Holocaust (Return of Cultural Objects) Bill
The second item on the agenda is consideration of a legislative consent memorandum on the UK Government's Holocaust (Return of Cultural Objects) Bill. I am pleased to welcome Mike Russell, the Minister for Culture, External Affairs and the Constitution. This is the minister's first visit to the committee. I am sure that it will be the first of many, especially as the creative Scotland bill is to return to the committee. Mr Russell is joined by David Seers, the team leader within the Scottish Government's cultural excellence branch. I understand that Mr Russell wishes to make an opening statement.
I do, convener. Thank you for the invitation to speak to the committee today. I take your statement about my many visits to be an invitation rather than a threat, and I look forward to them.
I am here to talk about the Holocaust (Return of Cultural Objects) Bill. I hope that in this session we can agree not just on the objective of the bill, but on how we should get there. The Scottish interest in the bill is its purpose to enable the trustees of the National Museums of Scotland, the National Library of Scotland and the National Galleries of Scotland to return to their rightful owners or their heirs cultural objects that were stolen or looted during the Nazi era. Currently, those institutions are prevented from doing that by their general statutory duties to preserve collections. Those duties are contained in the National Heritage (Scotland) Act 1985, the National Galleries of Scotland Act 1906 and the National Library of Scotland Act 1925.
Scottish Government colleagues worked closely with UK Government colleagues to draft amendments to the bill, which were considered and agreed by the House of Commons at committee stage on 10 June, with the agreement of the Scottish Government in principle. The bill has been accelerated, which is why we are talking about it today. It is going through the process faster than we expected. The amendments brought the Scottish institutions into the scope of the bill. That was essential to allow the Scottish institutions to return objects following the findings of the spoliation advisory panel, which was established by the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport.
The panel looks into claims that are made for items and decides whether they could be considered spoliated in the Nazi era. Following acceptance of the panel's findings by the secretary of state, objects may be returned. The spoliation advisory panel, which was formed in 2000, is chaired by Sir David Hirst QC, a member of the Privy Council and a Lord Justice of Appeal from 1992 to 1999. Members will be pleased to hear that, in this instance, I believe that the existence of a single UK body is not harmful to Scottish interests, as very few cases have been brought in Scotland—indeed, there has been only one case, and it was not within the ambit of the bill.
The amendments to the bill were agreed at Westminster on 10 June, but they require the secretary of state to gain the agreement of the Scottish ministers to approve decisions regarding the spoliation advisory panel's recommendations in relation to the Scottish institutions. That is entirely satisfactory, as far as I am concerned.
There will be limited financial implications. The national institutions have already undertaken work to establish the provenance of their collections. During that exercise, the full history of only a small number of items could not be established, and not establishing a history is not the same as suspecting that an object may have a history of spoliation. Under the existing statutes, the institutions are open to claims for ex gratia payments for cultural objects that have been spoliated but not for the return of the objects themselves.
We want to ensure that full justice is done in these circumstances. The proposals are modest and it is efficient to ensure that the matter is dealt with in a single bill—I would not necessarily say that in different circumstances. I therefore commend the legislative consent motion, which will be moved in the First Minister's name, and I hope that members will find it possible to support it. I am happy to answer questions.
I thank the minister for that brief but thorough explanation of the legislative consent memorandum. Members can now ask questions.
I, too, welcome the minister's remarks and the support for and endorsement of the legislative consent memorandum. It sounds as if museums have very few items for which the provenance is not known. Is the minister aware of any outstanding claims that might be pursued under the bill?
No, not in Scotland. The situation in the UK as a whole is that there have been eight cases to date—six claims have been upheld and two have been rejected. Next Wednesday, 24 June, there will be a ninth report from the panel, which concerns eight drawings in the collection of the Courtauld Institute of Art in London. In Scotland there has been only a single instance, which related to a single painting in the Burrell collection.
It is fair to say that there is an issue outwith the national institutions, but the Burrell collection would not be touched on by the bill, because it is a collection outwith the national institutions with which the bill deals. Specific legislation would be required to deal with bequests. The difficulty was that the Burrell bequest prevented any part of the collection from being taken from the collection. That is a big issue, and it would require a great deal of consideration, because a wide variety of issues in law would have to be addressed. As there has been only a single case in Scotland, I am not that concerned, but if there were other cases, I would welcome a discussion with the committee about how we should legislate. No claims are pending in the area that the bill addresses, but the legislation will tidy things up and ensure that there is an ability to deal with cases should they arise. It is inevitable that, as the years pass, there will be fewer issues, but we should be prepared to act when we can act, and the bill allows us to do so.
The committee has no further questions. I am sure that the minister will not get off so lightly when he returns in future. There is a fair degree of political consensus on the issue and willingness to ensure that progress is made as quickly as possible.
Can I address that specific point in conclusion, convener? Because of the Scottish Parliament's recess dates and Westminster's recess dates, the timescale is very tight. The committee's clerk will undoubtedly keep you right on the matter, but I hope that you can make progress within the required timescale to progress the issue for the desired effect.
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to give evidence—I will not be lulled into a false sense of security by the single question from Mr Macintosh.
I am glad that you will not be lulled into a false sense of security, because that would be an unfair picture. Thank you for your attendance at committee.
I suspend the meeting to allow the minister and his official to leave.
Meeting suspended.
On resuming—
Item 3 is continued consideration of the legislative consent memorandum on which we have just taken evidence. The committee is required to report to the Parliament on the LCM. Such reports usually include comments on the merits of the policy, justification for the use of the LCM mechanism, any comments on the draft motion and a clear recommendation to the Parliament on whether to give consent. However, the committee need not make such a recommendation. I ask members to mention any points that they wish to make in the committee's report to Parliament.
I make the point simply that the committee supports the LCM and that we agree that it should progress through Parliament as quickly as possible.
There is strong consensus, and we are keen to support the motion and bring the matter to a conclusion. That will be recorded in our report, which will go before the Parliament.
That brings the public part of our meeting to a close. The committee's next meeting will be on Tuesday 23 June at 10 am. The change of day is due to the Parliament sitting in plenary session all day on Wednesday 24 June.
Meeting continued in private until 12:10.