Introduction and the Import of Cultural Goods (Revocation) Regulations 2021

Lord Stevenson of Balmacara Excerpts

Wednesday 30th June 2021 Grand Committee

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his very good introduction to this SI. He covered all the ground and his commitment shone through in what he said, but I have one or two questions, some of which he may not be able to answer directly, as I am sure this is not his main centre of interest. I am happy for him to write to me with the answers, if necessary.

We have a short corporate memory in your Lordships’ House sometimes, despite our existence for so many thousands of years—as it sometimes seems. I will come back to the deficiencies the Minister raised on the existing legal framework, but will start with why the Government are seeking to revise this particular general prohibition by removing it entirely, rather than amending it. The main problem words in the regulation, which seem to offend, are

“entry into the customs territory of the Union”,

which the Explanatory Memorandum says,

“cannot be interpreted to mean the customs territory of the United Kingdom.”

It may not be interpreted as such, but I am sure it would be pretty easy to amend it. I therefore wonder why the trouble the Government have gone to to revoke the original regulation is necessary.

I say that in particular because of the reference to Northern Ireland, which the Minister, with his ease of manner and delivery, glossed over quickly. How have we got to a situation where one of the most complicated issues about the pursuit of cultural goods is different in one territory of the United Kingdom from the rest? GB will have a set of rules, which are set out in the Explanatory Memorandum, which I will come to in a minute. Northern Ireland will have those, as well as remaining in the EU, with its new, very important and rather clever IT-based, modern set of rules and regulations, by which information will swiftly move across the whole continent. Potential defaults and problems will therefore be picked up. I ask the noble Lord to comment further on that.

My second point relates to paragraph 7.5 and the succeeding paragraphs of the Explanatory Memorandum. Paragraph 7.5.2 states that

“The United Kingdom has been a state party to the 1954 Hague Convention”—


1954 is a long time ago—

“for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict”.

My first point is that that is limited to armed conflict. Secondly, the corporate memory to which I referred should be invoked at this stage because during the debate on the Cultural Property (Armed Conflicts) Bill that legitimated the 1954 Hague convention as far as the UK is concerned—we are a dualist state that cannot just accept agreements with foreign powers; they have to be brought into UK law—that was heavily criticised. The convention dates to 1954, and cultural goods had a different meaning then.

This morning, I looked up my rather excellent speeches —I can say that because I am sure nobody else has read them—about the need to update the cultural definitions portrayed in that convention and used in that debate. They entirely exclude media, cinema, digital art and related issues. In other words, we have a convention on which the Government are relying to get them out of an EU proposition they do not like, which does not, in the case of armed conflict, satisfactorily deal with the art that I care about. I was promised by the Ministers at the time that this would be looked at, so perhaps the Minister could remind me of what progress has been made to update the 1954 Hague convention. There was a proposal to update it in the wings. Have the Government looked at that and, if so, when will the House have a chance to debate and discuss it?

There is a minor point in relation to the risk of trade in cultural goods being used to finance terrorism, which the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, mentioned. There is a rather odd phrase in paragraph 7.5.9 of the Explanatory Memorandum which I wonder whether he could unpick for me. It is normal for explanatory memoranda to have more descriptive comments, and I wonder whether there needs to be a bit more around the fourth line than currently. It says that the regulations—SI 2017/692—

“require art dealers and others even tangentially involved in a transaction of €10,000 or more to collect and report information about their customers.”

I think I get the message, but “tangentially” is not a word that really satisfies certainty about who is caught by that. Can the noble Lord respond, perhaps in writing, about the intention behind that phrase? As I say, this is a pretty minor point.

My third point relates to the assertion in paragraph 7.6. I return to the original point that the regulation is being brought forward in this form at the moment because of the uncertainty and complexity that might be caused if we had to rewrite it for the UK customs area with all the problems with Northern Ireland. I look forward to the noble Lord’s response, but the argument here is a little unconvincing. The main point seems to be that

“the Regulation is silent on who bears the burden of proof of the breach of the laws and regulations of that country, as well as on the evidence which would be required to demonstrate … the cultural goods concerned.”

It sounds a bit like a straw person being set up in order to be knocked down. I thought that was what lawyers were all about. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, when he comes to speak, will be able to justify in every sense the ability of lawyers to get to the bottom of who is responsible and what the necessary evidence would be and that he would enjoy the process of so doing.

Finally, the Minister’s argument ended with the point that this was a good SI and something that we can support—and I think that inevitably we will—because it brings clarity. I have already talked about the Northern Ireland situation, and I do not think he can defend that, but we are relying on a very disparate set of rules and regulations, set up over a long period of time, dating back to 1954, including regulations as recent as 2017 and later. Will the Minister consider a serious point from me, which is that if this is the route that we are going down—and I am sure we will—will he consider suggesting to the Government that there is a good case for the Law Commission to take away all these issues and come up with a consolidated set of rules and regulations for the transfer of cultural goods? It would mean updating the terms of culture, looking at where the actual powers and responsibilities are, assessing as necessary where the evidence needs to be sought and who should be responsible, should any cases be made, and generating a Bill that we could perhaps look at in a few years’ time that draws all this together. I would be very happy with that. Although I will not be opposing what is before us today, I hope that I have made the case that this is a bit flimsy and needs a bit more attention.