---

Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Bill [Lords]

I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mark Fisher) for tabling the amendments. He made a forceful speech on the subject on Second Reading. It is worth recording that, when the issue was first discussed in the other place, the Government made some important concessions, which we welcomed, especially the requirement for museums to exercise due diligence. Important progress was made in providing that only museums that the Secretary of State nominated would be granted immunity from seizure, thus ensuring that those that exercise due diligence will be granted immunity. However, as the hon. Gentleman pointed out, more progress can be made, especially through amendment No. 85. The hon. Gentlemen kindly referred to my mother’s diligent work on the National Museum Directors Conference committee alongside him. As he pointed out, the Government rightly want to ensure that museums have the maximum flexibility to exercise due diligence and are not subject to a regime that is too bureaucratic. He wants to ensure that an independent committee audits museums’ due diligence procedures and can give independent advice. That is an important safeguard. As has been said on other occasions when part 6 was debated, there is an important balance to be struck. Conservative Members acknowledge the need for our national museums to benefit from some immunity from seizure legislation to maintain the high quality of international exhibitions that come to this country. However, we also recognise the need for those whose families lost works of art during the second world war—and people and countries that have lost works of art through more recent conflicts, especially in Iraq and Afghanistan—to have appropriate safeguards in place so that they can take action if required. It is vital to strike a balance, and the amendments provide further safeguards for individuals and families. We look forward to the Under-Secretary’s comments on the Government’s view. The hon. Gentleman also referred to Russia effectively nationalising its looted art. I asked the Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Lammy) about the matter. I believe that the Russian federal law on cultural valuables, which was passed in 1998, creates a specific loophole. The Government appear to believe that that makes such looted art effectively Russian art and a matter of Russian law. Will the Under-Secretary comment on what a museum is expected to do in exercising due diligence if a piece of looted art is Russian art under Russian law but, de facto, is looted art?