Artist’s Resale Right Regulations

My Lords, I am not sure what interests I should declare. My wife and I are occasional purchasers of works of art. I have a son who is an art dealer and a daughter-in-law who is a well known artist. I was astonished to listen to the opening speech by the Minister. I am even more astonished having heard the background to this case, which my noble friend Lord Brooke set out in his remarkable speech for someone who usually speaks in this House with such moderation. I have rarely heard him speak with a stronger sense of irritation than I detected this time. Even before my noble friend’s speech, the Minister’s speech seemed grossly complacent. I can only say that his speech was economical with the facts. Who would have thought that the Government opposed these proposals tooth and nail as they went through, threatened the Luxembourg compromise and voted against the measure? I hope that the Minister will be more frank with the facts when he winds up than he was when he opened. One of my principal objections to this measure is because I have been a member of the Merits of Statutory Instruments Select Committee since it started. I spent two hours at its meeting this afternoon. The committee is strongly opposed to gold plating, and it was largely because of that that it drew the attention of your Lordships’ House to this measure. Contrary to what many noble Lords feel, I have a good deal of sympathy for giving artists a right to a share when their work significantly increases in value over the years. But I do not see the logic in reducing the threshold from €3,000 to €1,000. By my calculations, an artist whose work sells for €1,000 in a secondary or later sale after the primary sale, will receive, after the 25 per cent administration costs, only slightly over £20. I wonder whether that is worth all of this—reducing the threshold—when at the bottom end of the sale an artist will receive that trivial amount. I was astonished to hear the Minister saying, as I understood him to say, that the cost of administration of all of this need not be more than £1 per sale. Well, one has only to think of administration costs. What can one do for £1 in terms of staff, accommodation and materials? If that is what the Minister has been led by his civil servants to tell the House, it beggars belief. It is nonsense that administration of this sort of sale could be done for as little as £1. I understand that most subsequent sales of works of art achieve significantly less than the first sale by the artist. As I understand it, in the majority of cases where a collector supports young artists and he purchases a work of art, the overwhelming chance in subsequent sales is that they will be at a lower price than the first sale. Someone who likes to support young artists will know that if he wants to sell a piece of work later he is likely to take a loss that may be made even bigger, because he has to pay the charge on that as well. We must realise that the implications of this measure will be to deter at the margin collectors who wish to support young artists. I cannot help but believe that this measure is a formula for driving the art market away from this country to Switzerland, Japan or the United States. All I can plead is that the Minister will think again, take this measure away and bring it back in another form.