§ 2.40 p.m.
§ LORD STRABOLGIMy Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
§ [The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government if they will make a statement about the reported theft of the painting Jour d'Eté by Berthe Morisot, from the Tate Gallery on April 12.]
§ THE EARL OF SELKIRKMy Lords, at about 11.10 on the morning of Thursday, April 12, the Director received a telephone call from the Irish Press Agency telling him that they had received a telephone call from someone describing 1044 himself as an Irish art student who claimed to have stolen one of the Lane pictures that morning. The Director caused the Lane pictures to be checked and it transpired that Jour d'Eté by Berthe Morisot was missing from its place on the wall in Gallery 24. The police were immediately informed. The theft would appear to have taken place between 10.30 and 10.50.
During this period it so happened that the attendant in charge of Gallery 24 was, in addition, responsible for the supervision of the three adjoining galleries and corridor. The attempt is invariably made to ensure that no one man is responsible for more than two galleries. This, however, is not always possible, and on this particular morning the arrival of some bronzes at the docks necessitated the detailing of a man to accompany them, and the arrival of the forthcoming German exhibition, consisting of over 100 large packing cases, called for the services of 5 men. The available strength was still further reduced by the illness of 5 men and 3 on annual leave. The front part of the building is complex in design. It is thought that this fact helped the thief, who may have chosen the moment when one man was relieving another on duty in the front hall. The Trustees are urgently reviewing their security arrangements. The picture was recovered yesterday evening following a call from the Irish Embassy, to whom it had been handed in by an unknown woman. The Director is satisfied that it is intact and undamaged.
§ LORD STRABOLGIMy Lords, I thank the noble Earl for his reply, arising out of which I should like to ask him a further question. As it appears that the theft was not discovered for at least twenty minutes and then only as a result of a telephone call, and as special security regulations for the Tate Gallery were drawn up in 1953 whereby artists who are copying pictures have to leave the building through a special check post at the side entrance and must leave all their impedimenta behind in the building between their visits, do not Her Majesty's Government think that these regulations have been contravened? The painting was obviously taken out by the main public entrance, as is borne out by the photograph which appeared in The Times on April 16.
§ THE EARL OF SELKIRKMy Lords, I have said that the Trustees are reviewing their security arrangements. I agree with the noble Lord that there are special rules for students who may make copies of pictures, whereby they take their pictures in and out by a side door, with careful checking. I do not think that the staff was inadequate, because so far as we are aware all the requests of the Trustees have been met in recent years. I have no doubt, however, that the Trustees will carefully review the position, although I do not feel that because something is stolen it is necessarily proof that there is carelessness within the building.
§ LORD STRABOLGIMy Lords, is the noble Earl aware that it is sometimes possible to walk through the whole of the Continental Rooms of the Tate Gallery without encountering a single attendant? I have done so myself.
§ THE EARL OF SELKIRKMy Lords, I am sure that the Trustees will carefully bear in mind what the noble Lord has said.