Artist’s Resale Right Regulations

My Lords, I should declare an interest: my wife is a professional photographer who sells prints from time to time. I live in hope that she may exceed the threshold in the value of her works. I am also chairman of the Reviewing Committee on the Export of Works of Art and could conceivably be affected in that capacity by the possible export of works by living artists, although the 50-year rule makes it unlikely. In 2000–01, when this matter was under consideration in the European Parliament, I was the legal affairs spokesman for the Conservative Party and the matter was considered principally in the Parliament’s Legal Affairs Committee. I was also, as it happened, an alternate member on the Conciliation Committee, but because of the outbreak of foot and mouth I was unable to attend the meeting. At that time I was convinced by the Government’s arguments that the proposal for the droit de suite was not in the best interests of Britain, Britain’s art market or its artists. As such, with considerable difficulty, I persuaded my Conservative colleagues that we should stand shoulder to shoulder with the Government on this issue. I do not apologise for doing that. I believe we did the right thing, and in similar circumstances I would like to think that I would do the same again. However, having seen how the Government have changed their ground subsequently, although it no longer affects me directly, I am disheartened. It is not an encouragement, in a forum where there is no government and where national interests come together from time to time, to the Opposition parties in this country to stand with the Government of this country to fight for Britain’s interest if we subsequently find that the picture at home is so unilaterally dramatically changed. Although we lost the votes in the European Parliament, had the British Conservative Party not been part of the Group of the European People’s Party and European Democrats, we would not have been able to secure the number of the votes that we did. They not only felt sympathetic towards us; they then actually voted for us. Some in my party want to take the British Conservative MEPs out of that group. If that happens, what I have just alluded to will no longer happen and British interests will, in my judgment, suffer. Three things puzzle me about the legislation. One of them has puzzled me throughout. In the Commission’s consideration of whether to introduce the droit de suite, the effect on the London art market of the possible emigration of sales outside the Community was of de minimis importance. How was it necessary to introduce the legislation in the first place in the interests of creating a single market? A fundamental intellectual schism runs through the argument for the legislation. If I am right about that, the basic legislation has been put on the statute book in breach of the doctrine of proportionality. My second question concerns the negotiation to try to extend the scope of the Berne convention. A moment ago, I mentioned the support that we receive from our colleagues in the EPP-ED group. A considerable amount of that support came from the chairman of the Legal Affairs Committee, Ana Palacio, subsequently Foreign Minister of Spain, who was anxious to take the matter forward in the context of negotiations on the Berne convention, so that we would end up with a droit de suite across the globe. Whatever else had happened, that would have created a level playing field for the London art market. That seems a reasonable way in which to take the matter forward if the Government remain wedded to their present position. Finally, what is the relationship between the European legislation and Article 295 of the treaty? Article 295 is straightforward. It states:"““This Treaty shall in no way prejudice the rules in Member States governing the system of property ownership””." In his opening remarks, the Minister referred to the law of copyright and was quite rightly picked up by my noble friend Lord Brooke. The law of copyright was referred to as the measure for the creation of the completely new, novel law of property being introduced into this country by the legislation. Some countries have droit de suite; others do not. In this country, droit de suite has hitherto been a form of legal property unknown to our courts. However, under the legislation, the directive creates the right of droit de suite in this country. It is expressly stated in the treaty, in Article 295, that the treaty shall in no way prejudice the rules in member states governing the system of property ownership. Surely, what we now have under the legislation is in breach of the terms of the treaty.