The next item of business is a debate on motion S4M-08577, in the name of Joan McAlpine, on the Burrell Collection (Lending and Borrowing) (Scotland) Bill. Overall, we have a bit of time in hand in the debate. We will make up for interventions by giving members more speaking time.
I call Joan McAlpine to speak to and move the motion on behalf of the Burrell Collection (Lending and Borrowing) (Scotland) Bill Committee.
14:13
I thank the clerks, the Scottish Parliament information centre staff, my committee colleagues, who helped to scrutinise the bill, and everyone who gave evidence on it.
The Burrell collection is an outstanding vision of international significance, and after careful consideration of the wide range of oral and written evidence, the Burrell Collection (Lending and Borrowing) (Scotland) Bill Committee is firm in its belief that the time has come to allow it to be seen by a wider audience. Indeed, I believe that we have a duty to the people of Glasgow and the people of Scotland to promote the collection, which is a hidden treasure.
The Burrell collection opened in 1993 and at first had 1 million visitors a year. Sadly, that figure has diminished dramatically; it is now down to fewer than a quarter of a million visitors. As Dr Bridget McConnell pointed out in her evidence to the committee, the collection is still relatively unknown both here and internationally. Amending the 1944 bequest to allow a significant and, probably, once-in-a-lifetime world tour will help to raise awareness of it both at home and abroad. It is hoped that such a tour will also help to facilitate future preservation of the collection by engagement with the international community’s art institutions on research, conservation and mutually beneficial loans.
I was impressed with the evidence that Sir Angus Grossart, who is one of Scotland’s foremost art collectors, gave to the committee. He has been very involved in advising Glasgow Life on its plans. Speaking of the proposed tour, he told us:
“This is a chance to engage with a wider range of institutions, including those to which we are not sending the loan exhibition.”—[Official Report, Burrell Collection (Lending and Borrowing) (Scotland) Bill Committee; 9 September 2013; c 42.]
He spoke of the opportunities for scholarship and profile raising that can result from loan offers. In fact, wider engagement by the public, scholarship, conservation, fundraising, awareness raising, profile raising and tourism were all frequently cited as potential benefits that can accrue from lending.
There is also the practical and very immediate problem that the building that houses the collection is in urgent need of refurbishment and does not, in its current condition, provide a safe environment. The committee witnessed at first hand the regrettable condition of the building, which is strewn with tarpaulins in order to prevent further water ingress. Several exhibits have been removed from display to prevent water damage, and it is estimated that only about 2,000 of the 9,000 items in the collection can be displayed at any one time. The prospect of the extra capacity that would be provided through refurbishment and the opportunity that that would bring to display items that are currently inaccessible to the public are very welcome.
As with any capital project, financial costs figured significantly in the discussions surrounding the refurbishment. The promoters have argued that a tour of the Burrell collection could raise approximately £15 million of the estimated £45 million cost of the refurbishment. Although the committee is not fully convinced that it is possible to estimate revenue with any degree of certainty at this stage, we accept that a contribution is likely to be raised by promoting the collection globally. We are not convinced that that contribution will amount to £15 million, but I emphasise the strong feeling that the issue at hand is about raising not money but the profile of the collection. The bill is not about judging Glasgow City Council on how much money it will spend on refurbishment; it is about the principle of lending and promoting the collection.
It is indisputable that William Burrell was very much in favour of the principle of lending. We know that he wanted to share the collection through loans, and it was often pointed out during evidence sessions that Burrell himself was a considerable lender. The focus of the committee’s decision has, therefore, not been on whether Sir William would have been in favour of lending his collection—we know that he was—but on whether it is safe nowadays to lend outside Britain.
In the bequest in 1944, Sir William stipulated that he would not allow any of his works to be loaned overseas. As a shipping magnate, he was all too aware of how the works that he had collected might be damaged in transit at that time. However, Sir Peter Hutchison, the chair of the Burrell trustees, has put forward the argument that, on the whole, transportation is now much safer than it used to be and that although risk cannot be eliminated, it can be mitigated. We found that to be a convincing argument. As a result, the committee was persuaded that it is sometimes appropriate to depart from the wishes of benefactors, particularly if the circumstances that led them to adopt a certain position have changed.
We have heard convincing arguments that Burrell wished to promote access to his collection as long as it was not placed in danger. The committed noted, however, valid concerns relating to transportation of particularly fragile works such as pastels and textiles. Indeed, we were so concerned about the matter that we elected to take further evidence on it. Having taken further expert evidence, we concluded that decisions regarding the lending of certain items should be taken case by case.
Crucially, the bill provides for the preparation of a lending code to be agreed by Glasgow City Council and the Burrell trustees, which will set out the basis on which new powers for lending and borrowing can be exercised. That will offer another layer of protection for fragile items. The code should safeguard against excessive and overcommercial lending and against very fragile items being put at unreasonable risk. After an initial tour, lending decisions would be based primarily on scholarship and the opportunity for conservation. Moreover, the committee recognises that Glasgow Museums is an experienced lender and we were told in evidence that it has an impressive record with regard to lending and borrowing a great number of items without having made a single insurance claim.
In recommending that the bill be passed, the committee and Parliament are placing their trust in the promoter to take great care of the collection and to ensure that the refurbishment that has been used as an argument in favour of the bill does, indeed, take place.
Sir William Burrell was a pragmatic man. We have established that he was not against the principle of touring or lending, and was very much in favour of the promotion of his collection. Although Britain might in many senses have been at the centre of the world while Sir William lived, that is no longer the reality, and the kind of museums that the promoter is talking about touring the collection to are world class.
By all accounts, the state of the building that currently houses the collection is now critical, and given that the estimated length of the refurbishment period is four years, the fact is that the collection must be moved somewhere. Under the terms of Burrell’s bequest, works can be moved around Great Britain, so it can be presumed that he accepted the risks that are inherent in transportation of items. If we take that into account, along with the scientific and technological advances that have been made, which we heard about in evidence, it seems reasonable to suggest that, on balance, Sir William Burrell would not be opposed to the principle of the bill.
I move,
That the Parliament agrees that the Burrell Collection (Lending and Borrowing) (Scotland) Bill be passed.
Fiona Hyslop has six minutes, but we will be generous.
14:20
In my role as Cabinet Secretary for Culture and External Affairs, I want to offer some final thoughts on the provisions of the Burrell Collection (Lending and Borrowing) (Scotland) Bill and the impact that it will have on the Burrell collection.
As members will be aware, the Burrell collection is one of the most prominent and varied collections in Scotland. It is, without doubt, a collection of international significance in terms of the history of art and antiquities. The 9,000-strong collection was assembled by Sir William Burrell as he travelled widely around the world. As we have heard, in 1944 he gifted his remarkable collection to the city of Glasgow, along with the funds to erect a new building within which to house his treasures. Now, nearly 70 years after his bequest, the bill aims to secure the long-term sustainability of that building and to look at new ways of promoting his collections to a wider audience, thereby allowing more people to learn about and enjoy them than ever before.
The bill has been considered by the committee and by Parliament in the preliminary stage debate. Throughout much of the bill’s consideration, it has been clear to me that the main concerns have been the very sensitive issue of overturning some of the express wishes of Sir William Burrell; what will happen to the items that he so carefully collected—some of which are fragile and delicate, and many of which are priceless and irreplaceable; and the increased risk of harm to those items if they are allowed to be loaned internationally to other institutions.
The committee did a thorough job of considering those sensitive issues as part of its analysis of the evidence. As well as weighing up the risks and opportunities that the bill offers, the members of the committee looked back at Sir William Burrell’s lifetime and asked themselves what he might have done were he faced with the same questions today, in a world in which science and technology are markedly different to what he knew.
The committee’s analysis led it to conclude that Burrell was a lender who wanted to share his collection with the people, not just in Glasgow and Scotland, but further afield through loans within Great Britain. The preliminary debate did not find any fault with the committee’s acceptance of the bill’s proposals, and we are now at the final stage of the bill’s passage.
This Government believes that cultural participation can be increased by maximising the number and range of people who see collections. Encouraging visits and the enjoyment of museums is a key aim of “Going Further: The National Strategy for Scotland’s Museums and Galleries”; allowing lending from the Burrell collection is consistent with that aim. Lending from the collection and borrowing by the collection could be done only in agreement with the Burrell trustees on a case-by-case basis. A tour and lending of individual items would bring the collection to the attention of an international audience and would enable people from all over the world to see and appreciate it, thus raising its profile and putting Glasgow—and Scotland—on an international stage.
This year of homecoming, when the eyes of the world are on Scotland for the Commonwealth games and the Ryder cup, is an opportunity for all Scotland’s cultural institutions to build on their already impressive international image. The proposed ability of the Burrell collection to lend and tour is a great example of that. The bill will enable the collection to promote Scotland and will enable awareness of the collection to be raised while the building is refurbished to display more of the 9,000 works of art that it holds.
The committee’s report and the preliminary debate considered the risks to care and preservation that are posed by the prospect of international transportation of art works. The bill committee’s meticulous report balanced those criticisms against the benefits that could be achieved by increasing access to the collection and raising the funds to support restoration of the building. It is worth noting that the evidence suggests that damage occurs during packing and unpacking of items—something that would happen whether an item was being transported across Glasgow or to the other side of the world, or being stored away while a building was refurbished.
As I have said previously, we can see from the massive success of the Scottish national portrait gallery, the national museum of Scotland and, in Glasgow, the Kelvingrove museum refurbishment and the new Riverside transport museum, what can be achieved by investing in cultural institutions and bringing our museums up to date for the 21st century: it results in soaring visitor numbers and increased customer satisfaction. Given its significance, it seems only logical that the Burrell collection should be next.
The Scottish Government thanks Parliament for its consideration of the bill and supports the bill’s being passed. With that, I bring my remarks to a close, and record again my thanks to the bill committee. Private bill committees are a frequently unsung role and responsibility of Parliament, but private bills are as much a part of parliamentary democracy as bills that are introduced by committees or, indeed, by the Government. I thank the committee members for the diligence and duty that they demonstrated under the stewardship of Joan McAlpine.
We move to open debate. Two members have indicated that they wish to speak. Gordon MacDonald and Mark Griffin have generous time: you have a minimum of four minutes.
14:26
Thank you, Presiding Officer.
Before we pass the Burrell Collection (Lending and Borrowing) (Scotland) Bill, it is important to highlight some of the concerns that members of the public still have about the bill and the refurbishment project. In relation to lending and borrowing, I can see the merits of being able to tour a small number of items for one-off exhibitions during the closure period. I also accept that lending or borrowing individual items may assist interpretation or complement the collection.
However, some people see it differently. The following online comment expresses another view on the proposed new lending and borrowing powers:
“Sir William’s overriding concern was not, that he did not want items sent overseas because he feared that they would be at risk during transportation; rather, Sir William’s overriding concern was that the collection was kept intact as a meaningful collection. The collection was the man’s life work. The collection—in its entirety—told the story of the development of human civilisation: from ancient Egypt and China through to the works of the French Impressionists and the Glasgow Boys. The collection was to be his legacy, because it represented his own unique view of human history, and he wanted people to understand that. The collection was how he would live on after he died, and to this end he tried to ensure that the collection would remain intact long after he was gone.”
Does Gordon MacDonald accept that although William Burrell wanted the collection to be kept together and to be shown to the public, the condition of the building just now is such that many items in the collection have never been shown to the public and that one of the ways to deal with that while the building is being refurbished is to allow the items to be seen outwith Scotland?
Yes—I totally accept James Dornan’s point. Of the 9,000 items in the collection, only about 2,000 are on display at any particular time and the collection has not been refreshed for many years.
Regardless of what Sir William Burrell’s reasons were for not wanting the collection to tour, we as a committee accepted the need for change. However, there are issues relating to the Burrell gallery refurbishment that can be addressed by Glasgow City Council in order to alleviate some of the other concerns. The council should outline how it arrived at the £45 million refurbishment cost and what it hopes that level of investment will achieve. During the evidence session that was held at Pollok house we heard that the aims are to replace the roof, to increase the gallery space by 20 per cent by creating a new picture gallery in the underused lecture theatre, and to upgrade the facilities. Would that really cost £45 million?
Then, there is the question of funding. The council has stated that it will fund a third of the cost, the lottery will fund another third and donations and sponsorship will provide the other £15 million. Less than 7 per cent of the cost of the new Riverside museum, which opened in 2011, was raised from donations and sponsorship, yet the council expects to raise a third of the cost of the Burrell collection refurbishment from commercial sources—in the current economic climate. What will happen if that funding is not found? Will the council use the £15 million that was earmarked for the aborted George Square refurbishment to close the gap?
Another issue is the timing of the refurbishment, which is due to start in 2016. What will happen between now and then? Will the gallery remain open for that two-year period? What steps will the council take to protect the items that are on display during that time? Consideration also has to be given to the 200,000 people, many from overseas, who visit the gallery every year. During the estimated four-year closure period, will the council provide a temporary display area for the collection so that the city continues to benefit from it? One option may be to use the McLellan galleries, which have been closed for 10 years but were recently brought back into temporary use by the Royal Glasgow Institute of the Fine Arts, which hosted its 152nd annual exhibition there in December.
The Burrell collection was left to the people of Glasgow, and it is now time that the council informed its citizens what its detailed plans are for refurbishment of the Burrell gallery.
14:31
I welcome the opportunity to speak in the final debate on the Burrell Collection (Lending and Borrowing) (Scotland) Bill. I take the opportunity, as I did in the preliminary stage debate, to thank the witnesses for taking the time to submit evidence in writing and in person; the committee clerks for pulling together lists of potential witnesses, compiling and distributing written submissions and giving legal advice on different aspects of the proposal; the committee’s convener for the smooth running of committee meetings and the consensual approach to the proposal; and the promoter for accommodating the guided tour of the Burrell collection and being flexible with some of the committee’s requests.
The Burrell collection is a large collection of art and artefacts, although people do not grasp and appreciate just how large it is until they visit the art stores underneath the displays and see the sheer volume of items that are not on display. Sir William Burrell gifted the collection to the Corporation of the City of Glasgow in 1944, and items were added to the collection by the Sir William Burrell Trust, which was established by Sir William’s will, when he died in 1958.
The Burrell collection is housed in a custom-designed building in Pollok country park. As a result of a poorly designed roof, members of staff are constantly moving exhibits to protect them from water damage. Large exhibition spaces are closed to the public, which restricts the space that is available for displaying items, and the tarpaulins that have been arranged into giant green funnels to direct water into wheelie bins do not add to the atmosphere of a gallery that houses magnificent and priceless works of art.
Water continues to leak through the roof because the source of the leak—or, probably, multiple sources—cannot be identified. After the water has penetrated the roof, it is absorbed by the layer of insulation that sits underneath until that is saturated, and water then leaks out at random points throughout the building, threatening items in the collection. That means that staff are always on the look out for new sources of water running along ceiling beams or down walls, rather than speaking to members of the public to offer advice about interpretation of the pieces of art that are on display. Many experts have stated that the water could cause disastrous damage to fragile artworks but, similarly, the repeated moving of exhibitions and pieces of art because of the water also creates increased risks of wear and tear.
Another issue is control of humidity, air pressure and air temperature for the collection, which are critical in preservation of works of art. That is made much more difficult when a layer of wet insulation sits on the roof. I can understand that from an engineering perspective.
The key question is whether we as a Parliament feel that it is appropriate for us to approve of altering the will of someone who is no longer here. That is not about borrowing or lending, because Sir William Burrell made it clear that he approved of borrowing and lending in the United Kingdom, The alteration is about the power to borrow and lend overseas. There is a precedent from other trusts, which gave evidence that they had disregarded some benefactors’ wishes for what they described as “practical” reasons. Refurbishment of the Burrell collection’s building falls firmly into the category of practical reasons.
It has been speculated that, because of his considerable shipping expertise, Sir William Burrell was uncomfortable with his treasured items travelling by boat, because any number of items could be lost in a sea disaster. It is impossible to know why he made the stipulation in his will, but insurers and transporters stated that art transport has—understandably—changed dramatically since his time.
Today, the biggest risks when transporting pieces of art arise when they are packed and unpacked—that point has been touched on—so lending and borrowing in the UK carry similar risk to lending overseas. A risk is also presented when pieces of art are taken down from wall displays and moved to different locations because of water ingress in the collection building. There is a balance to be struck in considering whether items might be safer in foreign museums, which would allow for the refurbishment that will mean that items could be brought back.
As I have said, it is impossible to second-guess the motives for the stipulation in the will. However, given the requirement to carry out works in the collection building, I ask Parliament to support the bill at decision time.
14:37
I, too, congratulate Joan McAlpine on how she spoke to the motion and convened the committee. I thank the clerks and all those who gave evidence to the committee.
No objections to the bill were received. We passed the preliminary stage without any disagreement and no amendments were lodged at the consideration stage. With a great deal of consensus, we have moved forward to the final stage today.
I well remember the Burrell collection opening in 1983 in Glasgow’s Pollok park—a wonderful lung in the centre of the city, which the Stirling Maxwell family donated to the city in perpetuity. The park also plays host to the activities of the young ladies of Craigholme school for girls, who whack hockey sticks around at one end of it; to the dog and mounted divisions of Police Scotland; and to various sports clubs.
In the heart of the park, Her Majesty the Queen opened the Burrell collection building in 1983. It is a citadel of aluminium, glass, concrete and red sandstone—
Neil Findlay (Lothian) (Lab) rose—
I am building up, Mr Findlay—do not spoil the illusion. It was like the city of Oz on a gleaming hill when it opened and it attracted all manner of people, many of whom had never visited an art collection before.
I am glad that Jackson Carlaw remembers that. Given that Mr Griffin was not born at that time, perhaps Jackson Carlaw can tell him about it.
Mr Findlay invites me to do something that I was planning to undertake in any event.
I lived near the building and it stimulated in me—along with many other people—a tremendous interest in the arts. What Sir William donated to the city, which is now contained in the Burrell collection building in Pollok park, is probably one of the finest individual collections ever to be assembled anywhere in the world. It is hugely eclectic in nature and includes Egyptian artefacts; a very fine Chinese collection; medieval suits of armour; one of the world’s largest collections—which I found on my tour of the items in the basement that are rarely displayed—of Tudor bed frames, which is perhaps not the most exciting draw that one can imagine; its pastels; and the fantastic Degas collection.
I remember, as a young man, being struck by Boudin’s “The Beach at Trouville”, which shows the Empress Eugénie promenading there. I remember buying a print of it, which stimulated in me a desire to visit the Galerie Nationale du Jeu de Paume in Paris, where all the impressionist paintings were gathered at that time before they were moved to the Musée d’Orsay.
I am sure that, for other people too, the Burrell collection stimulated interest in arts in the widest possible sense. In addition to the things I have mentioned, the collection contains the Warwick vase, a fine collection of bronzes including busts by Rodin, and a tremendous collection of Turkish carpets, which I have to say looked a bit gloomy to me as a young man of 24. It has terrific collections of tapestries and wonderful stained glass, and, from Sir William’s own home, four rooms that were imported in their entirety into the fabric of the building.
It was one of the most exciting new museums of its time, but sadly tastes and times change. For all that we would have wished—as other members have said—that the building had proved to be more robust, the committee was persuaded that a phased renovation of the Burrell collection would simply not be possible because of the membranous nature of the roof, which has absorbed so much water and moisture that it is leaking at points that are unrelated to the originating point of any leak. The building must now undergo a major renovation.
It is also fair to say that what was new and exciting in display and presentation in 1983 is far less so today, and that the museum’s attendance figures have fallen sharply over the years. The committee was persuaded that the building needs to be renovated, so the question then was whether to accede to the council’s wish to vary the terms of Sir William’s will in order that the collection could travel internationally.
Sir William never had any objection to the collection being lent elsewhere in the United Kingdom, but at the time when he made his bequest, he specifically stated that he did not wish it to travel internationally. We were in no position other than to try to consider what was underpinning the terms of Sir William’s bequest at that point, and we were reasonably satisfied, given that he had no objection to the collection being lent, that his principal concern was that international travel at that time was such that there was a very real risk of the collection or parts of it being lost if it were to be toured internationally.
That was then; this is now. We heard from many witnesses, some of whom are involved in transporting arts and antiquities, who are satisfied that we could now allow that variation to take place without undue risk to the collection.
People who have made representations—which, it is interesting to note, are still coming in from those who are concerned—have objected in essence to one of two things. First, they point to examples of artefacts’ having been damaged in transit without appreciating that, nine times out of 10, the damage has been done by porters in the museum in which the exhibit currently rests when moving it from one part of the museum to the other, rather than because of anything related to international travel.
Secondly, a slightly academic argument began about whether we were setting a precedent for bequests in general and the terms that are associated with them by agreeing to variation of Sir William Burrell’s bequest. We took evidence on that from Professor George Gretton, who made an interesting point—which was beyond the committee’s brief—with regard to how long after a bequest is made one can reasonably expect its terms to be maintained. Professor Gretton thought that, if we were to have that debate, a period of some 50 years would be reasonable.
However, our concern was about what benefit there would be to the collection being toured. The answer is, quite simply, this: attendances have fallen from 1 million to barely 200,000. The Burrell collection is still in a wonderful location, which is being refurbished, including parts of it that I did not even know existed—a theatre, artists’ rooms and various conservation rooms, which will be adapted to display more of the collection.
With the publicity that is attendant on taking this wonderful collection that belongs to Glasgow and Scotland around the world, we will, in effect, make a magnificent shop window for tourism to the city and the country. We will also then be able to borrow other items that Sir William bid for but did not get, and which would form a complete set of some of the artefacts that are on display.
Parliament has the opportunity to give the Burrell collection, Glasgow and Scotland a chance to boost our cultural representation abroad, and to recreate that fabulous collection in a refurbished facility in Pollok park in Glasgow.
Previous
Topical Question TimeNext
Suicide Prevention