Art Exports: Review Body Membership (Hansard, 16 February 1993)

Viscount Astor
My Lords, seven permanent members of the reviewing committee are appointed by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. They provide a broad base of intellectual and practical experience in works of art, antiques and collectors' items.

§ Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that Answer. However, in view of increasing evidence of the illicit export of, and trade in, British antiquities, does he feel that it might be appropriate to have an archaeologist as a member of the reviewing committee on which the antiques and art trade is so well represented? Is he aware that there is anxiety that where heritage exports are concerned, the Government seek advice consistently from the antiquities trade and do not seek advice from those whose business is conservation, such as the Council of British Archaeology or English Heritage?

Viscount Astor
My Lords, where the case under review is an archaeological item, three independent assessors are always co-opted on to the committee for that case. They will have a specific expertise and will have a full vote on the committee as to the Waverley status of the item. Over the past three years, seven archaeological objects have been referred to the committee. Five were deferred and purchased by institutions for retention by the nation.

§ Lord Strabolgi
My Lords, are the Government aware that there have been cases recently where the importance of archaeological objects has been assessed by the expert witness—an expert from the British Museum—under the Waverley criteria? The assessment has then been downgraded by the reviewing committee. Would that not be less likely to happen if the Government were to appoint an archaeologist to the committee who had experience in that field?

Viscount Astor
My Lords, expert advisers are often enthusiasts in their own subject, but the committee as a whole must take a broader look as to whether the object meets the Waverley standards. I point out to 988 the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, that out of 10 experts in a room, one is usually liable to disagree with the other nine.

§ Baroness Brigstocke
My Lords, as a member of the Museums and Galleries Commission, I wish to ask my noble friend a question. Perhaps I may say in parenthesis that we commissioners share the anxiety of my noble friend Lord Renfrew about the illicit excavation and export of archaeological material from the United Kingdom. Perhaps I may ask the Minister whether the Government will now take the opportunity afforded by the new EC directive on the restitution within the EC of objects designated as national treasures to give greater protection generally to our archaeological heritage.

Viscount Astor
My Lords, under that directive all British archaeological items of Waverley standard will be able to be recovered if they have been smuggled out of the country to another member state. Under the directive they may be brought back to this country.
Further, with regard to the regulation, a small working group of museum and trade interests has been established to consider guidelines for the trade and museum world with the use of the discretionary power which is now allowed under the regulations. The British Museum has four members and my noble friend Lord Renfrew has kindly agreed to join the group.

§ Baroness Birk
My Lords, given the volume of illegal archaeological exports cited by the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, and many other distinguished archaeologists, is there not a strong case for a review of the existing legislation and also legislation on treasure trove? If that is agreed to, as I feel it will be, surely it would further strengthen the case for having an archaeologist on the main reviewing committee rather than just on the advisory council or the panel of experts.

Viscount Astor
My Lords, the noble Baroness asked me a separate question about treasure trove. What I can tell her about the Reviewing Committee on the Export of Works of Art is that only three places are set aside to represent specific interests: the manuscripts and documents member, who chairs the working party on documents; the Scottish representative; and one member of the art trade. They are the only members who represent particular areas. All the others are appointed to the committee because of their general expertise.

§ Baroness Park of Monmouth
My Lords, is the Minister aware that the Royal Commission on the Historical Monuments of England to some extent shares the anxiety of my noble friend Lord Renfrew? Less than one-tenth of the tens of thousands of sites in the national monuments record have statutory protection. Many Roman villas, Saxon burial grounds and so forth are likely to contain valuable artefacts. If they are to be excavated legally, they will come before the reviewing committee. It seems proper for a qualified archaeologist to sit on that committee to help inform its views.

Viscount Astor
My Lords, as I said, in each case which comes under review three independent assessors are always co-opted on to the committee. If a particular archaeological item from, for example, East Anglia, comes up, then someone with expertise in that area is co-opted on to the committee. If there is just one archaeologist, he may not have the expertise in the area that comes up. That is why it works well at the moment.
I should also tell my noble friend that the regulation and the directive which were agreed in Europe will shortly come into force. The regulation will come into force in April and the directive by the end of the year. That will be a great help.

§ Lord Annan
My Lords, did I understand the noble Viscount to say that on the whole the archaeologists have not done badly in the decisions taken by the reviewing committee in preventing export for a limited number of months? He suggests that the committee has been successful in keeping archaeological objects in the country, in marked distinction to other objects. I understand that members of the reviewing committee are in despair because so few objects of great worth, particularly paintings, can be kept in this country because the Government will not provide the funds.
Is the noble Viscount further aware that we now have 3 million unemployed, hundreds of thousands of whom are passionately keen on art? The British Museum, the National Gallery and the Tate Gallery have not been bullied by the Government into imposing entrance charges and they are places where the unemployed can go. Those collections badly need enriching through the operations of the reviewing committee.

Viscount Astor
My Lords, I agree with the first part of the noble Lord's remarks. The committee has afforded sympathetic treatment to archaeological objects and I believe that the archaeologists have done well. Of course, the noble Lord makes an important point. When a case is referred to the committee and the committee believes that export should be deferred, it is always a problem for institutions to raise the sometimes considerable amounts of money to ensure that the object remains in the country.

§ Lord Donoughue
My Lords, does the Minister agree that the issue at the heart of the Question is not the appointment of the odd archaeologist but the fact that our archaeological inheritance, which is irreplaceable, is being looted and made subject to illicit exporting, and that that must be stopped? Is he aware that the 1991 export review committee made 20 recommendations of which the Government have replied to only one—on listing? Is it not time now to respond fully to the report? I have especially in mind Recommendation 3 about exports and Recommendation 18 about treasure trove. Would that not offer the opportunity to put our export procedures on a sound, clear and proper basis?

Viscount Astor
My Lords, I was glad that it was the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, who called archaeologists odd and not me. I believe that many of the points 990 he mentioned will be covered when the EC directive and the regulation come into force. That will be a great help as regards items in this country which are currently either smuggled out or taken out in some way they should not be.