Curatorially Motivated Disposals

The Museums Association’s first Ethical Code, the Code of Practice for Museum Authorities, adopted in 1977, stated that museums should acquire objects and keep them for posterity; it introduced a strong presumption against the disposal of any objects in a collection. But it added that, in the event of a disposal, the object should be offered to other museums first and any proceeds of sale should be spent on purchasing new objects for the collections. The lack of enthusiasm for the disposals process was almost certainly based upon fear: there was serious concern that, if disposals were in any way encouraged, it could lead to a change in government attitudes, whereby financial support would be cut in the expectation that museums could sell parts of their collections to meet their running costs.

Nevertheless, the Code of Ethics, and its predecessors, had always accepted that there might be a good reason for deaccessioning an object such as where, for example, the object was of no interest to visitors to the museum concerned. But there has always been an emphasis upon retaining the object in the public sphere. Paragraph 6.10 of the current Code of Ethics states:

In making any decision in relation to disposal, a museum would need to act in the public interest. This central tenet guiding every museum can be found in paragraph 6.1 of the Code of Ethics, which states that museums, “Act as guardians of the long-term public interest in the collections.” As most objects will be transferred to other museums and will remain in the public sphere, this restriction is easily satisfied. However, the Code’s general principles provide helpful guidance to a museum. Suppose, for example, that a museum offers to give an item to another museum. It is possible that more than one museum may offer a home for the object. In this situation, a museum may well choose between the museums by selecting the one which offers the most convincing evidence that there will be active public engagement with the object.

Even where a disposal was made for curatorially motivated reasons, an object might be sold and could return to the private sphere if no museum or other public body wanted the object. For example, a museum might wish to dispose of a commonplace object such as a Victorian bed warmer: if no museum wants it, it is better in terms of heritage management to save it from destruction by selling it to a private purchaser and using the proceeds to benefit the rest of the collection.

Financially Motivated Disposals: Selling to Raise Money

In the wake of a controversial sale of part of a collection by Derbyshire County Council in 1991 which led to its expulsion from the Museums Association, together with threats by other local authorities to sell,^{Footnote 58} the 1994 revision of the Code of Ethics took a firm stand, banning any disposal which was carried out as a means of raising money. However, in 2003, there was fresh scrutiny of the ethical principles relating to disposal by the National Museums Directors’ Council (NMDC) in a report entitled “Too Much Stuff?” The document noted that in a number of instances museums could not afford to preserve items, which had gradually fallen into decay before being destroyed. It argued that museums should much more actively consider disposing of items (whether by gift, loan or sale) in order to ensure that the items were preserved and used.

The report also questioned whether there should be a ban on financially motivated disposal, discussing whether the British museums should be able to freely deal with objects in their collections by trading up for more interesting replacements. This practice is not uncommon in the USA, where a large number of museums are private institutions.^{Footnote 59} Yet, there are obvious dangers in this free interchange between the public and private spheres. One risk is that governing bodies might be tempted to sell items which were out of fashion—and such items will not realize high prices. An associated risk is that, if items were sold and then these sales were viewed (with the benefit of hindsight) as a major mistake, the museum might not be able to afford to reacquire them. NMDC concluded:

This statement is a reminder that every museum is different and that any governing body must consider the mission of its museum and the state of its collections. Some museums cannot or should not acquire any new objects or dispose of old ones: the Wallace Collection is an obvious example. Other museums may wish to use their existing collections but to present them to the public in a fresh and more relevant manner. However, where a museum is overwhelmed with “too much stuff,” some rationalization may be sensible in the long term interest. But, of necessity, the NMDC stopped short of encouraging museums to sell on the open market to obtain the best price in order to trade up by buying a “better” item. This would be a financially motivated disposal and, at the time of the publication of this report, this type of disposal was absolutely forbidden by the Code of Ethics.

The “Too Much Stuff?” report by the NMDC was followed by the Museums Association’s report, “Collections for the Future,” in 2005. It was suggested that museums needed to consider how to make the most of their collections and that this might well mean disposing of unwanted items. Following the publication of the report, the Museums Association engaged in extensive consultation and received over 90 individual submissions from museums and other stakeholders regarding whether objects could be sold. The consultation revealed that attitudes had changed within the museum sector. There appeared to be agreement that sales for financial reasons to raise money would be tolerated in certain circumstances. As a result, the Code of Ethics was revised in 2007, and this revision (and the current version published in 2010) permits what is known as “financially motivated” sale but subject to severe restrictions set out in Part 6 of the Code of Ethics. The cautious approach taken is unsurprising: the sale of the object will normally be carried out by way of a public auction and it is likely to pass into private hands.

The Code of Ethics reminds museum professionals that financially motivated disposals risk “damaging public confidence in museums and the principle that collections should not normally be regarded as financially negotiable assets.” Paragraph 6.13 states that museums should “[r]efuse to undertake disposal principally for financial reasons, except in exceptional circumstances, as defined in 6.14.” The restrictions on a proposed sale are set out in paragraph 6.14, which require a museum to demonstrate that:

• • It will significantly improve the long-term public benefit derived from the remaining collection;

• • It is not to generate short-term revenue (for example to meet a budget deficit);

• • It is as a last resort after other sources of funding have been thoroughly explored;

• • Extensive prior consultation with sector bodies has been undertaken;

• • The item under consideration lies outside the museum’s established core collection as defined in the collections policy.

Paragraph 6.15 adds a final touch to the list of restrictions with arguably the most important point of all: the proceeds of sale must be ring-fenced “solely and directly for the benefit of the museum’s collection.”

The conditions set out in paragraph 6.13 to 6.15 are not there in order to deter financially motivated sales, even if this is their effect in practice. They are an attempt to articulate how museums should act for the public benefit when considering a sale on the open market. A financially motivated sale involves high risks: the object is likely to be highly valuable, worth hundreds of thousands or millions of pounds, reflecting its immense cultural value; it may well disappear—never to be seen again—into a private collection. These ethical restrictions are intended to prevent reckless actions. But they do appear to reinforce the notion that, as a general rule, collections are to be preserved within the public domain.

Further Guidance on Financially Motivated Sales

A large number of UK museums and galleries have registered under the Accreditation Scheme, which is administered by the Arts Council of England (ACE). The Scheme sets out nationally agreed standards in relation to the management of collections. It follows the principles to be found in the Museums Association’s Code of Ethics, particularly as regards serving the long term public interest by safeguarding museum collections, and respecting the interests of stakeholders. If a museum ignores the ethical principles in the Code of Ethics, it can be expelled from the Museums Association. Furthermore, if it is an accredited museum, the Arts Council may decide to remove its accreditation. Loss of accreditation is significant because the museum is then unable to apply for any of the public grants on offer from bodies such as the Heritage Lottery Fund. It may find it difficult to borrow objects from other museums and it will suffer a loss of reputation.

The consequences of a breach of the conditions set out Part 6 are therefore severe.^{Footnote 61} Yet Part 6 was open to challenge because it was vague in parts. Even the notion of “financially motivated” had not been defined. Guidelines were therefore drawn up to flesh out Part 6 by the author together with representatives from the Museums Association and Arts Council England.^{Footnote 62} Members of the museum sector and the Ethics Committee, along with regional bodies such as Museums Galleries Scotland, Museums Archives and Libraries Wales and the Northern Ireland Museums Council, assisted with advice. The guidelines can now be found in “Appendix 4: Additional Guidance on Financially Motivated Disposal” of the revised “Disposal Toolkit” which was published in March 2014.^{Footnote 63}

The definition of “financially motivated” was problematic because a survey of past disposals revealed that there was a rather hazy borderline with curatorially motivated disposals. For example, in 2008, the Watts Gallery auctioned off two paintings, the proceeds of which were used to benefit the remaining collection. Although this was presented as a curatorially motivated disposal (as the gallery had attempted to find a museum which would buy them), it could more readily have been interpreted as a financially motivated disposal.^{Footnote 64} The definition which was finally agreed can be found in the Glossary of the “Disposal Toolkit”; it is stated that a financially motivated disposal is one where, “a primary reason for disposal is to raise funds.”^{Footnote 65}

It was thought best to avoid defining a “financially motivated” sale too narrowly. Members of a governing body of a museum might have a number of different reasons for deciding upon a sale on the open market. They could argue that they were engaged in a curatorially motivated sale because obtaining money was not “the” primary reason. The effect of having a flexible definition, whereby the objective of raising money merely has to be one objective but not necessarily the main objective, is that far more sales will be subject to scrutiny to ensure that they comply with paragraphs 6.13 to 6.15. Widening the net in this way is desirable because these ethical conditions are intended to ensure that museums do not commodify objects but act as stewards of their collections for current members of the public and future generations.

The guidelines in “Appendix 4” set out a procedure for museums to follow, which consists of a series of stages. At the first stage, the guidelines require a report to be drawn up for submission to the governing body, forcing staff to gather together a large amount of factual information. For example, paragraph 1.4.2 requires the report to the governing body to include statements regarding:

• - how the particular items chosen for sale were selected; and

• - why other items were not selected instead.

For example, a decision to sell high value items relative to the collection as a whole may require a more detailed explanation of how this decision was arrived at in order to demonstrate that items are not being selected for sale solely on the grounds of their financial value.

The level of detail was thought necessary because, if a financially motivated sale is contemplated, the governing body will be expected to contact the Museums Association and the Arts Council at this first stage. It is important that these bodies should be supplied with sufficient information to enable them to respond in an effective manner.

One problem, in drawing up these guidelines, was to determine a structure. In particular, museums might wish to consult others either at an early stage or much later in the process. The guidelines therefore recognize the possibility that there may be consultation at the first stage,^{Footnote 66} whilst demanding that by the end of the third stage, extensive consultation should have occurred. Museums are expected to engage in risk management, making more enquiries and carrying out more consultation where there are problems with the provenance of an object and there is a possibility that it may have been smuggled into this country, or may be a forgery, or may be far more valuable than appreciated.^{Footnote 67} However, some flexibility is built into the consultation process. For example, paragraph 3.1.6 suggests consulting people and publicizing the proposed sale in a manner which is “appropriate in the circumstances.” This gives museums the opportunity to use their discretion and if, for example, they prefer to consult via the internet in order to avoid security issues, this would still comply with the guidelines.

The guidelines provide a series of stages with a view to creating periods of reflection. There is no possibility of a rushed sale if the process set out is followed properly. It should mean that governing bodies can confidently say that they have taken great care in disposing of a valuable object.

Sale and Leaseback Agreements?

One question which I was asked in preparing the guidelines on financially motivated sales was whether a museum could avoid an outright sale and sell the object instead to a private purchaser on condition that the purchaser lent the object back to the museum for a certain period of time (such as two months) each year. The thinking behind this question was that the museum could raise money in this manner but the object would not be lost permanently to the viewing public.

Sale and leaseback arrangements are commonly used in business to raise funds. The seller will make use of this arrangement in order to continue in possession of the object whilst obtaining an immediate injection of cash.^{Footnote 68} However, if a work of art or antiquity was put up for sale, there is a risk that a condition whereby the object must be returned to the museum each year for a period of time would depress the price which it would otherwise realize. The art market is international in character. Many prospective purchasers are resident abroad and would not be prepared to commit to shipping the artifact to the UK for a period of time each year. The object would be at risk of being damaged or stolen whilst it was in transit and it is not clear who would bear the costs of insurance. Furthermore, the objective of retaining the object in the public sphere for part of the year could not be guaranteed. If the purchaser resold without imposing these conditions on a sub-purchaser, a museum might not have the resources to sue the purchaser for breach of contract. Another possibility is that the purchaser might die. There is no obvious legal basis which would allow the museum to enforce this arrangement against the person entitled to the object after the death of the purchaser.

However, a more important objection is that, if a sale and leaseback was arranged, there might be a breach of ethical principles. If a museum wanted to take the object on loan for several months each year, then it is evident that it is being engaged with by the public and that it is not a suitable object to be disposed of in the first place.

Co-ownership?

Another option for raising money would be to sell a share of the object so that there would be co-ownership between a museum and a private company or private collector. This stratagem would enable the museum to raise money but it would avoid the risk of losing the object entirely to a private collection. Yet it can be argued that this type of arrangement is also fraught with difficulty in the context of the museum sector. There is a risk that the co-owner might be later revealed as an ethically dubious character. For example, suppose the co-owner was a collector who was subsequently convicted of a criminal charge involving stolen antiquities? This arrangement could cause great reputational damage to a museum.

Furthermore, the law relating to co-ownership of moveable objects still remains in a somewhat undeveloped state. Although the common law and, more recently, statute law recognize arrangements to co-own moveable property in the commercial sphere, co-ownership is not common outside a few established categories, such as co-ownership of racehorses.^{Footnote 69} In contrast, arrangements to lend any type of moveable object have been made on a daily basis day for centuries. Loans by museums to other museums are also quite common and serve the public interest by increasing public engagement with heritage objects. A short term loan to a private body is surely a better way to raise money whilst, from an ethical perspective, it can be said to provide an opportunity for the object to be engaged with in a different setting.

Selling at Less than the Market Value?

Until recently, it had been assumed that, where a museum decides to sell, it must seek the best price at public auction. This is a principle of commercial law: a trustee or agent is obliged to seek the best price in relation to a sale, unless the contract provides otherwise.^{Footnote 70} However, standard commercial law principles, which work well in a situation where the only purpose is a financial one, should not be automatically applied to entities which have a public purpose. Many museums are charities, with the aim of educating the public or advancing science or arts. Even private museums will have a public element as part of their mission. It can be argued that the public purpose of museums needs to be taken into account.^{Footnote 71} There are further public benefit considerations which will affect the duties of the governing bodies. For example, they must maintain the reputation of the museum to ensure that further donations are made and that the public continue to visit and engage with the collection. This may mean that it can benefit the museum to attempt to keep the items earmarked for disposal within the public domain.

Where a museum is prepared to sell for less than the estimated value in order to ensure that the object remains in the public sphere, it should be able to do so in appropriate circumstances. The Charity Commission was consulted about this issue and paragraph 2.3.3. of “Appendix 4,” reflects that discussion:

A lack of legal guidance in the past has severely hindered effective cultural heritage management. The law tends to be shaped by decided cases brought by commercial concerns. The guidance in “Appendix 4” should help museums. Even so, a museum might still feel unconfident at the prospect of selling to another museum at a significant discount because it may be problematic to assign a financial value to the museum’s interests and the public benefit element. This uncertainty would cause particular concern where the object was valuable; in this situation, the trustees of a charity are still likely to seek authorization from the Charity Commission.^{Footnote 72}

Commercial law principles do not always work well when applied in the public sphere. The Law Commission has recently considered reforming the powers of investment by trustees of public bodies. The focus of the existing law has been upon making the most money, even if it meant behaving unethically.^{Footnote 73} But public bodies are likely to baulk at acting unethically for various reasons, not least the reputational risk. The Law Commission concluded that trustees of a public body should not focus upon financial considerations alone because they might then make investments which were hostile to the interests of their institution. It was thought that trustees of public bodies needed guidance which was much more tailored to their particular circumstances. New legislation has been recommended as a consequence.^{Footnote 74} It is important to recognize that not all private law principles work well in the public sphere because there are other matters which need to be taken into account.

Selling at Less than the Market Value and the Position of Local Authority Museums

Local authorities are generally expected to seek the best financial return in order to serve their local community properly.^{Footnote 75} Scrutiny in terms of “best value” would suggest that local authorities must always seek the best price. However, in other policies affecting local authorities, it has been recognized that financial value is not the only consideration where heritage assets are involved. In the context of the disposal of historic buildings, monuments, memorials, archaeological remains, historic gardens, battlefields, and wrecks, guidance issued by the Department of Culture, Media and Sport has stated:

Furthermore, the most recent raft of legislation and informal guidance presses local authorities to work to improve the social, economic, and environmental well-being of local communities.^{Footnote 77} More specifically, local authorities have been encouraged to consider transferring land and buildings at less than market value to community and voluntary sector groups in order to further these purposes.^{Footnote 78} Under such a “community asset transfer” scheme, a local authority should inform local communities of any proposed sale and should give the communities time to put forward a bid. This legislation is relevant to the museum sector: Torridge District Council transferred the collections of the North Devon Maritime Museum, together with the building in which they were housed, to an independent trust under this scheme. Paragraph 2.3.3 of “Appendix 4” therefore states:

However, it is far less clear whether local authorities are expected to seek the best owner rather than the best price where the heritage assets are moveable property, such as museum collections. In any event, the “best price” can be a matter of guesswork in relation to works of art and antiquities. The only way of determining an approximate price is to consider the price which similar objects have realized at auction; yet cultural objects are often unique and their price will be uncertain unless and until they are sold in the open market. It may therefore be impossible to say whether an object is being sold at less than its true worth. Even so, I would suggest that there is an argument to be made that local authorities are entitled to sell at less than the best price envisaged where the sale can be seen as improving the social, economic, and environmental well-being of a local community. Paragraph 2.3.3. of “Appendix 4” therefore adds:

Local authority museums will need to consider whether the disposal of any item adversely impacts those groups with protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010.^{Footnote 80} Retention of the item in the public domain could mitigate any adverse impact.

Local authorities are subject to many different demands. Different laws, each with their own rationale, point in different directions. No thought appears to have been given to overall heritage management. This lack of joined up thinking makes the application of the law obscure in relation to free transfers and sales from museum collections.

Commercial Thinking and Local Authority Museums

As a consequence of modern structures of governance, it is likely to be councilors rather than curators or museum directors who will be the decision makers in relation to disposals from museum collections owned by local authorities. For example, some local authorities have adopted a Cabinet system, whereby decision-making powers for particular sectors (such as leisure or business) are devolved upon particular councilors.^{Footnote 81} The museum is merely one of a number of services which this member will need to consider. Even where the local authority has created a charitable trust to manage the museum, as the local authority will invariably own most or all of the objects in the collections, it will remain as the ultimate decision maker. The status of museum staff has often been lowered as a result of these changes in governance.^{Footnote 82} Thus, although at museum level, there is little danger of museum professionals viewing their collections as commercial objects, there is a risk that some members of the council, with little interest or understanding of the cultural value of certain objects in the collections, may do so.

Commercial thinking has permeated local authorities due to legislation which forces local authorities to continuously strive for “best value” by providing the most efficient and effective services for the best price.^{Footnote 83} As local authorities are obliged to carry out regular “best value” reviews, their public characteristics are inevitably eroded by auditors and financial considerations. Legislation with a commercial orientation which is aimed at the local authority’s provision of services to the locality, such as housing and environmental health, has been stretched to also cover the running of local authority museums.^{Footnote 84}

Some commercialization is inevitable for all museums. The cost of preserving and protecting hundreds or thousands of objects, and maintaining the buildings in which these collections are housed, must be met. All museums must remain sustainable by marketing themselves to attract the viewing public. But in the current difficult financial climate, a large number of museums are under stress. As their income dwindles, some museums are being kept open with reduced hours, whilst others are forced into permanent closure. Local authority museum collections are especially vulnerable. Local authorities are not under a duty to run museums or to retain collections. There are no statutory provisions setting out the purposes which local authority museums are expected to achieve. In 1991, the Audit Commission observed that local authority museum collections have “tended to evolve in a piecemeal way, often without clear objectives.”^{Footnote 85} The Commission consequently recommended that museums should have a clearly stated acquisitions policy and should dispose of objects which did not fit within that policy.^{Footnote 86} This is not a controversial statement in itself because the Commission moved on to emphasize the value of staff training, the care required in rationalizing collections, and the importance of avoiding “asset stripping.”^{Footnote 87} But such details can be ignored by councilors when there are severe budgetary problems. History has taught us that financial pressures can encourage rash disposals.^{Footnote 88} It is easy to understand why a councilor in a local authority may think it is better to sell an object by auction rather than to transfer it to another museum as a gift; the money raised by a sale could be used to keep the museum going or to on other social projects.

It can be argued that councilors who see collections as commercial assets which should be used to generate large sums of money display a willful degree of ignorance. Policy objections to selling off collections include, apart from betraying the trust of generations of donors, the fact that it is an easy way to conceal any economic mismanagement or incompetence. It is unsound from a business perspective. Irresponsible sales from collections will deter public giving, staunching the flow of generosity. Staff morale is damaged and, as the Culture Media and Sport Committee observed, “Museums cannot perform adequately if they exist in a climate of threat to the collections and to the staff.”^{Footnote 89} There is the fear that, if such sales were common and accepted, it might lead people to assume that all the costs associated with running a museum could be paid for by selling something. There are ethical objections as well. The Culture Media and Sport Committee stated that, “We believe that there is a moral duty on councils to hold cultural collections in trust for the wider community.”^{Footnote 90} This comment is supported by recent legislation and informal guidance which, as mentioned above, has directed local authorities to work to improve the social, economic, and environmental well-being of local communities.^{Footnote 91}

The sale of the Sekhemka statue by the Northampton Borough Council (NBC) for almost £16 million in 2014 is a recent example of a financially motivated sale which did not comply with the Code of Ethics. NBC commissioned a valuation of its collections in 2010 and, upon discovering the high value of the statue, promptly began to plan to sell it to raise money. These discussions took place long before the detailed guidance in “Appendix 4” of the “Disposal Toolkit” had been published. Even so, it was clear that the process of disposal did not satisfy the requirements of Part 6: this sale was not a last resort and there had been no proper consultation with stakeholders. The obvious and serious risk of eroding public trust and deterring public giving was only one of many reasons for criticizing this sale.

NBC’s museums had their accreditation removed by the Arts Council England for a minimum period of five years after the sale took place in 2014. This action will have an impact upon staff morale. It will mean that there is no possibility of applying for funding from bodies such as the Art Fund. Moreover, the Northampton community is now deprived in a permanent way of the opportunity to view the Sekhemka statue. It had great international importance and would have been interesting to both scholars and the ordinary visitor if presented properly.^{Footnote 92} Yet the community did not have the benefit of its full sale value instead. It had been agreed by NBC that Lord Northampton would receive 45% of the net proceeds of sale. There had been some doubt over the circumstances surrounding the acquisition of the statue by NBC. It appeared to have been one of a number of objects transferred by the third Marquis of Northampton in 1880 by way of a Deed of Gift. However, this Deed stipulated that all of the property transferred by the Deed must be exhibited to the public; it went on to provide that, if the local authority failed to do this, the third Marquis, or his heirs, could retake possession of such property. There was therefore an argument (however weak) for saying that the statue had merely been transferred on loan from the Northampton family and that NBC was not entitled to sell it. Lord Northampton agreed to accept a portion of the sale price in settlement of his claim. The Northampton community therefore lost the statue but did not obtain the benefit of the full sale price. At the time of writing, the purchaser of the statue itself is unknown.

A further reason for condemning this type of ill-considered sale is that it can diminish the standing of the United Kingdom. The proposed sale of Sekhemka prompted protests from the Egyptian Ministry of Antiquities and Heritage which condemned the sale. Minister Mamdouh Al-Damati provided comment which was quoted in the Al-Ahram Weekly:

Another objection is the sheer waste of resources as various public bodies became involved in scrutinizing NBC’s conduct, such as the Museums Association, the Arts Council and the International Committee for Egyptology in the International Council of Museums. A final concern is that the sale of the statue might well encourage theft and smuggling of Egyptian antiquities to international markets; the high price commanded by the statue is expected to fuel demand by private collectors.^{Footnote 94} Yet it is not a function of local authorities to trade in art and antiquities; their functions are concerned with serving the inhabitants of their local area. The sale of the Sekhemka statue demonstrates how important ethical guidance is, in the absence of law, in directing all museums to preserve public trust and to work for the public benefit.

But if the sale of the Sekhemka statue appears to demonstrate a complete failure of the law, what should be done? Should the law be reformed to prohibit financially motivated disposals so that no object in a collection is ever transferred to the private sphere? I would suggest not. In 2007, there was a consensus amongst museum professionals that there might be circumstances in which a financially motivated disposal, which was responsibly carried out, would be acceptable. A complete ban on such sales would be too rigid and would not be desired. Furthermore, local authorities could respond to a ban on all such sales by closing down a museum and selling all the assets. Consequently, any law banning financially motivated sales might not work unless it also imposed a duty upon local authorities to run existing museums.

It would be difficult to reform the law in a more limited way by preventing local authorities from selling objects with a “high” cultural value at auction. It is very difficult to define heritage objects in law. To date laws affecting the UK have normally arrived at a compromise, which takes criteria linked to age and financial value into account.^{Footnote 95} It would be impracticable to create a law which says that there are some heritage objects which cannot be sold because it would be impossible to define the borderlines.

There is a need for law reform. In the Cottesloe report, it was suggested that works of art and collections in the possession of local authorities “are already public possessions and if they are of national importance they should remain in this country and accessible to the public.”^{Footnote 96} The report therefore recommended that the government should announce that it would not grant an export license to works of national importance from local authority collections.^{Footnote 97} This recommendation was not acted upon. However, it does have the merit of discouraging sales: If the work cannot be exported, the local authority would not be able to obtain a high price for it. On the other hand, it might not be easy to administer: a local authority could sell an object to a private individual in the UK who might resell it to an international buyer many years later: the export ban may be difficult to enforce in these circumstances.

I would suggest that law reform could take the form of a statutory provision which declared that local authorities held their collections in trust for the public, and that any disposal must be in the public interest, and that any proceeds of sale must be spent upon conserving the remaining objects in the museum collections (with a direction that, if this is not possible, the money should be paid into a charitable fund to assist charitable museums). This declaration would not hinder any disposal but a local authority would not be able to spend the money to satisfy another statutory function, be it road maintenance or social services.