Henry Moore Sculpture Sale

Debate between Rushanara Ali and Lord Vaizey of Didcot

Wednesday 19th December 2012 Westminster Hall

[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.