The Three Graces (Hansard, 2 May 1990)

§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Hesketh)
My Lords, the position remains as I stated in answer to my noble friend on 4th April. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is continuing to consider representations and hopes to make an announcement shortly.

§ Lord St. John of Fawsley
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply, to which I am able to give one cheer. Is he aware that many in the art world would accept the intervention of private funding in this sphere if there were access for the public in perpetuity and a permanent export ban? But, in the absence of a public interest, what possible grounds can a Conservative Government have for intervening and distinguishing between one private owner and another?

§ Lord Hesketh
My Lords, if I am right in assuming that my noble friend in his supplementary question is referring to the offer of the Barclay brothers, I must point out that that offer has nothing to do with the Government; it is an offer to the owners of the statue. In answer to the second part of his question, which I believe was also mentioned in The Times two days ago, he does not address the matter of compensation if there was to be a restriction on the export without any other consideration.

§ Lord Renton
My Lords, how long is "shortly"?

§ Lord Hesketh
My Lords, I hope as soon as possible,

§ Baroness Birk
My Lords, the Minister has not given much more information than he gave a month ago. Like the noble Lord, I too should like to be assured regarding the length of time that the statue 1034 will be in the public domain. Is it possible that there could be a guarantee of public access? I doubt it. While the Secretary of State is considering all that, will there be parliamentary discussion and approval of the decision, or will it just be an order emanating from the Secretary of State, and that will be that?
Will the Secretary of State also consider the offer of Lord Rothschild, which I gather is still on the table? Although it is a variation of the in lieu scheme, it would secure The Three Graces to the nation in perpetuity and the public expenditure implications would be largely offset by the increasing value of the statue and the fact that it would be permanently based in this country and always open to public view.

§ Lord Hesketh
My Lords, in answer to the noble Baroness's multitudinous questions, and starting with the last suggestion, she makes a reasonable assumption. It would be a reasonable change in public expenditure policy on the basis of the increase in the value of the statue if at any future point it was to be considered for sale. I suggest that the noble Baroness does not consider that it ever would be for sale in the future, and thus the implication that it would be of benefit to public expenditure is hypothetical rather than factual.
But the various offers in no way involve the Government. They are offers or suggestions which relate entirely to the owners of the statue and not the Government. The role that the Government play on this occasion, as in the past, is that of deciding on an export licence, which has nothing to do with any arrangements that may be made in the future.

§ Baroness Birk
My Lords, the Minister did not answer one very important point. Is it true that, if and when this decision is made, it will be by personal edict of the Minister and will not be discussed in Parliament in order to seek parliamentary approval?

§ Lord Hesketh
My Lords, I am sure that nothing is ever by personal edict of the Minister. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State proposed an extension of the criteria in order to provide the protection to which I referred in previous answers. That protection was necessary because of the uncertainty and unhappiness in the art world which stretched back to last October when an object was lost based on a private offer within the United Kingdom. Those are the facts of the case.

§ Lord Strabolgi
My Lords, would it not be better if in future responsibility for these matters were transferred from the Department of Trade and Industry to the Office of Arts and Libraries in view of the muddle that has occurred during the last month?

§ Lord Hesketh
My Lords, the Waverley Rules of 1952 were based on the 1939 Act, which has been the basis of all protection. That position has not changed for a very long time.

§ Lord Jenkins of Putney
My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that some of us will reserve our cheers, 1035 singular or plural, until his right honourable friend has made his decision known, whether that be now, not too long in the future, as soon as possible or whenever?

§ Lord Hesketh
My Lords, I am always looking forward to the noble Lord's cheers. I remind him that the decision will be made by the owner and not by the Government, because the statue is the property of the owner and not of the Government.

§ Lord St. John of Fawsley
My Lords, is it not a fact that the framework within which the owners make their decision is laid down by the Government? When shall we hear what that framework is? Is it not a fact that the longer the situation continues and the more Ministers are involved, the greater the state of confusion?

§ Lord Hesketh
My Lords, the Government's involvement is limited only to the case where the owner is desirous of exporting the work of art. At the end of the day the decision will be down to the owner. In this case, which is the important case to which my noble friend refers, the Secretary of State has taken time in reaching his decision in order to be in receipt of all representations and to be fully aware of the facts as he sees them.