Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Bill [Lords]

I am grateful for the opportunity to follow the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes). I agree with everything that he said, particularly his peroration, in which he made the point that this important, much-needed legislation is welcomed by Members from all parts of the House. That is particularly true of parts 3 and 4, on bailiffs, and part 5, on debt. The measure is long overdue, and the Government are to be congratulated on its introduction. The hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey took us back to Dickens 150 years ago, and it is extraordinary that we should have tolerated a situation in which the law protects the most powerful. It is weighted in their interests, but it is weighted against the most powerless members of society, which is not right. The poorest members of society are driven further into debt and the little that they have is repossessed, in a hitherto unregulated world. The Bill is therefore welcome, as it demonstrates that we have begun to look at the problem. Of course there are decent, honourable and civilised bailiffs—we should not taint the whole profession—but the lack of regulation has resulted in a considerable discreditable minority who are no more than cowboys with enormous powers at their disposal, which they use carelessly, and often cruelly and thoughtlessly. The Bill is a further step on the road to correcting that imbalance. Its introduction is long overdue, but the fact that it has now been introduced is greatly to the Government’s credit. Part 5 introduces debt management schemes and debt repayment plans. The hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey gave us figures to demonstrate the enormous growth of debt in our highly material and materialistic society, and anyone who has seen how citizens advice bureaux deal with the misery caused by escalating debt will accept that anything that begins to give shape and coherence to the way in which we organise debt is welcome. Traditionally, the House deals with our constituents’ grievances, but we should remember, too, that it is our duty as Members of Parliament to protect the weakest members of society—and there is no one weaker than someone who has nothing. It is not right that their few possessions and any money that they have, which constitutes their last shred of dignity and would allow them to protect their way of life and their families, should be taken away. If the Bill begins to correct those imbalances it is a thoroughly good measure, and we ought to support it. Virtually every hon. Member knows more about the law and about those issues than I do, and we have heard good speeches from Members on both sides of the Houses in which they displayed genuine knowledge and expertise to which I cannot lay claim, except as a constituency MP. I wish to make one or two remarks, however, about part 6. It is a small, ancillary provision but, as the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack) said, it is important to anyone who cares about the state of our museums, galleries and their worldwide reputation in the sphere of culture and fine art. As the Minister explained, part 6 deals with the protection of cultural objects on loan, and provides immunity against seizure for objects from overseas that are lent to our museums and galleries. It sits oddly with the rest of the Bill, but it was introduced following pressure and lobbying from our great museums and galleries, including the Tate, the V and A, and the Royal Academy, which have observed the growing number of difficult cases in which objects whose provenance is at issue are threatened with seizure. The Minister cited the case of the Russian impressionist paintings in Switzerland that were seized. That is a serious danger, and if it is not addressed loans will dry up, or we will put at risk the system of temporary exhibitions on which museums and galleries depend for the growing attendance figures that justify public support and the expenditure that we rightly make in them. If that system is put at risk, so, too, is our reputation. Museums and galleries have lobbied for action to tackle that serious problem, and part 6 undoubtedly addresses it. We will join the United States and most European countries by introducing specific legislation to deal with the problem. However, in addressing those problems and justified concerns, the Government have not yet got the balance right, and have not been as careful as they should about the interests of people whose families—typically, holocaust victims—owned works of art before the second world war that were looted by the Nazis or the Russians. The grievance that they rightly feel is not yet adequately addressed by the Bill, but it can be addressed through amendments to the Bill. The problem is not confined to holocaust victims, although that is probably the most obvious and highest-profile case. Since the war in Iraq, the art market across Europe has been flooded with works looted from the Baghdad museum. That is a bad and dangerous development and leads to an atmosphere of great insecurity in the world of international museums and loans. Immunity is important, but we must protect those who have a right, or believe they have a right, to ownership. That element needs to be identified and pursued. Depending on how it is implemented, immunity can mean that the rightful owner will see on display a work of art that they believe belongs to their family, but they will not be able to do anything about it. If we do not correct some of the weaknesses in the Bill, that will be the outcome. In the other place Lord Janner lobbied very well on the point, and made a powerful speech on Second Reading. I am glad that the Government have listened to the concerns expressed by him and others, such as Lord Howarth, about the imperfections in the immunity provisions. The Government responded, and made some helpful amendments. For instance, museums and galleries will be required to exercise due diligence in trying to establish the provenance of a work of art. Museums will have to publish a list of objects before they are brought into the United Kingdom, and immunity will be granted only to a fairly small number of museums nominated and approved by the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport. All those are good amendments to the Bill as originally published, but there are still aspects that we must tighten. For example, the nature, extent and form of due diligence is not clearly specified. Due diligence could easily be satisfied in a token way unless we pin it down much more precisely. The guidelines for applying due diligence are not specified. There is no provision for monitoring the enforcement of due diligence. There is no detailed specification of the quality of information that museums should publish about works of art, so that people who feel that a work is rightfully theirs can identify it. Unless the information is clear and is published, that will be difficult to do. Crucially, there is nothing to stop a work imported into this country under immunity being sold while it is here and disappearing into the marketplace. That must be wrong. Such loopholes should be corrected if, despite the good intentions in part 6, we are to avoid the danger of the United Kingdom becoming an international centre for the laundering of works of art, instead of the international centre for great loan exhibitions. These are not impossible provisions to get right, but they need further attention in Committee. I believe that the interests of the two sides can be reconciled. Other countries across Europe—such as Germany, France and Switzerland—have stronger and more specific legislation than part 6. We need to examine their legislation more carefully. With the exception of the state of New York, which is an aberration, the United States and Canada have good clear legislation, with some characteristics that we should adopt in part 6.