I warmly congratulate my right hon. Friend. Six years has been a long wait, but it has been well worth it, and we have now got there. Is it not ironic that part of the topicality of this Bill, and the reason for people’s enthusiasm for it, comes from seeing the horrors of Daesh in Syria and elsewhere, yet it does not fully cover the activities of Daesh because it covers only unlawfully exported cultural property from occupied territories? Without being too greedy, are the Government supportive of looking at future conventions to try to make sure that Daesh comes within the provisions, although the Iraqi and Syrian sanction orders cover the gap?
Cultural Property (Armed Conflicts) Bill [Lords]
Proceeding contribution from
David Burrowes
(Conservative)
in the House of Commons on Monday, 31 October 2016.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Cultural Property (Armed Conflicts) Bill [Lords].
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
616 c698 
Session
2016-17
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2020-04-14 16:49:25 +0100
URI
http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Commons/2016-10-31/16103137000013
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Commons/2016-10-31/16103137000013
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Commons/2016-10-31/16103137000013