---

Holocaust (Return of Cultural Objects) Bill

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time. I am grateful for the support that the Bill has received from both sides of the House. At the outset, I would like to thank the Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, my hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage (Barbara Follett), her predecessor and her officials—especially Hillary Bauer—for their help in bringing the Bill to this stage. I also pay tribute to those who have campaigned for it, especially Anne Webber of the Commission for Looted Art in Europe, Jon Benjamin of the Board of Deputies and my noble Friend Lord Janner, who has been a stalwart on the whole issue of holocaust restitution and who has agreed to take up the Bill in the other place if it receives a Third Reading today. The Bill has changed its appearance somewhat since its Second Reading, through amendments made in Committee, but its effect and the policy behind it remain the same. It is now supplemented by explanatory notes and an impact assessment produced by my hon. Friend the Minister's officials. Its new title—the Holocaust (Return of Cultural Objects) Bill—better describes its purpose, which is straightforward: it is to meet our moral, if not legal, obligation to provide a mechanism for the return to their rightful owners of cultural objects held in national collections that were looted during the Nazi period. I have taken a particular interest in this issue since first being elected to the House in 1997. On 17 February 2000, in response to a parliamentary question from me, the then Arts Minister—now my noble Friend Lord Howarth—announced the setting up of the Spoliation Advisory Panel under the chairmanship of Sir David Hirst. He said that the panel would consider and advise on claims from anyone who had lost possession of a cultural object during the Nazi era, when such an object was now in the possession of a UK national collection or gallery. Since then, the panel has adjudicated on a number of claims. It does so in detail, and shows fairness to both sides. Its most recent report, published only on Wednesday this week, concerned eight drawings in the Courtauld collection. It did not uphold that particular claim, although it dealt with the case extremely sympathetically. The system provides an alternative to expensive and long-drawn-out legal proceedings, but it does not preclude that remedy if someone wishes to use it. The panel makes recommendations, including for compensation or for restitution, to the Secretary of State. So far, so good. The problem is that the law does not allow restitution for works held in some collections, as there is no power to de-acquire—the current term—items. In other museums, the situation is different, leading to unjust, unfair and sometimes downright ludicrous outcomes where one of a pair of objects held in different collections can be restituted while the other cannot. The Bill seeks to remedy that problem. The best estimate is that there are about 20 looted items in UK museums, but there could be more. The process of research by families is ongoing, and it can take quite a while to locate an item and document a claim, but not every rightful owner may want restitution. Some might, but others might settle for an ex gratia compensation payment or might simply want a public acknowledgement of rightful ownership by the gallery or museum concerned. It should be possible for the rightful owners to have the object back, once the matter has been decided to the satisfaction of Spoliation Advisory Panel, on its recommendation to the Minister; and that should not be prevented by the unintended consequences of the current law. My Bill will provide a process, with appropriate safeguards, to achieve that outcome. It aims to work by agreement and by consensus. If there were a huge dispute, it would not work and the item would not be returned. The process is straightforward. The item claimed is referred to the panel; if the panel finds the object to be spoliated, it makes a recommendation for restitution to the Secretary of State if it thinks that is the proper remedy. If the Secretary of State accepts the recommendation that restitution is appropriate, he or she can trigger a power, not a duty, of de-accession to the museum concerned, which can then transfer the object to its rightful owner. The Bill contains a series of safeguards. It does not override any special conditions or trust under which an object may be held. That would require complex legislation, and I baulked at even attempting that, as it would not be appropriate for a private Member's Bill. It is limited to a finite and definitive list of institutions that are set out in clause 1. It also has a 10-year sunset clause to provide, on the one hand, sufficient time to facilitate claims and identify objects, and, on the other, some long-term certainty for the public collections concerned. The Bill will apply to Scotland, at the request of the Scottish Executive; it is not required for Northern Ireland, which does not have this problem. Above all, the Bill is strictly limited as to time, place and perpetrator with respect to the original deprivation of the object from its lawful owner. The object must have been taken during the Nazi era, as part of that appalling regime. It is not a Trojan horse for any other art works or cultural items. It is a discrete modest measure, limited in scope and time to rectify decades of injustice. I commend the Bill to the House.