Hansard

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.