§ 2.39 p.m.
The Earl of GOSFORDMy Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
§ The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will take action to prevent a repetition of the conduct of the Morgan Crucible Company in relation to the destruction of the Battersea mural on 6th June 1979.
§ Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTONNo, my Lords. When the Secretary of State granted outline planning permission for the redevelopment of the Morgan Crucible site in 1978, following a public local inquiry into an appeal by Wates Limited against Wandsworth Borough Council's refusal of planning permission, 1211 he did not make it a condition of that planning permission that the mural be preserved.
The Earl of GOSFORDMy Lords, while thanking the Minister for that Answer, may I ask him whether he is aware that the company trespassed on public land in the dead of night with heavy plant in order to destroy the mural. This mural had taken 60 people two years to complete, and the only people to be arrested were the artist and six local residents who ventured on to the site later in the day.
Lord MOWBRAY and SOUTRONMy Lords, I am sorry to make the noble Earl unhappy, but I am not aware of those facts. I understand that the machinery which was used to destroy the wall was operated from the company's own site, and I understand that they were completely within the law. What happened to the people whom the police arrested is not in my brief, nor does it have anything to do with the Question which I have been asked.
The Earl of GOSFORDMy Lords, on a point of correction, if I may make one, the plant did not come from the Morgan site. It came across public land, because there is a 20ft. drop on the other side of the Morgan site.
§ Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTONMy Lords, I still do not think that this is relevant to the Question.
§ Baroness EMMET of AMBERLEYMy Lords, is it not a fact that the Morgan Crucible Company are endeavouring to improve the site which is in question at the moment and that they should be helped to do so in every possible way?
§ Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTONYes, my Lords, planning permission was given for redevelopment with houses and offices.
§ Baroness BIRKMy Lords, does the noble Lord agree that the Question which has been put by the noble Earl refers to repetition of this conduct? My noble friend is asking—this is something about which many of us on all sides of the House are concerned—that where there is a mural 1212 (it may not be this one but others) and an attempt has been made to improve the environment, it should be taken into account. I believe that my noble friend is thinking, also, of the future.
§ Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTONMy Lords, the noble Baroness is quite right. I totally concur. Every case must be looked at on its merits, and the Government will do so.
§ Lord BROCKWAYMy Lords, following the question from the Front Bench, may I ask the Minister whether he will look rather deeper into this question? Is it not the case that this mural painting won national recognition as a work of art, and was it not very desirable that this artist and the 60 local people who co-operated with him should seek to beautify the area rather than that the kind of slogans which are so often put on walls should be found there? Will not the Minister look at the issue in that wider context?
§ Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTONMy Lords, I completely concur with the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, that this shows a very noble, volunteer spirit. When artists like Mr. Barnes and 60 volunteers are prepared to beautify an area which is not very beautiful, I do nothing but applaud. However, if I may put the other side of the coin, when these people asked the owners of the wall for permission to do this they knew that a planning application had been submitted. The Arts Council gave help to the painters, in the full knowledge that their work might be destroyed.
§ Lord MURRAY of GRAVESENDMy Lords, surely the point that the noble Earl has made is the fact that the Morgan Crucible Company were allowed to break the law quite flagrantly and other people were arrested. Is this not a case of one law for the rich and another for the poor?
§ Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTONMy Lords, I have told the noble Earl that I am not aware that the Morgan Crucible Company have broken the law.
§ Lord WYNNE-JONESMy Lords, will the noble Lord bear in mind that his earlier remark, that all such cases would be looked into carefully, is not very 1213 helpful after the job is done? I am sure the noble Lord will agree with me that there is very little that can be done to replace a mural which has been demolished; and should it not be the object of Her Majesty's Government—and, indeed, of everyone in the country—to ensure that any such mural, if it is accepted, is retained and not demolished?
§ Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTONMy Lords, the planning consent was given in 1978; the appeal to the historic buildings division was made and turned down under the noble Lord's Government. I have every sympathy, but murals painted on outside brick walls will not of themselves be permanent paintings. At best, they are transitory. If it is decided that something is of such enormous artistic merit, no doubt applications would be made to buy the painting concerned.
§ Lord WYNNE-JONESMy Lords, will not the noble Lord agree that throughout Italy and other countries there are many murals outside buildings on walls which are preserved?
§ Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTONMy Lords, I think that is a little wide of the original Question, in any case the climate of Italy is different from that of Battersea.