§ LORD STRABOLGIMy 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 they intend in future to assume the direct responsibility for the lending or disposal of works of art from the national collections.]
§ THE PAYMASTER GENERAL (VISCOUNT ECCLES)My Lords, no.
§ LORD STRABOLGIMy Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Following it, may I ask why in that case his letter to the Trustees last December, as quoted in the Press, said that the freedom to dispose or lend from the collections is one of the strategic areas within the control of the Government? Is he proposing to usurp the Trustees' powers? Is he not aware that in the case of the British Museum, lending and disposal are matters for the Trustees and not for the Department, and that in the case of the National Gallery the right to sell from the collections was abrogated in the 1954 Act?
§ VISCOUNT ECCLESMy Lords, I wrote in confidence to the Chairmen of the Trustees of certain of the national museums and galleries inviting them to discuss ways in which the Government could hand over to them more responsibility in the management of their affairs. They are all well aware that this is our intention. As regards the powers to lend or sell objects, these vary very widely from one museum to another. Clearly, in those cases where these powers are not already defined by Statute we shall, when 666 devolution takes place, have to be sure what the powers are. The exercise of those powers will, as now, remain with the Trustees.
§ LORD STRABOLGIMy Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply which I am sure will give great relief.
§ BARONESS LEE OF ASHERIDGEMy Lords, is the Minister aware that it would be a great relief to everyone seriously concerned with the Arts if there were a clearer demarcation between the responsibilities of the Minister and the responsibilities of the Trustees? Is he aware that his Ministry appoints the Trustees and there is then the arduous task of raising the maximum amount of financial support from every source? Would it therefore not be better if there were fewer of those instances where Trustees were either resentful or bewildered? Would it not be better if there were a clearer demarcation of duties, the Minister not interfering in the way that I am afraid has happened recently?
§ VISCOUNT ECCLESMy Lords, when I was Chairman of the Trustees of the British Museum that is exactly what I wanted. The noble Baroness was then the Minister. Now I am in a position to make this demarcation. It has always been my view—it was so long before I came back to Government—that the Department's interference with our great institutions over small matters promotes inefficiency. Therefore we are now going to discuss together such topics as a three-year budget, the employment and use of the people on their staff and many other matters which will make for more efficiency inside these great institutions. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for pointing out how necessary this is.
§ BARONESS LEE OF ASHERIDGEMy Lords, may I respectfully disagree with the Minister? Does he not remember that when his Trustees did him the honour of suggesting that he should be Chairman I at once agreed, because I knew of his great interest in the affairs of the museums? But may I repeat that there has been resentment and confusion about the lack of clarity in the respective duties of the political Minister and of the Trustees which did not occur before and which I do not believe to be in the interests either of the museums or of the Minister?
§ VISCOUNT ECCLESMy Lords, I am glad to have the support of the noble Baroness thus late in the day.
§ LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEYMy Lords, when the Minister answers Questions on these subjects, will he differentiate between cases in which the Trustees have freedom to act and cases in which they have freedom to act but will always act in a particular way because the Government pay them the money, as in entrance charges to museums and galleries?
§ VISCOUNT ECCLESMy Lords, it is exactly that that I wish to do: to get some uniform system which is clearly understood by the Trustees of all these museums.
§ LORD SHACKLETONMy Lords, since the noble Viscount referred to a confidential letter which I have not seen but which clearly the newspapers have seen, may I ask whether his Answer, which was "No", was consistent with the reported version? Can he say whether it is correct that the Government will retain control in strategic areas, with the basic conditions, and so on, for disposal? Or is this newspaper report a false one?
§ VISCOUNT ECCLESNo, my Lords, the report is correct. In the case of certain museums the power to lend or dispose is already laid down by Statute. In the case of others it is not, but they are so much controlled by the Department that in fact it comes to the same thing. When we give devolution of power to these other museums we must surely, in the public interest, define whether or not they have the right to sell objects in their collections. I cannot imagine that any noble Lord would wish the Government to hand over to Trustees the absolute right to sell anything from their collection. It is therefore necessary to define the position in one way or the other, and that is what we intend to do.
§ LORD STRABOLGIMy Lords, is the Minister aware that the concern is that the Government should be taking this over when in most cases, in fact in every case, they have not the power, except in the case of Departmental museums? With the others, particularly the British Museum and the National Gallery, this is a matter for Trustees or for Parliament, 668 and not for the noble Viscount's Department.
§ VISCOUNT ECCLESMy Lords, I wish I could make this point clear. These negotiations are concerned solely with giving more power and more responsibility to Trustees. No power which they have to-day will be taken away from them. In fact, in respect of certain of these museums they will enter on a new regime of liberty.