WORKS OF ART (EXPORT) (Hansard, 25 March 1971)

§ Mr. Ernie Money (Ipswich)
I am grateful for the opportunity to raise the serious and urgent question of the loss to this country by the continuing exporting of major works of art. We are fortunate in this country to have inherited through the foresight and wisdom of our forefathers a rich patrimony in pictures and other objects and both in spiritual and material terms and also in terms of increasing importance to the tourist industry to our economic well-being these are among our most precious possessions. Nevertheless they are becoming increasingly and seriously put at risk through the drain which is taking place on these resources.
Britain came late to the realisation of the importance of protective legislation for her treasures. In Italy legislation was introduced as long ago as 1802, in Austria in 1818, in Greece in 1834, in France in 1887 and in Germany in 1919. In our case protective legislation came in the curiously named Import, Export and Cus 1074 toms Powers (Defence) Act of 1939 as a result of the need not to protect works of art as such but to protect British capital goods going abroad during the war. It was not until 1952 that the committee that sat under the chairmanship of Lord Waverley resulted in the appointment of the Reviewing Committee of Works of Art which is the basis of the present system.
The powers which were given to the committee were to advise the Government on principles governing the control of the export of works of art and antiques, to consider cases where the refusal of export licences was suggested on grounds of national importance, to advise in cases where a special Exchequer grant was needed towards the purchase of an object which would otherwise be exported, and to supervise the general operation of the export control system.
Again as a result of the recommendations of the Waverley Committee, certain principles were adopted for the way in which that system was to be applied. Three questions were left to the Reviewing Committee—that it should consider, in any specific case which was referred to it, first, whether the object was so closely associated with our history and national life that its departure would be a misfortune; secondly, whether it was an object of outstanding aesthetic importance; and, thirdly, whether it was an object of outstanding importance to the study of some particular branch of art, learning or history.
But against all of those criteria it was necessary for the money to be forthcoming for national collections so that they would be in a position, where a stop was placed on any particular work, to be able to make an offer on behalf of the nation.
In more recent years the situation has become graver as a result, first, of monetary inflation, secondly, of the increase in prices realised both at sale rooms and in private negotiations for works of art —and these are to be seen only too clearly in for instance The Times-Sotheby index, which has been published regularly—and thirdly, of the increasing pressure which has grown up as a result of the cost in many cases on owners of maintaining country houses in which collections of so many of these works were placed.
1075 The situation was highlighted earlier this year by the sale of the Velasquez picture of Juan de Pareja for a record sum of £2,310,000. The importance of that situation, and the fact that the picture subsequently went to America, is not only that this was a work of major importance, but, further, that the flow—I use the word advisedly—of works which have come into the sale rooms as a result of that price have not only released individual works which are of great significance to our national heritage but have placed at risk almost every major work which is still in private hands, many of which, I would stress, are pictures in particular which have been on loan to public institutions for very many years.
The two cases which have caused the greatest concern over the last few months have, of course, been the fact—and I must say no more than the fact that it has now gone to Christies—that the Harewood "Diana and Actaeon", one of the greatest Titians, a work of major quality and importance, is now at serious risk of leaving the country, and the situation which developed yesterday with regard to the Domenichino, "Adoration of the Shepherds", from the Dulwich Gallery. If I have time I shall return to the question of the Domenichino, because it seems to produce many specific problems which highlight the situation with regard to pictures in private hands, and semipublic hands.
I hope that the Minister will agree that a gallery like the Dulwich Gallery, which has been open to the public since the beginning of the 19th century, must be considered as part of our historic pattern. What, at this stage, should be most worrying to those concerned with our national collections is that it is against a background of this continual increase in prices, continued monetary inflation and economic difficulty that galleries are faced not only with the question of their normal acquisition policy but also with trying to preserve in this country pictures which the public at any rate have every right to count on as being part of their normal birthright.
I want briefly to quote the relevant figures for grants in aid. Those concerned have gladly accepted the benefits 1076 that came from the quinquennial system, but I would ask the Minister—who has shown such a ready sympathy for the arts—to bear in mind the effect of these grants in terms of monetary inflation. The National Gallery for each of the five years beginning 1970–71 has only £480,000, highlighted against the prices of the kind of picture that the Gallery may be expected to acquire; the Victoria and Albert has £139,000 and £150,000 for its local museums fund; the National Portrait Gallery, £48,000; the Tate Gallery £265,000; the National Maritime Museum, £25,000; the London Museum, a mere £8,000; and the British Museum, for all its purposes, £632,000. I must stress that in each case the grant includes agents' fees and commissions. This highlights the difficulties facing any picture gallery that has to follow a system of acquisition of major works of art.
I want to stress one further figure—the figure for the National Galleries of Scotland, which is £80,000. If it is correct—as reported in the Press—that the Domenichino picture has gone to Scotland for £100,000 it means that not only the whole of one year's grant but a substantial part of the next year's has been swallowed up by obtaining one major picture.
This is not a new question; it has been repeated over and over again in almost every one of 16 reports of the Reviewing Committee. As long ago as its Third Report, in 1956, the distinguished Committee said: We appreciate the economic background against which these increases in the grants must be judged, and we welcome the Financial Secretary's assurance, given to the House of Commons on 19th March, 1956, that having regard to the recommendations in our last report and to those of the National Gallery Trustees he proposes to undertake a thorough review of the position against the time when the economic situation improves. —none the less, prices have gone up and inflation has gone on— The present level of purchase grants is utterly inadequate to satisfy this requirement, with the result that purchases have continued to be made at the last possible moment, and at prices often higher than would in general need to be paid if galleries were in a position to negotiate with the owner at an earlier stage. The inadequacy of the purchase grants is thus two fold in its effect. It produces a false economy, and it dissipates the artistic heritage of the nation. We can only recommend again 1077 in the strongest terms that a thorough review of the level of purchase grants-in-aid, to bring them into line with current values and with the current requirements of our national collections, should be regarded as a matter of the first importance and urgency. That was in 1956, and 10 years later the report of the trustees of the National Gallery was in these terms: The repeated requests of the Reviewing Committee for a fund to be created which would enable some of their recommendations against export to become effective have been refused on grounds which are to be found in HANSARD, 1 August 1966, col. 42. The automatic replenishment of such a fund, which the Committee has also requested, would indeed involve a continuous expense over which Parliament had no control. However, when the National Gallery, for instance, is promised a purchase grant of £200,000 for a quinquennium, Parliament has a very limited control over this expenditure; and if a fixed but more adequate sum were available for a quinquennium to the Reviewing Committee, it would only be in a similar position, but it would have real, instead of merely nominal, power to achieve results in the field to which it is appointed. Above all, the number of works of art to be saved from among those remaining would depend less upon the momentary state of the country's finances and more upon their lasting value to the community. The same report says: At this last hour, when the country which sixty years ago was the richest of the world in its private collections has seen so many of these dispersed for export and the price of old pictures is consequently rising at an ever-increasing rate, the export control regulations are inevitably becoming the subject of urgent discussions. Yet many of the disputants seem to be completely unaware either of the character of the control or of the world situation in which it is attempting to operate. The Standing Commission on Museums and Galleries says in its Eighth Report for the period 1965–69: The Reviewing Committee recommended some years ago that a fund should be placed at their disposal for the speedly acquisition. under threat of export, of such important items as they considered should not be allowed to leave the country; and they have since been seeking a form in which their recommendation could be accepted without contravening any of H.M.G.'s basic financial principles. They have now recommended that the Committee should itself have a purchase grant of £250,000 a year, like any individual institution, except that they do not insist that it should be carried over from year to year. With respect, I say that with prices at their present and increasing level such a sum would be inadequate: This would enable them to intervene urgently in the purchase of works of art 1078 for which the funds cannot be provided by an individual institution. The urgency in cases brought to the Committee, where a sale has normally been finalised subject only to the export licence, is often greater than in cases where private negotiations are taking place between the institution concerned and the owner; and the case for special financial arrangements for the Committee appears to us a good one. We, therefore, support this recommendation. As the law stands, there is pitifully little outside the existing purchase grants to meet an emergency of this kind on behalf of any of the major institutions. I pay tribute to the National Art Collection Fund, which in its history of 50 years has done much to preserve the nation's masterpieces, yet that fund is dependent entirely on individual subscriptions. From time to time, parliamentary contributions or appropriations have to be called upon. Some museums have their Friends, and there are a few private foundations like the Pilgrim Trust which can be called upon on occasion to help out, but if the number of occasions for which help is needed are to increase at the present rate there will be little in the "kitty" to meet the kind of crises being faced.
I would agree completely that steps such as export taxes or absolute prohibitions, which have done so much harm in France and Italy, respectively are not acceptable. I ask the Minister to consider the possibility either of a national lottery benefiting this work or a hire-purchase scheme on the system recommended by which payments could be made over the years and so would not take the whole of an annual grant under the quinquennial system.
Most important of all, perhaps, is the situation with regard to tax relief. Although it is obvious that the Minister cannot say anything about what his right hon. Friend will say next week, one hopes that some real weight will have been placed on the fact that an Early Day Motion asking the Chancellor of the Exchequer to consider this system has been signed by more than 100 hon. Members.
Most important is the question of the adequacy of the grant and the contingency funds that should be available to meet crises which cannot be controlled in any way. Here I stress the words used in The Times in its leading article on the 1079 Harewood Titian on 20th February, when it said: In each generation we are trustees for our descendants and we must be prepared to anticipate the price that they may be willing to pay. We realise how sympathetic the Minister is to this subject. We hope that he can give us some assurance that something will be done now before it is too late.

§ The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. William van Straubenzee)
My hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Money) has made a powerful case, and the House acknowledges his deep and expert knowledge of these matters. I will do my best in the limited time available to answer him as fully as I can.
Dealing first with the point my hon. Friend raised about the Domenichino, one of the advantages of sitting at Two o'clock in the morning is that it is possible to read today's papers. My hon. Friend will know that this is possible in another part of this building, and he will find in today's papers that his supposition that the picture would be purchased by the National Gallery of Scotland is correct. I am sure that he will share the widespread pleasure that the picture is to remain in the United Kingdom.
What my hon. Friend has not had an opportunity of knowing—and this is no criticism of him—is that in answering a Question yesterday, but still in this Sitting, the Secretary of State for Scotland said that an amount of £105,000 is being made available, and an advance of this sum will be made for the contingent fund in the first instance. Parliamentary approval will be sought in due course.
It is for my right hon. Friend to deal with the details, but I may tell my hon. Friend that his anxieties as to the way in which the purchase grants for the National Gallery of Scotland might be absorbed in this one matter are, happily, not well-founded. The Secretary of State for Scotland can explain the circumstances in greater detail if my hon. Friend desires.
The burden of my hon. Friend's speech was much wider than that, although I thought he would be happy to have that specific point dealt with. He raised the 1080 whole question of the way in which we can make funds available to retain certain great works of art which we all appreciate and enjoy. I am grateful to him for reminding us of the basis upon which we work, the recommendation of Lord Waverley's Committee on the Export of Works of Art, beginning in 1952. He set out criteria upon which the Committee worked, so it is not necessary for me to repeat them.
What is our experience of working the scheme? The criteria my hon. Friend set out have stood the test of time. Nothing my hon. Friend has said would contest that. The criteria seem to be right. No serious case can be made out for adding to the criteria, though I recognise there will always be those who cannot bear to see any treasure ever leave this country for any reason at all. I appreciate that sort of attitude, but I feel that the criteria on which we work are right.
The problem has proved to be one of resources and of priorities, as my hon. Friend has rightly said. I do not need to say to my hon. Friend, though I would say to well wishers outside, that money found for the purchase of works of art must be taken from the total resources for the arts. I believe that there are wide misconceptions even among those who are prepared to accept that the arts cannot escape from the financial limitations which impose constraints upon all of us. It has been argued that, because the Exchequer recovers a considerable part of the cost of a work of art from taxation, there should be a more liberal supply of funds for the purchase of such works for national institutions. But this argument conveniently ignores the fact that these gains accrue to the Exchequer in any case. It is part of the inevitable process by which Government is financed and by which resources are found for the care of national collections. If the Exchequer is to find any additional capital sum, it must take the money from somewhere else.
The scale of what we are talking about is not always appreciated. My noble Friend the Paymaster-General spoke about this matter with his customary skill in another place on 16th December, 1970, and I would remind the House of what he said when considering the situation at the National Gallery: For the price of a Velasquez…the National Gallery could air-condition all its 1081 galleries which are not now air-conditioned—that would cost about £350,000—and it could build its new wing, the plans of which your Lordships' may recently have seen. That would give it an increase of 25 per cent. in gallery space for its permanent collection with ten large, new air-conditioned galleries. It would also give it almost exactly the same amount of space for its reserve collection, which could then be shown to the public. After all that, it would still have £750,000 in hand."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 16th December, 1970; Vol. 313, c. 1397.] I invite my hon. Friend and all wellwishers—among whom I hope I can include myself—to contemplate the scale of what we are now talking about. It is not an easy matter since the priority of resources in art expenditure is very difficult to assess. It is the view of the Government that the greatest need of our museums and galleries is to enable them to show to the best modern standards the collections which they possess. My hon. Friend will put this at the top of his priority list. In any form of expenditure, one must have an order of priority.

§ Mr. Money
One of the things that most concern us is that, apart from the work that has gone to Scotland—and it might, of course, have gone to America —there are major works at Dulwich by Rembrandt, Gainsborough, Cuyp and other artists all of which in future may be at risk when such a gallery is in financial trouble. This is what I am asking my hon. Friend to bear in mind.

§ Mr. van Straubenzee
That is a new point, but I shall try to deal with it in the short time left to me. To dispose of a capital asset of that nature, it was necessary for the trustees of the gallery, under the Charities Act 1960, to obtain the consent of the Secretary of State for Education and Science acting in her capacity as Charity Commissioner, and my right hon. Friend gave her consent in the special circumstances of that particular sale. This is the safeguard which encompasses the trustees in a matter of that nature. But my hon. Friend has given a good illustration.
My hon. Friend will know, from the published letters of Lord Shawcross, that the essential difficulty facing the trustees 1082 in that case was not only that they were in deficit in income but that they did not have the necessary wherewithal even adequately to maintain the security of their collection. That was the justification which eventually convinced my right hon. Friend that it was proper for her to exercise her charitable jurisdiction to enable a capital sum of £100,000 to be invested, which has to be retained, and, therefore, will lead to the better showing of the collection.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this matter. I hope that I have dispelled some of his greater anxieties. I am simply saying, to revert to the main point, that we cannot adequately improve the showing of the collections if all our additional resources, or a substantial proportion of them, go on purchases. It is a matter of priority.
My hon. Friend referred to the purchase grants. I have not time to go into the details, but I have them here. However, I take one figure which my hon. Friend mentioned—the 1970–71 figure for the National Gallery at £480,000. In a perfect world I, too, would like that to be a bigger sum but I am entitled to remind my hon. Friend that the year before it was £230,000. Down the complete list he will find that there is a marked increase in the capital sums which are available to the nation.
It is clear that I have come very close to the end of my time. I shall certainly make sure that my noble Friend is aware of my hon. Friend's idea about a national lottery, what he called a hire-purchase scheme, and, of course, about the concept of tax relief—and my hon. Friend will remember that it was my noble Friend rather than any other single person who was responsible for floating that idea in the first place. While both of us are mum at this time of the year, I am sure that he has not changed his mind because he is now in Government.