Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Bill [HL]

Clause 128(3) states: "““‘Museum or gallery’ means an institution in the United Kingdom approved for the purpose of this section by the Secretary of State””." It should not refer to the section; it should refer to Part 6. That is why I tabled the amendment thinking that it was uncontroversial. ““Museum or gallery”” is certainly mentioned in Clause 128(6), but that is about all, whereas ““museum or gallery”” is also referred to in Clause 126(2), (7)(a), (8)(a) and elsewhere. Do we assume that ““museum or gallery”” means something else in Clauses 126 and 127? Surely the word ““section”” should read ““Part””. I continue with Amendment No. 132. It is a substantive amendment. The Committee will recall that there were questions about a museum or gallery being approved and that there might be loans to museums or galleries only if they were approved. As I understand it, there is an informal procedure whereby museums or galleries have a mechanism to investigate with due diligence provenance and ownership of any object brought to the United Kingdom. All I seek to do is to put that in the Bill. It is an important matter. I notice that the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, has tabled a very similar amendment, which is grouped with mine. The force behind the amendments is obvious. I beg to move.