| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Baroness Miller of Hendon: The position of the Opposition is that, if there was a reason for the arms not to be stopped, they should be allowed to be exported. I hope that the noble Lord will accept that. I am clarifying what I believe the position to be. We have no objection to the licences, to the control, and all the other matters that are appropriate and that also take into consideration the concerns of the right reverend Prelate; that is, they should not go all over without consideration. Having said that, when it is
appropriate, export should not be held up by one department when another department has gone through the procedure carefully.Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Redesdale moved Amendment No. 34:
- Page 5, line 19, at end insert—
The noble Lord said: We on these Benches finally reach an amendment of our own on cultural interests. This is a probing amendment directed at the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. It seeks to test whether adequate provision has been made for the DCMS to undertake the requirements placed on it by the Bill.
I say that because, as has already been pointed out in earlier amendments, Britain has an extremely large art market and one of the biggest antiquities markets in the world. However, the DCMS has a small team to deal with licensing. I hope that the Minister can give an indication of how that team is to be expanded; otherwise, the issuing of licensing on time which affects other areas of the Bill—the export of arms—might affect the export of cultural items for loans to exhibitions, galleries or even for sale.
The other aspect that particularly concerns me is that of policing the market place. Objects of cultural interest, especially archaeological items, can be procured illicitly and traded through on-line market places. A number of such sites exist and what is worrying about them is that objects that one assumes have a British context are put on the web for sale in dollars without at the moment any need for an export control licence. I believe that under the provisions of the Bill it will be the role of the DCMS not only to police this market, but also to make those who are putting items up for sale aware of their obligations under the Bill. I beg to move.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I am delighted to welcome the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, into the cultural fold. He has of course raised an extremely serious issue in relation to the availability of staff and funding to make the system work effectively. I join him in inviting the Minister to give an explanation of how there will be sufficient establishment to make the controls within the Bill have real teeth where they need to bite. The noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, is right to point out some of the worries in relation to illicit items being offered for sale on the net, and obviously that will be an expanding market in the technological future.
In addition, perhaps I may ask the Minister a related question. When I looked at Amendment No. 34 I felt it raised more than the issues to which he addressed himself. It also raises the issue of what happens if and when the reviewing committee on art recommends to the Government that an export licence shall be delayed until a time when perhaps money can be found to "rescue it for the nation", to use common parlance.
Those who have read the reviewing committee's reports over the past few years will be as concerned as I am to note that it believes there is not enough funding in the system to save existing treasures. At page 2 of the 1999-2000 report it was suggested to the committee that the Secretary of State's expert advisers have been so demotivated by the relatively small number of important Waverley items that have been saved for the nation—mainly as a result of lack of funds—that they were not even bothering to refer items to the review committee in the hope that they could be saved.
Indeed, in the previous year's report for 1998-99, at page 8 paragraph 7, the committee stated that,
Lord Davies of Oldham: I am not surprised that the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, welcomed the Liberal Democrats to the debate. It gave her the opportunity to raise a much wider perspective than the one countenanced in the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale. However, I shall do my best to answer her.
I shall be slightly negative at first—I shall ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment in due course—but, before I sit down, I shall be reasonably positive about certain aspects of the issues he raised and I shall say a word or two about the issues raised by the noble Baroness.
The purpose of Clause 6(2) is to make further provision in respect of the order-making power of the Bill. The amendment makes reference to the financial provision to be provided by the Secretary of State, but not to how the order-making powers themselves might be exercised. There is no connection between the noble Lord's requirement and how the power might be operated. We fear that this would introduce an ambiguity into Clause 6(2)—which has a specific purpose in regard to the Bill—and that would be undesirable.
The noble Lord will recognise that we appreciate the thrust of certain aspects of the amendment—namely, it is necessary that there should be sufficient resources available to police certain aspects of the Bill. It should be noted that two years ago the Minister for the Arts at the Department for Culture, Media and Sport established an advisory panel on illicit trade. We
The Minister welcomed the recommendations of the panel made to him in December 2000 for regulation of the export licensing system. As a result, additional staff have been appointed to the cultural property unit of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. So additional resources have been provided for this necessary work.
The Government are well aware of the need for adequate financial provision for the DTI's export control.
Lord Redesdale: I thank the Minister for giving way. Additional staff have been provided, but, from an answer given at Second Reading, I believe that the additional staff number two. In the department's eyes, is that realistic in view of the workload that will be imposed by the Bill?
Lord Davies of Oldham: The staff were appointed in response to the needs of the review committee, the Panel on Elicit Trade, to which I referred. The staff derive their work from ensuring that they fulfil the obligations generated by the work of that panel.
The noble Lord is right. This is not just a matter for the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. It is also a question of the work of the DTI's Export Control Organisation. The Government are well aware of the fact that the Bill will require adequate provision to ensure that its provisions are carried through.
The Export Control Organisation has benefited from increased manpower and resources over the past few years. The Government will continue to ensure that it is adequately resourced to meet its responsibilities, including what we all recognise are the new responsibilities under the Bill.
That does not allow me to go quite so far as the noble Baroness would want. She opened up the issue of necessary resources to ensure that the cultural treasures of this country are sufficiently sustained. First, we all recognise that that is a plea for a "bottomless pit", if ever one were heard of, in terms of provision. I think that the noble Baroness will generously recognise that the funding and purchase of cultural goods deferred as a result of the review committee is not a matter for the Secretary of State but for those wanting to carry out the purchase.
Therefore, in all honesty, I do not think that that particular contribution—valued as ever, and proof of the Opposition's determination to ensure that the Government fulfil their remit with regard to the arts—relates directly to the provisions in the Bill. I give way to the noble Baroness.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I appreciate that the Minister is trying to be accurate in referring to the sources of funding available for saving works of art. Does he agree that the level of funding available to the
"( ) The Secretary of State shall ensure that adequate financial provision is made for the granting and regulation of export licences for objects of cultural interest."
"it appeared to the Advisory Council this year that there had been little progress since the Committee's Report of 1997-98, in which the efficacy of a system that was not able to retain in the country a greater number of deferred items was questioned. The then Committee's remark continued therefore to have resonance".
The issue of funding goes rather wider than that raised by the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, in his explanation of the amendment. I hope that the Minister will be able to address the points I have made.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page