Bigger pictures on arts issues: workers at the National Gallery and BP’s sponsorship of Tate
|
Version 0 of 1. Polly Toynbee’s article (Inside the National Gallery, a portrait of modern inequality, 20 January) regarding our modernisation plans says “all gallery services go out to tender in April, something no other national gallery or museum has done”. I would like to clarify that our proposals are to contract out visitor-facing and security services – not “all gallery services” – and that many of the other national galleries and museums have already outsourced some of the equivalent roles. Related: Inside the National Gallery, a portrait of modern inequality | Polly Toynbee We recognise that change creates uncertainty but believe it is essential to enable us to deliver an enhanced service to our 6.4 million annual visitors for many years to come. The article criticised us for not paying the London living wage but failed to note that in recent discussions with the PCS union we proposed a basic salary far in excess of it. One staff member was quoted saying they feared being “transferred to a supermarket car park”. I want to reassure everyone that we would certainly endeavour to ensure it is not the case. We welcomed the potential involvement of Acas and are glad to learn that the PCS, which previously refused to do this, have now agreed to meet. Our trustees are united in support of the proposed changes and we are all committed to ensuring a fair deal for everyone affected by the proposals while protecting existing terms and conditions of employment.Dr Nicholas PennyDirector, the National Gallery Related: Tate’s BP sponsorship was £150,000 to £330,000 a year, figures show • An arts sponsorship of £224,000 a year is anything but an “embarrassingly small” amount of money as claimed by activist group Platform (After three-year fight, Tate tells how much it is sponsored by BP, 27 January). It would keep a 300-400 seat provincial theatre or theatre company going for a year. The tragedy is that large corporations, ignoring for the moment any ethical or environmental concerns, choose to sponsor high-profile and already excessively subsidised London-based arts organisations when they could use their largesse far more effectively by making an enormous difference to a smaller arts organisation. For the Tate, BP’s cash is just an oil slick in an ocean of funding. Imagine what a difference that money would make to a theatre for whom getting some free paint from a local supplier is a sponsorship triumph.Graham BennettFriends of Alexandra Palace Theatre |