Of course: that is the very point I wish to make by referring to the Patrician tradition in both senses. I hope we may agree on that point. Now, to turn to the National Gallery. It is, of course, one of the great glories of our Nation, thanks to its magnificent treasures. What we are all conscious of here is that these treasures could be much more fully used. In recent years the Gallery has been lamentably understaffed. If we look at the estimates for the current year we will find just how many trained people are there to look after these splendid treasures. The answer is two. There is the director and an assistant—not another single person who is trained in the history and technique of art. I believe it is only within the last few years— two or three years even—that an assistant has been brought in. I believe it is only in the last couple of years that a typist has been brought in. Now, imagine one of the best galleries on a small scale in Europe being staffed by one director and one assistant. In contrast, the National Museum, which itself is sadly understaffed, has a director, three keepers, three assistant keepers and nine assistants. I suggest that this is a deplorable contrast.
We all value our museum very highly, but we should also value our art gallery more highly than at present. It is partly a matter of money, too. The amount of money spent on these magnificent treasures last year, in keeping them and so on, was £15,130. Now, I have looked at the British estimates for their care of their national galleries and I find that they spent £525,000 altogether. That was in looking after the National Gallery in London, the National Portrait Gallery, the Tate Gallery, the Wallace Gallery and the National Galleries of Scotland. Let us compare those two figures. The British spend £525,000 for a population of approximately 51,000,000. We spend £15,000 for a population of less than three million. It seems to me, then, by fairly simple arithmetic —but I am liable to go wrong in these things, I confess—that while the British are spending just £10,000 per million people on art, we are spending just a little over £5,000 per million people on art. In proportion to the population we are spending half the amount that the British Government are spending. The obvious answer, which I am sure is rushing through the Minister's head at this moment, is that Britain is a rich country in many ways and we are a poor country in many ways. But we are not a poor country in art. We are not a poor country in culture, whether Patrician with a capital P or patrician with a small p, and I think that since we are not poor in those special respects we ought to spend proportionately more on art than perhaps even Britain spends. Secondly, if you take into account the fact that we spend very little on defence compared with the colossal expenditure that Britain spends on defence I think we should be able to afford more than £5,000 per million of the population on art. I could urge this more strongly, but I do not think it is necessary. I hope everyone here is conscious that one of the great strengths of our country—it is part of our moral strength—is this tradition of high art. If you walk into the National Museum and look at the gold ornaments and the sculpture there, just as much as if you walk into the National Gallery, you can see it proved. I do not think that it is justifiable for us to neglect our artistic traditions to this extent.
Now, to turn to the present Bill. It goes a little way towards using our treasures of art more fully. But, let us consider for a moment how many other ways are open to us, or would be open to us if we spent a little more money. The National Gallery could, and should, if it had the staff, organise many special exhibitions. It has not done that at all in recent years. In contrast, the Municipal Gallery has done wonderful work in recent years along those lines. If the Municipal Gallery can do it then the National Gallery could do it with a little more State expenditure.
Secondly—this has been referred to already in the Dáil—there is a crying need for better catalogues from the National Gallery. I will not spend time over this. It was debated in the Dáil, but I do want to emphasise a point which was raised there. At the moment in this country we have some very fine printers, and some very good work is being done. It would be a great opportunity for our Irish printing firms to have the chance of producing a really good illustrated catalogue or even a selection of our paintings in the National Gallery.
The third point is this. Here are these treasures, these wonderful treasures, lying unseen except by some 60,000 of our population all the year round. Why do we not have wider publicity for them? Again, this was mentioned in the Dáil. Telefís Éireann and the other centres of national publicity should do much more for the National Gallery. The fourth point is that there is clear need for greater space, more room for storage and more room for display. A fifth point, and this is one perhaps which will be most readily accepted in this scientific age, is that we need far more scientific assistance in looking after our national treasures and in particular our paintings.
Just contrast for a moment the position in the British Museum or in the National Gallery of London. There they have highly trained experts, skilled in cleaning and examining. In the British Museum at the moment one of the heads of that team is a graduate from Dublin. He has described the work to me; it is most important and most valuable. In fact, if any member of the House would like to see a clear proof of the value of that kind of work, he can look at the Illustrated London News for last week. There he will find the Ardagh Chalice and the Tara Brooch, as they are now, after having been cleaned and repaired by the experts in the British Museum. It is a magnificent thing to see them there, even in photographs. When they come back to our Museum I hope we will all go and see them, restored almost to a new condition. It is a sad thing that we have to send treasures out of our country for that kind of treatment. It may be that we will always have to do it for very special cases, and the Ardagh Chalice and the Tara Brooch are cases of that kind. However, the fact is that at the moment we can do nothing in the National Gallery from the higher scientific point of view. There is no scientist attached to it; the work is being done elsewhere. Again I do think there is need for progress along those lines.
There is a good deal more that can be said on that, but I shall not delay the House. I do urge the Minister to do all he can to make more use of these magnificent treasures. The primary need is staffing. We have the goods; we cannot display them properly; we cannot even handle them properly. Here, I should like to ask him a question. We are all very grateful to the Shaw Bequest—and to the producers of My Fair Lady incidentally, too—for the amount of money that is put at the disposal of the trustees of the National Gallery. Is it not possible that some of that money could be spent on staffing?