Clause 131
Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Bill [Lords]
12:00 pm
Henry Bellingham (Shadow Minister, Constitutional Affairs; North West Norfolk, Conservative)
We have already discussed clause 131 in the context of amendment No. 153 on due diligence. However, it is important to spend some time on the clause and on the amendments. I shall try to put them in the context of the Bill.
The clause is headed “Relevant museums and galleries” Subsection (1) explains what a museum or gallery is, which is fairly straightforward. Subsection (2) states:
“The matters that the appropriate authority must have regard to when deciding whether to approve an institution include—
(a) the institution’s procedures for establishing the provenance and ownership of objects”—
we have discussed that briefly—
“and
(b) in particular, compliance by the institution with guidance about such procedures published by the Secretary of State from time to time.”
Subsection (3) states:
“The appropriate authority may withdraw approval from an institution if it thinks fit, and, in particular, if—
(a) it thinks that the institution’s procedures for establishing the provenance or ownership of objects are inadequate (because of the institution’s failure to comply with guidance published by the Secretary of State or for some other reason), or
(b) the institution has failed to comply with a requirement of regulations under section 129(9).”
We discussed clause 129 earlier.
Amendment No. 190 would add to subsection (3) after the word “particular” the condition that the authority “must withdraw approval”. In other words, the clause should state that the appropriate authority
“may withdraw approval from an institution if it thinks fit,”
and in particular “must withdraw approval” in the circumstances listed.
That would pave the way for amendment No. 191, which would insert at the end of the first reason in subsection (3) the words “and the institution”—a museum, gallery or other centre—
“has failed to improve its procedures having received a warning from the appropriate authority specifying a reasonable time frame in which to do so.”
That relates to procedures that an institution has in place for due diligence and for exhibiting works of art or cultural objects from abroad. It would apply if there had been a warning. We did not discuss spot checks carried out by the DCMS, and my concern about their not being adequate, at any great length earlier, and the Minister did not comment on them. The amendment relates to cases in which a warning has been made by the DCMS and there has been no action on it.
Amendment No. 192 would add to subsection (3)(b) the words
“and, in the case of failure which is capable of remedy, has failed to remedy the failure having received a warning from the appropriate authority specifying a reasonable time frame in which to do so.”
That would apply if, in the normal course of procedure, a remedy could have been put in place. Amendment No. 193 would add to subsection (4) the words
“unless it can be shown that the object was wrongly granted protected status as a result of an inadequate due diligence procedure in relation to that object.”
I dare say that to some extent the amendments would really have come into play had our amendment No. 153, which was in a previous group, been accepted and had the Minister accepted that due diligence should be covered in the Bill. We shall return to that point, but even without amendment No. 153 these amendments would not place onerous burdens on a gallery or exhibition organiser. We are simply saying that if they have been asked to improve their procedures and have not done so, if they have been guilty of a failure in their procedures, and if they have not done what they said they would do, there should be some tightening up so that it is possible for approval to be withdrawn.
The clause allows the Department to withdraw approval from an institution, but we feel that it is too laxly drafted. The amendments would tighten it up not hugely but significantly. In the light of representations that have been made to us, it is not unfair to ask the Minister to consider the amendments and, if she does not accept them, at least to explain why she believes the clause to be adequate.