Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Bill [HL]

My Lords, I take the admonition of my noble friend. I am endeavouring to speak to the amendments and it is not unimportant that Parliament should be seen to have scrutinised this legislation; but I certainly appreciate the force of what he said. Do the Government consider that an institution should not be able to borrow objects that were taken at one time by Chiang Kai-shek to Taiwan and are now claimed by the People’s Republic of China as its property? What would be the view of the Government in monitoring compliance as to the propriety of an institution seeking such loans from St Petersburg or Taipei? In what respect does this anti-seizure legislation alter the position that applied previously? These are real and pertinent questions of genuine concern to important institutions in this country that will want to know the answers; I hope that the Minister will advise us on these matters in due course. Finally, I wish to ask the Minister about subsection (3) of Amendment No. 90. Why is the power made discretionary regarding the withdrawal of approval where the Government consider that the, "““institutions’ procedures for establishing provenance or ownership of objects are inadequate””?" Is it not the case that sauce for the goose should be sauce for the gander? Why should not the rigour that the department enjoins on museums and galleries be applied to itself? If an institution falls short in its practice of due diligence, perhaps the Secretary of State should have a duty to withdraw approval. Why is ““may””, rather than ““must””, written into this amendment? Is it to protect the Secretary of State from the possibility of a suit on the part of a frustrated claimant? If so, is that a good enough reason? Are the Government willing to consider amending this amendment at Third Reading by substituting ““must”” for ““may””?