Artist’s Resale Right Regulations

No, my Lords. I was saying very clearly that I still think it is closer to £1. I did not say that it was £1; I said that it is in that order of magnitude. I have not just been saying that it is £28. I said that even if you think that it is £28, the total cost is £22,400. I very much doubt whether that will have a major impact on the economic viability of the UK art market. You have only to calculate how many pictures at what price at a reasonable buyer’s premium to see that the odd picture would cover the whole cost of the whole UK art market. Noble Lords may think that that is gold-plating, but this is a fake—we are talking about a modest dab of moisture, not gold-plating. The noble Lord, Lord Brooke, drew attention to the comments that I made to the Select Committee. I have no problem with those comments. The whole point of consultation is to listen to the views put forward and to try to assess their validity and value. As we assessed the evidence, it became clear that many of the figures that we were being given were based on no calculation whatever; they were simply plucked from the air. The best calculations we had—they were not simply plucked from the air—were closer to £1 than £28. I gave BAMF every opportunity to challenge the figures and produce alternative calculations; it did not, which is why I assumed that it had no calculations and that no calculations had been made. A number of other points were made. The noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, raised the Berne convention. It was always extremely optimistic to think that the Swiss and American dealers would say, ““What a good idea. We will go along with the artist’s rights in this matter””. We can use this as a way of going back and getting a permanent derogation on the basis that that has not come to pass. He also mentioned Article 295, which talks about prejudicing property rights. We do not believe that the regulations do that at all.