Cultural Property (Armed Conflicts) Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2017-02-20
Topic: Mixed Topics
David John Barrington Burrowes (Conservative, Centre-right): What I do know either way is that no antiquities dealer has come forward about being unjustly convicted and there has not been a campaign about such. None seems to have been unjustly convicted under this order—or there has been no evidence that there has been an iniquity in relation to an arrest, prosecution or seizure under the order or, indeed, under the other relevant provision, the European Union Council regulation on Syrian cultural property. That refers to "Syrian cultural property goods and other goods of archaeological…importance…where there are reasonable grounds to suspect that the goods have been removed from Syria without the consent of their legitimate owner" Again, I am not aware of any antiquities dealer having fallen foul of those provisions, with the complaint being that the net is cast too widely I concede that, in terms of mens rea, there is a difference between normal dishonesty offences and this particular offence, but in respect of the actual impact of the Bill, I am not aware of a serious problem. Rather, the answer is that, with the appropriate legal advice and the due diligence that one would expect of any decent, law-abiding antiquities dealer, they will be able to chart their way through the legislation Another relevant aspect is international practice. We are in the process of ratifying The Hague convention and putting ourselves into line internationally. It is important to refer to paragraph 7 of UN Security Council resolution 1483, which came into being on 22 May 2003 and is obviously binding on all UN member states. It was made in direct response to the looting of cultural institutions in the immediate wake of the invasion of Iraq. All member states signed up to taking "appropriate steps to facilitate the safe return to Iraqi institutions of Iraqi cultural property and other items of archaeological, historical, cultural, rare scientific, and religious importance illegally removed from the Iraq National Museum, the National Library, and other locations" Paragraph 7 says specifically that that should be done "by establishing a prohibition on trade in or transfer of such items and items with respect to which reasonable suspicion exists that they have been illegally removed" Similar wording is used in United Nations resolutions That similarity continued in paragraph 17 of UN Security Council resolution 2199, from 12 February 2015. Again, it is binding on UN member states. It was adopted in direct response to the looting of Iraqi and Syrian cultural property in the course of the ongoing armed conflicts in those states. The Security Council reaffirmed its decision and recognised that there was a corresponding obligation for cultural property illegally removed from Syria since 15 March 2011. On the standard of knowledge considered sufficient by the Security Council, of which the UK is of course a permanent member—we want to ensure we are right up there in terms of signing up to ratifying the two protocols—there was the same equivalence in relation to reasonable suspicion.