Hansard

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.