HL Deb 13 April 1954 vol 186 cc1223-31

4.43 p.m.

Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a third time.

Moved, That the Bill be now read 3.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)

LORD KINNAIRD

My Lords, your Lordships will remember with regard to the Tate Gallery that the land and buildings were left to the Commissioner of Works; and the pictures and purchasing policy were left to the Trustees of the National Gallery. When this Bill becomes law the Trustees of the Tate will take the place of the National Gallery Trustees. In their Report to the Lords of the Treasury, dated February, 1954, the Trustees of the Tate Gallery say, in paragraph 16, that they propose to revive the custom of issuing an Annual Report in which due publicity will be given to their purchasing policy. I think they thereby recognise the right of the public to have this information and it seems a very proper and right thing to do. In Committee on Re-commitment, the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, when I asked him who was responsible for the policy and functions of the Tate replied (OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 186 (No. 43), col. 794): The task of running the Tate Gallery will fall in due course to the Trustees: that will be their responsibility. He added: But when this Bill is passed … instructions will he sent to the Tate Gallery dealing broadly with … matters of organisation. That seems to me rather to complicate the position because there seem to be two sets of people responsible. The Trustees, he said, are responsible; but apparently they are subject to instructions. So I have asked the noble Earl whether Her Majesty's Government will undertake to lay before Parliament the promised Treasury Minute containing the instructions to the Tate Trustees—I refer particularly to the instruction dealing with pictures and purchasing policy. As the Trustees of the Tate Gallery recognise that the public should know what the policy is, I hope he will agree with me that the Lords of the Treasury also should make known to the public their instructions regarding pictures.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

I am grateful to the noble Lord for raising this point, because I think it proper that the position should be understood. When the Tate Gallery was set up as a separate organisation in 1917, they naturally required something on which to base their organisation, and that took the form of a Treasury Minute at the time when Mr. Lloyd George was First Lord of the Treasury. A new Treasury Minute will be required when this new Bill becomes law. It may well begin by referring to the deeds of gift. It will go on to deal with the constitution and method of appointment of Trustees, their terms of reference and such rules as they may wish to include, and such other matters of administration as may be necessary. This Treasury Minute is, of course, a formal means of conveying a decision of the Treasury to some other department and is quite normally used. It was used for setting up a National Gallery in the first place; it was used in connection with other Galleries, the London Museum, the Wallace Collection, and the National Portrait Gallery. It is not normal to lay such lists of rules before Parliament but there is no objection to their being made public. If the noble Lord wishes to see one he will be welcome to see one for himself, as will any other noble Lord. I hope that that answers the point which Lord Kinnaird has raised.

On Question. Bill read 3.

Clause 4:

Powers of lending exercisable by National Gallery Trustees and Tate Gallery Trustees

4.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, the National Gallery Trustees and the Tate Gallery Trustees shall respectively have power to lend picture.; or other works of art vested in them—

(b) for display—

  1. (i) in a public building or official residence in the United Kingdom or elsewhere for the furnishing of which the Minister of Works is responsible; or
  2. (ii) in the official residence of the Governor of a colony.

LORD METHUENmoved, in subsection (1), to leave out paragraph (b). The noble Lord said: My Lords, I had intended to move on March 29 to omit this part of Clause 4, but I saw that the noble Earl, Lord Crawford, had already put down an Amendment to omit the whole clause and I saw no necessity for putting down my own Amendment, as the whole naturally includes the part. I did not count ort the Amendment being withdrawn at the last moment, and it was not until I saw the Marshalled List of Amendments that I realised I had "missed the boat." That is my excuse for not bringing forward this Amendment then, as I should have done. It is also my reason for tabling it now, not to inconvenience the House unduly but to put on record, not for the first time, that, with many others outside this House, I am convinced that this proposal is fundamentally unsound and should be omitted from the Bill. I am not going to weary your Lordships by giving you again my reasons for this opinion, but I have a body of informed and scholarly opinion behind me. So far, I have had no answer to the question that I put to the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, on March 29: whether the Trustees of the Tate Gallery had made representations to the Government or to the Treasury on the subject of loans of pictures not for public exhibition. I added that it might be that the Trustees did not seek or want these powers; and that if the Government intended to proceed with he matter, it should take the responsibility entirely on its own shoulders and should not give the impression that the views of the Trustees were being implemented.

The noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, made a statement in general terms in relation to the Trustees during the Second Reading of the Bill, to which he has referred this afternoon. I do not doubt that the Trustees of both the National Gallery and the Tate Gallery did not disagree at the Lime to the Bill, generally speaking. But since then a considerable time has elapsed, during which both bodies have, I presume, been able carefully to consider the Bill and its implications. We have heard statements by two representatives of the National Gallery Trustees in this House on this part of Clause 4., from which we can draw our own conclusions; but we have had no statement from any representative of the Tate Gallery Trustees for the simple reason that none are represented here. This is my last chance, therefore, of asking the noble Earl whether the Trustees of the Tate Gallery want this clause left in or omitted. There is reason to suppose that the Trustees of both Galleries have at one time objected to this clause on the ground that it is no part of their business to lend for the purposes of furnishing pictures for which they are responsible. If this is so, would it not be better—I allude particularly to the Tate Gallery—for the Government frankly to say so and take responsibility for retaining this clause?

If the loans under this clause could be limited to the lending of pictures for limited periods to certain buildings, such as Nos. 10 and 11, Downing Street, and to one or two others of similar importance—buildings that could be made available to the public, say over week-ends—I see no objection. But this clause foreshadows something far more extensive; and this is where I feel apprehensive. We have a habit in this country, I know, of modifying our laws, if they are found by experience to work not quite so well Ls we expected. I only hope, therefore, either that my fears are groundless in this case; or, if they are well-founded, that revision will be found to be necessary after all. I beg to move the Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 3, line 6, leave out paragraph (b).— (Lord Methuen.)

LORD KINNATRD

My Lords, I should like to say just one word on this Amendment. I gather from Lord Methuen that there has been a resolution by the Trustees of the Tate Gallery. We were not aware how it had been withdrawn. I think this matter adds weight to what I was saying, to the effect that we do not know what responsibility the Trustees have. I should like to say that I very much sympathise with the Amendment.

4.54 p.m.

EARL JOWITT

My Lords, I do not know whether I can throw some light on this matter. I am not now a Trustee of the Tate Gallery. I was a Trustee of the Tate Gallery for seven years, and I was chairman for about the last year or year and a half of that period. I was a Trustee of the National Gallery for the same period of time. All I can say is that I cannot remember the genesis of this clause in the Bill. I can certainly say that when this Bill with this clause in it was discussed by both bodies of Trustees, no objection was raised. I believe I can allay the fears of the noble Lord, Lord Methuen, to some extent. I think the position was that both boards of Trustees did, in fact, lend certain pictures—10. Downing Street is a typical example of the sort of place to which they lent them. As the law stood, the loans were made without this power, and the Trustees were doing something which they had no right to do. I think they were reluctant to take back pictures from 10, Downing Street, but they wanted to get the position regularised. I believe that was the real state of affairs.

I can say that, so far as the Tate Gallery was concerned, when I was there—I cannot speak with regard to what has happened since—we had not the slightest intention of lending many pictures or anything of that sort, or of starting a sort of furnishing, agency. We did contemplate one or two cases—not more than half a dozen—of pictures being lent. We had been doing it, and we thought we ought to be in a position to regularise what we had been doing. And that, certainly, was the position at the National Gallery. I am certain that neither body of Trustees for a moment contemplated that there would be any wide use of these powers, or any much more extensive use of the system than at the present time. That was the position when I was one of those concerned. I hope I have made it clear that I cannot speak for the present body of Trustees, for I have not discussed the matter with them.

4.56 p.m.

LORD AMULREE

My Lords, I should like to say one or two words in support of this Amendment. I think the point which the noble and learned Earl has raised is a very important one. But I gather that the intention of the Bill is that there should be an extension of powers so that pictures can go across the seas and not be seen by people in this country for long periods of time. Apart from the technical issues which we have discussed many times, it seems that that is likely to be very much against the wishes of owners and legatees to the Gallery, though I can see no objection at all to the lending of pictures to 10, Downing Street, or other buildings like that, where they can be seen by properly accredited people. I trust that the Government will accept this Amendment, and thus agree that pictures shall not be sent away for long periods of time so that they cannot be seen here by students and other people interested. I think we might take notice of what happens in regard to pictures which are lent. In one case which I was told about a picture was sent to an Embassy abroad and no photograph was taken of it before it went. That indicates a possible danger. I should like to support the Amendment.

LORD STRABOLGI

My Lords, I beg leave to support this Amendment, as the Amendment proposed by myself when this matter was last debated by your Lordships—an Amendment which sought to put a period on the loan of pictures—was not accepted.

4.58 p.m.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

My Lords, I think it is fair to remind your Lordships that we have had a pretty good discussion on this Bill, extending over a period of some six months: and. for your Lordships' information, I may say that we have discussed this Bill for twelve hours on the floor of this House—that is to say, about an hour and a half for each of these eight clauses. Moreover, it is fair to say that the Bill has been in, shall I say, gestation, for a period of ten years, starting with the inception of the Massey Report—a period which is quite adequate for most purposes. At the end of that period, I was able to say on Second Reading that the Bill was brought forward with the agreement of the Trustees of both Galleries. I am going to be quite frank. There have been reservations in the mind of some Trustees since that date. It is very largely for that reason that we have sought to meet their requirements. Lord Methuen has said that no member of the Tate Gallery Trustees is also a member of your Lordships' House. I have had several meetings with representatives of the Tate Gallery for the express purpose of making certain that in fact what was put into the Bill met substantially their requirements. I can say now that the Tate Gallery authorities are willing to accept this clause as amended. I do not want to run over all the arguments again, but we have, in fact, met criticisms; we have considerably amended this Bill; we have taken out a complete clause. There are three modifying subsections in Clause 4.

If I may, I would add—.I think this is Lord Methuen's point—a word on the question of students. I do not think the interests of students have been underestimated in the course of our debates. We are considering, for this purpose, something in the order of 4,000 pictures which are either in the reference library or in store in the Tate Gallery. it is fairly well established that they are not seen very often. I believe that under this Bill they will be seen more often and to better advantage than they are now. It is probably true to say that never in the history of this country—possibly never in the history of the world—have there been greater opportunities available to students of art, whether artists, students of the history of art or students of the 'appreciation of art. I think it is not fair to criticise us for, shall I say, riding roughshod over the interests of students.

I hope that I have answered the point which the noble Lord has made. I realise that, however much discussion we have in your Lordships" House on questions of art, we can never hope to secure complete agreement—indeed, art would be very dull if we did. I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Methuen, that, if we did not pass the Bill as it stands, we should have to withdraw all pictures on loan. We should have to withdraw, for instance, the pictures from 10, Downing Street, which I think most of us would regret. I would remind the noble Lord that there is no mandatory obligation on the Trustees: they are absolutely free to lend or nor to lend, although in fact they have been lending for some fifty years. Many of these pictures have been loaned in the past without statutory authority, and one of the purposes of the Bill is to give the Trustees the opportunity of lending where they wish within their statutory authority. I hope that I have answered the noble Lord and I would ask him to withdraw his Amendment.

LORD METHUEN

My Lords, I wish to thank the noble Earl for his answer. I understand from it that the Trustees of the Tate Gallery have expressed themselves in favour of retaining the clause which is the subject of this Amendment. I take it that that is unequivocal.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

What I have said is, that they are willing to accept the clause as amended. I am not going further than that now.

LORD METHUEN

That is all I wish to know. I had received information which made me reasonably doubtful about it, and that is why I put the question to the Government. Nobody knows better than myself the enormous trouble we take with students of art. I have 150 of them in my own home, so I have reason to know it well. I am sure that these students deserve a square deal. I had considerable qualms about the fact that this Bill allows the Ministry of Works to create a Garde-meuble. I do riot know whether it has been sufficiently brought out in debate how much we are hampered by lack of space, but I hope the Government will consider seriously this opportunity of making various places, like Lancaster House, for example, subsidiary galleries to tie National Gallery, and of putting into commission as soon as possible many of the rooms which are still out of commission, I raised that subject three or four years ago, and. I believe that there are still a number of rooms which could easily be put into commission and so alleviate the immense congestion on the first floor.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

My Lords, the noble Lord may not have heard me at an earlier stage. The Government have said that they would be delighted to regard Lancaster House as a subsidiary of the National Gallery, but that that is a matter for my noble friend the Duke of Wellington and his Trustees. So far as my right honourable friend the Minister of Works is concerned, he would be delighted to co-operate so far as he could.

LORD METHUEN

I am delighted to hear it. I hope also that the Trustees of the Tate Gallery will seriously consider putting these moving screens on the first floor and that they will be as good as those at the National Portrait Gallery. They have allowed the National Portrait Gallery to be "one up" on them, and I hope that the position will soon be "square." I have nothing more to say, except to ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.