National Heritage (Scotland) Bill

HL Deb 12 February 1985 vol 460 cc135-64

4.47 p.m.

Second Reading debate resumed.

Lord Ross of Marnock

My Lords, we now return to an important matter relating to Scotland, after the exodus has taken place. We are grateful to the Minister of State, Lord Gray of Contin, for his explanation of the Bill. One of the first things I should do is to give him a little good news. Unfortunately, one member of your Lordships' House, who would have liked to take part in this debate, Lord Perth, cannot be here. He left it to me to read a letter that he has written giving some of his ideas about the Bill. This is probably about the best time to do it, so that should cheer up, for a moment, the Minister of State.

Lord Perth states: I am sorry to be absent in the USA. The more so as it is in large degree a Bill giving effect to the Williams Committee Report, "A Heritage for Scotland" of which I was a member. It is rare that a Report is acted upon so quickly and so substantially by a Government and I know the chairman and others are glad and grateful. Our main recommendation was the creation of the Museum of Scotland based on the Museum of Antiquities. The Bill goes even further and proposes a single Board of Trustees to cover in addition the Royal Scottish Museum. This is a courageous decision but it is fraught with problems and it is good that a working party chaired by Lord Bute has been set up to help deal with them. At the Committee stage we will have to consider whether the single Board of Trustees should cover the two National Museums or whether there should be a single Museum of Scotland which at present would consist of the Museum of Antiquities and the Royal Scottish Museum, but later have associated with it in different parts of Scotland such museums as Industry, the Sea, Agriculture and so forth. The composition of the Board of Trustees and the scope of activities will also need very careful scrutiny". That may please the Minister of State rather better than what I might say about the Bill. As he said, rightly, it is an important Bill.

Here we have an important part of the heritage of Scotland, but it is just a small part. The heritage of Scotland goes way beyond museums and art galleries. It is the whole land of Scotland and what we have done with it. It is the people of Scotland—the social, industrial and religious history. That is why I regret at times that this has been called the National Heritage Bill. It gives a misleading impression that outside this little matters; but I think that outside this so much matters.

When the Minister said that the Bill was based upon A Heritage for Scotland, Scotland's National Museums and Galleries, the Next 25 Years, a report issued under the chairmanship of Dr. Alwyn Williams—I stress Dr. Alwyn Williams—I wondered whether he had read it and read the statements made by the Secretary of State, because having made statements about the treasures we have, the heritage we have, the collection, preservation, display and interpretation of these treasures and opening them up to the rest of Scotland and the world, the committee had found great deficiencies— in the exhibition, storage and conservation of the very objects which reflect the uniqueness and genius of Scotland and confirm the importance of her contributions to western civilisation". They found inadequacies as to accommodation and display. They said that this should be put right and that even in times of stringency plans should be laid so that forward we could go. Our most fundamental recommendation is that the artifacts of Scottish culture should be the concern of a new institution, the Museum of Scotland, wider in scope than the present National Museum of Antiquities of Scotland, which it is intended to replace". That was the first, and most important, recommendation. The next was: We are also convinced that a museum of industry should be established in the West of Scotland". There are others as well. To a considerable extent, the Government have already overthrown the Williams Report. You would not find that out by looking at the Bill. It is what is not in the Bill that is, to my mind, more important than what is in the Bill.

We have had the advantage of seeing what happened in another place and we discover that the Museum of Scotland, the free-standing Museum of Scotland that was the committee's second recommendation, is now out. The Government have taken advice—I am not referring to the new advisory board which was set up: they took advice before even they set that up—and there was a change of attitudes in the museum world, and so the museum of industry is out. There has got to be—let me get the jargon right— a hard core of disciplines at the centre and there will be outreach in respect of the rest of Scotland". Whatever that means, I do not know, but we shall have to learn all the new jargon. No wonder the Scottish Education Department does not get a very good mark from me in respect of some of the things it is doing at the present time. I feel the noble Earl should have told us that and also told us where the Museum of Scotland comes into it. I remember what the Secretary of State said in another place on 22nd July 1982, at col. 303: I share the Committee's view that our first priority must be to establish a museum of Scotland, which will be the prime repository for artifacts representing the cultural heritage of Scotland … I propose therefore at a convenient opportunity to introduce a Bill to constitute a new and widely representative board of trustees whose first task will be to create a major new institution. There is no indication within this Bill that there is going to be a new institution. In fact we are told of the advice of the noble Marquess, Lord Bute, and his Committee. I do not think they could have picked a better man than Lord Bute to deal with the heritage of Scotland. He served as the chairman of the National Trust for over 12 years and I had the privilege of being his vice-chairman for a number of years. I know his quality; I know his interest and his dedication to the subject. That Committee used the name, "the Museums of Scotland".

What does that mean? We read Clause 1 and we are told that the museums of Scotland consist of those museums "formerly known as" the Royal Scottish Museum and the National Museum of Antiquities of Scotland. We are also told, when we read what has been said in another place, that these are only temporary titles. They have not made up their minds as to what the titles are going to be.

I am going to suggest that the first thing that should have happened is that this Bill should not have been brought forward when it was but should have been held back until the advice of the advisory board was given. Then, in their full knowledge, we should have had a Bill in respect of which we could have argued without being in the dark—because any time you raise a question about titles you are told, "Oh, that will come later from the advisory board." You ask about the museum of Scotland—"Oh, that will come later from the advisory board". You ask about resources—"Oh, we can't say anything about that: that will come later from the advisory board."

I wonder what on earth the Williams Committee were doing with this report. One thing it does mean is that there will be considerable delay. I remember what A Heritage For Scotland says next: Scotland's National Museums and Galleries, the Next 25 Years. That was set up in February 1979. That was six years ago. Six of the 25 years have already gone and we do not even know what the Government are going to do. This is not good enough. May I be told right away: is there going to be the museum of Scotland which will subsume the National Museum of Antiquities of Scotland? And separate from that there is going to be the Royal Scottish Museum? These are the two national museums. If they are going to change the names, how are they going to do it? So far as I can understand from the powers in the Bill, there is not any way it is going to be done unless we are going to have some further advice from the advisory council before we have finished all the stages. Then we shall know what is going to happen.

I share the worries of the Society of Antiquaries for Scotland. Here was a body which set up this museum with £20 which was given them by the Earl of Buchan in 1780. They set up the Museum of Antiquities of Scotland. They handed it over to the nation about 60 years later. They actually ran it until about another 100 years—and they are being pushed aside; they are kept in the dark in respect of what is happening in relation to the museum, which is not moribund. They have been providing a library for that museum all these years, and still do—thousands of pounds per year they provide for it. They meet in the library and have their meetings in the museum. They have complained time and time again about the lack of accommodation. They have over a million artifacts, and not half of them can be shown.

When the Minister says that things have been going very well, I do not know whether he realises it but I think it was somewhere in the 1920s when it was suggested that they should have more accommodation—and remember that the accommodation was provided by the proprietor of the Scotsman, nearly 100 years ago. It was not the Government which supplied it. Report after report—the Phillips report and the rest of them—has given an indication that they should have had a new building, but we still do not know and the Government do not tell us.

I ask your Lordships to look at the financial effects of this Bill which read: The establishment of the new Boards of Trustees should not in itself give rise to additional public expenditure. There is to be no further public expenditure. By the way, that £100,000 which the Minister of State mentioned was to the Property Services Agency in respect of the fabric of all the galleries. The Bill goes on: —and in particular the integration of some of their ancillary services—should result in savings in the long term. We read A Heritage for Scotlandby Alwyn Williams and it is a cry for more resources, not only to be able to display properly what we have, but also to interest people properly. It is resources and resources, but there is no indication about them here.

As regards the effects of the Bill on public service manpower, the Bill reads: The Bill is expected to reduce the number of staff working in the Scottish Office by about 320. The Secretary of State will be able to say "We have got 320 fewer civil servants in Scotland."

That is the achievement of the Bill, but what about the Museum of Scotland? Where is it? When is it to be developed? When are we to get the report from the advisory board? It was supposed to be in the spring of this year: is it still to be in the spring of this year? We also have a report from the Commission on Museums—I think it is the Miles Report—in relation to local galleries. This is important, because they must knit together to give us a museum service worthy of Scotland. The last I have heard is that we shall not get that report until the autumn. So, once again, we are dealing with things on which we do not have the full and final information. That is why I consider the Bill to be rather stultifying of debate, certainly of creative debate.

The Williams Report was further referred to by the Secretary of State on 8th December, 1983, when he said: I have decided that the right course to enable flexible and integrated planning … of museums in the future, is to have a single board". That was his decision, but that decision ran counter to the Williams Report. Then he said: As recommended in the Williams report, I propose to appoint a museum advisory board to advise me further." [Official Report, Commons, 8/12/83; col. 257.] With all due respect, that was not in the Williams Report. The Williams Report suggested that there should be a commission which had executive functions, as well as advisory functions. What we have, as I understand it—and the noble Lord can correct me if I am wrong—is a transient advisory board, which will deal only with the transfer and the creation at the early stage of development of the museums of Scotland, so far as the Bill is concerned, and which will hand over to the new single board of trustees. The Williams Report was opposed to the single board of trustees. It was also opposed to changing the position of the Royal Scottish Museum from a museum which is a part of the Department of Education in Scotland, run by the department and controlled by the department, to giving it trustee status like the others.

May I say this about trustee status? A lot has been made of it by the Government, though certainly not in the debate so far, and it has been said that this is the right thing because it will keep them at arm's length from the Government. They will have far more freedom. But if you take the history of the two museums that we are dealing with, one—the Museum of Antiquities of Scotland—had trustee status and the one that was closest to the Government was the Royal Scottish Museum. The one that has fared best in the past 40 to 50 years has been the Royal Scottish Museum and not the Museum of Antiquities, which is the museum of Scotland. I think that a Minister in the other place put it well, that the Royal Scottish Museum was Scotland looking at the world and the other one was the world looking at Scotland. It was the native museum of Scottish artifacts, Scottish history and Scottish culture. From that point of view, the Government have not done very well by us.

I now come to the actual board. Despite the close connection, we have waited till this point to be told that we are to get an amendment at the next stage of the Bill in relation to the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland. I do not know what it will be. It will probably give them one member of the board. The way the Government went ahead with this Bill and never even consulted the society is disgraceful. They did not know what was in the Bill until it was printed, despite all that they have done. There would have been no museum there, but for them. There have been generations of dedicated men.

In looking at the board itself, I look for consistency, and I am very glad to see that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate is with us. We have the National Museums of Scotland and the board is to consist of nine to 15 members selected by the Secretary of State. The National Library will have 32 members and it is laid down in the Bill who they are. I am sure that everyone will be delighted. That is on page 18, in Clause 17 of the hymn sheet.

Here are the people who will run the National Library: the Lord President of the Court of Session and, the Lord Advocate. Here he sits. I wonder how many meetings he has been at so far. Then there is the Secretary of State for Scotland. The man who is to provide all the money will be on the board ex officio. Is he on the board at the moment? I never remember being asked to go to a single meeting. Then there are the Dean of the Faculty of Advocates, the Minister of the High Kirk of St. Giles, Edinburgh. All this is in the Bill, but no indication is given in respect of the more important ones. This is just to run a library—32 members. There are the Member of Parliament for Edinburgh Central, the Lord Provost of Edinburgh, the Lord Provost of Glasgow, the Lord Provost of Dundee, the Lord Provost of Aberdeen and the Queen's and the Lord Treasurer's Remembrancer. What on earth are they doing running the National Library?

I know the history of the libraries connected with that, but I ask your Lordships to compare the treatment of them with the treatment of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland—the Lord President of the Court of Session, the Lord Advocate, the Dean of the Faculty of Advocates and five other persons appointed by the faculty. Not bad! They are powerful influences in Edinburgh. They used to have a Member of Parliament for Central Edinburgh as well, but they have not had that for a long time. This is one of the things that we shall have a look at in Committee. It will probably be one of the amusing aspects.

What about the Museum of Industry! Why has there been a change of mind on that? My noble friend Lord Carmichael will probably have a word to say on this, and I shall be surprised if other people do not as well.

What about the question of links with local museums? Some of these local museums are quite important. Let me take the figures for visitors. Pollock House, the People's Palace, Kelvingrove and the Transport Museum had more visitors in 1983 than the National Galleries, and I ask your Lordships to remember that the National Galleries include the National Portrait Gallery and the Gallery of Modern Arts, as well as the National Gallery and the two museums. They happen to be in Glasgow, and I am sure that your Lordships will be interested to know that the Burrell Gallery, provided by Glasgow, maintained by Glasgow and not by the Government—though, admittedly, the Government paid half the capital cost—had more visitors in 1984 than all these national galleries in 1983. It had more than 1,180,000 visitors.

So the so-called local museums are important and there has to be a proper link-up of the galleries and museums of national status with those of local status. I am perfectly sure that some of my noble friends will take up that point, because it is important to have a Scottish galleries service and a Scottish museums service. We want to see mobile exhibitions and we want to see those local galleries run important exhibitions, too. They may be Scottish or they may be international. I remember that two years ago Glasgow had one of the finest exhibitions I have ever seen. Glasgow also was the only place outside the United States—I think, it went to New York, St. Louis and Cleveland, Ohio—where French paintings of the nineteenth century of the realist tradition were shown. I think about 120,000 visitors came to that exhibition in Glasgow, which shows exactly the concern and interest there is.

Do not underestimate the importance of the local galleries. I do not think sufficient is said within the Bill. The Williams Committee has affected the Bill to the extent that far more importance is laid in the functions of the museums and galleries on the question of education, although they admit that they do not have the staff. Once again, more money is required. It is a question of resources. It is a question of interpretation, of letting the public know what is going on and what keeps going on. I know that some of the galleries are doing very well, although one of these days I hope that the National Gallery, when it sends its literature to me, will catch on to the fact that the right honourable William Ross is not an MP, is not Secretary of State for Scotland and has not been so for some time. But at least it sends literature and lets us know what is going on in the gallery.

It is a disappointing Bill in many ways. The decision to entitle it the National Heritage (Scotland) Bill was the Government's. I think it is ill-judged, but they could improve if they took into account some of the things that were done for England in the National Heritage Bill 1983. If the Government are concerned to retain the title of this limited measure and plead that they are doing for Scottish museums only what was done for the national museums in England in respect of the organisation, let them do something in respect of giving us parity of powers for grant-aiding as was done for England, where power was taken in respect of grant-aiding the National Trust—the English one—in respect of buildings, in respect of lands and in respect of gardens.

Now, at that time the chairman of the National Trust for Scotland wrote to the Secretary of State—the chairman happened to be Lord Bute, who was chairman of the advisory committee; the Secretary of State happened to be Mr. Younger—suggesting that we get these powers, but Mr. Younger replied that the 1983 Bill was an English Bill and that this would require legislation. Well, here we have the legislation, so let it be worthy of its name and give us that parity which will enable us to do even more for our heritage than we can under the Bill as it stands.

On the whole, it gives an opportunity for examining fully in Committee all the ramifications of the heritage of Scotland and what is required. But the one thing that seems to be required more than anything else, to provide the accommodation, to provide the education and to provide the exhibitions, is resources. Are we going to get them? There is a sad story about this going right through the years. For the past 50 years our museums have been asking for these resources. There were times when it seemed that they were going to get ahead—one was when I gave permission for the buying of the site in Chamber Street. It was started and then in 1976 the Government of that day stopped it, and so hopes were again dashed. Let us build up and let us make the Bill much more worthy of the Williams Report, A Heritage for Scotland.

5.15 p.m.

Lord Grimond

My Lords, I must start by acknowledging an interest in this Bill because my wife is a trustee of the National Museum of Antiquities. It must not be assumed, however, that everything I say is a direct echo of what she says. Secondly, I am sorry to say that I have to make an apology because I had not quite realised that we would be so much delayed by Statements, and it is conceivable that I may have to go to a meeting, which I undertook to attend long ago, before the end of the debate.

It is useful in considering any Bill to ask why it is necessary. Part I of the Bill is necessary because there is overlapping between the Royal Scottish Museum and the Museum of Antiquities. Indeed, there is some wasteful competition in acquiring objects and there is a good deal to be said for having one board of trustees for the two. But I am not so clear as to the reasons for setting-up trustees for the Royal Botanic Garden. In another place the Minister said that the reason was that it would make the administration of the garden "more flexible and more effective". Those are words which trip easily off ministerial lips but do not mean so much to the general public.

I had a good many dealings with the gardens at one time, when I was secretary for the National Trust of Scotland. We were given very great assistance by that excellent man, Dr. Cowan, who was then the deputy director. I never remember him complaining that his organisation was inflexible or, indeed, ineffective. There may be good reasons for changing the administration of the gardens, but I should rather like to hear a little more from the Government as to exactly what they are. With regard to the gardens, I wonder whether the Minister can tell us a little more about what is happening to Inverleith House. It is a very nice building, and since the pictures were taken out I am not quite certain what has happened to it.

The Bill involves the setting up of new quangos, which are said to be anathema to the Government. Like the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, I notice that there is to be a saving of 320 civil servants in the Scottish Office. I wonder whether the Minister could tell us a little more about what is going to happen to them. Are they going over to work under the boards of trustees, or what? Did it take 320 civil servants in the Scottish Office to administer the museums and the gardens before? It so happens, if I may digress a moment, that today I received a little history of the administration of the Sudan. At the height of the most effective British administration of the Sudan the whole thing was done by 350 civil servants. It takes 320, apparently, to administer two small museums. Like the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, I hope that we are not going to hear from the Government that they have saved 320 civil servants when they are in fact employed elsewhere.

If I may turn to the functions of the new board concerned with the museums, which are given in Clause 2, what strikes me as rather peculiar is that many things are mentioned, but not history. The board shall promote, archaeological, artistic, cultural, environmental, industrial, military, scientific and social interests, but there is no word of history. The same is true of the schedule; none of the trustees is to have any expertise in history or historical matters. Yet I should have thought that museums were primarily living history if they are carrying out their proper function. I do not believe that this is covered by "cultural", any more than it is by "archaeological".

I come now to the membership. Here I must say that I think the Government—I agree entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock—have behaved with extreme discourtesy to the Society of Antiquaries. It was the society which ran the museum and, indeed, founded it. It has, God save us!, a million objects in it, most of which are inherited from the Society of Antiquaries. The society was not consulted about the Bill, and it has now been given no representation on the board. To my mind there is everything to be said for at least having the president on the board and allowing the society to nominate at least one other member.

First, it is pure courtesy to the people who founded the museum and who looked after it until quite recently, and who, as the noble Lord said, still provide the library. Secondly, it will be a very good thing to have on the board some people who are knowledgeable and who would provide the expertise which is very much needed. They have some 2,300 members throughout Scotland, and, again, they will provide some contact with the rest of Scotland and prevent the board from becoming too centred upon Edinburgh. Further, if a few members of the board are ex officioit will slightly decrease the patronage of the Secretary of State for Scotland. He already has immense patronage, and he will get a lot more under this Bill. I also believe that there should be ex officiorepresentatives on the board of the Scottish universities. They will provide much of the expertise on archaeology and history.

I am bound to compare the position of the board of the museums, which is entirely in the hands of the Secretary of State, with the board of the National Library. The noble Lord has already read out who are to be the members of the board of the National Library. Some nine of them are to be advocates. There is to be the Minister of the High Kirk of St. Giles—although why he is particularly expert on library matters I do not know, any more than I know about the Member of Parliament for Edinburgh, Central. This is not an Edinburgh library; it is the National Library of Scotland. It is perfectly true, of course, that it has a particular legal importance and it was originally the Advocate's library; but so, I point out, was the library and, indeed, the museum of the Society of Antiquaries, and they have no representation whatever.

If one is in this case to set out a whole number of people who are to be ex officiomembers, to my mind one should greatly reduce the number of lawyers. Surely the Dean of the Faculty, and possibly one other, will be quite enough. Incidentally, I take it that The Queen's and Lord Treasurer's Remembrancer is a lawyer. It is not the sort of office the lawyers would like to slip through their fingers. But why he is there, I do not know. One should have, for instance, if one is to have this type of board at all, a representative who knows something about Gaelic and Gaelic culture; conceivably a representative who knows about books—perhaps an author or even a publisher—and somebody who will ensure that the library is kept up to date in modern science and technology.

I now come to two matters which I think have not been mentioned so far. There is, of course, provision already for the museums and the galleries of Scotland to make a charge. That is repeated in the Bill. It can only be done with the assent of the Secretary of State. Personally, I welcome that because I believe that when all galleries throughout the continent charge it cannot be ruled out as a way of raising funds; and funds are absolutely essential as they are inadequate. There is also provision for disposals and, of course, acquisitions.

Here I must mention again St. Ninian's treasure which was removed (to use a polite word) from Shetland to the museums in Edinburgh. I hope that now that they have the power, albeit with the assent of the Secretary of State, the museums will seriously go through the various items they have taken from other parts of Scotland and consider whether they should not be returned, including St. Ninian's treasure. For one thing. it is notorious that there are masses of items in museums and galleries in Scotland which they cannot show. I make no complaint about archaeological relics which no doubt must be kept largely for research, and I believe there are large buildings in, for example, Leith, which are virtually warehouses in which such items are packed and not exhibited at all. However, I read in the debates in another place that it is alleged that there are considerable quantities of very beautiful Scottish furniture in the Royal Scottish Museum which are not open to view by the public. If that is the case, it strengthens the need for the museum to go through its acquisitions and its present wealth and to consider, first, how it is to show them, and, second, how it can help other and provincial museums by giving them loans or by disposing of what they do not and cannot exhibit.

This brings me, finally, to the question of accommodation. Finance is, of course, extremely important, but so also is accommodation. I am afraid that the National Museum of Antiquities is not entirely free from blame in that it was offered, I believe, John Watson's, and hummed and hawed about it and was then upstaged, so to speak, by the Museum of Modern Art. But it is extremely cramped, and accommodation is, I should have thought, the most necessary aspect. With that goes finance, and all that must largely, if not entirely, come from the Government.

I hope very much that this is a mere paving Bill to the development of the Museum of Scotland and that when that comes—indeed, before it comes—the Government will provide the Scottish museums with adequate accommodation and that they will bear in mind that they are national museums and not Edinburgh museums. Again, if we are to have people nominated, as to the National Library, I should have thought that ministers from Glasgow were just as necessary as ministers of religion from Edinburgh. They might well consider these out-stations which are in existence and how far they can be strengthened as part of the National Museum. In fact, I hope this is not the beginning of further centralisation but the first step towards further decentralisation.

5.26 p.m.

Baroness Elliot of Harwood

My Lords, I have been very encouraged by the fact that we have this Bill here today, that it has been through the other place and that we are now debating it. I do not feel as depressed as the noble Lords, Lord Ross of Marnock and Lord Grimond. First, I like the title. I think the National Heritage (Scotland) Bill is a good title. I think that it can include everything that the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, talked about, and with which in many respects I agree. Therefore, I approve of the title. Equally I think that the Board of Trustees combining the Royal Scottish Museum and the National Museum of Antiquities is a good idea. One will get important people who are extremely keen and interested to be on that board and I think that it ought to be, and will probably be, a very good combination which will bring people together, to work together and to promote more successfully the things which are brought into the Bill and of which I am strongly in favour.

I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, about the Fellows of the Society of Antiquaries. They should have a bigger part in this Bill than has so far been given to them. We all know that the Society of Antiquaries is a most remarkable organisation. It is the oldest and, in some ways, the most important. Therefore, I very much hope that when we are discussing this we will be able to get into the Bill reference to the Society of Antiquaries and that we shall be able to give them as great a status on the Board of Trustees as the National Museums of Scotland.

I also think that all the libraries should be open to the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland or that all the members, or Fellows, should be allowed to have free access to all the libraries covered by the Bill. It is also extremely important that in the reorganisation it will be clear that the trustees will guarantee the uniqueness of the history and culture of Scotland which gives the National Museum an international reputation, which is acknowledged and has been built up over 200 years and will continue with the new title of the Museums of Scotland.

I have no doubt that many Scottish peers have had letters from different interests in Scotland. I have had one or two. It is quite clear to me that they are all extremely keen that this should be a success and that there should be great co-operation in all these matters. I had a letter from the Heriot-Watt University, and I should like to quote from what a professor said: This purpose should not be made secondary to administrative convenience"— that is the joint endeavour of the two interests— which might lead to little more than the establishment of a larger, amorphous and monolithic institution". I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Gray, has no intention of allowing the new board to be described in that very unsatisfactory manner; and so I hope very much that this will not happen.

I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, on the subject of space, and in order that a great many of the lovely things that we want to look at in the museums are only shown for a short time, because they have not got enough room for them all. Space, and more showing room, is vital, and I hope very much that the Government will see that that can be attended to.

I had one very small experience of that, because a little while ago I donated to the National Museum of Scotland some rather beautiful costumes, because the museum were going to start a costume section. I received very nice letters of thanks, and the costumes were shown in the museum for a short time. They could show them for only a short time for the simple reason they had so many other things to show that they had to pass on to something else.

It seems to me that it would be a great help if, in the new reorganisation, one of the important things would be to have more space so that these lovely things are not hidden away until such time as they can be brought out, and then of course they have to be put away again. That is something which the board could certainly do.

I believe that it was the noble Lord, Lord Ross, who said that he wanted an industrial museum. Clause 2(d) of the Bill—I think the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, read some of it out—says in regard to general functions: Generally promote the public's awareness, appreciation and understanding of matters agricultural, archaeological, artistic, cultural, environmental, industrial, military, scientific and social". I cannot think of anything that cannot be brought into that provision. It covers, in my interpretation, all the interests that one can have. And it is followed by the following paragraph: provide education, instruction and advice, and carry out research". If one can do all that, if under this new Bill that is what is going to happen, then surely that will be excellent in every way. What is more, it would be easier, I think, to do it in that way than to start up another museum. I would rather it be done within the ambit of the new arrangements which I think would be very good.

I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, on the subject of the board of the National Library, but I understood that this was an inheritance, and it would be rather difficult to get rid of some of these people. But I certainly think that if the matter is being looked at again, one should bear this in mind. The noble Lord has said that there is no one from Glasgow in the list and why should we have the Minister of the High Kirk of St. Giles, and not the Minister of the Cathedral in Glasgow? I think these matters could be looked at and I would personally agree that you do not want to accept what, when I was reading it through, I thought was probably the inheritance of the National Library of Scotland. They have always been like that but I do not see why it should continue to be so and I hope very much we might be able to alter some of those things.

I agree entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Ross, when he spoke of the great importance and the great beauty of our museums. I have had the opportunity in the course of my life of travelling in many parts certainly of Europe and seeing a great many museums, and I still find the national galleries of Scotland are just as beautiful as anything that can be seen anywhere else, and I hope also we will be able to continue to enlarge them.

After all, we were fortunate in having as one of our main donors the late Sir William Burrell. It is quite true that it took something like 20 years to find a place where the collection could be shown. But now we have got it, it is a magnificent collection, and it has attracted attention from all over the world; and that was a Scotsman leaving all that he had collected to Scotland. I hope that we shall still be able to get people in Scotland who have great collections, and who will leave them for the public and for the future.

I hope that the new plans will continue to attract those kinds of gifts, and also that the board will have enough money to buy when opportunity offers. I know that money is a very sore subject, because we are all short of it; but if there is money at any period, to be invested in the future, I think it can be invested in art and the galleries, and he certain of a remarkable return—better than almost anything else that one can think of. I support this Bill and I hope that it will be a great success.

5.37 p.m.

Lord Kirkhill

My Lords, my contribution, you will no doubt be pleased to learn, is not of lengthy duration, but is intended rather to invoke Ministerial response to an area of important activity about which the Bill is curiously silent. However, before I elaborate upon my criticism, I should say that the Bill is entitled to the consideration of a cautious welcome, and no Minister should expect to hear more than that.

As I see it, the main challenge confronting the national museums of Scotland, is to ensure that the public believe that the museums of Scotland are carrying out a national role. Obviously this means the preservation and presentation of collections of national and international importance. Presumably we can all agree as to that. But should not the concept be further extended so that most areas of the country could benefit?

It is of course on this most important point, as my noble friend Lord Ross of Marnock has just mentioned, that the Bill is ominously silent. It omits any reference to the national museums relationships with local authority museums. If the national heritage is to be fully recognised and appreciated, commitment must be given to the establishment of links with local authority museums. The national museums service should have the potential and opportunity presently not available to help improve curatorial services throughout Scotland, and to develop touring exhibitions and loans of national material outwith Edinburgh. Indeed, it need not he a one-way service, else the people of Scotland generally might miss, under the imaginative direction of Mr. Ian McKenzie Smith, the artistic and aesthetic glories contained in the magnificent art gallery of my home town of Aberdeen.

The Secretary of State has recently said that the concept of the new museums extended: "beyond collections of the National Museum of Antiquities of Scotland to collections within the other national and major museums and collections in local museums and galleries."

The Bill makes no mention of this, so we can be fairly certain that as soon as allocation from restricted funds is made, what is available will be directed towards those purposes about which the Bill is specific. The Scottish Education Department and the future trustees in considering their priorities for funding will not and should not ignore this legislation. But that which has been omitted from the Bill—and I have just made reference to it—releases them from the major responsibility of developing appropriate links with the many local museums.

The House should demand firm ministerial commitment on this important matter, which has financial implications, of course, but surely they are of such a modest nature that set against the museum's total funding they would not be serious.

5.40 p.m.

The Earl of Lauderdale

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Gray of Contin, among other things, told us that the framework which is proposed in this Bill will assist researchers. My attention was drawn to it not by anything written to me from Edinburgh but by an American researcher, Professor Maurice Lee, formerly of Princeton, who is one of the world's experts on 16th and 17th century Scottish history. He wrote to me from America saying that he over there had heard of the anxiety amounting to indignation among Scottish archaeologists and specialists in architectural history at the proposed treatment of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland to which both the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock and Lord Grimond, referred.

As I came to study the Bill I wondered, frankly, how much my noble friend, for all his great diversity of gifts and interests, could know about the magnificent collection at Queen Street, Edinburgh, that he would allow himself to be classed among the philistine iconoclasts of the 20th century. Did he know about the Troaprain Treasure in Queen Street, with its Christian artefacts from 4th century Alexandria, containing one of the earliest examples of Christian pictorial art contempory with and illustrating the thinking of the councils of Nicea, Constantinople and Ephesus? My guess is that very probably he did not know very much about that, but never mind.

Did he know about the vast store of Scottish uniforms and clothing—my noble friend Lady Elliot has alluded to the great store that there is, too great to be put on show—most of which is hidden from view owing to lack of exhibition space, and it is held in the Queen Street museum storerooms. My noble friend may well know all about these things and others as well, but to the Society of Antiquaries goes the major credit for accumulating and protecting this remarkable collection.

So I can give no more than two cheers for the Bill, which has all the marks of Civil Service gestation and a curious blindness regarding archaeological and historical interest. I can perhaps give two and a half cheers for the fact that the Government consented, albeit only at the Report stage in another place, to accept an amendment to the first schedule to include archaeological expertise among the trustees' possible and desirable qualifications.

The Scottish Office originally listed all sorts of desirable criteria for the trustees, I note of course for a great historical and archaeological assemblage. They were to know about agriculture, or they might know about the arts, or they might know about culture, whatever that may mean. They might know about the environment, and of course that is the "in" word today. They might have industrial knowledge. That is natural enough since half of Scotland's population focuses on Glasgow anyway. They might have military, and they might have scientific, knowledge. They might even have knowledge of social matters. Your Lordships should note that this is all for trustees of a magnificent archaeological and historical collection.

They might have knowledge of management, which would be handy, I have no doubt. They might have knowledge of industrial relations, which I have no doubt is also very useful. They might have knowledge of administration. All I wonder is why the Scottish Office did not include knowledge of surrogate motherhood and embryology while it was about it. What an astonishing list of qualifications for trustees of great historical and archaeological treasures!

The Government's death-bed repentance on Schedule 1 and Clause 3(3) in another place—incorporating the term "archaeological"—is welcome as far as it goes. But the fact that that was only squeezed out of them at Report fuels suspicion of outright hostility toward archaeologists and historians. One learns that the Scottish Office consulted various bodies on the Williams Report. It consulted museums and galleries, the National Trust, the Heritage Memorial Fund, the Museums and Galleries Commission and the Arts Council. It consulted all those. Well done! But it did not consult—I repeat, it did not consult—the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland. That is the more suprising in the society had volunteered written evidence to the Williams Committee, though it was not called upon to give oral evidence. For its oral evidence that committee heard some 17 bodies, of which no fewer than five consisted of civil servants. There was not a practising archaeologist among those whom it called in.

The standing of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland needs to be made absolutely clear. More than two centuries ago, in 1780, it founded the national museum. In the last century it presented the museum and its library to the nation. For 174 years—which is no yesterday—it managed the museum. For the past 30 years it has nominated five trustees. It has made donations year by year at a value in today's money of about £9,000 a year. Those are the people who now are not even consulted. Our colleagues in another place were told that they had been consulted in a letter from a Minister whose name I have for the moment lost: hut the letter was written in December after the Committee stage was over. A lot of consultation that was!

The Society of Antiquaries has already been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Ross. It has 2,300 Fellows. They embrace almost every professional Scottish archaeologist and most of Scotland's architectural historians. The common aim of the Fellows is to promote scholarship in, and understanding of, Scotland's cultural and historical heritage. But there is not much of that in the verbiage of this Bill, whose paramount theme seems to be a new trust which looks more like a city management trust for stocks or property.

Is it really so silly to urge the Government to think again and include among the trustees some nominated, or shall we say some proposed, by the Society of Antiquaries as hitherto at Queen Street? Or are the Government saying that they are no good? Either they are no good, which had better be said, or their work and tradition should be recognised. I know that one rather typical, if I may say so, Civil Service answer has been given on this matter: "Oh well, we don't want to open the board of trustees to representatives of sectional interests". But this is not a sectional interest. This is a body of high standing which founded the main museum, which ran it for most of its life, which is still flourishing and whose work and research are respected all over the world.

The fact that the Society of Antiquaries was not consulted in the drafting of the Bill is really shameful. The noble Lord, Lord Grimond, referred to discourtesy. I think it is worse than that; I think it is thoroughly insulting and disgraceful. I understand that it first learnt of the Government's intention to sever the society's link with the museum only last October when the Bill, if not finally drafted, was certainly well into its drafting stage.

It was Mr. Allan Stewart's statement in another place that there was consultation with it. Indeed, my noble friend Lord Gray referred to consultation with it. But when did it take place? Only after the Committee stage, in the shape of a letter written last 11th December. This is not good enough, and it is well that it should be said.

Naturally, therefore, we shall look forward with the greatest interest and a degree of sympathy to seeing what amendment or amendments the Government will bring forward. I think two and three quarter cheers now for the fact that they are going to bring forward amendments, which we hope will go some way towards meeting the justified complaints of the Society of Antiquaries. We do expect rather better replies than have been given in another place. And perhaps I may be permitted to remind my noble friend, in the nicest possible way—we are old friends personally as well as politically—that of course this is not a House where the Government have a built-in majority to get whatever they like through without difficulty.

5.53 p.m.

Lord Taylor of Gryfe

My Lords, I, too, must apologise to the House for having to leave before the conclusion of the debate. I will consequently be very brief. I endorse most of the things that have been said. It must be a source of encouragement to the Minister to feel that there is not only so much interest in this matter but also so much concern about it and so much experience in this field. I think it is one of the delightful things about the former Secretary of State for Scotland, with his long experience of Scotland, that on his retiral from that important political post he devoted his time to the National Trust for Scotland as vice-chairman. His experience in that capacity can certainly be helpful to us in looking at this important matter.

All of us are concerned that what is done in this Bill—because it is not often that legislation of this kind emerges—is worthy of Scotland and worthy of the ambitions which are stated in the Bill. A great deal has been said about the composition of the various boards of trustees. I am sure that that will be dealt with by amendment at Committee stage. I, too, am concerned about it. I will not elaborate the criticisms that have been made. But I suggest that, when we are talking about trustees, we should try to ensure that the regions are well represented so that these do not become two Edinburgh-centralised establishment bodies. The regions have a very important part to play in this, because many of the separate regions have their separate traditions.

Quite near my home is the Paisley Museum. It is a very excellent museum which tells the story of the textile trade of Paisley and which tells the history of the Paisley shawl and the Paisley pattern. All of this is important to local schools and to people in the local community. It encourages their interest and also their concern for the local area.

I very much support the idea that was proposed in the Williams report that there should be a museum of industry. I recall the story of the Glasgow Exhibition of 1901, when the people came up from the shipyards with the marks of industry still on their dungarees and on their faces because they were proud to go up to that exhibition and show that it was they who built the ships, it was they who had contributed to making Glasgow the second city at that time. I do believe that if you had a museum of industry it might be possible for some people to recognise how important it is to have pride in industry. I am sure that that would be encouraged by a museum of this kind.

I am also concerned that we should look at the history of the labour movement and provide some kind of centre—perhaps a library as well as a museum —for some of the relics of the great traditions of the labour movement in Scotland. I am approached frequently, from various trusts with which I am involved, for assistance to help in this area. It is quite inadequately catered for. But I think it is good for the people of Scotland to know that in the Co-operative movement and in the labour movement in general they have something of which they can be proud and which, in these days, they might even cherish. These are areas where we must be looking outward.

May I again emphasise what has also been said tonight? That is that we have so many good things and riches to display. When the Government give assistance to the National Theatre, they do it with some undertaking that the National Theatre will undertake to visit the regions. This applies to the Scottish National Orchestra in Scotland, Scottish Opera in Scotland and the National Theatre here in London. They have a responsibility to show their talents, not simply in London or in Glasgow, but also in the regions. I do believe that we should do much more to exhibit some of the beauties and the great things we have in Scotland and to build them up and make them exciting and interesting. Perhaps I may mention the Burrell Collection. The fact that more than one million people visited the Burrell Collection in a year is attributable not only to the greatness of the collection and to interest in that collection, but also to the fact that the media made it exciting. They had programmes about it on television. They even took the programme "Mastermind" up to it for two sessions the other day. All this stimulates interest. I think that in the presentation of travelling exhibitions, which we in Scotland should encourage, we should incorporate a greater degree of enterprise and imagination.

There is one final point. I am sure we shall return to it in due course. It was touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Grimond. It is the question of whether we should charge for entry to these museums. It is a matter on which I myself am not totally dogmatic. Perhaps we may return to this matter at the Committee stage. I know that it will be left to the local boards to make the decision. I know that many people become very excited about it, but, provided you have exemptions for old-age pensioners. the unemployed and students, I do not think there is any good reason why we should not pay to see the Burrell Collection.

I remember that the Glasgow museums and art galleries had a very inventive head, the late Tom Honeyman. He actually spent £8,000 buying a picture. It was a matter of great concern and letters were written to the papers about this extravagance. The picture was Salvador Dali's The Christ, which I am sure is known to many of you. Tom Honeyman had to recover his position by putting that picture in a special room in the Glasgow Art Gallery and charging people one shilling to see it. The picture paid for itself inside a year and a half and the Glasgow art galleries and museums have derived a very considerable contribution each year from the Christmas cards which reproduce that famous picture, which are sold all over the world. So I do believe that there is nothing wrong in looking at this question of payment to see some of these great pictures and the great things that we have to show. But this is a matter to which we shall no doubt return. In general, I welcome the fact that the Bill is attracting interest and concern in your Lordships' House and is not treated entirely as a party political matter.

6 p.m.

Baroness White

My Lords, I hope that a brief intervention from Wales will not be considered inappropriate on this occasion because in some respects our problems are similar to those of Scotland. At any rate, they are sufficiently similar to have persuaded the chairman of the advisory board, the noble Marquess, Lord Bute, and his colleagues, to pay a most welcome visit last October to our National Museum in Cardiff. Our connection with the Bute family is of long standing. Indeed, the brochure on our Welsh Industrial and Maritime Museum, which I have with me, names the second Marquess of Bute in the first half of the 19th century as "the creator of modem Cardiff'. That the chairman of the committee which in 1981 reported to the Secretary of State on A Heritage for Scotland, Sir Alwyn Williams, is a Welshman, reinforces the connection.

Our National Museum of Wales dates from 1907. Since that date a large number of local museums have been established in the Principality supported by local authorities or voluntary organisations. But at national level it has been clear that the initiative lies with the National Museum of Wales. Accordingly, in addition to sustaining the main museum in Cardiff and organising a number of educational activities, including a schools service—the reference to that by the Parliamentary Secretary during the Committee stage in the other place was not quite correct, for it is part of the museum's activities—the National Museum has taken steps to establish under its own jurisdiction two major museums and seven smaller museums in various parts of Wales.

The first major effort was the establishment of the Welsh Folk Museum, opened at St. Fagan's Castle in Glamorgan in 1948, followed by the Welsh Industrial and Maritime Museum, opened adjacent to the West Bute Dock in Cardiff in 1977. The other enterprises include seven smaller centres under the direct control of the National Museum, including archaeological and environmental centres in west and north Wales, the Welsh Slate Museum in Gwynedd, and the Woollen Industry Museum in Dyfed. For the Coal Industry Museum in Blaenavon, in Gwent, the National Museum is a joint trustee with the National Coal Board and the Wales Tourist Board. The museum has provided most of the professional services but the trust pattern seems, for various reasons, advantageous, not least for obtaining cash resources from the European Community.

The Earl of Lauderdale

My Lords, that is a good point.

Baroness White

My Lords, the Scots might perhaps take note of that. We have as a separate institution the National Library of Wales at Aberystwyth. We lack, however, a national gallery. This is where Scotland scores, although we have in the National Museum in Cardiff probably the finest collection of French Impressionist and post-Impressionist paintings in Britain, and many other treasures. Were resources available, I have little doubt that we should establish a separate National Gallery for Wales, in that respect following the Scottish example.

In looking at the Bill, named the National Heritage (Scotland) Bill—it is not for me to comment on whether or not that is an appropriate title—one asks oneself how far the proposals in the Bill cater for some of the major areas of public interest in Scotland. There seem to be one or two striking lacunae. From the proceedings in another place as well as the speeches made in your Lordships' House today, it is clear that there is great concern over the lack of a museum specifically dedicated to the history and achievements of Scottish industrial enterprise and experience.

We are—or should be, at any rate—hurtling into the third industrial revolution. But the remains and the records of the first and second industrial revolutions are disappearing or crumbling around us at an alarming speed. Unless immediate and energetic steps are taken to select and preserve appropriate examples, including, in some cases, buildings, and to trace and collect the already shrivelling records and archives of industrial enterprises in Scotland, future generations will be deprived of the knowledge that they should possess of one of the most significant elements in the Scottish heritage.

I know that various efforts are being made locally in Scotland. I am informed by Sir Alwyn Williams himself that the University of Glasgow is doing its best to collect and preserve such industrial and commercial archives as it can lay its hands on. No doubt other universities—they are among the most valued and valuable museum allies—will be doing the same in their own areas. But the impression that I have from the inquiries I have made is that, in the matter of a truly national industrial museum for Scotland, there is no firm purpose in the mind of the Secretary of State. There appears to be no determined sense of direction. There seems, on the contrary, to be the feeling that this is a matter that should be picked up by those who are interested but without additional public resources. If that is true, it is no recipe for success. Of course one looks for co-operation to industrialists, to local authorities and to other organisations, including groups of enthusiasts for their own local history or with a particular passionate interest in steam engines or whatever other enterprises in the industrial field take their imagination.

Our own national museum in Wales has many links with such groups. But one cannot produce a truly national centre without an adequate national focus. Our Welsh pattern has, on the whole, worked well, with one national museum directing the strategy. But whether it is part of a national network, which I believe has advantages, or whether it is free-standing, it must have some national resources to get it going and properly established. The location could well be in the historic, industrial heartland rather than in, or near, Edinburgh; but it should surely be a national enterprise from the outset, and recognised as such.

The other apparent omission, to someone looking from outside, seems to be the equivalent of our Welsh Folk Museum at St. Fagan's. The name "folk museum" has a Scandinavian flavour. It goes so much better into Welsh as Amgueddfa Werin Cymru.

The Earl of Lauderdale

What is that, my Lords?

Baroness White

My Lords, Amgueddfa Werin Cymru. "Werin" in Welsh sounds so much better than "folk" in English. But the concept of a display that brings to life the habits and habitats of our forebears in town and, even more, in country evokes tremendous interest and enthusiasm. It stirs the imagination of child and grown-up alike. It is an active display, much of it outdoors, including buildings that have been appropriately reconstructed on the site of the Folk Museum. To go to the museum is an occasion. It is a day out, and a memorable event. No doubt there are many suitable exhibits already in the Museum of Antiquities and in other museums in Scotland. But it is the concept and its realisation that matter.

Of course, one needs the other, more conventional museums, with their exhibits of cultural, scientific and archaeological interest of nationally and, if possible, internationally acclaimed excellence. But the concept in the Williams Report of a Museum of Scotland that displays the essence of Scottish life and the history of Scotland's own past, of her own people and of the lives that they have led, is surely worth striving for. It must be a national institution. I cannot quite find it in this Bill. I hope I am mistaken. I hope the Minister may be able to reassure us, but it does not seem to me to be there.

What I have said is not intended to denigrate in any way the value of the local museums, some of which are very fine indeed. The Burrell Collection is of course of international status, as has already been stressed. Nor does it detract in any way from the importance of the work of those concerned with the Association of Independent Industrial and Heritage Sites in Scotland. For example, as the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot, knows, I have a very special interest in one of these industrial sites; namely, the prestigious one at New Lanark. Here, many of the buildings constructed in the early 19th century by the renowned industrialist, educationalist and social reformer, Robert Owen, are gradually being put to use. He came from Newtown in Mid-Wales, and returned there at his end. But the work for which he is internationally famous was started and largely accomplished in New Lanark. We have our own very modest Robert Owen Museum in Newtown, but we advise a pilgrimage to New Lanark, which is in Scotland's care and responsibility and which could do with greater support than it has previously had from public funds.

I hope that my remarks have at least demonstrated that concern for the Scottish heritage is not exclusive to Scots, proud though they must be of their own inheritance. I have spoken because I sense anxieties among my Scottish friends and acquaintances. They have been served with reports, with advice, with committees. The times are unpropitious for the action and the resources which are now so urgently needed, particularly with the industrial museum. It is long since that it was observed that bricks cannot be made without straw. One cannot just decree a major reorganisation of national institutions without recognising that certain additional resources are essential if this reorganisation is to be successfully brought about. One needs to will both the end and the means. I trust that the Secretary of State for Scotland will grasp the possibilities and the necessities before him in securing due appreciation of the heritage of Scotland.

6.13 p.m.

Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove

My Lords, I am sure the Minister who opened the debate, the noble Lord, Lord Gray, will have listened with great interest to the various points which were made in the debate. They were all meant to be helpful. However, the general tenor that came through most of them was that perhaps it would have been better if the Bill had awaited the outcome of the report of the advisory board instead of being rushed forward. This came out very clearly, particularly in the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, that consultation with many groups before the Bill was printed had been quite inadequate. Of course it makes it a great deal more difficult for a Government to do anything really radical to a Bill once it has actually been printed. One wonders why it was rushed. Was there a gap in Scottish legislation where the Government thought they could get something in, or were the draftsmen working on this Bill a bit more efficient than those working on another Bill and therefore were able to put this Bill quickly into a slot for Scottish legislation?

The point about the speed with which the Bill was introduced is very clearly illustrated, not merely by the way in which the Society of Antiquaries was treated, which I regard as shameful and insulting, but also in regard to the staff. The Bill was well on the way through Committee before agreement had been reached and proper consultation had taken place with staff.

Here I must mention the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, when he talked about the reduction in the number of civil servants—the 320 civil servants at St. Andrew's House who are going to be struck off the list. Of the two museums which are going to be set free, or put on their own, one has a staff of 163 and the other has a staff of 59. That comes to 222, which means there must be something like 98 people at the Royal Botanic Gardens in Edinburgh. I wonder whether gardeners are included in this, and where this figure comes from. Perhaps at some point the Minister will let us know where these 320 civil servants are coming from. This is important to the extent that we are told that the number of civil servants has been reduced, whereas in actual fact they have merely been shuffled around and their number has not been reduced.

We should welcome the fact that my noble friend Lady White took part in this debate today. She certainly had a considerable amount to offer us. She is a Celt herself, and perhaps that made it that bit easier for her. Among the connections with Wales which she described was the noble Marquess, Lord Bute. Many tributes have been paid in the debate today to his zealousness in preserving Scottish history and Scottish culture. He of course has Welsh connections as well, as also has Dr. Williams, who produced what I think is a very clear and a very good report. It was interesting to hear how the National Museum of Wales works, particularly in respect of the local museums of Wales. Perhaps we may be able to discuss that in a few minutes when we come to consider the question of local museums.

The noble Baroness, Lady Elliot, suggested there was plenty of scope in the Bill for a museum of industry. She is quite correct; there is scope for almost anything in the Bill. However, Alwyn Williams urged quite specifically that there should be a museum of industry in Scotland because of the very important role that industry has played in the growth of Scotland. It is quite true that to many people in many parts of the world the Scottish heritage is just as much a Scot in the engine room—perhaps a Clydesider in the engine room, an Orcadian on the bridge, and Lewismen or Harrismen on the deck; or perhaps the other way round, in case we offend anyone—as the kilted warrior we see so often. Alwyn Williams and his committee were quite clear that an industrial museum of Scotland was of very great importance, but we have had no really definite and positive decision on this by the Secretary of State, though the Under-Secretary did make noises in the Committee as to the attitude the Secretary of State had towards the starting of a museum of industry.

One of the points which the Williams Committee emphasised very strongly was the importance of making available, fairly urgently, storage facilities for gifts and donations from industry all over Scotland in order that they may be kept in some sort of storage, in many cases perhaps even in the open air, or they could perhaps be kept in large sheds until the time of stringency has passed. One assumes that that will not be until after the next election, at least. We need somewhere to put the collections which are beginning to come from yesterday's industry and which are an essential part of the Scottish heritage.

My noble friend Lady White mentioned New Lanark. This is a place which I visit very frequently; I am familiar with New Lanark. It is an incredible piece of Scottish history, with its links with the New World and the Old World, as well as with Wales. It is frequently visited by people from America and Canada. It has done immensely well with very small resources, though one or two industrial firms in the West of Scotland have given it great help. However, it could do with much closer links with the central Scottish museums and perhaps with the Scottish Office.

An important aspect is the great help which New Lanark has received from local associations and other interested bodies. Indeed, that leads me to wonder about the cumbersomeness of perhaps having too big a central control. I know that when one speaks from Glasgow it always appears that one is anti-Edinburgh. But there is the feeling that there is an Edinburgh establishment which may—if the Bill goes through in its present form—be extremely overpowering; and there is the feeling that if there is too big an input from the centre some of the impetus given by local bodies to help local museums could be lost.

In my view, some of the greatest work has been done—and I think that the noble Baroness, Lady White, explained this as regards Wales as well—through the Friends of the People's Palace and the Friends of New Lanark. I am sure that the same applies to the Western Isles and various museums such as the Mining Museum and the Fishing Museum in Aberdeen which was discussed in Committee in another place and of which very little has been heard. Indeed, the idea of a textile museum was mentioned by one of the honourable Members. The Thread Museum in Paisley is probably one of the greatest centres—perhaps the greatest centre—of thread in the whole world. The silk industry of Dunfermline certainly should be recorded in some way because of the great pioneering work done in weaving which took place in areas like Dunfermline. We have an incredibly rich heritage and we should be encouraging interest in it as much as possible.

We are not satisfied—and many of these points are Committee points—that the structure suggested is ideal. We await the report of the Committee of the noble Marquess, Lord Bute, to see just what advice it can give. It is a pity that we now have a printed Bill, because that makes the position a little more difficult—it ties the hands of the Secretary of State, even if he were willing to make important changes in view of the work of the Bute Committee.

I am particularly interested in local museums and the relationship of local museums to the national museums of Scotland. Whenever I go to any part of Scotland, if I have any time to spare, I like to go into the local museums. Some of them are very small and most of them are sustained by local enthusiasts and have very few permanent staff. I am thinking of the museum down in Dumfries, with its camera obscura, and the West Highland Museum at Fort William, which only goes part of the way towards what we want for the western part of Scotland, quite apart from what we want for the Western Isles themselves. The western mainland is very important.

As the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, said, the Campbeltown Museum is fascinating, as is the Paisley Museum. We have the museums in Glasgow, the Kelvingrove Art Gallery, and the Transport Museum. It is interesting that when Kelvinhall is ultimately given up as an exhibition centre when the new Scottish Exhibition Centre opens in Glasgow, part of Kelvinhall will be given over to the Transport Museum. I am convinced that there will be a great increase in attendance there, because there will be two museums side by side and therefore the tendency will be to move from one museum to the other.

Another museum in which I am extremely interested is the People's Palace. Although it appears to be rather out of the way for many people who come to Glasgow, it is not all that far out of the way. The People's Palace is not considered to be one of the major museums, but last year it still managed to attract 200,000 people, which is a fair number for any local museum. It is a museum that has developed enormously in the last few years, and it is well worth looking at if you want to learn something not only of the history of Glasgow, but even of the history of the last 20, 30 or 40 years and see some of the domestic appliances that we all perhaps remember from our childhood days.

The last point that I wish to make—and this will certainly be brought out again in Committee—is the unease that seems to have been expressed by two noble Lords who have spoken—namely, the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, and the noble Lord, Lord Grimond. I agree that both noble Lords said that they had an open mind—and I hope that they keep a very open mind—on the question of admission charges, which is a very serious matter. When my honourable friend Mr. Buchan was speaking about museum charges in another place, he referred to Lady Stair's House in Edinburgh. He said that when there were admission charges the attendance at that place in 1972 was 263. However, after the abolition of the charges, the attendance rose to 898. He gave the figures for various years and he gave the figures for the Cannongate Toll Booth. From the figures, it appeared that roughly four times as many people went through the museum after the charges had been abolished.

No one objects to there being a charge for a special exhibition. For example, Dr. Honeyman, who has already been mentioned, brought the Picasso/Matisse Exhibition to Glasgow and people were willing to travel a long way and pay a little extra in order to see that exhibition. Such an exhibition is quite different from the museum or art gallery which people casually visit. If one has half an hour to spare in Edinburgh, it is very important to be able to nip into the National Gallery and have a walk round, but one might hesitate if one had to pay 25p or 50p in order to do so. Whereas many of your Lordships would not find 25p or 50p or even £1 too difficult to come by, it has been emphasised—and this was brought out in Committee in another place—that for a family to go to a museum, bearing in mind bus fares, the entrance fee to the museum and perhaps a cup of tea or something like that for the kids in a restaurant, one would be talking about £10, £.15 or perhaps £20 for a single day out, and that is really beyond them. I hope that we shall be able to discuss this matter at some length when we come to the Committee stage of the Bill.

I think that the way in which the Government have left the situation is just not satisfactory. Merely to say that it will be left to the museum authorities to decide whether there shall be a charge or not is not really good enough, because the Government would always be able to cut off the supply of funds to the museum and say, "Well, you have an alternative: you can charge". We should have a slightly more definite lead from the Government; they should say that museum charges will not be permissible unless—as was said in Committee—there is permission from the Secretary of State and that permission would only be given if there were a special exhibition or if there were very special reasons.

I hope that the Minister will look at some of the points that we have made. I look forward to a very interesting Committee stage. If what has been said by those who have taken part in our debate today is anything to go by, it would seem that the Bill that will leave this House will be considerably better than the one that we are considering at present.

6.29 p.m.

Lord Gray of Contin

My Lords, we have had a very interesting and very useful debate. I am encouraged by the number of noble Lords who have participated. There is no doubt at all that this Bill has raised a great deal of enthusiasm in Scotland. During my period in another place and, indeed, since I came to your Lordships' House, I have had dealings with many lobbies, but I do not think that I have found a more effective lobby than that which is acting on behalf of the Society of Antiquaries for Scotland.

Indeed, my noble friend Lord Lauderdale, in an impassioned plea on behalf of the Society of Antiquaries, made many points with which I am bound to say I found it very difficult to disagree. As the society is bound to crop up from time to time during our discussions, I should like the whole House to know that the Government hold the Society of Antiquaries in the highest regard and respect, and if it thinks that it has in any way been slighted, that is a matter of very great regret and if indeed any such thing took place, there was certainly no such intention.

I hope that, by my announcement in my opening remarks, at this very early stage in the discussions on the Bill, of my decision to move an appropriate amendment at the Committee stage, your Lordships will be reassured of my strong feelings and the strong feelings of the Government on this matter.

Lord Grimond

My Lords, will the noble Lord give way? He has referred twice to the amendment which he intends to move. Will that amendment give the Society of Antiquaries representation on the board? Is that what the amendment says?

Lord Gray of Contin

My Lords, the amendment will ensure that there will be representation for the Society of Antiquaries on the board. It will not give the society itself the right to appoint a fellow to the board. I would suggest that the noble Lord waits until he sees the amendment, but I think he will find that it will go a long way towards achieving what he and his friends have in mind.

I feel that the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, who is never slow to be critical of proposed Government legislation, was struggling a little—that is, for him, anyway—when he spoke this evening. There is not the sort of objectionable content in the Bill which he hopes to find in any Bill which comes in for his scrutiny. I felt that the noble Lord was a little pushed to find matters to which he could take exception.

The noble Lord suggested that the Museum of Scotland should be free-standing. One of the other topics we are bound to spend a certain amount of time discussing as we go through the Bill is the Museums Advisory Board. The noble Lord, Lord Ross, said that the Bill should have been held back until such time as the board had completed its deliberations, and the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, said the same.

However, it is because there has been a degree of uncertainty over the future of the national museums that we are anxious to make early progress to establish the new trustee board. In any case, the Bill provides only the broad framework within which the new board will operate. I think that the noble Lord was wrong to assume that the Government will decide on how the museums should be developed in the future. That will be for the museums board itself to determine, bearing in mind the recommendations which will come from the Museums Advisory Board.

To some extent the Museums Advisory Board is very important. That I accept. But I do not think it is in any way a disadvantage that, to some extent, we are presenting an enabling Bill which will be used to interpret the recommendations of the board in due course. It is much better that we proceed that way than sit back and wait until such time as the board considers—

Lord Ross of Marnock

My Lords, will the noble Lord give way?

Lord Gray of Contin

My Lords, I shall give way to the noble Lord with pleasure. We cannot win with the noble Lord. If we had sat back and waited until all those deliberations were completed, he would then have accused us of wasting time and asked us why we were not getting on with it. I give way to the noble Lord with pleasure.

Lord Ross of Marnock

My Lords, I would never do a thing like that. It is all very well having an enabling Bill, but what will it enable us to do? We are not in the dark, we are in limbo until this board reports. While I am on my feet, perhaps I could raise one other matter. The noble Lord said something about the Museum of Scotland being free-standing. I hope that we shall not be told that it will not be free-standing Was that the implication of the noble Lord's remark?

Lord Gray of Contin

My Lords, no. The noble Lord should have stopped at the end of his first comment and allowed me to proceed because I was just coming to that very point. However, I shall deal with it now. The title "Museum of Scotland" was one which was suggested by the Williams Committee. However, it has not been adopted in any way for formal purposes. It will be for the Museums Advisory Board to recommend whether separate titles are required for individual parts of the new museum structure. As I have already indicated, at the moment we regard the Museum of Scotland as a concept rather than as anything as concrete as the name of a particular part of the museum's complex or even a particular building. The advisory board will also be offering recommendations on exactly how that concept should be taken forward. That is why I specifically mention the advisory board at this stage.

The noble Lord also mentioned the museum of industry. The noble Baroness, Lady White—who I would like to welcome most warmly to a Scottish debate and say how much we appreciated and enjoyed the contribution she made—also referred to this matter. The Williams Committee's recommendation was for a free-standing national museum of industry administered by a separate trust body. As I have already indicated, the Government take the view that all national museum developments should take place within the framework of the national museums which this Bill will establish.

The basis for a national museum of industry to some extent already exists within the collections of the existing national museums, and it will be for the board of trustees to determine what further developments may be desirable or practicable to provide a focus in the national museums on the history of industrial and related developments in Scotland and what links might be established with industrial heritage sites in Scotland. The Museums Advisory Board is studying the position closely and we shall await its recommendations. However, as I have indicated, museum opinion has in general moved away from the Williams Committee's proposal for a free-standing museum of industry.

The noble Lord, Lord Ross, mentioned the figure of £100,000 available, not to museums, but to the PSA for fabric. In my opening speech I referred to the extra sum of £330,000 which will be available to the national museums for 1985–86. That is in addition to extra resources which my right honourable friend has made available for the fabric of the museums buildings through the PSA.

The noble Lord also asked about accommodation. The Government have said that they will give priority to the needs of the national museums in the direction of funds from the capital programme for the national institutions over the coming years. However, before we can make any commitment to specific developments or to a starting date for construction or adaptation work, we need a full assessment from the Museums Advisory Board of the accommodation requirements of the museums, taking into account the new museum structure which the board will be recommending.

The noble Lord, Lord Ross, also asked me when the advisory board report will be available. I can tell the noble Lord that we anticipate it will be available by May of this year. As to the report which is to be produced by the working party of the Museums and Galleries Commission under Professor Miles, that is an investigation into the non-national museums and galleries in Scotland and therefore is not directly relevant to what we are discussing in this Bill.

Lord Ross of Marnock

But when?

Lord Gray of Contin

I cannot give the noble Lord the date for that. I have given him the answer to the first question he asked me, which was May of this year. The noble Lord, Lord Grimond, asked about trustees and what changes are expected at the Royal Botanic Garden. The establishment of trustees under the Bill does not represent a policy to alter radically the excellent work carried out by the garden. We are concerned primarily with an appropriate structure, embodied in statute for the first time in the garden's history, which is efficient and flexible and offers the garden more control over its own affairs. We hope that this will lead to policy initiatives from the new board which reflect the areas of expertise and experience which trustees can contribute to the garden's continued development.

The noble Lord also asked me about Inverleith House. The decision by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland to place Inverleith House under the management of the Royal Botanic Garden is extremely important for the latter's functions of providing education and amenity. There is to be an exhibition relating to the centenary of the Scottish Office held there during the summer of 1985, but thereafter the trustees will promote standing exhibitions concerning their work and related matters. There will also be room for occasional exhibitions promoted by others. This is one of the areas where I expect the trustees to bring imaginative ideas, especially when we consider that the Inverleith Garden is in the top three most visited attractions in the whole of Scotland.

The noble Lord, Lord Grimond, also asked me about St. Ninian's Treasure, and the treasures which could be returned to local museums. I can confirm to him that the Bill provides powers under which the National Museum's Trustees may loan, or possibly transfer, such items to museums in the areas with which the items are especially associated. The noble Lord asked me what will happen to civil servants who are transferred. This point was also raised by the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, and I think the noble Lord, Lord Ross.

The noble Lord, Lord Grimond, is correct in thinking that the civil servants presently running the Royal Scottish Museum and the Royal Botanic Garden will be expected to transfer to the employment of the new boards of trustees. We have included in the Bill provisions to safeguard the rights of those staff. Most, if not all of them, we expect will transfer. There are presently 169 staff employed at the Royal Scottish Museum and 150 at the Royal Botanic Garden. They are not, as the noble Lord seemed to imply, general administrative civil servants inside the Scottish Office but principally specialists who will move with the jobs.

The noble Lord, Lord Ross, asked me about the need for more aid to local museums. I would add to what I have previously said that on the general question of relief to local museums we have announced an increase of 40 per cent. in the funding for the Scottish Museums Council which offers help and advice to non-national museums and galleries throughout Scotland, and that is for 1985–86.

The noble Lord, Lord Grimond, and my noble friend Lady Elliot raised the question why was "historical" not included among the list of interests. This point was also raised by my noble friend Lord Lauderdale. We are satisfied that historical interests can be properly covered by the existing list in paragraph 3(3) of Schedule 1. This was never intended to be an exhaustive list, and we are content that there is no need to make any further amendment here, although I make it clear to your Lordships that I am prepared to look at this carefully and consider what may develop at the next stage of this Bill.

My noble friend Lady Elliot also raised the question of the importance of the Society of Antiquaries, about which I have already spoken. I do not think that I need say more about that at the moment except that I shall be tabling an appropriate amendment to deal with the point which is still causing them some concern. The noble Baroness also asked about the loss of Scottish identity in any new structure, and the need for more space. I can assure the noble Baroness that there is no danger whatsoever that the Museum of Scotland concept will be lost sight of when the two existing national museums are brought together. We have made it clear that our commitment to this concept is absolutely central to the action we are taking in relation to the museums, and the Museums Advisory Board is also well aware of the priority we attach to this.

The noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, to whom I was indebted for being as good as his word and making a brief contribution—and I am particularly glad that he made a contribution because I know that he has a fellow feeling with me, having done this very job during the period of the last Labour Government—asked about the need to extend the concept to areas outwith the central belt, and the need for links with local authority museums. He felt that the Bill was silent on that point. The noble Lord was not quite correct in saying that no reference is included in the Bill to the work of the national museums and their attitudes to local museums. An amendment was made in another place to Clause 2(1)(d) to clarify the powers of the new board in this area.

My noble friend Lord Lauderdale asked me about the treatment of the Society of Antiquaries, and I have dealt with that point. I felt that he was a little harsh on the Government in his comments, but since he has left his place I shall not say any more than that at this moment. The noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, who indicated to me that he would have to leave early, spoke about the geographical spread of trustees from the regions of Scotland. The question of geographical balance will be taken into account among other matters considered when my right honourable friend comes to appoint the trustees of the new board.

The noble Baroness, Lady White, to whom I referred a little earlier, gave the example of the National Museum of Wales and told us a little about that. She was right to draw the attention of your Lordships' House to the example of the National Museum of Wales in setting up a number of specialist outstations throughout the Principality. This is in many ways an admirable example to follow. I am sure that both the Museums Advisory Board and the Trustee Board which follows it will take full account of what has happened in Wales when they come to consider what developments they might pursue in Scotland. I am grateful to her for drawing our attention to what has taken place there.

The noble Baroness also asked why there was no Scottish folk museum. I can tell her that there is already a substantial collection of artefacts relating to both town and country life in Scotland held in the National Museum of Antiquities. The museum already runs a specific agricultural museum on the Royal Highland Showground at Ingliston near Edinburgh. The new board of trustees will certainly be able to use these collections as a basis for some sort of parallel with the admirable Welsh Folk Museum, to which the noble Baroness referred.

The noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, in his now accustomed position of winding up the debate for the Opposition, made a number of comments. As so often happens on these occasions, many of them I have already touched upon because in his wind-up he was picking up points that had been raised during the debate. He was particularly concerned about civil servants, which also concerned the noble Lord, Lord Grimond. I hope that he is satisfied with what I said in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, about the way in which civil servants will be handled.

In closing, I should like to revert to my earlier remarks about the framework we are producing in this Bill for the National Museum of Scotland. It is particularly important to ensure that the framework we create will stand the test of time. We believe that this Bill has that quality. I am grateful to noble Lords for contributing to the debate.

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