Hansard

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.