ELTON COLLECTION

HC Deb 18 July 1978 vol 954 cc460-70b

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Joseph Dean.]

1.45 a.m.

Mr. Fred Silvester (Manchester, Withington)

Sir Arthur Elton died at the beginning of 1973. He was associated with many things but in particular his memory will be associated with having produced a striking collection relating to industrial and technical history. When he died, he left behind at Clevedon Court a collection described as the most striking of its kind in the world, and it certainly will not be repeatable in this country.

The Elton collection then passed to the Treasury in lieu of death duties and is currently in the hands of the Minister responsible for the arts, where I think it is remaining for the time being. In December 1976, applications were invited for the housing of the collection and I believe that four museums have applied, including Ironbridge in Shropshire and the North-Western Museum of Science and Industry in Manchester.

The Standing Commission on Museums and Galleries considered the matter and on Friday the Secretary of State announced in a Written Answer the decision to go to Ironbridge. The process of decision by the commission is an enclosed one. It is not open to public scrutiny, no details of evidence or the reasons for the decision have been given, and there is no appeal. It is known that the Earl of Plymouth was at some time both a member of the working party and a member of the Ironbridge Trust. There is no malice in that, but it is not proper that that should be the case. The work of the commission should be open to more scrutiny.

I am not attacking the Minister for this fact, because it is not directly his responsibility, but it is reprehensible that the announcement was made on Friday in answer to a Question which was put down on Thursday, the day after it was known that this Adjournment debate had been fixed. It seems clear that the announcement was an attempt to face this House with a fait accompli and to show the people in Manchester that their arguments were of no interest at this stage.

But there is still time to reconsider. The decision is not an urgent one, and I recommend that wisdom does more for a Minister's reputation than pride.

In challenging the noble Lord's decision and asking for its reconsideration, I am not merely putting over a parochial point. I am not pitting the enthusiasm of one director of a museum against that of another director of a museum. The involvement of the whole Manchester community in this decision is widespread and its importance certainly lies in the collection itself and the love and respect we have for what it contains. Also, it represents something very important for us, which is that it implies an attitude of the Government towards the development of museum culture outside London.

The claim of the North-Western Museum, centred as it is in Manchester, is on the face of it irresistible. Historically, Manchester was the centre of the Industrial Revolution. The canals spring from the Duke of Bridgwater's canal in Manchester. The railways here opened with the Liverpool and Manchester Railway, which is about to celebrate its 150th anniversary. The city and the towns around it have produced developments in textiles, in steam, in aeronautics, in engineering and technology of all kinds. Its range of technology is far wider than the iron technology which is based on Ironbridge and Coalbrookdale. So, too, of course is the Elton collection. A list has been compiled of no fewer than 15 industries and technologies where the contents of the collection will be directly relevant to pioneering work done in the north-west.

Sir Arthur Elton himself may at one time have thought that Manchester was the appropriate home. I have a letter from a constituent who knew him personally recalling that much of the collection was made while Sir Arthur was at Metro-Cicks and that he had the idea then of donating it to Manchester. I cannot confirm this from any other source, but it is no accident tint the Manchester city art gallery has been the only one that was thought fit to display the collection, which it did as long ago as 1968.

But it is not only the appropriateness of Manchester and the north-west that I would plead tonight; it is something much more important. The decision as it was recorded on Friday does less than proper honour and respect to the collection. Whatever the merits of Ironbridge—and I am not decrying Ironbridge in any way—that museum is not part of the web of academic study as is the North-Western Museum. Manchester's museum is partly financed by UMIST—the University of Manchester Institute of Science and Technology—a university of international repute. The books of the Elton collection would enrich its scholars, and its scholars would enrich the collection.

That university is only one of two, I believe, which has a department of the history of science and technology, and its professor is one of the governors of the museum. The Whitworth Art Gallery and the City Art Gallery both contain, nearby, considerable expertise, which has already been drawn upon in planning for the use of the collection, and it is particularly important, as part of the collection contains prints and drawings.

In short, what I am saying is that if the collection came to Manchester it would be in the heart of a strong, sensitive, academic and artistic community, which would help to display it as it deserves. Ironbridge offers no comparable value. Why, then, has the Minister come to what seems to us to be a perverse judgment? In a letter to me he said: I believe the deciding factor was accommodation; Ironbridge have a building ready and waiting, whereas the Manchester long-term accommodation is still at the planning stage. Such a conclusion is totally misleading and is very short-sighted. Lady Elton's concern—and I think the concern of most scholars—is that the collection should be kept intact and whole. Neil Cossons, the director of Ironbridge, was reported in the Telegraph as saying: As the collection is too big to be shown all at once we would concentrate on exhibitions of fine quality in respect of the Industrial Revolution. That is a very limited commitment on the part of the Ironbridge.

What of Manchester? The truth is that a purpose-built gallery has been designed in detail as an extension to the present museum. The necessary funds are already allocated from the Greater Manchester Council and from local sources, and the building could commence immediately a decision was made. It has been designed with expert consideration of the specific requirements of the collection, and the standing commission has known this since January 1977, so, had it wished, the extension could have been built by now. The council has also voted funds for the special care and display of the collection.

The collection has, I understand, been crated up for two years, and if the Minister were concerned, suddenly, with a rush of urgency, I can tell him that the city council has stepped in and has provided facilities for its immediate housing pending the building of the extension. As I understand it—I have no reason to doubt it—that building is very well equipped for the purpose. It is secure, it is new, it has adequate facilities for the staff and the public, and it even has adjacent lecture and library facilities, so that if it wanted to come immediately that could be arranged. I think, therefore, that the Minister has been misled in this respect.

The Minister's letter is short-sighted and depressing. I want to press this home on the Minister, because I think that it is of great importance: if, when he is talking about long-term planning, he is referring to our hope of creating a larger museum of science and industry and technology, he is right. That is not complete. We are hoping that there will be a museum of national standard outside London—I shall come back to that point—and I hope that he will not belittle our efforts.

There are two possibilities. The university long ago offered a site free for the land within the university precinct and the money required is for the building. The relevant council committee has just approved—it has yet to go to the council—an alternative scheme costing £2½ million for the development of the old Liverpool Road site, which is an old railway station with an adjacent warehouse. Both the latter buildings are of historic importance which would be marvellous for housing the museum and for working locomotives next door. That is a long-term prospect. It is additional to, not instead of, the requirements for currently housing the Elton collection.

I hope that the Minister will not discourage such ideals. The Wright report on provincial museums urged the establishment of centres of excellence which will require national as well as local funding. The creation of a museum of science, industry and technology of international status in the provinces is just such a centre of excellence. It should be built where it is most appropriate both historically and academically and where there is local support. It should be sited where there is a core already existing. The Elton collection would broaden the wide range of technology already housed at the North-Western Museum. The collection and the existing collection together would multiply the value of each.

If there is to be a proper museum outside London, the Elton collection must go there. That is what the alternative centre outside London will be about. Ironbridge cannot fulfil tht role and the decision which has been taken means that the opportunity is being forgone.

The Minister is a courteous gentleman, and I know his affiliation to the northwest. I ask him, therefore, not to allow his brief to fail to answer four specific questions which I will now put to him. First, will he undertake to postpone a final decision until the recommendation has had proper time for public discussion? I made the point earlier that the standing commission's work has been done behind closed doors. Secondly, and in particular, will the Minister wait until the publication and discussion of the report of the standing commission's working party on the national plan for the museums so that we can see how this proposal fits into the overall plans? Thirdly, will he in any case publish in full, and specific detail his reasons for choosing Ironbridge and for not choosing the other contenders? Finally, will he publish the conditions which Ironbridge has undertaken to meet and say what process would occur if the decision should need to be reviewed later?

I conclude with the point I made at the beginning. The decision bodes ill for the Government's attitude towards the development of museums outside London. It means that a great opportunity is being lost. It means that the Minister has preempted the decision about the national plan for museums. I think it means that the Minister has not really thought the matter through. I urge him to reconsider it.

1.58 a.m.

Mr. Jerry Wiggin (Weston-super-Mare)

Sir Arthur Elton was my constituent and Lady Elton still lives in my constituency at the family home at Clevedon.

Sir Arthur was a great man in many ways, and I think he would feel greatly complimented by the fact that the House is giving its time to discussing his important collection. It is right and proper that it should be doing so. I spoke briefly last night with Lady Elton. I can summarise her views in a very few sentences. First, I repeat what my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Silvester) has said: it is her wish and that of the family that if at all possible this very comprehensive collection should be kept together. It would be easy to split it up, but naturally they would prefer that a life's work should be recognised as an entity, and I am sure that the Minister will be sympathetic to that wish.

My hon. Friend failed to mention that Lady Elton has said that she has no great preference as to where this collection should go in the first instance and, if Manchester has a great case, clearly that should be considered; but equally I understand that the family are very happy with the conclusion that the collection should go to Ironbridge.

There is one rather important point. If for any reason the accommodation at Ironbridge should prove unsatisfactory or if, for any other reason, the care and attention which the collection is given proves to be inadequate in future, there is a general feeling in the family that it would like the collection to come rather nearer home, to the great industrial, engineering and railway centre of Bristol. We shall get into a new argument if we start on that line.

It is only right that I should take a few moments to record that view. I do not believe that it seriously weakens my hon. Friend's case for a public debate on the question. As the constituency Member of Lady Elton, I felt it right that I should intervene in the debate.

2.0 a.m.

The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Mr. Gordon Oakes)

May I first congratulate the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Silvester) on his success in obtaining this debate tonight? Unusually for an Adjournment debate there are other hon. Members present. There is the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin), who is representing the widow of the founder of this collection, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman), the Minister of State at the Department of Industry, who has persistently been most interested in this matter.

Only a short time ago, in March this year, I commented during a similar debate that we were breaking new ground. Then we were discussing the allocation of the Blenheim archives. Now we are concerned with the Elton collection. I believe that the interest shown in respect of both these collections is symptomatic of the much greater concern for our national heritage that is now widespread throughout the country. Part of this heightened concern was, I believe, caused by the Mentmore saga. Arising from that we had the inquiry into the National Land Fund by the Environment Sub-Committee of the Select Committee on Expenditure. Its stimulating report has recently been published and has provoked—indeed is provoking—a great deal of earnest discussion both in Government circles and among those outside who are also concerned for the future of our national heritage. I think it fair to say that in general the Sub-Committee was not particularly happy with the way the National Land Fund is being administered. But it cannot be all bad if it has enabled us to obtain the Elton collection for the nation.

I should like to endorse all that the hon. Member has said about the importance of the Elton collection. Taken individually, the items which make up the collection may seem to the casual observer to be mere memorabilia, worth a passing glance perhaps, but, combined, these individual items form a comprehensive collection of a unique order. They provide in the most telling way not only a commentary on the history but the very history itself of our technological advance from the start of the industrial revolution onwards. Nor can I of course disagree with the hon. Member about the important part played by Manchester in the Industrial Revolution and subsequently.

But before I turn to the detailed points on the allocation of the collection, perhaps I could describe briefly the procedures that are involved before my noble Friend the Minister responsible for the arts comes to a decision on the allocation of an item which has been accepted by the Treasury in lieu of tax, whether it be a work of art, a piece of furniture or, as is this case, a unique collection.

If an object is to be accepted in payment of the whole or part of a tax liability, the Government have to he satisfied that it is pre-eminent for its national, scientific, historic or artistic interest". Obviously, then, the standard is very high and quite a number of objects offered in lieu of tax fail to make the grade. However, once an article has been accepted and paid for from the National Land Fund through our much-maligned procedures, it falls to the Minister with responsibility for the arts in whichever country—England, Scotland or Wales—where the tax liability has arisen to decide to which public collection it should be allocated. But decisions of this kind must rest on aesthetic and historical grounds as well as on technical factors such as security and accessibility to the public. It has long been the policy in this country for the Government to distance themselves from aesthetic questions and rely on advice from bodies of experts in the field.

In normal circumstances, the Standing Commission on Museums and Galleries is the body we ask for advice on the appropriate place to which works of art and other museum items and collections should be allocated. I think it right and proper, therefore, on this occasion to say a word about the workings of the commission. Its membership reflects the broad spectrum of those interested in the national heritage and the part to be played in its preservation by our museums and galleries, whether national or local. There are independent members as well as those representing the museums and galleries.

I should like to take a moment here to pay particular tribute to the noble Lord the Earl of Rosse, who retired a few days ago from the chairmanship after 22 years of wise and distinguished service. The Earl of Plymouth was not a member of the special panel set up by the commission to consider the Elton collection, and when the commission considered the panel's recommendations he declared his interest and so disqualified himself from the proceedings. It is only fair to say that on behalf of the noble Lord.

After the question of the allocation of an object has been referred to the standing commission, any public collection, whether local or national, can apply for the object to be allocated to it. The standing commission takes a great many factors into consideration. It always takes account of any wishes expressed by the testator or his executors, and I can assure the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) that this was a factor taken into account with regard to the Elton collection. It also, of course, considers very carefully the precise nature of the item in question.

Here it asks itself a number of questions—for example, is the object of such outstanding importance that it should be allocated to the appropriate national collection, or is it primarily of academic importance, so that allocation to a collection mainly of benefit to scholars would be the answer? Is it of significance to a particular area of the country? Does much of its interest lie in comparison with other works of the same genre, or is it such that it can stand alone as an example of its type? All these questions are weighed very carefully by the standing commission. To find answers to some of them it may in its turn need advice, and here it turns to the experts in the national museums and galleries.

A very important aspect of the standing commission's deliberations in some cases is the suitability of the accommodation offered. Of course, accommodation of a collection the size of the one under discussion tonight requires a great deal more thought than just the finding of extra space in a showcase or on a wall. Apart from the pure accommodation point, the standing commission must also consider the security arrangements and the conservation capabilities of each applicant museum. Once it has answers to all the questions which it has asked itself, the standing commission must weigh the different, sometimes conflicting, factors one against another and come up with one answer. This is a real task for experts and one which I believe those of us concerned merely on the fringe of museum policy, who know enough to be aware of what we do not know, would not care to undertake.

So, with the Elton collection, the standing commission set about its task. This was made yet more complicated by the all-embracing nature of the collection. Its inventory reads like an illustrated social history. All sort of things, as the hon. Gentlemen know, are linked together in this collection. No fewer than six applications for the collection were received, with two further ones for individual items if it had been decided to split up the collection.

It was, however, decided to treat the collection as a whole, in accordance with the testator's wishes, and the most difficult problem facing the standing commission—and each of the museums which understandably yearned to acquire this fascinating collection—was that of accommodation. But, before coming to that particularly knotty problem, it considered the testator's and executor's wishes. It also recognised that it could be argued that a collection demonstrating the history of the Industrial Revolution and its subsequent developments should be housed in a location in which heavy industry predominates.

The standing commission considered all these points of view. It examined the six applications very thoroughly. It is a measure of its thoroughness that it found it necessary to take oral evidence from all the applicants. In due course, the commission submitted its recommendation to my noble Friend.

The next stage of the process, the consideration of the recommendation by the Minister responsible for the arts, is no mere rubber-stamping exercise. My noble Friend takes these questions of allocation very seriously and considers them all personally. The fact that the standing commission's recommendations are almost invariably accepted is a tribute to its standards and judgment.

While this case was under consideration, my noble Friend was very much impressed with the strength of feeling aroused by the Elton collection when he visited Manchester earlier this year. For that reason he took the unprecedented step of asking the standing commission to look again at the claims of Manchester after it had made its initial recommendation. This it did, but, after a very careful review of all the relevant facts, its firm advice, that neither he nor I can fault, is that the case for Manchester was by no means the strongest of the six. As the hon. Member will no doubt have seen, my right hon. Friend announced last Friday, in answer to a Question from my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Fowler) that the collection is to be allocated to the Iron-bridge Gorge Museum.

The hon. Member and other hon. and right hon. Members from the Manchester area, including my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Industry, who is present to listen to this debate, to say nothing of the chairman and the director of the North-Western Museum of Science and Industry, have pleaded the cause of that museum with eloquence, both to my noble Friend and, I am sure, to the standing commission. They indeed persuaded my noble Friend to ask the standing commission to take a second look. Naturally, as a North-West Member myself, I would have been delighted if the case in favour of Manchester had been proven. But, in the light of all the evidence, I have to support the decision in favour of Ironbridge.

Ironbridge, currently the holder of the coveted European Museum of the Year Award, with about 200,000 visitors to its sites each year, has a building waiting for the collection. As soon as the final touches have been put to the necessary restoration work, and once the collection has been fully catalogued, it will be on display within a matter of months. Nor is Iron-bridge at the back of beyond. It is very close to the heart of the national road and rail network. Indeed, with 200,000 visitors a year already, many of them from overseas, I do not think there can be any real doubt about its accessibility.

I have to admit, and with some sadness in my heart, that the accommodation offered by Manchester could not match that at Ironbridge. There is no permanent building available. Indeed, I understand that the question of permanent accommodation for the whole museum was and is still under discussion. In the short term, this pre-eminent collection would have been housed in temporary makeshift accommodation, some way from both the rest of the museum and the university, so it would be inconvenient both for the general public and for scholars. The medium-term proposal was for an extension to the present museum building, which is widely acknowledged to be inadequate for the existing collection and whose drawbacks would have been emphasised by the addition of the Elton collection. The long-term future is, as I have said, still in the balance.

The consideration of this case has taken a long time. For once, I offer no apology for tardiness. I believe that a task of the nature of the allocation of the Elton collection requires painstaking attention and that inevitably takes time. I have already referred to the thoroughness of the stand- ing commission, and I pay tribute to it again. It is a measure of both its and the Government's recognition of the importance and unique quality of this collection that deliberations at all stages have taken much longer than usual. I cannot hope to have persuaded the hon. Member that the decision in favour of Iron-bridge, which I must endorse, was the right one, but I hope I have said enough to convince him that the decision was not taken lightly and that the claims of Manchester were given very fair treatment.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at fourteen minutes past Two o'clock.