Cultural Property (Armed Conflicts) Bill [HL]
Debate between Earl of Clancarty and Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, for his support for this amendment. It has a straightforward intention, which is to ensure that the language used in the Bill is consistent and, crucially, consistent with the language used in the Second Protocol. I refer your Lordships to Articles 15 and 21 of the Second Protocol, which use the terms “serious violation” and “violation”.
We have already discussed this matter in Committee in detail, so I will be brief. What is required is simply that the headings to Part 2 and Clause 3 of the Bill are amended so that, in both, “serious breach” is changed to “serious violation”. I am not permitted to do that through an amendment, but I understand that the Government can make these changes if they were to look favourably on the spirit of this amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)
My Lords, I will be very brief indeed. I simply want to endorse what has been said by the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, and point out that this matter can be resolved at relatively short notice when the Bill is reprinted prior to its next stage. I look forward to the Government’s response on that point.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Lord Ashton of Hyde) (Con)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to respond for the Government to the noble Earl’s amendment, especially as I hope to give him an answer that he will approve of. I am very conscious that I have come late to this Bill and that many noble Lords did sterling work at Second Reading and in Committee, not least my noble friends Lady Neville-Rolfe and Lord Courtown, to whom I am very grateful for getting us this far. And now, before the Deputy Chief Whip intervenes to say that I am breaking the rules for Report, I shall return to the noble Earl’s amendment.
I recognise that there are concerns in some quarters about the differences in terminology between the titles of this Bill, the convention and the Second Protocol, and the potential for confusion that this may cause. My noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe explained in Committee that we have used the term “breach” in the titles of Part 2 and Clause 3 because that is the more widely recognised term in English law and the meaning in this context is the same. However, we have listened to the points made in debate by noble Lords, and I am pleased to inform your Lordships that the Government have agreed to change the word “breach” to “violation” in the titles of Part 2 and Clause 3 when the Bill is next reprinted, which, I believe, will be before it goes to the other place. Therefore, it will now say, “Offence of serious violation of Second Protocol”.
I hope this will fully address the concerns that the noble Earl and the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, have raised. In the light of this commitment from the Government to change the titles, I hope the noble Earl will withdraw his amendment.
Cultural Property (Armed Conflicts) Bill [HL]
Debate between Earl of Clancarty and Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
The Earl of Clancarty
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, for his support for this amendment and Roger O’Keefe, Professor of Public International Law, University College London, for his briefing. The issue here is one of clarity, consistency and accuracy. The term “violation” was adopted by the conference finalising the Second Protocol and my understanding is that this was done quite deliberately so that the terminology would be distinct from that used in the Geneva Convention: namely, the term “breach”. I appreciate that the legislation to ratify this convention around the world will be in different languages. However, it does seem logical that the terminology used in English ought to follow the terminology in English of the Hague Convention itself.
There are two additional problems. One is the inconsistent use of terminology. The word “breach” is used in the heading of Clause 3, which I cannot myself alter by an amendment, yet the term “violation” occurs in the text on page 2 at line 7, so both terms are used in the same clause, which is confusing. The more serious issue is that “violation” in the text is not referred to here as “serious violation”, although “serious breach” is used in the heading, which would distinguish this kind of violation in Article 15 of the Second Protocol from the so-called “other violations” in Article 21. This is important because it is a question of the order of violation referred to. It needs to be changed.
As the Minister herself said at Second Reading, the meaning of “breach” and “violation” is the same. But this is not the point. The issue here is one of consistency and accuracy of use. At the moment it is perhaps a little too sloppy. The 2008 draft Bill used the same terminology as the current Bill, so the Government have inherited it. Will the Minister look at this closely to see if these changes can be made? I beg to move.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
My Lords, I rise briefly to support the amendment proposed by the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty. He said that it was aimed at clarity, consistency and accuracy, and I can add no more to that. This is an issue where the Minister may be able to help us further. The substance of the amendment is to make sure that we do not unwittingly create any uncertainty.
The Earl of Clancarty
My Lords, I, too, am sympathetic to the concerns of the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, but can we compare notes with or learn from other European countries such as Germany, which has important museums and has operated the second protocol since 2004?
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
My Lords, I am looking forward to the Minister’s response to the main amendment in this group but I would like to touch on Amendment 30A. Here, we are back with our friends clarity, consistency and accuracy, and as the noble Baroness is also a Minister in the department for business, I am sure she will want to follow this one through carefully. There is some merit in trying to make sure that we replicate the position in other areas where criminal activity might follow from acts by a corporate body, and it will be interesting to hear what she has to say on that.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
My Lords, the obligations placed on Her Majesty’s Government as a result of ratifying this treaty go both ways. As I have already mentioned, they apply when British forces, however controlled, take the field in interstate or state-to-state warfare, and they also apply in a situation where we should be preparing for any unfortunate exercise of war against the United Kingdom. Obviously, we hope that that is a very remote situation; nevertheless, it raises questions about the exact order of priorities for the cultural properties and artefacts which fall to our nation to preserve and hold for future generations.
Through the papers that have been prepared and the issues relating to the Bill, we have sought guidance on this, but we have not yet received very much. We had a briefing from Historic England, which has obviously been involved, in which it points out that very few other countries have fulfilled their obligations under the convention to provide lists. However, some have and interestingly, the view appears to be that you should first look to world heritage sites, to UNESCO contexts and other statements made by UNESCO, and then work gradually through to internal arrangements such as listings, and whether it is grade 1 in England or category A in Scotland and other places. Obviously, that could provide a very long list of valuable properties: this country has a large number of buildings that we want to preserve, and that list increases hugely if one thinks about the artefacts gathered over the years that we want to protect.
Some guidance should therefore be forthcoming at some point, whether now or later in the passage of the Bill. Before we finish considering the Bill, it would be helpful to have a better understanding of what approach the Government are taking, what sorts of bodies will be involved, what sorts of buildings and artefacts we are talking about, and, having identified them, whether there are sufficient plans and resources in place to make sure that these precious items have been, will be and could be looked after during any period of warfare that might arise. I beg to move.
The Earl of Clancarty
My Lords, I support Amendment 28 in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Stevenson and Lord Collins. It is worth mentioning that UNESCO requests countries to fill in an extensive questionnaire every four years explaining how they are protecting their cultural property. There is a more general aspect: protection. The last questionnaire completed by Germany can be found online and includes, for example, what has been done to protect cultural property from flooding. It is all very well to say that you have done everything in your power to protect your cultural property from the effects of armed conflict, but if it has deteriorated or been harmed for other reasons, that rather negates the whole point of the exercise. Although military conflict can be devastating, most protection of cultural property takes place in peacetime, and that protection needs to be framed within this wider context.
Deregulation Bill
Debate between Earl of Clancarty and Lord Stevenson of Balmacara(9 years, 6 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, I have tabled this amendment because the responsibility that the Government have had for 160 years in giving consent for the erection of public statues in London should not pass away unremarked. Also, perhaps more importantly, there has to be a concern about where the responsibility for all public sculpture in London, not just public statues, should ultimately live. The area of London in question is Greater London but excludes the City of London and Inner and Middle Temples, as the very helpful notes to the Bill indicate.
There is a case for handing over ultimate responsibility for all public sculpture, not just statues and not just new sculpture, to the GLA. The timing of this amendment is interesting in the light of the think tank Centre for London’s call for greater devolution for the GLA, including, I understand, the ownership of public land. There is also a case for treating all public sculpture equally, at least administratively, which, with the change that the Government are making here, we are part-way towards doing.
I say this because I believe it is the specific environment, the place itself, that should be the starting point and of paramount concern. If the environment demands that there should be a sculpture sited in that place, the question should be asked: what kind of sculpture should it be? Should it be a memorialising sculpture or something else? However, we tend instinctively to do things the other way round. There is a national clamour to memorialise such and such a person, and then sometimes an unholy compromise arises in terms of the use of public space.
My first question to the Minister is why the Government are retaining the 1854 Act at all if they are removing the key responsibility for consent for public statues. Yes, I believe that these decisions should be taken with the locality permanently in mind, but I am not at all convinced that the ultimate responsibility for decision-making for new public sculpture in London should reside with the local authorities. Public sculpture generally should be under the stewardship—I stress, the stewardship—of London. New public sculpture in London is foremost a city-wide issue, of primary concern to London and Londoners.
With regard to my amendment, which is really a first stage in my train of thought on the subject, I do not for one moment believe that any current mayor should be making personal decisions about these things. I would have strongly disagreed with any suggestion that Generals Havelock and Napier ought to be removed from Trafalgar Square. Public sculpture should be removed or relocated only under exceptional planning considerations because to do otherwise, for aesthetic reasons or reasons of political correctness, is to excise history and that is wrong.
However, considering the future, I would be very happy—I think that others would agree—if there were a 20-year moratorium put on all new sculptures memorialising the military, the royals and politicians. Our culture is considerably wider than that. Last week, a fellow Peer suggested to me that there should be an independent decision-making body of experts. There is merit in that; in Berlin, for example, I understand that there is a citywide system of open competition for all new sculpture under the auspices of Berlin’s association of visual artists. Comparisons can be made here with the manner in which the very successful fourth plinth project is administered, whereby decision-making is down to an independent group of judges yet the project itself is under the stewardship of the mayor.
My second question is: might the Minister promise to find out whether, over the years, there has not developed a substantial archive reflecting the Government’s involvement with public statues in London? Westminster City Council, for example, confirms in its guidance on public statues and monuments that it currently submits detailed plans and drawings to the Government. Has an archive built up and is it publicly accessible? If so, as it would be of great interest to the public and historians, what do they plan to do with it?
We often take public sculpture in London for granted but when people from this country or from abroad visit London for the first time, the very first things they want to see include Nelson’s column or the Shaftesbury memorial fountain at Piccadilly Circus. Public sculpture is part of the face of London and says important things about our history and cultural identity. It is perhaps too important to be left only to local planning departments and it is fitting that the GLA should take more of a role in this area. I beg to move.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, for raising this issue. He makes a good case for this matter to be given more consideration. We are in debt to previous generations—he ended on this—for the substantial collection of public statues that there is in London. According to Westminster City Council’s guide to its process for obtaining permission for statues, they date from the Charles I statue of 1633. I had a look at that the other day and it is in very good nick. We are still seeing modern examples of material being put up and, as the noble Earl says, there are huge impacts on the way in which we view our city, on tourism and in other aspects, so it is important.
Behind the individual questions that the noble Earl has posed for the Government I think there is a real worry about their attempts to deregulate here. While the Government are clearly achieving something by taking responsibility away from the Secretary of State—although that is a deregulatory measure on a Minister and not on business—I am not sure whether they are taking the right step. As the noble Earl mentioned, there is a gap regarding who has responsibilities in this area. Given her previous experience, our Deputy Chairman, the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, might be in a better position to answer some of the questions about whether English Heritage has a role to play in this. I am sure that she will be too discreet to mention anything at this stage, and certainly not from the chair. However, I am sure that she will have some ideas about that. I am also sure that the Arts Council, in its wisdom and knowledge of these matters, will have things that might be brought to bear.
Whatever those ideas are, it is wrong for any individual politician to take responsibility for this area. That point was well made. I am not entirely clear whether substituting the GLA for the City of Westminster would solve that problem, because we are still talking about political control, but it raises the question: “Why just Westminster?”. Why would we not have wider consideration about where statues might be placed in London as a whole? My feeling is that statues are too important to be deregulated simply by the measure proposed by the Bill. I am not sure what the right solution is but I wonder whether the Minister might think about having a little more discussion about this.
The reflection I have, which I think is shared by the noble Earl whose amendment this is, is that there will be a bit of a gap here. It is not just a planning issue. The issues around putting up any memorialising form, whether it is a physical representation of somebody or an object whose presence is intangible, require aesthetic and other considerations rather than simply being about planning. I am not sure whether the planning system is quite the right place for this to be left. If there is therefore a gap, how would we find a way around it? It may be by having a statutory committee of some kind or simply by inviting some other body to take on a responsibility, which might be advisory. Whatever it is, I share the noble Earl’s concern about this issue.
Lord De Mauley
My Lords, the purpose of Clause 28 is to remove the current requirement on persons seeking to erect statues in public places in Greater London, excluding the City of London and the Inner and Middle Temples, to obtain consent from the Secretary of State before doing do. Controls to prevent the unsightly proliferation of statues in Greater London are already provided for by the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. This requires that planning permission be obtained from the relevant local planning authority prior to the erection of a statue in a public place in Greater London or the remainder of the country. I am not sure that I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, but I am sure we can have a useful discussion about it. Given that the aim of this change in Clause 28 is to streamline the current double-handling of applications to erect statues, I cannot really see a benefit in removing the requirement to seek the consent of the Secretary of State only to replace it with a requirement to seek the consent of the Mayor of London.
The mayor plays a key role in the planning for London’s continued success. His London Plan provides the economic, environmental, transport and social framework for development in the region to 2031. He ensures that local plans fit with the London Plan, works with boroughs to develop planning frameworks for major areas of brownfield land and considers planning proposals of strategic importance. In this way, he already has input to the preparation of policies relating to public statues, such as those produced by the City of Westminster. The noble Earl asked why keep the 1854 Act at all? It is worth saying that it provides a power for the Secretary of State to repair and restore, for example, any public statue. I might be so bold as to suggest we would all find that an important power to retain. He also asked whether there are archives. I do not believe there are such archives—I am happy to have a rootle around but I am pretty sure there are no centrally held archives. I have little more to add. I hope I have said enough to persuade him to withdraw his amendment.