Vera Baird (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs; Redcar, Labour)

It seems wise to move that the clause should stand part, as it is an important and heavily debated part of the Bill. It is also relatively short. Clause 130 clarifies the extent of the protection that will be given to objects and sets out the single exception that we propose where immunity will not apply.

The immunity that we propose will prevent any order being made in civil proceedings that would affect the custody or control of the object. It will not be possible, for example, for a court to order seizure of the object as a form of interim relief or in execution of a judgment debt. Nor will it be possible for an object to be seized in criminal proceedings, or as part of a criminal investigation.   There will, however, be an exception to the immunity where seizure is required under the UK’s obligations in international law or in European Union law. Perpetrators of crime will not be able to hide behind immunity from seizure. As subsection (2) makes clear, the protection given will only apply to the object and will not protect people dealing with it from prosecution if they have committed an offence.

Our proposals will prevent potential claimants from having a work of art seized in this country until their claims have been decided. However, that only removes one form of relief from such claimants. As I have said, it is still possible for claims of damages to be made against any person or institution whose dealings with the object have contravened the claimant’s rights to it, and for a full trial to be held of all the relevant issues.

Henry Bellingham (Shadow Minister, Constitutional Affairs; North West Norfolk, Conservative)

I am grateful to the Minister for that explanation. The clause makes sense and we have no quibbles with it.