HL Deb 27 January 1982 vol 426 cc1027-50

8.9 p.m.

The Earl of Perth rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what consideration they are giving to the Williams Committee Report, A Heritage for Scotland—Scotland's National Museums and Galleries, The Next 25 Years.

The noble Earl said: My Lords, I have asked the Unstarred Question which stands in my name, because I believe the views of your Lordships will be of real value to the Government. The Government are asked for comments on the Williams Report, which deals with the future of the museums and galleries of Scotland over the next 25 years. I want to thank all noble Lords who are here tonight, despite the difficulties and despite the hour. Hit were not for the difficulties I have mentioned I know that many other noble Lords, Scottish in particular, would have wished to be present.

As a member of the Williams Committee I must say that I do not think I have ever had more papers to read, more oral evidence or more written evidence to receive or more visits to make. But all members of the committee were grateful for what they were given. The committee was very widely chosen. It was set up by, I think, the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock. In any case, it was set up by the last Labour Government. If one looks at page vii, noble Lords will see that the committee consisted of local and regional authority members, representatives of the trade unions and local museums, an architect, an art critic and even somebody from England. It was a very well chosen, valuable and representative committee for the work that it had to do. I must refer also to the two secretaries. Without good secretaries one is nowhere. Mrs. Nicola Munro and Miss Elizabeth Glass were splendid and kept everything in order, including most of us. But keeping us in order was really the task of our chairman, Dr. Alwyn Williams, who did a splendid job. As noble Lords will know, we made 116 recommendations, which must be some sort of a record, all of which were unanimously supported by the committee.

I am not going to speak on all 116 recommendations, but the first and most important one recommends the establishment of a Museum of Scotland. All of us felt that for far too long what surely should be the main theme of our national museums and galleries has been neglected. When people from home or overseas come to Edinburgh they want to know where they can learn about Scotland from the start of its history and of things connected with Scotland. There is no one adequate centre for this purpose. The Museum of Antiquities has Scottish artefacts, but over its 200 years it has suffered shameful neglect while other museums have prospered.

I am not criticising the other museums. Indeed, the National Gallery of Scotland is my favourite picture gallery in size and in the quality of its pictures, the way they are displayed and its general liveliness. All of this, including running the Museum of Modern Art and the National Portrait Gallery is achieved on a running budget annually of £1,200,000. Let us take the Royal Scottish Museum with its outstanding main hall which recalls, it seems to me, nothing more nor better than the Crystal Palace. It is far and away the most popular of all Scottish museums. It has a running budget of £1,600,000.

Then we come to the Museum of Antiquities, the museum which we recommend should in due time become the Museum of Scotland. What is its budget? It is £550,000, one-third that of the Royal Scottish Museum and less than one-half that of the National Gallery. It is not only a question of money. The museum shares its premises with the National Portrait Gallery. It has nowhere to show its treasures properly. The working conditions are unbelievable. When I went to see some of them I asked whether the fire authorities had passed them. I was assured that they had. I do not understand it. As for somewhere to store many of their artefacts, it just does not exist. They have been promised the York Buildings, just across the way, which will be of help, certainly, as offices. But the museum's annual report shows that even then they will have only 28 per cent. of what they really want for their purposes. I will quote to your Lordships, to illustrate the total inadequacy of what they have got, two short passages from the bi-centenary annual report of the Museum of Antiquities. They say We wish to record our thanks to the Trustees of the National Galleries and to the Keeper and Staff of the Scottish National Portrait Gallery for kindly allowing us the use of their premises to hold various functions, for which there was no room in the Museum itself". Or again: A major exhibition [has been set up] on the main stair". Or, lastly: In collaboration with the Scottish National Portrait Gallery [we put on a fine new exhibition] in the Gallery's Ambulatory. The Scottish National Portrait Gallery also kindly helped by giving facilities for displaying the Strathmore table carpet [one of the great new acquisitions of the Gallery] under the Rossend Ceiling (which belongs to the National Museum of Antiquities)… and which is housed in the National Portrait Gallery. I could go on illustrating these points but it is quite clear that the accommodation which they have at the moment is totally inadequate. If we are to have a Museum of Scotland it will obviously become more inadequate.

The question is: where are they to go if they are not to stay where they are? The committee remain convinced that the right answer is for them to go to John Watson's School. We remain convinced, even after the Secretary of State for Scotland came to the conclusion, after a review, that the Museum of Modern Art, which had been promised this location, should stay there. I hope very much—this is certainly the wish of the committee—that even at this late date (and it is not too late because nothing very much has been done in the way of completing the reconstruction of the building) that John Watson's will in fact become the site for the Museum of Scotland. It would give all the space that is needed over the next 25 or even 50 years. On finance—one of the main reasons why the Secretary of State for Scotland said that it could not be done—the building, stage 1, which would double the accommodation the Museum of Scotland has in its present premises and in York buildings, would cost about £4 million, a capital sum which I well understand the Government do not want to make available at this time. But the Crown Estates have come to the rescue. They have said that they will finance the project. They already own the building. This is of great importance. Originally, the Museum of Modern Art was agreeable to such a change—or, should I say, its parent, the National Galleries, were agreeable. They went back on that agreement for a reason which I well understand; namely, that they were fearful that if the change were made nothing would happen for them. They would obtain no advantage. There would be no reconstruction of the buildings which Antiquities were going to vacate, even if they were given York Buildings at the same time.

I believe that we might be able to change the mind of the Museum of Modern Art if the Government could make a firm promise that, if the Museum of Scotland went to John Watson's School, then the Museum of Modern Art would have the interior of the existing buildings reconstructed, when it would be more centrally located than otherwise. The Government will undoubtedly say, "We cannot promise that because it is going to cost £1 million or £2 million".

I understand this difficulty but there is a way around it. Once again, the Crown Estates would be prepared in principle to come to the rescue. They have said that they would be prepared to take over the building on a sale-and-lease-back basis. The Government would have the money then released—some £1½ to £2 million—to spend on reconstruction.

What does all this amount to? So far as the Government are concerned, it would mean virtually no capital expenditure at all. The Government would have to pay rent of some £600,000. They would have to finance new staffing; let us say £400,000. Therefore, the Government would have to pay in a year about £1 million more than they do at the present time. But this would not be at once. With the best will in the world, with all the planning and so forth, this expenditure would not be completed for five or six years. So is it asking too much that what is undoubtedly the right scheme of things for the whole location of the museum should not be turned down, when there is such a chance of such a good bargain at so little cost at the present time?

In case the Government say " No ", we have to look at what would happen elsewhere for the Museum of Scotland as it now would be. It would stay in existing buildings, although perhaps getting rid of the National Portrait Gallery, which would be a problem of its own, and both the York Buildings. The Property Services Agency have offered them a building in Waterloo Place, near Register House. I do not know whether your Lordships know where this Waterloo Place building is, but it is surrounded by swirling traffic. It is six or seven storeys high. I can only liken it to Centre Point in London, and Centre Point would not be a suitable building for museum purposes—nor would the building in Waterloo Place be suitable for a Museum of Scotland. Just think of it—the Museum of Scotland in three separate buildings, one of them a quarter of a mile from the others and two of them totally unsuited for museum purposes. I hope this idea will not be pursued because it really is not good enough. What we want is a Museum of Scotland of which we can all be proud and one which is located properly. I believe that what is at present in the planning is a disaster, a waste of money and a waste of space—and space is valuable.

From location, let me turn to another point, about the Museum of Antiquities if it is to become the Museum of Scotland. As constituted at the present time, it is too top-heavy. There are 24 trustees, about half of them ex-officio. That is not good enough. In this day and age we have to make changes and we must have a shake-up. It is rather similar, your Lordshps will recall, to what happened at the British Museum when changes had to be made there. Our proposal is that there should be a smaller board of 12 trustees, some of whom would still be ex-officio and representing the old interests. That is a necessary change, and the very fact that the Museum of Antiquities has fallen so far behind over the past 60 years is proof that something is wrong in the present set-up. I am afraid that some of the trustees, for the very reason that they see a threat to the old rule of things, are opponents of what we are proposing. I can only ask that the Government do not pay too much attention to what may be understandable but are not, I believe, wholly unbiased opinions.

Another of the recommendations I want to touch upon is another new museum—a museum of industry. That should be located on the West coast, somewhere near Clydebank, which was the cradle of so much of the Industrial Revolution and of pioneering engineering in this country. I know that this is something that we cannot afford to set up now, but the committee recommends that we set up a trust, partly private and partly public—involving local authorities and the rest—which would start the thing going, in the sense that it would try to get together the right people, to ensure that one day the museum could be launched.

In the meantime—and this is the important point—there should be somewhere where the sort of things that are needed as exhibits in such a museum can be stored. If your Lordships will look at pages 14 and 15 of the report, you will see that plant has been offered at the present time for such a purpose but has been turned down because there is nowhere to put it. The result is that the plant, whatever kind it may be, is sold as scrap and is lost forever, whatever its historical importance. There are plenty of large vacant factories around in Scotland which could be used for storage purposes.

I now wish to touch on one last recommendation—namely, the Scottish Museums Commission, which should advise the Secretary of State for Scotland on all policy matters pertaining to the national museums and galleries and to the Scottish museum movement generally. As you Lordships will know, that Scottish museum movement is making great progress throughout the country. We considered combining the work of such a commission with the Council for Museums and Galleries which already exists to help local museums and spends money for that purpose. We felt that this was not advisable and that we should set up what will admittedly be a new quango, which would help ensure that in the future the money devoted to museums all over Scotland should be used in a more careful and planned way than has been the case up to now.

I understand why some of the museums and galleries, whether they be at national or local level, are nervous about the concept of a Museum of Scotland and might even he against it. Their reasoning is that they think such a museum would get all the money in the future, and that it would somehow pre-empt the other museums which would otherwise get something. That is precisely why I think, and the committee think, that a new quango is necessary—to allay their fears.

Of course there is some truth in the fact that if one set up this museum it will get more money than would otherwise be going to the Museum of Antiquities; but if we believe in a Museum of Scotland, that is what must happen. As the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities has advised, we in Scotland really should be entitled to more money for our museums. One cannot help but look at what is happening in England, where the Natural History Museum, the V & A, the Tate Gallery, the British Museum and the British Library all seem to be getting money, while very little is coming to Scotland.

The Government have soon to decide whether they accept our key recommendation, for which they have already shown some sympathy, a Museum of Scotland with all that that implies for Scotland, a museum of which Scotsmen can be proud and a must to all who visit Edinburgh. Our Committee is in no doubt on the answer. My noble friend Lord Home, if he could have been here, would have equally supported the concept, and I hope that all your Lordships who take part in this debate will do the same.

8.31 p.m.

Lord Mackie of Benshie

My Lords, I must begin by asking the House and the Minister to forgive me for not waiting until the end of the debate. I have a long-standing engagement of some importance to myself in default of which I would be letting people down, so I must ask the forgiveness of the House for not staying until the end.

We must be extremely grateful to the noble Earl for asking this very important Question. I did not always consider museums as one of the great things in my life, but I was converted many years ago in another place. I was the duty Member of Parliament on the Liberal Bench and I had to listen to the late Lord Boyle speaking on museums. I thought this a terrible bore, until he had been speaking for about two minutes, when I suddenly realised that this subject was very much a part of life, of immense importance and enormously fascinating.

My contribution to this debate tonight is not to go into the details of the report, which the noble Earl has already stressed, and the importance of a National Museum in Edinburgh. I would like to give my experience of the genuine desire of the Scottish people in various parts to have an understanding of the past in order to understand the present and the future, and their own basic efforts to do so. I would like to take two local museums I know about. The first is a Hound croft called Laidhay in Caithness about 20 miles south of Wick. It is absolutely typical, a long house with the house at one end, a door through into the byre, thatched and furnished with all the original equipment of a Caithness croft.

This was entirely done by the efforts of a small committee in Caithness headed by a friend of mine, Robert Moward, who raised the money with innumerable ceilidhs and raffles and all the other things. They have made an absolutely splendid job of this croft, and it is visited by thousands of tourists and a great number of people from Caithness itself who are fascinated to see how their forebears lived. This is an example of the interest in Caithness in what is nowadays called a folk museum.

In the county where I live, my own county of Angus, we have at Glamis a row of cottages, with the Angus folk museum, which is absolutely fascinating. This work was instigated and carried through by Lady Maitland of Burtonside, who died the other day at the age of 90. She with great enthusiasm and great support got together a whole lot of furniture, farm implements, churns, all the paraphernalia of life in the past, and assembled it in this excellent row of cottages. The Glamis estate, the noble Earl, Lord Strathmore, gave the cottages. The result is that we have another absolutely fascinating local museum entirely as the result of the initiative of local people. I think these two examples show that there is a tremendous desire among the ordinary people of Scotland to see that their past is properly illustrated and available to them and their children.

For that reason alone I think the noble Earl's Question ought to be answered in a favourable manner. He is talking well into the future, and I hope that under a Tory Government we are not always going to be as hard up as we are at present. I think the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, might well and should give a favourable answer to this essential and very important Question that has been asked by the noble Earl, Lord Perth.

8.36 p.m.

Baroness Elliot of Harwood

My Lords, I think we are very much indebted to the noble Earl for raising this question and making such a fascinating speech himself about an extremely fascinating document. I think this is a subject which we have never before aired in your Lordships' House, and I am very glad that it has been brought up tonight. We in Scotland have some of the loveliest museums and galleries in the United Kingdom. I so much agree with the noble Earl when he talks about the National Gallery in Edinburgh. I think it is one of the most beautiful galleries, certainly in the United Kingdom, and I would even say further afield, in Europe. It is a really marvellous little gallery. What is more, our galleries attract very large numbers of people. Any of us who have attended, as I have since the very beginning, the Edinburgh Festival, will have noticed that a tremendous number of people are fascinated by the galleries and the exhibits that are shown, especially on those special occasions. We get a very good return for the money that is spent on our galleries.

The Williams Report makes fascinating reading and it covers all the galleries in Scotland. I so agree with Lord Mackie that some of these small museums, which are spread throughout Scotland—and there are some in the Borders, too—are extremely attractive and represent a great interest in the locality and in the type of life which people led in the past. I am particularly interested in the proposal for the National Museum of Antiquities of Scotland, which I agree very strongly should be renamed "the Museum of Scotland", and for which it is obviously vital that we should have more accommodation. This museum has a wonderful collection covering all the history of Scotland, from the earliest days of primative civilisation to the present day. It was started in Queen Street in 1781 and is still there. I wonder how many museums begun in 1781 are now in the same premises. Much of the collection has to be hidden away and is only shown when space allows or on special occasions. I wonder what other great museum has been so limited over those many years.

I know that all the museum authorities and different Governments—because it was Lord Ross of Marnock who appointed the committee—realise that this is a very important matter. The museum should be enlarged, and many plans have been made but always questions of finance have frustrated any action. I have a letter here from the Director of the National Museum of Antiquities in which he says: Efforts to get more space to show the great collections to the public have now been going on for nearly half a century. The Government agrees the need for a new national museum with 90 per cent. more space than is at present possible. But in 1976 the proposed museum for which plans had been made and the site cleared were cancelled because of Government economies. The project was then within a few weeks of being put out to contract". That is a quotation from Dr. Fenton, who is the Director of the National Museum of Antiquities.

I do hope that we may give this proposition further support. The John Watson site would provide the accommodation needed. The trustees of the museum have put forward proposals for the John Watson site, and there have also been suggestions concerning other sites. I do so agree with Lord Perth, that to put the museum in Waterloo Place would be most unsatisfactory. It would be very much better that it should be on the John Watson site, and the Museum of Modern Art could go to the site in Queen Street. An exchange could be made. I think that it would be an advantage to both museums.

There are other suggestions put forward which would relieve the congestion and allow the collection to be rehoused. I would like to add my plea to the Government for action on this matter. I believe that it would be an investment which would pay dividends as it would attract so many more visitors. Once the public had learned of the treasures that they are unable to see, and once the tourists had heard of the developments, the capital expenditure would certainly earn interest. More people—both the young, learning about Scottish history and Scottish heritage, and the old, who love to see beautiful things—would find the attractions of this gallery very great indeed.

I should also like to back up the proposal in the Williams Report about which the noble Earl, Lord Perth, has spoken, as regards the museum of industry which I hope very much can be located in Glasgow or in the West. I have a great personal interest since my family, the Tennant family, were the earliest people to develop the chemical industry and were involved in the beginning of the great industrial revolution in Glasgow. I think that it would be very appropriate that there should be a museum of that kind in the West, but I would stress more strongly that, while that should be the aim for the future, the particular suggestion concerning the national museum of Scotland should be adopted now or as soon as possible.

I beg the Government to consider the present position and to see whether something cannot be done to fulfil some of the recommendations of the Williams Report, not because they are going to be spending money, but because they are going to be earning money and interest and will redound to the credit of Scotland. I hope very much indeed that the Government will view this matter with some sympathy and some support.

8.42 p.m.

The Earl of Cromartie

My Lords, we are most grateful to my noble friend Lord Perth. He has gone through the main points very thoroughly indeed, and so I shall not detain your Lordships for long. However, there are just one or two points that I should like to make. There is an idea which rather follows on from what the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, was saying, about the localised museum. It might be possible to have some travelling exhibitions. We know that in Edinburgh a considerable number of things are never seen or never shown because there has never been room to do so. Some things might be lent even to the local museums.

I had the honour of opening a very good museum at Gairloch in Wester Ross, and it is quite one of the best small museums that I have seen. Most of the work was done by Sheriff Murdoch. It is quite excellent and among the exhibits there is a most beautiful pot still, and I think I know where it probably came from. In any case there was a terrible panic about it. An excise man came up, probably from Inverness, to take a bit away so that it could not be used again. There was a perfectly good sheriff with me at the time and I was very surprised that there was such a panic. Anyway, if the local museums could be helped in some way it would be of assistance and could perhaps take some of the overload which is carried by the more central museums in Edinburgh.

The idea of an industrial museum on the West Coast is excellent. But we do not want to wait too long for all this, because the way things are going at the moment, if we do not watch the situation we shall lose many of our indigenous population who are very interested in these things. We have only to consider what has been happening recently. I shall mention just three things: the cancellation of the gas-gathering pipeline; the shutdown of the Corpach pulp mill and the quite inexcusable closedown of the Invergordon smelter. I hope that the Government will realise that a bit of money spent on the kind of thing involved in the Question can help, and also might make them a little more popular.

8.46 p.m.

Lord Ferrier

My Lords, I join with other noble Lords who have expressed their thanks to the noble Earl, Lord Perth, not only for his speech in introducing this debate but for his long years of attention to the whole subject, which we greatly appreciate. In my view this is a very important report and the matter it raises is very important. This should be an important debate, which it is not. I say that because it is tucked away into a corner, which it should not be. The noble Earl, Lord Perth, is much too goodnatured to be as irritable as I am over a matter of this sort, but I feel that the usual channels should have seen to it that we had a proper occasion to call attention to this extremely important matter, the importance of which has been referred to by so many speakers.

I am very glad that the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, is to speak because, as has already been said, it was he who, as Secretary of State, in February 1979 established this committee. The noble Lord shakes his head. I may be wrong, but we shall hear from him who was responsible. I understand that it was not him, but the fact remains that this excellent committee was created and launched at that time and its work has been recorded by the report which we are discussing today. Along with my noble friend Lord Cromartie, I feel that this is a matter as regards which, as he said, we do not want to wait too long. We cannot hang about over this because there is a great deal to be done.

I was born in Edinburgh and I was educated at the Edinburgh Academy. I lived at one time a few hundred yards from John Watson's within sight of Donaldson's Hospital across the Water of Leith. So I am not only intimate with the area involved, but extremely interested in the powerful Addendum, Chapter 10 on pages 89 to 93. Oddly enough, my grandfather, the eminent Victorian artist, is buried, as is my father, in the Dean Cemetery nearby where lies Lord Cockburn, whose spirit and influence is perpetuated by the Cockburn Association. I mention my grandfather not only because of his connection with the Royal Scottish Academy (RSA) but because his today priceless collection of medieval arms and armour found its way into the Royal Scottish Museum early in this century.

The committee's recommendations deserve most careful study, and, as I have said, they should not have been tucked away, as it were, into this corner. But it is to the Addendum, Chapter 10, to which close attention should be drawn, and particularly to paragraph 10.8. Yes, indeed, legislation should be "immediately introduced" as it "will take time to enact". That appears in the report and bears out what my noble friend Lord Cromartie has said.

At this stage I must say that in a way I am deeply dismayed by the speech of the noble Earl because my information is that the John Watson's site is off as regards the Royal Scottish Museum. I have turned over in my mind what is happening there, and perhaps when my noble friend Lord Haig speaks he will be able to tell us where we stand in regard to it. But it is clear from what the noble Earl, Lord Perth, said that an enormous number of ramifications have to be researched and brought together. I think that these can best be dealt with in the recommendation which is included in Addendum 10.8.2: … a Chairman independent of museum and gallery interests, [to be] appointed by the Secretary of State for Scotland ". As the noble Earl has pointed out, it seems to me that the present number of trustees is too many, that the body does not work very well, that there are internal jealousies and that, therefore, we must concentrate on this recommendation that a working party must be established under a man who has a powerful personality, with position and qualities which will be of paramount importance, demanding, as they will, talents such as those of, say, Sir Mortimer Wheeler or Sir John Marshall, who was his predecessor in India. Let us pray that a suitable forceful character can be found to get this whole thing going and so establish the importance of the various propositions in their true sequence.

It is a very complex subject. Its ramifications for Scotland's heritage are enormously diverse. I say this because they extend from, say, the fact that the Royal Scottish Academy building is private property—and there is a legal problem—to Scotland's industrial heritage, as my noble friend Lady Elliot pointed out, and I agree with everything she said. I look forward to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord McAlpine; Glasgow is the place for that—Lord Kelvin and electricity, right back into the mists of time. It also extends from, say, folk museums like the Gladstone Court Museum in Biggar, which I daresay was in the mind of my noble friend Lady Elliot when she spoke—and the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, referred to the one in Caithness—to the Western Isles; from Scotland's medical and surgical traditions to the Christian Churches and so on. Some working party it must be; that is my view.

Then what about the question of wind and water-tight storage? I think that the noble Earl will agree that that will be a tremendous transitional problem. I think the House will agree that there must be a provision for space to store a large amount of precious material. As for the Museum of Scotland, I think it is agreed that it should be in Edinburgh. That is fair enough. As the problem unfolds and in the light of decisions already reached, it is also clear that if the John Watson's site is not to be available, a variety of solutions still exists. I would join with speakers who have already said " No " to Waterloo Place, especially when you think of the sites that can be made available for the purpose.

In the circumstances that I have outlined—namely, that the John Watson's site may not be available—at this moment Donaldson's Hospital seems to me to be the best bet. Of course, it is a hospital for the deaf. But my information is that that is the sort of undertaking which need not necessarily be situated in such a monumental building, in this huge space which will provide accommodation for developments far into the years ahead. Incidentally, you would not expect me to fail to point out, if you are worrying about the traffic passing Donaldson's Hospital, that the pattern of the traffic of Edinburgh will change with the completion of the southern by-pass road.

There is one final point to which one of my consultants, in whom I place great faith, draws attention, and that is " Outreach " on pages 8 to 10. He says " Golly! what a word ". He also says in a letter: It is very difficult to mount travelling exhibitions and to exhibit the contents properly ". I see such an exercise as more educational than historical. It crosses my mind, from listening to the noble Earl, Lord Cromartie, and to the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, that travelling exhibitions, which maybe difficult and expensive to mount, might conflict up and down the country with existing folk museums, which as we all agree, are so important and so attractive to Scotsmen from all over the country. I believe that a decision with regard to outreach can wait, and wait upon the current amazing developments of video cassettes, slides, films and the like. These developments. which were almost inconceivable a few years ago, are likely to reach fruition fairly soon.

Therefore, I come to the question of cost. Let us suppose that the arrangements which the noble Earl, Lord Perth, has outlined will involve £50 million. It is as well to remember that this is approximately the same amount as a small part of the cost of expanding the nuclear base at Coulport. I look forward to the later speeches with the greatest interest and, again, I thank the noble Earl for raising the subject. I hope that another time we may be able to deal with it to a fuller extent.

8.57 p.m.

Earl Haig

My Lords, like other noble Lords, I welcome the opportunity given to us by my noble friend Lord Perth to discuss some of the various proposals which have been made by the Williams Committee as part of their valuable work. The part of the report to which I want to refer is where it deals with problems arising from shortage of accommodation. These problems affect in particular the National Museum of Antiquities of Scotland and the Scottish National Gallery of Modern Art, and solutions to these two problems are urgently needed.

In the report the rival claims upon the use of the converted John Watson's School are discussed and the committee have come out in favour of the Museum of Antiquities. The long standing promise of a permanent gallery site for the Gallery of Modern Art, now about to be implemented, is again under attack. With great emphasis it is proposed that a new museum of Scotland should be created and should have a prior right to occupy John Watson's School. I very much welcome the proposal for a museum of Scotland. I think that it is a very fine concept which would hold exhibitions, encompassing the art and culture of Scotland over the centuries. But ideally this museum should be housed somewhere near the centre of the city so that visitors from abroad many of them of Scottish origin—would manage during a brief visit to Edinburgh to include it in their itinerary of visits to our main sites and buildings.

My noble friend Lord Ferrier has suggested that I might explain the position of the Gallery of Modern Art. A permanent home for the Gallery of Modern Art is long overdue, and indeed was promised over 30 years ago. Space at Inverleith House is extremely limited, and I understand that last autumn there was not enough space to show even the pictures collected during the past 18 months. A beautiful painting, "Queen Maeve" by Yeats, which was purchased for £12,000 some 15 years ago when I was a trustee, has hardly ever been shown. A proper home has now been found and offered, and plans for reconstruction are well under way.

It would be quite wrong to alter course now whatever alternative homes might eventually become available. On the score of alternative homes, I submit that the Williams Committee have been less than fair. Their proposal to move the gallery to Glasgow would mean removing it from the nation's capital. The suggested Botanic Garden alternative has never been an option to the Modern Gallery, and I doubt whether the objections to it could ever be overcome. The view that John Watson's is too big for the Gallery of Modern Art and the restoration department is disputed by the National Gallery trustees, who maintain that the acquisition of Watson's in place of Inverleith and Ainslie Place will mean a barely adequate provision of space.

The plan to move John Weston's has been supported by the Secretary of State with great perseverance. The National Gallery trustees are happy about it. The alterations are already under way. Only the Williams Committee are trying to upset things, and I hope that their view will not be heeded. The publication of the Williams Report has pointed out the need for some kind of consultative body which will meet regularly, and will advise the Secretary of State particularly, when alternative plans have to be considered and one has to be given priority over another. I suspect that the Williams Committee are slightly biased in their approach since they have tried to ride rough-shod over the National Gallery of Modern Art.

A properly constituted Scottish museums commission, which I agree should be established, could give advice which would reflect the views and opinions of all the museums and galleries concerned, who would have representation on it. This would provide a body able to co-ordinate the needs and wishes of galleries and museums in Scotland. The Williams Committee have given some indication as to how such a body would operate. They have highlighted many of the problems which face the museums and galleries in Scotland. They have shown the need for a permanent body to carry on the work they have begun with such distinction. We should be grateful to them even though we do not accept all that they have proposed.

Lastly, I should like briefly to refer to the discrepancies in what is paid to the three national galleries in Scotland, compared with the equivalent London galleries, the National Gallery, the Tate Gallery, and the Portrait Gallery. I understand that the allocation of money is reviewed from time to time, and that the review was instituted some time during the 1960s at a time when I was a trustee. Perhaps I should have been more alert about the problem and the wisdom of accepting a ratio which was somewhat unfair to Scotland.

Originally in 1960 the allocation for Scotland to cover salaries and wages and general expenses was £57,000 compared to £184,000 for London. Then, at the first review some five years later, Scotland received £1,373,000 compared to London's £7,297,000, which represented an increase of only 23.7 per cent. for Scotland, compared with an increase of 39.5 per cent. for London. I should like to ask my noble friend Lord Mansfield if he would look into these discrepancies.

Public attendance in our galleries is related to the services provided. The quality of our exhibitions which, in the case of the Gallery of Modern Art, have had to be curtailed; the numbers and pay of staff required to man the proposed extensions; the costs of a good public relations staff—all these depend on the amount of money to be provided. This question of a fairer distribution was not part of the findings of the Williams Report, but it is perhaps a legitimate question for me to ask at a time when money is liable to run short. Money will be in short supply no matter how you divide the cake. If the size of the cake is not to be large enough to cater for the increasing volume of museum visitors, then the possibility of making some form of museum charges may eventually have to be considered.

9.6 p.m.

Lord McAlpine of Moffat

My Lords, enthusiasm is a very important thing in life; a quality that is dangerous, exciting, but essential to the nation and the world. It seems to me that one of the prime duties of your Lordships' House is to guide enthusiasm into channels that are of benefit to the nation, the country, and the individual. In regard to this Scottish heritage we have a great opportunity to do a very important thing. Enthusiasm is latent in the Scottish breast. The Scots can be roused to tremendous enthusiasm, but do not let them be got hold of by politicians arousing a nationalistic spirit of politics. Let us be proud of the emblems of our contribution to civilisation which are constructive, and not be destructive.

It is rather amusing to me that I am suggesting that we guide enthusiasm, when my enthusiasm has been entirely guided on this particular subject by my son, who happens to be on this committee, but obviously the child is father of the man. I should like to confine my remarks to Chapter 2, clauses 8 and 9, of the report. That is the question of original engineering in the Clyde Valley, which is to some extent the home of the industrial revolution, being preserved. The most beautiful craftsmanship, things that are in factories, shipyards and works that are becoming redundant, will be scrapped unless the Government can be persuaded to provide somewhere to put them on a bridging basis until we are ready to house them in our ultimate museum. I urge noble Lords to do everything they can to that end. I do not think it would cost a lot of money. With a little brainpower and some help from the various authorities, it could be simply achieved. I may be something of an extremist, but I believe genuinely that we have steam engines, pumps and other beautiful things that have been built which generations to come will classify as equivalent to the works of Mr. Chippendale. I will not waste the time of the House at this hour. That is the one point I wanted to dwell on—the importance to Scotland of preserving our emblems of construction—because we do not want to concentrate just on daggers and claymores showing what a lot of violent men we were in the good old days. Let us be proud of the things we should be proud of and do our best to preserve them.

9.10 p.m.

Lord Ross of Marnock

My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Perth, for initiating this debate and unlike the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, I believe it is an important one. You cannot tuck Scotsmen into a corner for long, and I am glad to see that the Principal Deputy Chairman of Committees saw fit to be clad in a kilt as she presides over our proceedings tonight. Let us appreciate exactly what the committee had to do. We have heard from a member of the committee and from the father of a member. Let me make it clear at the outset that I was not the father of that committee. We are talking about February 1979, although some people seem to think that I was the Secretary of State for Scotland for ever.

Lord Peart

It is a tribute to you, Willy.

Lord Ross of Marnock

Be that as it may, my Lords, but at that time I was a humble Back-Bencher.

Baroness Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe

Never humble.

Lord Ross of Marnock

Always humble, my Lords, even as Secretary of State. It was my successor, Mr. Bruce Millan, who set up the committee in February 1979. I wish to express my appreciation to the members of it and the way in which they worked, and I was glad to hear tribute paid to Dr. Alwyn Williams, the principal of Glasgow University. They invited me there to speak in October of last year, about a week after the report had been published, and I got, rather than the job I was on, lobbying by Alwyn Williams about the Scottish Heritage Report. And if that was not enough, it was followed by a letter from the noble Earl, followed by another letter from a friend of mine who happened to be the chairman of the trustees of the National Museum of Antiquities of Scotland, Mr. Kennedy. I am therefore well enough briefed on this matter, apart from which I have a little place in the history of it as well.

The committee worked with speed and they did not miss much. That is evidence itself of how quickly they appreciated the time of almost crisis within the whole national museum and gallery scene in Scotland. Today, three of the 25 years about which they speak have already gone. This is a time for decision and, having made decisions, to lay plans. I appreciate that the committee had to work at a time of depression; indeed, they were reminded of that in their terms of reference, in that they had to bear in mind that things were difficult and resources limited. Nevertheless, it is at such a time that one must not get in the mood of thinking that the depression will last for ever.

If we believe in our country, then now is the time to advance, certainly ambitious schemes but not over-ambitious ones, and I was glad to hear the noble Lord, Lord McAlpine, make his speech in the tone in which he made it. We have something to be proud of in our past and we shall have something to be proud of in our future. Therefore, we should have our plans prepared so that, when the recession lifts, we shall he able to go in straight away and not have to start de novo, because that is what has happened time and again in respect of museums. We want and must have a museum for Scotland and that is the first decision that must be taken because the position of the National Museum of Antiquities is really a crying scandal.

I thought that I had done something in, I think 1967 or 1968 when, with the very considerable help of the (now) noble Baroness. Lady Lee of Asheridge, we got Treasury approval in respect of the Chamber Street site. We thought that all was well, the National Museum of Antiquities was going there. That was a long time ago. Eventually the land was bought, and cleared, and then we were into a financial trough again; it is obvious that this is no longer an option that is open to us. It would cost at least £18 million, and now in the light of the new duties and responsibilities that we see, and the development of the museum scene, that is not on.

Having made the decision, the Government must very quickly make up their minds as to whether they are going to listen to what is said in the report itself about John Watson's School, or whether they are going to make some other temporary arrangement, because we must remember that the York Buildings arrangement is not satisfactory from a long-term point of view. As the noble Earl, Lord Perth, said, it provides only 28 per cent. of the space that in 1952 was adjudged to be necessary. 1952! There has been very considerable development since then in regard to what should be done and what could be done with the museum. So that possibility is out.

Now what are the Government going to do? Anybody who has read the report will appreciate, first of all, they considered it so important that they had an interim report. That interim report went to the Government—there was not a very satisfactory reply—and it re-emphasised what was seen as the right solution to the gallery scene in Edinburgh. There was also an addendum stating what should be done if what was recommended was turned down.

I am sorry that I have to disagree with the noble Earl, Lord Haig, but he was very courageous in putting his point of view tonight with regard to the National Gallery of Modern Art. He will appreciate of course that this is an argument which on the one hand involves a body that is 20 years old. I remember the Bill going through the other House. I think it was in about 1958 or 1959, and I believe that the gallery itself was started in 1960. On the other hand, the National Museum of Antiquities was started 201 years ago, with a £20 grant from the Earl of Buchan, who was a friend of Burns. I had to get that one in! But you are not going to get The Cotter's Saturday Night; you got Tam o' Shanter last night, and that is enough. I think that the museum was at The Mound originally, and then it moved, hut not when the noble Baroness said. It moved to its present site in 1891, and let us not forget that the building was donated by Mr. Findlay, who was the proprietor of the Scotsman; and it has been there ever since.

We had a Royal Commission in 1927, and it said that the time was not far distant when the Museum of Antiquities would require a separate building if it was to play the part it ought to play as an educational institute specially designed to stimulate Scottish archaeological studies and the teaching of history. That was in 1927, over 50 years ago. In 1949 the Standing Commission on Museums and Galleries, after visiting Edinburgh, stated that it was quite lamentably cramped, and had only a quarter of the space that it needed. It has the same space today.

In the Philips Report in 1952 we had again the same thing; and we had the lamentable report from the Earl of Perth as to what has to be done in order to mount an exhibition. Some of the valued exhibits have to be taken out and stored away somewhere; I think that some of them are silver. We heard about another exhibition mounted on a stairway. This is not good enough for what is one of the oldest museums in Britain. It is really one of the most important of the galleries from the point of view of the whole spread of Scotland's life, Scotland's living, Scotland's—not culture, but cultures, and the whole history of men and Scots in Scotland.

I think that Scotland lacks pride if we allow this to go by the board. We must bear in mind John Watson's School, with all the surrounding possibilities of development. I think that the school is far too large for the Gallery of Modern Art. It could be nearer, and indeed the present building in Queen Street would suit it, and with the National Portrait Gallery as well, that would be fine. Remember, too, that we have to do something with the National Portrait Gallery, because I was impressed by the fire risks to valuable records of Scottish life that are there; and, once again, it is an appreciation of exactly what it is we are up against in this particular situation.

So I hope there will be a speedy decision by the Government. Think again about what was put forward by the Williams Committee and, having done that, having made the principal decisions, get on with the business of preparation. I think the financial aspects of it were well covered by Lord Perth. There is no doubt about it: in what is put forward by the committee—I mean, the intervention of the Crown Commissioners—there is far less by way of public expenditure that worries the Chancellor than some people would imagine. But that has to be done.

On the question of the Scottish museums commission, I was a wee bit chary about this at the start because in the case of a committee like this, if the Government do anything they will deal with the organisational aspects; that costs them nothing. But the museums commission itself, without the upgrading of the status and the creation in principle, for a start, and then the plans in relation to the accommodation, would be just a bit of whitewash. But I do not think, as some people fear, it need be a separate tier coming between the museums and the Secretary of State.

I think that most people who have looked into this question—and I had a letter, too, from the Council of Museums and Galleries of Scotland—see this as the first recommendation, in fact. They refer to it because they think it is time there was a look at the whole museum field in Scotland, taking in the points that were raised about the folk museums. I think this is a very important point. It was referred to by the noble Earl, Lord Cromartie, by the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, and by the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie. I could list all the other places. There has been an upsurge of interest in this connection, and it is one that we must harness and use in this respect.

But this small body—which is not meeting every day and all day and should not be an expensive Quango, to my mind, because people in this field, I find, are more ready to give their services for nothing because of the importance they feel belongs to their subject—could advise the Government on overall policy. They could advise the Government in relation to many aspects of it, but not get too mixed up with the division and distribution of monies because that would be fatal—and, remember, there is a certain jealousy from the smaller and outer museums which are supported through the rate support grant, for instance, that the more that is given in the centre, the less they will be able to get. But I think their enthusiasm is going to carry them through.

I was fascinated by what had been done in the Shetlands, by what had been done on the Island of Arran, and even what is being done in Ayr. I never thought the day would ever come when the council of Ayr would buy a Henry Moore, but they did. There was great discussion about it, of course, but they came to the right decision in the end. So there is this out-reach. A lot of travelling exhibitions are being shown at the present time. They could be expanded; and I like that part of the report that covered this. Of course, it may require changes in respect of the rules and the inhibitions upon the galleries at home. I was interested to see that there is 16 years' experience in, I think it is, the council arranging these things, and they feel that this could be done and they could help very considerably.

It is one of the things on which the committee reported, and I think it was their first recommendation that struck me: A more general awareness of the extraordinary range and wealth of the heritage that they house ". That is their first point. Then: This should be achieved not by dispersing national collections but by increasing the number of loans and travelling exhibitions ". This is important, but it means, too, that the question of security and environment has to be tackled. But it is altogether the question of the general awareness. I do not think that the Scottish people themselves are aware of what is contained in the National Museum. It is probable that people outside Scotland are more aware. In Vienna, which I visited during the Recess, an American woman started to tell me about all that was in the National Gallery. She had gone there to see two or three pictures. I had gone to Vienna to see only one.

The same thing is true about Glasgow and what they have done there. We have a Museum of Transport in Glasgow run by the local authority. We can build upon that. I was grateful for what was said about the Museum of Industry. We must do that. We must make arrangements in relation to the storage and getting funds—and not necessarily, I think, from the Government but from some private sources. Let us get the storage space and decide on the things which have to be discarded at the present time and keep them pending the production of that.

The focal point, undoubtedly, is the National Museum of Antiquities being raised in status to that of the Museum of Scotland and the determination that it will be not merely a change of name but a change of status and the development of that idea. More and more attention should be paid to the people's aspect of it, to the popular aspect. I do not know whether the noble Earl, Lord Haig, has read the survey; but one thing which troubled me in that survey of people who visited the various galleries and how long they stayed—and the survey cost £7,500—was that the average stay in the Gallery of Modern Art was 15 minutes. Let no one be deceived in relation to how popular it is. It is in the Botanic Gardens in Edinburgh. Many people go to it because of where it is and not perhaps because of what it is. Nevertheless, I think it is a good thing. But it troubled me that the average visit was of a quarter of an hour.

We have a lot to do. We have all the stuff; but they cannot display it because they do not have the room.

This is a challenge to the Government and to the whole of Scotland and I hope that we take it up. I express my appreciation once again to the noble Earl, Lord Perth, for introducing this matter.

9.28 p.m.

The Minister of State, Scottish Office (The Earl of Mansfield)

My Lords, first of all, I should like to add my voice to those who have thanked the noble Earl, Lord Perth, for giving us the opportunity to debate the Williams Report this evening. I also welcome the opportunity, which the Question raised, to mention the work of the museums and galleries service in Scotland. I would suggest that we give insufficient recognition to this service, to the dedication of those employed in it and to the high standards achieved, both in the presentation of the nation's collections to the public and in the important sphere of research and of conservation of these collections. It was in order to ensure the maintenance of these standards and the expansion and adaptation of facilities to meet changing needs that the previous Secretary of State set up the Williams Committee.

Before turning to the points raised by the noble Earl and by the other noble Lords who have spoken, I would like to thank Dr. Williams and all the members of his committee, which, of course, includes the noble Earl, Lord Perth, for the very considerable work they undertook in investigating the issues put to them and in preparing their report. The committee was given the broad remit of looking at the future of Scotland's national museums and galleries and assessing their needs over the next 25 years.

The committee took evidence from a large number of organisations and individuals and they visited not only the national museums and galleries but a number of local museums in order to see for themselves the institutions at work. They took account of all aspects of the museums' life including their educational role, their inter-relationships, their management and their accommodation needs.

The committee produced an interim report in August 1980 which is a commendably short time; and then in September last year their final report was published. As has been said, they make no less than 116 recommendations, covering all areas of the national institutions. Broadly, the recommendations fall into two groups. There are first those which could be said to be directed at the national institutions themselves and indeed many of the recommendations are already reflected in the policies adopted by these museums and galleries so in effect the report re-affirms the good practices that already exist. In so far as the recommendations contain additional proposals, these will be for the national institutions themselves to consider and to implement as appropriate.

The other recommendations are those where it is for Government to give a lead and we will be studying these recommendations closely, at the same time taking full account of the views we have received in response to our consultation on the report. We will also be taking into account the numerous unsolicited comments we have received—and are indeed still receiving. Your Lordships will understand that until we have given full consideration to all the views received it would not be helpful for me tonight to prejudge any issues. The debate is, however, most timely in the helpful contribution it makes to our deliberations. We are now considering the comments, and the Government will make a Statement as soon as possible; but the issues are important and difficult and I cannot say tonight when decisions on all the recommendations may be reached.

Turning to the particular points which the noble Earl and other noble Lords have raised, I should like to take first what the committee consider to be their most important recommendation—the proposal for the establishment of a Museum of Scotland. This they envisage would be based upon the collection of the National Museum of Antiquities of Scotland, which necessarily links with the question of accommodation for that collection. The question of housing was indeed the subject matter of the interim report submitted by the committee in August 1980 when they pressed that the site at John Watson's school be reserved for the purpose. I hope it may be helpful to noble Lords if I give some background on this complex and difficult matter to avoid any misunderstanding.

The John Watson's building, in Belford Road, Edinburgh, was offered to the trustees of the National Museum of Antiquities in 1977 but rejected by them in favour of the provision of a city centre site for the museum at some future unspecified date. The building was then offered to the trustees of the National Galleries of Scotland who accepted it as a home for the Scottish National Gallery of Modern Art at present entirely inadequately housed in Inverleith House in the Royal Botanic Garden. If the noble Lord, Lord Ross, wonders why folk do not stay there for very long, he only has to go there and soon all will be revealed.

Lord Ross of Marnock

I have been there.

The Earl of Mansfield

My Lords, by the time the Williams Committee submitted their interim report, planning for the conversion of the former school for use by the Gallery of Modern Art was already well advanced. Here thanks are due to the Crown Estate Commissioners who are generously bearing the costs of the conversion.

In the light of the Williams Committee recommendations, however, the whole subject of the future use of John Watson's was re-opened and Scottish Ministers conferred at length with the trustees of both the National Museum of Antiquities and the National Galleries. The trustees of the galleries agreed to relinquish their claim to the John Watson's building on the understanding that they would then receive in return the use of the building presently occupied by the National Museum of Antiquities.

The trustees of the National Museum of Antiquities said that they were willing in principle to accept the John Watson's site but only if certain conditions were met. They required the immediate construction of further extensions to the building, plus assurances on staffing levels and on priorities within the museums and galleries building programme. These were not conditions to which the Government could agree in the present financial climate but the trustees were not prepared to accept the building on other terms.

Various other possible accommodation rearrangements were then discussed, but none was found which could satisfy both parties without considerably greater financial expenditure than could be incurred. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State therefore announced in April 1981 that the work on converting the former school for use by the Gallery of Modern Art would continue. There has been no change in circumstances since that time to give reason for questioning that decision. One of the matters which the noble Earl, Lord Perth, claimed, was that it was not too late for John Watson's to be given to the Museum of Antiquities as not too much work had been done. But since my right honourable friend announced his decision in April 1981 further work to convert John Watson's for the Gallery of Modern Art has gone forward. To change that decision now would involve a considerable waste of expenditure on work which has already been done for the needs of the Gallery of Modern Art. Those needs are significantly different from those which the Museum of Antiquities, either as itself or as a Museum of Scotland would demand, so the position is, to all intents and purposes, irreversible except at great public expense.

The Earl of Perth

My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl whether he would be good enough to look at that again? As I understand it, the main work which has been done up to date represents such things as the eradication of dry rot, and the main extra work has not in fact reached an irrevocable stage. I would therefore ask that he makes quite sure of what he has been told at the present time.

The Earl of Mansfield

My Lords, I used the word " irreversible " rather than the word " irrevocable ". What I said was: irreversible except at great public expense". That is the information I have been provided with. Having said that—and I quite appreciate that it may not be welcome to the noble Earl—let me also say quite categorically that we are fully aware of the difficulties faced by the National Museum of Antiquities in its present accommodation. Conditions are cramped and there is insufficient space to display adequately the extensive collections the museum holds. Work is already under way for the conversion of a building across the street from the museum's headquarters and its opening later this year, I am glad to say, will ease the museum's most pressing accommodation problems. It will contain an extra 1,300 square metres of gallery space, almost doubling the area available to the museum for display in central Edinburgh, together with another 1,000 square metres for additional office and laboratory facilities. At the same time, we are studying how best to meet the museum's needs in the longer term.

This relates directly to the committee's recommendation, which was strongly supported this evening by the noble Earl and by other noble Lords, for a Museum of Scotland. I can well understand the strength of feeling which has grown in support of this concept. At the same time, I would suggest, in common with many supporters of the proposal, that it is misleading to speak as though this would be the founding of an entirely new institution. The collections in the National Museum of Antiquities already provide a substantial foundation for the museum envisaged by the Williams Committee. Therefore, what is needed, in my view, is to build on this strong foundation—which brings us directly up against the inhibition I have already mentioned: that is to say, the inadequacy of the present accommodation.

There is no doubt that the present difficulties severely limit the scope for expanding activities and for fulfilling the role of prime repository for artefacts representing the cultural heritage of Scotland, as proposed by the committee. As I have said, we fully recognise these inhibitions and the serious difficulties imposed on the staff working in conditions that are far from ideal. That is why we are looking urgently for ways in which the museum can be expanded, while necessarily taking account of the extent and timing of available resources.

I hope that I am not being unfair to the noble Earl, Lord Perth, in saying that he was really posing two options; that is, either we build a new Museum of Scotland or, more cheaply, we convert John Watson's. From what I have said, I hope that I have dispelled any impression that we are confronted simply with a need to choose between housing the National Museum of Antiquities in an entirely new building in the centre of Edinburgh, or else in John Watson's. The latter course has been rejected by the parties concerned; the former would require resources that simply are not available. We are, therefore, proceeding step by step in meeting the accommodation needs in the manner I have described. I have to say, although a number of noble Lords were not over-enthusiastic, that one of the possibilities which is currently being considered for the longer term is the site in Waterloo Place, and no doubt we shall consider Waterloo Place in the light of the comments which have been made by your Lordships this evening.

The noble Earl raised another matter regarding finance. In effect, he suggested that the Crown Estate Commissioners could finance improvements to the Queen Street building by buying it from the Government and leasing it back at the same rate, as in the case of John Watson's. We are, of course, grateful for the generous assistance of the Crown Estate Commissioners in providing the resources for the purchase and refurbishment of the former John Watson's School, but we must not forget that, at the end of the day, there would be a cost to the Government and to the taxpayer in terms of the annual rental charges which are levied to pay for the cost of these developments.

If the plan suggested by the noble Earl were adopted, the sum realised could be used towards the cost of refurbishing the building. But even assuming that the resources realised would be sufficient to pay for the conversion work necessary at Queen Street, the proposal would have the disadvantage that there would remain a significant cost to the Government in terms of increased rental charges for the foreseeable future. But this is certainly one of the issues that we shall be considering, before coming to decisions about ways in which it would be possible to meet the future accommodation needs of the national museums and galleries. However, as I have already indicated, it does not seem to us to offer a reasonable basis for questioning again the decision which we have taken on the use of John Watson's School; a decision which, as I have said, is now being implemented.

The committee also suggested that a working party be set up to facilitate the creation of the Museum of Scotland. I agree with the committee that, if a new museum is to be set up, careful thought will be required on the steps needed to plan for it. It will be necessary, for instance, to identify the precise role for a new museum, taking into account, in particular, the roles already filled by the other excellent national institutions in Edinburgh—the Royal Scottish Museum and the National Galleries of Scotland. We will also have to consider whether the development of ideas for a new museum should be the task of an ad hoc working party, such as the Williams Report has suggested.

As I have pointed out, the Museum of Scotland is already present in embryo in the National Museum of Antiquities of Scotland. This is clearly reflected in the range of its current collections, though many of them are not at present on display to the public. I would repeat that what the present museum needs is additional space and resources to become the Museum of Scotland. I recognise that all these matters are difficult issues. Conflicting views have been expressed on them, and we shall have to consider them very closely before coming to any final conclusions.

Returning to the question of forward planning, some have advocated that this planning for a Museum of Scotland should be the first task of the Scottish Museums Commission, which the report proposed should be established and which has been referred to this evening. The proposal for an independent body to co-ordinate a museums policy for Scotland has elicited a great deal of support, although here again it is only right to say that other suggestions equally worthy of consideration have been put to us. Here, too, we shall need to weigh the issues carefully and to have particular regard to the roles in respect of Scottish museums played by the United Kingdom's Museums and Galleries Commission and the Council for Museums and Galleries in Scotland, which in recent years has done much splendid work on behalf of Scotland's network of local museums.

Another interesting suggestion from the committee to which a number of noble Lords have referred to-night, not least my noble friend Lord McAlpine of Moffat, is the setting up of museums specifically directed to industry, a concept which, as the committee recognised, would need to be considered in relation to the role of the Royal Scottish Museum with its acknowledged expertise in science and technology and having regard to the extensive collections of material from Scotland's early industrial heritage held both by that museum and by Glasgow museums and art galleries.

I fully share the committee's concern that we should aim to preserve for future generations adequate examples of industrial plant and developing technology. Scotland was outstanding in the van of such developments in the past and we must not allow this to be forgotten. Suitable preservation would be of value not only in historical and educational terms, as I have implied, but in increasing tourist interest possibilities, particularly in lesser known areas. But even the construction or adaptation of a suitable store for the often bulky items involved would have significant cost impli cations and we have, I fear, to study those before we reach any conclusions.

The committee also considered the status of the Royal Scottish Museum which, unlike the other national institutions in Edinburgh, is not governed by an independent board of trustees and whose staff are Scottish Office officials. The committee did not see any particular drawbacks in the continuation of this arrangement but it recommended that an advisory council be established for the Royal Scottish Museum to provide a source of independent advice to the director on the wide range of the museum's activities. This, too, is a recommendation which we will be considering with care.

Only some of the 116 recommendations in the report have been discussed tonight. If I may refer to the criticism of my noble friend Lord Ferrier as to the form which this debate has taken, I am afraid that I have not been privy to any discussions which there may or may not have been through the usual channels, but what I suggest that we have had is a very valuable airing of views on the major proposals which the Williams Committee made. I would repeat that in our current consideration of the report close attention will be paid to all that has been said by your Lordships.

I think I must make a little mention of the comments which were first made by the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, about the part which local museums can play in displaying and interpreting the history and traditions of the more rural parts of Scotland. He instanced the Caithness Museum and the Angus Folk Museum. We are fortunate to have such a wealth and variety of museums throughout Scotland. Many of them, as the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, said, are created and run by voluntary effort. But I should remind your Lordships that the Government, for their part, give help towards local museums in two distinct ways: first, by means of grants for the purchase of items for their collections through the Local Museums Purchase Fund, administered by the Royal Scottish Museum, and, secondly, via the Council for Museums and Galleries in Scotland which gives advice and financial assistance to local museums for the conservation of objects in their care and for the improvement of displays and fittings and which also organises touring exhibitions to local museums. We recognise the excellent work which many local museums are doing and we will continue to give them help in this way.

The mention of touring exhibitions brings me to the point which was made by a number of noble Lords—last, but not least, by the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock. I note what noble Lords have had to say about the committee's suggestion that the national museums should organise their own travelling exhibitions of objects in their collections. The committee's view was that those who do not have ready access to the permanent displays of the National Museum in Edinburgh should nevertheless be able to see from time to time selections of the objects they hold. It is suggested that in so doing the National Museum should consult with the Council of Scottish Museums and Galleries and the Scottish Arts Council, who already organise travelling exhibitions to avoid unnecessary duplication. The Government support in principle the view that selections of our national museums should be available to as many people in Scotland as possible. How that can best be achieved in practice is another of the matters we shall want to study closely in the light of the comments in the report.

Lord Ferrier

My Lords, on this question of outreach, my point was that this might be something which is first class, but which in view of the financial problems could well wait and might come later.

The Earl of Mansfield

Yes, my Lords, the setting of priorities is something on which the Government will have to decide, bearing in mind the parlous state of our national finances. The noble Earl, Lord Cromartie, also spoke about travelling museums and I agree with much of what he said.

I come now to the points made by my noble friend Lord Haig. I was very glad to have his support on the decision to house the Gallery of Modern Art at the former John Watson's School. As an artist of considerable distinction, if I may say so, the noble Earl's comments have particular value. The noble Earl also went into the question of finances. He said first of all, in effect, that the funds for galleries in Scotland and England are determined by periodical reviews which reflect badly on the Scottish galleries. I believe that is a fair way of summarising his remarks. What I have to say to the noble Earl, is that the figures are not set, so far as Scotland is concerned, at periodic reviews. For some years past the figures have been determined annually in the light of current needs and resources.

If it is said that Scottish museums and galleries come out badly in comparison with those in England, I have to say to my noble friend that the funds in question are not coming out of the same cake. Scottish museums and galleries are financed by the Secretary of State for Scotland out of his block. He has to determine how best to allocate the resources available to the very many competing requirements in Scotland. He has to bear in mind such problems as severe industrial dereliction and social deprivation. Against that background, I say that the share which has gone to the museums and galleries is commendable and reflects the importance which we attach to the preservation of our heritage.

We as a Government will have to take a number of difficult decisions, and I make no apology when I say that necessarily they will be bound by financial considerations. Therefore the Government's task is to plan the most effective deployment of the resources available. Our aim in so doing will be to build on the collections we are so fortunate in holding already, and on the reputation and skill of those manning our museums and galleries, so to ensure in the years ahead proper acquisition, display and conservation of these vital elements of our heritage.