Hansard

I echo the comments of colleagues from all parties. Although we support most of the reforms in the legislative consent motion, a particular issue that arises is the immunity from seizure that the bill will give to international works of art that are on loan to exhibitions in Scotland.

I understand why, in relation to certain spurious private actions—for example, actions to enforce unrelated debts—we might wish to protect the public's interest in viewing an exhibition. However, I do not believe that any member here or at Westminster would promote or elevate the exchange or sharing of cultural items above the restoration of property that was looted during one of the most horrific and grotesque periods of recent history. Frankly, I do not believe that any member of the public would want to view, on public display in Scotland, works of art that were robbed from families who were stripped of their rights, humiliated as individuals and systematically murdered under the Nazi regime.

I know that the Deputy Minister for Justice shares my abhorrence at that prospect, but does she recognise that there is concern that the guidance on the provenance and ethical acceptability of items that are made available for exhibit abroad is not observed? The recently agreed guidance is welcome, but it is a voluntary code and there are genuine fears that it is not complied with.

Can the minister give us further assurance that the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Bill will not offer immunity or protection from seizure unless there is evidence that the ownership of a cultural item has been examined? Will she further undertake to make representations to our Westminster colleagues and her ministerial counterparts to ensure that the rights of the true owners of stolen works of art are protected?