BCRPM

  • When Emily Sheffield wrote: "I’m sorry, dear Greeks, but the Elgin Marbles simply must stay here." There was an outcry, not just by readers of the Evening Standard but those that were trying to understand how such a statement was meant to show empathy towards a global community that has supported the reunification for decades.

    We're guessing that the ES, as the London paper, is quite happy for the Parthenon Marbles to remain divided as it might suit Londoners to pop into Room 18 to have a look at this peerless collection of sculptures. That they are referered to as 'Elgin Marbles' is an afront given the history. But then Emily Sheffield has also been quick to criticise MP Elizabeth Truss for wanting to rewrite history, when the BM has being doing so for some time.

    If London visitors don't appreciate that what is exhibited in Room 18, isn't the whole collection, nor that there is another half in the Acropolis Museum, that's just geography. The fact that Lord Elgin removed these sculptures, or rather he paid men with metal saws and crowbars to remove the best ones at a time when Greece had no voice, well that's just a tragic part of history. A part of history museum visitors have to come to terms with too. Well, at least according to Emily Sheffield and the British Museum.

    Read Emily Sheffield's article here.

    BCRPM's tweet thread on reading the article below, on 21 January 2023.

    standard tweet BCRPM 1

     

    Pictured above Victoria Hislop in Room 18 on the 13th anniversary of the Acropolis Museum, June 2022. Protest led by BCRPM and supporters.

     

    standard tweet BCRPM 2

     

    standard tweet BCRPM 3

    the Acropolis Museum's 9th anniversary, annual protest at the BM, this was led by R.E.T.U.R.N

     

    standard tweet BCRPM 4

     

    Fact: in reuniting these sculptures with their other surviving halves in the Acropolis Museum, the British Museum can still continue to showcase all of the world's cultures under one roof. The sky isn't going to fall in.

    standard tweet BCRPM 5

    typo in above tweet , *nation* ought to be without an 's', apologies. The image quote for legibility below: 

    parthenon quote

  • An interview with Professor Paul Cartledge, A.G. Leventis Senior Research Fellow, Clare College. Emeritus A.G. Leventis Professor of Greek Culture, Cambridge.

    Paul Cartledge is the longest serving member of British Committee for the Reunification of the Parthenon Marbles (BCRPM), and is a Vice Chair of both BCRPM and the International Association for Reunification of the Parthenon Sculptures (IARPS).

    In this interview by Russell Darnley of the International Organising Committee – Australia for the Restitution of the Parthenon Marbles (IOC-A-RPM) Paul critiques the arguments advanced by the British Museum (BM) in its attempt to justify retention of the Parthenon Marbles. To watch Episode 2 (with two parts) on the Parthenon Channel, follow the link for Part 1and Part 2.

    The present display in Room 18, where the Parthenon Marbles are kept is so poor that it undercuts any benefit that might accrue to the Museum by their holding, and displaying them.

    There is such a ton of other terrifically good 5th-century BCE artefacts in the BM to illustrate more than adequately our (Western) heritage/legacy from 5th century BCE Athens/Greece that the BM doesn't need the Parthenon Sculptures to do that job as well (not to mention that, were the BM to release their prisoners, the Greek Government would compensate it mightily in the form of superb, hitherto unexported artefacts for temporary loan and display in Room 18).

     

    russell and paul

    Russell Darnley of the International Organising Committee – Australia for the Restitution of the Parthenon Marbles (IOC-A-RPM) in conversation with Professor Paul Cartledge, Vice-Chair of BCRPM.

  • 'Leaving aside the “thin end of the wedge” argument for a moment, consider this: what if that act of restitution was regarded not as a loss, but as a gain?' writes and questions Charlotte Higgins, chief culture writer for the Guardian. 

    Charlotte also talks to Esme Ward, Director of the Manchester Museum. After a £15m renovation, the museum will re-open on the 18th of February with 'a physical and ethical renovation'. Esme Ward says she has been determined to broaden the definition of the idea of “care” that sits at the heart of the idea of curatorship. She believes that curatorship should go beyond the basic obligation of a museum to preserve artefacts; it should also care for its community.

    And so, after long conversations and exchanges, in 2020, Manchester Museum returned 43 sacred objects to the Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies.

    Esme Ward speaks about this as a gain for the Manchester Museum. "Above all it is a gain in knowledge; the kind of haptic, experiential knowledge of place and use that can be absent from dry descriptions of artefacts in museum catalogues. The gain is also by way of a relationship with the Australian institution – one that may result in long-term cooperation, including possible loans to Manchester. And even considered in bald binary terms, her museum has “lost” only 43 collection items out of around 4,000 relating to Aboriginal communities."

    And we also know that the British Museum has over 100,000 Greek artefacts with just over 6,000 on display. We also know that for the last two decades, Greece has been suggesting that should the reunification of the Parthenon Marbles be failitated, Greece would lend the BM artefacts not yet exhibited outside of Greece.

    Charlotte Higgins also quotes the BM: “we operate within the law and we’re not going to dismantle the museum’s collection as it tells the story of our common humanity. We are however looking at longterm partnerships, which would enable some of our greatest objects to be shared with audiences around the world. Discussions with Greece about a Parthenon Partnership are ongoing and constructive.”

    We would add that no one wishes to see the BM break the law but basic moral decency is needed in this particular case. The case for the reunification of the Parthenon Marbles has been a steadfast request, made by Greece nearly 2 centuries ago, post independence. This requst has never been for ALL Greek artefacts to be returned. It currently asks for a peerless collection of fragmented sculptures to be given a new 21st century chapter in the Acropolis Museum. An opportunity for all of hmanity to celebrate the reunification of these sculptures, as close as it is physically possible to the Parthenon, which still stands and crowns the Acropolis: a UNESCO World Heritage site.

    We've been around this block so many times, we're dizzy, and this October, BCRPM celebrates 40 years of campaigning. It seems we'll be embracing more campaigning before the solution to this historical impasse amongst two nations that are friends, might be respectfully found.

    To read Charlotte Higgins' Guardian article, follow the link here.  

  •  

    BCRPM are delighted to welcome two new members: journalist, author, broadcaster and speaker Bruce Clark, and political philosopher Dr Rebecca Lowe. 

    Bruce is a broadcaster and speaker on a wide range of subjects including religion and geopolitics, the history of southeastern Europe and the story of textiles. He is the online religion editor of The Economist, and often contributes to other publications. He served on the committee of the Maghera Historical Society and has a strong interest in the local history of my corner of Northern Ireland, especially its linen heritage and its early American connections. He has been an active participant in global debates organised by the Ecumenical Patriarch on the subject of faith and the environment. The early Christian history of Ireland and Scotland is another strong personal interest.

    Since 1998, Bruceworked mainly for The Economist, covering everything from conflict in the Balkans to transatlantic relations and comparative religion. Between 2002 and early 2004 he took a sabbatical to research the history of forced migration between Greece and Turkey. In 2006, he launched the international pages of The Economist’s foreign news section, a new editorial feature devoted to broad global topics from disarmament to development.

    Before joining The Economist, Bruce also served as diplomatic correspondent for the Financial Times, working in London, Brussels and then Washington DC. From 1990-1993, he was a correspondent for The Times in Moscow, covering the fall of communism and Russia’s post-Soviet transition. In an earlier stint at the Financial Times, he was editor of the European news section. His first job as a journalist was with Reuters, as a junior correspondent in Paris and as the agency’s main correspondent in Athens. Thanks to these jobs early in his career, he has a good working knowledge of French, modern Greek and Russian and says that he can also 'get along in Italian, Dutch, German and Spanish'.

    At Saint John’s College, Cambridge, he studied Philosophy and then Social and Political Sciences, graduating with a BA in 1979. Before that he was educated at Maghera Primary School, Brook House School in Dublin and Shrewsbury School.

    Bruce Clark has written three books:

    An Empire’s New Clothes: The End of Russia’s Liberal Dream was published by Vintage Paperbacks in 1995.

    Twice A Stranger: How Forced Migration Forged Modern Greece and Turkey. Published by Granta in the UK in 2005 and Harvard University Press in the USA in 2007.

    Athens: City of Wisdom, 2022.

    Buce Clark has also written articles on the Parthenon Marbles, includung 'Stealing Beauty' published in 2021 and more recently 'Law, Morals and the Parthenon Marbles'.

     

     

    bruce clark portrait

     

    Dr Rebecca Lowe

    Rebecca is a political philosopher, whose current academic interests range from moral property rights to the value of democracy. She also works on political and economic research issues as a consultant, including an ongoing engagement as Research Director for a patient-capital investment company.

    Rebecca is a Senior Reader in the Canterbury Institute in Oxford. She is the former Director of FREER, a think tank advancing economically and socially liberal ideas.

    Rebecca has worked for various other research organisations, including Policy Exchange, where she was State and Society Fellow, and convenor of the Research Group on Political Thought.

    rebecca lowe small

     

  • 23 May 2020, Athens, Greece

    Greece's  Minister of Culture and Sport,  Lina Mendoni restated the long-standing request for the British Museum to return the Parthenon Marbles, ahead of the 11th anniversary of the Acropolis Museum.

    The British Museum in London continues to refuse to return the Parthenon Marbles. The 2,500-year-old sculptures were forcibly removed from the Parthenon, by British diplomat Lord Elgin in the early 19th century when Greece was under Ottoman Turkish rule.

    Prior to the opening of the Acropolis Museum on 20 June 2009,  the British Museum had argued that Greece had 'no where to display' the Parthenn Marbles. Now nearly 11 years since the purpose-built Acropolis Museum was opened  to house the antiquities from the Acropolis, the British Museum continues to argue that the sculptures in London are best viewed in London as they can be seen in the context of world cultures.

    On 24 January 2019, Ioannis Andritsopoulos, Ta Nea's UK correspondent , interviewed British Mumseum Director, Hartwig Fischer who said: "since the beginning of the 19th century, the monument’s history is enriched by the fact that some (parts of it) are in Athens and some are in London where six million people see them every year. In each of these two locations they highlight different aspects of an incredibly rich, layered and complex history."

    "People go to some places to encounter cultural heritage that was created for that site. They go to other places to see cultural heritage which has been moved and offers a different way to engage with that heritage. The British Museum is such a place, it offers opportunities to engage with the objects differently and ask different questions because they are placed in a new context.We should cherish that opportunity." Concluded Dr Fischer.

    On Sunday 23 February 2020,  the then Deputy Editor of the Sunday Times, Sarah Baxter wrote her modest proposal for the reunification of the Parthenon Marbles, aptly entitled: "The sane move is to give Greece back its Elgin marbles".

    The first 'modet proposal' was written by Christopher Hitchens (pages 104 to 106) in the third edition of 'The Parthenon, The Case for Reunification'published by Verso in May 2008 and launched at Chatham House, London by the BCRPM. The second was written by Stephen Fry in 2011, you can read that heretoo.

    Dr Fischer responded to Sarah Baxter's article with a letter to the Sunday Times, which was publish Sunday 01 March 2020:

    Greeks should be glad we have the marbles

    Sarah Baxter’s column on the Parthenon sculptures asks us to imagine how we would feel if Big Ben had been transplanted to Athens (“The sane move is to give Greece back its marbles”, Comment, last week). This is to ignore the many buildings and artworks that have been reused, reshaped and often moved across borders, such as Duccio’s altarpiece the Maesta, elements of which have been removed from Siena cathedral and are held in museums across Europe and America.

    The Parthenon sculptures are fragments of a lost whole that cannot be put back together. Only about 50% of the original sculptures survive from antiquity. The Parthenon has become a European monument precisely because its sculptures can be seen not only in Athens but in London and other European cities. The public benefit of this distribution and what it means for our shared cultural inheritance is self-evident, and something to celebrate.

    Minister of Culture for Greece, Dr Lina Mendoni  responded by saying that Dr Fischer's letter was as “unfortunate, if not outright unacceptable.” To read one of the article's quoting Dr Mendoni, follow the link here.

    As expected, this was not well received by most, not just in the UK but elsewhere too. Yannis Andritsopoulos, London Correspondent for Ta Nea, Greece's daily newspaper, wrote an article following on from Dr Fischer's letter to the Sunday Times, quoting a number of BCRPM members including Janet Suzman, Alex Benakis, Dr Peter Thonemann and Professor John Tasioulas.

    Dr Mendoni insists that “it is time for the British Museum to reconsider its stance ahead of the Acropolis Museum’s next birthday, which is on 20 June 2020. Does it want to be a museum that meets and will continue to meet modern requirements and speak to the soul of the people, or will it remain a colonial museum which intends to hold treasures of world cultural heritage that do not belong to it?” Smilar words were used by Dame Janet Suzman during her participation in the Cambridge Union debate on 25 April 2019. You can read Janet's speech here.

    Minister Mendoni urged the International Committees (IARPS) to continue to support this long standing request as they also continue to support the Greek government in their quest for the return of the Parthenon Marbles.

     

  • 13 April 2020

    Yannis Andritsopoulos, London Correspondent for Ta Nea, Greece's daily newspaper commemorates the extraordinary life of Mrs Eleni Cubitt.

    Eleni Cubitt Nana V BM small

    Photos courtesy of Nana Varvelopulou, Eleni Cubitt at the British Museum July 2009 

    Life and Style Magazine 2009

    Eleni Cubitt was the heart and soul of the international movement for the reunification of the Parthenon Sculptures; the unsung hero of the campaign launched by Melina Mercouri 38 years ago; and the person who persuaded dozens of British politicians - including two Labour leaders - academics, artists and journalists of the need to right a ‘very old wrong’, as she called it, in the face of the intransigence of the British Museum and successive British governments.

    Eleni Cubitt, a London campaigner, activist, filmmaker and protagonist against the Greek military junta, passed away last Wednesday at the age of 95.

    She was born in Thessaloniki in 1925. Her family later moved to Athens where Eleni attended the American College for Girls.

    At the age of 23, she married English diplomat Douglas Collard, then British consul in Patras, with whom he had five children. In 1964, having already lived in seven countries with her husband, she got divorced and settled in London, where she founded a film production company.

    According to her son Paul, it was the Scottish Laird Sir Amer Maxwell who suggested to Eleni the idea of being a film producer, an activity in which he was actively involved at that time.

    She later met French New Wave pioneer Jean-Luc Godard in Paris and persuaded him to make a film in Britain. 'Sympathy for the Devil', starring the Rolling Stones and produced by Cubitt, was released in 1968.

    She also produced several documentaries on Ancient Greece. Her most recent film was 'The War That Never Ends' in 1991 for which she was the executive producer.

    In 1968 Eleni married the distinguished British architect James Cubitt. Between 1975 and 1982, she was in charge of cultural affairs at the Greek Embassy's press office in London.

    In 1982, during a meeting with Jules Dassin and Melina Mercouri, whom she had known since the 1960s, Eleni and James decided to set up a lobby group for the return of the Marbles.

    The British Committee for the Restitution of the Parthenon Marbles was founded in 1983, later renamed British Committee for the Reunification of the Parthenon Marbles. Eleni became the Committee’s secretary, a post she held for 29 years.

    Her husband died shortly afterwards but Eleni continued their work and dedicated her life to the Marbles’ reunification, working tirelessly to raise awareness of the cause.

    She used her connections with the arts and business worlds, set up campaigns to inform the British public, organised protests, and mobilised journalists and MPs, among them Labour Party leaders Michael Foot and Neil Kinnock. Unfortunately for the cause, neither became prime minister.

    “Family was very important to Eleni and, despite the many calls on her time professionally, it was always her first priority. The sound of the phone ringing, as it did constantly, was always followed by her call: ‘Tell them I am out, unless it is one of the children.’ She was also always happy to share her professional life with any of her children and grandchildren who were interested”, her children said in a statement.

    “As children, we were expected to participate actively and to varying degrees, in the many causes she took on, not least the return of the Parthenon marbles. Because of her huge energy, she would prioritise finding the time for her children as they negotiated the many crises of growing up. Eleni loved to tell us stories, whether about the past, Greek myths or her daily experiences. In her later years, when her professional life was less demanding, she embraced her role as grandmother and great grandmother with the same enthusiasm, interest and energy and was much adored by all her 11 grandchildren and 2 great-granddaughters,” her children added.

    Eleni was a member of the Honorary Committee of the Melina Mercouri Foundation and received awards from the Prefecture of Athens in 2009 (Ambassador of Hellenism) and the American College of Greece in 2011 (Maria West Lifetime Achievement Award).

    Ambassadors of HellenismAmbassadors of Hellenism: Eleni Cubitt, Christopher Price and Professor Anthony Snodgrass


    From 2012, she took a less active role and four years ago she moved from her Islington home to a care home.

    “Eleni Cubitt - mischievous and classy and ever so Greek despite her very British associations. I remember she simply charmed me into joining the great Melina’s crusade, which of course I instantly wanted to do. It seemed such an attractive and important thing to try to put before ignorant eyes,” Dame Janet Suzman, Chair of the British Committee for the Reunification of the Parthenon Marbles (BCRPM), told Ta Nea.

    “I suppose Eleni felt drawn to another, half this and half that as she was, and we became friends. Besides being an actress and bit politically voluble and full of all the usual ingredients to help push this thing along, I happily fell in on the Greek side of things - long before my son took up with one so that I now have two half-Greek grandchildren. Isn’t life wonderful? Vanessa Redgrave, much more charismatic and activist and blonder was also hauled in to push. At the centre of it all, the hurricane of Melina, both beautiful and eloquent, drew us all along in her furious wake.

    “But hey, much good did it do - here we are years and years after Melina’s tour of office as Minister of Culture, and even with a fabulous new Acropolis Museum duly built (thanks to Eleni and numerous others) we all sit here waiting...and waiting. Yet it won’t go away; around the whole world, many fervent Hellenophiles are busy making waves, exercising great patience with an intransigent British Museum pretending to be unaware of how old hat and unpleasant is its stance.

    But, dear electric, charming, voluble Eleni, your dream of the Marbles returning home to the land of your birth will one day be a reality. So for now we all salute you and your amazing life. You will be missed by all of us and most of all by those who loved you, of which I am one,” Dame Janet added.

    Her friendship with Melina

    Melina and Eleni at BM April 12 1984 web site

    Photo from the archives of  Victoria Solomonidis. From left to right: Melina Mercouri, Eleni Cubitt, Graham Binns in the British Museum's Duveen Gallery June 1986

    Eleni Cubitt constantly supported Melina Mercouri, Greece’s then Culture minister, in her fight over the marbles. They became friends and worked closely together for several years.

    "Melina's vision, enthusiasm and glow pushed me to get involved in the cause," she told Ta Nea in 2000.

    In May 22, 1983, Mercouri delivered the Herbert Read Memorial Lecture at the Institute of Contemporary Arts in London. She later came face to face with the then director of the British Museum David Wilson.

    Mercouri’s and Wilson’s showdown was widely seen as a PR disaster for the British Museum. It is a little-known fact that Mercouri had travelled to London thanks to Eleni who had managed to persuade the ICA to invite her.

    Cultural heritage should refer to those objects which are of central significance and vital importance to the sense of identity and dignity of a human group and whose removal by force or deception or even ignorance could cause great sorrow, pain and outrage to people who believe such objects belong to them as an integral and essential part of their history and their heritage,” Eleni said.

    According to Nikandros Bouras’ book Greeks of London (London, 2013), Cubitt played a key role in the birth of the reunification campaign.

    After Mercouri’s death, Eleni collaborated with successive Greek Culture Ministers on this issue.

    "During my 25 years as Cultural Counsellor at the Embassy of Greece in London, I have had the pleasure and luck to work closely with Eleni. Tireless, inspired and always on the front line, she was a great friend and generous adviser. She was my great teacher. The thought that she is now joining Melina and Jules is a source of comfort,"concludes Victoria Solomonidis, a member of the Board of the Melina Mercouri Foundation.

    eleni and victoria

     Victoria and Eleni at the New Acropolis Museum for the official opening in June 2009 from BCRPM's archives

    To read the article in Ta Nea, please follow the link here.

    The pdf is also here.

    The British Committee for the Reunification of the Parthenon Marbles wishes to thank Ta Nea for covering this Committee's work from the very start and as early as 1983 (the year BCRPM was founded) and thanks also to the paper's UK correspondent, Yannis Andritsopoulos for allowing family and friends a few days to come to terms with the loss of Mrs Cubitt. Ta Nea respected this time and during these extraordinarily challenging times with news reported instantly, it has meant a great deal. Thank you Ta Nea.

    The BCRPM was a lifetime's work and dedication for Eleni. Honorary President Anthony Snodgrass, Chair Janet Suzman and Vice Chair Paul Cartledge plus the thirteen members will continue to support all the initiatives that Eleni had put in place, not least this web site and we thank many more individuals, organisations and campaigners here in the UK, in Greece and elsewhere all over the globe. 

    Over the course of the next days and weeks, we will add messages we receive and wish to sincerely thank each and everyone for making time to write, remembering the exceptional and much loved Eleni.

     

     

  • Professor Paul Cartledge has written the text that will be used for a pamphlet and distributed under the auspices of the British Committee for the Reunification of the Parthenon Marbles (BCRPM). The puropose of this publication is twofold: to set out briefly, in the light of current and likely future political, cultural and environmental circumstances, the arguments FOR reunification of those Marbles taken from the Parthenon back to Greece to the purpose-built  Acropolis Museumof Athens, and AGAINST the supposed arguments advanced, mainly by the Museum’s Trustees, in favour of their retention and display in the British Museum (BM), where they have been held since 1817.

    The stakes are high, both rationally and emotionally. When the well-known US actor George Clooney publicly declared his support for Reunification, he was accused – by a Classically educated politician no less, now the British Prime Minister – of advocating something equivalent to Adolf Hitler’s despoliation of the cultural treasures of occupied European countries. For someone who admits to Turkish blood in his veins, the irony of such a comment is not lost.

    Just as Britain’s ambassador to Ottoman Turkey’s occupied land, Lord Elgin, was doing his worst on the Acropolis, other colonial powers were competitively looting giant obelisks from Ottoman Egypt and shipping them to Paris and New York as well as London. In fact, it was mainly because Britain was France’s enemy and France was Turkey’s, that the Ottoman Sultanate looked at all kindly upon Elgin, based not on mutual respect but on the hardnosed realist principle ‘my enemy’s enemy is my friend’.

    What is in fact required now is not hardnosed instrumentalism but rather a supreme generosity of internationalist spirit and moral courage. BCRPM’s campaign – the nature and origins of which are set out in the text of the document - has as a result recently acquired a further wave of international support from various widespread anti-colonialist movements for the repatriation of cultural treasures that for centuries have been variously looted or misappropriated, officially or unofficially, by colonial powers and their merchant venturers either for purely personal gratification or as an instrument of national self-advancement or both together.

    To read the text, kindly follow the link here.

    paul cartledge 2

    Professor Paul Cartledge, Vice-Chair of BCRPM and author of this document

  • Ian Jenkins (Senior Curator of Antiquities, British Museum) died suddenly last Saturday 28 November 2020.

    We disagreed of course on the proper abode of the 'Elgin Marbles', but he was a very great scholar/connoisseur and good friend over many years, the last of them blighted by Parkinson's, and I am very sad that he is no longer with us.

    What not many people will know is that he came from what would once have been called a 'humble', that is a working-class, background: his mother, he told me as we were visiting the Greek section of London's West Norwood cemetery together, had been 'in service'.

    He wrote many excellent books and exhibition catalogues, including on the Parthenon sculptures, but my favourite remains Vases and Volcanoes: the Collection of Sir William Hamilton.

    vases ian jenkins

     

    More controversially, he convened and edited the proceedings of a conference devoted to the 'cleaning' of those Parthenon Marbles confined in the B.M.

    ian cleaning

    A recent, revealing interview with him was published in The Society for the Promotion of Hellenic Studies' ARGO magazine, you can read this by folowing the link here.

    Rest in peace.

    ian jenkins collage

     

    Professor Paul Cartledge

    A.G. Leventis Professor of Greek Culture Emeritus

    University  of Cambridge Faculty of Classics

  • The Times, 04 December 2021

    parthenon gallery snip from web site 2

    The Parthenon Gallery in the Acropolis Musem, Athens, Greece.

     George Osborne wrote a Comment piece on page 29 of the Times on Saturday, it was entitled: "It's right to be proud of the British Museum". 

    He goes on to ask: "Should we be ashamed of Britain’s past or should we celebrate it?"

    He adds: " humans are capable of acts of great kindness and appalling brutality towards one another. The artefacts in the British Museum, with their depictions of love and war, reflect that truth over the course of two million years. It is why they help us understand ourselves better. That was the founding purpose when it was established as the first national public museum of the world in 1753, and it remains the purpose today. It was a product less of the British Empire (which was largely created in the following century) and more of the European Enlightenment."

    And he does conceed that much has changed in the last 260 years, praising the 'magnificent Norman Foster roof over the Great Court at the Millennium', which he feels helps the British Museum to confidently call itself “the museum of the world, for the world”.

    Although he insists that the British Museum is also 'just a museum', and that it cannot resolve the contractions between the Enlightenment as a western construct and universal human rights, or support those that question the very existence of the British Museum.

    "Of course, there are those who demand the return of objects they believe we have no right to hold. That is not new either. Lord Byron thought the Elgin marbles should be back at the Parthenon. Our response is not to be dismissive. We are open to lending our artefacts to anywhere and to who can take good care of them and ensure their safe return — which we do every year, including to Greece."

    Sadly he suggests that museums of culture ought not shrink in the face of  'culture wars' - why wars and not cultural cooperation? And that the British Museum needs to tell the story of common humanity. Surely common humanity needs to uphold respect for all countries cultural heritage! 

    To read the full article, follow the link to The Times.

    UK Ambassador to Greece Matthew Lodge tweeted the link to George Osborne's article in the Times and John Tasioulas, Director, Institute for Ethics in AI, Faculty of Philosophy, University of Oxford and a member of BCRPM, quoted Ambassador Lodge's tweet:

     

    John Tasioulas tweet

    TA NEA, Monday 06 December 2021

    Yannis Andritsopulos, UK Correspondent for Ta Nea writes:

    Suzman and Cartledge respond to Osborne

    Reactions to the statements made by the new Chair of the British Museum on the reunification of the “Elgin Marbles” and their "loan" to Athens

    The new Chair of the British Museum, George Osborne, was provocative and uncompromising on the question of the reunification of the Parthenon Sculptures.

    A week after the 'Ta Nea' reported that in a conversation former British Minister, Dennis McShane had with George Osborne, the new Chair of the British Museum rejected any talk of a permanent return of the Sculptures, speaking with "contempt" on the subject. Osborne "struck out once more" on Saturday: in an article in  "The Times" where he calls the Parthenon Sculptures "Elgin Marbles" and suggests that Greece discuss the possibility of borrowing them on the condition that Greece could "take good care of them and ensure their return" to London!"

    It should be noted that the term "Elgin Marbles" has been officially abandoned by the British Museum for many years. The Museum now uses the name "Parthenon Sculptures", both in the signage of the hall that houses them (closed for a whole year after a water leak from the roof) and on its website.


    "Surely there are those who question our right to exist. They did it in 1753, they do it again in 2021. Of course there are those who demand the return of items that they believe we have no right to possess. This is nothing new either. Lord Byron believed that the Elgin Marbles should return to the Parthenon," George  Osborne wrote in the Times.

    And attempting to appear "magnanimous," he adds: "Our response will not be dismissive. We are open to lending items in our collection to anyone who can take good care of them and ensures their safe return - something we do every year, including with Greece," he says, ostentatiously ignoring the request for permanent reunification of the sculptures.

    In response to Osborne, the Chair of the British Committee for the Reunification of the Sculptures (BCRPM), Janet Suzmantells 'Ta Nea': "I will remind him that Lord Byron's reputation remains heroic, while that of Lord Elgin is ragged. He cannot present the error as correct in pretending that the return of the Sculptures is a trivial matter. Greece must take them back and place them where they belong: opposite the brightest building in the world from where they were snatched."


    Speaking to 'Ta Nea', Cambridge Professor Paul Cartledge, Vice-Chair of the BCRPM noted: "An old joke says: Why is the museum called British, since very few of the 8 miilion objects held by the BM are actually British-made'. Are the exhibits actually British? Is the name, British Imperial War Museum more accurate? The time has come for the Sculptures to return permanently to their home."


    This is not the first time that Britain has proposed to lend Greece the Parthenon Sculptures. In the exclusive interview with 'Ta Nea' in January 2019, the director of the British Museum, Hartwig Fischer, said that Greece could borrow the "Marbles" for a limited period of time ("there are no indefinite loans", he explained at that time), but if Greece accepts that they belong to the Britain ("we lend to those who recognize the ownershiop as belonging to the British Museum ").

    Almost 15 years earlier, in April 2007, his predecessor Neil McGregor said that lending the "Marbles" "for three months, six months" would be possible if Greece recognized the British Museum as the legal owner.

    Essentially, what they are asking of Greece is to give up its claim to the Sculptures, "renouncing" its long-standing position (recently reiterated by Kyriakos Mitsotakis and Lina Mendoni) that they are stolen.

    The British Government is demanding the same. In August 2018, in a letter from Culture Minister Jeremy Wright to his Greek counterpart Myrsini Zorba, published by 'Ta Nea', the British minister made it clear that "the museum's commissioners will consider any request for lending and, subsequently, returning any part of the collection, provided that the institution requesting the loan recognises the British Museum as the owner".

    As is well known, Greece cannot accept Britain's ownership of the Sculptures, and will not agree to a loan as long as this condition is set.

    Osborne was elected Chair of the Museum in the summer and assumed the post in October. After his ministerial tenure (2010-2016) he assumed the duties of director of the newspaper "Evening Standard" and advisor to the capital management giant BlackRock and investment bank Robey Warshaw.

    In his article titled "It is right to be proud of the British Museum", he writes that "we do not feel ashamed of the exhibits in our collection" (some of which were controversially acquired during the colonial period and claimed as stolen by various states), since, as he also states, "we remain one of the few places on Earth where you can admire under one roof, the great civilizations of the world."

    To read the Ta Nea article online follow the link here

    Ta Nea Monday 06 December 2021

     

     

  • PARTHENON – TEMPLE AND SYMBOL

    A seminar at Medelhavsmuseet (the Museum of Mediterranean and Near Eastern Antiquities) in Stockholm, on Wednesday, 13 September 2023 at 5:30 - 8:00 p.m


    • The Parthenon as a symbol - from the Persian and Peloponnesian wars and into our time


    Professor Paul Cartledge (University of Cambridge), historian and author of a large number of books on antiquity, also Vice-Chair of the British Committee for the Reunification of the Parthenon Marbles (BCRPM)


    • The poet Constantine Cavafy in 1891: "Give back the Elgin Marbles!"


    Christina von Arbin, architect and Vice-Chair of the Swedish Parthenon Committee


    • The question of reunification - more relevant than ever


    Ingemar Lindahl, Ambassador and Chairman of the Swedish Parthenon Committee


    • The activities of the British and the International Parthenon Committees


    Professor Paul Cartledge, Vice-Chair of the British Committee for the Reunification of the Parthenon Marbles (BCRPM)


    • The Swedish Parthenon Committee 20 years


    Christina von Arbin, Vice-Chair of the Swedish Parthenon Committee


    • Poetry reading


    Kristina Adolphson, actor


    This seminar has been arranged in collaboration between the Swedish Parthenon Committee and Medelhavsmuseet, the Museum of Mediterranean and Near Eastern Antiquities, Stockholm, Sweden.

    Swedish Mediterranean Museum Stockholm

  • The French artist, Auguste Rodin drew inspiration from the headless ancient sculptures. The Parthenon Marbles were his favourite works of art during his 15 visits to the British Museum from 1881 to 1917. Yet this is no argument for the British Museum's director Hartwig Fischer to justify retaining the sculptures from the Parthenon in the British Museum.

    The new exhibition Rodin and the Art of Ancient Greece (26 April – 29 July 2018) at the British Museum may place the sculptures 'in the context of world cultures' but does not justify the BM's refusal to allow Athens to display the surviving pieces as united as possible, and with views to the Parthenon itself.

    'Although the marble stonework of the Parthenon had proven its durability against the ravages of time, it was not indestructible. In 1687, Venetian forces laying siege to Athens shelled the ancient city, igniting a powder magazine stored inside the Parthenon. The resulting explosion was catastrophic, obliterating the cella and the elaborate frieze that had adorned its exterior. Attempts by the Venetians to remove statues from the pediments were similarly disastrous, as multiple sculptures fell to the ground and were shattered beyond repair. Most of the remaining statues and reliefs (known as the "Elgin" or "Parthenon Marbles") were later spirited away in the early 19th Century by Lord Elgin, the British ambassador to the Ottoman Empire. Controversially, these pieces are displayed in the British Museum to this day. Meanwhile, the Parthenon itself has since undergone rigorous restoration and preservation work, with much of the damaged peristyle reassembled to give modern visitors a glimpse of the temple's ancient splendour atop the hill where it has stood for over two thousand years.' 

    If understanding world culture also means understanding history's mistakes, then (where possible) putting right old wrongs can promote cultural and international relations. Reuniting the Parthenon Marbles in Athens ought to be a possibility that supports world cultures for all the right reasons and promotes greater understanding, respect and compassion.

    We are certain that Rodin's exhibition at the British Museum will be exquisite and enjoyed by many, however it can never replace the sheer inspiration that would be enjoyed, by many more, if we could hope to see the surviving sculptures reunited in the superlative Acropolis Museum.

    Hartwig Fischer, director of the British Museum, is also quoted as saying that although other artists had been inspired by the Parthenon sculptures, Rodin had responded "with a passion that was to last a lifetime". The passion and love for the Parthenon Marbles felt by millions of Acropolis Museum visitors will continue forever. A Rodin's exhibition at the British Museum would be equally possible with a loan from Athens to London too.

    Whilst the BM might be trying to recontextualize the sculptures from the Parthenon, a building which still stands - it will never erode the natural thirst of millions of visitors to the Acropolis Museum, hoping to see the unity of this peerless work of art.

    Letter from the Greek Ambassador, H E Dimitris Caramitsos-TzirasDimitris Caramitsos-Tziras to Hartwig Fischer, Director of the British Museum, 25 April  2018. 

    More articles on this include:

    British Museum claims French artist Rodin proves why Parthenon Marbles should stay in Britain

    Rodin's work to go on show in London next to Parthenon marbles

    Rodin's love of the Parthenon sculptures revealed

    Article in the Evening Standard and letter from Chair of the BCRPM to the Evening Standard

    Rodin Eve Standard

    Letters Page Evening Standard:

    Dear Sirs,

    I write as Chair of the British Committee for the Reunification of the Parthenon Marbles, to remind interested parties that although Rodin was much excited by the sculptures he saw in the Museum, and found them inspiring, he nevertheless lamented their exile from the sweet Attic sunlight beloved of Homer: "Toutes les lumières électriques n'ont pas la force de les empêcher de rechercher éternellement la douce lumière d'Homère".

    Those sculptures, which we prefer to attribute to the Parthenon from whence they were grabbed rather than to Elgin the grabber, should now be relinquished back to the city they once crowned. They have inspired artists and thrilled the curious in their gloomy rooms in Bloomsbury for long enough and now the country of their origin deserves their glory, in the museum built especially to house them facing the Acropolis and the still miraculously upright building that they once adorned.

    Yours sincerely,
    Janet Suzman DBE
    London NW3 2RN

     

  • Ta Nea, 01 August 2020

    UK correspondent for Ta Nea, Yannis Andritsopoulos wrote on Saturday 01 August 2020:

    A new chapter in the campaign for the return of the Parthenon Sculptures will start next week, aimed at raising awareness of the public opinion and mobilizing politicians, organizations and public figures in the UK.

    The main slogan of the campaign, run by the British Committee for the Reunification of the Parthenon Marbles, is "Tell the real story", with the BCRPM inviting the British Museum to reveal to its visitors the truth about how the sculptures, displayed in London since 1817, were acquired.

    “We urge the British Museum to tell the full story as Greece is preparing to celebrate 200 years of independence. The Parthenon Marbles were removed by Lord Elgin when Greece could not speak out. Reuniting the surviving sculptures from the Parthenon would be a friendly and just act by a nation looking to take the lead in responding to global challenges,” Dame Janet Suzman, Chair of the British Committee for the Reunification of the Parthenon Marbles, told Ta Nea newspaper.

    The BCRPM is made up of respected British scholars, academics and artists, such as Emeritus Professor of Late Antique and Byzantine Studies Judith Herrin, fellow of the British Academy Professor Oliver Taplin and archaeologist Anthony Snodgrass.

    “The Parthenon Marbles in the British Museum (since 1817) are a, perhaps the classic illustration of the colonialist-imperialist complex that so disfigures that august collection today. The large fortune acquired by the Museum’s founding collector and benefactor, Dr Hans Sloane, was itself deeply mired in the slave trade, and Lord Elgin, ambassador to the Sublime Porte, was able to loot the Parthenon marbles only thanks to Britain’s being an enemy of the Ottoman Sultan’s enemy, Napoleonic France, at a time when Greece was a possession of the Ottoman Empire. Next March 25, 2021, will mark the bicentenary of the Greeks’ declaration of independence from the Ottoman yoke after a subjection of nearly 37 decades. Is it too much to hope that it will also mark a significant moment in the decolonisation of the British Museum” said Professor Paul Cartledge, A.G. Leventis Professor of Greek Culture emeritus, University of Cambridge, Vice-Chair of the BCRPM.

    Paul plus quote

    The BCRPM has produced a leaflet aimed at deconstructing the British Museum's arguments which are included in a leaflet distributed to visitors of Room 18 - also known as the Duveen Gallery - which houses the Sculptures. It says that this leaflet contains "inaccuracies and untruths" (the Museum goes so far as to claim that the Greek authorities completed Elgin's work because they transferred the Sculptures to the Acropolis Museum!).

    Therefore, the BCRPM produced its own leaflet which contains the "true story" of the Parthenon Sculptures. It will soon send it to the British government, political parties and MPs, trustees of the British Museum and the British media. In addition, on specific dates in the fall, activists will distribute the booklet to British Museum visitors.

    The campaign, which will unfold in the coming months, accompanied by the hashtags #TellTheStory, #TimeIsNow and #BMJustDoIt, is dedicated to the inspirers of the campaign in Britain, Eleni and James Cubitt, who had been urged to launch it by Melina Mercouri.

    "Lusieri, the artist hired by Lord Elgin, literally demolished the temple so that he could extract the Sculptures," Robert Browning, a professor of Classics at the University of London and first Chair of the BCRPM, said on April 16, 1983, interviewed by Hara Kiosse for Ta Nea.

    "That is why, when I hear that Elgin took the marbles so that they do not end up becoming quicklime in the hands of the Greeks, or that the British Museum keeps them because they are in danger due to air pollution of Athens, I feel that what they say is sacrilege."

    Thirty-seven years on, the Museum still houses Pheidias's masterpieces, with its spokesperson telling Ta Nea that "the possibility of their permanent return is not being considered" and Marlen Godwin, the BCRPM's International Relations Officer, responding: "We will not give up. We will continue to call for the reunification of the Sculptures. Until then, we call on the Museum to reveal the truth to those who visit it to see the Marbles. That's the least it can do. "

    Main points of the leaflet here.

    TA NEA today small

    ta nea 01 August 2020 small

    Ta Nea, 01 August 2020

     

  • http://www.youtube.com

    LONDON COLLOQUY 19 JUNE 2012

    Andrew Dismore

    The Parthenon sculptures: a legal perspective, Andrew Dismore

    1 Ownership: who do the sculptures belong to, in law? 

    The issue of ownership of the Parthenon Sculptures (PS) has vexed politicians, museum curators, campaigners and the public for decades: but does it matter? The way the PS came into the possession of the British  Museum (BM). is a matter of relatively settled historical record. Lord Elgin removed them from the Parthenon under an Ottoman firman, the legal effect of which has been hotly disputed ever since. The first argument is that the firman did not extend to the wholesale removal effected by Lord Elgin; and secondly, the Ottoman firman could not and did not lawfully allow the removal of the sculptures anyway. Be that as it may, Lord Elgin shipped the sculptures to his London home. His expenses were substantial, and his subsequent financial difficulties led him to negotiate for the sale of his collections to the BM In 1816, a House of Commons Select Committee considered the authority by which Lord Elgin's collection was acquired, the circumstances under which that authority was granted, the merit of the sculptures and the importance of making them public property and their value as objects of sale. It adjudged the sculptures to have been properly acquired,  both fit for and worthy of public purchase, and recommended a purchase price of £35,000, less than half the expenditure claimed by Lord Elgin.

    The Report was debated in the House of Commons. The House voted the money for the purchase by 82 votes to 30, and legislation was then passed giving effect to the recommendations. The collection was purchased from public funds and vested in the Trustees of the BM. The BM (and UK government) case is that the trustees of the British Museum are the legal owners of the Elgin Marbles. They were vested in the BM by the Act of Parliament in 1816, and that is it. There have been suggestions that the BM’s ownership could be challenged, The only way of resolving the ownership issue definitively would be a court declaration or judgment, but anyone attempting to do so would face insurmountable obstacles, in my view. But who owned the PS before Lord Elgin took them? Greece did not exist as a country, nor for that matter did it, when the sculptures were made, as Greece then was a collection of city states. The legal authority was almost certainly vested in the Ottomans and Greece did not emerge as a nation state till the 1820s. It would be necessary to establish and then apply the law of property and of contract as it stood in 1816.  Anyone challenging ownership would need to prove the museum had not lawfully acquired the PS.  A major obstacle is the 200 years delay and the law of limitation. Whilst the limitation period might be arguably disapplied from 1816, it would be a strong defence to say the clock started running at the latest when the restitution campaign began in earnest in the 1980s and started claiming ownership on behalf of Greece- and the limitation period would long have expired since then. The basic principles of the relevant English  law have not substantially changed.  It would be necessary to prove the 1816 Government was not a bona fide purchaser (BFP) for value without notice –an innocent party who purchases property without notice of any other party's claim to the title of that property. Even when a party fraudulently sells property to a BFP, that BFP will usually take good title to the property despite the competing claims of the other party. Bearing in mind the extensive parliamentary debate examining this precise issue at the time, this would be very difficult to establish. And ownership was not challenged by the Ottomans before the parliamentary committee. And as the purchase and transfer was by Act of Parliament, any challenge would face the overwhelming hurdle of the supremacy of Parliament, too. Parliament has overridden private property rights for the public good, including without compensation on other occasions. Any legal challenge could expect to end up in the Supreme Court. Given the analysis above, it is pretty well a lost cause, to think the Court would find any other outcome than that the PS belong to the BM as English law would be applied.

    2 Ownership: does it matter?

    In the end, such a legal challenge would be an expensive and time consuming side show, as the political debate has moved on. Moreover if there were to be a case and it failed, such a defeat in the courts would be a major setback for the mainstream campaign. Even if the claim was successful, there would then be a conflict between the courts and the statute and consequent powers of the trustees, so a substantive change of the law through statute would probably still be required. The real issue is now generally seen by campaigners both in Greece and the UK as not to be who owns the PS, but where they are physically located, with suggestions about loans of the PS or a BM annex in Athens as part of the new Parthenon Museum, for example. The moral and political arguments about this point are for other presentations at the colloquy and not for this paper- but resolving the issue of location raises legal issues which are at the very heart of the debate. The major obstacle to overcome is the British Museum Act 1963, under which the PS collection is held.

    3 The legislation:

    a) The British Museum Act 1963 The Act is reproduced in full in its current form as an appendix to this paper. The Act was passed in part to provide for the separation of the Natural History Museum and the separation of the collections between the BM and the NHM. In summary, the relevant provisions are: The BM Trustees have power to enter into contracts and other agreements, to acquire and hold and land and other property, and to do all other things that appear to them necessary or expedient for the purposes of their functions.

    The Trustees must keep the collections of the Museum within its authorised repositories, except if it is expedient to remove objects temporarily for any purpose connected with the administration of the Museum and the care of its collections.

    The Trustees, so far as appears to them to be practicable, must ensure the objects in the Museum (including reserve collection objects) are made available for inspection by members of the public.

    The Trustees may lend for public exhibition (whether in the United Kingdom or elsewhere) any object comprised in the collections of the Museum: provided that the Trustees shall have regard to the interests of students and other persons visiting the Museum, to the physical condition and degree of rarity of the object in question, and to any risks to which it is likely to be exposed.

    Objects vested in the Trustees as part of the collections shall not be disposed of by them otherwise than under section 5 or 9 of this Act [or section 6 of the Museums and Galleries Act 1992]

    Section 5 provides that the Trustees may sell, exchange, give away or otherwise dispose of any object vested in them and comprised in their collection [only] if –

    (a) the object is duplicate of another object, or (b) the object appears to the Trustees to have been made not earlier than the year 1850, and substantially consists of printed matter of which a copy made by photography or a process akin to photography is held by the Trustees, or (c) in the opinion of the Trustees the object is unfit to be retained in the collections of the Museum and can be disposed of without detriment to the interests of students:

    (Section 9 is not relevant as it stands, as this now only relates to transfers between the BM and NHM)

     4 The legislation:

     b) the Museums and Galleries Act 1992; the Human Tissue Act 2004; and the Holocaust (Return of Cultural Objects) Act 2009 Section 6 of the Museums and Galleries Act 1992 allows the transfer of objects or related documents between institutions if the transfer is to any other body for the time being specified in Schedule 5 to the Act: relevant extracts are annexed to this paper, including the list of specified bodies, being major museums (including the BM) galleries etc., all situated in the UK. The Human Tissue Act 2004 enables the trustees of the BM to de-accession human remains if it appears to them to be appropriate. The Holocaust (Return of Cultural Objects) Act 2009, which was a private member’s Bill I promoted,  confers power to return certain cultural objects on grounds relating to events occurring during the Nazi era. It applies to a list of bodies, including the BM.  A body to which the Act applies may transfer an object from its collections, if the Advisory Panel has recommended the transfer and the Secretary of State has approved the recommendation. The “Advisory Panel” considers claims which are made in respect of objects, and relate to events occurring during the Nazi era.

    5 The current legislation: summary of effect

    The legislation therefore forbids the BM to dispose of items except only in limited circumstances, such as duplication, printed material, or not worthy of being in its collection. It can voluntarily dispose of Holocaust looted art to its rightful owner, and can transfer to other major UK museums. Clearly none of these criteria apply to the PS.

    The BM’s main argument is that it is a “world museum”, and the PS are integral to its story of the history of art and culture through the millennia. This is illustrated by the recent Radio 4 series, of BM director Sir Neil Macgregor, “the History of the World through a 100 objects” (incidentally I highly recommend it, in its own right). However, The BM has used its powers to dispose of other items. In March 2002, it was reported that the British Museum had sold some of its artefacts. The BM admitted selling 30 pieces of Benin bronze in the 1950s and 1960s. (The detail is not clear, but could well predate the 1963 Act so is of limited relevance as a precedent).

    However, what is known is that the British Museum sold 21 duplicate prints in 1986 and a duplicate set of Hiroshige woodblock prints in 1995. Some 2,600 duplicate coins, medals and badges and 117 duplicate western prints have been exchanged for similar material since 1972. Two bronze plaques from Benin were exchanged for a unique bronze horseman in the style of the Lower Niger Bronze industry in 1972. A relic of cannibalism, judged unfit to be retained in the Museum's collection was exchanged with Fiji for a collection of prehistoric sherds in 1975. In 1991, an English court recognised the legal personality of an Indian temple claiming the recovery of an idol, notwithstanding that it was incapable of accepting formally legal personality under English law.

    Whilst the closest similarity is with the Benin Bronzes return, the facts of that case are different and can be made to fit the existing law. When they were taken form Africa in the 1870s, this was seen under the law as it then imperiously stood as either acquisition by right of conquest or war reparations.  Accordingly, this explains  how we end up in the “pass the parcel” approach of the BM and Government, each saying it is the responsibility of the other. The British Museum considers that it is not permitted under its current statute to engage in negotiations to return objects (in the context of the PS). The introduction of any legislation to provide for the return of the Elgin marbles would be the responsibility of the Government. It can however, lend to other museums, including overseas, in tightly controlled circumstances. It is arguable both ways, as to whether in fact the museum could lend the PS under these restrictions (access, condition, rarity, and risk).

    6 changing the law: political will

    It is clear there is no current political will within the coalition government to change the law to overcome these statutory obstacles. When in opposition,  their spokesperson said that the relationship between the Department and the British Museum is underpinned by a crucial arm’s length principle whereby Ministers set the financial, administrative, legal and overall policy framework for public bodies, but those bodies have a considerable and proper measure of independence in individual decision making. It is a long-standing policy of successive Governments in the UK that decisions relating to museum collections are for museum trustees to take, and the Government do not intervene. Nor was there any enthusiasm for changing the law under the previous Labour Government, though there was considerable support on the then Labour backbenches with one Early Day Motion (EDM- an expression of opinion on the backbenches only) attracting over 100 MPs’ signatures, mainly Labour. The Labour Government’s view was that the sculptures were acquired legally and that they are best housed in the British Museum in a multi-cultural context, seen free of charge by up to 5 million visitors a year.... to be clear about the responsibility of the British Museum for the Sculptures. The Trustees have a statutory duty to protect their collections and this duty could only be over-ridden by primary legislation amending Section 5 of the British Museum Act 1963, relating to the disposal of objects in the collections.

    7 drafting a Bill

    So whilst there is no immediate prospect of a reform of the law to enable the return of the PS to Greece, what would such a Bill look like? And what are the potential problems facing it? These can be categorised as both political and legal.

    If a Bill is seen to be very specific and referring only to a particular private interest, for example referring only to the PS and their repatriation, there is a risk the Bill could be deemed to be hybrid. A hybrid bill is a public Bill which affects the private interests of a particular person or organization. It is generally initiated by the Government on behalf of non-Parliamentary bodies such as local authorities and is treated like a private Bill for the beginning of its passage through Parliament. This gives individuals and bodies an opportunity to oppose the bill or to seek its amendment before a select committee in either or in both Houses. This procedure is long drawn out and very problematic, so it is important that any Bill cannot be seen to be hybrid, so it need to be as broadly drawn as possible, and certainly not just referring to the PS alone. This then creates a political problem: the “floodgates” argument. One of the main arguments deployed against the PS return is that if the PS are returned, this will feed demands for other cultural objects to be repatriated too. The most obvious case is that of the Benin Bronzes, but no doubt we can all think of others. The BM strongly argues that removal of the marbles to Athens would encourage similar claims for other objects from other countries which would undermine the comparative principle at the heart of the British Museum's purpose. A subset of this argument that reinforces it is the issue of ownership, deal with above. Of course the political arguments about floodgates are somewhat spurious; there have been exceptions already, most notably the issue of holocaust restitution and human remains, which have not led to a long list of claims. The moral difference appears to be that the events leading to their inclusion in our national collections were more recent than Lord Elgin’s depredations; and the legislation applies not just to the BM but a wider range of institutions. But any Bill that did not head  this off would find it opposed in Parliament on these grounds. A Bill also needs to overcome the problem of the relationship between the BM and Government: the “arms length” relationship that implies ministers cannot order the trustees what to do and that decisions as to the collection should be primarily for the trustees. So the challenge for any Bill is to be sufficiently broad to avoid hybridity, yet sufficiently narrow to avoid these political  problems.

    8 The British Museum Act 1963 (Amendment) Bill: summary of the Bill As set out above, at present the British Museum is prevented by statute from disposing of objects in its collections except in very limited circumstances. A copy of the Bill is annexed  to this paper  The Bill’s purpose is to amend the British Museum Act 1963 to enable the British Museum to transfer to another institution, for public exhibition, any object from its collections, in certain circumstances, where public access is guaranteed. The Bill is in two parts, first providing a more general power of transfer, having regard to the likely public access in the recipient institution, the interest of students and visitors to the museum, to the condition and rarity of the object, and any risks the object might face. The second part of the Bill empowers the secretary of State to require the transfer, if in his opinion, certain circumstances are met. Those circumstances can be summarised as:

     • where the object would be more widely accessible to visitors than in the British Museum

    • where it would be more appropriately displayed in the recipient institution than in the British Museum by reason of its historic links, or

    • where the object came to form part of the collections of the British Museum in circumstances which make its retention in the collections undesirable or inappropriate.

     To overcome the hybridity issue, the Bill confers these general powers without specific reference to the PS,  but there is only one situation in which it might realistically apply: to repatriate the Parthenon Marbles to Greece. So the Bill firstly empowers the BM trustees to effect a transfer by amending section 9 of the 1963 Act,  overcoming the existing restrictions. And it is the case that the Bill provides for the Secretary of State to override the trustees, which it is accepted interferes with the arms length relationship, but does so in only limited circumstances and after consultation with the trustees. In the end, this has to be necessary, to provide the political impetus to effect a return of the PS. The ownership issue is sidestepped by referring to transfer of the objects rather than arguing over rights of possession, but brings into play the circumstances of acquisition as one of the possible triggers to bring the powers in the Bill into play. The Bill also provides that any transfer should be effected at the expense of the receiving institution, which protects the UK public purse- but may now present a serious obstacle, given the present economic crisis in Greece. The Bill commenced its second reading debate on 15th May 2009, coincidentally on the same date as the Holocaust (Return of Cultural Objects) Act 2009, but whilst the latter Bill secured its second reading and went on to become law, the British Museum Act 1963 (Amendment) Bill did not: it was “talked out” and has no immediate prospect of proceeding in the current Parliament. Nevertheless, I would argue that it provides the best solution, to overcome the present legal obstacles should the parliamentary circumstances change, and is ready to take “off the shelf” in that eventuality. The second reading debate is set out below.

    9 British Museum Act 1963 (Amendment) Bill: Second Reading Debate Mr. Andrew Dismore (Hendon) (Lab): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time. I suspect that I will not get the same consensus on this Bill, which, by happy coincidence, is back to back with my previous one—I think it will be a case of “won one, lost one” for me today. I accept that this Bill is a little more contentious than the Holocaust (Stolen Art) Restitution Bill, but it is nevertheless a relatively modest measure and aims to work in very limited circumstances. The Bill’s purpose is to change the British Museum Act 1963 so that the British Museum can transfer to another institution, for public exhibition, any object from its collections, in limited circumstances—where public access is guaranteed, where the object “would be more widely accessible to visitors...than in the British Museum”, where it “would be more appropriately displayed in the recipient institution than in the British Museum by reason of its historic links”, or because the object “came to form part of the collections of the Museum in circumstances which make its retention in the collections undesirable or inappropriate.” That is a general power, but I can think of only one set of objects to which it could realistically relate: the Parthenon sculptures. The time has surely come for the Parthenon sculptures to be reunited in the brand new museum that has been built on the Acropolis in Athens and is due to open next month. The issue is not who owns the sculptures, although they ended up in the British Museum through a very dubious history, but where they are best kept and displayed. In Athens, they would be reunited with the other half of the sculptures—those not taken by Lord Elgin over 200 years ago. Indeed, some of the marbles are literally cut in two, with half the body in London and half in Athens. They would be seen in their correct context, aligned with the Parthenon and in the right Mediterranean light. The argument for their return is popular with the British people, and Greece deserves its heritage back. The Parthenon sculptures—some people call them the Elgin marbles—are a matter of national identity to Greece. I have travelled in Greece over many years. If one asks anyone with any mental image of Athens or Greece to name the first thing that comes to mind, it will be the Parthenon. That is true for visitors, and even more so for Greeks worldwide. The Greek Government take a phlegmatic approach. They are not arguing about how the sculptures came to the British Museum, how they were obtained by Lord Elgin, or who should own them. The argument is simply about their location so far from their original home; Greece has waived all its other claims. The archaeological case is a strong one. The sculptures would be reunified in their original topographical, historical and cultural context. Contrary to popular understanding, not all the sculptures are in the British Museum. The frieze originally consisted of 111 panels, of which about 97 survive. Fifty-six are in the British Museum,40 are still in situ or in the Acropolis museum, one is in the Louvre, and there are fragments in Copenhagen, Vienna and elsewhere. Of the original metopes, 39 are in situ or in the Acropolis museum, and only 15 are in the British Museum. Some sculptures are broken, with heads and torsos split between Athens and London. In the case of the torso of Poseidon, the front—what one might call the Poseidon six-pack—is in Athens, while his rear, shoulders and back are in London; he is split straight down the middle. To view the sculpture, one would have to travel between Athens and London, as 98 per cent. of it is split between them. The Parthenon is the most important symbol of Greek cultural heritage, yet the sculptures are not properly displayed in the British Museum. They not only fail to appear to form a whole, which they do not, but are exhibited on the inside of a wall rather than on the outside. The new Acropolis museum intends to correct all this. The museum, now complete, is ready to re-house the marbles and will make sure that these unique objects are seen at their greatest advantage and close to their original position. The British Museum has always claimed that the sculptures were well cared for, but that is not the case. In the 1930s, they were cleaned, more or less with a Brillo pad and a wire brush, in the mistaken belief that they were originally brilliant white, and in doing so some of the residual ancient paint was taken off, as was the honey-coloured patina of ages. The Parthenon cannot come to London. Reunification would be voluntary, and it would not entail ceding legal titles of ownership and rights. The new museum on the Acropolis opens on 20 June. It is on the same alignment as the Parthenon, slightly below it on the foothills of the Acropolis. It contains a shell of the same dimensions to enable the marbles to be displayed on an outer wall, in their proper relationship, with windows out on to the Parthenon, lit by Mediterranean light reflected in through them. The Guardian recently published a review of the museum, which says: “Athens’s new museum is spectacular, even without its star exhibits...The new museum is undoubtedly going to be a huge tourist attraction. Its breathtaking design, with natural light flooding every corner, is a huge achievement in itself.” What a gesture it would be if our country were at long last able to do the decent thing and return the Parthenon sculptures to their rightful home. Athens has been transformed over the past few years; as a regular visitor, I am astounded by how it has changed. The archaeological sites have been pedestrianised, linking them all together, including the new museum, and the restoration of the Acropolis and the Parthenon itself has gone extremely well. Greece would not bring any other claims, but what is important is that the appalling block to a cultural exchange with Greece would end. We have seen objects and major collections lent to the UK from other places, but no major collections from Greece, and that is because of the dispute over the Parthenon sculptures. How wonderful it would be if, for example, we could see the Mycenaean treasures in the British museum, or some of the Macedonian objects from Philip the Great’s grave. How wonderful it would be if we could see some of the wonderful Minoan artefacts from Crete. We will never see any of those while the dispute continues. Greece has made it clear that it would not leave our art galleries empty, and the time has now come. The population believe that, all the opinion polls show it, and when we have tested it through early-day motions there has been a majority in the House as well. The Government say that, ultimately, it is a matter for the trustees of the British Museum. I cannot agree. The trustees’ refusal so far to deal with this issue is adversely affecting our relations with Greece and our reputation around the world. Greece made major concessions under the previous PASOK Government of George Papandreou, with Mr. Venizelos as Culture Minister, and those concessions have been carried forward by the current Greek Government. Their offer to provide a new home for the Parthenon sculptures on the Acropolis site is one that we should not and cannot refuse. Our Government should give the British Museum an extremely powerful steer to stop its dog-in-a-manger approach and allow the return of the marbles to Athens. My Bill would provide a mechanism to do that, and I hope that the House will accept that it is a moral, if not legal, obligation to return stolen goods back to where they belong 200 years later. Hugh Robertson (Faversham and Mid-Kent) (Con): I start, as I did on the previous Bill, by congratulating the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) on introducing the Bill. I congratulate him also on his success with the previous Bill. As he correctly surmised, I suspect that I shall not be able to be quite as helpful on this occasion. It might inform the debate if we considered for a moment the background details that affect the British Museum. It is one of the most visited attractions anywhere in the UK. Last year it had more than 6 million visits, which far exceeded the Department for Culture, Media and Sport target of 4.5 million. The year before there were a record 5 million visits. It is one of 22 museums and galleries that are sponsored by the Department and receive grant in aid. Of those, 14 are described as nationals because they were founded by Acts of Parliament. The British Museum received just over £41.5 million in revenue last year and just over £3 million in capital grant in aid from the Department. The Department has just confirmed the level of funding that it will provide the museum with for the next three years. As the Bill suggests, the British Museum was set up by Act of Parliament, back in 1753. It was the first national museum in the world. The collection that it houses spans 2 million years of human history and contains art and antiques from ancient and living cultures. Its aim is to hold, for the benefit and education of humanity, a collection representative of world cultures, and to ensure that the collection is housed in safety, conserved properly, curated, researched and exhibited. The relationship between the Department and the British Museum is underpinned by a crucial arm’s length principle whereby Ministers set the financial, administrative, legal and overall policy framework for public bodies, but those bodies have a considerable and proper measure of independence in individual decision making. When asked about the matter in Parliament, the right hon. Member for Barking the predecessor of the Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, the hon. Member for Stevenage (Barbara Follett), stated: “It is a long-standing policy of successive Governments in the UK that decisions relating to museum collections are for museum trustees to take, and the Government do not intervene.”—[ Official Report, 5 February 2008; Vol. 471, c. 1040W.] That is a principle with which we would wish to concur. Under the British Museum Act 1963, which the Bill would amend, the trustees of the British Museum are the corporate body with the legal duty to hold the museum’s collection and make it available to a worldwide audience. The museum is, of course, governed by a board of 25 trustees who are non-executive and unpaid. On the disposal of artefacts from the British Museum, the trustees’ general powers are limited to the disposal of objects that are duplicates, that are unfit to be retained, that have become useless for the museum’s purposes and that are pre-1850 printed matter of which it holds photographic or other copies. Special new powers of disposal have been added to cater for special situations when those limitations have stood in the way of returning objects in response to acknowledged moral claims by former owners or their successors. One example of such a power, which the Human Tissue Act 2004 introduced, enables the trustees of the museum to de-accession human remains if it appears to them to be appropriate. The Chairman of the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport, my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale), noted in the Committee’s report, “Caring for our Collections”: “It seems probable that there will at some time in the future be legislation to confer another special power, so that national museums will be permitted to return items which have been ‘spoilated’. Legislation has been recommended by the Spoliation Advisory Panel, which was set up to resolve claims from people, or their heirs, who lost property during the Nazi era”— as we discussed during the previous Bill’s debate— “which is now held in UK national collections. It advises both the claimants and the institution where the object is held, as to what action may be taken. The Panel provides an alternative to legal action, aiming to achieve a solution that is fair and just to everyone involved, taking into account the moral issues of every case”. However, the British Museum has a lending policy to allow its objects to be used in exhibitions elsewhere. Its trustees are able to make loans for the following reasons: first, to further knowledge, understanding and scholarship relating to the works in its care; secondly, to make the collections more widely accessible within the UK and throughout the world; thirdly, to increase national and international co-operation by the exchange of material and exhibitions; and, finally, to enhance the reputation of the British Museum and its good standing nationally and internationally. The trustees of the British Museum make loans under powers conferred by section 4 of the 1963 Act, which is up for amendment today. The Act states that the British Museum may lend for public exhibition (whether in the United Kingdom or elsewhere) any object comprised in the collections of the Museum: Provided that in deciding whether or not to lend any such object, and in determining the time for which, and the conditions subject to which, any such object is to be lent, the British Museum shall have regard to the interests of students and other persons visiting the Museum, to the physical condition and degree of rarity of the object in question, and to any risks to which it is likely to be exposed.” Those points cover the background to the matter. However, five particular issues are worthy of consideration. First, we are concerned that if the Bill is passed, it will breach the arm’s length principle ensuring that Ministers of any party are not able to interfere with the day-to-day running of our national museums and galleries. Secondly, we believe that the British Museum is unique among world museums, in that its collection is able to tell the whole history of human civilisation under one roof. It therefore seems wrong to remove the Parthenon sculptures and put at risk that vital collection and that history. Thirdly, it is important that the Parthenon sculptures stay at a museum where they are properly preserved and available to a world public for free, seven days a week. Indeed, by chance, I went to see them myself last Sunday. Fourthly, the British Museum trustees already have a power to loan the sculptures for a period in response to an appropriate request. I am not aware of any ongoing discussions along those lines with the trustees, but, indeed, that power already exists. Finally, a key part of encouraging people to visit museums is ensuring that our museums, particularly nationally, have high-quality exhibits. For all those reasons, I have grave reservations about the Bill. I know that the Minister wants a couple of minutes to give her winding-up speech, so I shall sit down, but before I do it would be wrong of me not to say that I am afraid that my party too has grave reservations about the Bill. 2.29 pm The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Barbara Follett): Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker— Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): Order.

    10 Appendices: the statutory provisions Relevant extracts from: BRITISH MUSEUM ACT 1963

    An Act to alter the composition of the Trustees of the British Museum, to provide for the separation from the British Museum of the British Museum (Natural History), to make new provision with respect to the regulation of the two Museums and their collections in place of that made by the British Museum Act 1753 and enactments amending or supplementing that Act, and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid.

    2 General powers of Trustees

    The Trustees of the British Museum shall have power, subject to the restrictions imposed on them by virtue of any enactment (whether contained in this Act or not), to enter into contracts and other agreements, to acquire and hold and land and other property, and to do all other things that appear to them necessary or expedient for the purposes of their functions.

    3 Keeping and inspection of collections

    (1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, it shall be the duty of the Trustees of the British Museum to keep the objects comprised in the collections of the Museum within the authorised repositories of the Museum, except in so far as they may consider it expedient to remove them temporarily for any purpose connected with the administration of the Museum and the care of its collections.

    (2) Where it appears to the Trustee that any such objects cannot conveniently be kept within the authorised repositories, they may store them at other premises in Great Britain if satisfied that they can be stored in those premises without detriment to the purposes of the Museum.

    (3) It shall be the duty of the Trustees to secure, so far as appears to them to be practicable, that the objects comprised in the collections of the Museum (including objects stored under the preceding subsection) are, when required for inspection by members of the public, made available in one or other of the authorised repositories under such conditions as the Trustees think fit to impose for preserving the safety of the collections and ensuring the proper administration of the Museum.

    (4) Objects vested in the Trustees as part of the collections of the Museum shall not be disposed of by them otherwise than under section 5 or 9 of this Act [or section 6 of the Museums and Galleries Act 1992].

    4 Lending of objects

    The Trustees of the British museum may lend for public exhibition (whether in the United Kingdom or elsewhere) any object comprised in the collections of the Museum:

    Provided that in deciding whether or not to lend any such object, and in determining the time for which, and the conditions subject to which, any such objects is to be lent, the Trustees shall have regard to the interests of students and other persons visiting the Museum, to the physical condition and degree of rarity of the object in question, and to any risks to which it is likely to be exposed.

    5 Disposal of objects

    (1) The Trustees of the British Museum may sell, exchange, give away or otherwise dispose of any object vested in them and comprised in their collection if - (a) the object is duplicate of another object, or (b) the object appears to the Trustees to have been made not earlier than the year 1850, and substantially consists of printed matter of which a copy made by photography or a process akin to photography is held by the Trustees, or (c) in the opinion of the Trustees the object is unfit to be retained in the collections of the Museum and can be disposed of without detriment to the interests of students:

    Provided that where an object has become vested in the Trustees by virtue of a gift or bequest the powers conferred by this subsection shall not be exercisable as respects that object in a manner inconsistent with any condition attached to the gift or bequest.

    (2) The Trustees may destroy or otherwise dispose of any object vested in them and comprised in their collections if satisfied that it has become useless for the purposes of the Museum by reason of damage, physical deterioration, or infestation by destructive organisms.

    (3) Money accruing to the Trustees by virtue of an exercise of the powers conferred by this section [or section 6 of the Museums and Galleries Act 1992] shall be laid out by them in the purchase of objects to be added to the collections of the Museum.

    9 Transfers to other institutions

    (1) Any movable property vested in the Trustees of either Museum may be transferred by them to the Trustee of the other Museum                          

    BRITISH MUSEUM ACT 1963 (AMENDMENT) BILL

    A B I L L

    TO Amend the British Museum Act 1963 to permit the transfer of artefacts in the British Museum; to confer powers on the Secretary of State to require the transfer of artefacts in specified circumstances; and for connected urposes.

    BE IT ENACTED by the Queen’s most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:—

    1 Amendment of British Museum Act 1963

    (1) In section 9 of the British Museum Act 1963 (c. 24) (transfers to other institutions) after subsection (1) insert—

    “(2) The Trustees of the British Museum may transfer to another institution for public exhibition any object comprised in the collections of the Museum: Provided that in deciding whether or not to transfer any such object, the Trustees shall have regard to the probable conditions of public access to the object in the recipient institution, to the interests of students and other persons visiting the Museum, to the physical condition and degree of rarity of the object in question, and to any risks to which it is likely to be exposed.

    (3) The Secretary of State may require the Trustees of the British Museum to transfer to another institution for public exhibition any object comprised in the collections of the Museum if, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, the object— (a) would be more widely accessible to visitors in the recipient institution than in the British Museum, (b) would be more appropriately displayed in the recipient institution than in the British Museum by reason of its historic links with the country or region in which that institution is situated, or (c) came to form part of the collections of the Museum in circumstances which make its retention in the collections undesirable or inappropriate.

     (4) Before exercising the power in subsection (3) the Secretary of State must— (a) consult the Trustees of the British Museum, and (b) have regard to the considerations set out in the proviso to subsection (2). (5) A transfer under subsection (2) or (3) shall be effected only with the consent and at the expense of the recipient institution.”

    2 Short title and commencement (1) This Act may be cited as the British Museum Act 1963 (Amendment) Act 2010. (2) This Act comes into force at the end of the period of 2 months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.

    Relevant extracts from: MUSEUMS AND GALLERIES ACT 1992

    6 Transfer of objects or related documents between institutions.

    (1)Any body for the time being specified in Part I of Schedule 5 to this Act may, by way of sale, gift or exchange, transfer an object the property in which is vested in them and which is comprised in their collection, if the transfer is to any other body for the time being specified in either Part of that Schedule. (2)This section applies in relation to a document as it applies in relation to an object other than a document. (3)Where the property in an object has become vested in a body subject to a trust or condition, the power conferred by subsection (1) above shall be exercisable in a manner inconsistent with the trust or condition if the erson who first imposed the trust or condition has, or his personal representatives or (in Scotland) his executors have, consented to the exercise of the power in that manner. (4)Where a body in whom an object has become vested subject to a trust or condition transfers the object under this section to another body, the object shall be held by that other body subject to the same trust or ondition. (5)The powers conferred on a body by subsection (1) above are in addition to any other powers of transfer which the body may have. (6)The Secretary of State may by order amend Schedule 5 to this Act by adding any body in the United Kingdom to those for the time being specified in that Schedule. (7)The power to make an order under subsection (6) above shall be exercisable by statutory instrument subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.  (8)The power of the Secretary of State to make an order under subsection (6) may, for the purpose of this section’s application to transfers of objects by bodies in Scotland, be exercised separately.

    Schedule 5 Part I Transferors and transferees The Board of Trustees of the Armouries The British Library Board The Trustees of the British Museum The Trustees of the Imperial War Museum The Board of Governors of the Museum of London The Board of Trustees of the National Gallery The Board of Trustees of the National Galleries of Scotland The Board of Trustees of the National Library of Scotland The Trustees of the National Maritime Museum The Board of Trustees of the National Museums and Galleries on Merseyside The Board of Trustees of the National Museums of Scotland The Board of Trustees of the National Portrait Gallery The Trustees of the Natural History Museum The Board of Trustees of the Science Museum The Board of Trustees of the Tate Gallery The Board of Trustees of the Victoria and Albert Museum The Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission for England

    Part II Transferees only Court of Governors of the National Library of Wales The Council of the National Museum of Wales The Trustees of the Ulster Museum The Trustees of the Ulster Folk and Transport Museum The Board of Trustees of The National Museums and Galleries of Northern Ireland Historic Royal Palaces The National Trust for Places of Historic Interest or Natural Beauty

    HOLOCAUST (RETURN OF CULTURAL OBJECTS)ACT 2009

    An Act to confer power to return certain cultural objects on grounds relating to events occurring during the Nazi era.

    BE IT ENACTED by the Queen’s most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:—

    1 Bodies to which this Act applies This Act applies to the following bodies— The Board of Trustees of the Armouries, The British Library Board, The Trustees of the British Museum, The Trustees of the Imperial War Museum, The Board of Trustees for the National Galleries of Scotland, The Board of Trustees of the National Gallery, The Trustees of the National Library of Scotland, The Trustees of the National Maritime Museum, The Board of Trustees of the National Museums and Galleries on Merseyside, The Board of Trustees of the National Museums of Scotland, The Board of Trustees of the National Portrait Gallery, The Trustees of the Natural History Museum, The Board of Trustees of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, The Board of Trustees of the Science Museum, The Board of Trustees of the Tate Gallery, The Board of Trustees of the Victoria and Albert Museum, The Board of Trustees of the Wallace Collection.

    2 Power to return victims’ property (1) A body to which this Act applies may transfer an object from its collections if the following conditions are met. (2) Condition 1 is that the Advisory Panel has recommended the transfer. (3) Condition 2 is that the Secretary of State has approved the Advisory Panel’s recommendation. (4) The Secretary of State may approve a recommendation for the transfer of an object from the collections of a Scottish body only with the consent of the Scottish Ministers. (5) “Scottish body” means— The Board of Trustees for the National Galleries of Scotland, The Trustees of the National Library of Scotland, The Board of Trustees of the National Museums of Scotland. (6) The power conferred by subsection (1) does not affect any trust or condition subject to which any object is held. (7) The power conferred by subsection (1) is an additional power.

    3 “Advisory Panel” (1) For the purposes of this Act “Advisory Panel” means a panel for the time being designated by the Secretary of State for those purposes. (2) The Secretary of State may designate a panel for the purposes of this Act only if the panel’s functions consist of the consideration of claims which— (a) are made in respect of objects, and (b) relate to events occurring during the Nazi era. (3) “Nazi era” means the period— (a) beginning with 1 January 1933, and (b) ending with 31 December 1945.

    4 Short title, extent, commencement and sunset (1) This Act may be cited as the Holocaust (Return of Cultural Objects) Act 2009. (2) This Act extends to— (a) England and Wales, and (b) Scotland. (3) The preceding sections of this Act come into force on such day as the Secretary of State may by order appoint. (4) An order may make different provision for different purposes. (5) Before appointing a day for the coming into force of the preceding sections of this Act so far as they relate to Scottish bodies the Secretary of State must consult the Scottish Ministers. (6) “Scottish body” has the meaning given by section 2(5).  (7) This Act expires at the end of the period of 10 years beginning with the day on which it is passed.                                            

© 2022 British Committee for the Reunification of the Parthenon Marbles. All Rights Reserved.