HL Deb 21 December 1972 vol 337 cc1203-5
LORD STRABOLGI

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

The Question was as follows:

To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, bearing in mind the deterioration in the relationship between Government and museum trustees clearly indicated in the recent Report of the Tate Gallery Board (1970–72), they will now take steps to return to the less one-sided relationship which formerly existed with the national museum and gallery boards, by ensuring that, in the words of the Tate Report, "authority commensurate with their responsibilities" is not denied to the boards in future, and that they do not undergo pressure "to act, without legal requirement, in a manner which they consider contrary to public interest".

THE PAYMASTER GENERAL (VISCOUNT ECCLES)

My Lords, more than a year ago I wrote to the trustees of all the national museums and galleries in England offering to discuss with them a major devolution of responsibility for the management of their institutions which would cover definitions of the areas allocated to them and to the Government. After discussions, detailed proposals are being worked out between the Department and the museums. As regards the public interest, I think the noble Lord would accept that in the last resort the Government must be the judge of that.

LORD STRABOLGI

My Lords, while thanking the noble Viscount for that reply, may I ask him what justification the Government have for threatening to reduce the fund for running costs of the Wallace Collection in order to offset the possible £3,000 that may be lost if the trustees decide to have a free day?

VISCOUNT ECCLES

My Lords, I think I answered that question on a previous occasion. But I can tell the noble Lord that the figure of £1 million, which was our target for the collection from the charges, has to be borne equally by each museum. If one museum has a free day and the others do not, it is clear that the proportion contributed by that museum will be less, and therefore the others will have to give more.

LORD STRABOLGI

My Lords, may I ask the noble Viscount whether it is true that the sum aimed at is only an arbitrary figure fixed by his Department?

VISCOUNT ECCLES

My Lords, it has to be estimated until we see how things turn out. But we must operate from some base.

LORD STRABOLGI

My Lords, concerning the question of devolution may I ask the noble Viscount to confirm that no museum board will be compelled to undertake these financial responsibilities against its wishes? Is the noble Viscount aware that not all boards are in favour of the type of financial devolution that he is proposing and discussing with them?

VISCOUNT ECCLES

My Lords, I am aware that some museums do not want any more responsibility; and that does not go very well in asking for responsibility in an area which is manifestly one which would be reserved to the Government.

LORD AIREDALE

My Lords, would the noble Viscount care to amend that part of his first Answer in which he said that in the last resort Government must be the judge of what is in the public interest? Is it not Parliament rather than the Government which in the last resort is the judge of the public interest? If we have reached the stage at which this responsible board of trustees really thinks that a Minister of the Crown is bullying them into acting against the public interest, surely the last resort open to the Minister now is to lay his specific proposals before Parliament in the form of a Bill in order that Parliament may decide what is in the public interest?

VISCOUNT ECCLES

My Lords, I think that if the noble Lord will turn to the annual report of the Tate Gallery and read the page preceding that on which appears the quotation given by the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, he will read this: On the other hand, in matters where money is involved, it is unreal to suggest that trustees have a similar independence. This is the whole point. Trustees never have had independence where the question of their income was involved. Therefore since it is a matter for the Government to decide what estimates to put before the House, I think the Government must be, as they always were before, the judge of what is in the public interest.