---

Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Bill [Lords]

I applaud the intention behind the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mark Fisher), and I hope that I can give him the satisfaction that he seeks, although not by accepting them. I will write to the hon. Member for Wantage (Mr. Vaizey) about his proposition on due diligence and the conflict of laws, if I do not satisfy him with my few words. Amendments Nos. 83 and 86 are unnecessary. It is one of the basic principles set out in the due diligence guidelines published by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport 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. This means that a museum will have to apply the due diligence guidelines in relation to every single item that it wishes to borrow. Failure to do so will amount to failure to comply with the guidelines. As clause 131(3)(a) makes clear, this would threaten the approved status of the museum. Amendment No. 84 is also unnecessary. We intend to require museums to publish sufficient information about a particular object to ensure that it can be identified by anyone who may have an interest in that object. This will require the publication of some information on provenance, but we do not think that it is necessary for the full provenance of an object to be published in every case. Where, for example, the object concerned is a 17th century painting that was acquired by the Metropolitan museum in New York in the 19th century and has never left the museum’s control, there would appear to be no point in giving full details of its provenance. We also propose to require publication of the identity of the lender in advance of an exhibition, when the lender is a public body. More difficult issues arise in relation to the publication of the identity of private owners, and we will be discussing with museums and other interest groups whether and how it would be possible for that information to be made available to potential claimants. Amendment No. 85 would require provision to be made for the establishment of a new statutory body. We do not think that that is necessary. The amendment refers to the spoliation advisory panel. That is not a statutory body, and it is not supported by regulations. However, it plays a very valuable role in resolving claims relating to objects lost during the Nazi era that are now in our public collections. Other non-statutory bodies, such as the reviewing committee for the export of works of art, play an equally valuable role in relation to the export of cultural objects. DCMS will be working closely with 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 accept that it would be beneficial for advice from an independent body to be available to the Secretary of State. DCMS proposes to seek the assistance of the acceptance in lieu panel, an independent body which has experience in considering provenance issues, in monitoring the compliance of museums and galleries with the due diligence requirements. DCMS is having discussions with the panel on how such assistance may be offered. Amendments Nos. 87 to 89 relate to the withdrawal of approval from museums. We do not believe that it is necessary either to limit the discretion given to the appropriate authority in clause 131(3), as amendment No. 87 seeks to do, or to prescribe the procedures that must be followed if a museum is considered not to have undertaken adequate due diligence procedures or to have failed to comply with regulations requiring additional information to be given on request, as amendments Nos. 88 and 89 seek to do. The Secretary of State is required to act reasonably and proportionately in exercising any discretionary power, and this applies to the power in clause 131(3) as much as to any other power. Removal of approved status in the cases set out in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this subsection without any warning, and without giving a reasonable time for a museum to rectify the faults that have been identified, would be regarded as acting unreasonably in any case where a museum’s failures, either in relation to due diligence or to the provision of information, could be easily rectified. However, we would wish to reserve the power to act without notice in any case in which this could be justified. We want museums to know that if, after they have received approval under these provisions, they decide that it is no longer necessary to carry out any due diligence, there is a risk that their approved status will be removed with little or no warning. I hope that what I have said has reassured my hon. Friend, and that he now feels able to withdraw his amendments.