The Chair welcomed Councillor David Snowdon in accordance with the provisions of Part 4 of the Council’s Constitution and also Councillor Rania Khan, Cabinet Member for Culture and Heather Bonfield, Interim Service Head, Culture, Learning & Leisure who were in attendance to respond to the call-in.

Councillor Snowdon presented the reasons for the call-in outlining his concerns.  He stressed the significance of the sculpture. He alongside Councillor Archer had visited the sculpture. It was now time for residents of the Borough to benefit from it.

Crucially, Cllr Snowdon argued that the Mayor had failed to consider all of the options and the organisations that could host the work. He referred to a letter received from the Museum of London Docklands detailing how they could host the work safely and securely. They currently hosted other key art works and have the arrangements in place to store the sculpture. Like many galleries and museums, they are in a position to secure insurance, underwritten by the Government, through a scheme administrated by the Arts Council. This was not just about the financial benefits but about the cultural benefits to residents from returning the work to the Borough. A lack of consideration was given to this.

The Committee heard from the Director of Museum of London, Sharon Ament. She confirmed that they were prepared to host the work and had received many offers of support from other key groups. i.e. to transport,  install and help maintain it. She had written to the Mayor with this proposal in October 2012.  The Musuem would host it on a long-term loan basis, rather than transfer of ownership. The museum is free to access and they would have a programme of community engagement and education in relation to the works.  There had been mush discussion  and support for the proposal on social forums

Councillor Snowdon also queried the legality of the sale, whether the necessary legal documentation was in place to sell the work. Jill Bell, Service Head Legal, confirmed that it was.

The Committee heard from Councillor Joshua Peck. He reported that, in addition to the Museum of London Docklands offer, other institutions such as Queen Mary University of London had offered to host the work. A quote obtained from their insurers showed it could be insured for £2,000 a year, indicating it was possible to insure the work for a reasonable price. Other institutions that have  made offers to host the work or support its return to the borough were Christchurch Spitalfields, Morpeth School, Art Fund and Whitechapel Gallery. Furthermore 1200 people have signed a petition in support of its retention

Councillor Rania Khan and Heather Bonfield responded and their points were summarised as follows:

Councillor Rania Khan stated that the Cabinet appreciated that the sculpture was a great piece of art. She drew attention to the budget cuts and the absence of the sculpture from the Borough for 15 years with little attention.  Over half the people surveyed in a recent poll supported the sale of the work. It would secure much needed funding for essential services and social regeneration including social housing. There was no certainty that insurance, underwritten by the Government, could be secured by the institutions mentioned.

Ms Heather Bonfield stressed the problems around the insurance. The advice she had previously received from the council’s insurer, and others, was that it was not insurable, but this was being rechecked. In terms of exploring different options of where the sculpture could be sited, they had reviewed public spaces including Victoria Park after the refurbishment works were completed, but they were not considered viable. 

Jill Bell clarified that the artist sold the statue to the London County Council (LCC) in the 1960s as set out in the Authority’s archived minutes. The statue then passed into the ownership the Greater London Council (GLC) and then, under the LGA 1985, to LBTH.

In reply to the presentations, the Committee raised the following questions and comments:

• There was a resolution, agreed by full Council 2 years ago, to bring back the sculpture to the Borough. Very little appeared to have been done since then, apart from discussions with the Canary Wharf Group in October, right at the last minute.
• Why had there been a delay in sending the Museum of London Docklands proof of ownership of the sculpture so they could pursue their insurance application?
• Had the government insurance option been fully explored with other bodies as well
• The risk that other artists would be deterred from selling artwork to LBTH if this artwork was sold.
• Whether the receipts would belong to the Housing Revenue Account given the sculpture was located on a housing estate.
• In reply Jill Bell confirmed that they would not. The decisions were made by the LCC at a General Purposes Committee not a Housing Committee as shown by the minutes.
• Whether the Council had approached more than one insurer, before deciding that the sculpture was uninsurable.
• Why officers had waited until the Victoria Park refurbishments were finished before deciding that was an unsuitable site, and why the sculpture couldn’t be located on one of the ‘islands’ in the Park.
• It was not clear what projects would be funded with the proceeds from the sale.
• There was a lack of consultation with the community, and it did not seem as if residents views had been taken into account

In response it was reported that the Council had engaged in on-going discussions with the Canary Wharf Group over the last 2 years but they had now indicated that they did not wish to host the sculpture. It was necessary to wait for the works to Victoria Park and the security report to be completed before assessing if it could be accommodated in the park because of changes to the plans and ground conditions arising.

It was evident from the assessments that the park was not a suitable location as explained in the Cabinet report. There were many important pieces of art work in the Borough for public enjoyment and the Council fully supported art works. Ms Bonfield did not believe the sale would deter artists from selling the work to LBTH in future give this track record.

The letter from the Museums of London had only recently been received and contained other information and requests that were being addressed.  The Mayor had given an indication of the types of projects that would be undertaken which included housing, culture, community safety and schools.

In response to further questions Sharon Ament confirmed that the London Museum had yet to secure the government insurance. They needed proof of ownership for this. As soon they had received this they could apply for this. They had received great assurances that their application would be successful. 

The Committee considered the views and comments made by Councillor Snowdon in presenting the call-in and the information given by Councillor Rania Khan and Heather Bonfield.

On a unanimous vote, the Committee agreed that Cabinet’s provisional decision be referred back to Cabinet for further consideration, with the following alternative actions proposed:

Insufficient consideration has been given to alternative options for returning the sculpture to the borough for public view and the decision appears to have been rushed. These alternative options should now be fully considered. In particular, the offer from the Museum in London Docklands to host and insure the sculpture should be explored as well as the other expressions of interest and offers of support. These offers illustrate that it is possible to return the sculpture to public view in the borough securely. 

The sculpture should be displayed in a publicly accessible place so it can be enjoyed by as many people as possible. All options should be fully explored including council land and the University.

The officer advice on this issue was disappointing, the report produced for the decision was inadequate and rightly caused concern that a decision taken on it would be open to challenge. Local institutions had not been contacted for their interest or advice on hosting the sculpture and the position over insurance was unclear. No mention was made of advice taken, other than that of Christies; giving the impression that only the sale of the statute was seriously being considered. No detail was included on usual practice on council insurance needs or why the conclusion had been reached, causing further concern regarding veracity. The reports own risk analysis warned of the issues, currently being faced by the Council,  if the case was not dealt with correctly.

A large number of residents clearly support the return of the sculpture to the borough and would greatly enjoy visiting it. Moore’s inspiration was eastenders awaiting the end of the Blitz, and it was felt strongly that the state should remain in the east end of London.

There is doubt that sculpture would fetch the much quoted £20 million at auction, particularly given its condition. This would be one-off capital funding and not sustainable, and, relative to the Council’s overall budget would not have a significant impact on savings to be made. The benefits of retaining the statue would therefore far outweigh the relatively modest financial gain from the sale.

It was disappointing that the Executive’s argument for selling the sculpture appeared to have changed from the position that they would love to keep the sculpture but that it was uninsurable, to an argument that the sculpture was being sold to raise funds. No clear priorities for use of the proceeds of the sale have been produced, with different Lead Members citing different potential areas. Furthermore, there appears to be a lack of clarity about the Mayor’s priorities for spending, as seen through the Mainstream Grants Programme process, the draft Community and Voluntary Sector Strategy and the Enterprise Strategy. This leads to the conclusion that funds raised will be spent on the whim of the Mayor alone.

The statue belongs to the borough, no matter how long it has been cared for elsewhere. The fact that it was previously sent away to Yorkshire, rather than lose it, is not an excuse to now sell it, just because the Mayor has decided it is no longer valued by residents.

Members and residents were told that the sculpture was uninsurable and it was logistically impossible to locate in the borough, but this is clearly not true, it could be brought home at little or no cost and as such should be returned to the borough for public enjoyment.