Andrew Dismore (Hendon, Labour)

I beg to move amendment 8, in clause 3, page 2, line 11, leave out ‘(Stolen Art) Restitution’ and insert ‘(Return of Cultural Objects)’.

Frank Cook (Stockton North, Labour)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 1, in title, leave out lines 1 to 5 and insert

‘Confer power to return certain cultural objects on grounds relating to events occurring during the Nazi era’.

Andrew Dismore (Hendon, Labour)

The amendments will change the long and short titles of the Bill more accurately to reflect its contents and purpose. As the Bill has developed it has become apparent that it has less to do with looted art and more to do with the power to return art. When we talk about stolen art, that is a very narrow reflection of what was a much wider problem during the period concerned. “Spoliation” is the word used by the panel.  Whatever the wording, it has to have a much broader meaning than being stolen or looted. Objects for sale but under-valued, for example, would be included by the new long title, and indeed the short title. The purpose, therefore, is to provide for the return and transfer of items but to limit that provision to the Nazi era.

Amendment 9 provides for the devolved administrations, and amendment 10 relates to the commencement provisions. I am pleased that we have been able to maintain the original sunset clause, which the Government have accepted after some rather difficult but fruitful negotiations.

Frank Cook (Stockton North, Labour)

Order. Eagerness is too apparent here. The hon. Gentleman has moved on a little further than he should have done.

John Mann (Bassetlaw, Labour)

I wholeheartedly support the amendments and congratulate the promoter of the Bill on his perseverance, attention to detail and ingenuity in getting the Bill to this stage. It is an unusual day for Parliament: we have a Minister who is totally on top of her brief and knows what she is talking about; we have an Opposition providing intelligent comment in support of the Bill; we have brevity from the Liberal Democrats; and we have no Whips present. In a modern democracy this is how legislation should increasingly originate and proceed. I trust that the Minister can guarantee that there will no attempt by the Government Whips to ensure insufficient time for the Bill to progress to statute.

Andrew Dismore (Hendon, Labour)

I beg to move amendment 9, in clause 3, page 2, line 11, at end insert—

‘(1A) This Act extends to—

(a) England and Wales, and

(b) Scotland.’.

Frank Cook (Stockton North, Labour)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 10, in clause 3, page 2, line 12, leave out subsection (2) and insert—

‘(2) The preceding sections of this Act come into force on such day as the Secretary of State may by order appoint.

(3) An order may make different provision for different purposes.

(4) Before appointing a day for the coming into force of the preceding sections of this Act so far as they relate to Scottish bodies the Secretary of State must consult the Scottish Ministers.

(5) “Scottish body” has the meaning given by section [Power to return victims’ property](5).

(6) This Act expires at the end of the period of 10 years beginning with the day on which it is passed.’.

Andrew Dismore (Hendon, Labour)

I apologise for my earlier eagerness. Referring back to those remarks, which I shall not repeat, amendment 9 provides for the devolved administrations and amendment 10 modifies the commencement provisions but retains the original sunset clause.

Lembit Öpik (Montgomeryshire, Liberal Democrat)

I agree with the inclusion of Wales in amendment 9—an appalling omission in the original wording.

We should include sunset clauses in most legislation as a matter of course. It is good to see a precedent being set with the Bill. I hope that Ministers and business managers will note the benefit for the Government of having such a clause in legislation.

Mark Pritchard (Wrekin, The, Conservative)

I congratulate the hon. Member for Hendon on introducing the Bill. Will a second legislative process be needed, given that the devolved powers and Assemblies have been mentioned, and Wales, for example, has its own culture Minister? I hope that that will not cause a problem.

Andrew Dismore (Hendon, Labour)

A sunset clause is important in the particular circumstances of the Bill. We need to give sufficient time to ensure that any outstanding claims can be dealt with, but we also want to be able to give long-term certainty to the institutions concerned. A 10-year period achieves the best of both worlds.

As to a second process in Wales, we had contact with the Welsh Government or Assembly—I am not sure of the correct terminology. [Hon. Members: “Assembly.”] I understand that it felt that it already had the powers to deal with the matter and did not need to be included in the Bill.

John Whittingdale (Maldon & East Chelmsford, Conservative)

On that point, none of the bodies on the list is in Wales. What is the benefit of extending the Bill to Wales?

Andrew Dismore (Hendon, Labour)

The claimant may be from Wales.

Barbara Follett (Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Culture), Department for Culture, Media & Sport; Stevenage, Labour)

The Government support amendments 9 and 10. Amendment 9, which is welcomed by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire, adds a new subsection (1A) extending the Bill to England, Wales and Scotland. To comfort the hon. Member for The Wrekin, we have consulted with the devolved Administrations and they are happy with that.

The Bill will become part of the law of England and Wales. The Scottish Executive have asked to be included, and a legislative consent motion is being prepared for introduction in the Scottish Parliament. The Northern Ireland Assembly Government have confirmed that the power is not needed for national museums in Northern Ireland.

Amendment 10 replaces the remainder of clause 3 with a new commencement provision. The new subsections provide for commencement by order; the Secretary of State must consult Scottish Ministers before an order is made that would apply to Scottish institutions.

The 10-year sunset period in clause 3 remains the same but will become subsection (6). I have indicated previously that the Government think this is an appropriate period, after which all outstanding claims should reasonably have been considered. That will allow something like 74 years from the end of the second world war and 19 years for claims to be considered by the Spoliation Advisory Panel and for trustees, where necessary, to make a decision on the transfer of an object.

It is worth noting that the Dutch restitution committee, which was modelled on the Spoliation Advisory Panel, has already stopped accepting new claims, despite the fact that the scale of the problem in that country is far greater than in the UK. In the Netherlands, many hundreds of works of art have been returned to claimants over the years, compared with just nine claims to the Spoliation Advisory Panel since 2000.

Let us not forget how much effort has been put in over the years by museums and galleries in the UK to identify art that may have been looted, to publicise it on websites and to consider what could be done about it. However, I note that my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon said, on Second Reading, that there are certainly a further 20 looted items in UK museums. I have invited him to give us details of those.

On Second Reading, the hon. Members for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Hugh Robertson) and for Rochdale (Paul Rowen) proposed an alternative mechanism for terminating the Act: a rolling period linked to the date of inclusion of an object on a published statutory list. The Government’s view is that the proposal, though well intentioned, is not workable in the circumstances because it would involve additional costs for museums in publishing information and would be difficult to administer. Unless museums were under a duty to publish, it would not work, and if we were to impose such a duty, we would need an enforcement mechanism for non-compliance. That would remove some of the simplicity and straightforwardness of the Bill.

To conclude, I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon on all the work and commitment that he has put into the Bill. It is a real advance and it is thanks to him that we have it today.

Andrew Dismore (Hendon, Labour)

I thank the Minister for all the work that she and her officials have done to help with the Bill, and I thank the Committee for attending on a difficult day because of the tube strike.

I correct my hon. Friend on a small point that she made. I understand that in the Netherlands the time for submitting a claim has been extended indefinitely.

Lembit Öpikrose—

Frank Cook (Stockton North, Labour)

Order. There are a couple of points that we need to correct. First, we are not at the end yet, so we are somewhat premature. This has been a delightfully informal series of exchanges, which is novel to me in something like 20 years’ experience in the Chair—a new-found liberty. However, we must return to business as it ought to be conducted and deal with the question before the Committee.