Of course we all hope that is the case, but that is why we all in this House, jointly I believe, are seeking clarification: we do not want unsubstantiated allegations that something was illegally removed from an occupied territory, or a request for something that was legally exported. The allegation might be totally groundless when something is just about to be sold or exhibited, but the seller, genuinely believing that the item had not been illegally exported, would fear that the allegation could be deemed “a reason to suspect”, and that could lead to the item then being withdrawn from sale. The time-dependent opportunity to sell it would be lost and the very act of withdrawal could well then damage the artwork’s future saleability. The mere making of an unfounded allegation that an item was unlawfully exported from a potentially occupied territory after 1954 may place in the mind of a potential dealer or auctioneer a reason to suspect that it has been unlawfully exported, and although that might not later turn out to be the case, he will not go near it because it has been tainted.
I give as an example an old master picture that has changed hands on the legitimate open market in Europe in the past few years. It is sent to London for sale by auction. Due diligence is carried out and its known provenance is investigated, as is its sale history, and checks are made that the item has not been stolen. The picture is then included in an auction catalogue which is published several days before a sale. An allegation is then made that it was removed from an occupied eastern European country in the 1960s. Time is necessarily short to investigate whether that is true. Attempts to resolve the matter beyond doubt before the auction do not succeed, and even though it may well prove groundless, the allegation itself represents a reason for suspicion under the terms of the Bill as currently drafted. Not wishing to run the risk of prosecution, the auction house has no alternative but to withdraw the picture from the auction, to the disadvantage of its owner who, at best, will have to wait for another auction and, at worst, will face financial loss, as marketing it for a second time could adversely affect its value. The rarer and more valuable a picture or piece of art it is, the greater is the risk that a successful sale will be prejudiced by its withdrawal from an auction. In time, the allegation could well prove groundless, but the damage will have been done.
I recall the Secretary of State saying on the Floor of the House on 31 October that
“It is important that we are clear that the Bill will not hamper the way in which the art market operates.”—[Official Report, 31 October 2016; Vol. 616, c. 700.]
The closest existing legislation to the current Bill is the Dealing in Cultural Objects (Offences) Act 2003, to which my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough referred earlier. It is concerned with illegally removed archaeological material and objects that have been taken illegally from monuments or historical structures. However, unlike the Bill—in which the types of cultural property covered are extensive and could even include cultural property in people’s family collections—the 2003 Act does not cover works of purely artistic interest. The Act states:
“A person is guilty of an offence if he dishonestly deals in a cultural object that is tainted, knowing or believing that the object is tainted.”