A letter to The Times, highlights the problems of a new government bill which would give immunity to stolen artefacts whilst in this country for the purposes of exhibition.
As they point out, public interest should always take precedence over achieving facilitating world class exhibitions in this country. Unfortunately, evidence suggests that a large number of museum curators would disagree with this assertion.

From:
The Times

Letters to the Editor
The Times
November 28, 2006
Stolen art works

Sir, We are deeply concerned at the Government’s proposal to give complete immunity to those who wish to display stolen and looted art works by making them available for exhibition in this country. The proposed legislation, buried in the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Bill, would provide automatic protection from seizure to lenders outside Britain, making them safe from the legitimate claims of the rightful owners.

The justification is that the UK’s position as a leading centre for world-class exhibitions will be jeopardised unless all loans are protected from seizure. This reasoning results from pressure exerted by museums and those overseas whose concern for the provenance of art works owned by them is at best cavalier. In fact, the result will be that Britain will become one of the few countries in the West where such ill-gotten gains can be displayed with impunity and where the rights of the true owners will be so easily frustrated.

The public interest must surely be in upholding the rule of law, rather than promoting an international free-for-all through the unrestricted circulation of tainted works of art. Do we really wish to educate our children to have no respect for history, legality and ethical values by providing museums with the opportunity freely to exhibit stolen property?

The morally correct and legally responsible approach, adopted by many countries, is for objects proposed for loan to galleries and museums to be subject to rigorous inquiries to determine their provenance and that rightful owners have the opportunity to recover works surfacing in this way. The current proposals, giving automatic and indiscriminate protection against seizure mean that otherwise respectable institutions in this country will have no reason to make such inquiries. This legislation shames us and should be opposed rigorously.

LORD CARLILE OF BERRIEW
Liberal Democrat

LORD FELDMAN
Conservative

BARONESS GOLDING
Labour

LORD HOGG OF CUMBERNAULD
Labour

LORD JACOBS
Liberal Democrat

LORD JANNER OF BRAUNSTONE
Labour

LORD KALMS
Conservative

BARONESS LUDFORD, MEP
Liberal Democrat

BARONESS NEUBERGER
Liberal Democrat

BARONESS O’CATHAIN
Conservative

LORD CAREY OF CLIFTON