Burrell Collection (Lending and Borrowing) (Scotland) Bill: Preliminary Stage
The next item of business is a debate on motion S4M-08259, in the name of Joan McAlpine, on the Burrell Collection (Lending and Borrowing) (Scotland) Bill.
14:39
I am pleased to open the preliminary stage of the Burrell Collection (Lending and Borrowing) (Scotland) Bill and to provide the Parliament with some background on the bill. Before I do that, I thank the clerks and the Scottish Parliament information centre for the considerable work that they put into informing the committee about the background to the bill. Indeed, I thank all those who gave written and oral evidence, sometimes after travelling quite a distance. I also thank the staff of Pollok House for accommodating the committee at its first public sitting and the staff at the Burrell, who gave us a very interesting tour of the collection—both seen and unseen.
Private bills propose laws that allow individuals, groups of individuals or corporate entities to acquire powers or benefits in excess of or in conflict with the general law. The bill is the third private bill to be introduced in this parliamentary session and it is the first that I have worked on. It has given me an interesting insight into that side of the Parliament’s work.
Sir William Burrell was born in 1861 and worked from the age of 15 in the family’s shipping agency, in which he achieved great financial success. He developed a passion for art from a young age and as his wealth grew, so did his collection. Before his death in 1958, Burrell gifted an astoundingly broad collection of some 9,000 items, including stained glass, paintings, sculpture, furniture and even large pieces of architecture. Edinburgh and London were also considered as recipients for the collection, but only Glasgow would agree to the stipulations of the gift. To this day, the bequest represents the largest single gift of art treasures by one person to a single city.
Very many of us in Scotland are familiar with the Burrell collection. Visitor numbers reached 1 million in the years that followed its opening in 1983 and I confess that it seems like yesterday when I went to see the collection in the days after the Queen opened it.
Perhaps less well known is the buried treasure that is not currently on public display. The committee had the privilege of a behind-the-scenes tour of the collection, as I said, and we were amazed at the important paintings, furniture and architectural pieces that currently have no place on public display, as there is room to display only about 2,000 of the roughly 9,000 items in the collection.
Sadly, our tour also revealed the poor state of the building that houses the collection, which is of course a relatively new and modern building. It is now almost 30 years since its completion and, by some accounts, the roof has never been quite right and there is now no hiding the fact that the situation has reached a critical point. The conservators, whose work is to carefully preserve the priceless artefacts, put quite a bit of their energy into designing tarpaulins to catch the drips from the waterlogged ceiling. It was very distressing to see what a sad state the building has got into. Although it was not in the committee’s remit to look at the building’s history, it would be fair to say that all the members of the committee were concerned that there was a poor relationship with the architect and that problems that seem to have been there from the beginning have not been resolved.
Glasgow City Council now plans to renovate the building, not only to address the roof problems once and for all but to create more display space to bring some of that buried treasure into public display and allow more people in Glasgow, Scotland and beyond to enjoy Burrell’s collection.
The bill’s purpose is to alter the restrictions that Burrell placed on lending and borrowing when he gave his collection to the people of Glasgow. In short, Burrell was happy for loans to be made in Great Britain but not oversees. He also prohibited the display of items that do not belong to the collection alongside items that do. Glasgow City Council wishes to allow loans to be made outwith Great Britain and for the restriction on borrowing to be relaxed, to allow related works to be displayed alongside those in the collection. All that would be governed by a lending code: a publicly accessible document that would set out the decision-making process that would govern any potential loans and would guarantee the involvement of the Burrell trustees in any final decision.
The committee looked at the opportunities and risks of lending beyond Great Britain and tried to put ourselves in Burrell’s shoes and interpret what led him to place restrictions on his bequest.
At this point it is important to state that there were no official objections to the bill’s proposals.
There are many opportunities to be gained from lending the collection further afield. Displaying associated works side by side contributes to knowledge and we were reassured that lending in the future would be confined to a small number of items and would be for scholarly purposes only. We believe that the one-off tour planned by the bill’s promoter in association with the British Museum will help to raise the profile not only of the collection but of Glasgow itself, encouraging more people to come to see the collection and—I hope—raising some money for the building’s renovation.
It is time to put the collection on the world stage and stop hiding it away. We accept that lending is not without risk but most of our witnesses agreed that damage most often occurs not in transit but when works are being packed and unpacked and, as a result, the risk remains the same whether a work is being lent within Great Britain or overseas.
We had very particular concerns about moving and redisplaying the collection’s more delicate items, particularly pastels and textiles, but were reassured by the specialist evidence that we sought on the matter.
You must draw to a close, please.
It is impossible to know what was in Burrell’s mind when he placed those restrictions on his bequest. We know that he wanted to share his collection; after all, he lent regularly within Great Britain and, indeed, made a contribution to the great exhibition at Kelvingrove.
We endorse the view of the promoter and others who contributed to the bill’s scrutiny that a private bill is necessary and appropriate and that there was no alternative means of achieving the same result.
I again thank everyone who gave evidence.
I move,
That the Parliament agrees to the general principles of the Burrell Collection (Lending and Borrowing) (Scotland) Bill and agrees that it should proceed as a private bill.
14:46
In my role as Cabinet Secretary for Culture and External Affairs, I want not only to offer some thoughts on the provisions in this private bill but to emphasise the significance of the Burrell collection as one of Scotland’s great cultural assets.
As members will be aware, the collection is one of the most prominent and varied in Scotland and its significance to the history of art and antiquities is such that it sits alongside the works of art in our national galleries and museums. The 9,000-strong collection was assembled by Sir William Burrell as he travelled widely across the world and, in 1944, was generously gifted to the city of Glasgow along with the funds to erect a new building within which to house his treasures. Nearly 70 years after his bequest, the bill is aimed at securing the building’s long-term sustainability while looking at new ways of promoting his collection to an even wider audience and allowing more people to learn about and enjoy them than ever have before.
However, to enable that to happen, the bill’s promoter, Glasgow City Council, has decided to overturn Sir William Burrell’s express wishes in entrusting his collection to the city. That has raised a number of questions about the council’s responsibilities as the collection’s custodian and the power of the dead to constrain the actions of those living in a time very different from their own. The parliamentary committee responsible for scrutinising the bill has had the unenviable task of considering those sensitive issues in its analysis of the evidence, and its members have weighed up the risks and opportunities offered by the bill and looked back at Sir William Burrell’s lifetime to ask what he might have done had he been faced with the same questions in a world where science and technology are markedly different from what he would have known.
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. He wanted his works of art to be seen and appreciated. The Government shares that belief, which is why a key aim of the national strategy for Scotland’s museums and galleries is to increase cultural participation by maximising the number and range of people who see collections and visit and enjoy museums. Allowing lending from the Burrell collection is consistent with that aim and would bring the collection to the attention of an international audience and enable people from all over the world to see and appreciate it. That, in turn, would raise the collection’s profile and put Glasgow—and Scotland—on an international stage.
However, like anyone who collects items that are of value, Burrell was also concerned about the protection and care afforded to his collection, particularly after his death. The committee has found that an interest in preservation shaped much of Sir William’s decision making, as, indeed, it is shaping Glasgow City Council’s decision making today.
Central to the bill is the need to raise much needed resources to fund the refurbishment and repair of the Burrell building. There is no doubt in the mind of anyone who visits the collection, as I have, that it is not currently housed within a habitat that is commensurate with its status. The committee has placed great emphasis on the need to correct that, especially as the building was central to Burrell’s wishes. That is consistent with our national strategy, which aims to improve and ensure the long-term sustainability of collections through care and preservation.
Some people will argue that there are risks to care and preservation posed by international travel and the transportation of art works. The bill committee’s meticulous report, for which it deserves our whole-hearted thanks, has had to balance those criticisms against the benefits that could be achieved by increasing access to the collection and raising the funds to support the restoration of the building.
The Scottish Government thanks the committee for its deliberations and supports its recommendation that the bill should proceed.
14:50
The Burrell collection is a fantastic asset to the city of Glasgow, but one that has been neglected. When the gallery first opened in 1983, there were more than a million visitors a year, but that number had halved by 1987 as the public’s pent-up curiosity about a collection that had lain in storage for so long was satisfied. Annual visitor numbers have declined steadily over the past 30 years and are now below a quarter of a million. The drop-off in numbers was inevitable once the initial curiosity had worn off, but the on-going decline is due to a number of factors.
The leaking roof has been an ever-present problem virtually since the gallery opened and has meant that it has remained a three-star visitor attraction. As one visitor stated in their feedback form:
“This place looks tired and unloved”.
There has been little rotation of the collection, and fewer than a quarter of the 9,000 pieces have been seen by the public. That might be because there is no dedicated team of conservators for the collection, as a result of which problems have been allowed to develop to the point that the gallery has posted a notice saying:
“Moth has been a big problem recently and vulnerable objects have been removed”.
There has also been a lack of promotion of the collection, with Glasgow Life stating that
“The collection is still a bit of a secret, both here and internationally”.
Indeed, a visitor survey suggested that more than 40 per cent of visitors had found out about the gallery through word of mouth.
The gallery needs to be totally refurbished, and a permanent solution to the roof problem must be found. In order for that work to take place, the collection will have to be removed. The question is whether it should be put in storage or be allowed to tour to publicise Sir William Burrell’s legacy to Glasgow. The will and agreement have always allowed the collection to be loaned within the United Kingdom, and Glasgow City Council has a record of being a responsible lender. The evidence that the committee received suggested that, on balance, the transportation of works of art has improved substantially since the collection was gifted. Glasgow Life also told the committee that
“apart from the one-off tour the possibilities of doing another major tour in our lifetime are not very high”.—[Official Report, Burrell Collection (Lending and Borrowing) (Scotland) Bill Committee, 9 September 2013; c 30, 25.]
The committee was assured that the lending code will offer a sufficient safeguard for delicate items and that loans will be granted on a case-by-case basis with conservation at the forefront of decision making.
The bill’s promoter has estimated that the museum would need to close for four years and that it would cost in the region of £45 million to refurbish it. It hopes that a third of that amount would be raised through the tour, either in donations or in sponsorship. However, it was highlighted in other evidence that it is unlikely that that amount would be raised. That is borne out by the refurbishment of the Kelvingrove gallery, the £28 million cost of which was borne largely by the Heritage Lottery Fund, European regional funding and the city council, with only £2.5 million coming from private sponsorship.
With that in mind, I refer to paragraph 91 of the preliminary stage report, which states:
“The Committee places a great deal of emphasis on the restoration of the building housing the Burrell Collection, particularly since it was so central to Burrell’s wishes and to his Agreement with the City Council. In recommending that this Bill be passed, we place our trust in the Promoter to ensure that the refurbishment takes place and would consider any failure to do so as a betrayal of that trust.”
I believe that the main benefit of touring the collection abroad in a limited number of places would be that that would raise the profile of the collection during the period in which the gallery was closed. When the refurbishment was complete, the tour would have stirred the public interest in this unique collection once again.
When the new gallery opens in around 2020, it will bring an economic benefit to Glasgow as visitors once again flock to see the collection. Who knows? Perhaps it will once again receive a million visitors a year.
14:55
Let me start by thanking all those who have contributed to our consideration of the bill so far. In particular, I thank the convener, whose smooth running of the committee helped to ensure a consensual approach to the proposal.
The Burrell collection is a large collection of art and artefacts, but no one can appreciate just how large it is until they go down into the art stores and see the sheer volume of items that are not on display. The collection was gifted to the Glasgow Corporation by Sir William Burrell 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 the custom-designed building in Pollok country park. As a result of a poorly designed roof, members of staff are constantly moving exhibitions to protect them from water damage. The fact that exhibition space must be closed to the public restricts the space that is available to display items. As we have heard, the tarpaulins that have been engineered into a giant funnel to focus water into a big green wheelie bin do not really add to the atmosphere of the place and detract from the many marvellous pieces of art that are on display.
Water continues to leak through the roof, as the source of the leak, or multiple leaks, cannot be identified. After the water penetrates the roof, it is absorbed by a layer of insulation that sits underneath, until the insulation is saturated and the water leaks out at random points. That threatens items in the collection all round the museum so, rather than focusing on what should be their core purpose of speaking to visiting members of the public about the items on display, the staff need to be more focused on looking for water flowing down the walls, which might have an impact on the pieces of art.
Experts have also told us that preserving the temperature and humidity of the building is of the utmost importance. As an engineer, I can understand how difficult it must be to keep a building at a set temperature and humidity when, in effect, there is a massive wet sponge in the loft.
Against that backdrop, there is an urgent need for renovation, and the bill would help by allowing lending for an international tour to raise funds. The estimated cost of the renovation is £45 million, and it is hoped that the tour would contribute £15 million to that figure. The committee was not quite persuaded that all the £15 million could be raised, but that is a matter for Glasgow Life in trying to balance its books.
The tour could have other spin-off benefits: it could increase the accessibility of the collection and raise awareness of it, for example. As Gordon MacDonald pointed out, visitor numbers have fallen from a peak of 1 million a year when the building opened down to less than a quarter of that. An international tour could increase awareness abroad, but it could also make us at home more aware of what we are missing, so it could encourage more local visitors.
The key issue for us was whether we felt that it would be appropriate for us to alter the will of someone who is no longer here. As Sir William clearly had no issue with his collection being loaned, the main concern is whether he would be content for it to be loaned overseas. The practice of transporting art is much changed since Sir William’s time and, as has been pointed out, the main concern is about packing and unpacking at the point of delivery. It is perhaps no more dangerous for a piece of art to go on an international tour than it is for it to travel across Britain, just as it is no more dangerous for us to travel abroad by plane than it is for us to travel across Britain by car.
I think that it is impossible for us to second-guess the motives for Sir William’s stipulation in his will. Given the requirement to carry out the essential renovation works and the probable reasons for Sir William writing his will in the way that he did, I support the committee’s recommendation that consideration of the Burrell Collection (Lending and Borrowing) (Scotland) Bill move on to the next stage.
Thank you, and the next stage is to call on the cabinet secretary to wind up the debate on behalf of the Government.
14:59
Scrutiny of private bills is an important but often unrecognised function of the Parliament, and I thank the committee for its work. Like the committee’s evidence-taking sessions, this afternoon’s debate has focused on two key issues—the judgment on overturning the wishes of Sir William Burrell and the risks and opportunities of allowing a collection, particularly one that contains so many fragile items, to be transported across the world.
The committee is satisfied that the evidence shows that Sir William Burrell was not a possessive collector but, instead, would have welcomed the opportunity to show his collection to as wide an audience as possible. However, he was concerned about the risks of transporting artworks internationally. We have heard that that is still a consideration for Glasgow City Council and Glasgow Life, as custodians of the collection today, as presumably it is a consideration for any institution that engages in international lending. However, we have also heard that, by introducing a strict lending code and adhering to the highest standards of conservation and care, those risks, while they can never be completely eliminated, can be minimised and mitigated.
The question then becomes whether the risks are enough to prevent the collection from being accessed by a whole new international audience and to hinder efforts to raise funds for the restoration of the Burrell collection building, which itself poses a threat to the collection’s long-term preservation. The latter point has been central to the committee’s consideration of the bill. The Government has seen for itself from projects such as the refurbishment of the Scottish national portrait gallery and the national museum of Scotland what can be achieved by investing in our cultural institutions and bringing our museums up to date for the 21st century: it results in soaring visitor numbers and increased customer satisfaction.
Glasgow City Council has shown initiative in that respect, too, and, over the past decade, it has been dedicated to ensuring that its cultural establishments are of a high quality. It has invested heavily in capital projects such as the Kelvingrove art gallery and museum refurbishment and the new Riverside transport museum, and I am sure that members agree that it has reaped the rewards. Given the Burrell collection’s significance, it seems only logical for it to be next.
Unfortunately, we all have to accept that, financially, times are tight. Faced with a building that is not fulfilling its function, Glasgow Life has had to think carefully about where the money could come from to secure the Burrell collection’s long-term future, and it has decided that the ability to tour the collection internationally would help to raise its profile and raise much-needed resources while offering more people the chance to see and appreciate what the collection has to offer.
One of our responsibilities in looking after our heritage is to ensure that the stewardship of both local and national museums is such that functions are carried out in a way that is diligent and fit for purpose in the 21st century. In supporting the committee’s recommendation and allowing the bill to proceed to the next stage, the Parliament will take the right step.
We must always be vigilant and dutiful in ensuring that our artefacts, our heritage and our art have custodians who will look at all the different options and make sensitive decisions, but will also provide access to and due recognition of collections as they were first formed, and will do so in a way that is appropriate for this century.
I call on Jackson Carlaw to wind up the debate on behalf of the committee.
15:03
I, too, remember when that extraordinary building opened in Pollok park—a gift to the city and people of Glasgow from the Stirling Maxwell family and a lung, if you like, in the second city of the empire. It is a magnificent red sandstone, glass and steel construction, and I very much welcomed the opportunity to have the tour and to go into the bowels of the Burrell collection to see the thousands of exhibits that have not yet seen the light of day.
Some of them, I have to say, may be less fascinating than others. Sir William had an extensive collection of Tudor beds. I do not know whether, if we brought all the Tudor beds out and lined them all up, we would draw in the public from around the world to see them. They looked somewhat less than fascinating to me. However, in addition to the Tudor beds there is a terrific array of art that has never yet found its place in the presentation of the collection.
People sometimes forget not just the range and size of Sir William’s collection but the fact that, whether it is a Chinese vase, a Degas pastel, a Flemish tapestry or a bit of renaissance silver, he collected only the very best. In the Burrell collection, Glasgow and Scotland have a priceless jewel of art that reaches across everything that we could imagine.
The building is in a terrible state, as Mark Griffin and others said. I ask members to imagine a giant sponge, which is now waterlogged, between the ceiling and the roof. That means that the leaks can manifest anywhere in the building but not necessarily where they manifested in the roof above the sponge.
Having first thought that the renovation could, perhaps, be phased, we were persuaded that it could not and would have to be undertaken with the museum closing in the interim. We then had to decide whether the promoter’s proposition of putting the collection on tour was appropriate. Could it somehow be put in the local church hall or something like that in the interim? Of course, modern standards of presentation and for ensuring that the collection is secure in temperature and every other sense mean that just shoving it into the building next door is not a possibility.
The question then came down to whether the committee felt—this was a very serious proposition—that we should set aside Sir William’s will. It was mentioned that Edinburgh and London had both argued for the collection in the first place. If they had known that they were going to be able to set aside all the conditions of the collection, they might have bid that much harder.
We agonised in some detail over whether to set aside the terms of the will. We took legal advice on how long from the point at which a collection is gifted the terms of the will must prevail. Can they prevail in perpetuity? Is that reasonable? Circumstances change and 50 years have passed.
We heard about the way in which art is now exported abroad and the security that is attached to that. It turns out that the most dangerous period for art is not when it is in a plane being shifted across to some far country but when the porters remove it in the first place to put it in the box. They are likely to drop it, and that is where some sensational failures have occurred.
We were persuaded that it is right to give the fantastic collection an opportunity to be seen on a one-off tour around the world, promoting Glasgow, Scotland and the collection itself. We hope that that tour will, in future, bring to Scotland visitors who will see and promote the collection.
I, too, thank the clerks and everybody who gave evidence. As long as Joan McAlpine and I are in the Parliament, we never expect to work on a committee as collegiately as we managed to do during the preliminary stage proceedings.
I ask the Parliament to support the motion at decision time.