Sir Patrick Cormack FSA

Conservative Party | Staffordshire South

Questions on Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Bill

Sir Patrick Cormack (South Staffordshire) (Con): As the hon. and learned Lady has made plain, she does not think that any bailiff who is not certificated should be able to be involved in the procedures. Would it not be sensible, and reassuring to Citizens Advice and others, to delay the implementation of the part of the Bill that we are discussing?

Vera Baird: The hon. Gentleman’s point ought to be considered seriously; I accept that.

 

Sir Patrick Cormack: This part of the Bill has received a widespread welcome, particularly from directors of museums and galleries. Does the hon. and learned Lady agree that it is very important that it should be implemented as soon as is reasonably possible, because London has already slipped down the league table of major exhibition cities?

Vera Baird: Yes, that is my understanding, and our intention.

 

Sir Patrick Cormack: As one who is not making a bid to be on the Committee, may I ask my hon. Friend whether he would be kind enough to agree that that is a classic illustration of the need for a second Chamber whose Members are not encumbered by constituency problems and who may devote plenty of time to critical scrutiny of a Bill? Does he agree that the House of Lords has done a brilliant job in this particular case?

Mr. Heald: I agree that the other place has done an excellent job on this Bill, and that it does an excellent job on many Bills, which we do not have adequate time to consider fully. I also agree that the powers of the other place must remain undimmed, unchanged and certainly not eroded. I would like to see a few more Members of the other place with some constituency interests—[Hon. Members: “Why?”] Well, in two days’ time, I am winding up the debate on the composition of the House of Lords, so hon. Members will get the whole nine yards—

 

Mr. Bellingham: Will the hon. Gentleman clarifyone point? He said that he wanted amendments in Committee to prevent works of art from being sold. Is he saying that the owner of a work of art on temporary display in this country could authorise its sale?

Mark Fisher: Absolutely. Once immunity, and therefore protection from a suit—brought by somebody who believed that they had a better claim to ownership of the work—had been gained, while the immunity was in force and the object was in the country under an immune order, it could be taken off to Sotheby’s or Christie’s and sold. That is not satisfactory, and I am sure it is not what the Government intend.

Sir Patrick Cormack: Of course that would not be satisfactory, but if the exhibition ends, the work remains in this country and the owner then decides that he or she wishes to sell it, the immunity is over. Although the hon. Gentleman, whom I greatly respect and admire in these matters, has raised an important point, I honestly do not think that there is a problem

Mark Fisher: These matters need to be explored in Committee and worked out. I accept that the intentions of other hon. Members, such as the hon. Memberfor South Staffordshire, are good, and that it is notthe intention of the Government, or of the hon. Gentleman, that immunity should be a cloak to allow the putative owner to dispose of a work of art while the possibly better claim of another potential owner is disregarded. We must clarify that, and ensure that the Bill does not inadvertently allow it to happen.

The United States legislation contains simple characteristics that make it much better than part 6. For example, immunity under US legislation applies only to civil claims, not to criminal claims. We must make that distinction in part 6. There is a longer notice period that allows potential claimants to identify and recognise works that might be theirs. Sales are not allowed in the United States. Those are simple and fairly uncontroversial amendments, which we should make to part 6 to get it right.

The immunity and the regulations need to be much more specific and need more teeth. The due diligence that we are correctly introducing as a result of deliberations in another place should be mandatory. There is no reason why it should not be, and we should make it so. Museums should be required to publish sufficient information to make it possible for a potential owner to establish whether the work of art is a work that they think was taken from their family in the past or illicitly traded.

That information should include details of the lender. Often lenders are not keen to identify themselves. Because museums and galleries are so dependent on the generosity of lenders they are very protective of them, but a lender who has nothing to fear and who is confident that they have proper title to the work of art that they are lending has nothingto lose by identifying themselves. The identity of the lender should be an essential part of the information that museums and galleries are required to publish.

There should be a longer time for owners to come forward. The system of due diligence should not be self-regulating. There is no reason why it should be.We need a committee based, for instance, on the acceptance in lieu committee—a voluntary committee that would monitor and oversee due diligence and ensure that a proper procedure is followed for all claims to objects that have entered the country under immunity.

Those obligations would not be onerous on museums and galleries. They would allow them to have the immunity, but it would be a proper and balanced immunity which would recognise the possible rightful claims of other owners. Without such amendments we will, in effect, be derogating from the commitments that we made when we signed up to the 1998 Washington principles on Nazi-confiscated art. The Government were right to sign up to those principles, but if we enact the immunity in part 6 without the amendments that I have suggested, we will effectively derogate from that agreement, which would be a great sadness.

I should have declared a small interest earlier inmy speech: I am a member of the National Museum Directors Conference committee on the spoliation of works of art, which advises the National Museum Directors Conference on such matters. In 1998, the committee put out a statement of principles onthe spoliation of works of art, which is generally recognised to be sane and balanced. Both sides of the argument, owners and galleries, are represented on the committee—for example, Sir Nicholas Serota, the director of the Tate, and Anne Webber, the joint chair and chief executive of the Commission for Looted Art in Europe, are both members—and the principles that it published in 1998 are sane and have not been criticised. Those principles pitch a balance, which we need to embed in this legislation.

We can still improve those sensible and necessary provisions in Committee, because it would be wrong if we were to allow the Bill to be enacted in its present state. The Bill understandably addresses the interests and needs of museums, but it does not address the rights of people who have had works of art looted or otherwise illicitly taken from them. We need to get the balance right—it can be struck—and I hope that we can achieve that, in Committee or at a later stage.

6.22 pm
Sir Patrick Cormack (South Staffordshire) (Con): It is a pleasure, as always, to follow the hon. Memberfor Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mark Fisher), who hasan encyclopaedic knowledge of our museums and galleries. Indeed, he published an encyclopaedia onthe subject a couple of years ago, which I warmly commend to all hon. Members—I am not on commission.

The hon. Gentleman has, however, over-egged the pudding tonight. He has spoken proudly and rightly about his membership of the National Museum Directors Conference, but I received a statement from the conference this morning which clearly indicates that it believes that the Government have got the balance right. It is, of course, entirely proper for the hon. Gentleman to express his concerns, which any civilised Member of this House, and even some of the uncivilised ones, share. He has made it plain that a work of art that is a misgotten gain should not be totally immune. We should obviously place an obligation on those who stage exhibitions to try to establish the provenance of the works that they are displaying.

The hon. Gentleman was with me and the all-party group at the wonderful Rodin exhibition just before Christmas, which was one of a series of marvellous exhibitions—Holbein, Velasquez, Rodin and Hockney—that brought grace and elegance to our capital. At the moment, hon. Members who want to escape the confines of this place can go to the Tate and see the Hogarth and to the National Gallery to see the Renoir landscapes. All those exhibitions are to some degree—I do not want to exaggerate, having accused the hon. Gentleman of slight exaggeration—at risk, if those who lend were to feel vulnerable.

The hon. Gentleman has mentioned the problem of sale. On the face of it, that is a real problem, but in fact it is not, because the immunity is over and done with when the exhibition is over. If somebody then tries to sell something to which they are not entitled, the law can come into play, as it rightly should. However, I believe that proper care and discretion will be exercised, because I do not believe that scholars and directors of the eminence of Sir Nicholas Serota or Charles Saumarez Smith at the National Gallery and others would be anything other than very diligent. If such diligence is exercised, we do not face a real worry.

 

As the National Museum Directors Conference has recognised in its paper, we must recognise that this country is merely coming into line with many other countries in putting such legislation on the statute book. I welcome what the Government have done. In particular, I welcome the thorough debate in the other place, where the Bill was noticeably and properly improved in that regard and in others. Although it is entirely proper for the hon. Gentleman to introduce amendments in Committee, I think that the Government have got the balance about right; I therefore welcome the Bill.

I do not want to make a long speech, but I want to refer to one or two other aspects of the Bill and to the nature of the debate. All hon. Members are concerned about the plight of the vulnerable, of those people who have incurred debts with which they cannot cope and, in particular, of those people who are pursued for debts for which they are not responsible—the hon. Member for Knowsley, South (Mr. O'Hara) has told us avery moving story about that. In response to myearlier intervention, the Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs, the hon. and learned Member for Redcar (Vera Baird), said that she was minded to concede that I had a very good point, or words to that effect, in saying that we should wait until all bailiffs are properly accredited before implementing that part of the Bill. I think that the House is more or less united on that point, and I urge the Under-Secretary of State for Wales, who will reply to the debate, to ensure it when this monumental and major Bill—it is both—comes fully into force.

We should not give powers to people who have not been adequately and properly trained and accredited, bearing in mind the extreme sensitivity of the issues involved. I hope that the Government come up with an assurance on that point. My hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald), who spoke from the Opposition Front Bench, has made it plain that he would accept such a categorical assurance. I hope that we shall have it, perhaps buttressed by amendments in Committee.

Like other hon. Members who have spoken, I believe that bailiffs should be recognisable. Earlier in the debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. Benyon) muttered from a sedentary position that they always used to wear bowler hats—they were occasionally mistaken for the man from the Pru, which led to some amusing incidents. Bowler hats are now reserved for the judging ring in constituencies such as that of my hon. Friend, so they are not appropriate, but a uniform is. Whoever is calling on a house to discharge such a duty should be instantly recognisable. We expect our postmen to wear uniforms; we expect people who call from various statutory agencies to be readily identifiable by their clothes; we certainly expect our policemen, community support officers and others to be instantly recognisable; and I believe that bailiffs should wear a uniform. The very first thing that they do when they knock on the door should be to produce photo identity; then, and only then, should they be allowed admission. I hope that a suitable amendment will be tabled in Committee to toughen the Bill in that respect.

My hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire made an admirable and succinct speech from the Front Bench—he spoke for 20 minutes, and I congratulate him on that. He said that he was a little troubled about—he did not put it in quite these terms, but I will—the promiscuous use of the word “judge”. To most of us, that word means something very special, and we should not scatter it around like confetti. Some words become devalued by overuse—we devalued the word “university” when we were in government—and we are in danger of doing so in this case. I hope that the Minister, who was exemplary in giving way so frequently and seemed to listen to the points that were made, will think about using another word such as “adjudicator”, because “judge” should not be so widely used.

Let me end with a general point. Here is a Bill of297 pages, six parts, 144 clauses and 23 schedules. The debate in this House is unlikely to go until 10 o’clock; I am trying to set a reasonable example by speaking fairly briefly myself. Nevertheless, this is a Bill of monumental importance—a landmark Bill of the sort that needs the most detailed parliamentary scrutiny, discussion and debate. I do not want to anticipate the debates of the next two days, but all I would say to the House is this: we impoverish our parliamentary system and weaken the system of scrutiny if we inadvertently create a Parliament that does not have within it a House that can do what the other place did in relation to this Bill. Without guillotine or timetable, it wasable to discuss it in detail and to improve it. Many of the people who took part in those debates were experienced, informed and expert. There are not many Members in this Chamber this evening. Whatever we think of the Bill, when it leaves us it will go into Committee next week and come out a fortnight later. We will agree to that because, for reasons of which I personally approve, the official Opposition have said that they will not vote against it. The timetable motion will go through, and then, on 27 March, consideration in this House will come to an end. As we heard earlier, Report and Third Reading will, as is so frequently the custom nowadays, be taken on one and the same day.

That would be a terrible scandal had the Bill not been properly considered at the other end of the Corridor. That illustrates the wisdom of a Government introducing a Bill of this nature—complex and somewhat controversial, but not in a party political sense—in the House of Lords. That was the right thing to do. It also demonstrates the value of having what one might call an unencumbered Chamber which has no ultimate power over this one but which has both the expertise and the time to give such a Bill the treatment that it so richly deserves.