Southampton City Council art sell off 'would be impossible' says Cllr Mary Lloyd

The Auguste Rodin scupture in Southampt on Art Gallery’s storage area.

The Auguste Rodin scupture in Southampt on Art Gallery’s storage area.

First published in News Daily Echo: Photograph of the Author by , Education Reporter

A CAMPAIGNER-turned-councillor who fought controversial plans to sell some of Southampton’s £190m art collection has insisted she believes it is still impossible for the council to flog any of its masterpieces.

But she has backed her party leader for refusing to rule out the idea.

Southampton’s Labour council bosses appear to have softened their stance on the possibility of cashing in on some of the largely-hidden collection, as they desperately try to find £20m-a-year in savings to balance the books at the cashstrapped authority.

As revealed by the Daily Echo, finance chief Cllr Simon Letts, who has announced cuts that will see more than 300 council jobs axed, admitted he was “open-minded” on the issue of selling art, while council leader Richard Williams refused to rule out a sale.

But Cllr Mary Lloyd, who was a leading member of the Southampton Save Our Collection group which spearheaded the campaign against the then-Tory council’s proposed sale of two masterpieces in 2010, said she believes selling pieces would still not be legally possible.

She said a new independent panel being set up to oversee the running of the city’s art gallery and hundreds of paintings and sculptures will essentially take the decision out of the hands of elected officials.

The scheme was dropped two years ago in the face of huge opposition, including from the Museums Authority, which said it would not sanction the move.

Earlier this year councillors, who are automatically trustees of the Chipperfield Trust, which oversees the collection donated to Southampton by Robert Chipperfield a century ago, voted to appoint a panel of experts to advise on the best way to use the artworks. Cllr Lloyd said: “There’s a conflict between our role as councillors and as trustees of the gallery and collection.

“As far as it’s possible, we’re resting the decision in a group of very professional, very knowledgeable and experienced people – they are experts across the arts and fundraising.”

Cllr Lloyd said even attempting to sell art had caused serious damage to Southampton’s reputation in the art world, with sponsors pulling out of touring exhibitions and the removal of offers to leave art to the city.

“You can’t even say ‘we think we might’ without causing a lot of damage,”

she said: The councillor added even though using cash fromselling pieces to help pay for the new flagship arts complex is a “better reason” than the SeaCity Museum as the Conservatives had wanted, she believes it is not an option.

Cllr Lloyd said: “It’s quite natural for people who don’t know the situation to look at the art collection and say why can’t we cash in on some of that?

“Simon’s is a moral position, but we’ve got things that are going to make it probably impossible to do it.

“And Richard is making a statement that’s absolutely inclusive and clear. He cannot say I rule out sales and he can’t say we will sell.

“He’s doing the right thing, as he usually does. It’s up to the committee to have those deliberations. He’s giving those people the respect and space they need.”

Cllr John Hannides, who was the Tory leisure chief behind the attempted 2010 sale, said last night the new panel would advise in the best interests of the collection, but not stop councillors from selling pieces if they believe it is the right thing to do.

And he insisted the rules have now shifted to make a sale a realistic prospect if the council wanted to do it.

He said: “It has changed dramatically and it’s very surprising that people haven’t bothered to look at what’s happened in recent years and understand the impact that it has on those art galleries that chose to sell art.”

Comments (12)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

6:04pm Wed 28 Nov 12

sotonbusdriver says...

I am sure if the Council wanted to raise funds, they would get better response to lining up the Councillors, and charging for stones and bricks for the locals to throw at them.
It would raise a fortune over night, and with any luck we would reduce the number of Councillors and save even more money on their over inflated salaries..
I am sure if the Council wanted to raise funds, they would get better response to lining up the Councillors, and charging for stones and bricks for the locals to throw at them. It would raise a fortune over night, and with any luck we would reduce the number of Councillors and save even more money on their over inflated salaries.. sotonbusdriver
  • Score: 0

6:15pm Wed 28 Nov 12

loosehead says...

Funny how when a Tory council proposed selling some art she was vehemently opposed to it yet now backs her leader?
Funny how when a Tory council proposed selling some art she was vehemently opposed to it yet now backs her leader? loosehead
  • Score: 0

6:26pm Wed 28 Nov 12

Vonnie says...

The Council just prevaricating has caused untold damage within both the art world, visitors, and with would be donators of art items. The integrity of certain SCC members is shot to peices. The last place that I would donate or sponsor anything would be to Southampton, given its recent reputation. Not that is, until I was ensured that it was tied up with so many caveats that it could not be sold to prop up bad management.
That, I believe, is how the Chipperfield Bequest and other donated items are protected.
The Council just prevaricating has caused untold damage within both the art world, visitors, and with would be donators of art items. The integrity of certain SCC members is shot to peices. The last place that I would donate or sponsor anything would be to Southampton, given its recent reputation. Not that is, until I was ensured that it was tied up with so many caveats that it could not be sold to prop up bad management. That, I believe, is how the Chipperfield Bequest and other donated items are protected. Vonnie
  • Score: 0

6:52pm Wed 28 Nov 12

On the inside says...

sotonbusdriver wrote:
I am sure if the Council wanted to raise funds, they would get better response to lining up the Councillors, and charging for stones and bricks for the locals to throw at them. It would raise a fortune over night, and with any luck we would reduce the number of Councillors and save even more money on their over inflated salaries..
Yet when people throw stones at any of Southampton's bus drivers your don't half go on.
[quote][p][bold]sotonbusdriver[/bold] wrote: I am sure if the Council wanted to raise funds, they would get better response to lining up the Councillors, and charging for stones and bricks for the locals to throw at them. It would raise a fortune over night, and with any luck we would reduce the number of Councillors and save even more money on their over inflated salaries..[/p][/quote]Yet when people throw stones at any of Southampton's bus drivers your don't half go on. On the inside
  • Score: 0

8:52pm Wed 28 Nov 12

Plum Pudding says...

I am not being funny but although £190m seems to be an awful lot of money, certainly more than any Echo reader will, I suspect, see in their lifetime, it isn't compared to the revenue needs of a city the size of Southampton. And if they are considering only selling part of it, it is even less. It is a bit like some of one's possessions, there is far more value in having it, than what you would actually realise by selling it. And it is unlikely that it would or could be replaced as there will never be enough "spare cah" lying around. I suspect most of it was bequeathed for the moral and educational benefit of the city rather realising it for a hand full of silver, and should they sell it, no one in their right mind will ever donate anything else. Having said that I doubt much of it gets seen anywhere as near as regularly as it should, perhaps far more of it could be rented out or loaned out to enable others to see it. But one thing is for sure, it should remain in public property and for future generations and not sold off for short term gain as once its gone, it's gone or good.
I am not being funny but although £190m seems to be an awful lot of money, certainly more than any Echo reader will, I suspect, see in their lifetime, it isn't compared to the revenue needs of a city the size of Southampton. And if they are considering only selling part of it, it is even less. It is a bit like some of one's possessions, there is far more value in having it, than what you would actually realise by selling it. And it is unlikely that it would or could be replaced as there will never be enough "spare cah" lying around. I suspect most of it was bequeathed for the moral and educational benefit of the city rather realising it for a hand full of silver, and should they sell it, no one in their right mind will ever donate anything else. Having said that I doubt much of it gets seen anywhere as near as regularly as it should, perhaps far more of it could be rented out or loaned out to enable others to see it. But one thing is for sure, it should remain in public property and for future generations and not sold off for short term gain as once its gone, it's gone or good. Plum Pudding
  • Score: 0

9:02pm Wed 28 Nov 12

Maine Lobster says...

loosehead wrote:
Funny how when a Tory council proposed selling some art she was vehemently opposed to it yet now backs her leader?
Things have changed a bit since then. Southampton has just received a 28% cut in grant from central government. selling art is not preferable but it may be an option that has to be considered.
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: Funny how when a Tory council proposed selling some art she was vehemently opposed to it yet now backs her leader?[/p][/quote]Things have changed a bit since then. Southampton has just received a 28% cut in grant from central government. selling art is not preferable but it may be an option that has to be considered. Maine Lobster
  • Score: 0

9:24pm Wed 28 Nov 12

loosehead says...

Maine Lobster wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Funny how when a Tory council proposed selling some art she was vehemently opposed to it yet now backs her leader?
Things have changed a bit since then. Southampton has just received a 28% cut in grant from central government. selling art is not preferable but it may be an option that has to be considered.
This cut was on the cards when the Tories proposed selling it.
Don't get me wrong I would quite happily see say two pieces of art sold & the school PFI's paid off to help finance school youth clubs/initiatives but would want assurances in writing legal assurances that no more would/could be sold
[quote][p][bold]Maine Lobster[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: Funny how when a Tory council proposed selling some art she was vehemently opposed to it yet now backs her leader?[/p][/quote]Things have changed a bit since then. Southampton has just received a 28% cut in grant from central government. selling art is not preferable but it may be an option that has to be considered.[/p][/quote]This cut was on the cards when the Tories proposed selling it. Don't get me wrong I would quite happily see say two pieces of art sold & the school PFI's paid off to help finance school youth clubs/initiatives but would want assurances in writing legal assurances that no more would/could be sold loosehead
  • Score: 0

1:55am Thu 29 Nov 12

southy says...

loosehead wrote:
Funny how when a Tory council proposed selling some art she was vehemently opposed to it yet now backs her leader?
They will have the problem of rasing the cash for the people of southampton to vote on it
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: Funny how when a Tory council proposed selling some art she was vehemently opposed to it yet now backs her leader?[/p][/quote]They will have the problem of rasing the cash for the people of southampton to vote on it southy
  • Score: 0

9:51am Thu 29 Nov 12

Over the Edge says...

Mary Lloyd is one of the most annoying people I have had the mis-fortune to meet, she will go with whatever the Labour leader decides to do, end of
Mary Lloyd is one of the most annoying people I have had the mis-fortune to meet, she will go with whatever the Labour leader decides to do, end of Over the Edge
  • Score: 0

10:42am Thu 29 Nov 12

loosehead says...

southy wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Funny how when a Tory council proposed selling some art she was vehemently opposed to it yet now backs her leader?
They will have the problem of rasing the cash for the people of southampton to vote on it
SOUTHY.
Explain your party's words will you?
I said to one of you lot HSBC,Barclays would leave this country taking with them thousands of jobs,
lost taxation of the companies,loss taxation of the employees,lost NI Stamp of both employees & employer.
he said they can't we own two thirds of them we don't thats RBS & LLoyds.
but lets say we did?
when said banks make a profit? the Share Holders get a divi & it all depends on the size of profit correct?
So we hit them we gain one way but then lose our divi don't we?
We want to make said banks profitable to be able to get the best price for our stake in them to help pay of the banks portion of the debt don't we?
How will we do this if we're hitting their profits?
Why are your Party Lying about the amount of debt the banks ran up?
It was no way a Trillion pounds the biggest amount of debt was run up by the last Government trying to buy us out of a recession & trying to buy votes so okay we sell the banks but still have this huge debt who are we going to hit then?
We've had the bank money back so it's not their debt so who's debt is it?
The Labour Party? The never worked a day in my life & never want to brigade?
Come on let's here what you have to say?
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: Funny how when a Tory council proposed selling some art she was vehemently opposed to it yet now backs her leader?[/p][/quote]They will have the problem of rasing the cash for the people of southampton to vote on it[/p][/quote]SOUTHY. Explain your party's words will you? I said to one of you lot HSBC,Barclays would leave this country taking with them thousands of jobs, lost taxation of the companies,loss taxation of the employees,lost NI Stamp of both employees & employer. he said they can't we own two thirds of them we don't thats RBS & LLoyds. but lets say we did? when said banks make a profit? the Share Holders get a divi & it all depends on the size of profit correct? So we hit them we gain one way but then lose our divi don't we? We want to make said banks profitable to be able to get the best price for our stake in them to help pay of the banks portion of the debt don't we? How will we do this if we're hitting their profits? Why are your Party Lying about the amount of debt the banks ran up? It was no way a Trillion pounds the biggest amount of debt was run up by the last Government trying to buy us out of a recession & trying to buy votes so okay we sell the banks but still have this huge debt who are we going to hit then? We've had the bank money back so it's not their debt so who's debt is it? The Labour Party? The never worked a day in my life & never want to brigade? Come on let's here what you have to say? loosehead
  • Score: 0

12:50pm Thu 29 Nov 12

southy says...

The major part of our £Trillion Debt was ran up between 1985 to 1994, Labour done 2 things right when last in office one was Unemployment going down, the other was to what was left of the WWII debt was paid off in full, so the Tory could no longer borrow money and hiding it on the wwii debt like they was doing in the 80's and early 90's.
There is making a profit fairly and theres making a profit on the backs of others, at the moment this so call open free market will not let the Post office run a bank like it use to, and if the banks was in it to help give share holders a bigger div's then why are these high bonus giving to top ranking board members of banks (I let you know now that some types bank accounts do not pay any intrest on the money that they have in there accounts, but if they was to go into red on there account they will put a charge on, in one form or another), Labour had no chose to bail out that bank, the lost of it would on ment there would be knock on effects on the other banks and you would of seen other banks going under.
This country was at its best with old Labour we was heading in the right dirrection, our total national debt was going down, with the paying off in full the WWI and the capitalist debt of the 1020's,30's, leaving only the WWII debt to go, and this was paid off by the Nationalise Industarys.
One thing for sure they will not leave Country like your thinking, they will stay even if they had to pay the full amount tax, The same thing was being said in California but the state Government put taxes up on the wealthy and banks, but did they leave no, they stayed, because if they moved out some else will move in and they would lose money.
I don't mind having a Capitalist system going but we also need a State ownership also and let them compete with each other, We need a state industary it pays off the national debt, just think how rich this country would of been if denationalation did not happen, in one industry alone would of put us in over £tillion in credit (thats was state owned oil), but it was sold of to a few, and the profit is held in a off shore tax free banking and is costing this country in £billions in lost Tax revenue, and this only happened because of one law removed in the 80's that as never been put back the deregulating of the banks, and who was it that was one of the first to take advantage Maggie Thatcher, This self serving interest for ones own greed and it do not matter what the cost was, because it would not effect the 2% riches people in the UK.
this is Capitalism at its finest
The major part of our £Trillion Debt was ran up between 1985 to 1994, Labour done 2 things right when last in office one was Unemployment going down, the other was to what was left of the WWII debt was paid off in full, so the Tory could no longer borrow money and hiding it on the wwii debt like they was doing in the 80's and early 90's. There is making a profit fairly and theres making a profit on the backs of others, at the moment this so call open free market will not let the Post office run a bank like it use to, and if the banks was in it to help give share holders a bigger div's then why are these high bonus giving to top ranking board members of banks (I let you know now that some types bank accounts do not pay any intrest on the money that they have in there accounts, but if they was to go into red on there account they will put a charge on, in one form or another), Labour had no chose to bail out that bank, the lost of it would on ment there would be knock on effects on the other banks and you would of seen other banks going under. This country was at its best with old Labour we was heading in the right dirrection, our total national debt was going down, with the paying off in full the WWI and the capitalist debt of the 1020's,30's, leaving only the WWII debt to go, and this was paid off by the Nationalise Industarys. One thing for sure they will not leave Country like your thinking, they will stay even if they had to pay the full amount tax, The same thing was being said in California but the state Government put taxes up on the wealthy and banks, but did they leave no, they stayed, because if they moved out some else will move in and they would lose money. I don't mind having a Capitalist system going but we also need a State ownership also and let them compete with each other, We need a state industary it pays off the national debt, just think how rich this country would of been if denationalation did not happen, in one industry alone would of put us in over £tillion in credit (thats was state owned oil), but it was sold of to a few, and the profit is held in a off shore tax free banking and is costing this country in £billions in lost Tax revenue, and this only happened because of one law removed in the 80's that as never been put back the deregulating of the banks, and who was it that was one of the first to take advantage Maggie Thatcher, This self serving interest for ones own greed and it do not matter what the cost was, because it would not effect the 2% riches people in the UK. this is Capitalism at its finest southy
  • Score: 0

1:40pm Thu 29 Nov 12

loosehead says...

southy wrote:
The major part of our £Trillion Debt was ran up between 1985 to 1994, Labour done 2 things right when last in office one was Unemployment going down, the other was to what was left of the WWII debt was paid off in full, so the Tory could no longer borrow money and hiding it on the wwii debt like they was doing in the 80's and early 90's.
There is making a profit fairly and theres making a profit on the backs of others, at the moment this so call open free market will not let the Post office run a bank like it use to, and if the banks was in it to help give share holders a bigger div's then why are these high bonus giving to top ranking board members of banks (I let you know now that some types bank accounts do not pay any intrest on the money that they have in there accounts, but if they was to go into red on there account they will put a charge on, in one form or another), Labour had no chose to bail out that bank, the lost of it would on ment there would be knock on effects on the other banks and you would of seen other banks going under.
This country was at its best with old Labour we was heading in the right dirrection, our total national debt was going down, with the paying off in full the WWI and the capitalist debt of the 1020's,30's, leaving only the WWII debt to go, and this was paid off by the Nationalise Industarys.
One thing for sure they will not leave Country like your thinking, they will stay even if they had to pay the full amount tax, The same thing was being said in California but the state Government put taxes up on the wealthy and banks, but did they leave no, they stayed, because if they moved out some else will move in and they would lose money.
I don't mind having a Capitalist system going but we also need a State ownership also and let them compete with each other, We need a state industary it pays off the national debt, just think how rich this country would of been if denationalation did not happen, in one industry alone would of put us in over £tillion in credit (thats was state owned oil), but it was sold of to a few, and the profit is held in a off shore tax free banking and is costing this country in £billions in lost Tax revenue, and this only happened because of one law removed in the 80's that as never been put back the deregulating of the banks, and who was it that was one of the first to take advantage Maggie Thatcher, This self serving interest for ones own greed and it do not matter what the cost was, because it would not effect the 2% riches people in the UK.
this is Capitalism at its finest
So you don't really know what your talking about then?
have you heard about the black hole that's emerged over PPI's.
the banks won't be making profits & will have to sell parts of their business or hope the Government gives them more of our money so once again how are we going to hit the banks?
OH! when Labour came to power there was no debt so as I said to your mate you haven't got a clue have you?
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: The major part of our £Trillion Debt was ran up between 1985 to 1994, Labour done 2 things right when last in office one was Unemployment going down, the other was to what was left of the WWII debt was paid off in full, so the Tory could no longer borrow money and hiding it on the wwii debt like they was doing in the 80's and early 90's. There is making a profit fairly and theres making a profit on the backs of others, at the moment this so call open free market will not let the Post office run a bank like it use to, and if the banks was in it to help give share holders a bigger div's then why are these high bonus giving to top ranking board members of banks (I let you know now that some types bank accounts do not pay any intrest on the money that they have in there accounts, but if they was to go into red on there account they will put a charge on, in one form or another), Labour had no chose to bail out that bank, the lost of it would on ment there would be knock on effects on the other banks and you would of seen other banks going under. This country was at its best with old Labour we was heading in the right dirrection, our total national debt was going down, with the paying off in full the WWI and the capitalist debt of the 1020's,30's, leaving only the WWII debt to go, and this was paid off by the Nationalise Industarys. One thing for sure they will not leave Country like your thinking, they will stay even if they had to pay the full amount tax, The same thing was being said in California but the state Government put taxes up on the wealthy and banks, but did they leave no, they stayed, because if they moved out some else will move in and they would lose money. I don't mind having a Capitalist system going but we also need a State ownership also and let them compete with each other, We need a state industary it pays off the national debt, just think how rich this country would of been if denationalation did not happen, in one industry alone would of put us in over £tillion in credit (thats was state owned oil), but it was sold of to a few, and the profit is held in a off shore tax free banking and is costing this country in £billions in lost Tax revenue, and this only happened because of one law removed in the 80's that as never been put back the deregulating of the banks, and who was it that was one of the first to take advantage Maggie Thatcher, This self serving interest for ones own greed and it do not matter what the cost was, because it would not effect the 2% riches people in the UK. this is Capitalism at its finest[/p][/quote]So you don't really know what your talking about then? have you heard about the black hole that's emerged over PPI's. the banks won't be making profits & will have to sell parts of their business or hope the Government gives them more of our money so once again how are we going to hit the banks? OH! when Labour came to power there was no debt so as I said to your mate you haven't got a clue have you? loosehead
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree