§ 2.45 p.m.
§ Lord Skidelsky asked Her Majesty's Government:
§ In view of the assurance given by the British Museum trustees to the House of Commons on 17th December 1959 that the bequest of Bernard Shaw to the British Museum would be "used primarily for the benefit of the Library", what steps they intend to take to ensure that this assurance is honoured.
§ Lord McIntosh of HaringeyMy Lords, I must tell the noble Lord that I took tea with George Bernard Shaw in the summer of 1940. He did not vouchsafe his intentions to me, partly because he had not finalised his will but partly because I was only seven years old at the time.
The formal position is that George Bernard Shaw's bequest to the trustees of the British Museum is unrestricted. The trustees therefore have discretion over the use to which such funds are put. They have decided that the immediate priority for the Shaw Fund should be to underwrite the refurbishment of, and provision of access to, the Reading Room as part of the British Museum's Great Court project. The Reading Room, recently vacated by the British Library, will contain, after refurbishment, an information centre for the public and a public reference library.
We consider that this is an appropriate use of the Shaw Fund which is wholly consistent with George Bernard Shaw's intentions. However, we expect that once the Great Court project has been completed, the British Museum trustees will honour the decision of the trustees in 1959, reported to the House of Commons by Sir Edward Boyle, that the fund would in due course be used primarily for the use of the Library.
§ Lord SkidelskyMy Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply, and in particular for his encouraging words 665 in the latter part of it. But the noble Lord will know that over the years the trustees of the British Museum have—shall we say?—been rather niggardly in honouring Bernard Shaw's manifest intentions, despite the promise that was given to Sir Edward Boyle in 1959, as reported to another place. What steps do the Government propose to take if this situation were allowed to continue?
§ Lord McIntosh of HaringeyMy Lords, the noble Lord is quite right. Over the period since 1973, and the British Library Act, Library acquisitions have gained only £23,000 a year from the Shaw Fund. I can assure the noble Lord that if the trustees were to renege on the decision of 1959 we would not shrink from legislative action.
§ Lord StrabolgiMy Lords, what is the total amount of funds now standing in the Shaw bequest?
§ Lord McIntosh of HaringeyMy Lords, the total figure is just under £7 million, although of course there is a substantial commitment of guarantee towards the Great Court scheme. Fortunately the European Union has encouraged us, indeed forced us, to extend the period of copyright for 70 years. Therefore there are 22 years still to run.
§ Lord QuirkMy Lords, may I raise a question as one who serves on the governing body of the Royal Academy of Dramatic Art, which is one of the three residuary legatees that Shaw intended to benefit equally from his will? Is the Minister aware that the RADA annual reports show that we, one of the three residuary legatees, received £2.1 million just since 1993 from this source? Surely the amount at £23,000 a year that is currently going to the British Library, even given the expression "in due course", is rather niggardly in comparison?
§ Lord McIntosh of HaringeyMy Lords, I am of course aware, as I have George Bernard Shaw's will in front of me, that the Royal Academy of Dramatic Art was one of the three residuary legatees. However, I am not aware of the use which it has made of its funds. The British Museum trustees from an early stage built up an endowment rather than spending the money on an annual basis.
§ Lord AnnanMy Lords, can the Minister say precisely what is the present value of the Shaw Fund, and what income it will receive each year from the Shaw estate? The noble Lord will no doubt recollect that, several years ago, when the British Library asked for funds to purchase Ellen Terry's letters to Shaw, it was met with a prevaricating answer. Any attempt to ascertain the precise state of the Shaw Fund became impossible because the trustees of the British Museum had merged that trust fund with all other trust funds from the point of view of investment. Is the Minister aware that refurbishment of the Reading Room could take a very long time and cost whatever the British Museum cares to charge against that particular account? 666 Therefore I share the doubts expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, as to whether the assurance given at the end of the Minister's statement is of great value.
§ Lord McIntosh of HaringeyMy Lords, I am sorry that the noble Lord should think that. I believed that I was unequivocal in expressing for the first time the Government's views about what should happen to the Shaw Fund. I have already said that there is almost £7 million in the Shaw Fund. I do not know what will accrue to the fund in the future. Nobody knows. There could be a revival of "My Fair Lady" or another musical based on a Shaw play.
As to the cost and timing of the Great Court scheme, it is planned that the scheme will be completed in about 18 months' time. Most of the funding has already been obtained from other sources. So the guarantee that has been given from the Shaw Fund is a minor part of the total funding. We hope that as little of it as possible will need to be used.
Lord Campbell of CroyMy Lords, for those of us who are not familiar with the details of this bequest, will the Minister clarify whether continuing royalties for recent or future productions of Shaw's plays will accrue to the fund? Also, will they accrue from general sales of his work, and from musicals?
§ Lord McIntosh of HaringeyMy Lords, the answer to both questions is yes.