but in the functions of the British Museum generally, should be a stimulus to the Government, and a refreshing indication of the general public interest that is taken in it. I was not merely disappointed, but I was appalled, by the complacency with which the Chief Secretary to the Treasury approached the subject. I hope that the Economic Secretary, who has been present throughout the debate, will have been duly impressed by the representations that have been made to him by nearly every hon. Member who has spoken that if the British Museum is to function as we hope it should, and if it is to be worthy of its position in the cultural life of the nation, a great deal more must be done by the Treasury.

I do not agree with all the criticisms of the British Museum that have been written in recent months. I do not, for example, go as far as Mrs. Jacquetta Hawkes in her article in the Observer a few months ago, when she said that the Museum was a national disgrace and that it was a shambles. Dr. Glyn Daniel has written in rather similar strain.

Without resorting to exaggeration, I am sure that the Treasury representatives who have listened to this debate must by now appreciate that—to put it mildly—all is not well with the British Museum. The truth is that it has not kept pace with the times. It does not compare favourably with other national museums. I think not only of those in the United States, but of those in places like Stockholm, Budapest, Moscow, Cairo, Copenhagen and almost any other place one cares to name. The trouble with the British Museum is that it has not kept abreast of the times.

In saying that, I should like to make it clear, as a number of my hon. Friends have done, that no reflection is cast upon the present Director, who since his appointment has shown a great deal of initiative, enterprise and enthusiasm in getting things done. There has, how-even, been a generation of neglect, the blame for which must be laid at the hands either of the trustees or of the Treasury. It may be that, as the Chief Secretary said, we have been inhibited in some respects in criticising the trustees too much because Mr. Speaker himself is one of he principal trustees. The fault however, is not mainly the neglect of the trustees, it is mainly the parsimony of the Treasury. By suggesting such a fundamental change in the constitution of the trustees, the Bill admits by implication that something is wrong with the present constitution. Otherwise, there would be no need to change it.

There is no doubt that the British Museum has suffered from the fact that it has had a large number of ex officio trustees, all of whom are busy and important people with responsibilities in other walks of life and none of whom has been able to act as an effective, efficient spokesman for the British Museum.

We are remedying the constitution. We are devising a new set-up of trustees. I do not today propose to talk about the details of the constitution, because those are matters which can be examined in Committee. There are many Amendments which should be examined in Committee. On Second Reading, it is more appropriate to comment, as the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies) did in what I regarded as a constructive and helpful speech, upon the general position and functions of the Museum in our national life.

Although the trustees are being reconstituted and, as the Chief Secretary told me in answer to an intervention, they will now, for the first time, be able to appoint their own chairman, what is wanted above all else is that they should appoint as chairman someone who is a capable, energetic spokesman and who can continually prod the Treasury into effective action.

It may be that the only excuse by the Treasury for what I regard as its parsimonious attitude towards the British Museum during the last generation is that it has not been prodded often enough or vigorously or effectively enough by the trustees. Let us hope that with a new body and a new chairman there will be somebody who will be able to express what, I am convinced, is the national desire that the British Museum should be restored to the prestige that it used to have in our national life and which, with adequate Treasury assistance, it can have again.

It is obvious that the British Museum has suffered from financial neglect as compared with other institutions like the National Gallery, the Tate Gallery, and so on. I am not sure whether it is generally recognised, although it has been mentioned in this debate, that even now, seventeen years after the end of the war, the war damage repairs at the British Museum have not yet been done.

There are two large and spacious galleries that were destroyed by bombs twenty years ago, and still remain derelict. As a result, the public have been denied the use of and access to what used to be the prehistoric gallery, with its valuable collection, and the Greek and Roman vase room. When one remembers the amount of money that has been spent all over the country in various directions on war damage repairs, it is really a scandal that these repairs at the British Museum have not yet been done.

The failure is the more serious when one recalls that in the best of conditions the Museum is suffering from a grotesque lack of space. In this connection, I want to mention one related matter which I hope the Government will consider. We all understand that the plan of the Treasury and the Ministry of Public Building and Works is for the removal of the library, thereby providing additional space at the Museum itself on the present site. That plan will take some years to fructify and materialise, and I hope that we will not be told that it will delay any longer the putting in hand of the war damage repairs that should be done to these two galleries.

I have heard a rumour which I hope is not true and which I hope will be contradicted, that the Government are proposing to allot a sum of money—£400,000 has been mentioned—to the Standing Committee on Museums and Galleries to be allocated between the British Museum and various provincial museums. If that is so, it will not do. It is totally unsatisfactory. It will not do for the Government to hive off their responsibility in this by allocating a global sum to a body which has no responsibility to Parliament, thus putting the British Museum in the impossible and humiliating position of having to go cap in hand for a fair share.

The British Museum is a national responsibility and it is a function of the Government to see that it is not starved of financial resources that are overdue to equip it to catch up with the position it was in at the end of the war. Of course, that is not the end of the matter. The other great crying shortage is that of staff. What I said of the directors is true of the keepers and the rest of the dedicated staff.

I do not know whether the public realise to the full all the duties expected of a much over-worked staff. They not only have their duties towards the general public, but their duties to scholars. They also have to record antiquities and preserve them, catalogue them and publish them. They have to deal with multifarious inquiries from the general public and provide facilities for students both from Britain and overseas who wish to study specialised subjects. There is a glaring shortage of space and a great shortage of staff.

These are matters which cannot be dealt with in the Bill and which cannot, as far as I can see, be dealt with by amendments in Committee. Nevertheless, these are overriding problems which the Treasury must face. Incidentally. in connection with staff, I endorse what my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) said about Clause 6. It is an astonishing omission that the Government have not taken the opportunity as The Times also pointed out in its leading article today, of clearing up once and for all the uncertainty and the legal, technical doubt as to whether the senior staff at the Museum are or are not civil servants. I hope that we can deal with that in Com- mittee. There are various other things which we can also deal with then.

Also in connection with Clause 6, I hope that we shall make it clear, if it is not already clear, that the trustees have power to create new departments, to subdivide existing departments, and, if necessary, to amalgamate some of the existing departments.

Now I turn to Clauses 8 and 9. I regard Clause 9 as dangerous. I appreciate the reasons for it, that without it the trustees would not have the legal power to move the present library across the road, and that it may well be necessary for a limited time that there should be authorised depositories and power temporarily to transfer books to other institutions. But I want an assurance that these powers will not in any circumstances be used to "out-house" —if I may use the phrase—any of the Museum's books at any distance from the centre of London. It is essential that any member of the reading public should at all times be able to get any book he wants within a few minutes.

Since I want to make some adverse comments on part of the Museum, before doing so I want to express my own appreciation, and that of various friends who use it, of the admirable facilities rendered by the library. It has a deservedly high and I suppose unique reputation. One of my correspondents writes: The service offered by the Library has vastly improved in the last eighteen months and is now excellent …The atmosphere of concentration, the arrangement of the catalogues, the range of the open shelves, the arrangement, height, etc. of the desks could not be improved. They all tend to produce an atmosphere conducive to good work, and produce a spirit of courteous co-operation and service in the Library staff, which is unmatched, and irreplaceable. The same enthusiast about the library has a good deal to say on the Museum. It concerns something which the House must face as well as the Treasury. Although it has been touched Upon by the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet it has not been expressed in the debate tonight in the detail in which it should have been ventilated.

Reference has been made to the African collection and the ethnological collection, but the real trouble with the Museum is that although it has an admirable African collection, admirable collections of classical and Egyptian antiquities—the mummies are always popular attractions—there has been a scandalous neglect of British archæmology.

During the last twenty-five or thirty years there has been a growing interest in British archæology of all kinds. One reads in the columns of the Press about excavations and discoveries. Students from practically every university now spend a certain amount of time in the summer months, and sometimes at Easter, in various archæological activities. Unfortunately, the department which is supposed to deal with British antiquities and British archæology in the Museum is the most miserably staffed of all—and has lamentably inadequate space.

I know that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury takes a great interest in this matter. There is an immense and growing demand for space and exhibits dealing with British arahæology.

A few years ago the British and Modiæval Department had one assistant keeper responsible for the whole of the Palæolithic Collection, the whole of the Megalithic Collection, the whole of the European Collection of British Prehistoric Archæology, and the whole of Roman Britain, whereas, by way of comparison, the comparable departments in the National Museum at Stockholm enjoyed a staff of 13.

This, then, is the current criticism of the British Museum. It has ceased to march with the times. There has been an enormous financial stringency which has prevented it fulfilling its function in relation to British archæology. Perhaps I might quote Professor Hawker, who is also the President of the Council of British Archæology. Writing in the current number of Antiquity he says—and I endorse and commend this to the right hon. Gentleman— Where they"— that is, the trustees— have been scandalously wrong, and will continue so unless a great change comes, is in what seems their disdain for this country's archæology as such … It need not always he disdain, so much as sheer unawareness … it' is a cry of deep dissatisfaction, by decent, civilized and honest people, after seventeen years of stupid official meanness … This is a very serious reflection on the Treasury. It is no reflection on the staff of the museum.

Something has been said about methods of display. I do not know whether the Chief Secretary has been to the British Museum recently. No doubt he has, and has seen, for example, the recent exhibits in the King Edward VII Gallery of the Tara Brooch and the Ardagh Challice exhibited with the most modern technical methods of display…an admirable production.

There is nothing wrong with the skill, ability, and enthusiasm of the staff. Our criticism is that the Treasury ought to be galvanised out of its parsimonious attitude and ought, as a result of this debate, to provide the means necessary to make the British Museum again worthy of its name and of its past.

8.2 p.m.

The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Edward du Cann)

I am sure that my right hon. Friend would wish me first to express our appreciation for the general welcome which the Bill has received. Indeed, during the course of this debate we have had some most helpful and valuable contributions. Perhaps I could say one or two words in endorsement of what my right hon. Friend said when he opened the debate, and then attempt to reply to the many detailed questions which have been raised.

There are two main reasons why the Government have introduced this Bill. First, the legislation governing the British Museum is very much out of date in many respects, a point which has been amply illustrated during the course of the debate, and which has justly been the subject of criticism in the Press, not only today but on other occasions. There are many British Museum Acts going back to 1753, and containing a good many archaisms, inconsistencies, and far too much rigidity. Again, I think that these points have been clearly underlined during the debate. The Bill therefore is a streamlining Measure designed to bring the organisation of the museum up to date, and also to provide sonic flexibility in place of the tight statutory restrictions by which the British Museum is bound more closely than any of the comparable national institutions.

I turn to the second reason, which is that there are in the offing two major building projects affecting the Museum —the new Library in Bloomsbury, and the National Science Reference Library on the South Bank. As my right hon. Friend made clear, under existing legislation the British Museum has no power to move any of its books into these new buildings when they are completed. Therefore, before we go any further with the preparatory work of these two most expensive projects, we ought to remove the statutory obstacle to the use of the new buildings.

Those, then, are the two main reasons for the introduction of this new Measure, and it is very gratifying that it has been so warmly welcomed.

I should like particularly to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Mr. R. Thompson) who is one of the family trustees of the Museum, and I should like to associate myself, as I am sure the House would like to be associated, with what my hon. Friend the Member for Bebington (Sir H. Oakshott) said about him and his speech.

May I also express our appreciation for the welcome given to the Bill by the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede). Were he in his place at the moment—and I appreciate that he cannot be, just as other hon. Members cannot—I would quarrel with him very violently, for he made the extraordinary statement that his presence at a meeting of the Board of Trustees lowered their standards somewhat. I am sure that that is completely untrue, and I know that the House would agree with me in that regard. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]

A number of harsh things have been said about the Treasury, especially by the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison), and to a lesser extent by the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher). I have had the figures prepared of Government aid to the arts. Government aid to the national arts museums and galleries has risen from about £650,000 per annum in 1945–46 to over £4.3 million in 1961–62. Total arts expenditure over the same years has risen from £1 million to just under £9 million. As regards the British Museum's net expenditure—this is apart from any appropriation from the Ministry of Public Building and Works expenditure on building—the amount spent has risen from about £350,000 in 1952–53, to about £908,000 in 1962–63; that is to say, over the last 10 years. Nobody visiting the British Museum or learning about its activities would deny that much more requires to be done, but it would be quite wrong for the impression to be given that nothing has been, and nothing is being done.

On the subject of staff to which reference has been made by more than one hon. Member, it may well be that further staff is required, but it is proper that we should take credit for the fact that staff has been improved numerically by about 60 per cent. since 1952.

The hon. Member for Islington, East asked whether war damage work would now be put off at this moment. I had occasion to visit the Museum last week, and I was pleased to note that progress is being made, and will continue to be made, in restoring war damage. I agree that it is positively scandalous that 20 years after the war we should be waiting for that to be done, but progress is being made.

The hon. and learned Member for Kettering asked about attendances. We should all like to see more and better use made of the facilities of the Museum, which are so outstanding. The figures for 1961 show an attendance of 944,000. I am pleased to tell the hon. and learned Gentleman that we hope that the figure for this year will be over the 1 million mark, and I agree with him when he suggests that we should like to see the figures go higher still.

A great deal was said by my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies) on the subject of the public relations of the Museum; about the need for better display; about the need for better facilities for visitors, and so on. In this context I should like to pay the warmest possible tribute, with which I am sure the House would like to be associated, to the devoted work done by keepers and staff in general. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I do not, and I know that neither does the hon. and learned Member for Kettering, share the view of the New Statesman about the staff and the keepers, or, alternatively, about the uniformed staff there. I think that they do an extremely good and valuable job.

Mr. Mitchison

I quite agree with him. I did not quote it. I quoted something quite different about the display in the Museum.

Mr. du Cann

I realise that, but I wanted to get on record my total disagreement—not for the first time—with the New Statesman.

The House pays tribute to those responsible for this most important work. It pays it to them for the advances they have made, for the conscientiousness they have shown, and for the keenness they have displayed. At the same time, I know very well from the short time that I have had the opportunity to make contact with members of the staff that they are very conscious of such shortcomings as exist. Part of the problem has been the bombing, but security is another problem to which they are quite right to give high priority. Much has been said about a new start and the need for further progress, and I cannot help thinking that that is precisely the opportunity that the Bill will give these devoted people. I am most grateful for the apparent agreement of the House with that suggestion.

Mr. Mitchison

Wait a minute! What we are anxious about is whether the staff will get the money to do it.

Mr. du Cann

The hon. and learned Member interrupted me just as I came to that page in my notes which refers to this paint. It is perhaps relevant to bear in mind that the capital cost of the new buildings we are contemplating is about £10 million and £1 million respectively —very handsome sums.

Mr. Mitchison

Spread over a number of years.

Mr. du Cann

It may be that they will be spread over five or six years, but if somebody was to give me, or any body in which I was interested, that amount of money I would not mind whether it was given at once or over a period.

I now turn to the additional point made by the hon. and learned Member for Kettering and the right hon. Member for West Bromwich (Mr. Dugdale)—who has explained to me his inability to be here at the moment. There was some discussion on the subject of the appointment of the trustees by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. Such an arrangement is so normal in relation to major bodies of this sort that it might be felt derogatory to the Museum to place the appointments in other and less distinguished hands. I am sure that it is right to make that observation, and that it is correct to say that these appointments, when made, will be of the very highest status; men with the greatest sense of responsibility.

In the case of the Natural History Museum, as my right hon. Friend has said—I make the point again because questions were asked about it—appointments of trustees will be made in consultation with the Minister for Science. The aim will be to secure a well-balanced board, qualified to deal with all the various aspects of the Museum's activities. It is appreciated that they are very wide-ranging appointments, as was pointed out by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross).

Questions were also asked about the representation of the universities. Suggestions were made that various bodies or persons should be represented, or should have the right to choose the trustees. This exactly illustrates the difficulty that we are in. Learned societies are already represented, but universities are not, and if we were to extend the principle it would be very difficult to draw the line. The board of trustees will no doubt include persons representative of various institutions and professions which have a contribution to make, but it would be right to point out that this can very well be achieved without tied appointments.

Questions were asked by the hon. and learned Member for Kettering and the right hon. Member for South Shields about the status of the staff. It may be that hon. Members had in mind the fact that a paragraph in the leading article of The Times this morning referred to the matter. This is to some extent an academic point. My hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Sir C. Black) also referred to it. There is no statutory definition of what constitutes a civil servant, but the important thing for practical purposes is that the staff of the British Museum have the pay and conditions of service of civil servants. So far as we are aware there is no evidence that the application of Civil Service rules is an impediment to the proper functioning of these institutions. The difference between these splendid people and ordinary civil servants is that they are responsible to trustees.

My hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon was particularly interested in the fact that a number of people working in the Natural History Museum had taken up appointments overseas. We must view very seriously the emigration of specialists from the United Kingdom. On the other hand, I am told that it is a very long and proud tradition of the Museum that scientific staff leave to take up senior posts in other institutes throughout the world, and I am sure that it is right that that should be so, and that we should always encourage flexibility of movement as between one academic museum or institution and another. In that way we may make progress; in that way we keep fresh; in that way ideas may get busily explored in different places. To endeavour to stop that movement, or to stultify it, would not be in the interests of the people themselves or of museums throughout the world.

Sir C. Black

Is my hon. Friend aware that although what he is saying might be true if the removals were merely for the reason that he has suggested, if—as I have good reason to know—people have left merely because of dissatisfaction with present conditions, that is a matter which should give concern?

Mr. du Cann

Dissatisfaction with conditions is one thing, but the desire of a man to make a change at some time in his life and go from one job to another is a thoroughly good and laudable thing. It is not easy to avoid the temptation of confusing one with the other. Nevertheless, the point made by my hon. Friend will be watched and considered. I merely suggest that it should not be taken too seriously.

My hon. Friend mentioned in particular the case of Dr. Tucker. I can assure the House that all the Ministers who have studied the papers, including three successive Chancellors of the Exchequer, have accepted that the trustees' action in dismissing Dr. Tucker was entirely proper, and was taken only after thorough and anxious deliberation. I have taken the precaution in recent months of studying the papers myself, being aware of this debate and of the possibility that the matter would be mentioned. After having looked at them I am convinced that what the right hon. Member for South Shields said in this context was absolutely correct. I am grateful to him for having said it.

I was asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon, my hon. Friend the Member for Bebington, the hon. Member for Swindon and the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central about the Elgin Marbles. This is an extraordinarily difficult subject. The reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Bebington and the hon. Member for Swindon, who both spoke very eloquently on the subject, was given by the contributions made by other hon. Members, to the effect that the suggestion that these Marbles should be moved is by no means a popular one, either in the House or in the country. I believe that it was Francis Bacon who said Antiquities are … some remnants of history which have casually escaped the shipwreck of time. That is not true of the Elgin Marbles, because it was the deliberate act of Lord Elgin which saved them for posterity. Otherwise they would not exist now.

Dr. Horace King (Southampton, Itchen)

Can the hon. Member tell us how Lord Elgin could be said to have served posterity when he took one of the six Caryatids from the Erectheum when the five remaining ones are in a fine state of preservation and weep for their sister, as his hon. Friend said.

Mr. du Cann

What my hon. Friend said was that it was the Caryatid in the British Museum that was crying, and not the others. What I have said is broadly true, and I am glad to see that the House is acknowledging it. Incidentally, if that caryatid cries at all, I think perhaps it cries for the soul of a guide to the Acropolis whom I met in Greece a few months ago, and who told my wife and me—believing that we were Americans—a long story about the wickedness of Lord Elgin in having taken these Marbles away. Whereas, as I say, I think that the proper thing to do is to pay tribute to his memory, both as a lover of Greece and all which Greece stands for and as a patriotic citizen.

Turning to specific points raised by the hon. Member for Swindon, my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary is always glad to see any hon. Member who may wish to discuss any matter with him, whatever it may be—[Laughter.] That is one of the ordinary courtesies between the Minister and back bench Members of this House and it is well known.

There was a great deal of discussion about the separation between the museums. Some hon. Members argued for it and some against it. As the subject has been substantially discussed I think it right to make the point regarding liaison—in specific reply to the right hon. Member for South Shields—that so far as I am aware there would be no objection to the appointment of common trustees, no doubt to a limited extent.

My hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Thanet referred to the question of an Oriental Museum. The shortest and best comment which I can make on that is that the trustees under the Bill can create a separate part of the British Museum to display oriental art, or primitive art, or any other speciality. What they cannot do is create a completely new museum legally independent of the British Museum. I feel strongly that after the passage of the Bill, if the House should see fit to pass it, we shall have an opportunity for better display, better housing and better storage. I hope that answers to some extent the point made by my hon. Friend with his special knowledge of the subject, and by the hon. Member for Islington, East.

The hon. and learned Member for Kettering and the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central asked about the hours in connection with the reading room. This point was also referred to by the hon. Member for Islington, East, who, I know, uses the library a great deal. We shall pay attention to what was said in that regard and consider it. I am sure that those who work in the library will be grateful for the graceful tribute from the hon. Member for Islington, East.

A good deal has been said about loans and out-houses and the Louvre was referred to by the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. MacDermot) who is unable to be present now. I hope that he was not blaming the Government for everything that the French do. It is hard enough to put the blame on the Government for all sorts of things that we do not do. At the same time, we recognise that this is a complicated matter, upon which strong differences of opinion may be held. The tendency is for loans from one museum to another to occur much more, and this is a thoroughly healthy and desirable practice. We shall have to watch carefully before stopping the tendency in relation to our own institutions. It would be a retrogressive thing to be too restrictive. But, on the other hand, there is need for very great care in all these matters.

Mr. Mitchison

Before the hon. Gentleman leaves the question of loans, will he consider the question of the wording and the difference between this Bill and the provisions in the 1924 Act? It seems to me that the 1924 Act is tighter regarding safety and that possibly the Bill is a little slack.

Mr. du Cann

I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman. We shall certainly look at that. I do not think that the Bill was designed to be less tight in that respect. But it was designed to be more generous in accordance with modern practice. This, like a number of others, is one of the matters which we look forward to debating during the Committee stage proceedings.

The right hon. Member for South Shields referred to repositories and the need for their accessibility. I am sure that that is right. The hon. Member for Islington, East, spoke about books in this regard and I aim sure that that also is right. On the other hand, it would be a mistake at this stage to lay dawn the law too closely, as it were. This situation will develop over the next decade or twenty-five years, and it would be a pity to restrict the museum authorities too greatly. And again, we can look at Clause 5 (1, c), which the right hon. Gentleman mentioned.

The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central referred to the power to dispose of forgeries. This is a permissive and not a compulsive power. I agree with the hon. Member for Islington, East that some forgeries are extraordinarily interesting. As he said, some are more interesting than the real thing. The Bill as drafted contains no instruction to get rid of forgeries automatically and I repeat that the power is permissive. I heard the other day of an exhibition of stamp forgeries where one person exhibited a real genuine stamp, Which annoyed everybody very much and he was black-balled from the club for ever after. That seems a little hard.

A number of other points were raised during the debate, which has gone on a little longer than was originally anticipated. I do not think that a mistake, because it is a poor thing, if we cannot, despite all our problems and difficulties, pay attention to things of this sort. They matter a very great deal and will continue to do so for many years to came.

Mr. Douglas Houghton (Sowerby)

I am sorry if I was heard to mutter too loudly about that. But we are operating a timetable and this Bill has already had its share.

Mr. du Cann

Well, there we are. Opinions differ on the matter. But I make no apology to the House for the length of any of the speeches made either from the Front Benches or from the back benches. I think it matters very much about what happens to the British Museum in future.

Other points were made during the discussion and I am sorry that I have not time to deal with them. We shall look forward to discussing them during the Committee stage. The Bill was prepared in close consultation with the British Museum and we were assured by the existing trustees that they regard it as a good Bill. Naturally, there must be some regrets at breaking picturesque and important links with the past. But we believe, from the support indicated in the House, that an attempt has been made to bring up to date the management of perhaps the greatest of our cultural institutions which should provide it with the power to enable it to fulfil its rôle properly in modern conditions. I commend the Bill to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Ordered, That the Bill be committed to a Select Committee of Eight Members, Four to be nominated by the House and Four by the Committee of Selection.—[Mr. Boyd-Carpenter.]

8.31 p.m.

Mr. Mitchison

With respect, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I rose when you started reading the Question.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Robert Grimston)

I think that I can explain to the hon. and learned Member. The first sentence in this Motion is non-debatable and has to be put. I understand that he wishes to speak on the next part, which I shall put separately.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That there shall stand referred to the Select Committee—

1. (a) any Petition against the Bill presented by being deposited in the Private Bill Office at any time not later than 10th January, 1963, and
2. (b) any Petition which has been presented by being deposited in the Private Bill Office and in which the Petitioners complain of any amendment as proposed in the filled-up Bill or of any matter which has arisen during the progress of the Bill before the said Committee,

being a Petition in which the Petitioners pray to be heard by themselves, their Counsel or Agents: That if no such Petition as is mentioned in sub-paragraph (a) above is presented, or if all such Petitions are withdrawn before the meeting of the Committee, the Order for the committal of the Bill to a Select Committee shall be discharged and the Bill shall be committed to a Standing Committee: That any Petitioner whose Petition stands referred to the Select Committee shall, subject to the Rules and Orders of the House and to the Prayer of his Petition, be entitled to be heard by himself, his Counsel or Agents upon his Petition provided that it is prepared and signed in conformity with the Rules and Orders of the House, and the Member in charge of the Bill shall be entitled to be heard by his Counsel or Agents in favour of the Bill against that Petition.—[Mr. Boyd-Carpenter.]

Mr. Mitchison

I do not propose to take up the time of the House for more than a moment or two. It seems perfectly clear, however, after the debate on the Bill, that discussion of the Bill by a Select Committee of eight Members will restrict the amount of comment that quite properly should be made. If this were not a hybrid Bill, it would clearly have gone to a considerably larger Committee. I do not know that anything can be done about it at the moment, and I appreciate the position, that there is the possibility of no petition and consequently a reference to the Standing Committee, but, at present, whether there is a petition or not, depends on whether the Bill stays with the Select Committee of eight Members or goes to the Standing Committee.

I do not think that we can do anything about it today, but I wish the Government would consider whether this is the right way of dealing with the matter. It will not arise if there is no petition. Then there will be no trouble; it will go to a Standing Committee and all will be well. But the existence of a single petition which is not withdrawn may result in the Bill being dealt with by a very small Select Committee instead of, what I think much better, by a Committee up to the maximum of 15 Members, or something of that number which we are allowed to have on a Select Committee. I make the plea to the Government believing that they think the Bill wants proper consideration in Committee. I realise that it may mean withdrawal of this Motion and substitution of another, but there ought to be no difficulty about that. Perhaps the Government will consider that matter on its merits.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter

On the first point, we have no option in the matter but to move this Motion in the light of the view of the authorities of the House, as to which I express no opinion, that this should be treated as a hybrid Bill. That being so, the necessary notices have been circulated and served and are returnable, I understand, by 10th January.

As I understand the procedure, there would be no real difficulty except an additional stage resulting from this. Either petitions will be submitted or they will not. If no petitions are submitted, as the hon. and learned Member said, the Bill, under the Standing Orders, will go to a Standing Committee. Equally, if petitions are submitted there has to be a hearing—I think that is the correct word—before the Select Committee. It is not for me to lay down the Standing Orders, but the advice I have is that after the stage of the hearing by the Select Committee the Bill will go to a Standing Committee. In any event, this is a matter on which I have no option in view of the view taken and I can express no opinion about the view of the authorities of the House.

Mr. Mitchison

If I may have the permission of the House to speak again, I should say that the right hon. Gentleman has not taken the point. This is a Select Committee which is a small Committee. I mentioned 15 as the maximum under the rules. The Bill could just as well be referred to a Select Committee of 15 as to one of eight.

As to the second possibility, I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman is right. If he will look at the bottom of page 566 of Erskine May, which deals with proceedings in Committee on a hybrid Bill and is referring all the time to a Select Committee, he will see that it says: When the case for the petitioners has been concluded and the promoters heard in reply, the committee"— that is, the Select Committee— go through the clauses of the bill and report it with or without amendments. That is to say, if there is a petition there is not a transference after the hearing of the petition from one Committee to another, which would be a remarkably complicated arrangement, but, in fact, the same Select Committee goes on to consider the Bill. I may be right or wrong. This is not the time to go into the matter. All I ask the Government to do is to consider it with a view to having a sufficient number of hon. Members present for the Committee stage.

The Motion says that the Committee shall consist of eight members, with five as the quorum. I understand that a Select Committee on a hybrid Bill does not have the same strict obligation of attendance and that there might not be even eight members there. That would be cutting it rather fine for a Bill of this kind.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter

If I may speak again by leave of the House, if that is necessary, I will not argue with the hon. and learned Gentleman as to the effect of the Standing Orders, because they do not lie in his hands or mine. The advice that I have had is as I have stated it. It may, as the hon. and learned Gentleman fairly said, equally be wrong. The practical point on the Motion is that we are bound, in view of the line the House authorities have taken, to seek this procedure and go to a Select Committee.

As to the numbers, the purpose of the Select Committee being to hear petitions, there is really no point at all in expanding the numbers. Indeed, I understand that the number proposed—eight—is rather larger than has normally been the practice. I have been into the precedents, and, as I understand it, in the case of the last four such Bills eight has been the number, but that itself was an increase from the former number, which was six. When one is dealing with not so much a committee concerned with detail but a quasi-judicial body to hear petitions, quite different considerations apply as to the numbers. In any event, in so far as we are resting on the recent practice of the House, we are going on the high figure rather than the low.

Mr. Fletcher

To deal with the practical question, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, if a petition is presented before 10th January, he will, as a practical measure, whatever the Standing Orders may provide, take the appropriate steps after the Recess to ensure that the Select Committee will deal with the petition alone and that the Bill shall then go to a Standing Committee in the ordinary way? I am sure that can be done if it is the wish of the House, and it seems to be the wish of both sides.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter

If I may again speak by leave of the House, I certainly cannot give an undertaking to do anything which would override a Standing Order. If the effect of the Standing Order be as the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) thinks it is, it certainly will show that this should go to a Committee in the ordinary way. However, as I have said, I cannot undertake to do anything to override a Standing Order.

Question put and agreed to.

Ordered, That the Committee have power to report from day to day the Minutes of the Evidence taken before them: That Five be the Quorum of the Committee. —[Mr. Boyd-Carpenter.]