---

Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Bill [Lords]

The amendments seek to ensure that the immunity that is granted to works of art as they travel between countries is not achieved at the expense of those who believe that they have a rightful claim to those works of art. They relate to works of art that were looted in time of war and particularly to works that the Germans took in the second world war; what is known as holocaust looting. This has become a major international problem recently as more and more great international museums put on temporary exhibitions to attract people and, for the enjoyment of the public, the need to borrow great works and move them between countries becomes greater every day. In recent years there have been a number of high profile and contentious cases, when works have appeared in a country destined for an exhibition and have been subject to injunctions and legal action. Inevitably that creates great insecurity and impossibility in terms of planning by the international museums. It is also something of an inhibition to those generous enough to loan what they believe to be their own works of art, whether they be museums or individuals. A general sense of insecurity developed and most countries around the world—certainly most European countries and American states—introduced legislation that granted some form of immunity to museums so that works could be loaned with a degree of certainty. Most of that legislation balanced the needs not only of the museums, but of the donors and the people who felt that they had a claim to those works of art. We did not introduce such legislation and our great national galleries—the Tate, the British Museum, the National Gallery and particularly the Royal Academy, which has many high profile international exhibitions—launched a well argued and vigorous campaign and persuaded the Government that we had to do something about that. The Government took the point and introduced immunity. The museums, understandably, are concerned about their exhibitions. They were perhaps less rigorous about the potential rights of people who had a legal claim, or whose forefathers had a legal claim, to those works of art. The amendments seek to correct that imbalance. They would not take away from what the great national galleries and museums have achieved, or what the Government have given them in legislation, but they would provide a measure of balance to ensure that the museums do not act at the expense of people whose families once believed that they owned such works of art and who see those works appear in front of them, only to be swept away before they have had a chance to make a legal claim, or to establish the provenance that might do that. The amendments are corrective and would introduce due diligence, on which the Government have already established the principle, to require museums to use their best offices and efforts to establish the provenance of a work of art. They would have a responsibility when accepting a work of art to see whether there was an owner out there and whether the people loaning it genuinely had title to it. In almost all cases, they do, but there have been some contested cases and it is those that the amendments seek to address. If the Government are minded to be sympathetic to the amendments and are interested in pursuing the idea of due diligence, that would be constructive, even-handed and fair and Members on both sides would welcome it. Even if that were the case, this would be only the first step towards resolving the problem. Just establishing the concept of due diligence, or assigning oversight of that procedure to an independent committee, will not be the end of the story. For example, there will be the question of the guidelines and guidance issued to that committee. The problem is likely to grow in future, with all the archaeological works of art that are coming out of Iraq and flooding the international markets, not least in London. It will prove much more difficult to prove provenance in such cases. I fear that looted art will be with us for a long time and will be a general source of contention and unhappiness. It is therefore important that we are, first, establishing this immunity and, secondly, at the same time correcting it as regards the rights of people who have good title to works of art. I stress that this is only a start: certain major problems lie ahead. About three years ago, the Russians, who looted a huge amount of art in the second world war when they swept through Europe and drew it all back to Moscow and St. Petersburg, nationalised everything through their own legislation. In theory, those works of art can now be lent around the world and, on the face of it, their provenance will be entirely legal and correct. That legislation is not currently recognised by UNESCO, which is considering drawing up guidelines to try to deal with that situation. In fact, there are plenty of problems. If one burrows right back in time, many of the works in the national collections of most European countries have been looted from somebody at some point during wartime. That is a slightly more esoteric point, but there is no doubt that the Russian arrangement will be difficult to resolve. The UNESCO guidelines will be important, because a kind of laundering of provenance makes this difficult subject even more difficult. For today, I hope that the amendments will find favour with the Minister and that she will think that it is possible to establish such a committee. Due diligence is not an easy thing to achieve. The National Museum Directors Conference has had a committee working on it for several years; I must declare an interest, having been a member. Other members—they are an interesting collection—have included Sir Nicholas Serota, Lord Moynihan, Miss Marina Vaizey, the well known art historian, Miss Ann Webber, who probably knows more about looted art than anybody else in this country, and Professor David Cesarani. However, relatively few people in this country have much experience of the issues involved, other than one or two dealers. It will not be easy to find the expertise to augment any committee that the Government nominate to take on this work. Nevertheless, it is possible, with good will, encouragement and thoughtful guidelines and guidance, that we can establish a model that other countries may well find useful in dealing with these difficult issues. I commend the amendments to the Minister and hope that the Government are not averse to them.