 House of Commons |
Session 2006 - 07 Publications on the internet General Committee Debates Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Bill [Lords] |
Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Bill [Lords] |
The Committee consisted of the following Members:Alan
Sandall, Hannah Weston, Committee
Clerks
†
attended the Committee
Public Bill CommitteeTuesday 27 March 2007(Morning)[Mrs. Joan Humble in the Chair]Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Bill [Lords]Further written evidence to be reported to the HouseTRI 16 MENAI —
Professional enforcement
services
Clause 129Protected
objects
10.45
am
Simon
Hughes (North Southwark and Bermondsey) (LD): I beg to
move amendment No. 179, in
clause 129, page 99, line 17, after
‘gallery’,
insert—
‘(da) the museum or
gallery has, within 72 hours of the arrival of the object in the United
Kingdom, given the Secretary of State details of the object, including
its provenance and
ownership,’.
The
Chairman:
With this it will be convenient to discuss the
following amendments: No. 181, in
clause 129, page 99, line 18, after
‘with’, insert
‘the Due Diligence Guidelines for
Museums, Libraries and Archives on Collecting and Borrowing Cultural
Material published from time to time by the Department for Culture,
Media and Sport
and’.
No. 182,
in
clause 129, page 99, line 20, at
end insert
‘(including
provenance and, if appropriate, ownership) on a public register for the
purpose of inviting any person who asserts a claim to that object to
raise an objection to its inclusion in the exhibition within a
specified
period.’.
No.
180, in
clause 129, page 99, line 22, at
end insert—
‘(3A) The
Secretary of State must publish the details of an object which are
given to him under subsection
(2)(da).’.
No.
187, in
clause 129, page 100, line 7, leave
out ‘may’ and insert
‘shall’.
No.
188, in
clause 129, page 100, line 10, at
end insert
‘, including
circumstances where a museum or gallery decides not to include an
object in an exhibition or where a lender withdraws
permission.’.
No.
189, in
clause 129, page 100, line 10, at
end insert—
‘(9A) The
Secretary of State shall make regulations for the
establishment of an independent committee to monitor the publication
and reporting of specified information, the compliance of museums and
galleries with the Due Diligence Guidelines for Museums, Libraries and
Archives on Collecting and Borrowing Cultural Material published from
time to time by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, and the
handling of claims made or objections raised in relation to any
object.’.
No.
153, in
clause 131, page 101, line 2, leave
out from ‘objects’ to end of line 4 and
insert—
‘(2A) It shall be a
condition of such approval that any approved institution has agreed to
apply to each and every protected object the Due Diligence Guidelines
for Museums, Libraries and Archives on Collecting and Borrowing
Cultural Material published from time to time by the Department of
Culture, Media and
Sport.’.
Simon
Hughes:
I shall speak to amendments Nos. 179 and
180, which were tabled by me and my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff,
Central, and to amendment No. 153, which was tabled by the
hon. Member for North-West Norfolk and to which we have added our
names.
This is the
first debate on part 6, so we are making good progress; indeed, I
anticipate that we might make such good progress that we will not be
here at the bitter end of the permitted time. The protection of
cultural objects is an important part of the Bill, even if it is quite
surprising to find it there. As was discussed in the House of Lords, it
is slightly odd to find a part of this Bill that is about museums,
galleries and works of art, but there is a link that justifies such
measures and their accommodation under the long title. It is about
whether people can enforce rights on cultural objects on loan in this
country, so there is a tenuous link to the Bill that allows its
inclusion—the Bill is the next most convenient vehicle for
addressing the issue available to the Department for Culture, Media and
Sport.
Clause 129 sets
out what objects on loan to UK museums and galleries—this is a
UK-wide provision; it is not just for England and Wales—would
have protection when complying to certain conditions. The clause
contains five conditions that must be met for an object to be
protected, but amendment No. 179 suggests that there should be a sixth
condition.
Obviously,
all members of the Committee will be conscious that this part of the
Bill was significantly debated, discussed and, indeed, amended by the
Government in Grand Committee in the House of Lords. I wish to pay
tribute to my party colleagues, as will other hon. Members. Lord Thomas
and Lord Maclennan spoke for the Liberal Democrats in what was a
consensual and well informed debate, and Baroness Ashton was positive
about the representations that they made to get the balance right. I am
conscious that the clause has already been amended as a result of
debates in the House of Lords.
I shall make four
short points. First, all hon. Members privileged enough to have great
museums or galleries in their constituencies are aware that they do a
fantastic job and that they have been still more able to do their work
as a result of the Government policy of making premier museums and
galleries free to the public. That will be one of the great legacies of
this Administration, whatever arguments we might have about other
matters. Those of us who go regularly to museums and galleries are very
proud of those jewels in the British cultural crown. We have the
opportunity to say how wonderful the museums and galleries in our
constituencies are, and I certainly wish to take that opportunity now,
as I would have done even if the director general of the Imperial War
museum had not written to me about the subject that we are debating.
The museum is almost within our sight—it is housed in the old
Bethlehem hospital, the original bedlam, on the Lambeth road. It is a
wonderful museum and I commend it to members of the Committee who have
not been there. I was privileged to be there again last week for the
90th birthday of Dame Vera Lynn and last Saturday for my surgery, which
I am kindly permitted to hold there on a regular
basis.
Another
contribution of the great Imperial War museum is HMS Belfast, which is
also in my constituency. It provides a wonderful, well-used opportunity
for people to experience a real vessel that served this country during
the last war. The director general led on such issues on behalf of
museums and galleries until last year. He said, as have others, that he
and his colleagues are happy to comply with the changes made to the
Bill by the Lords, but that we must get the balance right and not have
too onerous a set of obligations that makes the ability to transfer
goods, property and objects of art across national boundaries more
difficult or actually stops it
happening.
By
definition, one of the great opportunities for all museums and
galleries is to show works of art that are not based in their
particular country. What brings in crowds in their greatest numbers,
whether to the Tate Modern or the National Gallery, is when an
exhibition shows the collected works of Velasquez, Rubens, David
Hockney or Gilbert and George. Such collections could comprise works by
one artist, from one period or of one type, or as in the case of the
Imperial War museum, works that demonstrate the effect of the holocaust
or the trenches in world war one. We must encourage the sharing of
cultural objects throughout the
world.
My noble Friend
Lord Maclennan of Rogart said that the best context in which to share
cultural objects throughout the world is organisations such as UNESCO,
which is based in Paris. Ideally, we need legislation that is
applicable in all countries rather than one country. Such a measure
needs a common legislative basis. I am not arguing that it should be
done through the European Union or in another way; of course, it should
be done nationally, but by agreement along the lines of the good work
of the Council of Europe and the United
Nations.
My second
point does not collide with the desire for protection if objects of art
are borrowed from abroad for temporary exhibitions. The wish to make
sure that works of art illegally stolen, looted or taken from their
owners at different times in history can be returned has obviously been
on the agenda here and worldwide. The most commonly argued case
concerns objects of art that were taken as a result of the Nazi
governance of Germany, the invasion of many European countries by
Hitler and the holocaust. It has been argued strongly that works of art
are still being looted from families and homes in Poland and elsewhere
which, if they reappear, must be returned to their rightful owners.
That applies not only to families who lost family members or relatives
in the terrible, terrible holocaust tragedy, but to countries that have
been subject to military invasions and the unauthorised taking of
property.
The
amendments that were accepted by the other place and those before us
today are trying to strike the right balance. I am grateful,
as is my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, Central, to all those who
have made their views clear. We have taken account of what they said.
The specific condition in amendment No. 179 is that there
should be an ability and a
requirement that those who import works of art temporarily lodge such
information with the Secretary of State in an official place within 72
hours of the works arriving here. We would therefore know what was on
loan in the United Kingdom, where it came from and
“the details of the object,
including its provenance and
ownership”.
The
straightforward effect of amendment No. 180 would be that when that
information was supplied to the Government, it would be published so
that everybody could see what was here at a particular time.
Amendment No. 153
applies to clause 131, which deals with “Relevant museums and
galleries” and defines which museums and galleries will be
covered by the requirements. We shall debate later other amendments
that would change that definition slightly. Clause 131 sets out both
how a museum or gallery will be defined and the criteria for approval
of those places as approved institutions. One of the conditions, set
out in clause 131(2)(a), is that there will be approved
procedures
“for
establishing the provenance and ownership of
objects”.
We shall debate
later whether to keep clause 131(2)(b), which leaves it to the
Secretary of State to set out guidance, or insert something more
specific.
Amendment
No. 153, which is a joint Conservative-Liberal Democrat amendment,
would add the condition
precedent:
“It
shall be a condition of such approval that any approved institution has
agreed to apply to each and every protected object the Due Diligence
Guidelines for Museums, Libraries and Archives on Collecting and
Borrowing Cultural Material published from time to time by the
Department of Culture, Media and
Sport.”
That suggests
that in order to tick the boxes and be an approved institution, a
museum or gallery should need to agree to apply due diligence
guidelines. There was a big debate in the Lords about having those
guidelines, and nobody disagrees that they should exist. The amendment
is about recognising the fact that they
do.
My last point on
this group of amendments applies also to the later amendments to clause
129. It is important that we do not impose requirements that are so
impracticable, onerous or financially burdensome that they would make
the exercise of the provisions impossible and make it impossible for
objects of art to be transferred and shown. There is a big legal point
behind that: if somebody carries out due diligence and checks to ensure
that an object is an authentic work and is honestly owned and lent, a
later claim that needs to be pursued may still arise.
The international community,
private owners, private galleries and people who have lost things that
belonged to them or their families, ancestors or community need as easy
a process as possible in international law for ensuring that they can
get their property back. We need easy legal processes and ways in which
goods can honestly be returned to people. That is a slightly different
exercise—of course, there are links—from ensuring that we
protect the transfer of works of art.
Everybody wants to see the
maximum possible number of works of art. We want them mounted, exposed
and displayed, not hidden away in basements,
lockers, safes and vaults. We want them in the public domain to be
looked at, not in private houses where nobody can see them. As far as
that is possible, it is fantastic. Of course, we must ensure that if
something is discovered to be in the wrong hands there is as quick,
fair, uncomplicated and inexpensive as possible a process for
recovering it.
I hope
that, at the end of our deliberations in Committee and downstairs, we
will get the balance right. We have been pretty well getting a
consensus and the amendments suggest what might be a final, small set
of adjustments to complete the process. I hope that the Committee is
positive about them, and I look forward to hearing what other hon.
Members have to say.
11
am
Mr.
Henry Bellingham (North-West Norfolk) (Con): It is a
pleasure to serve under your chairmanship once again, Mrs.
Humble. I agree with what the hon. Member for North Southwark and
Bermondsey said. I shall speak to the amendments standing in my name
and those of my hon.
Friends.
The hon.
Gentleman explained why it is important for Britain to remain the major
centre for world class exhibitions. He said that those exhibitions are
popular and important to London’s cultural base because they
often draw pictures from around the world. He mentioned the Reubens
exhibition. I was fortunate enough to see the Renoir exhibition at the
National Gallery the other day, in which a number of Renoirs from
around the world had been collected
together.
I accept
that there have been problems over the threat posed to some works of
art. In the debate in the other place and on Second Reading, a number
of examples were alluded to, including the loan of works of art by
Russia to Switzerland. Those works were seized on the basis of the debt
that Russia owed to Switzerland. Russia then made it clear to Britain
that unless immunity provisions were put in place, its museums would be
most unlikely to lend certain works of art to Britain.
We also heard about how a
gallery here was trying to borrow works of art from Taiwan. The works
were tainted, however, because the People’s Republic of China
claimed that they had been given to Taiwan by the former Chinese
leader, Chiang Kai-shek, and therefore were rightly the property of the
People’s Republic and not of
Taiwan.
Concerns were
therefore expressed, and I think that the Government were right to take
action. I certainly agreed with the hon. Member for North Southwark and
Bermondsey when he asked whether provisions should be tacked on to the
Bill. In the long title, there is scope for such provision, but we do
not want to get into an argument about that. I would far rather have
had a dedicated Bill considered with real focus in both Chambers. We
could have had longer debates on all the important issues. Indeed, many
legitimate concerns have been expressed about this part of the Bill.
The Commission for Looted Art in Europe, the Board of Deputies of
British Jews and a number of academics have come up with various
comments about what we
are doing. It is perfectly legitimate to argue that we are putting
Britain in a different position regarding the granting of immunity to a
number of other countries. It may be that other hon. Members would like
to discuss that
point.
Let us look at
some of the comments made by academics. I would like to quote Professor
Norman Palmer, who is an expert on the subject. He is emeritus
professor of the law of art and cultural property at University college
London and visiting professor of law at King’s college London,
and more importantly, he was chairman of the illicit trade advisory
panel, chairman of a working group on human remains and museum
collections and a member of a spoliation advisory panel. He is still on
that advisory panel. Professor Palmer
said:
“There is
room for concern that the enhanced security of possession to be
conferred on borrowing museums by an anti-seizure statute could tempt
museums to become less vigilant in the monitoring of loans. Museums
might be inclined to think that, because no legal proceedings can be
taken against them during the loan period, there is no compelling
reason for them to make positive inquiries about the origins and
history of the objects they
borrow.
I believe that
such a development would be regrettable. It would subordinate ethics to
law and undo much of the good that has been achieved in recent
years.
Many third
party claims against museums involve spoliated objects. To deny a
Holocaust survivor access to justice is an austere and arguably
disproportionate response to the administrative, economic and cultural
concerns of lenders and borrowers, however legitimate those concerns.
The denial may be particularly distressing where the object is the only
tangible reminder of a lost family or home.”
Those are strong words
indeed. Many other leading academics take a similar point of view. What
they are saying is that there is also a strong possibility that the
legislation amounts to a derogation from the UK’s commitment not
to borrow or acquire Nazi-tainted art, as laid down in the 1998
Washington principles on Nazi-confiscated art. Those principles are
endorsed and adopted by the UK and by the 1998 NMDC—National
Museums Directors Conference—statement of principles and
proposed action on the spoliation of works of art during the holocaust
and world war two period.
The Government have rightly
looked at some of those concerns and made a number of amendments, so
one has to give praise where it is due. The hon. Member for North
Southwark and Bermondsey pointed out that there had been changes to due
diligence procedures. There are changes in connection with the
publication on a public register of lists of objects to be borrowed
prior to their arrival in the country, and museums will be required to
publish that specified information for a set period. Five or six
amendments were made, but there are still a number of concerns. I
accept entirely that the Government have moved some way to acknowledge
the legitimacy of the concerns raised by a range of groups and
individuals. On the other hand, the amended Bill still leaves potential
claimants without the full protection that we feel they ought to have.
I should like to have a quick look at some of the areas of ongoing
concern, and then discuss specifically what we seek to do in our
amendments.
Let us
look first at due diligence. The Government have accepted that due
diligence should be carried out by museums, but it is not intended that
that will be
mandatory. That is a real concern, because there will be no continuing
oversight. Neither, in my judgment, is the regime of spot checks likely
to be effective. The Department for Media, Culture and Sport is
focusing on the run-up to the 2012 Olympics, and a huge amount of its
effort is going into ensuring that all aspects of preparation for the
Olympic games go according to plan. Is it going to have the expertise
and resources to ensure that the spot checks are carried out properly?
Would it not be better if due diligence were laid out clearly in the
Bill? I suggest that that would make
sense.
We are also
concerned about the publication of provenance and ownership
information. Let me explain why. Publication will provide a safeguard
only if it includes comprehensive information on an object’s
history, identity and current ownership, such that a deprived owner is
able to recognise it. Where preliminary due diligence has persuaded a
museum that a loan should not go ahead, that too should be the subject
of full disclosure and proper
publication.
On the
notice period, in order for potential claimants to be able to recognise
their property and express concerns, there must be a sufficient period
for them to do so, particularly as many potential claimants are likely
to live in different countries spread far and wide. The Government said
that they are minded to bring in a fairly short period, but we feel
that that is inadequate. The Government have now indicated that they
are looking at a two-month period. Opposition Members would submit,
however, that three months would be an appropriate period, given all
the obstacles and difficulties that any potential claimant is likely to
face and the fact that claimants will almost certainly be in different
far-flung
countries.
As to
identifying a stolen or looted work of art on the register, in order
for publication of a register of prospective loans to be meaningful,
there must be a formal procedure for registering claims and obtaining
further information and assistance regarding any claim from the DCMS
and institutions concerned. We feel strongly about that. It is also
important to bear it in mind that the DCMS has stated that if a serious
objection is raised during the notice period, an object that has
arrived in the UK and been granted immunity is unlikely to be included
in the relevant exhibition. I do not feel that that should be left to
the discretion of the museum. If an object has been the subject of
serious objections, saying “unlikely” is not good enough;
there should be no question of its being included in the
exhibition.
On approved
status, the Government have addressed some of the problems by agreeing
that only certain museums and galleries will be able to benefit from
the legislation, but we are concerned that the Secretary of State will
not be obliged to withdraw approval if an approved museum falls well
short in its practice of due diligence. If the due diligence exercise
is not mandatory, all that the Government will be required to do is
consider the situation. There is too much flexibility in such an
arrangement, and I suggest that in such circumstances the Secretary of
State should have a duty to withdraw approval in order to ensure
compliance.
Our
amendments address many of our concerns. The hon. Member for North
Southwark and Bermondsey
has explained his amendments, and I should like
first to look at amendment No. 181, which would insert these
words:
“the Due Diligence
Guidelines for Museums, Libraries and Archives on Collecting and
Borrowing Cultural Material published from time to time by the
Department for Culture, Media and
Sport”.
Those
guidelines should be published by the DCMS, and they should appear in
the Bill. That is essential, for reasons that I have given. The spot
check concept will not be anything like strong enough.
Amendment No. 153 is linked to that. Although it applies
to clause 131, it is consequential. It would insert a new
subsection (2A), which again makes our point about due
diligence.
Amendment
No. 182 would insert these words at the end of clause
129(2)(e):
“(including
provenance and, if appropriate, ownership) on a public register for the
purpose of inviting any person who asserts a claim to that object to
raise an objection to its inclusion in the exhibition within a
specified period.”
Again,
that would make substantial sense, and it would go some way towards
correcting the problem that I identified
earlier.
Amendment No.
187 would take out “may” and insert
“shall”. That, too, is self-explanatory. For the reasons
that I gave earlier, we should be more specific about what can and
cannot be done. Subsection (9) would be a great deal stronger if it
said that the Secretary of State “shall” make
regulations, rather than “may” make them. If the Bill is
to have real impact and bite, and serve the purposes the Government
intend, changing the language from “may” to
“shall” would make substantial
sense.
11.15
am
Mr.
Brooks Newmark (Braintree) (Con): I am sure that the
Minister thinks that we are being pedantic, but continual use of
“may” lends a sense of ambiguity to the Bill. Putting in
stronger wording reinforces the point and is very much in the spirit of
what the Government are trying to
achieve.
Mr.
Bellingham:
I agree fully with my hon. Friend. As things
stand, we are looking at guidelines being put into regulations and at a
lot of secondary legislation. With much of this part of the Bill being
skeletal, we are looking at a great deal of scope being given to the
Secretary of State.
As
the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey pointed out, making
this part of the Bill work successfully is a balancing exercise between
the crucial need to ensure that London retains its eminent status as
the world’s number one centre for culture and exhibitions and,
at the same time, the protection of the rights of individual families
who have suffered unspeakable grief, terror and violence, which are
beyond words. We have to respect and protect their rights as well.
Instead of relying on two Departments to get together cosily, to
liaise, to impose a regime of spot checks and—possibly or
possibly not—to make regulations, we are saying that the Bill
should state that the Secretary of State “shall” make
those
regulations.
Flowing
from that “shall”, we have tabled amendment No. 188. I
will read out the entire subsection:
“The Secretary of State
may”—
under our proposal, the subsection would
say
“shall”—
“make
regulations requiring a museum or gallery to provide persons with
specified information about an object in specified circumstances (which
may include in particular compliance with conditions imposed by or
under the
regulations).”
Then we
would insert
“including
circumstances where a museum or gallery decides not to include an
object in an exhibition or where a lender withdraws
permission.”
That follows
on from the point that I made a moment ago.
We would also insert proposed
new subsection (9A), which is important and follows on from my earlier
points. It
states:
“The
Secretary of State shall make
regulations”
and then we
talk again about due diligence, which is vital. Amendment No. 153
brings the due diligence requirements and guidelines into clause
131.
As
I said, we could debate the matter for a long time. I accept that the
debate is partly on clause stand part, because we are talking about
general issues. Many of the amendments touch on a lot of different
aspects of the clause. All the organisations involved, which have been
extremely patient and given generously of their time to brief members
of the Committee, Ministers and shadow Ministers, are grateful to the
Government for the amendments that they have introduced. However, on
reflection, those organisations feel that the Government now need to
make some further concessions.
None of our
amendments is in any way going to cause excessive inconvenience to
galleries, museums and exhibitors. We are not in the business of
complicated rules and regulations, or of stifling the innovation or the
verve and panache shown by so many of this country’s exhibitors.
They show that day in and day out, which is why they attract such
amazing exhibitions, not just to London but to other cities and
towns.
Mr.
Newmark:
Again, I do not want to labour the point, but it
sounds to me, listening to my hon. Friend, that all he is trying to do
is to give some teeth to the moral and ethical guidelines laid down in
the statement by the National Museum Directors Conference. All we
trying to do is to give some bite, and not to have vagueness in the
language that the Government seem to be obsessed
with.
Mr.
Bellingham:
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, but I would
not say “bite” or “teeth”, because that
sounds almost too aggressive. We are just trying to apply some clarity.
Everyone agrees that, for the arrangements to work properly and fairly,
they need to be clear and balanced. Our amendments give them that
clarity and balance and I see no reason why the Minister should not
accept them. She should certainly look at them positively and, if she
cannot accept them now, at least take our arguments away and come back
on Report.
Mr.
Richard Benyon (Newbury) (Con): I find it rather difficult
to approach this subject after the other parts of the Bill. It requires
a bit of an intellectual leap to deal with the enforcement of the debts
of some of the most vulnerable people in society and then with
works of art of quite staggering value. It is nevertheless important and
I understand why the Government have tacked the clause on to the Bill.
We just want to get it right. It would be a shame if we ended up with
legislation that was more lax than in other countries. It would be
worth while if the Committee took a few moments to consider what
happens in other
countries.
Many
countries require full disclosure and publication of all information on
the loan and provide for claims to be made in a notice period prior to
exhibition. Immunity will not be conferred in many countries if a claim
is made within that notice period. In addition, in many cases, immunity
ceases if it is discovered that a work of art has been
stolen.
In the United
States there is federal and state law. Under federal law there are
stringent conditions requiring full disclosure of all details of the
loan of works of art six months prior to any exhibition, without which
immunity will not apply. Details of that information include a copy of
the lending agreement, full details of the items being imported and a
statement giving information as to why anyone might want to attach the
property. Under state law, all states, except New York, provide for
immunity from civil claims. The protection does not apply where the
theft of the work of art from its owner is alleged and found proven in
court.
Canada offers a
similar system to that in the US Federal Act and Canadian states
operate a similar system to that in the majority of states in the US.
In France, the Minister of Culture and the Minister of Foreign Affairs
issue a joint decree for each exhibition, listing the cultural objects
protected, determining the duration of a loan, and thus the protection,
and identifying the exhibition organisers. The decree may be challenged
by a third party within a period of two months—we are talking
about a period of three months—from the date of publication in
the Journal Offici
e
l. Protection only becomes
effective if no claims are made within that two-month period.
Obviously in Germany and Israel
there are particular sensitivities which have already been alluded to.
German law provides for immunity from seizures, but prevents the sale
of an object on which immunity has been conferred. The law requires
that the work of art be returned to the place of origin. In Israel,
immunity will be conferred only on public, not on private lenders.
Immunity will not be conferred where there is no legal remedy for a
dispossessed owner in the country from which the loan
originates.
Lastly,
Switzerland has very strict rules. It requires that loan requests be
published in the federal bulletin, describing the cultural property and
its origin. People are entitled to claim ownership and such claims will
prevent immunity from being conferred on the object in question.
Switzerland also requires that the cultural property will be returned
to the contracting state of origin, following the conclusion of the
exhibition.
Precise
and clear guidelines therefore exist in other countries. The amendment
tabled by my hon. Friend and the amendment proposed by the hon. Member
for North Southwark and Bermondsey are designed to tighten up certain
aspects of the rules and regulations. I entirely agree with my hon.
Friend. It is important that the guidelines are clear and on the face
of the Bill.
Mr.
Newmark:
As always, it is a delight to see you in the
Chair, Mrs. Humble. I shall simply address amendment No. 153
and then perhaps back up a couple of the points made by my hon. Friend
the Member for North-West Norfolk.
A rather significant
controversy surrounds this part of the Bill, as it balances the broad
issue of the public interest against personal loss. That is a difficult
balance to strike, and is not made easier by the fact that it is an
emotive subject for the many people who are affected by the looting of
works of art. I recognise the efforts that the Government have made to
meet the criticism that this aspect of the Bill received in the other
place. I support amendment No. 153, however, because there should be no
ambiguity about the requirement for due diligence. The best way to
remove ambiguity is to refer specifically to the guidance that already
exists from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. It is
necessary to refer to it, because although the general principles are
in place, there is scope to tighten up on the details. I therefore ask
the Minister for her assurance that her ministerial colleague in the
DCMS will take this opportunity to review the guidelines.
The
injunction in the guidelines that museums should beware of fake
documentation, for example, does not inspire me with confidence in the
process of due diligence. It does not sound rigorous to me. My other
concern is that the threshold for establishing provenance is 1970, I
think, so no works of art that were acquired illicitly before that
date—during the holocaust, for example—will be caught by
the requirement for due diligence. I see the Minister shaking her head,
so perhaps she will correct me on that point. I am aware that the 1970
threshold is in line with the UNESCO convention. Perhaps she will
clarify the situation in respect of due diligence to be carried out on
works of art that were acquired before that date.
Finally, I
concur with my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk that it is
questionable whether the Bill is compatible with the UK’s
support for the principles that were laid down at the 1998 Washington
conference on holocaust-era assets. Furthermore, it undermines the
moral and ethical guidelines, with which I am particularly concerned.
They were laid down in the National Museum Directors Conference
statement of principle, and proposed action on the spoliation of works
of art during the holocaust and world war two. I look forward to the
Minister’s
response.
The
Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs (Vera
Baird):
As everyone has said, the point of this part of
the Bill is to provide immunity against seizure of objects. I shall
come to the availability of other kinds of action, as mentioned by the
hon. Member for North-West Norfolk, presently. For objects that are
lent to the country from overseas for public display in a temporary
exhibition at an approved—that is important—museum or
gallery, immunity from seizure will apply where it is ordered by the
court in relation to civil proceedings, or by any law enforcement
authority that is seeking evidence in an investigation or to confiscate
the proceeds of crime. The absence of that kind of general immunity for
works of art lent to the country for inclusion in temporary exhibitions
has made museums and private owners increasingly reluctant to lend to
such exhibitions without a guarantee that their work will be
returned.
11.30
am
The hon. Member
for North-West Norfolk cited the examples that I would have cited, so I
will not repeat them. It is self-evident that this is a necessary
change. It is obviously desirable that we remain a major world centre
for artistic and cultural exhibitions, as we undoubtedly are. The two
Opposition Front Benchers spoke with feeling about our role in that
respect. They cited exhibitions that they enjoyed, so I shall pick my
favourite, which was the Degas, Sickert and Toulouse-Lautrec exhibition
at the Tate Britain. I thought that it was excellent and a tribute to
the curators, who not only assembled it from a variety of sources, but
arranged it comprehensibly and accessibly.
I have also recently attended
the Tate Modern. I cannot see how the legislation would apply to the
slides, which were the main exhibit, but they were none the less a
great deal of fun. I would also like to refer in passing to having
visited an exhibition of the works of Craigie Aitchison, who is a royal
academician. He is noted for having done a good number of crucifixion
scenes, and also for the fact that he incorporates—he does so
even in those scenes, which is perhaps slightly curious—his
favourite subject: Bedlington terrier dogs. As the proud owner of a
Bedlington terrier—a dog who was Westminster dog of the year
only a few years ago, let me say—it was a delight for me to meet
Craigie Aitchison and discuss the breed with
him.
I do not want,
any more than did the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey,
to miss an opportunity to mention my local museums in Redcar.
Kirkleatham Old Hall museum has permanent exhibitions relating to our
maritime history; the history of our steel industry; our earlier
history, from salt panning in the Tees estuary; and what I understand
to have been a powerful role played by local people in action linked to
the peasants’ revolt. I am very proud indeed that we were
rebellious even then. Redcar also had the first ever lifeboat in the
UK, and it is still in Redcar, exhibited in the Zetland Lifeboat
museum. However, at this time one must express one’s
indebtedness not to the public authorities that run the museum, but to
the excellent volunteers who staff it for the significant benefit of
the citizens of Redcar.
Clearly, this issue is very
important. We all cherish and value the displays that we are privileged
to see and it is a huge tribute to this Government that they are all
now available free of charge. That is very different from when the
Government of the party of the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk were
in office, when people from the sort of social classes that I represent
in Redcar were quite unable to take their children to see exhibitions
of the kind that I and others have cited. We have to measure very
considerably the fact that that change has been made and it is fitting
that we should pay tribute in this Committee to that excellent policy
decision.
Let me make
specific reference to the need for balance. Clearly, we are all lauding
our own ability to enjoy all these works of art and cultural objects.
Equally, there are those who have suffered appallingly the depredations
of others, whose only link to a previous generation that was treated
scandalously and appallingly is through objects that were themselves
taken away, but can be rediscovered with appropriate diligence. It is
therefore clear that we have a major duty
to ensure a balance in the provision and that we are neither too onerous
on the museums and the collections nor neglectful of the undoubted hurt
that still lies behind the issues that I have referred to. We must not
be the slightest bit neglectful of people’s need to know the
origins of items that they suspect have come from their ancestors. We
must not be neglectful at all of the importance of ensuring that such
people have the information that they need to go through the process
that I have set out.
We think that we have now got
the balance right in this legislation. Before going any further, I pay
tribute, as I think other Front Benchers have done, to the role played
in the Lords by Ministers, including Baroness Ashton, and by other
peers from all parties, who clearly applied themselves with great
diligence to addressing the kinds of concerns expressed about the
legislation. This part of the Bill is infinitely better as a result of
the participation of all parties, for which the Government are very
grateful. In particular, I would like to compliment Baroness Ashton,
who has given me a relatively straightforward job to do in this House
in connection with this part of the Bill. I would also like to pay
tribute to the Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport,
the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Lammy), who has played a
very important liaison role with all of the interested groups that have
been alluded to.
The
hon. Member for North-West Norfolk made a passing suggestion—I
do not think that it was seriously persevered with—that there
ought to be more time to debate the issue. Of course, he has the whole
of today to do so; do not let me tempt him, but if he wants to carry
on, there is absolutely nothing to prevent him from doing so. I think
that he was really just having a general prod at something or other,
rather than seriously suggesting that there has not been abundant and
ongoing consultation and debate that can continue on
Report.
Mr.
Bellingham:
I am grateful for the hon. and learned
Lady’s observation. My point was that if we had had a dedicated
Bill on this matter, there might have been more focus on it because we
would have had a full Second Reading debate. However, it was difficult
for us to focus so exclusively when we were talking about setting up
operations such as tribunals and
bailiffs.
Vera
Baird:
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that pointer to what
he was suggesting. There was significant reference to this aspect of
the Bill on Second Reading and much attention has been focused on it by
all relevant interested parties. The Government have, as I have
indicated, been very responsive to all that. It would not have been
sensible to wait for another legislative vehicle when we needed to
ensure that Britain remained important for the exhibition of cultural
and artistic objects. We published a consultation document as long as a
year ago and have worked diligently to ensure that everybody who needed
to be asked and have their views heard has been consulted. I am
grateful for the support of officials from the Department for Culture,
Media and Sport, who have helped me understand and take on the
matter.
I am well
aware that the Board of Deputies of British Jews has been interested in
this topic. Baroness
Ashton has met Lord Janner of Braunstone, the primary spokesman for that
body, and I, too, have met him to discuss his concerns. So far have the
Government gone to seek to please and satisfy, and remove all stress
and anxiety expressed from that quarter that we have given a copy of
this speaking note to that body to ensure that it covers all the areas
about which it has hitherto been concerned. We have not heard back to
suggest that it does not cover all appropriate areas, so I feel that
there is a broad element of support for the balance that the Government
have been able to
strike.
Before moving
to the substance of the amendments, the hon. Member for North-West
Norfolk talked about legal proceedings not being available. Of course,
legal proceedings may be brought, notwithstanding the immunity, which
applies only to the item itself. For instance, during the loan period
actions for damages could be brought. No museum will want to be sued
for the value of a looted work of art, so there will be a powerful
driver to ensure that museums observe due diligence as required under
the legislation. We go a step further back in the application of those
due diligence provisions than is proposed by Opposition Members, in
that a museum cannot be approved unless it can demonstrate that it
carries out appropriate due diligence. Those points needed making in
relation to the hon. Gentleman’s
speech.
The hon.
Gentleman also spoke about a formal procedure to register claims and
receive further information. We will consider the circumstances in
which further information should be provided by museums. The power
given to the Secretary of State to make regulations under clause 129(9)
would permit such a procedure to be established. We will explore that
point in consultations with museums and all interest groups. I hope
that he has no more fears along those
lines.
It is not right
that guidelines need to be published in the Bill. In the same way in
which we attained a balance between the interests of museums and those
of the other interest groups, we have attained an appropriate balance
between what is in the Bill and what, for flexibility’s
sake—including, for example, the need for revision and updating
from time to time—ought to be in delegated
legislation.
The hon.
Member for Newbury mentioned other countries’ rules. I could
provide a different list of other countries’ rules to counter
what he said—alleging, I think, that our rules are a little bit
on the soft side—but I will write to him rather than detain the
Committee with factual
examples.
The hon.
Member for Braintree wanted the Government to undertake to review the
guidelines. We appreciate the need to add to the current guidelines,
and that is why we are not referring solely to them. We made it clear
that the principles in the guidelines apply to Nazi-era objects, so the
hon. Member for Braintree need not fear the 1970 threshold.
I am grateful
for the amendments as they allowed us to reconsider the matter, but
they do not strengthen the position of potential claimants in
comparison with our provisions. Clause 129(2) makes it clear that
protection under this part of the Bill will be conditional on museums
and galleries complying with the requirements for the
publication of specified information about the objects that they propose
to borrow, as we will set out in
regulations.
We will
engage in full consultation with all relevant interest groups on the
content of the regulations, which we will publish in draft form. We
have already made it clear that subject to consultation we propose to
require museums to publish details about the objects that they intend
to borrow two months before the start of an exhibition. That compares
favourably with other countries; in Switzerland the period is only 30
days and in the United States, under the federal system, it is six
weeks before importation. Amendment No. 179 would mean that the
information did not need to be published until 72 hours after the
object reached the United Kingdom, which would not give potential
claimants any significant opportunity to raise their concerns before
the object reached the
UK.
The regulations
will also say how information about an object should be published. It
is clear from clause 129 that the information required from
museums must be published, so amendment No. 180 would add nothing. We
will seek to ensure that the information is made as available as
possible to as many people as
possible.
Simon
Hughes:
I am grateful for the Minister’s response
to the amendment. What she says is persuasive and we will take note of
it. I mean no discourtesy to her, but if you will permit it,
Mrs. Humble, I will leave my hon. Friend the Member for
Cardiff, Central to wrap up the debate, because I am required to be on
duty in the abbey at 12 noon. I wanted to wait until the Minister had
responded to the amendments, and I hope that she and the Committee will
permit me to disappear before the end of her
speech.
Amendment No. 182 is also
unnecessary; it would not strengthen the provisions. We intend to
require museums to publish sufficient information about an object to
ensure that it can be identified by anyone who might have an interest
in it. That will require the publication of some information about
provenance, but it is unnecessary for the full provenance of an object
to be published in every case. For example, a 17th century painting
acquired by the Metropolitan museum of New York in the 19th century had
remained in the Met’s collection since its original acquisition.
Publication of the full provenance of that painting between the 17th
century and its acquisition by the Met would not assist potential
claimants to objects or art looted or stolen at any other
time.
Mr.
Bellingham:
My experience of art is that the early
provenance of these paintings is usually very well documented, and
listing full provenance would not be a burden. We are concerned about
items, particularly associated with the Nazi holocaust, that may have
been passed around different parts of Europe in the years after the
last war. Focusing on that part of an object’s provenance is
very important, but I would not have thought that seeing it in the
context of the wider provenance would be a
problem.
11.45
am
Vera
Baird:
As I have said, we are striving for a balance here.
To put in place onerous requirements as to provenance, in a situation
of the kind I have just set out, would not be of any assistance to
potential claimants looking for objects looted during the Nazi era or
stolen at any other time within memory. The amendment seems to us to
put the balance too heavily in that direction.
We will also propose to require
publication of the identity of the lender in advance of the exhibition,
where the lender is a public body. More difficult issues arise in
relation to the publication of the identity of private owners. We will
need to discuss with museums and other interest groups whether and how
it will be possible for that information to be made available to
potential
claimants.
Amendment
No. 187 would require—that is the difference—the
Secretary of State to make regulations to oblige museums and galleries
to provide further information about an object in specified
circumstances, but it may be possible to require all relevant
information about a protected object to be published in advance of the
exhibition when it would be most useful to potential claimants.
Obviously, the earlier the better. In that case, the power would not be
necessary. If consultations demonstrate that it is not appropriate for
some information to be given general publication but that it could be
provided to anyone concerned about a particular object on request, the
power will be used in that
way.
Amendment No.
188—
Mr.
Bellingham:
Before the Minister moves on, I do not feel
that she did amendment No. 187 justice. We want to replace
“may” with “shall”, so that the provision
read “shall make regulations”. We are talking about
general regulations here; as I understand it, they are not specific.
Surely it makes sense for the Secretary of State to be forced by the
Bill to make those regulations, rather than having the option of doing
so. Perhaps she can go into more detail.
Vera
Baird:
I think that I have given the hon. Gentleman a
satisfactory answer. I think I can say without fear of contradiction
from any quarter that the Secretary of State will make regulations in
connection with that matter and I hope that that satisfies him and his
colleagues. The Secretary of State will make regulations—there
is no difficulty about that. It is imperative that he does. We see no
purpose, therefore, in a heavier provision as proposed in
amendment No.
187.
May I turn to
amendment No. 188, which we say is not directly relevant to the Bill?
The only objects that will be protected here are those which come to
this country. Objects that are not included in an exhibition because of
the decision of the borrowing museum or of the lender will not
be protected. Their position is not changed by the Bill. Clause 129
requires at subsection (2)(d) that an item
“is brought to the United Kingdom
for public display in a temporary exhibition”
and at subsection (7)(a) that an item
continues to be here for the purposes of
“public display in a temporary
exhibition at a museum or gallery”.
Once it ceases to be here for that
purpose, it will not be protected. It will have exactly the same status
as it had before. The amendment does not help, therefore. The position
is not changed in any way by the Bill and it is not appropriate to make
provision requiring museums to provide information on such items in the
Bill or in regulations made under the Bill.
Let me turn
to the amendments on due diligence, which are to be imposed on approved
museums and galleries. Amendment No. 153 deals with approval but, as
drafted, clause 131(2) already requires the approving authority to take
account of the extent to which the institution applying for approval
already complies with the due diligence guidelines referred to in the
amendment. Museums will also need to show that they comply with that
guidance. I make it clear that no museum and no gallery will be
approved unless it can show that it meets the high standards set in
those guidelines.
It
is not necessary to provide that the guidelines are applied to each and
every protected object, as under amendment No. 153, or to make the
immunity for a particular object conditional upon compliance with the
guidelines, as under amendment No. 181. It is one of the basic
principles set out in the due diligence guidelines published by the
DCMS, that a museum should not acquire or borrow any item unless it is
satisfied that there are no legal or ethical doubts about that item.
That means that a museum will have to apply the due diligence
guidelines to every item that it wishes to borrow. Failure to do that
will amount to a failure to comply with the guidelines. As clause
131(3)(a) makes clear, that would threaten the approved status of the
museum.
Amendment No.
189 would require provision to be made for the establishment of a new
statutory body. That is not necessary. Non-statutory bodies such as the
spoliation advisory panel and the reviewing committee for the export of
works of art play a valuable role in carrying out a similar function to
that proposed for the new body.
The DCMS will be working
closely with an independent body, the Museums, Libraries and Archives
Council, to ensure that the Secretary of State has access to
appropriate advice on the due diligence procedures followed by museums
seeking approval and that, following approval, museums' due diligence
procedures and their compliance are subject to appropriate monitoring.
We will be exploring the possibility of seeking advice from independent
experts.
I am sorry
that this has taken a while to set out. However, I think that it was
appropriate, because of the long history of concern, consultation and
negotiation about the provisions, to set out why we think that we now
have the balance right, and the way we have got it right. Although we
are grateful for these probing amendments, they do not strengthen the
provisions, which we feel represent the best balance that can be
attained. With those words, I invite hon. Members not to press their
amendments.
Mr.
Bellingham:
I am grateful to the Minister for that
explanation. We will be coming back to these issues on Report. I do not
want to prolong the debate
significantly, but I do not agree that it is unnecessary to strengthen
subsection (9). I am not satisfied with the explanation about that and
we may want to return to the matter on Report.
We understand
what the Minister said about our other amendments. She explained in
some detail that amendment No. 182 does not add extra strength to the
rights of any claimants. With regard to the provisions on due
diligence, she made the point that clause 131(3)(a) already provides
protection. However, we explained the arguments. We went into a lot of
detail. Due diligence should not be left to the guidelines and the
rather vague wording of that subsection. That is why we feel strongly
that amendment No.153 would give that extra strength. I reserve the
right to come back to that on Report and possibly even have a vote. I
am tempted to have a vote now but the hon. Member for North Southwark
and Bermondsey has had to go to Westminster abbey for the service on
the abolition of slavery, and there is no point in having a vote and
losing it very heavily. On Report, I hope that we might persuade a
wider audience of the merits of our case.
On that basis, I will not press
the amendments. I thank the Minister again for her explanations and the
movement already made by the Government in another place. However, we
will be returning to these issues and pushing them further at a later
stage.
Jenny
Willott (Cardiff, Central) (LD): As the hon. Gentleman has
said, I am sure that we will return to these issues on Report. However,
at this point, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the
amendment.
The
Chairman:
I must tell the Committee that the amendment was
moved by the hon. Lady’s colleague, the hon. Member for North
Southwark and Bermondsey, and only he can withdraw it. Therefore, I
must put the question on amendment No.
179.
Amendment
negatived.
The
Chairman:
With this it will be convenient to take
amendment No. 184, in clause 129, page 99, line 27, at end insert
‘, and
(c) only
so long as the conditions in subsection (2) continue to be
met.’.
“The
protection continues—
(a)
only so long as the object is in the United Kingdom for any of the
purposes in subsection
(7)”—
the purposes
that we discussed
earlier—
“and
(b) unless subsection (5) applies, for
not more than 12 months beginning with the day when the object enters
the United
Kingdom.”
After
that, we would insert amendment No. 184, which is a small tidying-up
amendment to add a little clarity.
Vera
Baird: Under the current drafting, an object is entitled to
protection if it complies with the conditions when it enters the UK.
Subsection (4) provides for the continuation of that protection if two
further conditions are met. The amendments would add a further
condition to make an object’s ongoing protection conditional on
its continuing to comply with all the conditions in the clause
throughout its stay in the UK. I have a note that says, “This
amendment is confused”—but I am not going to read that
out.
The only
conditions that might change over the period of the exhibition are the
ownership of the objects and possibly their usual keeping place.
However, if an object is returned either to a new home or the
owner’s residence in the UK, it will no longer be protected
anyway, and could be seized. I suppose that the underlying concern is
that it is wrong to let objects change ownership when they are in the
UK, but we do not think that it would be practical to monitor that. It
is most likely to affect private lenders—public lenders are
unlikely to dispose of objects in their collection, but a private owner
wishing to sell his property to another owner overseas would not be
obliged to tell the museum anyway and so we would have no way of
discovering such
information.
The
legality of importing such objects into the UK is most appropriately
tested when they enter. The fact of whether a museum published the
required information two months in advance will not change during the
exhibition. Of course, as I think that I said on the last group of
amendments, if an object ceases to be in the UK for public display in a
temporary exhibition, its protection ceases as well, unless damage has
been caused in the UK and repairs are needed before it goes
home—as a rule, I think that that would be pretty unlikely. I am
not criticising Opposition Members for the confusion, but I hope that I
have satisfied them that there is no need to add those
amendments.
Mr.
Bellingham:
I am grateful to the Minister. I do not think
that the amendments are confused, but I take on board her light
stricture. In the light of what she said, we shall give further
consideration to the matter. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the
amendment.
Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn.
‘, save that
there must be at least three months between each period of
protection.’.
The
Chairman:
With this it will be convenient to take
amendment No. 186 clause 129, page 99, line 35, at end insert
‘, save that the total period of
protection shall not exceed 36 months in any period of five
years.’.
“A new
period of protection begins each time an object enters the United
Kingdom and the conditions in subsection (2) are
met.”
I think it
extremely unlikely that an object will come back into the UK after
coming here for an exhibition. I suppose that it is just possible. For
example, if there were a Monet exhibition in London, the painting in
question might go back to where it had come from and then perhaps might
return to the UK shortly afterwards. However, that is pretty
unlikely.
12
noon
Amendment No.
185 would add to subsection (6). Under the amendment,
there
“must be at least
three months between each period of protection”.
That is fair enough. The painting in
question would go back to its owner or the gallery where it was
normally on display, and it would be three months before it could be on
loan again in the UK. It is most unlikely that such a state of affairs
would arise, but let us assume that one such picture was in some way
tainted. That would give the claimants some extra protection. The extra
time is important.
Amendment No. 186 would add
another proviso,
“that
the total period of protection shall not exceed 36 months in any period
of five years.”
Again, it
is most unlikely that such a situation would arise, but legislation
needs to allow for all eventualities, and we would not be diligent or
assiduous in our role as legislators or parliamentarians if we were not
prepared to look for unexpected eventualities. The eventuality provided
for by the amendment would be highly unexpected, but the idea is that
within a period of five years there should not be more than 36
months’ protection in total. That is fair and generous and gets
the right balance, which is what the provisions are all
about.
There was a
discussion on Second Reading about what would happen if a work of art
that was on exhibition in this country were to be sold to a new owner
while it was here. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mark
Fisher) raised the point, and there was some to-ing and fro-ing at the
time, but I should be grateful if the Minister made things clear. Is it
100 per cent. clear to her that if a work of art were sold while it
enjoyed the relevant immunity, the immunity would be removed at the
point of sale, when the contract had effect? Alternatively, as some of
the organisations that have advised us believe, would the immunity
continue?
Vera
Baird:
I understand the intention behind amendments Nos.
185 and 186—that it should not be possible to get protection
under the Bill indefinitely by bringing an object to the UK for the
maximum period of 12 months, taking it away for a day and then bringing
it back. However, the amendments are not necessary. Clause 129(4)
already provides that the protection can continue only for 12 months,
except in the case that I have already explained of an object that,
having been damaged in the UK, is having that damage repaired in the
UK.
The only objects
that will be protected under the provisions—this is a
feet-on-the-ground point, I suppose—are those brought to the UK
for the purpose of a temporary exhibition at an approved museum or
gallery. Museums will want to borrow only objects that are relevant to
the theme of their exhibition. It would not be practical or
possible—I think that the hon. Gentleman accepted that it would
not be practical—for an owner to ensure that there was a
succession of
temporary exhibitions at approved museums on a theme that married up
with the nature of his cultural object, so that those museums would, in
sequence, borrow his work of art and secure its indefinite protection.
Nor would I have thought that any lender would be prepared to subject
his property to constant travel out of the UK to ensure its
protection.
On the
assurance that the hon. Gentleman seeks, a work of art could not be
taken from exhibition to be sold in the UK; if it were, the protection
would cease. It could be sold by private treaty to a new owner. We
would not necessarily know that it had been sold. The protection would
continue until it was returned from the exhibition to the
owner.
Mr.
Bellingham:
I am grateful to the Minister for that
explanation. In other words, if the work of art were sold privately and
secretly, by definition, the immunity would continue. However, am I
right that immunity would be withdrawn if the sale were
public—if, during or immediately after the exhibition, the
picture, work of art or cultural object in question were auctioned and
a public sale were announced to the Inland Revenue, for
example?
Vera
Baird:
Yes, I think that that is correct. If I am not
right about that, I will write to the hon. Gentleman and indicate the
contrary. It is probably the case that the work ceased to be here for
public display in a temporary exhibition. If it is taken away to be
auctioned at Sotheby’s for tax purposes, the fundamental
conditions have been broken. If I find that that is incorrect, and that
there is a loophole of the kind that the hon. Gentleman is anxious
about, I will write to him before Report. He will then have every
opportunity to come back and fill that loophole, if we find
one.
Mr.
Bellingham:
I am grateful to the Minister, who has been as
generous as ever in trying to explain the matter. I beg to ask leave to
withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by
leave,
withdrawn.
Clause
129 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2007 | Prepared 28 March 2007 |