PRESERVATION OF WORKS OF ART

HL Deb 10 June 1952 vol 177 cc30-3

4.0 p.m.

Debate resumed.

LORD FARINGDON

My Lords, I find myself in some difficulty, because my noble friend cast his recent remarks in the form of a Question, and I think that to be in order I should cast mine in the form of a supplementary question. I am glad to see that I am apparently excused from that tongue-twisting exercise. What I really wish to do is to support my noble friend and press the Government, if possible, to avoid the breaking up of this team of workers on our art treasures. I have the honour to be a trustee of one of the National Collections, and I know how immensely important to us are the efforts of those concerned with the care and restoration of the works confided to us.

As my noble friend has said, these cadres of extremely skilled men are not the kind that can be reassembled very easily, once dispersed. The constant care given by an organised body like that which has been working on the Royal Collections and the other pictures of which my noble friend has spoken, is, to my mind, a supremely important task. The amount of money involved seems to me to be infinitesimal. The noble Earl has cited a case in which, by the work of these men, there was effected an economy almost equivalent to the total economy expected to be made by discharging nearly half of them at the present time. I know that many noble Lords on all sides of the House feel that this is an extremely unwise step. It is, in fact, the breaking up of an organisation of people who must be regarded as the maintenance staff of our cultural capital. I hope that the Government will find it possible to give a favourable reply to my noble friend.

LORD HAMPTON

My Lords, I should like to add a few words from this side of the House in support of what was said by the noble Earl, Lord Huntingdon. I have been interested for some time in the processes which are necessary for restoring works of art of almost every nature. I agree with everything that the noble Earl said as to the importance of doing the work in time. As your Lordships are probably aware, there comes a time with a work of art, just as there does with a patient suffering from illness, when if the doctor is not brought in the deterioration becomes very rapid indeed; and the work of art in such a case may, in a comparatively short time after the point at which it should have been tackled, become beyond repair. A great many of these works of art of which the noble Earl has spoken are not merely national, but international possessions; that is to say, they are things which decorate many of our buildings, our public squares, and so forth, which are a considerable draw to people fond of art who visit this country from other parts of the world. I hope the Government will think again. I agree that the economy involved is not only the money that will be saved in salaries. In many cases there are expensive erections of scaffolding necessary, and the various instruments used must also be taken into account. But, even so, the saving possible must be very small, and I believe that the loss to the nation, if this reduction goes through, will be very great and will be felt severely by future generations.

VISCOUNT MERSEY

My Lords, I should like to add a word or two in support of what noble Lords have said. No doubt the noble Earl on the Front Bench opposite has a brief which says that money has to be saved, but I expect that in his heart of hearts he would be very glad to give a kindly answer to the noble Earl, Lord Huntingdon. One instance which comes to my mind is that of the Cloisters of the Cathedral at Norwich. They have been admirably reconditioned: the coats of arms have been painted up again by the Office of Works, and the whole of the building has been under the care of the Office of Works. These artists are an extremely talented and experienced staff. I do not know the exact figures, but I cannot believe that a large sum of money is spent on them. This country is gradually becoming a sort of showpiece for the world, and if we are going to destroy by neglect what we have, it will do a great deal more harm than good. Anybody who has things in his own house knows how important an estate carpenter is. Looking after things is half the battle. If you leave them alone to deteriorate, you lose them altogether. I hope that the noble Earl, Lord Munster, will give us his real views.

EARL JOWITT

My Lords, I should like to add my plea to the others that have been made. This is a subject in which I am very interested, and in the National Gallery and the Tate Gallery I do know what is going on. Although I realise that the Government must economise in every way they can, and although I know, as was said the other day, that, "Mony a mickle mak's a muckle," and we must look after the "mickles," I wonder whether this is really a sound economy. If you let things of this kind get out of repair the ultimate cost of restoration is much greater than it would be if you made the stitch in time. I am by no means certain that this reduction is a sound economy. In the conditions in which we live I believe that our cultural heritage is one of the most important things we possess, and everybody in every Party should be at one in supporting it. I beg the noble Earl to consider whether this is not an unwise economy. Although he may have his instructions to say that he is sorry, but he cannot do anything about it, I ask him to see that this matter is taken back for reconsideration by the Ministry.

4.8 p.m.

THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (THE EARL OF MUNSTER)

My Lords, I feel sure that no one would quarrel with the manner in which the noble Earl, Lord Huntingdon, has put his Question to your Lordships this afternoon, and I shall naturally take the first opportunity of conveying to my right honourable friend the Minister of Works the views which he and other noble Lords who have taken part in this discussion have put forward. Perhaps my simplest course this afternoon in replying would be to treat this as a starred Question. The number of artist painters employed by the Minister of Works is thirteen, and it is now proposed to reduce the number to eight—that is to say, a saving of five—with a saving in salaries of £3,000 per annum. I might add that there is also a metal worker who is being discharged, and that may account for the extra body which the noble Earl quoted. I have been told that this new figure of eight compares very favourably with the number of five artists who were employed in pre-war days and again in 1945, for it was only after that date that the number was increased.

The noble Earl will be aware that reductions in staff are being imposed in many Departments, and that the staff of the Ministry of Works can be no exception. As the noble Earl said, it is true that there is ample work ahead, and the programme will now be adapted to meet the new conditions. One way, indeed, in which that can be done is to cease authorising the staff of the Ministry of Works to assist in repairing non-Government buildings, such as churches, to which Lord Mersey made reference, or to do work for local authorities and the owners of private houses. In all those cases in the past the amount of the cost was recoverable from the individual concerned. I may add, in conclusion, that there is no intention whatever of abolishing the Ministry of Works School of Artists which, as the noble Earl has rightly pointed out, has done most admirable work for more than thirty years.