HL Deb 26 November 1964 vol 261 cc956-68

4.20 p.m.

Second Reading debate resumed.

LORD CHORLEY

My Lords, perhaps we may now return to a subject on which there will be rather less feeling and on which the House will find itself able to take a more approving view, because I am sure that this Bill will receive a welcome from all sides of the House, just as much as the House will have appreciated the clear and pleasant speech which the noble Lord made in introducing it to us. I think it was the first Second Reading speech that he has made since his elevation to Ministerial rank, and I am sure we all wish to congratulate him on the pleasant and effective way in which he carried out his duty.

This is a very necessary Bill and, from many points of view, is long overdue because it is obvious, and has been for a long time, that it is highly desirable that there should be in this great capital city—one of the great cities of the world—a really effective and properly housed museum relating to its history. The Guildhall Museum has been miserably housed for a long time. The City of London is a treasure house of Roman antiquities, and the discoveries which have been made there of recent years have been not only of interest to the people of London, or even of the British Isles, but of world-wide significance. The astonishing interest in archaeology of all kinds, and particularly, perhaps, in this country, in the classical Roman antiquities, has been one of the most interesting developments in the period since the war. Some of the discoveries made over the last years have been quite phenomenal, and it has really been miserable that they could not be properly dealt with and displayed. Therefore I am quite sure everybody will welcome this Bill from that point of view.

Then there is the London Museum itself. If your Lordships will forgive me a personal reminiscence, may I tell you that when, as an Oxford undergraduate, I first came to work in London during the First World War in the foreign trade department of the Foreign Office, that department was housed in Lancaster House, where the already interesting London Museum was shrouded in dust sheets and covers. Every now and then, passing down the parts of the building which were not in use, when attempting to deal with contraband and problems of that kind with which we were concerned, one caught glimpses of fascinating historical objects, and this made me determined that one of the things I would do after the war was over and the Museum was re-opened to the public would be to pay ii a visit. That was the forerunner of a number of visits to what was, and indeed one of the most fascinating of all the valuable museums that we have in this country.

I think it was a thousand pities that the Government decided that the Government hospitality side should have precedence over the educational side because this Museum is a highly important educational institution. While I appreciate that the new building in the City will be a valuable one and commensurate to the importance of the work being done, I feel a little sorry that the London Museum should be, so to speak, moved away from the general centres of culture, which, if I may say so, lie rather to the West of Barbican.

I should like to joint in the tribute which the noble Lord, Lord Champion, paid to the Harcourt and Esher families, who have been leaders of this important project, and to whom we owe not only this but many other important cultural achievements in this country. As one who worked for many years with the late Lord Esher in the National Trust and in other of his activities, I think it would have been fitting, if only he had still been speaking from the Liberal Benches, where we listened to him with so much delight on many occasions, if he had been able to be here this afternoon and make one of his very witty and charming speeches in support of this Bill.

I do not want to take up a great deal of time this afternoon, but there are one or two wider aspects in connection with this Bill that one might touch upon for a minute or two. The noble Lord, Lord Champion, pointed out that museums of local antiquities and local interest are the concern of local authorities; and no doubt as a general proposition that is true. I feel, however, that we carry that principle too far, if the noble Lord will allow me to say so, and there is not enough support from the centre. There are up and down the country a number of local museums, many of which I have visited from time to time, which are really collections of bric-à-brac, but in them there is a great deal of extraordinarily interesting and valuable material. But the local authorities are very often not equipped to deal with it. I know of one or two cases where something has been clone to improve the situation, but, by and large, we are really wasting a great deal of valuable, interesting and beautiful material. I should like the central authorities to have a look at this problem. The Ministry of Education is the obvious place for it, but I do not feel that it has been pulling its weight over recent years in this regard.

We have here a very fine project in which the Government, the City of London Corporation and the Greater London Authority are doing a great deal. This seems to me to be a valuable pointer, and shows that, while it is no doubt arguable that in the case of our great capital city, which is the centre of attraction, not only to Commonwealth visitors but to increasing numbers of visitors from all over the world, there should be this historical Museum for London, the history of London and the many things which have gone on in London are of world-wide importance. They are of interest not only to Londoners, but to those, like myself, who come to live and work in London and indeed provide such a large part of the effective population of this great metropolis at the present time. Therefore, I think that this Bill points the way to what may be valuable developments.

I want to underline still further what I have already said about the educational value of museums. Museums started really as collections of interesting things—almost jackdaw collections, flung together—and it was a long time before their value as educational institutions was realised and I am afraid that even now it has not completely sunk in in this country. Great improvements have been made of recent years in the British Museum. When I first used to go there frequently it was a dreadful place from the point of view of the exhibition of the very valuable objects which repose there. We had a debate in this House the other day on adult education. I do not think anybody stressed the importance of museums in connection with adult education, and yet they have a valuable part to play in adult educational work.

Anyone who has had the pleasure of visiting the great museums, particularly in the Scandinavian countries, where a tremendous amount of attention has been paid to the problem of displaying these beautiful and interesting things and making them educationally valuable, will appreciate what can be done. It has been a source of very proper criticism of the British Museum that they have lagged behind in this respect. I have said that the British Museum has been making a great deal of progress, but in some of the Provincial museums nothing like the same progress is evident. I say this because I think the Governors and those in charge of the new London Museum might very properly from the beginning pay real attention to the problem of using the Museum as an instructional and educational part of the work which is going on in this country. I hope that this matter will be borne carefully in mind.

To return to London, it is high time that London should be able to hold up its head again. Those of us who visit Paris and the other great capitals in Europe know perfectly well how much attention is paid to this type of museum, and it has been rather a shame to many of us that during these last years, largely owing to the accommodation problem and to lack of finance, we have been so far behind. This gives us an opportunity of once more raising our heads among the great cities of Europe, and I hope that every advantage will be taken of it.

4.31 p.m.

LORD EBBISHAM

My Lords, I do not intend to delay your Lordships for more than a few moments on this Bill. I should perhaps declare an interest in this subject, in that I am one of the members of the Interim Board of Governors appointed by the City Corporation. There is only one matter which I should like to put to the noble Lord, Lord Champion, who moved the Second Reading of this Bill. It concerns the salaries and other working conditions of the staff.

I very much welcome all that he said on this aspect, but there was one matter to which he did not refer. The City Corporation, in conjunction with the staff association, has some elaborate machinery for dealing with disagreements and disputes, going to arbitration, and matters of that kind. On the whole, I think that that machinery works extremely well. Under this Bill, the staff of the new Museum will come under the ægis of the Corporation, and it is therefore important, as the noble Lord said, that they should be completely on all fours with the Corporation staff. It is therefore felt desirable by the Corporation that something should be put into the Bill to deal with this question of possible disputes and disagreements. There is nothing at the moment, and I would ask the noble Lord whether he will be good enough to consider this question with a view to putting down an Amendment at a later stage in the Bill's progress.

With that proviso, may I say how warmly the Corporation welcome this Bill, and how much they are looking forward to working both with the Treasury and with the Greater London Council on producing what we all hope will be a most valuable institution for London.

4.34 p.m.

LORD AIREDALE

My Lords, I, too, have only one point to make. My only useful achievement in the last Session of Parliament was to persuade the then Lord Chancellor to introduce into his Public Libraries and Museums Bill, at the Report stage, a new clause which is now Section 20 of the 1964 Act. That section says that museum premises may be used for the holding of meetings and exhibitions, the showing of films and slides, the giving of musical performances, and the holding of other events of an educational or cultural nature … From the way in which the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, was speaking just now, no doubt he was pleased with the words: … the holding of events of an educational … nature…. I did not suggest then, and I do not now, that a museum is an appropriate place in which to hold regular, organised activities every evening of the week; but I should have thought that there was nothing like the occasional special event to attract into a museum many people who form some vague intention of visiting the museum at some time, yet always find themselves too busy actually to bring themselves to go. Having been attracted into the museum by some special event that interested them, many of them cannot help taking an interest in other things which they see there, and in that way they may become regular visitors to the museum, and the cultural side of their lives may be enriched. I therefore invite the Minister in charge of this Bill to introduce into it a clause similar to Section 20 of the 1964 Act, so that this same result can be achieved in the case of this new Museum. I invite the Minister to do this, rather than offering to do it myself, because I feel sure that the chances of success in Committee of inserting a new clause on these lines would be greater if it were introduced by the Minister than if it were introduced by me.

The further reason why I ask for this is that, if it is not done, people may suppose that Parliament does not wish special events to be held in this particular Museum. They may say to themselves, "There was the precedent of Section 20 in the 1964 Act, and Parliament did not follow it in this Act. Therefore, it does not wish special events to be held in this Museum." If Parliament does wish special events to be held in this Museum, it is, I think, important that the precedent should be followed, and that a section of this kind should appear in this new Act. That is all I have to say. If the Minister does not feel able to accept my invitation, I shall myself, if I receive the slightest encouragement, attempt to introduce a new clause.

4.37 p.m.

LORD LLEWELYN-DAVIES

My Lords, I would adduce two further reasons why your Lordships should support this Bill. The first is that I have had an opportunity of looking at the report and the plans prepared by the architects, to which the noble Lord, Lord Champion, referred in introducing the Bill. I am extremely happy wit these plans. I believe that it will be a magnificent building, worthy of t le exhibits it has to contain, and I should like to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, that I believe that they will be every bit as worthily housed in this very beautiful and interesting new building as they were in Lancaster House.

I should also like to say, in reference to the problem of the 200-ft. office tower block which is to surmount the Museum, and which, in the circumstances at present obtaining, may cause the project to be delayed, that I believe it is the opinion of the architects that from a purely architectural and;esthetic point of view, a 200-ft. tower block would be much better not there.

The second point I would make is that some of the contents of the new joint Museum should appeal very strongly to your Lordships. There is something there for all of us, both in this House and in another place. There is a Speaker's coach, a Speaker's Chair and a Woolsack. There is also a manuscript Journal of the House of Lords in Cromwell's time; and there is even something for the noble Baronesses—material from the Suffragette period.

4.39 p.m.

LORD RENNELL

My Lords, may I conclude this debate on the Second Reading by first of all stating very much of an interest as a Trustee of the London Museum for a long time past, and a member of the Interim Board of the proposed new Museum. That gives me the opportunity of expressing to your Lordships the great regret of the noble Viscount, Lord Harcourt, at being unavoidably absent this afternoon, and of saying on his behalf how much we appreciate what the noble Lord, Lord Champion, has said in moving the Second Reading of the Bill.

The noble Lord, Lord Champion, has covered practically all the ground that any of us Trustees or members of the Board of either side could have wished to say. It remains for me only to pick up, if I may with your Lordships' permission, two points in the remarks of earlier speakers. The noble Lord, Lord Chorley, is, of course, entirely right in saying that the progress in museum development and scope in other countries, in Europe and in North America, has been, I regret to say, greater than that in this country. But the plans for this new Museum, to which the noble Lord, Lord Llewelyn-Davies, referred, and which he said he had had the advantage of seeing, have been prepared (and, I may say, are still being prepared) as the result of intensive investigation of what has been done, and is proposed to be done, in other countries in Europe and in North America, and I hope that the Museum will be the outcome of the most modern thought in museum development and construction.

At this point, it is perhaps appropriate to say that when this Museum is built it will be the first major museum that has been built in this country since the Victoria and Albert Museum was built over two generations ago. I am not sure that some of us who are interested in this aspect of history, education and culture in this country think it a very worthy position to occupy, that we have built no new museum for over 60 years.

My Lords, this Museum is a happy marriage (perhaps "marriage" is the wrong word to use, since there are not two parties but three) of three parties who have not previously had much connection with each other on a subject of this sort. That has, of course, involved a point that was made about the employment of personnel, who, in the case of the London Museum and the Guildhall Museum, have depended on two entirely different authorities. I would say, however—and here I speak certainly for the Trustees of the London Museum, and also, I hope, for the whole of the interim Board of the new Museum—that we do not anticipate any difficulty whatsoever in marrying the varying conditions which at the present moment are enjoyed by the staffs of the two museums that are to be merged.

In the first place, no member or person employed by the London Museum under Civil Service rules and regulations need, if he or she does not wish, join the staff of the new Museum. Since, however, the field in which new personnel can be found for museums of this standing is so limited, it will be the wish of the new Board, as it is of the interim Board, that all those people who possibly can will transfer to the new Museum; and that, in turn, involves that they should have whatever advantages of remuneration and prospects hereafter, in the way of pensions, are adequate to their needs. That is the view of the interim Board, as I know, and certainly of the Trustees of the London Museum. Should any member of the staffs find it impossible to join the new Museum, when, in due course, after the vesting date, the terms are made, that person will be able to retire on whatever are the appropriate conditions for the termination of employment under the Civil Service rules. But we do not anticipate that anything of that sort is likely to happen.

Secondly, I must say that two of the three partners in this enterprise, the Corporation of the City of London and the Greater London Council, are both themselves large employers of labour and are well aware of how conditions of service make, and can alone make, for the happy employment of the staff. Moreover, that view is certainly one that will be shared by the remaining third of the members of the Board who will be appointed in due course.

Finally, it may be relevant to point out that the people who pay are going to have a say in how people are employed; and of the people who pay, one-third is the Treasury—that is, the Government of the time when the vesting date takes place. So, with all the good will of the two Boards, the interim Board and the Trustees, we cannot see that there is any chance of any difficulty, and we do not feel that at this stage the insertion of an Amendment into the present Bill is necessary. When the time comes after the vesting date for this matter to be considered, it can, we believe, be dealt with by regulation.

My Lords, so far as Lord Chorley's point is concerned, about making this Museum worthy of this country, I would say merely that that is the principal objective which those of us who have been concerned for many years in trying to bring about this merger have had in mind: that we shall have a new and beautiful museum worthy of one of the greatest cities in the world.

One final point, if I may be allowed to make it. The noble Lord, Lord Champion, when introducing this Bill, stated that he was surprised at how few people in London with whom he had been in contact were aware of the London Museum or, indeed, of the Guildhall Museum. Actually, the figures of attendance at the London Museum, considering its "un-get-at-ability", which requires people to go on foot because they cannot go by bus, car or taxi, has certainly mitigated against the use of the Museum by the general public. But the main reason is that neither the London Museum not the Guildhall Museum have been adequately housed for the last twenty years. Neither Museum has been built to show what it has. A great part of the contents of what ought to be shown in the London Museum remains in storehouses, while those noble Lords who have seen what there is in the Guildhall Museum housed in a courtyard of the Royal Exchange, and knowing nothing about them, cannot possibly appreciate the treasures and valuables of importance which the Museum has.

So, in spite of the incongruity of employment and background of the London Museum and the Guildhall Museum, there has at no time, in our rather lengthy negotiations to bring about the outcome contained in the Bill before your Lordships this afternoon, been any doubt in our minds about the necessity, desirability and enthusiasm shown by both sides to merge these two Museums into a tripartite partnership consisting of two parts of this great Metropolis and, as the third part, Her Majesty's Government, through the instrumentality of the Treasury.

My Lords, with that, I can only say that I hope that the Bill will go through substantially in the form in which it has been presented to your Lordships' House to-day, because we believe (I say this in reply to Lord Airedale's remarks) that the powers in the present Bill are adequate and sufficient to provide for all those ancillary activities to which he referred. On behalf of all the Trustees of the London Museum, and, I believe, of the members of the interim Board, and my noble friend and colleague, Lord Harcourt, in his regretted absence, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Champion, for the way he has introduced this Bill and commended it to your Lordships.

LORD AIREDALE

My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, might I just say that the same answer that he gave me just now was the answer that the Lord Chancellor of the day gave to me on a former occasion, when he said that the powers already in the Bill were adequate. I made another appeal and asked whether he would include another clause in the Bill, so that it would be plain for all to see; and on reconsidera- tion the Lord Chancellor was good enough to do so.

4.50 p.m.

LORD CHAMPION

My Lords, this debate has been a very pleasant one for me because it has been wholly one of support for the Bill the Second Reading of which I moved. I must say that I am particularly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Rennell, for his knowledgeable speech and certainly I should like to support his graceful reference to the noble Viscount, Lord Harcourt. I regretted as much as he did the fact that he was unable to be with us here to-day. I was also grateful to the noble Lord for the fact that he strongly supported the assurances that I tried to give in my speech to the staff. Clearly I shall have to consider what he said, at the same time as I consider the suggestion made to me by the noble Lord, Lord Ebbisham, about the necessity for including additional clauses to ensure that the machinery he mentioned will find some expression in the Bill as a further assurance to the staff. I will certainly consider the two noble Lords' points at the same time, and I hope I shall not disappoint too much one or other of them.

Certainly the noble Lord, Lord Rennell, made my reply speech for me. He was clearly so well informed about everything that there is very little for me to reply to. But there are some things I must say. I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, and the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, for their remarks. Lord Chorley suggested that at the present time there is not enough support for local museums from the centre; and I am bound to agree with him, particularly on the point that in so many cases first-class material is hidden or not properly used by local museums in local authorities that are not particularly well versed in the art of showing to the best advantage the possessions which they have, many of which are so valuable.

Really, this co-operation, this unique experiment between the centre and local government, is a starting point. Clearly we shall have to see how it works out, and there is the possibility that we might in the future extend the participation of Government in the work of the local authority in this regard. But I must admit I am always a little frightened of the central authority poking its finger too much into the work of local authorities. They must be allowed a large degree of autonomy, and I am always a little bit cautious of the centre, despite the fact that at this moment I am said to be at the centre.

Having regard to his eminence in this field, I was glad to hear that the noble Lord, Lord Llewelyn-Davies, was happy with the plans that have been produced. To some extent, of course, he answered the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, about the siting in the East End of the City and not near the existing museums. I am not sure it is right, but certainly the decision has been taken: it is going to be the Museum of London, and perhaps the very centre of London;s the place for such a museum.

The noble Lord, Lord Airedale, has given me something to think about, and I must think about it. He, too, to some extent, was answered by the noble Lord, Lord Rennell. On this point of whether there should be included a special clause, as was inserted into the Public Libraries and Museums Act, 1964, we feel, and we certainly hope, that the Governors of the Museum will wish to follow the modern trend of making museum premises available for a wide variety of cultural purposes. The only question that arises—and this is the question between the two noble Lords—is whether Clause 3 really does what is required in this field. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, made a very strong point. The fact that this provision was included in the Public Libraries and Museums Act, 1964—that is, the section which permits the holding of concerts and so on—but is left out of a subsequent Bill appears to me to be a point of some validity. If we include it in one Act and omit it from a subsequent Act there is some little danger of someone saying, "Well, in this subsequent Act they clearly do not want these activities to be carried out." I feel it would not do any harm to include the provision in the Bill; indeed it might be something really worth while. I certainly will consider this. If, after further consideration, I feel that the Government ought not to put down an Amendment I will inform the noble Lord and leave it to his good judgment whether he will put down such an Amendment himself.

I do not think there are any further points to answer. Clearly I shall study everything that has been said to-day. end as I began this little speech on this part of the Second Reading, by thanking all those who participated in the debate, and particularly all those who have done so much to bring this Bill to the point where we are to-day seeing its Second Reading in this House.

On Question, Bill read 2a and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.