Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Bill [HL]

This has been an interesting debate. It has ranged wider than the subject of the amendments. I intend to focus my remarks on the amendments. I take note of what my noble friend said in a much broader and wide-ranging debate which has included European legislation. I have a copy of the report Lending to Europe and am very grateful to officials for giving it to me. I shall not start by pretending that I am an expert on Departure for Culture, Media and Sport policy. I will refer specific questions to Ministers in that department, and I am sure that they will respond in plenty of time for Report. We are in Committee, and it is our opportunity to focus on the particular aspects in the amendments. As noble Lords know, I speak for the Government, but I am wise enough not to go down the road of the rumours of the Comprehensive Spending Review. As my noble friend will remember from his days as a Minister, it is always a danger to assume anything from the rumours of the Comprehensive Spending Review. In my experience they very rarely, if ever, turn out to bear relation to what then happens. I am very grateful to noble Lords for raising this important matter. I also want to put on record my gratitude to my noble friend Lord Janner who has been to see me. He has been extremely helpful and we are in the middle of an exchange of correspondence. I begin with Amendment No. 130 and ““section”” or ““Part””. I read Clause 128 quite differently. It talks about the approval list for the purposes of the definition of museums and galleries, which is given in ““this section””, and ““this section”” is part of Part 6. I think that that is fine. Rather than get into a big debate on it now, however, I will look at it again, but it read to me as if it were referring to this section, in this Part. I thought both words were in the appropriate place, but if parliamentary counsel wishes to review it again, I am sure it will. That is all I am going to say on that, you will not be surprised to hear. Amendments Nos. 131 and 132 are, in a sense, about balance. In the main, at Second Reading noble Lords accepted the principle of what the Department for Culture, Media and Sport proposed for this legislation, for the reasons that I gave then. However, although we have the document that my noble friend Lord Howarth referred to, Combating Illicit Trade, published in October last year, noble Lords were concerned that we should ensure that due diligence was recognised and put forward appropriately. We accept the principle behind the amendments, which is sensible. We are particularly interested in Amendment No. 132, and I will be looking at that carefully in conjunction with colleagues at the DCMS. It is right that the Secretary of State must have regard to the procedures followed by museums and galleries for establishing the provenance and ownership of objects that may qualify for protection under the Bill in deciding whether they should be approved for the purposes of immunity. With regard to the role already played by museums, due diligence does not come with the legislation as part of the requirements. It exists already. In that sense, they are funded to do it. We are talking about the major national museums, plus the main large regional museums that mount exhibitions—that is fewer than 60 in total. In my view they should be practising due diligence already. The question is whether we need to recognise that in the Bill. It is fundamental that any museum that benefits from immunity from seizure needs to have the strict controls that noble Lords seek to ensure that it does not borrow items of dubious origin. We would expect it to follow the principles outlined in the guidelines, Combating Illicit Trade. I hear what my noble friend says; the guidelines talk mainly about purchase, but then say, ““When you are talking about ‘acquisition’, think of ‘loan’””. However, I have not yet heard from colleagues in the department that that has caused any difficulty for museums, so I do not propose at this stage that that should be rewritten. Museums will also be asked to abide by the statement of principles issued by the National Museum Directors’ Conference on spoliation of works of art during the Holocaust and World War II period. Under the guidelines, museums should undertake appropriate investigations into any item they borrow. If there are any doubts about the item’s ethical status, they should not proceed with the loan. For the purpose of the clause, approval will require more than simply an agreement by the institution in question to follow guidelines published by the department from time to time. With the greatest respect, we do not think the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, goes far enough. Under our proposals, museums will be invited to apply for immunity from seizure and to submit evidence of their due diligence procedures—which I hope will answer in part my noble friend’s concerns about ensuring that it happens properly—and associated documentation to assure us that they are conducting appropriate checks into the provenance and ownership of items they propose to borrow for temporary exhibitions. They need to demonstrate how they implement due diligence guidelines and what checks they make into the provenance and ownership of items. Only then will they be approved for the purposes of Clause 128. That is very important. It is our intention, with gratitude to those who have moved amendments, to take away Amendment No. 132 and consider that as the basis on which I shall seek to come back on Report. I hope I have answered my noble friend’s questions in part, but I will ensure that he gets a full answer before Report. I hope he will accept that for the time being.