Artist’s Resale Right Regulations

My Lords, I thank everyone who has spoken in this good debate. I shall do my best to conclude by 10 o’clock. Three departments look after the art market—the DTI, the Treasury and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, to whose Select Committee inquiry the Minister gave his famous original answer. This is a culture matter and I express mild regret at the irony that the one department that is not represented on the Government Front Bench is the culture department. The issue raised in the Merits of Statutory Instruments Committee of your Lordships’ House was that this regulation introduces an important matter in legal terms, as my noble friend Lord Inglewood said. I regret that it did not merit that same view from the DTI. There is symmetry in relation to the three departments. The Minister had only three supporters during the debate—three times more than he received in the press or on the media, when his only supporter was DACS, although I acknowledge that its chairman and chief executive wrote to the press. They might, however, be regarded as interested parties. I wish to respond to the three speeches made in support of the Minister. The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, said that the thresholds have been set at much lower levels by other countries, but he did not specify them. I have an uneasy suspicion that he was relying on Christopher Bryant’s remarks in Westminster Hall on 8 November, which was quite some time ago. The German figure that Mr Bryant quoted was €50 at that stage; he said that the level was set at such-and-such a figure. As my noble friend Lord Astor said, the Germans have now moved their figure from Mr Bryant’s notional €50 to at least €1,500 and are thought to be going higher still. That is the most vivid index of all that the Germans have learnt from experience that, at low levels, the right is very expensive to manage and administer. It is interesting that they should suddenly have gone up by an enormous margin because the directive allows them to do so. I sincerely congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, on having changed his mind. It is too late tonight to conduct a seminar on how the secondary market works, although I would be happy to have a conversation with him outside the Chamber. I genuinely respect him for having changed his mind and for explaining why he did so. The spokesman for the Liberal Democrats, the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, despite all he said about all the research that had been done, based his argument on the claim that 50 per cent of—I took him to mean British—living artists would benefit from the Government’s decision. I do not think that even the Minister would make a claim above 1 per cent. I just cannot conceive of the quality of the research on which one could base the claim that 50 per cent of living artists would benefit. However, the noble Lord was the Government’s third supporter. If the Minister feels that he has been well served by that support, I admire him profoundly. I agree with the Minister that the issue of relocation does not occur at the lower level; I agree that it does not apply to the threshold issue. I also agree with him that the derogation is of exceptional importance. However, I reiterate what I said in my opening speech: the fact that the Government could give up concessions that they had won so hard over the five years of negotiations does not inspire me—and I suspect may not inspire the art market—with any sense of constancy of purpose in terms of the next campaign. I agree that the derogation is very important and I am delighted to hear the Minister say that he thinks so, but it is just unfortunate that the actions that he has taken have, in fact, belied the words that he has uttered. If you weaken the top end of the market, as will happen if the derogation is not extended, unquestionably the bottom or lower end of the market will become weakened, too, as of course it is the profitability at the top end that enables so many other things to happen at a lower level. The Minister says that what the Government have done is not gold-plating. I do not know what gold-plating is if it is not what they have done; I do not know what the Chancellor of the Exchequer is saying when he says that gold-plating is no longer occurring. The principle of gold-plating is that you go further than the directive requires you to do, which is precisely what the Government have done on this occasion—that is, frankly, the gravamen of the charge that we have laid in front of them. I will not go on because, as I say, the hour is late. I told the private secretary to the noble Baroness the Leader of the House that my amendment would not be fatal. However, I hope that the Minister will take stock of how far he has been outnumbered and, it might be said, outgunned in this debate, which, instead of lasting 45 minutes as the Government thought, has actually lasted for nearly two hours. I hope that he will consider very seriously before he takes the matter forward in the way that he currently intends. As I said, my amendment was not intended to be fatal, so I beg leave to withdraw it. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. On Question, Motion agreed to.