Graham Ovenden: Art Collection Debate

Full Debate: Read Full Debate

Graham Ovenden: Art Collection

Lord Clement-Jones Excerpts
Wednesday 21st October 2015

(8 years, 6 months ago)

Lords Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text
Baroness Shields Portrait Baroness Shields
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

The Government will definitely place a list of the art to be destroyed by this judgment in the Library as soon as possible. Sexually explicit art and its creation by artists in this country are not put at risk by this judgment. The judge in this case took into account the fact that this private collection features sexually abusive images, which in England and Wales it is a criminal offence to possess.

Lord Clement-Jones Portrait Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
- Hansard - -

My Lords, I heard what the Minister said, but as a matter of principle is it not surprising that a district judge can make absolute moral and aesthetic judgments of this kind involving the destruction of artworks, some of which are more than 100 years old? Is not a much better solution to this to limit display rather than to destroy these works of art? Are we not confusing the artist with the art involved?

Baroness Shields Portrait Baroness Shields
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

My Lords, this case relates to the artist’s private collection. The trustees of the Tate decided no longer to display this art because some of the victims could have been part of the art display, so crime scenes would have been on display in the Tate. There is a statement about that. This case relates to the individual collection. The only person who can appeal is the convicted criminal.