Parthenon Sculptures: Return

Question

15:37:00

Asked by

To ask His Majesty’s Government whether they plan to introduce legislation to enable artefacts, including the Parthenon sculptures, to be returned to their country of origin.

The Government have no plans to introduce legislation to permit artefacts, including the Parthenon sculptures, to be returned. National museums are prevented by legislation from de-accessioning objects unless, broadly, they are duplicates or unfit for retention. There are two exceptions: human remains less than 1,000 years old and Nazi-era looted objects. Partnerships and loans have been successfully used as a way for museums to share objects with other countries and museums.

My Lords, there is a case for amending the existing legislation in a narrow way to allow our national museums to return permanently certain artifacts to their country of origin on a case-by-case basis—none more so than the Parthenon sculptures, so that the frieze and other sculptures can be seen in a museum close to the original environment and, importantly, in as complete a state as possible, as this is the work of a single master builder, Phidias, and his workshop. Surely aesthetically, this is the right solution. Will the Government amend the legislation to allow this and other returns to happen?

I can only repeat to the noble Earl that the Government have no plans to change the law or introduce legislation to permit objects, including the Parthenon sculptures, to be returned.

My Lords, this legislation is a throwback to the time when our national museums were little more than adjuncts of the Office of Works. As they gained their independence, the Government at the time quite rightly wanted to stop that. The trustees and leaders of our national museums have shown, admittedly with substantial government support over the years, that they are more than capable of running their own affairs. This legislation is well out of date. There is precedent. The Reviewing Committee on the Export of Works of Art works extremely well in reviewing objects that are poised to leave the country and deciding whether they are part of our heritage. Surely setting up something like that to review contested objects would be a wonderful way to independently assess these very contentious issues.

The noble Lord will be aware that the British Museum operates independently of the Government, and so decisions relating to its collections are, within the law, a matter for its board of trustees. I know that the British Museum recognises the strength of feelings on this issue, and the museum is actively pursuing the possibility of a new partnership approach with Greece. I repeat that we as a Government do not have any plans to amend the law.

My Lords, I know the Minister thinks deeply about these issues. Will she please assure the House that the intention of the Government not to legislate in relation to the Elgin marbles does not extend to the modified bones—sometimes hideously so—of indigenous peoples, such as the Naga, held in our national collections like the British Museum? Will she ensure that the law is modified or clarified to make it clear that those items should be returned? Their retention is deeply offensive to indigenous peoples who lost their ancestors’ bones in the course of colonial wars and occupation and who now seek a decent return of their remains.

The majority of museums are able to deal with the restitution of human remains on a case-by-case basis. My noble friend will be aware that I am planning to have a meeting with my noble friend Lady Merron to discuss issues relating to the Human Tissue Act. There is human remains guidance for museums, issued by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport in 2005, which covers the legal and ethical framework for the treatment of human remains. I understand the strength of feeling of my noble friend and I am happy to have a conversation with him to discuss this further.

My Lords, in supporting the noble Earl’s plea to the Government to look at this issue, I draw to the attention of the Minister the fact that there are artefacts, such as the ap Huw manuscripts of Welsh music, that have been in the British Library for many years. They are of little interest to those coming to the British Library but would be of great interest in Wales. Would she consider writing to some of these institutions to see whether an arrangement can be reached to meet the very reasonable pleas that have been made in this House already?

The loan of documents, whether it is from the British Museum or the British Library, is routine. I am happy to raise this particular point with the British library, but it operates independently of the Government, so a decision on that would be for its trustees.

My Lords, I am glad the Minister has confirmed that the Government have no plans to change the law. She is right that we do not need any change in the law to allow our national museums to lend or borrow items with their partners around the world. Some of the Parthenon sculptures in the care of the British Museum have been loaned overseas before, and we were all delighted to hear that the loan of the Bayeux Tapestry, first discussed in 2018, is going ahead. Would the Minister agree that, for any loan to be consistent with the British Museum Act 1963 or with its open individual export licence, any borrowing party must acknowledge the museum’s ownership of those items and agree to return them at the end of the loan period?

The Parthenon sculptures were lawfully acquired and are legally owned by the trustees of the British Museum. By definition, any loan agreement acknowledges that. The requirement of a loan is that the item be returned and assurances as to the return would be provided.

My Lords, in March, there was a short debate which addressed the sale of human remains at public auctions. Following yet another disrespectful online auction recently, what progress has been made since the debate on that matter? What are the Minister’s future plans for banning the sale of human remains?

Like the noble Baroness, I viewed the online footage of the sale of human remains that she referred to. It was incredibly shocking. Having met with my noble friend Lord Boateng and the noble Baroness, I committed to convening a cross-departmental meeting with Ministers and officials to discuss the issue. I have spoken briefly to my noble friend Lady Merron about this. The meeting has been scheduled for immediately after the Summer Recess. I will be happy to report back to the noble Baroness then.

My Lords—

My Lords—

There is time for both noble Lords to ask a question. We will have the noble Lord, Lord McNally, first, and then my noble friend.

My Lords, the Minister has been rolling out excuses for no action on the Parthenon sculptures that have been used by Ministers of all parties for the last 50 years, at least to my knowledge. The role of museums is changing and there is great capacity for what I would describe as museum diplomacy. Is she aware what a massive gain it would be for our relations with Greece if—where there is a will, there is a way—we were to be able to return the Parthenon statutes and work with Greece on a celebration of Greek sculpture and art at the British Museum? That is the way museums should be moving, not as receptacles of our imperial past.

The UK and Greece have a strong bilateral relationship, built on shared values and history, and we greatly value the friendship that exists between our peoples today. I would question the noble Lord’s definition of an excuse; it is a reason and a view, not an excuse.

My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for her Answer and all the subsequent answers. If there is an object of religious significance to its country of origin which is seen as a work of art in a museum here, is there not a case for amending or at least considering ways of adapting legislation? Although it is not the Government’s decision, a museum director is not completely free to make a decision if they are constrained by existing legislation which may have been made many years ago.

We do not have any current plans to change the legislation. The noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, talked about loans. In many cases these artefacts can be loaned, and we would support that. The Bayeux Tapestry has been mentioned, and we are very fortunate in this country to be able to borrow items from other countries. We get them on the basis that people know we are going to return them, even if we would like to keep them.