Page 55 - Studio International - November 1971

be thoroughly debated! My personal view (and 1971, when the comments by the Trustees of The problems arising from the Government's
I believe I am far from alone in this) is that the the National Gallery on the scheme were insistence that various Boards of Trustees must
degree of independence hitherto enjoyed by formulated (though the Report in which they use their own powers to implement what was
such Boards of Trustees as those of the National were printed was not actually published until originally conceived as a fiscal measure were
and Tate Galleries is a healthy and desirable 2 July). taken a stage further by exchanges following a
counterpoise to the not always well digested—or However, no clause dealing with this matter question by Lord Strabolgi in the House of
even well-informed—ploys which may be appeared in the 1971 Finance Bill. And in a Lords on 5 August 1971, which related
launched from time to time by Governments of debate in the House of Lords on 26 May 1971, specifically to the National and Tate Galleries
any complexion. the Paymaster General stated 'we do not intend (official report, cols. 1264-7). Lord Strabolgi
to impose charges on any museum' (official ascertained by default that no legislation existed
Memorandum relating to the proposed imposition report, col. 1279), which clearly implied that the which would permit the Government to require
of payments for admission at the National and Government were now proposing to leave the the Trustees of the National and Tate Galleries
Tate Galleries, with special reference to the means responsibility for the imposition (as distinct to impose entrance charges but not to retain the
apparently envisaged by Her Majesty's from the mere collection) of the levy with the sums raised for the benefit of the galleries
Government in giving effect to its policy in this Boards of Trustees, in all cases where these concerned. An exchange regarding Treasury
regard. existed. This seemed to be so striking a reversal Minutes did not yield any other legal basis for
of the Paymaster General's reference to the Government's requirement. A Treasury
As is made clear in its title, this `financial legislation' on 16 December 1970, that Minute of 5 February 1955, was cited and might
Memorandum is primarily and in essence I repeatedly tried to obtain further elucidation on the face of it have been supposed to do so,
concerned with the means whereby the by Parliamentary Question, in an attempt to but turned out afterwards to be immaterial. It
Government seeks to ensure that payments are clarify the powers of the Trustees, with thus became apparent that the sole responsibility
levied from members of the public wishing to particular reference as to whether or not, in in law for the imposition (as distinct from the
visit the National and Tate Galleries. The these changed circumstances, they were free to collection) of any charges, in principle and in
already much publicised merits or demerits, as use their discretion in the matter of the detail, at the National Gallery and Tate
a matter of general principle, of a system of such imposition of admission charges at the individual Gallery rested at the present moment (in the
payments are not the subject of further institutions for which they were responsible. absence of the special fiscal legislation which
discussion here. It seems significant that the Government had originally been implied) with the Trustees,
The authority whereby these measures were persisted in doing its best to evade giving a and not with the Government. This led on the
to be introduced was made sufficiently clear by direct answer on this topic (see House of same occasion to an intervention of the former
implication last year. Three points are relevant. Commons, official report, oral answers, 10 June Lord Chancellor, Lord Gardiner, who raised an
(1) The original announcement of the policy 1971, col. 1221; written answers 16 June 1971, important matter of principle. On the
was made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer col. 114-16; written answers, x July 1971, col. assumption that it was arguable that the
in his so-called mini-budget speech on 27 172). The only conclusion possible is that particular scheme of admission charges, in the
October 1970: 'we shall introduce charges for Boards of Trustees do in fact possess the power comprehensive form in which it is proposed by
admission to the national museums and of discretion in all matters, whether of principle the Government, is a fiscal measure and so
galleries.' (2) The fact that proceeds thus raised or of detail, relating to the imposition of charges, tantamount to taxation, Lord Gardiner pointed
were to go to the general funds of the Exchequer but that the Government are extremely reluctant out that (in that event) it would be illegal for the
was made clear in an oral answer in the House to admit it, fearing presumably that it would Trustees to impose charges which could not be
of Commons on 19 November 1970 (official strengthen the Trustees' position if it became retained for the benefit of the galleries but
report, col. 1417) by the Under Secretary of known to them and to the general public. This which were destined merely to be added to the
State for Education and Science. (3) The attitude does not take proper account of the general funds of the Exchequer for the relief of
Paymaster General explained his failure to circumstance that any Government has the duty, the general body of taxpayers.
undertake prior consultation with the authorities irrespective of what its policy may be, to see that The Paymaster General's reply to Lord
of the museums and galleries on the ground that the non-political and unpaid Trustees of the Gardiner's presumably unexpected intervention
it was a budgetary matter, making a specific national institutions in question are fully amounted to a mere assertion that 'this is not a
reference to 'financial legislation' (House of informed as to their powers at any given tax; this is a charge'. The assertion was
Lords, official report, 16 December 1970, col. moment. The fact is, however, that the only unsupported by serious argument, the only
1395). statement explicitly throwing light on this point points made being references to entrance fees
The only inference which could reasonably was not made in Parliament (as it ought to have being charged at the 'Apsley Museum' and for
be drawn from these statements was that the been) but in the following incidental, off-the- special temporary exhibitions.
Government's policy in this respect consisted in cuff comment by a spokesman for the As far as the Wellington Museum at Apsley
substance of the raising of annual revenue for Department of Education and Science in House is concerned, the situation there has no
the Exchequer from the visitors to all the answer to a journalist's question: 'In theory, relevance for, or bearing upon, the question of
national museums and galleries by means of a museums could opt out of the charges, but the whether or not the Trustees of the National and
centralized and comprehensive scheme, without Government is confident they will impose them' Tate Galleries may decline to impose charges on
taking account of the differences (including (reported in The Daily Telegraph, 17 June 1971). the ground that, in the form required by the
those of constitutional status) which exist as Nevertheless the reluctance to clarify the Government, such action would be tantamount
between the different institutions. This policy Trustees' position still remained very much in to illegal taxation by a non-governmental body.
could of course be implemented by a clause in evidence in the debate in the House of The Wellington Museum is dependent on the
the 1971 Finance Act, and there seemed no Commons on 21 June 1971, when it proved Victoria and Albert Museum, the possessions of
sufficient reason to doubt that that would be the difficult to reconcile the Secretary of State's which are not vested in any Board of Trustees
procedure adopted. In such circumstances the assertion (official report, col. 1012) that 'The but are the direct responsibility of a Department
imposition of the levy would be the responsibility Government require charges to be made' with of State (that of Education and Science), which
of Parliament, and the role of the authorities of the Under Secretary's reiterated substitution of may accordingly impose charges at its discretion.
the different institutions would be purely `request' for 'require' and his analogy between Nor has the point regarding special temporary
confined to that of collecting the resulting the Boards of Trustees and the Universities exhibitions any relevance to the question of
revenue. This was still the position on 4 March (official report, cols. 1061-2). whether or not admission charges to the
203