Contribution
That is the use of irony, which is also, of course, another fundamentally Greek concept.
I want to say at the outset that the marbles are an extraordinarily significant and important part of Greek and—I would argue—western artistic and architectural understanding. Nobody should ever diminish their importance. Indeed, it is upsetting to think of previous moments when the Acropolis was used as an arsenal, and a big explosion ended up destroying large parts of it. That was many centuries ago. The marbles were built between 447 BC and 438 BC by Phidias, who was one of the greatest of all Greek artists and sculptors. He also designed and built the great statue of Zeus at Olympia, which was one of the seven great wonders of the world, along with the hanging gardens of Babylon and so on.
Many of us who have been to see, both here and in Athens, all the different elements of the marbles know how extraordinary they are, although I worry that we do not quite see them in the brilliance that people would have seen them originally. We know now, from lots of research that has been conducted, that they would have been painted or tinted in some way, and they would really have stuck out. The battle of the Centaurs and the Lapiths, and the frieze with the Panathenaic procession, would have looked very different from how we experience them today.
This is a debate that has gone on for 200 years, although I think the first direct bid from the Greek Government to the UK Government was back in 1983, and it was turned down in 1984. I should make some things very clear. First, the Parthenon marbles—or the Elgin marbles, whatever we want to call them—are not the property of the UK Government. That is sometimes misunderstood, because in different countries, parts of the national patrimony are actually under the direct ownership of the Government. We do not have that structure in the UK. From the outset, the British Museum was set up as an independent body. Its trustees are given fiduciary responsibilities under the British Museum Act 1963 now—it was originally under previous Acts before that—and they have to adhere by them. If they do not, they will find themselves in court. That is one of the aspects of this debate that we have to bear in careful consideration.
One of the questions that has been raised fairly regularly is whether it is legally possible for there to be an indefinite loan. I want to be clear about that issue, because I noted that an article in The Daily Telegraph— I think it followed a conversation that the hon. Member for South Leicestershire had with the paper—talked about an indefinite loan. Let me be absolutely clear that the British Museum Act 1963 states in section 3, on the keeping and inspection of collections:
“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.”
It is possible for loans to be enabled through an open individual export licence. They are granted by Government, but can be granted only for up to three years. Obviously, the working assumption of anything that is temporary—a temporary licence— is that it is guaranteed that the items are returning. That puts paid under existing law to any idea of an indefinite or permanent loan.
I have read articles where people in Greece say that they are not interested in a loan anyway, because a loan implies that the marbles still belong to the British Museum rather than to Greece. The important point that I am trying to clarify—because I think there has been some misunderstanding—is that under existing law, it would be impossible for there to be a permanent or indefinite loan. The trustees would be required, in seeking a licence to export, to show that they were absolutely certain that the items were returning. I do not think that would be easy if they had arranged a permanent or indefinite loan—the point being that we would have to change the law. The immediate question that the hon. Member may ask is whether we are intending to change the law. We have no intention to change the law.
I will respond to some of the hon. Member’s other questions in writing. He asked about conversations or communications with the Greek Government on this issue since last July. I have met several Ministers, including Culture Ministers and Tourism Ministers, at various different times. The only occasion on which this issue was mentioned was when the Tourism Minister came to see me on 4 November last year, and she very briefly raised the matter. We mostly talked about tourism, but there was a brief mention of the Parthenon sculptures. I will check if there have been any other communications from the Greek Government since last July, but I am not sure there have been. I may be wrong, so I will write to the hon. Member.
There are provisions in the 1963 Act for temporary loans, and my understanding is that the chairman of the British Museum has been in some discussions. We have not been party to those discussions, but he has briefly outlined some of the issues that have arisen, both to me and to the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport. I am not aware of any further developments in that area in recent months. If a suggestion of a temporary loan were to come from the British Museum, there is a process for considering that under existing law, but that would—
Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).