É«ºÐÖ±²¥

Thank you for your article outlining the predicament of fine art conservation (É«ºÐÖ±²¥S, August 30). However, at this time of yet more deep cuts it is vital that the 25 plus undergraduate and postgraduate courses teaching conservation, that range from the care of objects to historic buildings, make common cause.

It is important to get the facts right and not target the wrong scapegoats. For example, the former Lincolnshire College of Art & Design, now part of De Montfort University, has run historic object conservation courses at different levels since the 1970s, one of which was granted degree status in 1992. Yes, it does turn out 20 or so graduates per year but they are not, and have never purported to be, fine art conservators. Many museums and heritage agencies can testify to being the satisfied employers of ex-Lincoln students and many new graduates find work in fields complementary to conservation - so no market glut.

Fine art conservation is not alone: all university conservation courses, whether "new" or "old", have to realise that their students can no longer - if they ever did - expect a "complete" vocational education through their studies. Those institutions, including the conservation profession itself, who work with the complementary S/NVQs have had their primary educational role confirmed and can see far more clearly where their job ends and that of the profession and heritage industry's begins.

Time to stop blaming the "new" universities. Time to persuade Government and the heritage industry that only by funding internships and continuous professional development for graduates from properly supported courses will the cultural heritage be preserved to its proper standard.

KATE FOLEY Conservation consultant to De Montfort University, among others, London E17