 House of Commons |
Session 2008 - 09 Publications on the internet General Committee Debates Holocaust (Stolen Art) Restitution Bill |
Holocaust (Stolen Art) Restitution Bill |
The Committee consisted of the following Members:Chris Shaw, Committee
Clerk † attended the
Committee Public Bill CommitteeWednesday 10 June 2009[Mr. Frank Cook in the Chair]Holocaust (Stolen Art) Restitution Bill9.30
am
The
Chairman: Before we begin, I have a few comments. Members
may remove their outer garment and should ensure that mobile phones and
pagers are rigged for silent running or switched off. I also remind
Members that adequate notice should be given of amendments. I do not
intend to call starred
amendments.
Clause 1Powers
of
de-accession Question
proposed, That the clause stand part of the
Bill.
The
Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the
following: new clause 1—Power to return victims’
property— ‘(1) A
body to which this Act applies may transfer an object from its
collections if the following conditions are
met. (2) Condition 1 is that
the Advisory Panel has recommended the transfer.
(3) Condition 2 is that the Secretary of State has
approved the Advisory Panel’s
recommendation. (4) The
Secretary of State may approve a recommendation for the transfer of an
object from the collections of a Scottish body only with the consent of
the Scottish Ministers. (5)
“Scottish body”
means— The Board of
Trustees for the National Galleries of
Scotland, The Trustees of the
National Library of
Scotland, The Board of Trustees
of the National Museums of
Scotland. (6) The power
conferred by subsection (1) does not affect any trust or condition
subject to which any object is
held. (7) The power conferred
by subsection (1) is an additional
power.’. This
provides that a body listed in clause 2 may transfer objects from its
collections where two conditions are satisfied. First, the transfer
must be recommended by the Advisory Panel. Secondly, the Secretary of
State must approve the recommendation (with the consent of the Scottish
Ministers in some
cases). New
clause 2—“Advisory
Panel”— ‘(1)
For the purposes of this Act “Advisory Panel” means a
panel for the time being designated by the Secretary of State for those
purposes. (2) The Secretary of
State may designate a panel for the purposes of this Act only if the
panel’s functions consist of the consideration of claims
which— (a) are made in
respect of objects, and (b)
relate to events occurring during the Nazi
era. (3) “Nazi
era” means the
period— (a) beginning
with 1 January 1933, and (b)
ending with 31 December
1945.’. This
defines “Advisory Panel” for the purposes of the Act. The
panel is to be designated by the Secretary of State. The Secretary of
State may only designate a panel whose functions consist of considering
claims relating to events occurring during the Nazi era (1933
-1945).
Mr.
Andrew Dismore (Hendon) (Lab): Thank you, Mr.
Cook. I welcome you to the Chair of this Committee, which I hope will
not detain us long. The Bill has found favour throughout the House and
we have been able to proceed with a friendly consensus on this
important
issue. It
will be apparent to Committee members that the amendments and new
clauses constitute a major redrafting of the Bill, but the policy and
sense of it remain unchanged. The amendments are parliamentary
counsel’s redrafting of my original text. Parliamentary
counsel’s text is in plain English and may be more precise than
my own—though perhaps not as elegantly drafted. Legislation
needs to be precise in order to
work. On
Second Reading it was asked whether the Bill had any tax implications.
There are not many tax implications, but the Treasury is looking at
whether the tax rules need to be changed. If so, that will be done
through the Finance Bill or tax rules changes rather than amendments to
this Bill, which would be inappropriate.
New clauses 1
and 2 replace clause 1, and I invite the Committee, when the time
comes, to vote against clause stand part and to vote for new clauses 1
and 2. New clause 1 provides for the power to transfer, as opposed to
the original language of “de-accession”, so jargon is
being replaced by plain English, but the substance of the power remains
the same. It also makes provision for Scotland, as the Scottish
Executive now wish Scotland to be included. There are also other,
consequential amendments to that
effect. New
clause 2 makes provision for the advisory panel and spells out in more
detail the provisions in clause 1(2). Again, the substance
is the same. I urge the Committee to vote against clause stand part,
and for new clauses 1 and
2.
The
Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport
(Barbara Follett): The Government support the insertion of
new clauses 1 and 2. New clause 1 sets out the two conditions that need
to be met to trigger the power for the trustees of one of the named
institutions to transfer an object from its collections. Those are,
first, that the advisory panel recommends the transfer and, secondly,
that the Secretary of State approves that
recommendation. To
avoid any doubt, I clarify that museum trustees will continue to take
decisions on whether or not to return an object. That is in keeping
with the arm’s-length principle that recognises that trustees
are responsible for the items in their care. It is not for the
Government to tell them what to do with them. The current arrangement
for the consideration of claims and the decision-making process,
including the approval of the panel’s reports by the Secretary
of State, works well. The two conditions that must be met to trigger
the trustees’ power to return an object reflect the existing
arrangements for handling the reports of the Spoliation Advisory Panel.
It is right to include the requirement that the Secretary of State
approve the panel’s recommendation because it reflects current
practice and provides a safeguard in the unlikely event of an
irrational recommendation by the panel. It is not, however, the
Government’s intention to tell museum trustees what to do. This
clause is about giving trustees the power to decide to return an object
if the two conditions are met, in the same way that regional and local
museums are able to support the return of an object in such
circumstances.
The Government
also support new clause 2, which defines an advisory panel for the
purposes of this Act. The panel is to be designated by the Secretary of
State, and he may only designate a panel whose functions consist of
considering claims relating to events occurring during the Nazi era; in
other words, between 1933 and 1945. That reflects the terms of
reference of the Spoliation Advisory Panel because, as I have
explained, the purpose of the Bill is straightforward: to give trustees
of the named institutions a power to return an object where the
trustees decide to do so, in response to a recommendation by the
designated panel which has been approved by the Secretary of State. As
my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon said, tax issues can, if
necessary, be dealt with separately by the
Treasury. Mr.
Edward Vaizey (Wantage) (Con): It is a pleasure to serve
under your chairmanship this morning, Mr. Cook.
Conservative
Members accept that the new clauses are necessary as technical
amendments. I only wish to put two points to the Minister, or, perhaps,
to the Member promoting the Bill, to whom I offer my hearty
congratulations. First, I note that there is no definition of a
cultural object in the new clauses, whereas there is in the clauses so
elegantly drafted by the hon. Member for Hendon. I wonder whether he or
the Minister will comment on whether that is a significant change.
Secondly, I note that there is nothing in the new clauses that defines
how the advisory panel is to be made up. Will the Minister comment on
what progress has been made in defining the terms of reference for any
new advisory panel, or whether they will simply be transferred from the
existing Spoliation Advisory
Committee? Lembit
Öpik (Montgomeryshire) (LD): I am sorry I am late,
Mr. Cook—Mr. Crow was doing all he could
to prevent me from arriving this morning.
My only
question on these issues is one of definition, and the hon. Member for
Wantage has raised the same issue. I seek the Minister’s
guidance on whether the latitude given by the absence of a specific
definition is detrimental to the efficacy of the Bill. The one
circumstance in which I can see that being a problem is if there were a
legal case, or proceedings in court, where individuals who were
unwilling to give up artefacts claimed they were not covered by the
Bill because there was no definition to say that they were. It would be
useful for the record, and thus for courts in future, if some
determination could be given about that point in these
proceedings. Mr.
John Whittingdale (Maldon and East Chelmsford) (Con): As I
said on Second Reading, I welcome the Bill. Indeed, the Select
Committee that I chair has in the past pressed the Government to
introduce such a Bill. I do, however, want to explore, and perhaps
press the hon. Member for Hendon about, the practical consequences of
the Bill. The panel has met only nine times and, as far as I am aware,
there are not a great many objects currently sitting in our national
institutions which are under dispute. Does he have any idea when, or
if, the measures in his Bill will actually be used? Is it not the case
that the only item whose return is still under some dispute—the
Benevento missal—would not actually be covered by the
Bill?
Barbara
Follett: To respond to the query by the hon. Member for
Wantage about cultural objects, we did not feel it necessary to give a
definition of a cultural object because, in referring to an object, the
Bill is using the definition in the legislation that already governs
museums. That, I hope, will also deal with the point made by the hon.
Member for
Montgomeryshire. On
the advisory panel—[Interruption.] Hon. Members must
forgive me; I have no Parliamentary Private Secretary today. I think
that Mr. Crow has delayed her, too. The panel to be
designated will be the Spoliation Advisory Panel. We feel that that is
the best way of going ahead because it has experience in this area even
though, as the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford said, it has
met only nine times.
Mr.
Dismore: I cannot envisage the circumstances in which a
legal case is likely to arise. The whole purpose of the Bill is to
operate consensually, and ultimately the power rests with the trustees.
If they do not want to return an object, they do not have to, so I do
not think that that is a problem.
I turn now to
the practical consequences. I discussed the Benevento missal with the
British Library this morning. It wanted the Bill to make specific
provision for that object, but that would have made the Bill hybrid so
we could not do that. Nobody really knows the circumstances in which
the Benevento missal went missing, but it would have been during the
period in question, so I suppose that it would be possible for the
Spoliation Advisory Panel to make a new recommendation. That would mean
that we had a recommendation that was not
retrospective—obviously, the Bill will not have retrospective
application. The particular problem is that the British Library wanted
specific provision which we could not make without making the Bill
hybrid.
It is not
Mr. Crow who has kidnapped my hon. Friend’s PPS, but
the Chief Whip, as she has been promoted to the Whips Office.
Question
put and negatived.
Clause 1
accordingly disagreed
to.
Clause 2Applicability
‘The Board of
Trustees for the National Galleries of
Scotland,’. This
amendment adds the Board of Trustees for the National Galleries of
Scotland to the list of bodies to which the Bill
applies.
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2009 | Prepared 11 June 2009 |