Artist’s Resale Right Regulations

My Lords, I support the extremely persuasive speech of my noble friend Lord Brooke. Unlike a number of noble Lords who have spoken tonight, I have no interest to declare and I certainly have no expertise in the art market. I speak in this debate because I am deeply shocked that this Government, who have made so much of deregulation or better regulation and lifting from the citizens of this country the burden imposed by the sort of regulations of which this is an appalling example, should be producing it tonight. It makes the position very difficult. We have heard an awful lot over the past eight or nine years about joined-up government. I cannot believe that the unit in the Cabinet Office which is responsible for lifting the burden of unnecessary regulation is enthusiastically supporting the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, today. Still less can I believe that its members have helped him to write his speech. The people who have helped him to write his speech obviously know very little about business. What makes it so appalling is that the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, was once himself a distinguished—perhaps even successful—businessman. The fact that he was able to make the speech that he did, producing the absurd arguments about the administrative costs, is a terrible example of the way in which Ministers are inclined to come to the House and parrot what their civil servants give them. I really expected better of the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury. If he had spent two minutes thinking from his own business point of view, I do not believe that he would have produced any of the figures he has given for enforcement, which have been so devastatingly exposed by a number of my noble friends. I have read very carefully the statutory instrument and the very useful Explanatory Memorandum on the Artist’s Resale Right Regulations. I was alerted to the subject some weeks ago by a letter in the Times from the British Art Market Federation, by which I was appalled. In fact, as the Minister may remember, in the economic debate I cited the three worst examples of where the Government have gone back to over-regulation. As I read the guidance in the Explanatory Memorandum I found more and more examples of how ill-conceived this all is. Let me deal with the argument put forward by the noble Lords, Lord Freyberg and Lord Dubs, about the need to help struggling artists and so on. We can all be in favour of that. But surely—and it is another example of a lack of joined-up government—the Government are in the business of trying to make help for needy people more efficient. To invent or adopt or accept a system such as this as a means of helping people is wildly cost ineffective. It also suggests to me that there is great scope for evasion, avoidance and, indeed, skulduggery. Obviously there is a great deal in the regulations about there not being an incentive for people to cheat but, of course, it is very unclear who the dealers actually are. As €1,000 euros is a very low figure, there will be more activity—particularly at the lower end—and far more payment in cash. That is not particularly desirable, but it will happen because that is how human beings work. People will set up to act as representatives or agents to avoid paying. In Schedule 2 to the draft statutory instrument there is a fascinating list of countries outside the EEA whose citizens will benefit from this. I doubt that I am the only Member of your Lordships’ House to receive spam e-mails—I suspect the great majority of Members receive them—which manage to get through the brilliant House of Lords computer system. These spam e-mails—mainly from African countries—offer us generous shares in millions of pounds if we would like to give them certain financial details. I usually delete them at once but, if I have a moment or two to spare, I sometimes read them. If they are well written I will usually reply, ““Pull the other one””. That usually ends the problem. Occasionally I get a reply from someone who says that he does not understand what I mean, in which case I then reply, ““Then pull them both””. That is the way I deal with that particular problem. I am quite sure that there are people with great enterprise in some of these countries who will, on reading the statutory instrument, represent themselves as artists—maybe dead or not dead, but lesser known. They will get their names and they will apply to this bureaucratic body which is being set up for their share of the lolly. This will have a most deplorable effect and not just on the art market, on which I am not an expert. Before the Government legislate they have to work out the practical consequences and methods of enforcement. They have clearly failed to do so. What is so sad is that, as we have heard from a number of noble Lords, the Government used to be opposed to this nonsense. That makes bringing it in now all the more deplorable.