Encouragement on droit de suite. Government holds fire on key points

A final decision on the details of the levy and how it will be administered after January 1 next year are still to come, but British Art Market Federation chairman Anthony Browne, who has led the industry campaign over the issue, is reassured by what he has seen so far.

Thought to be a good sign for the art trade, the Government has reserved judgment on the three most controversial aspects of the European Union Directive.

These are recommendations for a system of compulsory collective administration, the lowering of the threshold at which the levy would apply from €3000 to €1000, and the raising of the royalty rate from four to five per cent on the price band up to €50,000. All would be costly and damaging options, says Mr Browne.

The Government has agreed to commission a study on the impact of droit de suite. “The Government should publish its conclusions in time to inform the first review of the Directive’s impact which, according to its own provisions, must take place by January 1, 2009,” said Parliament’s Culture Select Committee.

The Government agreed, stating that the study would be used “as a baseline for future measurements”.

“This study will then be updated periodically to identify and track any changes which have occurred following the introduction of droit de suite.”

Beyond droit de suite itself, calls for the art market regulations to be tightened by law appear to have fallen on deaf ears at the department for Culture, who stated:

“We recognise that the market for the arts is a free market and that any guidelines would not be compulsory. We do not plan to legislate in this area and the guidelines will have no legal force. Furthermore we would ensure that any guidelines avoided imposing any unnecessary regulatory or bureaucratic burdens on the industry.”

A further call to update 1845 legislation regulating auction houses met with an equal response from the Department of Trade and Industry: “The DTI has no evidence of difficulties with the working of this legislation… and does not see it as a current priority for review.”