 House of Commons |
Session 2004 - 05 Publications on the internet Standing Committee Debates |
Fourth Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation |
|
Column Number: 1 Fourth Standing Committee on Delegated LegislationThe Committee consisted of the following Members: Chairman: Mr. Edward O’Hara Austin, John (Erith and Thamesmead) (Lab)†Efford, Clive (Eltham) (Lab) †Flook, Mr. Adrian (Taunton) (Con) †Foster, Mr. Don (Bath) (LD) Greenway, Mr. John (Ryedale) (Con) †Grogan, Mr. John (Selby) (Lab) Hall, Mr. Patrick (Bedford) (Lab) †Morris, Estelle (Minister for the Arts) †Pound, Mr. Stephen (Ealing, North) (Lab) †Russell, Bob (Colchester) (LD) †Selous, Andrew (South-West Bedfordshire) (Con) Simon, Mr. Siôn (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab) †Stoate, Dr. Howard (Dartford) (Lab) †Swire, Mr. Hugo (East Devon) (Con) †Tami, Mark (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab) †Watson, Mr. Tom (West Bromwich, East) (Lab) David Bates, Committee Clerk † attended the Committee The following also attended, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(2): Jones, Mr. Kevan (North Durham) (Lab)Column Number: 3 Monday 21 March 2005[Mr. Edward O’Hara in the Chair]Draft Contracting Out (Functions in Relation to Cultural Objects) Order 20054.30 pmThe Minister for the Arts (Estelle Morris): I beg to move,
Welcome to the Chair, Mr. O’Hara. I welcome another opportunity to serve under you in Committee. The order is being made to implement recommendations made in the January 2004 report “Securing the Best for Our Museums: Private Giving and Government Support” made to Her Majesty’s Treasury by Sir Nicholas Goodison, who was commissioned by us to consider ways of improving the effectiveness and efficiency of support to regional and national museums so as to help them acquire works of art that might otherwise be sold abroad. His report highlighted a continuing risk to the quality of United Kingdom collections of art arising from the loss of many cultural items to overseas buyers. The administrative recommendations of the report are intended to help stem the tide further, by making sure that a number of functions operated by two different bodies will be centralised into one organisation. The statutory functions considered by the order are: first, the acceptance of property offered in lieu of inheritance tax under section 230 of the Inheritance Tax Act 1984 and section 12 of the National Heritage Act 1980, together with the allocation of that property and the power to receive or make payments in relation to it under sections 9 and 10 of the 1980 Act; secondly, the power to give indemnities under section 16 of the National Heritage Act 1980 for loss or damage suffered to items lent to institutions in the United Kingdom, and the requirement to make a report on indemnities given annually to Parliament under section 16A of that Act; and, thirdly, the power to issue a licence for the export of cultural goods under articles 2 and 3 of the Export of Objects of Cultural Interest (Control) Order 2003. We are transferring a non-statutory function, the provision of the secretariat of the reviewing committee on export of works of art, a body that advises the Secretary of State on whether a work of art or cultural object for which an application for a permanent export licence has been received is of national importance and, therefore, whether export of the object should be deferred and offers to acquire the item for the nation
Once the order has been passed, we will enter into an agreement with the MLA authorising it to exercise those functions on behalf of the Secretary of State. The MLA will be responsible for the administration of all the procedures for acceptance of property and objects in lieu of inheritance and their allocation for display to the public. That responsibility is currently split between the two bodies, but the acceptance in lieu scheme is well administered by the MLA and we are confident that it will be able to take on the extra responsibility. However, we have decided that there should be an exception for the acceptance of items to be displayed to the public in situ in the estate from which they were offered. The display of such items by the original owners is governed by an agreement between the estate and the museum that takes possession after allocation. Contrary to the Goodison proposals, I believe it more appropriate, for now, that final approval of offers in situ should be for Ministers. That decision has been taken in light of the high value of the items that tend to be offered under such arrangements and the public interest in ensuring continuing access to them. The Government indemnity scheme facilitates public access to items of an artistic, historic, scientific or technological nature. The scheme covers loans made accessible to the public in a temporary exhibition, on long-term loan or made available to the public for study. The scheme underwrites the borrower’s risk of loss or damage to the objects while on loan to the borrower or while in transit to and from their institution. Therefore, it has enabled most of the major recent exhibitions in the United Kingdom to go ahead. However, the Government incur substantial levels of contingent liability under the Government indemnity scheme—at any one time, those liabilities will be £3 billion to £4 billion. Changes to the terms of the indemnity offered could increase that liability significantly. Therefore, I feel that it is important to make sure that, in the rare cases in which changes to the terms of the indemnity are requested, the interests of both the Secretary of State and taxpayers are protected by ensuring that final approval of any changes to the terms of the indemnity will remain with the Secretary of State while management of the scheme is moved to the MLA. The MLA will be authorised to issue export licences for objects of cultural interest, in line with the Goodison recommendations. Similarly, the MLA will also take on responsibility for providing the secretariat to the reviewing committee on the export of works of art. That does not require legislation but will transfer with the functions delegated to the authority by the order. Column Number: 5 However, I decided not to accept Sir Nicholas’s recommendation that the MLA should also take on responsibility for the final decision to defer an export licence. That occurs when the reviewing committee decides that an object is of national importance and that its export should be temporarily halted, pending offers to acquire the object for the nation. Sir Nicholas saw that as the sort of executive task that could be undertaken by the MLA, but, after consideration, I believe that it is important for Ministers to continue to take such decisions. The prevention of export on the recommendation of the reviewing committee amounts, in effect, to interference by the Secretary of State in people’s individual property rights, on the basis of the public interest. Something as important as that must be justified and fully defended. The procedure would restrict applicants’ rights, which are protected under the Human Rights Act 1998, to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions. Those rights make it all the more important that the decision should continue to be taken by the Secretary of State, who is answerable to Parliament and best placed to assess the public interest. The intention is for the MLA to take on responsibility for acceptance in lieu of inheritance tax, the Government indemnity scheme and the reviewing committee on the export of works of art from 1 April. It will assume responsibility for issuing export licences a little later, in May. Those are, in essence, administrative matters, but I do not wish to underplay their importance. They are better carried out by the MLA. We have consulted widely and have every confidence that they can indeed be carried out by the MLA. I trust that the order will receive the approval of the Committee. 4.37 pmMr. Hugo Swire (East Devon) (Con): It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr. O’Hara. This may be my final farewell to the Minister in an official capacity, although the situation reminds me of a film about coming back from the dead: we meet again, and again. Perhaps we shall meet again under your chairmanship in a few months’ time, if the Prime Minister, who is entitled to stay for at least another year, chooses not to cut and run in May. What the Minister has said is of great interest. The statutory instrument is a useful one. She made it clear that the measures follow from the recommendations of the Goodison review. I always give credit where credit is due, and I am extremely glad that, in this instance, the Minister and her Department have listened to Sir Nicholas’s recommendations. The Government commissioned Sir Nicholas to undertake the review and to examine private giving and Government support for Britain’s museums and galleries. Sir Nicholas, who, if not a public servant, is at least a great servant of the public, submitted his extensive report in January 2004. Column Number: 6 I believe that Sir Nicholas was commissioned by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, who, having read the report, decided to go and live in South Africa rather than implement any of its recommendations. When I asked the Chancellor on 2 February how many of the Goodison recommendations had been implemented, the answer, which came back extremely quickly, was five of the 45 recommendations, the recommendation being implemented in the order being the fifth. It is perhaps worth remembering that for one of the recommendations—to increase the budget of the national heritage memorial fund to £10 million—implementation by the Government went only half way to what Sir Nicholas recommended, and it still does not make up for the Government cutting the memorial fund budget from £8 million in 1997 to £2 million. If I were to issue a report in the manner of a schoolmaster, I would say “You are moving in the right direction, but there is plenty more work to be done.” There is half implementation of what Sir Nicholas recommended, but we are pretty well signed up to the recommendations, and when we announce our arts manifesto in the next few days, we will declare publicly how we would seek to implement a considerable number of them. We do not agree with all of them, but we certainly agree with more than four or five. It is worth teasing out from the Minister a little more than she has shared with the Committee. The Goodison review lists 27 recommendations that Sir Nicholas says could be set in train quickly, and we have just three before us. I hope that the Minister will explain why the Government have taken so long to consider even those relatively minor matters. Recommendation 15, which I think is the main one we are dealing with, concerning the transfer from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport to the Museums, Libraries and Archives council of the administration of the export licensing unit and export licensing review system, and all that that acceptance entails, is only one of several recommendations relating to that area. Recommendation 16 talks about the proper funding of the transfer to what was called “Resource”—a forerunner of the MLA. DCMS has stated that it will provide about £180,000. It would be interesting to find out whether that figure is accurate, how it was arrived at and which DCMS budget will suffer—if that is the correct word—as a result. Was that figure the cost of the 12 posts at DCMS originally, or was it arrived at using some other calculation? Recommendation 17 talks about the panels of experts, and recommendations 18 and 19 are all about that, as are recommendations 22, 23 and so on. Why has the Minister selected only one or two of those recommendations and not gone the whole way? The Chairman: Order. It is in order for the hon. Gentleman to ask “Why?” about those three recommendations; it is not in order for him to ask
Mr. Swire: You are entirely right, Mr. O’Hara. It was kind of the Minister to share with us some of the reasons why she did not implement some of Sir Nicholas’s other recommendations. Is the Minister satisfied that the whole in lieu system being transferred to the MLA is working, particularly in terms of access? Does she think that as well as transferring the statutory powers to the MLA those powers need re-examining? The Minister talked about the question of, in her words, stemming the tide. Earlier, at DCMS Question Time, we heard her robustly defend the British art market, saying that London was the centre of the European market. She is absolutely right about that She was asked again this afternoon, and I wonder whether she would concede, as she half did earlier, that droit de suite poses a real threat to the buoyant London art market. That is pertinent to the transfer of powers, the Waverley criteria and the export of works of art. The Waverley criteria form part of what we are discussing today. They are the criteria by which pre-eminent works of art are judged subject or not subject to an export licence, so that museums and galleries can raise funds to stop them going abroad. It has long been my contention that they need to be examined again. I hope that I am not announcing party policy in advance—you would not allow me to do so, Mr. O’Hara—except to say that the 50-year barrier in Waverley is artificial. I think I am in print as saying that. Just because something is more than 50 years old, that does not mean to say that it is pre-eminent, and just because something is pre-eminent, that does not mean to say that it is more than 50 years old. Mr. Stephen Pound (Ealing, North) (Lab): Why is he looking at me? Mr. Swire: I was, indeed, looking at the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Pound) when I said that; I am glad that he is awake. There are people who are pre-eminent and over 50, and the hon. Gentleman is an honourable representation of that category, even if he not is due to be exported—evicted perhaps, but not exported, as far as I know. I agree with the Minister; the final decision on what should be allowed to be exported should reside with the Secretary of State, who is accountable to Parliament, and not with the panel. The panel will make recommendations to her—or to him if the Secretary of State happens to be male within the next
The Minister touched on government indemnity. Without it, it would not be possible to stage large blockbuster exhibitions. That is incredibly important, not only to national museums and institutions but to regional museums and institutions, which simply could not find the funds to attract commercial insurance without it. Without the Government, they would not be able to stage many of those exhibitions. Goodison goes further on that matter, but you would not allow me to trespass into that area, Mr. O’Hara. I have no objection to the transference of the government indemnity scheme to the MLA. It is an excellent scheme, which was set up by my party in the 1980s. I do not object to the MLA’s taking over the power to issue licences for the export of cultural objects. However, because the Government are moving towards greater efficiency and a one-stop shop, as Goodison describes it, I am sorry that they have not taken the opportunity—the Minister may think this odd coming from me—to formulate a charging mechanism to cover the administration costs of the scheme. Quite often, when Waverley is invoked, the sum of money in relation to the object in question is very considerable. I cannot believe that it is too unreasonable to charge for the process where the reviewing committee of Waverley examines whether the object can go abroad. That seems fairly uncontentious and would be a good way for MLA/DCMS to earn some money. Transferring the administration of acceptance of property offered in lieu to the Museums, Libraries and Archives council is a welcome move, but it addresses only part of the problem. It makes sense to have what Goodison called a one-stop shop so that owners of works of art do not have to negotiate separately with the Inland Revenue, DCMS and the MLA, which hitherto has been the case. One important aspect of the acceptance in lieu system is the subsequent surveillance of exempted objects, to ensure that they are not sold illegally or exported. The Minister did not touch on that today, but it is part of the transference of powers to the MLA. The Goodison review recommended that that function should be handed to the MLA, but as far as I am aware, the function will remain in the hands of the Inland Revenue. Therefore, the MLA will not be a one-stop shop, but more of a half-stop shop. Indeed, there have been recent reports of an Inland Revenue employee undertaking such surveillance of
I should have thought that now was a good time to give the duty to someone who could do it more efficiently and responsibly. The Goodison review states that the Inland Revenue seems an inappropriate body to handle sensitive negotiations that affect the well-being of works or art. “Hear, hear”, I say to that, and I have no doubt that the Minister shares that sentiment, but we shall have to wait and see whether she is prepared to share it with the Committee. On efficiency, will the Minister assure the Committee that transference will not result in a net increase of personnel dealing with the issues before us? I believe that about 12 people handle the matter at the DCMS, and I understand that of those 12, four are staying and eight moving to the MLA. It is my further understanding that about four people are already handling it at the MLA, so we return to the figure of 12. Is there a net increase in personnel? If not, are jobs going, and does that count as part of the Gershon process or not? It is not clear that the rise in staff numbers at the MLA will result in a corresponding fall at the DCMS. On the whole, if I had to summarise, which many hon. Members no doubt wish I had done many minutes ago, I would say that the order is a move in the right direction. We welcome it, but it throws up some unresolved issues. We would have been happier if the Minister had more fully embraced the other recommendations in Goodison that specifically relate to this area, and I look forward to the Minister’s commenting on some of my points. 4.51 pmBob Russell (Colchester) (LD): Will the Minister confirm that the MLA is a quango? Where does it fit within the democratic structure if it is to inherit duties currently undertaken by her Department? Where does Parliament fit in dealing with the consequences of what a quango may do? If a work of art comes into public ownership and more than one museum, art gallery or institution feels that it has a claim to be the appropriate place where the work should be displayed, who will be the arbiter of
4.52 pmEstelle Morris: I thank the hon. Members for East Devon (Mr. Swire) and for Colchester (Bob Russell) for their general approval of the order and acceptance that we are travelling in the right direction. I shall try to answer some of their specific points. The hon. Member for East Devon was right: the report was set up by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, not the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. Without my wishing for one moment not to favour joined-up government, and not wanting to be seen to answer for other Departments, may I say that the hon. Gentleman will find that DCMS has enacted all the recommendations that fell to it? Indeed, its implementation record in relation to the report is very good. It is for the Treasury to respond to the recommendations that fall to it, and, as the Chief Secretary to the Treasury said in the answer to the hon. Gentleman’s parliamentary question, it still needs to reflect on some of those and to respond to them. That said, some recommendations made to the Treasury were for the medium and longer term, and everyone would have been surprised if it had responded to them all by now. I have not referred to the other recommendations because we needed to bring those in the order to the Committee because they are part of secondary legislation. Many recommendations do not require legislation at all. I have put on record the Department’s response to the report and if I have not put it in the public domain, I shall ensure that I do so before the end of the week. I shall place a copy in the Library so that everyone can see exactly which recommendations from the Goodison report we have responded to. We have made a report, and we have outlined all the recommendations to which we have responded. If that report is not in the public domain already, I shall ensure that it is because it should be. We do not have plans to change the 50 years requirement. I understand that the Tate Modern, for example, could lose valuable works of art produced in the past 50 years, which can receive an export licence because they are not over 50 years of age. That is a reasonable point to make, but we do not have plans to respond to it. I think that the hon. Member for East Devon would admit that, if he were to put an export ban on works of art that are younger than 50, it might become difficult to draw a line between those that have to get an export licence and those that do not. If he has an answer to that point, I look forward to hearing it. Matters could become more costly and bureaucratic and an even greater administrative burden than they are now. That is why we do not plan to change the Waverley criteria. Column Number: 11 I have heard the comments of those who wish to save modern works of art for the nation. I listened to what they say and I hear the strength of their comments. However, I do not think that the argument for changing the Waverley criteria has been well made. Mr. Swire: I am grateful to the Minister, not least for making public her commitment to publish the compliance with the Goodison recommendations, which is welcome. She may be slightly wrong about the Waverley criteria, however. Abolishing the 50-year rule would not mean that anything painted or drawn during, or any archive from, the last 50 years would automatically come under the Waverley criteria, any more than anything more than 50 years old does currently. There would be an increase. However, at the moment, there is no mechanism for what would happen if, for example, the Harry Potter archive were to come up. It is less than 50 years old, so there is, as far as I know, no mechanism to stop it leaving the country. We are in an invidious position. A painting by someone such as Lucien Freud which was painted in the last 40 or 50 years cannot be subject to the criteria, whereas one painted 51 years ago, of which there are, arguably, depending on which style of Freud one likes, many better ones, can be subject to those criteria. That is the anomaly that we seek to address. Estelle Morris: I entirely accept the hon. Gentleman’s argument. This is not a party political debate. He is absolutely right—the percentage of works of art that are prevented from going abroad is very low, and I do not want to give the impression that a change to the Waverley criteria would prevent many works of art that are less than 50 years old from going abroad. But the Government have no plans to review those criteria at the moment. I will leave the point at that. No doubt we will return to the debate in the future. I shall watch with interest from a distance. As the hon. Gentleman said, responsibility for surveillance is held by the Inland Revenue, and it stays there. As far as I know, the Inland Revenue has made no announcement that it intends to change that, but it is for the Revenue to respond on that matter. It is not for me to comment from the DCMS. The hon. Gentleman is right on staff numbers. We expect a reduction in the number of people in DCMS who carry out these functions. That is why the transfer of staff numbers to the Museums, Libraries and Archives council means a transfer—in some cases, people will actually go over. We are not about to recruit people to carry out those same posts in shadow. That would be a waste of taxpayers’ money. I assure the hon. Gentleman that that will not happen. On charging, there is an up-front cost of £190,000. That is the cost that is available to the MLA to make
The MLA is a non-departmental public body, and it produces an annual report. The hon. Member for Colchester asked about the democratic nature, or otherwise, of the MLA. I do not pretend that it is a democratic body. It is a body of experts, as it ought to be given the range of functions that it carries out. It is because of that consideration that we did not transfer all the things recommended for transfer. My comments about the in situ arrangements and changes in indemnity make sure that where there is peculiar public interest about a matter, for which there should be democratic accountability, there will continue to be democratic accountability to the House. However, the MLA does produce an annual report. I have never been asked to do so, but I suppose that Ministers could be asked by Parliament to comment on its contents. I have covered many of the issues that were raised. The Goodison report was a good one. It would have been unreasonable—or, rather, unusual—if all aspects of it had been implemented only a year after it was published. The Government’s record on responding to the Goodison recommendations is good. The DCMS record on responding to the Goodison recommendations is exemplary. Bob Russell: The Minister has mentioned what a distinguished body the MLA is. I put two points to her. What would happen if two art galleries or museums were in dispute as to who should inherit a work of art? Would there be a requirement for that work of art to be put on public display? Estelle Morris: I could not read my own notes, which is why I forgot to respond to that point. Sometimes the person who has left an object to the nation has asked for it to be displayed in a specific museum and gallery. If that is not the case, offers are invited as to who should have it. Interestingly, in the 20-odd months in which I have been in the job, the decision has seemed obvious when the matter has come to Ministers. Either because of a geographical connection with the person who owned the object or the object itself, or because of the quality of care that is needed, it has been obvious where the object should go. I can remember two cases in which two museums
On the second question, there is an obligation to make the work of art available to the public. I do not think that the arrangements would be right if there were not. Let us be clear that this is about something
Question put and agreed to. Resolved,
Committee rose at two minutes past Five o’clock. |
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2005 | Prepared 22 March 2005 |
