Henry Moore Sculpture Sale

Rushanara Ali Excerpts

Wednesday 19th December 2012 Westminster Hall

[Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab)]

I secured this debate because the proposed sale of the Henry Moore sculpture, “Draped Seated Woman”, and the true value of public art, are of great concern, both in my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh). “Draped Seated Woman” is a piece of public art that is being put up for auction by the mayor of Tower Hamlets, despite urgent calls by many of my constituents and leading arts figures for the sculpture to be kept in the borough.

I want to talk about the importance of public art in the UK and the positive impact that “Draped Seated Woman” has had in my constituency. Sold at a substantially reduced price of £7,000, the sculpture, affectionately nicknamed Old Flo by local residents, was essentially a gift to the people of Tower Hamlets and is part of the east end’s and London’s cultural heritage. It was created by Henry Moore in 1957 and acquired in 1960 by London county council for the new Stifford housing estate in Stepney in my constituency. It was then loaned to Yorkshire sculpture park in 1997, when the Stifford estate was demolished, and during its time there was seen and enjoyed by millions of people.

Moore was a socialist and a miner’s son from a working-class background. He sold “Draped Seated Woman” below market price on the understanding that the sculpture would be sited directly in the community. He intended “Draped Seated Woman” to be accessible and available to all, to enable working-class people in the east end to derive meaning and enjoyment from this work. She was a symbol of new life and new hope for Londoners, who had suffered so much during the blitz. In a socially deprived area in the east end of London, “Draped Seated Woman” helped enrich the lives of local residents.

The sculpture’s location in the east end highlighted the importance of the post-war belief that everyone, regardless of background, should have free access to art and culture. Moore based “Draped Seated Woman” on his wartime drawings of people sheltering from the blitz in the east end underground, on the Central line at Liverpool Street and elsewhere. This gives the sculpture even greater connection to the people of the east end, where thousands of people lost their lives during the war, including the 172 people who were killed in the Bethnal Green tube disaster, the worst British civilian disaster during the second world war.

“Draped Seated Woman” was born in the east end, she lived in the east end for a long time and she belongs in the east end. The proposal to sell this important sculpture is deeply disappointing and sets a dangerous precedent, risking the loss of other important public art around the country in these tough economic times.

Many are dismayed by the decision to sell off this special east end treasure, which is a poignant tribute to the working class heritage of the east end of London. The decision was made despite two council motions, supported by a cross-party committee of councillors, opposing the sale. The sale of the sculpture goes against the wishes of Henry Moore, who entrusted the sculpture to the people of Tower Hamlets in recognition of their struggles and sacrifices.

Nearly 3,000 people, including many of my constituents, have signed a petition calling for the mayor of Tower Hamlets to reconsider and keep the sculpture in the borough in honour of Moore’s idealistic vision. Mary Moore, the artist’s daughter, has also voiced opposition. Leading arts figures have backed the 3,000 local residents in their opposition to this sale. Among those figures are: the Olympic opening ceremony director and local resident, Danny Boyle; Tate Gallery director, Sir Nicholas Serota; artist Jeremy Deller; and many others. This is an alliance of local residents—people who have strong memories of spending their childhood around this important sculpture, having grown up in the local housing estate—and those in the arts world. This is not just about a group of people in the arts world wanting to preserve this important work of art; it is about a sculpture that people feel connected with, having strong associations with it, and memories of its presence in the borough.

Claims that the sculpture cannot be safely returned to Tower Hamlets have proved untrue. Several publicly accessible sites across Tower Hamlets, including the Museum of London Docklands, Queen Mary university and Morpeth school, a local school in my constituency, want to bring the sculpture back to the east end and have generously offered to house and insure “Draped Seated Woman” at no cost to the council. That highlights the strength of feeling locally and, as I say, the attachment to this important work of art. The Art Fund and Whitechapel gallery have offered their expertise in transporting and maintaining the sculpture.

Unfortunately, the mayor of Tower Hamlets is going against the wishes of many residents and artists who have raised concerns, and is refusing to consider the recommendation made by the cross-party committee of councillors on two occasions. Will the Minister join me in urging Tower Hamlets council and the mayor of Tower Hamlets to think again and secure the sculpture’s return to public display in the borough, either on council land or in one of the institutions that have generously offered to house it?

Although times are tough, there are clearly major issues with the council’s arguments for the sale of the sculpture. The mayor of Tower Hamlets has argued that the sale would address a financial gap in the council’s budget, but it is clear that there are restrictions on how the sum raised from the sale could be used, and some commentators have said that this is effectively a fire sale caused by the appalling financial deficit brought on by profligacy and extraordinary waste in the council. Many examples of where that waste is happening have been given, ranging from a £1 million-a-year budget for the local council newspaper, East End Life, chauffeur-driven cars, and advisers’ and consultants’ costs. Cuts and savings could be made in those areas without impacting on local services.

The debate about whether this sale would address a wider issue to do with funding has to sit with an examination of how public money is being used at present by the local authority. This bonfire of public art is not the answer. One has to ask, where does this end? What precedents will be set for other areas that may wish to make such sales to deal with financial challenges?

There is a bigger question about who actually owns “Draped Seated Woman”. There are serious questions about whether Tower Hamlets council even owns the sculpture. She was acquired in 1962 by London county council for the new Stifford housing estate at Stepney Green. When the Greater London council was abolished in 1985, ownership was thought to have passed to Tower Hamlets. However, new research suggests that this may be wrong. It would be extraordinary to auction this masterpiece without clarity over title. Will the Minister ensure that his Department seeks clarification from Tower Hamlets council about claims of ownership and whether the auctioneers, Christie’s, are prepared to delay plans to auction off “Draped Seated Woman” until the issue is resolved?

Does the Minister think it is acceptable for public art to be privatised in such a way—possibly sold off to billionaires’ private collections, never to be seen again? Would he be happy to see “Draped Seated Woman” leave the country? If he is not, as I believe he would not be, what steps will he consider taking to prevent the sculpture being sold off and ending up overseas in a private collection, never to be seen by the British public again? I thank the Minister for taking the time to join us in the debate, and I look forward to hearing his response.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr Edward Vaizey)]

It is a great honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Rushanara Ali) for raising this important issue and bringing it to the attention of the House. She has campaigned assiduously on it with, as she mentioned, the support of the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh), who is present, and of fellow Members of Parliament in other constituencies in the east end of London. Anyone who takes an interest in cultural policy is aware of the wide public and stakeholder interest in the matter we are debating, and I have exchanged correspondence with the Art Fund and met with the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow on the subject.

We live in a country that celebrates art and creativity, that has a strong and proud tradition of making art works available to the public, and that protects art works for the enjoyment of communities. In London, thousands of statues, monuments and sculptures are testament to that. Who among us does not enjoy walking past another great work on our way into Parliament, “The Burghers of Calais” in Victoria Tower gardens, especially on such a beautiful morning?

People are also rightly passionate about the sculpture that we are debating. It was created by Henry Moore in 1957, while he was working on a commission for the UNESCO headquarters in Paris. Its presence in Stepney came about because it was bought in 1962 and housed in the Stifford estate, until that estate was demolished in 1997. The sculpture is large, at 1.6 tonnes in weight, and it was bought for almost £7,500 by London county council.

Let us pause and reflect on that time. After the war, people recognised the importance of the arts in restoring Britain’s morale. They put the arts front and centre of Britain’s regeneration and rebirth. The Henry Moore sculpture we are discussing fits very much into that narrative. As the hon. Lady pointed out, it is based on the sculptor’s wartime drawings in the air raid shelters —the tube stations—of London, which are world- famous. Moore saw the sculpture as an homage, an acknowledgement, of the bravery of Londoners shown in the blitz. He created similar sculptures to Old Flo, which are still on public display around the world, in particular, appositely, in Germany, in a city that was itself bombed, and in Belgium, Israel, the United States and Australia.

It is also worth reflecting on the man behind the purchase of Old Flo, Sir Isaac Hayward. As leader of London county council, he was passionate about a programme to purchase public art for the people, and putting that art in the new housing estates of London, to symbolise London’s rebirth after the war. He was the Labour leader of London county council from 1947 to 1965. He was the son of a miner, as was Henry Moore, but a Welsh miner, and Hayward himself went down into the mines at the age of 12. He was the leader with vision who built the Royal Festival hall; the Hayward gallery is rightly named in his honour. That story makes two valid points: we can still have ambition and creativity at a time of austerity; and the idea that the high arts are somehow not for the likes of us and not for working people is absolutely disabused by people such as Sir Isaac Hayward, the son of a miner and a miner himself, and the great sculpture Henry Moore, the son of a miner.

The recent history of Old Flo has been somewhat chequered. It was moved from the Stifford estate because it was too expensive to insure and might be vandalised. I am pleased that Old Flo has resided in the interim at the Yorkshire sculpture park in Wakefield. The hon. Member for Wakefield knows that sculpture park well, but I, too, have had the privilege of visiting it. If you ever have the time, Mr Betts, I thoroughly recommend a visit. It is another astonishing creation. I think it was effectively one field, the vision of one man, and it has now been turned into the most remarkable park, one of the most beautiful places I have visited, full of the most fantastic sculptures.

The period of the loan to Yorkshire is due to expire shortly, however, and Tower Hamlets council has decided to put that wonderful and unique sculpture up for sale, through an auction in Christie’s next year. The planned sale has rightly come under significant scrutiny and is subject to continuing strong debate. Given the historical and social importance of the sculpture to the UK and, in particular, to London, with everything that its purchase signifies, the potential outcome of its sale—the loss from public display, the permanent absence from east London and the giving up of aspiration, as it were—is lamentable. Henry Moore’s intentions were, clearly, that the sculpture should be enjoyed by the people of London, but regardless of that, for almost 40 years its presence in an estate in the borough has signified the great importance that we place on our culture, our artistic history, and our ambitions as a country, and the value we place on our public spaces and the need to protect them for the enjoyment of all.

Many people have asked me to look into the situation. I must stress that the Government have no specific powers to intervene in what is strictly a matter for the owner of the sculpture, but I have continued to take an interest in the sale over the past few weeks. The hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow pointed out that the ownership is under dispute, in connection with how ownership of the sculpture and other assets of London county council were in general transferred, first under a 1964 London authorities order, when assets were transferred from the London county council to the Greater London council, and then under the various measures taken when the Greater London council was abolished—the 1981 Greater London council orders and the Local Government Act 1985—and when the London Residuary Body, which had taken ownership of the GLC assets, was wound up in 1996.

[Rushanara Ali]

Has the Minister had the opportunity to speak to the London borough of Tower Hamlets and to Christie’s about the matter?

[Mr Vaizey]

As the hon. Lady knows, I have spoken briefly to Christie’s to suggest that its people take the ownership issue seriously and, more importantly, to recommend that they speak to her. I have not engaged with the London borough of Tower Hamlets directly on the matter.

Clearly, should ownership lie with a London borough other than Tower Hamlets, the possibility of different outcomes emerges. I therefore agree with the hon. Lady that it is absolutely essential for the proper ownership of the sculpture to be established. There is a reasoned argument to be made that says that the ownership is uncertain. While the question of which council owns the sculpture is being explored, however, we cannot be in any doubt that its ownership lies with one or other of the London boroughs mentioned.

I am afraid that I may now disappoint campaigners, to a certain extent, because the Government have to pay heed to an important and enduring principle: it is for a council to manage its art work, acting in accordance with its own rules and with any conditions attached to that art work. Clear rules govern the acquisition and disposal of assets in our national museums, most of which were established by Acts of Parliament that usually set out clear rules on the disposal of assets. Asset disposal is also dealt with in a code for museums. Sometimes a local authority takes an asset that belongs to a local authority museum and disposes of it, only for the Museums Association to take issue with that, on the grounds of whether the code was complied with appropriately.

Our policy is to empower local communities to make decisions that are right for their area. We cannot dictate to them, but we share and discuss priorities with local authorities. The hon. Lady forcefully set out her view, and perhaps the view of others, of how Tower Hamlets has managed its financial affairs, but it would not be appropriate for me to delve into that.

The sculpture has undoubted significance for east London. For 15 years, it has resided in Yorkshire, which was Henry Moore’s birthplace, so for a long time it has not been readily available for the enjoyment of Londoners. I want the sculpture to be freely available and accessible to the residents of east London.

[Rushanara Ali]

There are concerns that, if the sale went ahead, the sculpture might leave the country, and the public will not have access to it if it goes into a private collector’s hands. Would the Minister consider taking steps towards an export ban if that were the case?

[Mr Vaizey]

There is the Reviewing Committee on the expert—sorry, Export—of Works of Art and Objects of Cultural Interest; I made that Freudian slip because it is made up of experts in the arts. The committee reviews appropriate cases where significant works of art have been sold and could leave the country, and recommends to Ministers whether they should put an export bar on a particular piece of art. It is important to state that that export bar is time-limited. The export of a work of art cannot be banned in perpetuity; it is banned only for a period, to allow a British public collection to raise money to buy it at the price for which it was sold. The committee is independent, and gives me independent advice if the situation arises. It would be wholly wrong for a Minister to interfere in its decision-making process.

The issue of the cost and care of the sculpture is difficult, and must be faced. I am aware of the notable and welcome offers from the Museum of London and Queen Mary, university of London, to maintain and care for it if current plans for the sale are halted. I am heartened by those offers, and support the spirit in which they are made; they have at heart the interests of the public, and the uniqueness and value of the sculpture.

I have discussed de-accessioning by museum collections, and have pointed out that that is guarded through legislation, but local authorities have ownership rights over their assets, so are entitled to sell those assets, however unwelcome that might be. I covered the point about the Reviewing Committee on the Export of Works of Art and Objects of Cultural Interest, but might add that recent deferral of licences have applied to a Manet, a Benjamin Britten manuscript, and a sculpture by John Nost the elder. Those works were subsequently acquired by museums and public institutions. The Government cannot ensure that the sculpture is again put on public display in London, but we can assure those who are interested that any attempt to remove the work from the UK would attract the scrutiny of experts, and would be given serious consideration with great weight given to its historic, social and educational importance.

The picture is still emerging. I share the concern and disappointment of many people at the potential loss of this sculpture from public view, but the Government cannot dictate the outcome. I am not in a position to wave a magic wand. However, I hope that parties who are interested in Old Flo’s future—Tower Hamlets council, Christie’s, the nominal auctioneers, the Art Fund, which is taking a great interest, the Museum of London, and Queen Mary, university of London, all of which care deeply about the future of this marvellous sculpture—continue to work together and to engage with one another in the interests of the sculpture. First and foremost, the question of ownership must be resolved.

Henry Moore once said:

“I think in terms of the day’s resolutions, not the year’s.”

I propose a resolution for all of us who have a deep love of great art: we should continue to question, to deliberate, and to debate these matters, acting in the public interest and, whenever possible, honouring the UK’s strong and excellent traditions of public art.

I thank the hon. Lady again for this important debate, and I look forward to engaging with her and her colleagues in future.