HC Deb 17 October 1969 vol 788 cc720-8

Lords Amendment No. 1: In page 2, line 22, leave out "his representative" and insert: that person and any representative of him".

12.35 p.m.

Colonel Sir Tufton Beamish (Lewes)

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Mr. Speaker, you are correct in saying that my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain) is unwell. He was the sponsor of the Bill. I am sure that hon. Members on both sides will wish him a complete recovery.

This Amendment—and, for that matter, the others—is not, so far as I know, controversial. All the Amendments refer only to Clause 2, which was moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon), who, I am glad to see, is on the Front Bench and who tells me that he fully supports all the Amendments.

As time permits, and out of courtesy to the House, may I briefly explain the reasons for these Amendments. They are all designed to clarify and make more precise a Bill which not only has all-party support but also has Government backing. Clause 2 enables the court to impose a ban on participation in auctions either instead of or as well as the penalties of a fine, imprisonment or both. Clause 1 prescribes the maximum penalties—on summary conviction, a fine of £400 or six months imprisonment or both, and on an indictment two years or a fine with no limit or both.

As the Bill stands such a ban could be applied—I quote from lines 21 and 22 on page 2—to the person so convicted or his representative. The view has been taken that this wording could lead to a ban being imposed on an entirely innocent person and that the court might wish in certain circumstances to limit the ban to the convicted person only. I can readily imagine circumstances in which that might arise.

Their Lordships took the view that the Clause could be misinterpreted or could unduly restrict the powers of the court. I think that their Lordships were correct in that view. The purpose of the Amendment is to give the courts discretion to exclude representatives of a convicted person from such a ban when this is appropriate and to make the scope of the ban, therefore, absolutely clear. This is a legal nicety of which I hope that my layman's explanation is clear.

The Amendment makes a distinct improvement in a Measure which is bound to be studied carefully far beyond these shores by people who recognise that Britain has an established position as the centre of the art world. It is essential that the highest standards be maintained and be seen to be maintained.

Since the Amendment was moved and passed in another place, I have had an opportunity to confirm that leading figures in the art world who have helped to build up our high and increasing reputation are fully aware of the damage done by dishonest practices and support the improvements suggested in another place, including this one.

Mr. Speaker

Order. It has occurred to me that the House might take with Lords Amendment No. 1 all the remaining Amendments—

No. 2, in page 2, line 22, after "not" insert: (without leave of the court)". No. 3, in line 24, leave out "less" and insert "more".

No. 4, in line 26, leave out "less" and insert "more".

No. 5, in line 28, leave out from "goods" to first "or" in line 30 and insert: intended for sale by auction are on display". No. 6, in line 31, leave out "public".

No. 7, in line 31, at end insert: ( ) In the event of a contravention of an order under this section, the person who contravenes it (and, if he is the representative of another, that other also) shall be guilty of an offence and liable—

  1. (a) on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding £400;
  2. (b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or to a fine or to both.
( ) In any proceedings against a person in respect of a contravention of an order under this section consisting in the entry upon premises where goods intended for sale by auction were on display, it shall be a defence for him to prove that he did not know, and had no reason to suspect, that goods so intended were on display on the premises, and in any proceedings against a person in respect of a contravention of such an order consisting in his having done something as the representative of another, it shall be a defence for him to prove that he did not know, and had no reason to suspect, that that other was the subject of such an order. ( ) A person shall not be guilty of an offence under this section by reason only of his selling property by auction or causing it to be so sold. Does that conform with the wish of the House? In the absence of objection, the hon. and gallant Gentleman may care to say something about the other Amendments, too.

Sir T. Beamish

I am happy that the House should discuss them all together.

As to Amendment No. 2, as it stands Clause 2 could lead to the ban being applied where none is intended or desirable. For instance, a convicted person might wish to buy a house or buy the memento of a friend or relative, or buy a car. This Amendment, which was suggested by the Board of Trade, would introduce some flexibility by enabling the court to make an exception to the ban in specified cases. It would allow a convicted person to apply for permission to take part in an auction for personal reasons, if there was clearly no scope for him to further his business interests. The Amendment does not say to which court the convicted person shall apply nor how the application should be made. I understand that there are good precedents for this.

As to Amendments Nos. 3 and 4, Clause 2 sets a minimum period for a ban on participation in auctions. It provides for a ban of not less than one year"— on summary conviction and— of not less than three years on conviction on indictment. In certain cases these periods might be thought excessive and, in view of the option allowed to the court, it might be decided not to impose any ban even when a shorter period was desirable.

The view was taken in another place that a limit should be set on the maximum but not the minimum period of such a ban. This is a view with which I agree and with which I think the House will agree, also. On the other hand, expressing a personal view, it seems to me it was rather over-simplifying the question to fix the same periods of one year on summary conviction and three years on indictment as the maximum that can be imposed, the same periods as were originally suggested as the minimum periods. I would prefer higher periods—perhaps two years on summary conviction and five years on indictment. In fact, I do not see why there should be a maximum at all. None the less, this Amendment makes sense; it is an improvement and I hope that it will find favour with the House.

Coming to Amendments Nos. 5 and 6, Clause 2 as it left this House not only enabled the court to ban a convicted person from participating in an auction for a certain period. The ban also extended—quoting from lines 28 to 30 on page 2 of the Bill—to entering upon any premises where goods are displayed for sale by intended public auction or where any public auction has been announced to take place…. This could place a person under such a ban in an impossible position. He could be barred from going into a public house or village hall where a sale was to take place at a future date, and he might not have any knowledge that that was the case. He might be barred from entering his own house if that were to be put up for auction. The purpose of Clause 2 is to prevent a convicted person from having a preview of goods to be sold by auction. The Amendment limits the ban to premises where goods which are the subject of an auction are displayed.

Amendment No. 7 adds three new subsections to Clause 2. The first subsection fills an obvious gap by providing penalties for a breach of a banning order imposed by the court. The penalties proposed are a fine not exceeding £400 on summary conviction but no prison sentence, and imprisonment of not more than two years, or an unlimited fine, or both, on indictment. I suggest that these are adequate and appropriate penalties and should make a convicted person upon whom a ban has been imposed think very hard before trying to evade it.

The second new subsection provides a defence for a person who breaches a banning order in genuine ignorance. A convicted person or his agent might enter premises where goods to be sold by auction are on display, without knowing that this was so. An innocent dupe might undertake to take part in an auction without knowing that he represented a convicted person subject to a ban. In every sale room there are men willing to bid on someone else's behalf. It is clearly important that where genuine ignorance can be pleaded there should be a defence in such cases.

The third proposed subsection allows a banned person to sell his own goods by auction. I am sure that that is sensible. The offence for which a ban may be imposed concerns buying and not selling by auction. The intention of the ban is not to prevent someone selling or arranging to sell his goods by auction. There are no grounds for preventing him disposing of his own goods or property at an auction if he chooses to do so.

Those are the reasons why the Amendments have been proposed to Clause 2. They all seem sound and, on the whole, to be improvements, and I hope that they will commend themselves to the House.

12.45 p.m.

Mr. Anthony Royle (Richmond, Surrey)

I congratulate my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Lewes (Sir T. Beamish) on the skilful way in which, at short notice, he has introduced these Lords Amendments in the absence of my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain), who has played a great part in pushing the Bill through both Houses, and I know that he will be very sad that he cannot be with us today.

This Clause, to which the Amendments apply, was tabled in Committee upstairs by my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon), and I congratulate him that this has now come back to us with certain Amendments improving it, which I fully support, and which have been explained in detail by my hon. and gallant Friend.

I do not think there is any need for me to say anything further axcept that this Clause, which was regarded with some disquiet by the predecessor of the hon. Lady the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade when it was introduced by my hon. Friend in Committee upstairs, has now apparently received approval by herself and her advisers at the Board of Trade. This gives great pleasure to my hon. Friends and myself because we feel that it gives teeth to an important Bill which we hope will have some effect on the trade and people who take part in auctions in the years ahead.

I also congratulate the hon. Lady on taking up the Bill at this stage in view of the transfer of her hon. Friend the Minister of State to another Department. While I am perhaps trespassing on your generosity, Mr. Speaker, may I express the hope that when other matters connected with the Bill come up for discussion in the House the former President of the Board of Trade will return to answer charges when they are made on the Floor of the House in due course.

I thank the Minister and her Department for the help they have given in getting the Bill through all its stages and I again congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe on his initiative in bringing it forward. I hope that with these Amendments firmly incorporated in Clause 2, and with the whole Bill on the Statute Book, we shall avoid having the scandals which we have had in the past two or three years in the fine art trade.

Mr. H. P. G. Channon (Southend, West)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Surrey (Mr. A. Royle) and to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Lewes (Sir T. Beamish) for their kind references to this Clause with which these Amendments deal. With them I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain) on getting the Bill through its final stages.

I should like to congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Sir J. Vaughan-Morgan), as well as my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Surrey, without whose diligent activities the Duccio scandal, which gave rise to the birth of the Bill, might well not have received the public attention that it deserved. They and the Sunday Times between them have done a magnificent job in exposing a public scandal which we hope the Bill, as amended, though it has its limitations, will go some way to clear.

When I moved this Clause in Committee, a Clause suggested to me by leading figures in the art world, anxious to stop some of the loopholes, it was opposed by Her Majesty's Government, and I am grateful to them that they have not decided to oppose it in the final stages and, indeed, have been so helpful in devising amendments to the Clause.

Like my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Lewes, the only Amendments about which I have a little doubt are Nos. 3 and 4, especially the latter. It may have been better to have had a longer period during which people could be kept out of sale rooms if they have been convicted on indictment of a very serious offence. None of us wishes to hold up the Bill at this stage. Indeed, it would be too late to suggest any Amendment now, and I think this is a slight pity. It will be very rare that convictions will be obtained under this legislation, but if a very bad case arises it is a pity that the period should be only three years.

The attention of Parliament now having been focused upon affairs like this, we shall watch this legislation in future to make sure that the penalties suggested are sufficient for any cases that may arise. These scandals that have been brought to public attention in the salerooms, although very rare, can be serious, and these practices are most unfortunate since they may cast some small doubt on the reputation of the London fine art trade which, in the overwhelming number of cases, has done an outstanding job for our country and for the reputation of the British art world. We are determined to stamp them out, and we shall watch the operation of this legislation with care to make sure that it is effective.

I am grateful to my hon. Friends, and I am grateful to the Government for their assistance in allowing Clause 2 to go forward. Apart from watching the progress of the Bill itself, we shall return, as my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Surrey said, to the more general points covered by the Ombudsman's Report on the Duccio affair on a future occasion.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody)

I am grateful for the opportunity to associate myself with the kind remarks made this morning about the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain). We all greatly regret that he has not been able to carry the Bill through to its final stage, although, of course, we are equally grateful to his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Lewes (Sir T. Beamish) for what he has done.

As hon. Members have said, this series of Amendments is designed to tidy up Clause 2. Although there was some doubt in our mind originally about the efficacy of the Clause, it is agreed that it represents, probably, the best way of dealing with the matter.

On the more general points, I assure the hon. Member for Richmond, Surrey (Mr. A. Royle) that his views are very much in our mind. My right hon. Friend the Member for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland) and my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Dell) not only wish to come and speak to the House when the Parliamentary Commissioner's Report is debated, but they feel strongly that they would have liked the opportunity to do so before the Summer Recess. They will have a strong case to make when it is debated, and I assure hon. Gentlemen that their wish to see the matter taken up on the Floor is no stronger than that felt on this side of the House.

We welcome the Bill. When the Amendments were debated in another place, the noble Lady who accepted them for the Government said that she was delighted to have a chance to accept all the Amendments on a Bill. I am delighted to welcome them here.

Question put and agreed to.

Remaining Lords Amendments agreed to.

Back to