Cultural Objects: Developments Since 2000: House of Commons Culture, Media and Sport Committee

House of Commons
Culture, Media and Sport

Committee
Cultural objects:
developments since
2000
First Report of Session 2003–04
Report, together with formal minutes, oral and

written evidence
Ordered by The House of Commons

to be printed 2 December 2003
HC 59
Incorporating HC 950 i-iv, Session 2002-03
Published on 16 December 2003
by authority of the House of Commons
London: The Stationery Office Limited
£17.50
The Culture, Media and Sport Committee
The Culture, Media and Sport Committee is appointed by the House of

Commons to examine the expenditure, administration, and policy of the
Department for Culture, Media and Sport and its associated public bodies.
Current membership
Mr Gerald Kaufman MP (Labour, Manchester Gorton) (Chairman)
Mr Chris Bryant MP (Labour, Rhondda)
Mr Frank Doran MP (Labour, Aberdeen Central)
Michael Fabricant MP (Conservative, Lichfield)
Mr Adrian Flook MP (Conservative, Taunton)
Alan Keen MP (Labour, Feltham and Heston)
Miss Julie Kirkbride MP (Conservative, Bromsgrove)
Rosemary McKenna MP (Labour, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)
Ms Debra Shipley (Labour, Stourbridge)
John Thurso MP (Liberal Democrat, Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross)
Derek Wyatt MP (Labour, Sittingbourne and Sheppey)
Powers
The Committee is one of the departmental select committees, the powers of
which are set out in House of Commons Standing Orders, principally in SO No
152. These are available on the Internet via www.parliament.uk.
Publications
The Reports and evidence of the Committee are published by The Stationery
Office by Order of the House. All publications of the Committee (including press
notices) are on the Internet at
http://www.parliament.uk/parliamentary_committees/culture__media_and_sport.
cfm
A list of Reports of the Committee in the present Parliament is at the back of this
volume.
Committee staff
The current staff of the Committee are Fergus Reid (Clerk), Olivia Davidson
(Second Clerk), Anita Fuki (Committee Assistant) and Fiona Mearns (Secretary).
Contacts
All correspondence should be addressed to the Clerk of the Culture, Media and
Sport Committee, House of Commons, 7 Millbank, London SW1P 3JA. The
telephone number for general enquiries is 020 7219 6188; fax 020 7219 2031; the
Committee’s email address is cmscom@parliament.uk
Cultural objects: developments since 2000 1
Contents
Report Page
Summary 2
1 Introduction 4
Inquiry 4
Background: previous Report — July 2000 4
Illicit trade 4
Return 5
The response from the Government 5
The Government’s formal replies 6
2 Action taken by Government 8

Summary 8
Illicit trade 9
Strategy 9
A database for stolen and tainted cultural objects 11
Human remains 19
Sacred objects 22
Spoliation 23
Iraq 24
Conclusions and recommendations 27
Formal minutes 29
Witnesses 31
List of written evidence 32

2 Cultural objects: developments since 2000
Summary
The previous Committee reported in June 2000 on the illicit trade in cultural property and
the possible return, to the original owners or countries of origin, of items from the
collections of national museums and galleries. Our further inquiry was prompted by
reports of the looting of cultural property in Iraq and the potential for its appearance on
the London art market. The latest position on Iraq is set out at the end of this Report but
the key findings unearthed as a result of our work relate to a distinct lack of progress with
vital elements of what it was hoped was the Government’s cultural property agenda.
In summary our predecessor recommended: a national database of stolen and illegally

removed cultural property; the criminalisation of dealing in such property; accession to an
appropriate international convention; and — whilst affirming the concept of world class
museums with global collections — the early introduction of legislation to permit national
museums and galleries to return objects, in response to valid claims, in two specific
categories: human remains and material illegally removed by the Nazis during the period
1933 to 1945 (known as ‘spoliation’).
The Government accepted the majority of these recommendations and there seemed to be
general synergy between the Committee, the Government and its expert advisory bodies,
the art market and the wider museum community on the relevant issues and way forward.
Despite this high degree of consensus, however, there are few concrete achievements to
point to after a period of more than three years.
The UK has signed the UNESCO Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing
the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property, and
Government support for a Private Member’s Bill saw the Dealing in Cultural Objects
(Offences) Bill receive Royal Assent on 30 October 2003. These achievements are
important, but they will prove hollow if not backed up by practical measures.
A national database of stolen and otherwise tainted cultural objects — described as the
single most important practical measure to give effect to both the Convention and the new
Act — seems mired in a slow-motion wrangle between DCMS, Home Office and the
police. After more than two years of consideration two fundamentally different options
remain on the table: one being pursued by the Home Office and one by the DCMS. It is
claimed as a defence that the project raises complex issues. We believe the lack of progress
stems from a complete failure of “joined-up government” in an area where the policy
priorities happen to lie with one department and the means and resources with another.
Similarly worrying is the state of the overall strategy — or lack of one — on tackling the
illicit trade and apparent confusion within Government over whether this black market is
linked in a significant way to organised crime. Despite the signing of the UNESCO
Convention and the criminalising of dishonest dealing in tainted cultural objects, the
systems, resources and coordination across different agencies for checking both imports
and exports seem deeply unsatisfactory.
There are also mixed results to report on “return” issues. The Working Group on Human
Remains published a detailed 300 page report on 5 November 2003 during the course of
this inquiry. We heard that there was now the potential to establish a permissive regime for
national museums in this area, courtesy of a forthcoming Department of Health Bill on
human tissue announced in the Queen’s Speech on 26 November 2003. However, we
foresee difficulties in establishing a consensus over a practical system to handle claims,
even following legislative change, given the dissent set out in the working group’s report.
With regard to spoliation, the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport seems to
have withdrawn from the consensus for legislative change — established following our
predecessor’s Report — saying that the expected tidal wave of claims had not in fact arisen.
She did say that the DCMS would push for change to allow the return of relevant items if
advised to do so by the Spoliation Advisory Panel. However, the difficulties of achieving
the sort of focused legislative amendment in question cannot, in the light of experience, be
underestimated. There is great uncertainty in the DCMS being able to repeat such progress
as has so far been achieved given the operation of chance in arrangements for Private
Members’ Bills and other departments’ legislative programmes offering the opportunity for
piggy-backing. The DCMS should not wait for a valid spoliation claim to be made (other
than can be satisfied by compensation) to seek a change in the law. It will be too late.
Our recommendations are therefore aimed at encouraging real progress with what appear
to be moribund aspects of the Government’s approach and tackling the apparent gaps in
any strategy there may be.
1 Introduction
Inquiry
1. The previous Committee inquired into cultural property — return and illicit trade — in
2000.1 Prompted by the situation in Iraq and reports of the looting of the National
Museum in Baghdad, we decided to examine whether any progress had been made by the
Government in implementing the undertakings it made in response to our predecessor’s
findings. We invited written evidence on 1 July 2003.2
2. We took evidence from the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport on 8 July
2003 in an initial scoping exercise. We were assisted in our inquiry by an informal meeting
with officers from the Art and Antiques Unit of the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) in
October. We then took formal oral evidence from: the Natural History Museum; the
Museums Association; the Art Loss Register, Trace (Invaluable Group) and Salvo (three
private sector theft alert databases); the British Art Market Federation (BAMF); Professor
Norman Palmer (Chairman of the Illicit Trade Advisory Panel (ITAP) and of the Working
Group on Human Remains (HRWG), and a member of the Spoliation Panel); HM
Customs and Excise; and the Home Office. The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and
Sport made a further appearance before us at the end of the inquiry.3
Background: previous Report — July 2000
Illicit trade
3. The previous Committee concluded that the illicit trade in cultural objects was
damaging world heritage by providing encouragement for the theft and otherwise illicit
removal of important artefacts from private owners, museums and archaeological sites
around the world. In addition the existence of an illicit market, however difficult to
quantify, was damaging to the reputation and interests of the British art market, a sector of
substantial economic activity in the UK worth nearly £5 billion, employing over 37,000
people and representing 25% of global sales. The previous Committee’s evidence was that
the illicit trade in cultural objects was linked to organized crime in facilitating illegal arms
and drugs deals as well as the laundering and transfer of criminal funds.4
4. The previous Committee’s key recommendations were for:
a) UK accession to the UNIDROIT Convention5 (in preference to the UNESCO

instrument);6
1 Seventh Report, Session 1999-2000, Cultural Property: Return and Illicit Trade, HC 371 (hereafter the ‘Previous
Report’)
2 Culture, Media and Sport Committee press release No. 29, Session 2002-03, dated 1 July 2003
3 All evidence, oral and written, is set out at the back of this volume.
4 Previous Report, paragraph 10
5 UNIDROIT (International Institute for the Unification of Private Law) Convention on Stolen or Illegally Exported
Cultural Objects
b) Home Office commitment to the establishment of an accessible and internationally

compatible database of stolen and illegally removed cultural objects, developed in
cooperation with all stakeholders, including the commercial sector;
c) establishment of a criminal offence of trading in cultural property stolen, illicitly

excavated or illegally exported from overseas; and
d) the avoidance, by museums, of acquisitions without secure provenance.7
Return
5. The previous Committee subscribed to the concept of the world’s museums keeping
global collections but, on the other hand, saw no evidence of a flood of claims threatening
that concept. The Committee noted the seemingly absolute statutory prohibition on return
(or “de-accession”) of objects from national collections. Overall, the Committee
recommended parliamentary sanction for specific cases rather then general powers for
institutions’ trustees.8 However, our predecessors identified two categories where special
considerations applied and where the case for permissive legislative change was persuasive:
human remains and spoliation (objects looted by the Nazis between 1933 and 1945).9
Human remains
6. The Committee concluded there was a need for new principles and guidelines on the
care of human remains, and for handling requests for return. The Committee also
recommended consultation on, and “early introduction” of, legislation to permit the
trustees of national museums to return human remains currently held in their collections
in response to valid claims.10
Spoliation
7. The Committee recommended urgent consultation with relevant parties by the DCMS
with a view to “early and expedited legislation” to allow museums to return objects when
recommended to do so by the Spoliation Panel. Our predecessors concluded it would be
absurd for a return to be sought but prevented by the “dilatoriness of Ministers”.11
The response from the Government

8. The Government undertook various initiatives and commitments during the previous
inquiry and following publication of the 2000 Report. The Government established the
Illicit Trade Advisory Panel (ITAP) on 8 May 2000 with a remit to advise on measures to
combat the illicit trade in cultural objects. The then Arts Minister, Mr Alan Howarth MP,
6 UNESCO Convention (1970) on the means of prohibiting and preventing the illicit import, export and transfer of
ownership of cultural property.
7 Previous Report, p. li
8 Previous Report, paragraphs 129 and 142
9 Previous Report, paragraphs 153 and 193

had indicated to the Committee (during evidence) that he was willing to look again at the
question of accession to the relevant UNESCO Convention, which had been ruled out in
the Department’s memorandum.12 On human remains, Mr Howarth also committed the
Government to looking “sympathetically and constructively” at easing the law to allow
museum trustees to “make amends” and return human remains.13 The Spoliation Advisory
Panel was agreed in principle in November 1999 and had its first meeting on 8 June 2000.
The Committee noted concern that national museums remained unable to restore objects
even if they wanted to.
The Government’s formal replies

9. In October 2000 the Government submitted its initial reply to the Report of 2000. It
deferred a substantive response to recommendations on tackling the illicit trade in cultural
objects until its new advisory body, ITAP, had reported.
10. The Government, however, agreed that there might be a case for legislation to permit
disposals from within the collections of national museums and galleries in specific and
defined circumstances. The Government reported initiating consultations on these issues
for both human remains and spoliation.14
11. In March 2001 the Government submitted a further reply to the Committee.
Illicit trade
12. On illicit trade, the Government:
a) reported the broad agreement of ITAP with the previous Committee’s

recommendations, accepted the recommendation for a database and reported that the
Home Office had set up a working party in January to study these matters “urgently”;
b) deferred an answer on UK accession to UNIDROIT or UNESCO conventions (with

ITAP preferring the latter) until after further consideration;
c) said it was considering the question of a new criminal offence; and
d) reported that ITAP would remain in existence to review progress and implementation
of agreed initiatives.15
Human remains
13. On human remains the Government’s reply recorded the establishment of a working
group on human remains. Its remit was to:
12 Previous Report, Session 1999-2000, HC 371-ii, QQ 681 and 682
14 Fourth Special Report, Session 1999-2000, HC 944, paragraph 3
15 Second Special Report, Session 2000-01, HC 316, paragraphs 8, 11, 13 and 14

a) examine the legal status of human remains in publicly funded museums and galleries;
their powers to release human remains from their collections; and the desirability and
possible form of legislative change;
b) consider the circumstances in which material associated with human remains might
properly be included within any such change; and
c) consider the drawing up of a statement of principles (and supporting guidance) on the

care of human remains and on handling claims.
There was reference to the working group starting the process required to enable a
Regulatory Reform Order to go forward which would tackle the blanket prohibition on the
return of human remains by national museums and galleries.16
Spoliation
14. With regard to spoliation, the Government reported that, in relation to cases of alleged
wrongful taking during the period 1933 to 1945, the National Museums Directors
Conference, the Museums Association, the Museums Standing Group on Repatriation, the
Tate Gallery and Resource: The Council for Museums, Archives and Libraries had been
consulted. The reply stated that as a result “There has been general agreement from those
consulted that the removal of legislative barriers to restitution should be sought. The
Government has begun cross-party discussions about the possibility of permitting the
Trustees or Boards of National Museums and Galleries to be able, where appropriate, to
return items which were wrongfully taken during the period 1933 to 1945.” The
Government referred to the possibility of achieving this change again by means of a
Regulatory Reform Order (under the relevant Bill which was going through Parliament at
that time).17
16 Second Special Report, Session 2000-01, HC 316, paragraph 17
17 Second Special Report, Session 2000-01, HC 316, paragraph 19

2 Action taken by Government

Summary
15. The following table summarises such steps as have been taken by Government — as
apparent from our evidence — to tackle the issues of illicit trade, human remains and
spoliation since the previous Committee’s Report in June 2000.
Date Event or action taken
November 1999 Establishment of the Spoliation Advisory Panel.

to June 2000
May 2000 The Ministerial Advisory Panel on Illicit Trade (ITAP) established
July 2000 Previous Committee’s Report published: Cultural Objects: return and illicit trade
(Session 1999-2000).
October 2000 Initial reply to the Committee from the Government.
December 2000 First report from ITAP; broadly in line with the Committee’s Report.
January 2001 First meeting of Home Office working party on a national database. Broad
membership including commercial database operators who were asked to
submit a proposal by the end of February.
First report from the Spoliation Advisory Panel on a painting in the Tate Britain
Gallery. The Government accepted the Panel’s recommendation that an ex
gratia payment be made.
February 2001 Commercial database operators submitted a proposal to the Home Office
working party on a national database. The commercial operators offered to
pilot a scheme free of charge for two years.
March 2001 Working Group on Human Remains established.

Further reply to the Committee from the Government.
May 2001 Letter to the commercial database operators from the Home Office reported a
hiatus while Ministers decide how to proceed
June 2001 The first working party on the database disbanded as ’ineffective‘ because
participation of the commercial sector prevented the consideration of all
options and compromised any resulting competitive tender.
The Police Information Technology Organisation (PITO) was asked to review
options for the database.
November 2001 PITO report recommended a database created in partnership with the
commercial sector at an estimated cost of £12 million over five years.
January 2002 ITAP report on progress described information retrieval as “the field in which
progress has been least satisfactory and in which the reasons for delay are least
persuasive.”
March 2002 Second Home Office working party on a national database convened (Home
Office, DCMS and police) to consider the PITO report.
September 2002 Second meeting of second Home Office working party. DCMS asked to submit
an outline business case for the database by the end of October.
Date Event or action taken
September 2002 The Home Office proposed to the National Criminal Intelligence Service (NCIS)
that it house the proposed database.
October 2002 The Director General of NCIS agreed, in principle, to house the proposed
database.
UK accession to the UNECSO Convention announced.
November 2002 Home Office Ministers decided that NCIS should not house the proposed
database to avoid compromising the focus and purpose of the Service.
January 2003 Third meeting of second Home Office working party on a national database
(Home Office, DCMS, Metropolitan Police, PITO, NCIS, HM Customs & Excise) to
reassess options.
May 2003 DCMS submitted a draft outline business case for a national database.
July 2003 The Committee announced its inquiry into the Government’s progress on the
cultural objects agenda and took initial evidence from the Secretary of State for
Culture, Media and Sport.
Home Office and DCMS officials met with regard to the database. Agreed to
pursue two separate options simultaneously: the Home Office would look at
expanding the existing Metropolitan Police database; the DCMS would look at
the partnership between the public sector and commercial database operators
proposed by the Council for the Prevention of Art Theft (CoPAT).
October 2003 The Dealing in Cultural Objects (Offences) Act received Royal Assent.
November 2003 Report of the Working Group on Human Remains published.

Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, in evidence to the Committee,
indicated her hope that a Bill being developed by the DoH, regulating the
retention of human tissue, would include a provision permitting national
museums and galleries to return human remains from their collections in
response to valid claims.
Legislation to establish a new regulatory regime for the retention, treatment
and disposal of human tissue was announced in the Queen’s Speech.
Illicit trade
Strategy
16. The Government’s approach to cultural property crime seems, at the very least, to
suffer from a lack of definition. The Home Office set out the resources devoted to cultural
objects in supplementary evidence.
a) Resources devoted to tackling the illicit trade in cultural objects across all the forces are
limited. This is because the extent of the illicit trade in cultural objects is not known but
is much smaller than volume crimes such as burglary, vehicle crime and street crime;
and the trade in arts and antiques is concentrated in London.
b) The majority of forces do have a due diligence officer who is tasked with dealing with
issues around stolen cultural artefacts. A national database will help such officers to
carry out their duties more effectively and a crucial part of the project to take forward
the development of a national database will be to actively promote its use among police
forces.
c) The art and antiques industry in the United Kingdom as a whole is vast and no police
force has, or will ever realistically have, the available resources to police this industry
closely. For this reason it is essential that the industry should police itself. We hope that
the development of a national database, along with the promotion and training that will
accompany it, will create a two-pronged approach with the industry and the police
working together to combat this illicit trade.18
17. Mr Julian Radcliffe, Chairman of the Art Loss Register and Mr Richard Ellis, Director
of Trace, agreed that the problem was one of knowledge as well as priorities. Mr Ellis told
us: “There is also, I think, a lacking in understanding. This is where there has to go hand in
glove with the introduction of a national database some form of education of the police
themselves of the nature of this as a crime within the United Kingdom. It is invariably
cross-border and with the fragmentation of the police forces and the concentration of the
police resources, quite rightly, to dealing with the local issues, there is not an overall view
(which in fact the databases and the private sector enjoy) because we receive the reports
from a whole variety of police areas … this fragmentation results in there being no overall
concept of a scale of crime which does not perhaps reach the National Crime Squad level of
seriousness, but it is, nonetheless, also serious … so the criminals in this field are able to
operate with some degree of impunity.”19
18. As Mr Davies of the Museums Association told us “cultural property crime is not in the
category of offences on which police forces have to report to the Home Office each year as
part of their performance management regime … as a consequence, it is not something
that the police are motivated to devote a lot of resources to.”20 Therefore such crime does
not appear to have a neat administrative framework for defining or estimating its extent.
This can leave the stripping of listed buildings of notable features just put down to
vandalism. The MPS Art and Antiques Unit (with three officers) is the nearest thing to a
national unit on these matters — appropriate enough as London, according to the Unit
and others, is the illicit market’s “centre of gravity” in the UK.
19. The elements of the strategy identified by the previous Committee were: a national
database of stolen and illegally removed cultural objects; accession to an appropriate
international agreement; and the criminalisation of dealing in tainted cultural objects.21
18 Ev 115, paragraph 4
19 Q 143
20 Q 113
21 Previous Report, p. li
A database for stolen and tainted cultural objects
Priority
20. A national database of unlawfully removed cultural objects (from anywhere in the
world) is regarded by the Government’s expert advisory body and the British Art Market
Federation as the single most important practical step towards making meaningful the
“powerful signal” sent out by accession to the UNESCO Convention and the new Act.22
The Government’s own advisory body on these issues, ITAP, reported to ministers in 2002
that “the viability and authority of the proposed criminal offence, of the UK’s accession to
UNESCO, of the new export licensing measures and of the campaign of education
designed to accompany these reforms all rest heavily on the accessibility of the required
information”.23
21. Evidence from the DCMS recognised the importance placed on the database by the art
trade and museums and that the development of such a database was “regarded as integral
to fulfilling the UK’s new obligations under the 1970 UNESCO Convention”.24 Professor
Norman Palmer, Chairman of ITAP, told us that: “The Illicit Trade Panel is quite certain
that this database is crucial in a number of respects to its recommendations generally.”25 In
relation to the operation of the new Act he said “We see [the database] as an essential
building block, an essential cog in the prosecution wheel. But, similarly, of course, there is
the question of defence … How are people going to show that they had no reason to
believe it was stolen if they cannot say, ‘I checked the register and the register said it was
not there’”.26 Mr Anthony Browne, Chairman of the British Art Market Federation
(BAMF), summed up the issue for the trade saying: “We think [a database of stolen
cultural property]…is the most important practical step that can be taken to confront…the
illicit market here in the United Kingdom.”27
22. There seemed, however, to be some confusion about the relationship between the illicit
trade in cultural objects, a national database, and organised crime (as distinct from the
illicit trade’s inherent criminal character, its deleterious effect on world heritage and
legitimate archaeology and the damage it caused to the reputation of the British art
market). The DCMS stated in written evidence that the database “is also recognised by law
enforcement agencies as part of a desired proactive strategy to control the use of stolen
artworks and antiquities for other areas of organised crime, including money laundering
and the financing of drugs and firearms in connection with terrorist activities.”28 Yet in oral
evidence the Secretary of State suggested that “the link between investment in such a
database and dealing with money laundering, drug trafficking and the other criminal
22 Ev 3
23 ITAP Progress Report (2001), paragraph 40 (a)
24 Ev 3
25 Q 199
26 Q 199
27 Q 154 but see also Q 171
28 Ev 3
activities increasingly associated with crime in the art market” remained to be proven to
the Home Office.29
23. Evidence from HM Customs and Excise stated that: “Customs share [the National
Crime Intelligence Service’s] assessment that serious and organised crime may be attracted
to the global cultural property market and are alive to the potential use of cultural goods as
a relatively safe means of payment or moving assets. … However, neither Customs nor
NCIS have any specific intelligence of links between cultural goods and money laundering,
drug or arms trafficking.”30 In oral evidence witnesses from HM Customs told us that their
work was intelligence-driven and they “were not aware … that there is a pile of intelligence
sitting, for example, in any police force that is not being acted upon.”31
24. In some contrast the Parliamentary Under-Secretary at the Home Office, Caroline Flint
MP, told us: “I am aware clearly … that there are links between the purchase of these
[cultural] objects with a view to laundering money, but also we have some information to
suggest that they are also being used by terrorists in terms of financing activities as well.
There is some evidence there, but it is not clear to the extent of how big a role it is playing
in relation to organised crime against the other more traditional uses of money-laundering
… so it is important, but it does sit alongside a number of other competing and pressing
priorities.”32 In evidence Ms Flint conceded two areas of further work were needed. First
was analysis to clarify the links between the illicit trade in cultural objects and “a wider
scheme of activity involving criminal behaviour, particularly in terms of drug-trafficking
and other types of organised crime”.33 Secondly, she referred to the increased attention
being paid to “cracking down” on “dodgy accounts” and that one offshoot may be an
increase in criminal funds being kept in the form of portable high-valuable assets. She told
us “To be honest with you, that is not something that we have a particular unit looking at,
but we cannot take our eye off the ball in terms of any future developments.”34
25. We asked for clarification on these links and in supplementary evidence the
Government said:
a) The link between the illegal trade in cultural items and organised crime has been shown
through individual cases but the extent of this link has not yet been investigated fully.
b) The Interpol Criminal Information System (ICIS) also shows links to organised crime
in individual cases, notably with money laundering and drug trafficking offences.
However, the National Criminal Intelligence Service (NCIS) has confirmed that the
extent of the link between the illicit trade in cultural property and organised crime has
not been accurately assessed.35
29 Q 23
30 Ev 72
31 Q 266 and see Q 260
32 Q 268
33 QQ 268 and 283
34 QQ 268 and 269
35 Ev 118
26. The Home Office told us that it would consider whether to request an assessment of the
links between the illicit trade in cultural objects and organised crime. However, in doing so
the Home Office said it would have to make sure that such an exercise was deemed to be
cost-effective, especially given the competing priorities facing those involved in tackling
organised crime.36 The Home Office sounded a note of warning in arguing that it would
also need to consider whether the development of the national database should be delayed
pending the results of this assessment.37
Progress, or lack of it
27. The course of events set out by the Government (and summarised in Table 1 above)
relating to the development of the database reveals a lamentably slow and seemingly
tortuous, process. The Government’s reply to the Committee in March 2001 referred to
a Home Office working party being given the project to consider “urgently” in January
of that year. We do not consider those terms of reference to have been implemented in
any way.
28. A major blind alley, cited by the Government, was the involvement of the existing
commercial art theft databases in the process. Our predecessors recommended “the
development of an open system which can meet the needs, and draw upon the skills and
funds, of the private sector”.38 We recognise that the initial attempt to develop the proposal
sought to meet that recommendation by involving the Art Loss Register and the Invaluable
Group (operators of the Trace database) in the initial working party. What we find
unacceptable is the abandonment of that first initiative. The reasons given in evidence
were: (a) the inhibition of the working party from looking at all options — presumably a
wholly police-run database; and (b) the compromising of any eventual competitive
tender.39 Professor Palmer described the disbanding of the working party as a “false trail”,
although whether he was referring to the disbanding, or the working party itself, was in
retrospect not clear.40
29. The position arrived at eventually in July 2003 — after two years of review and
reassessment — was a rather odd ‘agreement’ to pursue two proposals simultaneously: a
police database to be developed by the Home Office; and a public/private partnership to be
developed by DCMS.41 This was surely an approach that could have been adopted in June
2001 once it was decided that a public/private partnership was dominating discussion with
detrimental effect. It is both frustrating and paradoxical, with the benefit of hindsight, that
the Police Information Technology Organisation (PITO), having been asked to review the
options following the abandonment of the public/private working group, ended up
recommending a public/private database.42
36 Ev 118
37 Ev 118
39 Ev 78, paragraph 6 and see Q 149
40 Q 198
30. The PITO report in itself did not seem to move the process forward; if anything the
estimated costs, £12 million over 5 years, had the opposite effect.43 Professor Palmer
described the report as another “false trail”.44 More recent estimates of costs — across
different options — seem to lie between £500,000 and £1 million per year.
31. We asked the Home Office and DCMS whether guidance was sought from the Office of
Government Commerce on commercial involvement in working parties on projects and
the implications for competitive tender. A supplementary memorandum said: “Officials at
the Home Office were advised by the Commercial and Procurement Unit that there was a
potential conflict of interest. The Commercial and Procurement Unit always has due
regard to Government Accounting when providing advice. In this instance, other bidding
companies would have legitimate cause for complaint if a company that had participated in
the working group drawing up the criteria were awarded the contract.”45 We note that two
non-commercial databases, Salvo and FindStolenArt, were not involved in discussions
despite their pedigree and co-operation with a number of police forces across the country.46
32. All our witnesses were in agreement that the process had not gone well although there
was a wide variation in tone. ITAP, reporting on progress in 2002, stated that:
“Information retrieval [i.e. a national database] is perhaps the field in which progress
has been least satisfactory and in which the reasons for delay are least persuasive.”47
Professor Palmer, ITAP Chairman, added in evidence: “I have sympathy with [DCMS]
attempts to penetrate what appears to be the Home Office’s impenetrability on this matter.
That being said, there comes a point when you cannot listen to excuses any more. A point I
cannot emphasise too strongly is that the purpose of the Illicit Trade Panel is to get all
sections of the arts community together, speaking for one another. We have succeeded in
doing this for three years but there is an emerging sentiment in some quarters that, for
example, the trade has accepted the burdens without gaining the benefits. There is a feeling
that if this does not progress soon the committee will, perhaps, begin to fall apart — not to
put too fine a point on it — in which event a lot of the effort will have been wasted.”48 The
British Art Market told us that its reaction to absence of progress on a national
database was “to sum it up in a word … frustration”. Mr Browne said that “I think it is
lost in discussion somewhere in departments, but it is to be regretted.”49
33. In July, the Secretary of State described the problem to us as one of a disagreement
primarily between industry and police: “The problem we have … is the profound nature of
the disagreement between the police, on the one hand, and the art market and the industry,
on the other … both want a database, they want it for different purposes and neither want
to pay for it”.50 In November she told us: “this is an extremely complex project; and …
there have been, and indeed remain, differences of view between my Department, the
43 QQ 24, 150, Ev 42, Ev 78 (paragraph 7) and Ev 117, paragraph 22
44 Q 198
45 Ev 117
46 Ev 120 and Ev 43ff
47 ITAP Progress Report (2001), paragraph 40
48 Q 206
49 Q 162
50 Q 23
industry and the Home Office about the best way forward and much of the last two or two
and a half years has been spent on negotiating those differences.”51
34. Ministers from both the DCMS and the Home Office emphasised that a major obstacle
had recently been overcome in that the police had agreed to the database, whoever ran it,
being open, i.e. being accessible for dealers in the trade and perhaps other relevant
persons.52 This was an important objective for the DCMS who saw the database as allowing
“due diligence by those who want to acquire a particular object and checking it against the
database is a means of ensuring that that process of due diligence has been undertaken.”53
35. We noted that the principles agreed by the first Home Office working party (which
included the police) in March 2001 included “accessibility” and we asked the Government
whether this equated to the “openness” now being highlighted as a breakthrough. A
supplementary memorandum said that the first working party “can best be described as a
brainstorming session” which established general principles which had not changed. In
2001 the Metropolitan Police Service supported the agreed criteria, including
“accessibility” but were unable to provide an open database themselves because of
negotiations, then on-going, with the American FBI concerning shared IT resources.54 This
seems to us to have been an argument for a public/private partnership.
36. We further noted the precedents for, or at least interesting examples of, cooperation
between police, and other government agencies, in supplying information for commercial
databases providing services: aimed at preventing trade in stolen, or otherwise tainted,
vehicles and equipment: The National Equipment and Plant Register and the second hand
car databases operated by companies Experian and HPI. A joint supplementary
memorandum from the Home Office and DCMS said that proposals for the cultural
objects database were not yet developed enough to be able to draw useful lessons from the
analogous services that we highlighted.55 The departments’ evidence, however, confirmed
our understanding that these databases provide useful precedents for cooperation between
public and private sectors on the provision of data for the exercise of due diligence as well
as caveat emptor.56 We would draw attention to a target set for a reduction in vehicle
crime by the Prime Minister and recommend that he gives consideration to a similar
performance objective for the theft of cultural objects.
37. The Home Office Minister, Caroline Flint MP (responsible for these matters since June
2003) put the work on the database into context against the Home Office’s other priorities
but seemed to recognise the unsatisfactory sequence of events behind the current state of
play.57 She told us that she was trying to “make sure” that the database was in operation
next year and emphasised the present position in which the Home Office had committed
funds — as a sign of “goodwill” — to appoint an independent consultant to review the two
51 Q 291
52 QQ 273, 287 and 291
53 Q 291
54 Ev 117, paragraph 13, and Ev 116, paragraph 7
56 Ev 116 and see Ev 40
57 QQ 268, 269, 273, 287 and 288

proposals on the table and advise on a decision between them to be made by

Government.58 The forward timetable set out by Ministers can be summarised as follows:
a) submission of detailed proposals for analysis by February 2004 (earlier if possible);
b) a decision between options before March 2004;
c) an initial pilot phase for a year (at a cost of £300,000); but
d) roll-out as soon as the pilot phase could be judged a success.59
Mr Steve Wilkes, Head of the Burglary Unit at the Home Office, conceded that there
remained a number of issues to resolve but said that “we are really keen to take them
forward and get the database up and running as quickly as possible.”60
38. The Government clearly needs to undertake further work if it is to determine the
relationship between the illicit trade in cultural objects and organised crime, and terrorist
organisations, in terms of hiding, transporting and laundering illicit funds as well the part
such material plays in illegal arms and drugs transactions. Although not within our remit,
these matters are extremely important.
39. However, contemplation of this work must not hold up the progress with the national
database that has now been promised by all concerned, including the Home Office. In
addition to adduced links to organised crime, many aspects of the illicit trade in cultural
objects are simply illegal in themselves; now involving criminality going wider than
handling stolen goods following the passage of the Dealing in Cultural Objects (Offences)
Act. We are convinced that the UK’s new obligations to the international community, the
promotion of its own substantial art market and the importance of protecting heritage,
here and abroad, together create a high priority and that action must now be taken.
40. We regard the lack of progress made on a national database of illegally removed
cultural objects to be lamentable. This is especially true given the existence of analogous
systems in the commercial sector, and elsewhere, as well as precedents for
public/private cooperation in other areas where law enforcement is working alongside
legitimate commerce to suffocate illicit markets. We welcome the Home Office’s
recognition of the unsatisfactory progress made to date and the new commitment to
ensuring that the project now comes to fruition along the lines, and within the
timetable, set out by Ministers. We will return to assess the implementation of the
Government’s latest undertakings in March 2004.
Relevant international legislation

41. ITAP recommended a further database in its report of December 2001. This second
service would be a comprehensive and universally accessible database of international
legislative information run for all who transact in cultural objects. ITAP recommended
that it should seek to record information about past, as well as present, laws and about
58 Q 288
59 QQ 273, 281, 288, 292 and 294
60 Q 281
judicial decisions construing those laws and that it should be kept up to date.61 We regard
this proposal as very sound and a complementary resource for the database of stolen
objects for those seeking to exercise due diligence and determine whether they are being
offered tainted material. DCMS told us that UNESCO had agreed to take this proposal
forward with the Department offering assistance “to drive the project forward”.62
42. The supplementary memorandum from the Department revealed some progress. In
October 2003 UNESCO voted a budget for launching at the earliest possible date an
electronic cultural property legislation database “bringing together all national legislation
applicable in Member States of UNESCO concerning the import, export and transfer of
ownership of cultural property and also including models of the export and import
certificates for cultural property in use in Member States”. The Organisation is expected to
issue an invitation shortly to all states who were parties to the Convention to make the
necessary submissions.63 We welcome indications of progress by UNESCO but regard
the database of legislative provisions, past and present, as of secondary importance
compared to a national database of stolen and illegally removed objects.
Criminalisation of dealing in tainted cultural objects

43. The Dealing in Cultural Objects (Offences) Act has been lauded as an achievement by
the Government. However, we were concerned about evidence of its limitations. Witnesses
from HM Customs & Excise seemed clear in evidence that the Act, in itself, did not contain
extra powers to check consignments of cultural goods. It did not impose a prohibition on
the import of tainted goods, nor did it create a licensing regime.64 The Secretary of State
told us, to our surprise, that “Customs & Excise actually resisted inclusion of those powers
because they were concerned about the resource consequences for them.”65 However,
despite the impression given by the Secretary of State, supplementary evidence from
DCMS stated that the department had never pressed for the inclusion of such powers.66 Dr
David Gaimster, Senior Policy Adviser, DCMS Cultural Property Unit, said that the
measure was aimed at changing the culture of the marketplace — encouraging due
diligence and other good practice — rather than putting people into jail (and we have
discussed the importance of a national database in making this legislation meaningful
above).67
44. In supplementary evidence the DCMS sought to clarify the impact of the new
legislation in respect of imports. The Government stated that the new Act does in fact
enable Customs to bring proceedings for the offence created where it involves the
importation or exportation of a tainted cultural object. Although, because of resource
implications, Customs’ initial view was apparently against an explicit prosecution role,
these powers were necessary to trigger their powers of search and seizure under the Police
61 See Ev 4
62 Ev 4
63 Ev 113
64 Ev 69 and QQ 262 and 263
65 Q 304
66 Ev 112, para 24
67 Q 305
and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (in practice evidence of an offence will usually be made
available to the police). Therefore, in contrast to the impression given in oral evidence
before us, Customs have now clarified that they are able to search for such goods, whether
in passenger or freight traffic, using their search and seizure powers under the inter-
relationship of provisions described above. However, Customs are waiting to see what sort
of cases arise. Until “the picture is clearer” it is expected that they will also have to rely on
other Customs provisions; “for example, evasion of revenue or some other prohibition”.68
45. We were concerned over indications of problems in arrangements for authorising

exports even though there is a regime for licensing exports of cultural objects. It appeared
that the Department did not have the power to refuse an export licence for a cultural
object, at least one from outside the EU, where there was suspicion, intelligence or even
evidence, that it was illicit or tainted in some significant way. The DCMS told us that it was
aware of that gap and of the risk that the UK was being used to “launder” objects through
the issue of a UK export licence which could then be presented as evidence of clean
provenance; in fact Dr Gaimster was aware of “several examples” from the trade and from
Customs. He said that ITAP was looking at the matter.69 We regard this as a serious
weakness in arrangements and are very concerned at this further potential for the UK’s
accession to the UNESCO Convention and the new Act to be undermined by gaps in
practical arrangements. It hardly matters whether the UK accedes to multilateral
instruments in this area if our import system is not strengthened and our export
arrangements are open to abuse confounding the very purposes of international
agreement.
46. In relation to illicit trade, the Secretary of State said that the area was not sufficiently
well resourced. She also pointed to the risks of loading too much on to a Private Member’s
Bill and went on to say that: “If this is action the Government wishes to take then it should
form part of government legislation.”70 We agree whole-heartedly and recommend that,
after an appropriate period, ITAP review the impact of the new Act, and the extent to
which it has contributed to the UK’s fulfilment of its obligations under the UNESCO
Convention, but that the Government should commit itself now to introducing
remedial legislation — backed up by adequate and appropriate resources — if this is
found to be necessary.
47. The Government does at last seem to have elements of a strategy in place, or under
consideration, with regard to tackling the illicit trade in cultural objects. However, the
differential pace at which these elements are developing, and apparent weaknesses in
the practical arrangements on the ground, detracts from a sense of a coordinated,
robust and effective approach.
68 Ev 112 paragraphs 20-26
69 QQ 309 and 310
70 Q 305
Human remains
48. The background to the establishment of the Working Group on Human Remains was
an apparent general consensus that the prohibition on the return of human remains, from
within the collections of national museums should be removed.71 The existence of the
statutory barrier made discussion of individual claims confrontational and, ultimately,
fruitless.72 The Working Group published its conclusions on 5 November. Its report was
comprehensive and a significant contribution to the debate on this topic setting out, in
compelling form, the often dreadful history of many acquisitions, the values and
arguments of both claimant, and scientific, communities as well as the current legal
situation.73 As a tool for policy-makers the report would have benefited from an executive
summary but we understand, and were partly responsible for, the pressure on the
Department to publish the text.
Principles
49. The Working Group identifies “consent”, in line with the basis of the proposed human
tissue Bill, as the fundamental organising principle of its approach to human remains. The
majority report says: “No institution shall retain, or perform any other act in relation to,
human remains where it knows or has compelling reason to believe: that the original
removal of the remains occurred without the consent of the deceased person or that
person’s close family, and that the present retention or other proposed act is without the
consent of: close family or direct genealogical descendants of the deceased person; or,
where no such family or descendants are identified, those who have within the deceased
person’s own religion or culture a status or responsibility comparable to that of close family
or direct genealogical descendants.”74 Institutions are required to make best endeavours to
identify and contact, and inform relevant communities. Evidence from the Group Caring
for the Ancestors of Hawaii argued that the fact that human remains may have a scientific
value would not convey pre-eminent rights on scientists over the rights of “living family”.75
It is the definition of “family” that may now be at the centre of subsequent debate.
50. The precise formulation of the working group’s principle of “consent” was a matter of
dissent within the Group with a minority (principally the Natural History Museum)
believing that it is too widely drawn (in effect, establishing mandatory return).76 Sir Neil
Chalmers, NHM Director, told the Committee that, where a permissive regime existed, a
claim for the return of the remains of a named individual from a direct descendant “would
be very difficult to resist”.77 However, he envisaged very few claims being able to meet this
criterion.78 In other cases, Sir Neil said the task would be to balance two “goods”: the claims
71 Seventh Report, Session 1999-2000, Cultural Property: Return and Illicit Trade, HC 371, paragraph 166.In addition,
the Prime Ministers of the UK and Australia issued a joint statement in July 2000 which included reference to
endorsements of “the repatriation of indigenous human remains wherever possible and appropriate.
72 Q 109
73 Report of the Working Group on Human Remains, DCMS, 5 November 2003 (hereafter HRWG report)
74 HRWG report, p. 170, xlvii
76 HRWG report, p. 182, paragraph 5.1
77 Q 63
78 Q 63
of the public, humanity even, in terms of the benefits of research involving collections of
human remains; and on the other side, the claims of the relevant community seeking
restoration, and perhaps societal healing, expected from the return of their ancestors’
remains.79 Sir Neil predicted that he would almost always come down on the side of the
public benefit. He said “I would argue all the time for considering in each case, in a
balanced way: What is the benefit to humanity? How strong is the claim for return? You
then come to your decision on that case. In my case, I would almost always — I have to say
this very clearly — come down on the side of the benefits to humanity from holding items
for research.”80
Changes to the law

51. The HRWG report recommends that national and non-national museums should be
given uniform powers to relinquish human remains — by amendment to governing
statutes if necessary.81 The Secretary of State indicated that this proposal was to be
proceeded with as part of the Department of Health’s proposed human tissue Bill.82 Such a
Bill was announced in the Queen’s Speech and we presume that the DCMS provision will
be able to go through Parliament during this Session.83 The HRWG report explicitly rules
out a regime of mandatory return but recommends that the situation should be kept under
review.84 However, as indicated above, it is firmly argued by a minority that this conclusion
— ruling out mandatory return — is negated by the all-embracing character of the consent
that would be needed from potentially claimant communities for institutions to retain
remains.85
52. A further complexity is that the British Museum is pursuing an alternative legal route
— based on provisions within charity law — to achieve the ability to return material from
within its collections. The Human Remains report notes “At the time of writing the British
Museum awaits the Attorney-General's determination86 as to whether, as a charity, the
Museum has the power to give effect to moral claims which the trustees wish to recognise,
provided they receive the Attorney-General's sanction for their proposed course of
action.”87 The Deputy Director of the Museums Association, and member of both ITAP
and the HRWG, Mr Maurice Davies told us “I am not a lawyer — and this has to be
prefaced with 'this may be wrong' — but my understanding is that there is a legal argument
79 Q 73 and QQ 130-131
80 Q 80
81 HRWG report, p. 161
82 QQ 313 to 315
83 Official Report, 26 November 2003, Col 5
86 The Sovereign, as parens patriae (guardian of the public interest), is protector of charity. For centuries the Attorney
General has appeared in this role before the courts. Charitable trusts, by definition, do not have a closed or closely
defined group of beneficiaries. The Attorney General may represent the beneficial interest of a charitable trust in
court, or he may represent the interests of charity more generally. In carrying out these functions, the Attorney
General is assisted by a team of lawyers at the Treasury Solicitor's Department with expertise in this area and by his
own Standing Counsel on charity matters. The Charities Act 1993 now entrusts most regulation of charities to the
Charity Commission. The Act requires that the Commission may exercise some of its powers only with the agreement
of the Attorney General, or in accordance with directions issued by him. (Attorney General's Review of the Year,
2001-2002, Chapter 5).

that it may be the case that there is a provision in the Charities Act that allows charitable
bodies to dispose of their property when there is a moral justification for doing so … As I
understand it, the legal argument at the moment is whether that provision in the Charities
Act overrides the prohibition on disposal in the British Museum Act.”88 If the answer of the
Attorney-General is a positive one then the implications not only for human remains, but
also for sacred objects and spoliation, are very significant. We recommend that the DCMS
liaise with the Attorney-General on the relationship between the statutes covering
museum governance and charitable status respectively and include a definitive answer
on the question posed by the British Museum in any reply to this Report.
New institutions
53. The HRWG report recommends that a national independent expert Human Remains
Advisory Panel should be established by DCMS (similar to the Spoliation Advisory Panel)
as soon as possible. This panel would: receive claims with the consent of all parties; make
recommendations on all issues relating to the return, retention, treatment, handling, use,
safekeeping and control of human remains — as well as in regard to proposals for legal
change, guidelines of good practice and other wider issues. Institutions might establish
local advisory panels of a similar nature — to be approved by the licensing authority (see
below).89
54. The HRWG report also recommends that a licensing system should be introduced to
regulate, according to a statutory code of practice, the holding, return, treatment, handling
and disposal of human remains within all museums, conforming with proposals being
developed by the Department of Health for its human tissue Bill. The working group
suggests that this system might be administered by the proposed Human Tissue Authority,
or part thereof, likely to be established by that Bill which would have power to: license
institutions that hold human remains and impose conditions on, or withdraw or withhold,
the grant of licences in certain circumstances. The licensing authority should answer to
appropriate government departments but also be subject to scrutiny by the Human
Remains Advisory Panel, the relevant holding museums and their professional
associations.90
55. We welcome the prospective change to the absolute ban on national museums
returning human remains in response to claims validated by, as yet unknown, systems
and principles. The potential to respond at all is the first, and vital, step. We look
forward to considering the results of the DCMS’ consultation on the principles and
methodology that will underlie this new permissive regime. As we have said above, the
results of the Attorney-General’s consideration of the British Museum’s query over the
potential effect of charity law in this field are also relevant. It would be ideal if the
Attorney-General’s conclusions were made part of the consultation, if at all possible, to
avoid different strands of this debate confusing the issue and damaging the prospects
for genuine progress.
88 Q 101
90 HRWG report, pp. 165-167

Sacred objects
56. The working group recommends that another ministerial advisory group should be
established further to consider, and make recommendations about, the holding by
museums of sacred objects. Evidence to the Committee suggested that defining a sacred
object was problematical but we note that the HRWG’s principles of respect for the values
and opinions of claimant communities have an important application to any system for
determining what is, and what is not, sacred.91 The Secretary of State told us that the
recommendations of the HRWG, including the suggestion for a further working group on
sacred objects, would be part of a public consultation, under standard guidelines, that
would inform the Department’s decisions in this area. We welcomed the Secretary of
State’s implicit commitment not to establish a working group on sacred objects
unnecessarily if practical progress could be made more expediently by other means.92
Example of the Maqdala Treasures

57. As the previous Committee identified, there has been consensus over the need to treat
claims for the restitution of human remains and spoliation as special categories. There are
strong arguments, which the HRWG acknowledges implicitly, that sacred objects should
be added to this list. One example of a claim involving indisputably sacred objects concerns
the “Maqdala treasures”. In 1868 Sir Robert Napier headed a British expedition which
looted, then burned, Maqdala, Emperor Tewodros’ mountain stronghold in north-western
Ethiopia. This sacking extended to the nearby Church of Madhane Alam. In accordance
with common practice the collected loot was auctioned soon after to raise prize-money for
the enlisted men and contemporary accounts indicate that Richard Holmes, Assistant in
the British Museum’s Department of Manuscripts “armed with ample funds … out-bid all
in most things” on behalf of the Museum. There are Ethiopian religious and royal artefacts
scattered around the world in private and public collections.93
58. The objects sought most ardently by the Ethiopian Orthodox Church are, perhaps, the
Tabots which focus the presence of God in every Ethiopian church and are held in the
greatest reverence as symbolic of the Ark in the Jewish Temple.94 The British Museum does
not display the Tabots within its collection, paradoxically, in deference to the practice of
the Ethiopian Church.95 A number of Maqdala artefacts have been returned from other
collections and sources over the years and we note, parenthetically, that the Italian
Government has begun work on returning the iconic Axum Obelisk which was looted by
Mussolini’s army in 1937.96 We believe there to be a patent absurdity in a situation where
the British Museum does not display artefacts — out of due deference to other cultural and
religious values — but is not in a position even to consider returning them. We hope that
the British Museum's legal consultations have this case in mind as well as human remains.
91 HRWG report, pp. 146-147
92 QQ 295 and 299
93 Previous Report, Session 1999-2000, HC 371, Vol III, pp. 354-358
94 St John’s Scottish Episcopalian Church, Edinburgh (from where a Tabot was returned to Ethiopia in January 2002)
95 http://www.afromet.org/treasures/archives
96 http://www.afromet.org/news/archives
It is difficult to imagine a clearer example of a moral claim to which a charity's trustees

might wish to give effect than that of Ethiopia for the return of its most sacred artefacts.
Spoliation
59. The Government now considers the need for legislative change to allow the return of
spoliated material from national museums and galleries to have evaporated. This is a
change in attitude that the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport did not see fit to
declare to this Committee until questioned in oral evidence. Ms Jowell stated that the
expected flood of claims relating to cultural property within national museums and
galleries had not materialised.97 The only case upon which the Spoliation Panel has
concluded was dealt with by the payment of compensation by the Government.98 The
Secretary of State had come to rest on the absence of a request from the Panel for her to
consider legislative action.
60. The Secretary of State therefore has retreated from the Government’s previous position
where the freedom to return spoliated material, the subject of general consensus, was being
specifically pursued (in the form of Regulatory Reform Order).99 Tessa Jowell did say that
the DCMS would push for legislative change if advised to do so by the Spoliation Advisory
Panel.100 We believe that if the Department waits for demand to arise it will be too late and
we recall our predecessors’ conclusion that a valid claim should not be denied by the
dilatoriness of ministers.101
61. We have seen that the difficulties of achieving the sort of focused legislative
amendment in question cannot be underestimated. There is great uncertainty in the
DCMS being able to repeat the progress so far achieved, given the operation of chance in
either Private Member’s Bills, or legislation emanating from another department, offering
an opportunity or the potential for piggy-backing. The DCMS should not wait for a valid
spoliation claim to be made (that cannot be satisfied by compensation) to start to seek a
change in the law. The lead-in time is simply too long. In these circumstances, the
Government and the museums sector would remain hamstrung and unable to achieve the
desired result when, and if, a case did arise.102 This was precisely the situation that the
previous Committee’s recommendation aimed to tackle.
62. We regard the Government’s position on spoliation as a regrettable retreat from the
consensus achieved amongst the museums and galleries community following our
predecessors’ Report. We urge the Department to reconsider. We note the potential for
an alternative route to be found via the British Museum’s consultation of the Attorney-
97 Q 317, but see Q 108
98 First Report of the Spoliation Advisory Panel, Session 2000-01, HC III
99 Second Special Report, Session 2000-01, HC 316, Annex, paragraph 19.The Government’s further reply to the
previous report said that “In relation to cases of alleged wrongful taking during the period 1933 to 1945 … there
has been general agreement from those consulted that the removal of legislative barriers should be sought. The
Government has begun cross-party discussions about the possibility of permitting the Trustees or Boards of National
Museums and Galleries to be able, where appropriate, to return items which were wrongfully taken during the
period 1933 to 1945. It is also exploring the possibility of achieving this by means of a Regulatory Reform Order
under the Regulatory Reform Bill currently progressing through Parliament.”
100 Q 321
102 See Q 109
General over the effect of charity law. However, while we commend this initiative by the
Museum, we regret that the Government has not had clarification of this point on its
own agenda. We recommend that the DCMS makes efforts to encourage a speedy and
positive outcome to the British Museum’s query.
Iraq
63. This inquiry was prompted by reports of widespread looting in Iraq in the immediate
aftermath of the war; there was particular concern over the fate of cultural treasures held by
the National Museum in Baghdad. It now seems clear that reporting of the situation was
complicated by a number of factors: the incompleteness of the Museum’s information
about its collection (something which still plagues attempts to assess the problem); the
removal of items in the collection for safe-keeping before the Gulf war in 1990 (and not yet
returned); the illicit removal of items by members of the previous regime over a long
period; and an apparent mix of professional and targeted theft (from the Museum’s vaults)
and more casual looting (from its galleries) in the inevitably confused period following the
arrival of Coalition troops in Baghdad.103
64. There was inevitable concern that a proportion of these items could end up coming
through the UK, given the global significance of the London art market. The British Art
Market Federation told us that legitimate trade in Mesopotamian antiquities had collapsed
to virtually nothing in the aftermath of the Iraq war and the related establishment of
specific legislation aimed at preventing illicit trade in cultural property sourced in Iraq.104
The UN Security Council has maintained restrictions on the import and trade in
unlawfully removed Iraqi cultural property. In the UK, the Iraq (UN Sanctions) Order
2003 brought these restrictions into effect on 14 June 2003 (with a maximum penalty of 7
years imprisonment).105
65. When we discussed looting in Iraq with the DCMS in July 2003, the most recent
discovery had been the theft of the Museum’s collection of “very important” cylinder seals
(numbering some 4-5,000 artefacts). It is unclear whether the latest estimates — of 3,000
missing items — treat this theft of cylinder seals as a single entry. Such figures therefore
have to be treated with caution as the underlying loss — in terms of actual numbers of
individual objects, value, national importance and scholarly or archaeological significance
— must be subject to wide variation.106
66. The DCMS’s most recent analysis of the situation, requested by the Committee in
November 2003, reveals that:
a) The original scale of losses at the Museum was thought to be as high as around 170,000
items, but this has now been re-estimated at around 3,000 items, of which 30 or so are
considered to be highly significant items, probably stolen by professional thieves.
103 Ev 114 and QQ 6-15
104 QQ 169-170
106 Q 6
b) Many of the missing artefacts may never be recovered at all since they were probably
stolen several years ago by senior figures in the Ba’ath regime: Saddam’s eldest son,
Uday, is known to have made huge profits from the international trade in antiquities.
c) The amnesty put in place by Coalition forces has resulted in almost 2,000 items being
returned, including key pieces, such as the Sacred Vase of Warka, dating from around
3000 BC, one of the greatest treasures of Mesopotamian antiquity.
d) The Nimrud gold treasure was located intact in the vaults of the Central Bank of Iraq in
early July 2003. It is intended to exhibit the Treasure in the US, Japan and in Europe to
raise funds for the Baghdad Museum and the Iraq’s archaeological sites.
e) When the security situation in Iraq is more stable, the British Museum plan to lead an
international team of conservators who will spend three months working in Iraq
helping train museum staff and promoting the spread of best practice.
f) Recent press reports indicate that three London antiquities dealers have been arrested
in a secret police operation for allegedly dealing in artefacts looted from Iraq. In
connection with the arrest, Police recovered an Assyrian stone relief looted in 1991
after the Gulf War from the palace of Ashur Nasir-pal II in central Iraq.
g) There have been reports of a major seizure of further consignments of looted artefacts
from Iraqi museums and sites in France and Kuwait (where 33 cuneiform tablets were
taken from a dealer from Sardinia).
h) The new Iraqi Culture Minister, al-Jazairi, has announced an official enquiry into the
looting of museums and libraries during the recent conflict.107
67. There has been widespread concern on the question of the integrity of Iraq’s
archaeological sites for an extended period and DCMS told is that “it is true to say that,
although looting has been common in Iraq since the 1990 Gulf War, the recent conflict has
escalated the situation and, despite best efforts of Coalition authorities, a high level of
looting continues”.108 The 10,000 or so documented archaeological sites in Iraq are mostly
in remote desert regions and therefore have been difficult to protect within available
resources (the civilian guards employed by the Iraqi State Board of Antiquities were not
allowed to carry firearms and were generally in a minority of one in the face of multiple
armed raiders).109 The British School of Archaeology wrote in September 2003 that: “the
looting and destruction of sites apparently continues more or less unabated”. The lack of
border patrols, by either the Coalition forces or Iraq’s neighbours, was identified as a key
area for action to check the free flow of looted material out of the country.110
68. DCMS reported an informal deal between the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA)
cultural staff (from DCMS) and army commanders in the CPA regions, guards will be
provided for the 50 most important sites (as identified by international scholars) and to
monitor the more remote sites through the deployment of helicopter flyovers and site visits
107 Ev 114, paragraph 36-45
110 Ev 101
by nearby troops. The DCMS also said that action to ensure that salaries are paid to site-
guards from the Iraqi State Board of Antiquities and that the Coalition Provisional
Authority is currently bidding for funds to double the number of guards on archaeological
sites, to arm them and to equip them with transmitter radios and all-terrain vehicles so that
they can monitor vulnerable sites in conjunction with local police forces.111 The
Government believes that the return of normal archaeological activity to Iraq will alleviate
the problem as archaeologists often make provision for security of their own. This
effectively means that the best way to reduce looting is to stabilise Iraq more generally; an
objective with which few would quarrel.112
69. We received evidence that there were questions over the Government’s consideration
of Iraq’s cultural status, and the importance of its heritage for the whole world, in the run-
up to the conflict. The All-Party Parliamentary Group on Archaeology wrote to the Prime
Minister in February 2003 and, while recognising the paramount importance of military
and humanitarian concerns, asked that consideration be given to Iraq’s sites and museums
and their status in terms of world heritage archaeological significance. Further letters to
Government, and other contacts, failed to elicit a response until April. Lord Renfrew of
Kaimsthorn, Chairman of the Group, recorded his “concern and puzzlement” at this lack
of response especially as he had not been able to identify the source of the advice that
Government later said was received on these matters.113
70. The Secretary of State recognised that there had been some confusion during
preparations for military action but reiterated to the Committee that the MoD had
consulted “widely” with the archaeological community.114 The Standing Conference on
Portable Antiquities recommends a review of UK policy and practice for military planning
and post-conflict security, in relation the cultural heritage.115
71. While we have concern at the picture this evidence paints, and the outstanding
questions, it seems clear that at least some British troops on the ground were clear about
Iraq’s significance within world history. As Lieutenant-Colonel Tim Collins told the Royal
Irish Battle Group on the eve of the conflict, “Iraq is steeped in history. It is the site of the
Garden of Eden, of the Great Flood, and the birth of Abraham. Tread lightly there.”116
113 Ev 95-100
114 Q 16
115 Ev 105
116 Fort Blair Mayne desert camp, Kuwait, 19 March 2003

Conclusions and recommendations

1. The Government’s reply to the Committee in March 2001 referred to a Home Office
working party being given the proposed national database of stolen cultural objects
to consider “urgently” in January of that year. We do not consider those terms of
reference to have been implemented in any way. (Paragraph 27)117
2. Illicit Trade Advisory Panel (ITAP), reporting on progress in 2002, stated that:
“Information retrieval [i.e. a national database] is perhaps the field in which progress
has been least satisfactory and in which the reasons for delay are least persuasive.”
(Paragraph 32)
3. The British Art Market told us that its reaction to absence of progress on a national
database was “to sum it up in a word … frustration”. Mr Browne said that “I think it
is lost in discussion somewhere in departments, but it is to be regretted.” (Paragraph
32)
4. We would draw attention to a target set for a reduction in vehicle crime by the Prime
Minister and recommend that he gives consideration to a similar performance
objective for the theft of cultural objects. (Paragraph 36)
5. We regard the lack of progress made on a national database of illegally removed

cultural objects to be lamentable. This is especially true given the existence of
analogous systems in the commercial sector, and elsewhere, as well as precedents for
public/private cooperation in other areas where law enforcement is working
alongside legitimate commerce to suffocate illicit markets. We welcome the Home
Office’s recognition of the unsatisfactory progress made to date and the new
commitment to ensuring that the project now comes to fruition along the lines, and
within the timetable, set out by Ministers. We will return to assess the
implementation of the Government’s latest undertakings in March 2004. (Paragraph
40)
6. We welcome indications of progress by UNESCO on a database of relevant

international legislative provisions, past and present, but we regard this as of
secondary importance compared to a national database of stolen and illegally
removed objects. (Paragraph 42)
7. We regard the inability of DCMS to refuse export licences for tainted objects as a
serious weakness in arrangements and are very concerned at this further potential for
the UK’s accession to the UNESCO Convention and the Dealing in Cultural Objects
Act 2003 to be undermined by gaps in practical arrangements. It hardly matters
whether the UK accedes to multilateral instruments in this area if our import system
is not strengthened and our export arrangements are open to abuse confounding the
very purposes of international agreement. (Paragraph 45)
8. The Secretary of State said that if the Government wished to take comprehensive
action on the import of illicit cultural objects it should form part of government
117 This list has been amended to ensure the conclusions and recommendations are self-standing
legislation. We agree whole-heartedly and recommend that, after an appropriate

period, ITAP review the impact of the new Act (achieved via a Private Member’s Bill)
and the extent to which it has contributed to the UK’s fulfilment of its obligations
under the UNESCO Convention. However, the Government should commit itself
now to introducing remedial legislation — backed up by adequate and appropriate
resources — if this is found to be necessary. (Paragraph 46)
9. The Government does at last seem to have elements of a strategy in place, or under
consideration, with regard to tackling the illicit trade in cultural objects. However,
the differential pace at which these elements are developing, and apparent
weaknesses in the practical arrangements on the ground, detracts from a sense of a
coordinated, robust and effective approach. (Paragraph 47)
10. We recommend that the DCMS liaise with the Attorney-General on the relationship
between the statutes covering museum governance and charitable status respectively.
It should include a definitive answer; in any reply to this Report to the British
Museum’s query over its ability to respond to moral claims for the return of objects.
(Paragraph 52)
11. We welcome the prospective change to the absolute ban on national museums
returning human remains in response to claims validated by, as yet unknown,
systems and principles. The potential to respond at all is the first, and vital, step. We
look forward to considering the results of the DCMS’ consultation on the principles
and methodology that will underlie this new permissive regime. As we have said
above, the results of the Attorney-General’s consideration of the British Museum’s
query over the potential effect of charity law in this field are also relevant. It would be
ideal if the Attorney-General’s conclusions were made part of the consultation, if at
all possible, to avoid different strands of this debate confusing the issue and
damaging the prospects for genuine progress. (Paragraph 55)
12. It is difficult to imagine a clearer example of a moral claim to which a charity's

trustees might wish to give effect than that of Ethiopia for the return of its most
sacred artefacts. (Paragraph 58)
13. The DCMS should not wait for a valid spoliation claim to be made (that cannot be
satisfied by compensation) to start to seek a change in the law. The lead-in time is
simply too long. (Paragraph 61)
14. We regard the Government’s position on spoliation as a regrettable retreat from the
consensus achieved amongst the museums and galleries community following our
predecessor’s Report. We urge the Department to reconsider. We note the potential
for an alternative route to be found via the British Museum’s consultation of the
Attorney-General over the effect of charity law. However, while we commend this
initiative by the Museum, we regret that the Government has not had clarification of
this point on its own agenda. We recommend that the DCMS makes efforts to
encourage a speedy and positive outcome to the British Museum’s query.
(Paragraph 62)
Formal minutes
Tuesday 2 December 2003
Members present:
Mr Gerald Kaufman, in the Chair
Mr Chris Bryant Alan Keen

Mr Frank Doran John Thurso
Michael Fabricant Ms Debra Shipley
Mr Adrian Flook Derek Wyatt
* * *
Draft Report (Cultural objects: developments since 2000), proposed by the Chairman,
brought up and read.
Ordered, That the Chairman’s draft Report be read a second time, paragraph by paragraph.
Paragraphs 1 to 26 read and agreed to.
Paragraph 27 read, amended and agreed to.
Paragraphs 33 to 36, read and agreed to.
Paragraph 38 read and agreed to.
Paragraphs 39 to 40 read, amended and agreed to.
Two paragraphs —(Derek Wyatt)—brought up, read the first time and second time, and
inserted (now paragraphs 57 and 58)
Paragraphs 57 to 59 (now paragraphs 59 to 61) read and agreed to.
Paragraph 60 (now paragraph 62) read, amended and agreed to.
Paragraphs 61 to 69 (now paragraphs 63 to 71) read and agreed to.
Summary read and agreed to.
Resolved, That the Report, as amended, be the First Report of the Committee to the House.
Ordered, That the Chairman do make the Report to the House.
Ordered, That the provisions of Standing Order No. 134 (Select Committees (reports)) be
applied to the Report.
Several papers were ordered to be appended to the Minutes of Evidence.
Ordered, That the Appendices to the Minutes of Evidence taken before the Committee be
reported to the House.
[Adjourned till Tuesday 9 December at 10.00am

Witnesses
Tuesday 8 July 2003 Page
Rt Hon Tessa Jowell MP, Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport,
Mr Nigel Pittman, Senior Adviser for the Iraq Project Team and
Dr David Gaimster, Senior Policy Adviser Cultural Property Unit,
Department of Culture, Media and Sport Ev 5
Tuesday 28 October 2003
Sir Neil Chalmers, Director, Natural History Museum Ev 18
Dr Maurice Davies, Deputy Director, Museums Association and member of

the Illicit Trade Advisory Panel (ITAP) and of Human Remains Working
Group (HRWG) and Ms Helen Wilkinson, Policy Officer, Museums
Association Ev 27
Mr Julian Radcliffe OBE, Chairman, Art Loss Register, Mr Richard Ellis,

Director, Trace, Mr Thornton Kay, Director, Salvo Ev 46
Tuesday 4 November 2003
Mr Anthony Browne, Chairman, British Art Market Federation and member

of ITAP, Mr Richard Aydon, Executive Committee Member (BAMF),
Group Legal Director and Company Secretary, Christie’s International plc,
Mr James Ede, Chairman, Antiquities Dealers Association and member of
ITAP and Mr Johnny van Haeften, Managing Director, Johnny van Haeften
Limited and Deputy Chairman, Society of London Art Dealers Ev 53
Professor Norman Palmer, Chairman, ITAP, Chairman, HRWG and member,

Spoliation Advisory Panel, Dr David Gaimster, Secretary ITAP and
Mr James Dowling, Secretary, HRWG, Department for Culture, Media and
Sport Ev 60
Mr Mark Fuchter, Senior Policy Manager and Mr Peter Higgins, Head of Law
Enforcement Policy (Prohibitions and Restrictions), HM Customs and Excise Ev 73
Caroline FIint MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State and

Mr Steve Wilkes, Head of Burglary Unit, Home Office Ev 80
Rt Hon Tessa Jowell MP, Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport,
Dr David Gaimster, Senior Policy Adviser, Cultural Property Unit and
Mr Alan Davie, Director of Arts and Culture, Department of Culture, Media
and Sport Ev 85
List of written evidence

1 Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) Ev 1
2 Natural History Museum Ev 17
3 Museums Association Ev 24
4 Art Loss Register Ev 36
5 Trace Ev 41
6 Salvo Ev 43, 119
7 British Art Market Federation Ev 52
8 HM Customs and Excise Ev 68
9 Home Office Ev 77
10 Professor Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn Ev 94
11 British Museum Ev 99
12 British School of Archaeology in Iraq Ev 100
13 Council for British Archaeology on behalf of the Standing Conference
on Portable Antiquities Ev 101
14 Group Caring for the Ancestors of Hawaii Ev 106
15 Mr Charles Hill Ev 107
16 Commission for Looted Art in Europe Ev 108
17 DCMS/Home Office Ev 108
18 FindStolenArt Ev 120
List of unprinted written evidence

Papers have also been received from the following and have been reported to the House. To
save printing costs they have not been printed and copies have been placed in the House of
Commons library where they may be inspected by Members. Other copies are available to the
public for inspection and requests should be addressed to the Parliamentary Archives, Record
Office, House of Lords, London SW1A 0PW. (Tel 020 7219 3074). Hours of inspection are from
9.30am to 5.00pm
Group Caring for the Ancestors of Hawaii
Commission for Looted Art in Europe
Art Loss Register

Reports from the Culture, Media and Sport Committee since

2001
The following reports have been produced by the Committee during the last two
sessions
Session 2002–03
First Report National Museums and Galleries: Funding and Free HC 85
Admission
Second Report The Work of the Committee in 2002 HC 148
Third Report A London Olympic Bid for 2012 HC 268
Fourth Report The Structure and Strategy for Supporting Tourism HC 65
Fifth Report Privacy and media intrusion HC 458
Sixth Report The British Film Industry HC 667
Session 2001–02
First Report Unpicking the Lock: the World Athletics HC 264
Championships in the UK
Second Report Testing the Waters: the Sport of Swimming HC 418
Third Report Arts Development HC 489
Fourth Report Communications HC 539
Fifth Report Revisiting the Manchester 2002 Commonwealth HC 842
Games
Sixth Report The Government’s Proposals for Gambling: Nothing HC 827
to Lose?
8770821004 Page Type [SO] 10-12-03 21:11:31 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1
Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence Ev 1
Oral evidence
Taken before the Culture, Media and Sport Committee
on Tuesday 8 July 2003
Members present:
Mr Chris Bryant Miss Julie Kirkbride

Mr Frank Doran John Thurso
Michael Fabricant Derek Wyatt
Alan Keen
Memorandum submitted by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport
CULTURAL PROPERTY: RETURN AND ILLICIT TRADE: GOVERNMENT ACTION ON THE

INTERNATIONAL ILLICIT TRADE IN ART AND ANTIQUITIES WITH A FOCUS ON IRAQ
IN RESPONSE TO THE SEVENTH REPORT FROM THE CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT
COMMITTEE, SESSION 1999–2000
1. The Government’s initial responses to the Select Committee Report were published on 31 October
2000 and 7 March 2001.1 This memorandum should be read in conjunction with these published reports.
2. The following summaries set out the Government’s progress to the individual recommendations on
the international illicit trade listed on page 1(i) of the Committee’s report of July 2000, and printed in
italics below:
(i) A clear system for recording the ownership history of a cultural object, linked directly to the
capacity to conduct a legitimate transaction, would be an extremely important tool in tackling the
illicit trade in cultural property and is therefore desirable in principle. However, we have received
persuasive evidence that a compulsory “log book” providing such a record would face many
diYculties, some of them probably insuperable, and we have concluded reluctantly that such a
compulsory “log book” would not represent a practical way forward. However, where organisations
feel that they can establish some sort of voluntary “log book” within their own resources this would
be very much welcomed (paragraph 43).
(ii) We recommend that the Home OYce make a public commitment in the course of this year to
establishing a national database of stolen cultural property and cultural property exported against
the laws of countries concerned under national police control. The Home OYce should also seek to
take forward detailed discussions with the police service, the insurance industry, the art market and
private database operators about the development of an open system which can meet the needs and
draw upon the skills and funds of the private sector. Finally, the Home OYce should liaise closely with
other countries to ensure that any national development is compatible with the wider international
development of a database of stolen and illegally exported cultural property (paragraph 54).
(iii) We do not wish to recommend any changes to the United Kingdom’s current controls on the
export of cultural property (paragraph 102).
(iv) We recommend that the Government introduce legislation creating a criminal oVence of trading
in cultural property in designated categories from designated countries which has been stolen or
illicitly excavated in or illegally exported from those countries after the entry into force of the
legislation, with a defence in law based on the exercise of due diligence as defined in that legislation
(paragraph 108).
(v) Assuming that the other recommendations in this section of the Report (recommendations (iv)
and (vi)) are implemented, we do not recommend that the United Kingdom become a party to the
1970 UNESCO Convention (paragraph 109).
(vi) We recommend that the United Kingdom sign the 1995 UNIDROIT Convention and that the
Government bring forward legislation to give eVect to its provisions and facilitate early ratification
(paragraph 110).
1 Culture, Media and Sport Committee, House of Commons, Cultural Property: Return and Illicit Trade, Session 1999–2000,
Fourth Special Report (31 October 2000); and Session 2000–01, Second special Report (7 March 2001).
8770821001 Page Type [E] 10-12-03 21:11:31 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1
Ev 2 Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence
(vii) We welcome steps already taken by museums in the United Kingdom and by the Museums
Association to increase awareness of the illicit trade in cultural property and its implications for
museums. We support the broad principle that museums should avoid acquiring any object that has
no secure ownership history, unless there is reliable documentation to show that it was exported from
its country of origin before 1970 and we recommend that the Government also state its support for
this principle. We further recommend that, in the light of the development of the Portable Antiquities
Scheme, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport conduct a review of the circumstances in which
it is appropriate for museums in England and Wales to act as repositories of last resort of antiquities
likely to have originated within those countries (paragraph 121).
(xiv) We recommend that the Department for Culture, Media and Sport initiate discussions with
appropriate representatives of museums, of claimant communities and of appropriate Governments
to prepare a statement of principles and accompanying guidance relating to the care and safe-keeping
of human remains and to the handling of requests for return of human remains (paragraph 163).
(xv) We recommend that the Department for Culture, Media and Sport seek commitments from all
holding institutions in the United Kingdom about access to information on holdings of indigenous
human remains for all interested parties, including potential claimants, as part of these discussions
(paragraph 164).
(xvi) We recommend that the Department for Culture, Media and Sport undertake a consultation
exercise on the terms of legislation to permit the trustees of national museums to remove human
remains from their collections with a view to early introduction of such legislation (paragraph 166).
(xvii) We recommend that the Department for Culture, Media and Sport set out its strategy for
assisting non-national museums with provenance research relating to the period 1933 to 1945 and for
ensuring that the results of research by national and non-national museums is made available in a
common and accessible format in its response to this Report (paragraph 183).
(xviii) We consider that the case for special treatment of cases of alleged wrongful taking during the
period 1933 to 1945 has been convincingly established. It is appropriate that the Spoliation Advisory
Panel has been created to ascertain the facts of individual cases and to recommend an outcome for
claims which are upheld. While there are merits to a solution which secures continuing public access
to an object in a museum, that interest must be seen as subordinate to the interests and wishes of a
rightful owner. Where a claim has been upheld and restitution is seen as appropriate by all parties, it
is essential that legislative barriers to such restitution be removed. It would be absurd if restitution
were not possible in these circumstances due to the dilatoriness of Ministers in the Department for
Culture, Media and Sport (paragraph 193).
(xix) We very much welcome the lead taken by the British Museum in making clear and unequivocal
statements that it would wish to return objects looted during the period 1933 to 1945 and not
subsequently returned. We recommend that Ministers in the Department for Culture, Media and
Sport begin cross-party consultations as a matter of the utmost urgency with a view to securing
agreement for early and expedited legislation to permit the trustees or boards of national museums
and galleries to dispose of objects which, in the view of the Spoliation Advisory Panel, were wrongfully
taken during the period 1933 to 1945 (paragraph 194).
(xx) We recommend that the Department for Culture, Media and Sport undertake discussions with
representatives of the British art market, claimant representatives and other interested parties to
explore the extent to which the Spoliation Advisory Panel or a separate body could be engaged to
investigate issues relating to cultural objects currently in private hands which may have been
wrongfully taken during the period 1933 to 1945 and not subsequently returned and to propose
outcomes reflecting the legitimate interests of claimants and of current possessors (paragraph 198).
3. The Government continues in its determination to take eVective action to combat the continuing
international illicit trade in antiquities. The destruction and plundering of archaeological sites, monuments
and collections in Iraq in the aftermath of the recent conflict has highlighted the importance of strong
Government action to prevent the UK being used as a marketplace for cultural objects unlawfully removed
from other countries in the world. The Select Committee’s Report gave figures ranging up to £4.5 billion
for the size of the international market in illicit cultural material.
4. In response to the Select Committee’s deliberations, the Government appointed an expert Advisory
Panel in May 2000 under the chairmanship of Norman Palmer, Professor of Commercial Law at University
College London, with a remit to review both legislative and non-legislative options for action. The Panel
submitted its Report, including ten key recommendations, to Ministers in December 2000.2
Recommendations (i) to (vii) of the Select Committee relate directly to matters both actioned and still under
consideration by the Panel.
2 Ministerial Advisory Panel on Illicit Trade Report, DCMS (December 2000).

8770821002 Page Type [O] 10-12-03 21:11:31 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1
5. With reference to the Select Committee’s recommendations the Government has been assisting the
Illicit Trade Advisory Panel to make progress in the following key areas:
International Conventions
— Accession on 31 October last year to the 1970 UNESCO Convention on the Means of Prohibiting
and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property. The UK
has an obligation under Article 7(b) of the Convention to prevent the import of unlawfully
removed art and antiquities from signatory countries and assist them to secure their return.
— The Panel, however, advised against accession to the 1995 UNIDROIT Convention on Stolen or
Illegally Exported Cultural Objects, on the basis that claims could be made for the return of stolen
cultural property up to 50 years after the theft and the diYculties involved in enforcing such an
instrument. Moreover, its recovery value is limited by the fact that there are only 12 member states.
Accession to the UNIDROIT Convention would also have required primary legislation and so
would have taken time, whereas the Panel concluded that acceptance of UNESCO could be
enacted in the UK without delay. The widespread adoption of the 1970 UNESCO Convention (99
countries to date, including in recent months other market countries such as Japan and Sweden)
enhances its value as a means of protecting the cultural heritage of the UK and other signatory
counties. In signing the treaty last year, the UK Government sent out a powerful signal to the
international community that the UK is serious about playing its full part in the international
eVort to stamp out the illicit traYcking in cultural objects.
A New Criminal Offence

— DCMS sponsorship of a Private Members Bill to create a new criminal oVence, which will make
it illegal to trade in unlawfully removed cultural objects. In switching oV the illicit marketplace,
the Government aims
— to remove the commercial incentive for those involved in the looting of museums and sites. The
measure, which carries a maximum prison term of seven years, applies equally to objects illegally
excavated or removed in the UK or outside the UK. The Government-supported Private Members
Bill for Dealing in Cultural Objects (OVences) received its Second Reading on 4 April and has both
cross-Party and cross-sectoral support among the UK art trade and heritage community. The Bill
will receive its Report and Third Reading in the Commons on 4 July and is estimated to secure
Royal Assent in the Autumn.
— The new oVence is designed to target irresponsible trading. It will inject greater transparency into
the process of acquiring and disposing of cultural objects within the art market so that clear chains
of ownership can be established in the event of suspected unlawful removal or excavation. In eVect,
the Bill does not impose further costs in terms of due diligence checks but, rather, formalises them
and encourages those not complying with industry-approved standards of good practice to come
on board. The measure is designed to protect small business from the illicit trade, which threatens
their commercial position through unfair competition.
Improved Intelligence
— On the issue of intelligence gathering, DCMS has been active in promoting the Culture Select
Committee and Illicit Advisory Panel recommendation for a single, widely accessible database of
stolen and unlawfully removed cultural objects. By facilitating eVective due diligence checks, the
database is regarded by the art trade and by museums as a vital part of the package of measures
designed to fight the illicit trade, including the establishment of the mental element in prosecuting
the proposed new criminal oVence.
— The national database of unlawfully removed cultural property is intended to cover cultural
objects unlawfully removed from any place in the world, whether in the UK or overseas, which
have arrived in the UK. Its primary purpose, as recommended by ITAP, would be to record those
objects which have been (a) stolen, or (b) illegally excavated, or (c) illegally removed from
monuments or wrecks on the basis that the theft of such objects within the UK should be a
reportable oVence.
— The development of an open national database of unlawfully removed cultural objects is regarded
as integral to fulfilling the UK’s new obligations under the 1970 UNESCO Convention, in
particular those Articles covering inventories and publicity regarding the disappearance of stolen
items. The database is also recognised by law enforcement agencies as part of a desired proactive
strategy to control the use of stolen artworks and antiquities for other areas of organised crime,
including money laundering and the financing of drugs and firearms in connection with terrorist
activities.
— The database is an ambitious project and requires extensive consultation, both amongst policy
makers in other Government departments and amongst law enforcement agencies. At the request
of the Home OYce, the Department has prepared an outline business case for the database, which
analyses the administrative arrangements, budgets required, together with operational, security
and access issues. Needless to say, news of the circulation on the black market of antiquities
unlawfully removed from collections and sites in Iraq and Afghanistan have highlighted the
urgency of developing this facility for use by the trade, law enforcement agencies, Customs and
museums.
— The Panel also recommended the institution of a comprehensive and universally accessible
database of international legislation on cultural property. The database should be run as a service
available to all who transact in cultural objects. It should seek to record information about past
as well as present laws and about judicial decisions construing those laws. It should, like other
modern law databases, be regularly updated. Proof of reference to the database will be relevant to
a possessor’s legal position. UNESCO has agreed to take this proposal forward under the umbrella
of its international remit and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport has oVered assistance
to drive the project forward.
Export Licensing
— Members of the Illicit Trade Advisory Panel are united in the opinion that the export licensing
system oVers a workable and currently under-used means of imposing constraints on the
movement of those cultural objects which have recently entered the UK after their illegal
exportation from an overseas country. In its Progress Report for 2001,3 the Panel invited the
Government to accept the following position: that, in considering any application for an export
licence, the Export Licensing Unit should seek to identify and take account of any unlawful
removal (including illicit excavation) of the object from the UK or, where diVerent, from the
country in which it was located immediately before it was in the UK; and that the Export Licensing
Unit should take account of any evidence of unlawful removal (including illicit excavation) from
a third country in which the object was located before the country of its last location.
— In the light of the UK Government’s recent accession to the UNESCO Convention, the Panel has
constituted a working party to examine the most eVective means of:
(a) advising on types of cultural property currently subject to looting and therefore needing extra
checks on provenance before export licenses are granted;
(b) monitoring the illegal unlicensed outflow of archaeological material from the UK, including
material oVered for sale on the Internet;
(c) and reviewing the system of, and instructions given to, expert advisers.
Role of Museums
— Taking forward the Illicit Trade Advisory Panel recommendation that “guidelines on the
acquisition of archaeological material from overseas and the role of museums acting to provide
temporary safety for antiquities in times of armed conflict should be clarified and refined”.
DCMS—in partnership with the Museums Association—is preparing to host a seminar for UK
museum directors on this issue in the early Autumn.
6. In response to the Select Committee’s recommendations on the treatment of Human Remains held in
UK collections and on artwork wrongly removed between 1933 and 1945:
Human Remains
— The Government set up the Working Group on Human Remains (WGHR) in May 2001 under
the Chairmanship of Professor Norman Palmer to examine the current legal status of human
remains in Government funded museums and galleries in the UK. The Working Group is expected
to report to Ministers by late Summer. At this juncture, it is not possible to say what it will
recommend. However, any recommendation for a relaxation of the law to enable national
museums to de-accession human remains will be subject to wide consultation. It is not possible, at
this stage, to say whether the recommendations could be achieved through secondary legislation
(eg a Regulatory Reform Order), or whether it would require primary legislation.
Spoliation
— The Government set up the Spoliation Advisory Panel in February 2000 under the Chairmanship
of the Rt Hon Sir David Hirst. The Panel can help to resolve claims from people—or their heirs—
who lost cultural objects during the Nazi era (1933–1945), which are now held by UK collections.
3 Ministerial Advisory Panel on the Illicit Trade in Cultural Objects, Progress Report 2001, DCMS (September 2002).
The first claim to be reported on by the Panel in January 2001 concerned a painting by Jan GriYer
the Elder in the Tate Gallery. The Panel recommended the Government pay ex gratia payment of
£125,000 to a family for the painting, which they were forced to sell during the Nazi era. The Panel
is now considering four further claims.
7. In response to the Select Committee’s request to examine the Iraq situation as a case study in
Government action on the international illicit trade in art and antiquities, we oVer the following
summary report:
Pro-active Measures to Curb the Trade in Looted Iraqi Antiquities

— In the interests of urgency, it is felt that there is scope for involving the private sector in developing
an emergency database dedicated to the location and identification of recently looted Iraqi
antiquities. In the meantime, the Government welcomes the publication on 11 June on the world-
wide web by Interpol and the International Council of Museums (ICOM) of a fully illustrated Red
List of the hundred most important categories of antiquities that could have been looted or stolen
in Iraq. The list, to which the British Museum has contributed, will form a vital tool for Customs
oYcials, art dealers and collectors to help them recognize objects that could originate from Iraq,
and will alert and raise awareness of professionals and the general public on the illicit traYc of
Iraqi cultural property. A complementary multi-lingual leaflet in English, French and Arabic is
also being prepared for use by law enforcement agencies and Customs on the ground.
— It is encouraging that border nations are maintaining their vigilance over the movement of
antiquities across their borders. The Jordanian customs authorities, for example, recently
confiscating looted antiquities at a frontier crossing. Within the UK, the Secretary of State for
Culture, Media and Sport wrote to John Healey, Economic Secretary to the Treasury, to ask him
to alert Customs oYcers at all ports of entry in locating and identifying any Iraqi antiquities, with
a view to prosecuting those who attempt to breach the import controls.
— The UN Security Council has adopted Resolution 1483 lifting sanctions on Iraq but maintaining
the restrictions, among other goods, on the import and trade in unlawfully removed Iraqi cultural
property. The Iraq (UN sanctions) Order 2003 made under the United Nations Act 1946 brought
these restrictions into eVect within the UK on 14 June.
— In addition to these restrictions, the Government has also been proactive in trying to prevent the
illicit trade in artefacts within the UK by involving the relevant trade bodies. At the beginning of
April, DCMS wrote to the British Art Market Federation and to the Antiquities Dealers
Association to ask for their assistance in locating and identifying looted material should it arrive
in the UK.
2 July 2003
Witnesses: Rt Hon Tessa Jowell, a Member of the House, Secretary of State, Mr Nigel Pittman, Senior
Adviser for the Iraq Project Team, and Dr David Gaimster, Department for Culture, Media and Sport,
examined.
Q1 Chairman: Secretary of State, may I warmly has been provided in that context both by the
welcome you and ask you to introduce your Foreign Secretary and also by the Home Secretary,
colleagues. by the business managers, in securing the rapid
Tessa Jowell: Thank you very much, Chairman. On passage of the Private Member’s Bill which will
my left is Dr David Gaimster, who is our senior create a new oVence in dealing with illicit cultural
oYcial working on this issue; and on my right is Mr objects. I think the recent situation in Iraq has
Nigel Pittman who is leading our project team on produced a very high level of focus across
Iraq. government co-operation and has, in that specific
area, enabled us to make very rapid progress. It is the
progress we have been able to achieve in that area
Q2 Mr Doran: Reading through the submissions which I think will generalise to other areas of longer
from the Department, it is quite clear a lot is term benefit. In five years’ time we will still have the
happening inside DCMS but it seems that other new oVence of dealing in cultural property and it
government departments are not reacting quite as closes a very significant existing loophole.
eVectively as they might in this situation. Can you
explain to us what level of commitment the
Government as a whole has in relation to this Q3 Mr Doran: There are a number of areas where I
problem of stolen artefacts and cultural objects? think the legislation you have referred to would
Tessa Jowell: I think it is an issue which was recently apply, and it would not just be the articles from Iraq,
thrown into very sharp relief as a result of the looting which are obviously very much in the news at the
of the museum in Baghdad, and the looting of moment. It struck me, when I was reading the
antiquities from the museum in Basra and damage to proposed legislation, there might be one or two
sacred sites. I would pay tribute to the support that weaknesses. For example, there is virtually no
8 July 2003 Rt Hon Tessa Jowell, MP, Mr Nigel Pittman and Dr David Gaimster
regulation about auction houses, and there has been that real desire to make sure that London no longer
some press coverage recently of one of the auction has this reputation of a market-place for the global
houses which is alleged to have handled either illicit trade in antiquities and art. They have been
artefacts which it might or should have known were working with Government very closely to develop a
stolen. Is that something that is put on the agenda? series of proposals, which would make sure that
Tessa Jowell: I am sorry, could you repeat the last London is no longer used in this fashion.
part of your question.
Q5 Mr Doran: Finally, there is clearly a balance to
Q4 Mr Doran: There were some press allegations be made between the economic benefit of having a
recently, and I am not naming the auction house thriving art market and a world centre for art, and
deliberately because I have no way of verifying the obviously making sure that it is a clean market. How
allegations, and there was a suggestion at the are you dealing with that balance, and what are the
weekend that one particular auction house was main considerations in the Government’s mind?
alleged to have handled and sold stolen items; and Tessa Jowell: The most important thing is that it is
the circumstances in which they acquired them a clean market. I think we have made that position
suggested they might or should have known that very clear most recently in the context of Iraq.
they were stolen. That raises serious concerns about Bringing forward the Private Member’s Bill was a
how our own institutions are functioning in relation very specific move, through closing the loophole, to
to stolen artefacts. kill the potential for illicit trade. Yes, I would be
Tessa Jowell: I think it is certainly the case that the prepared to see the London art market being less
London art market has acquired a reputation which economically successful, having a smaller world
I think the leaders of the various institutions have share, if the trade for that was that it was free from
been making strenuous eVorts to deal with. It is a crime.
reputation which derives principally from the sheer
volume of art, antiquity and artefact traYc that Q6 Chairman: Could I ask a question to which, in a
comes through London. New York is in a similar sense, there is no answer. When you dealt with the
position and has a similar reputation. It is for those question of the art treasures in Iraq at your last
reasons, for instance, that the recommendations the question session you gave as much information as
Committee made when they last conducted an was available to you. It is clear that you and your
inquiry into this we take seriously and have taken Department did your very best to provide
what steps we can to progress; and where we have information that was as reliable as possible; but
not achieved suYcient progress I will tell you where whenever we see an account of what is alleged to
we have not achieved suYcient progress. The have taken place every single account is diVerent
establishment of a database will be of great value. from the one before. There was a half page in
The progress in establishing a database of stolen Friday’s Daily Telegraph, for example, that there are
artefacts has really been impeded by what I think are some contentions that very little is missing and a lot
strategic disagreements between the art market and was taken away for safe-keeping but no-one knows
the police about how this is best developed, and also where it is. There are other allegations that, although
what it is to be used for. Those arguments have not it may not have been a huge proportion of the
yet been properly resolved. That has been a cause for treasures that were in the museum that went,
delay there. Specifically in relation to Iraq, we now nevertheless it was a very large number of objects in
have the construction of the Red List, the hundred themselves. There are contentions that some of it
most important stolen artefacts from Iraq, and we was not just looting but theft by organised gangs.
would expect if any of them found their way onto the There is a whole diVerent set of versions of what has
London art market for immediate action to be taken taken place, let alone issues which have rightly been
to return them to Iraq. It is diYcult to give you an raised in the House not about Baghdad Museum but
absolute assurance that the claims in the press about about the fate of some of the world’s greatest
stolen artefacts finding their way onto the London archaeological sites, and we are not clear what has
art market and somehow being accepted on to the happened about those either. I know the
London art market are true. What I can say is that information you gave in the House was in good faith
the leaders of the various organisations that run the and was the best you could get, but it is clearly not a
London art market are very sensitive to these situation of any precision so we do not really accept
charges and, I believe, act in good faith through their the fact that things are missing. We do not really
own authority to address these claims, but there will know what the problem is, do we?
always be rogue dealers. It is pretty diYcult to Tessa Jowell: I will ask Nigel Pittman to comment
imagine a time when we will have been able to purge on this. As you are probably aware, I have oYcials
the London art market completely of crime. What from my Department who are doing a really
we will do is to go on putting as many obstacles in outstanding, sterling job in helping to provide
the way of criminals as we possibly can. My answers to precisely some of your questions. If I can
colleague, Dr Gaimster, may wish to add to this. begin with a specific. When Tam Dalyell, about six
Dr Gaimster: On the question of the London art weeks ago, raised the story that had been reported in
market it is quite clear that there is a real willingness The Observer the day before that the Ziggurat at Ur
amongst auctioneers and dealers to clean up the had been vandalised and violated, one of my oYcials
London marketplace. Their representation on the who was there shortly after made a field trip in order
ministerial advisory panel for illicit traders reflects to inspect it and found that it was untouched. What
we can do is to follow-up and verify stories about place or another. The exceptions were some objects
damage. To go back to the first part of your which were on display in the main gallery of the Iraq
question, the information I have used on the floor of Museum; they were not put away either because they
the House was information that I was given by were so large they could not be moved easily or
Donny George the director of the museum in because they were so fragile that it was feared they
Baghdad when he came to London now nearly two would be damaged if they were moved. I believe
months ago. What he told me was this: there are there were 47 objects which were subsequently stolen
170,000 artefacts in the Baghdad Museum. There and, of those, seven have subsequently been
were some which had been removed at the time of returned, and one of those is the Warka vase which
the Gulf War and not returned subsequently; but the Secretary of State referred to. The director
before the military action there were 170,000 estimates that there are approximately 13,000 items
artefacts. About 90% of those were taken away for still missing; most of those are small items which
safe-keeping and, no, we do not know exactly where came from the stores; they are obviously
they are; although I am sure Nigel Pittman will archaeologically important but they are not items
describe the discovery of some with one of my which would normally be on display to the public.
oYcials in attendance in the vaults of one of the The most important element which is missing, which
Baghdad banks. What appears to have been the has only come to light in the last week or two, is the
case, according to Donny George’s account, is that collection of cylinder seals, which number between
they removed a number of artefacts for safekeeping, 4,000–5,000, and the whole of that collection
and there was then also some removal of objects by appears to have been stolen. Those are very
the regime. There also appears to have been criminal important objects for Iraq scholars. They contain a
theft of some of the artefacts. His evidence for that huge amount of information about the early
was the discovery of glass cutters by some of the civilisations in Iraq; but they were all catalogued and
cases. Then there was looting. It was not quite an they are items which would have museum
amnesty that was declared after the looting, but
identification on them. Were they to come on the
certainly requests went out (particularly through the
market they could be identified. Just to complete the
clerics) asking people if they had taken artefacts to
picture in relation to other museums, there was some
return them. A couple of weeks’ ago the Warka vase,
loss at the museum in Mosul. There were problems
which was the cause of great concern at its loss, was
there again because items could not all be put into
returned. It was returned damaged but capable of
safe storage, and some of the items that were on
restoration. That appears to be the best evidence and
information we currently have. One of the things display were lost. On the archaeological sites we are
that the staV of the museum are very concerned to do still awaiting detailed information on many of them
is to have the necessary time in order to conduct a because, of course, many of them are quite remote
detailed inventory, and that is still in progress. Nigel, and are very diYcult to police, and are very diYcult
you may wish to add to that since you have a for people to actually visit because of the security
specialist responsibility for overseeing this work situation. There has been significant looting at a
from the Department. number of the sites, particularly in southern Iraq in
Mr Pittman: Chairman, what I can tell you is more the area between Baghdad and Basra; but on many
up-to-date information direct from the horse’s of the other sites there are American guards in place
mouth, as it were, because we have a number of the and the Americans have stepped up their over-flying
leading members of the Iraq Museum in London at and regular patrols. The Iraq culture ministry, which
this moment—they are at a conference at the British is being got back into place by the coalition
Museum all this week. Yesterday afternoon there provision authority, is hoping now to re-establish
was a specific session to do with the looting both of the system of guarding most of those sites, which is
the museum and of the archaeological sites. They carried out by employees of the ministry, in the
were able to give us an update on just what their course of the next few weeks. That will not
current assessment is of the size of the loss. We also necessarily stop all the looting, but it will be a major
heard from a member of a UNESCO mission which step towards it.
has been out in Iraq last week, which was able to visit
a number of the major archaeological sites. Indeed,
we saw some photographs from those showing the Q7 Mr Bryant: You really asked all my questions,
extent of the looting of some of those sites. The latest Chairman, but just to pursue this a little further.
position that the director of the museum gave us When some of us met with the director of the British
yesterday was that she estimates that approximately Museum some few weeks ago now he maintained
13,000 objects may be missing. That is, as the that the American forces were making it impossible
Secretary of State has said, out of 170,000 catalogue for anybody to go and visit the Ziggurat at Ur and
entries in the museum register. The museum, as well any of the other sites. From what you are saying,
as putting away most of the most important objects Secretary of State, presumably that is not the case?
before the war and, in some cases, much earlier than Mr Pittman: At Ur the position, as I understand it,
that—and that applies to the Nimrud treasures is that access is diYcult because there is an American
which were only discovered in 1990 and which went airfield adjacent. It is not actually on the site at Ur
into the bank vault in the National Bank almost but it is right next door to it. It is an airfield which
immediately after that and were not seen in public— has been there for many years, which I think the
most of the major items were put in safe store in one Iraqis originally established but the Americans are
using it, so access is restricted to Ur but it is not Mr Pittman: I think the media ran with certain
impossible. The UNESCO mission were certainly things which they picked up and which were just not
able to see part of the site. verifiable at the time. The other thing which is an
element in this is that the curators in the Iraq
Museum quite understandably at that point (and
Q8 Mr Bryant: Secretary of State, when you spoke remember this was a few days after a degree of order
to the Commons, as the Chairman has already had been restored in Baghdad) were very unwilling
pointed out, you referred to 90% of the 170,000 items to tell anybody even that there were major items
looking as if they have disappeared, which would which had been put away somewhere, for fear that
obviously leave 17,000, and now we are talking
that would trigger oV further looting. It was only as
about 13,000. That is a hell of a diVerence?
the situation stabilised a month or so afterwards
Tessa Jowell: I would really refer to the Chairman’s they began to be open both with our own oYcials
explanation, which was that was the assessment
who were out there and, subsequently, with the
given to me a couple of months ago in late April by
media.
the director of the museum, and obviously the
Tessa Jowell: I think the other point, which Nigel
picture is changing all the time. From the UK
may wish to comment on, which has emerged
Government point of view, and in the long-term, we
subsequently, which is some explanation for the
hope, for the benefit of the Iraqi people, the presence
behaviour of the American troops outside the
of the team which Nigel Pittman leads from London
museum while the looting was going on, was it now
is precisely that this process of verification can
continue to be updated. appears that the museum itself was used as a
defensive position through the discovery of both
grenades and rifles in the museum. That was
Q9 Mr Bryant: I am just wondering about the certainly not clear at the time—by which I mean
13,000 now. For instance, the 4,000 items which are when we attended the meeting and the press
the cylinder seals collection you referred to, why conference at the British Museum in mid-April.
would somebody loot that; or why would somebody
steal it to order from the West; or why would
somebody steal it to order from within academic Q12 Mr Bryant: I am still struggling with this bit. I
circles? can see why some rich multi-millionaire sitting in
Mr Pittman: It is a very good question, and it is not their Beverley Hills mansion would want to order
one I can give you any answer to—the question of the theft of a Picasso which would never be seen by
why the cylinder seal collection and not, for anybody but by that person, because that is what
instance, the coin collections? I suppose all one can they wanted to do; but I still cannot see why you
say is that it appears from the reports that the initial would want 4,000 cylinder seals. An academic
looters who had some inside knowledge went for organisation would never want to do that either. If
those things where they either knew where they were one cannot see why that might happen then it is very
placed or could get at them easily. They were then, I diYcult to put processes in place which would stop
think, subsequently disturbed. There was then some it happening again in another place.
more general looting. I suspect if the situation of Tessa Jowell: Dr Gaimster came to us from the
chaos, as it was in those few days in the early part of British Museum—he will explain a bit more about
April, had gone on longer that more of the the psychology of collection, I think.
collections would have disappeared. Why the Dr Gaimster: Only to say that the cylinder seal
cylinder seal collection? I just cannot answer that collection represented an easy target—easily
one. I do not think any of us know. It is that element transportable, small objects which can be dispersed
which largely accounts for the diVerence in the easily in the marketplace across borders. That is the
figures, because it was only within the last two or kind of thing that those people, who are part of a
three weeks that it became apparent the whole of global criminal industry, would go for. Those
that collection was missing. objects can be sold individually for quite high prices
on the Western market.
Q10 Mr Bryant: As I recall from when the first
media reports came out about this, it seems as if they Q13 Mr Bryant: What sort of prices?
were jumping to an awful lot of assumptions very, Dr Gaimster: I understand they range from
very quickly? something between £200–£10,000. They are highly
Mr Pittman: Yes. marketable objects individually and that appears to
us to be quite a targeted group of material that was
taken.
Q11 Mr Bryant: They were happy to tell a story
which was, “American troops weren’t interested;
they knocked down the door and let everybody loot. Q14 Mr Bryant: The psychology of looting is
Oh, by the way, lots of people from the West really diVerent obviously, because if you go into a museum
wanted to get their hands on various pieces of great to take a 3200 BC vase you are not doing that
art and cultural significance”. That story, which because you are intending to use it at home. What is
were sold quite heavily by nearly all the media in the the rationale? Why are you taking that? Unless you
UK and in the West, just seems not to have been can understand the rationale for that, how do you
true? stop it in any other situation?
Tessa Jowell: I think any one of us could give an MoD instead or went to the Foreign OYce. I think
explanation. I think there is no definitive there was some confusion and I obviously regret
explanation behind the motive for looting. Nigel, I that. The MoD did consult widely with the
do not know whether the staV we have there have archeological community. I think both the
given you their judgment on why the looting took University of Newcastle and University College
place, and what motivated some people to loot and London provided advice on the protocols and means
others not? by which sites of cultural and historic interest could
Mr Pittman: No, all they have said (and I think most be best protected. You will be aware of the
people have run to this conclusion) is they feel there provisions under Article 53 of the Geneva
were two kinds of stealing involved: some very Convention which would prohibit any direct attack
targeted stealing by people who clearly did want to against cultural property, unless it was quite clear
traYc in the goods; and then not just looting but that that property was being used to support the
indiscriminate damage in the museum itself which military operation. The allied forces had very strict
involved, for instance, going through all the oYces instructions not to fire on holy sites. For example,
and emptying out every desk, every filing cabinet, the mosque in Najaf, one of the most important
throwing the stuV all over the floor and getting to the shrines of Shi’ite Islam, was used by Iraqi troops to
point where they were about to set fire to some of fire at allied forces but, because of that agreement
that material, which is what happened in the and those instructions, the US troops did not return
National Library and a number of the university the fire. When the action was actually engaged, and
libraries but did not happen in the Museum we look in retrospect at the damage that was caused,
presumably because they were disturbed. I think we all will ask ourselves what might have been
people were picking anything they could get in the avoided. The fact is that operational decisions on the
hope that it might be of some use to them. ground were taken to guard key sites, such as
hospitals. Certainly there was eVort taken to guard
Q15 Mr Bryant: Do you think any Ba’athist oYcial the museums, but these were decisions that had to be
has walked oV with anything? Is there any taken in the light of the specific circumstances at the
estimation, because presumably some of that must time. I know that during the period of the most
have happened? intense action, when my Department was in liaison
Mr Pittman: There is no clear evidence one way or and discussion with the MoD, one of the concerns
another is all we can say. There is some suspicion of was the safety of troops who would become targets
an element of an inside job because people seem to for snipers protecting the museum. Very diYcult
have known where to find some of the keys to get judgments, that are certainly not for me to second-
them into some of the stores. Whether that was guess, were made about the operation during that
because they were tipped oV by somebody who was time. There was a lot of controversy at the point at
in the museum, or because there was somebody who which American troops entered Baghdad, and in the
worked there in the past and knew where they might days where the looting of the Baghdad Museum
be, we just do not know. followed, about what appeared to be at the time the
Tessa Jowell: It is my intention to go to Baghdad in pacivity of the American troops positioned near to
early September, and I would be very happy to the Baghdad Museum in the face of looting. I think
provide you with a supplementary memorandum for it will be some time before we really understand what
this inquiry on the basis of that visit if you would find happened on the ground. I think the discovery of
it helpful. armaments in the museum and the extent to which it
appeared to be being used by the Iraqi military is an
explanation that was not available to us then.
Q16 Derek Wyatt: Good morning, Secretary of
State. I am trying to remember but I think Oona
King asked defence questions before we went to war Q17 Derek Wyatt: Is it possible to put that paper
and warned the Secretary of State for Defence that trail into the public domain so we can see what the
there were great treasures in Iraq. I think the answer correspondence really was with the Pentagon and
was that the Secretary of State would in fact follow whether the brigadiers and the generals actually got
that very carefully. As I understand it a series of the evidence out on the field and, if they did, what
memos went up through our defence system across did they do with it?
to the Pentagon and down to the cultural systems Tessa Jowell: We can certainly do our best subject to
and defence systems in America. What I find hard, if the normal strictures. I have to be careful not to
in fact that trail is true, is what happened between make a commitment on behalf of the MoD and the
the trail and the actual events? In order to help, if Foreign OYce. Certainly I can ask for that and you
you have not traced it, I wonder whether you would too can ask for that.
trace it on our behalf so we can better understand
why, when push came to shove, they did not defend Q18 Derek Wyatt: Can I come on to looted
the treasures as it was alleged they said they would treasures per se. Over the last ten years the Nazi
in the memoranda? treasures, wherever they have been, eventually after
Tessa Jowell: I will ask Nigel Pittman to come in on an amazing campaign have been returned or, in the
this question as well. First of all, I think there was case of the Tate, we have made an ex gratia payment.
some confusion in the traYc of correspondence in I want to ask how you feel about the Ethiopian
the run-up to military action beginning; letters that Maqdala treasures which Napier looted in 1868 and
should have come to my Department went to the sold for £5,000 in Ethiopia, which are held here in
the Queen’s collection at the V&A and the British display. The Archbishop and President of Ethiopia
Museum, and over the last hundred years we have would like them back. It is not unreasonable, is it,
given scraps back. We gave a second-rate crown for us to send them back? The Italians are
back but kept the gold crown here at the V&A. I negotiating sending an obelisk. Edinburgh has sent
visited Addis Ababa last year under my own volition one of the tablets back. Why are we so sniVy? These
and there is real deep resentment of how we have are part of their whole religious history and we hold
taken their religious treasures. They are kept under them in a drawer which no-one can see!
lock and key at the British Museum and no-one can
see them. Is there some reason why they cannot go
Q19 Chairman: Could I just intervene to say, not in
back?
any way contesting anything you have said but they
Tessa Jowell: I will ask David Gaimster to deal with
cannot be sent back, the law does not allow them to
your specific point, but you are right this is an area
be sent back.
where principle and pragmatism collide. There is
Tessa Jowell: I was going to make exactly that point,
only one claim which has so far been settled, as you Chairman. You will be aware that this is the point of
rightly say, concerning the painting by Jan GriYer issue also in relation to the Parthenon Marbles. I
which was held at the Tate, and the Government was think, in principle, that this is an area of profound
recommended by the Spoliation Advisory Panel to importance. It is an issue that will face us again in the
make an ex gratia payment of £125,000 to the family autumn when the working group on human remains
concerned. They had been forced to sell the painting reports. The issue is this: to what extent should the
during the Nazi era and this ex gratia payment was collections which are currently in our museums be
made immediately. subject to review where a case for restitution is made,
Dr Gaimster: I think it is important to try to whether a claim is made, regardless of whether a
distinguish between Spoliation, which was claim has been made? In relation to museum policy
recognised as a real and serious issue by the Select generally I think this will be one of the most
Committee during its deliberations in 2000— important issues of the next five years. It is a very hot
artefacts and works of art that had been wrongfully and controversial debate within the museum
take during the Nazi era—and other issues of community, as I am sure you know. At the moment,
restitution in the museum community and the any progress along the lines you proposed is locked
example you quoted about Ethiopian treasures by the legislative responsibility of the trustees of the
taken in the 19th century. The restitution issue is British Museum.
another very large issue and one which was also
addressed by the Select Committee to an extent, and
is one that does concern the museum community. Q20 Derek Wyatt: Indeed, but a Private Member’s
There are continuous debates on the issue. There any Bill, as we have already seen with Richard Allan,
many more famous cases, perhaps, than the could unlock some of that. Would I be right in
Ethiopian one you have just mentioned, and ones thinking that the academics at the British Museum
which concern Government as well. In terms of are nervous because, if they allow one collection to
looking at the question and longer term policy— go, they then open themselves up? Is this not the
how do you deal with claims, cultural claims burning issue with collections worldwide over the
particularly from cultures which still exist that have next ten or 20 years? Ethiopia happens to be the
a claim on objects which may have been removed oldest civilisation in Africa and I understand that
from these cultures previously, particularly in a people would like to have these things back. It is not
colonial context—what I am saying is that those unreasonable, is it?
issues are very important to us too, and we are Tessa Jowell: The view you have described and the
looking at them in terms of how we develop policy strength of feeling you have described is not unfair
with colleagues in the museum community. We are at all; but I think we have all got to be aware of the
looking at drafting new guidelines, new guidance, consequence that follows if we say, “Okay, where
how museums acquire such objects today—and we artefacts and treasures were acquired by whatever
can come on to that later perhaps because you might means, in some cases hundreds and hundreds of
be interested in that area. We have so far tried to years ago, where there is a wish that they be returned
keep a distance between historical situations such as they are returned”, then the impact on our
the Ethiopian cases you have mentioned and current collections and the impact on the role of a museum
acquisition issues, and also careful not to conflate, like the British Museum, which sees itself very much
say, spoliation with those historical restitution cases. as a museum for the world, will be enormous. One of
I am not saying they are not important, but I think the reasons I find this particular issue so diYcult is
what we are trying to do is work with colleagues in that I am not clear about the extent one can rest on
the museum community and with the National principle without finding in eVect that most of our
Museum Directors Conference to look at the museums are denuded of many of their most
important treasures and, therefore, denied to
question and look at future policy. That is not to say
millions and millions of people who come to this
we do not take those questions very, very seriously.
country in order to see them.
Derek Wyatt: You will not be surprised that I find
that a deeply unhelpful answer. We have taken the
most religious parts of the church—the oldest Q21 Derek Wyatt: I understand that debate. Has
Christian church in the world we looted in 1868— there been an analysis by the British Museum as to
and they are in a drawer and cannot be put on public how much looted treasure there is?
Tessa Jowell: You may wish to request that movement of such objects around the country. As
information from the director of the British the Secretary of State has already said, it is designed
Museum if he has already given evidence to you in very much in terms of detection and law
the context of this inquiry. enforcement; it is a closed security, exclusive
database to the police; and I think the tensions are
Q22 Alan Keen: I heard someone on the radio beginning to emerge across the sector in terms that
criticising the Select Committee that reported the art market itself, the museums, general public,
yesterday saying that MPs could not ask diYcult magazines and so on in the sector wish to have an
questions. I thought they were really diYcult open database into which everybody has access, but
questions! The Chairman retaliated earlier on by this would not be possible. One option is to expand
asking a question to which he said there was no the police database to make it national and be open,
answer. You cannot beat that, can you! At least this but I think that is going to be very diYcult because
Committee can ask questions. the police have very, very diVerent priorities. There
Tessa Jowell: It is the thoughtful and reflective I think the tensions are beginning to emerge. There
nature of this Select Committee! are diVerent ambitions for the database amongst the
various stakeholders we are talking to about this
particular issue.
Q23 Alan Keen: Can you comment on the progress
on the database of stolen cultural artefacts?
Tessa Jowell: I do not think I have terribly Q24 Alan Keen: Who is going to take the initiative
satisfactory progress to report to you on the then? Whose duty is it?
database. It is a very good question, and it is a Tessa Jowell: It is our job to take it forward. There is
question to which there is a pretty straight answer. I also the question of cost. The costs which have been
do not think that progress is very good. I would just quoted so far are high—upto £12 million.2 I have no
as a sideline say that the fact that we have the Red departmental provision for that. We will do our best
List1 and the fact that UNESCO are collaborating to move forward. There are two proposals on the
on the development of a database will be very table. One is with UNESCO in the lead on compiling
important in relation to maximising the protection an international database, and they are moving
for stolen treasures from Iraq. The problem we have, ahead with support from my Department on that,
and you made this recommendation in your last and a meeting of the countries that are parties to the
Report, is the profound nature of the disagreement convention will take place in October which will
between the police, on the one hand, and the art provide a further opportunity for discussion about
market and the industry, on the other. In that, while that. It is my Department’s job.
both want a database, they want it for diVerent
purposes and neither want to pay for it. I have come
fairly recently to this issue and I have to say became Q25 Alan Keen: Is the £12 million the estimated cost
aware of it some months ago. Obviously negotiation of the database that the police want, the closed one?
with the police is a matter for the Home OYce. The Dr Gaimster: A national database.
Home OYce have made it quite clear in a letter I
have had this morning, and the minister replies to Q26 Alan Keen: The value of the research base must
me, that they are prepared to consider the case for be enormous. Could the stolen ones not be coded so
Home OYce contribution to the cost of establishing that not everybody could have access to them? The
and running a Metropolitan Police database, museums and police could have access, but not the
providing that the Commissioner agrees; and public themselves?
providing also that the link between investment in Tessa Jowell: It is very specifically intended as a
such a database and dealing with money laundering, database that will record stolen property. A more
drug traYcking and the other criminal activities that open database, which is what the industry prefers,
is increasingly associated with crime in the art has a number of important weaknesses: first, that
market is proven. As I say, on the other hand, you many archeological objects do not register because
have the art market who do not want that kind of of the low commercial value involved and dealers,
closed database which the police would maintain, because they are reluctant to search, would be
which the police would control access to. You have unlikely to register items with a value of under
the art market that actually wants an open database. £2,000; secondly, there is a risk on an open database
I think we have got some diYcult and, I hate to say that stolen property simply would not appear, and
it but I fear, time-consuming negotiations in order to dealers would not register property that they
reach some kind of common position. believed might be stolen; and, thirdly, the
Dr Gaimster: The database which the Metropolitan multiplicity of databases does create a problem for
Police are developing—they have had a database for those who are seeking to perform due diligence and
several years and that is now being upgraded—used to search comprehensively for stolen and illicitly
by the Metropolitan Art and Antiquities Unit based imported objects.
in London, London being the centre for the
2 Footnote by Witness: The maximum £12 million estimates
1 Footnote by Witness: Developed by ICOM (International for the proposed national open database of stolen and
Council of Museums) and Interpol, the Red List details illegally removed cultural objects were given by PITO
categories of Iraqi cultural objects most likely to be looted (Police Information Technology Organisation) in its
and appear on the international illicit antiquities market. options study published in 2001. These were for five years,
Available on: www.icom.museum/redlist/irak/en including start-up and running costs.
Q27 Michael Fabricant: Just on the database, and it Q30 Michael Fabricant: Another one!
is not really an area I want to go into, when you talk Tessa Jowell: I do find it an impossible question to
about an “open database” do you mean something answer. The easiest answer is to say, no, nothing
like a website? We visited the Natural History could have been done. There is a complacency about
Museum and they are compiling a marvellous that which I do not like. I think we will all live with
website of all their artefacts. It would seem that if it a question for a very, very long time as to whether
were universally available for everyone you could or not more could have been done to protect these
check against that on the internet that something is treasures. One of the things I think is going to be
not stolen? important—and Nigel Pittman may wish to
Tessa Jowell: Yes, that is the principle of an open comment further on this—is to look at what more
database. can be done to prompt people who have taken things
Michael Fabricant: I think your answer to my home with them, or removed them from a museum,
colleague, Derek Wyatt, was absolutely right on the to return them. I was very struck and moved by just
question of the return of cultural objects. It is not how important this was. All the reports of Iraqis in
only a question of the law and whether or not it is Baghdad, who were facing turmoil, faced with the
spoliation or not; but it is also a question of the care prospect of liberation, cared passionately that
that is taken of these objects. These objects are really liberation should be accompanied by the existence of
held in stewardship for the history of humanity. If their cultural heritage—the evidence of their cultural
they were returned to places where they were not heritage. Lots has been said about the importance of
the contents of the Baghdad Museum for culture and
then looked after, because the humidity would not
civilisation generally, but none of us should under-
be right, maybe they would not be cared for in the
estimate its importance in defining identity and
right way, or maybe (as in Iraq) they may get
creating security in the continuation of identity
damaged, I do not think future generations would
before Saddam and after Saddam for the Iraqi
thank the British Government in forcing the British
people themselves. That is why I am not prepared
Museum to return them.
simply to dismiss your question.
Q28 Chairman: Could I just intervene to say that Q31 Michael Fabricant: You mentioned about
the worst vandal of precious archeological sites in encouraging people to return objects which are
Iraq was Saddam Hussein who did irreparable stolen. You will know that Iraq is potentially a
damage to the site of Babylon rebuilding it in his country of huge wealth with oil reserves and so on.
own image. God help me, I went to see it while I was You also know that the United States Government
there, and basically Babylon is dedicated not to has now put a great deal of money on the head of
Nebuchadnezzar but to Saddam Hussein Saddam Hussein and his sons. Have you considered
Tessa Jowell: It is important never to forget that. either unilaterally as the United Kingdom
Government or in a bilateral agreement with the
United States setting up rewards for the return of
Q29 Michael Fabricant: Returning then to Iraq, I these artefacts?
cannot remember whether it was Bismarck who said, Tessa Jowell: No.
“Not a single Pomeranian grenadier is worth the life
of a French battalion”. No doubt I will be corrected Q32 Michael Fabricant: Why not?
if I have that wrong! I have to say, while we should Tessa Jowell: There are two reasons. In Basra, which
have done everything we could, of course, to defend was under the control of our troops, we did declare
cultural objects in Iraq, I do not think 13,000 an amnesty and things were returned, but it was not
cultural objects are worth the life of a single Royal an amnesty which oVered reward for return because
Marine Commander. Having said that, Lord it was felt that that could act as a perverse
Renfrew, and I think this was raised earlier on, did inducement for people to take more and bring it
raise this whole issue both with the Foreign OYce, back for the reward. That is the argument as to why
with yourself and with the United States’ you do not provide a reward. Other steps have been
Department of Defence and said that what was taken in order to safeguard these artefacts from
going to happen was predictable. Earlier on we had leaving Iraq and also making it very diYcult for
this debate on what are the motives of looters? Of them to be sold on the international market. One is
course there are diVerent sorts of looters. You could the incorporation of a continued sanctions provision
equally as well ask what is the motivation of people under Resolution 1483 which has established the
who went into the Baghdad hospital, the Saddam role of the Coalition Provisional Authority. The
Hospital, and looted incubators for no real second is tightening of border controls, particularly
motivation, other than people who find themselves with Jordan, and there have been instances where
suddenly free are able to acquire things of doubtful people have been found leaving with artefacts that
value. Are you truly convinced given the hindsight have been taken oV them and returned. I have
or, in Lord Renfrew’s case, the foresight that already referred to the Red List, our domestic
nothing more could have been done to have ensured legislation, the action that is being taken through
that looting would not take place? UNESCO and also the work that has been led under
Tessa Jowell: I find that an impossible question to the auspices of UNESCO across a coalition of
answer. international museums to support the reparation,
repair and restitution for the collection in the staying on his premises who was trading material
Baghdad Museum and other museums around which appeared to have come from the museum. He
Baghdad. took the initiative to buy that material himself and
donate it back to the museum, which he has done.
Q33 Michael Fabricant: You made a very strong There are clearly disinterested or very interested
and very good point about the amnesty. We saw the Iraqis who are prepared to take that kind of action
return of property through that. You made the point themselves.
that if you were to set up a reward scheme now it
could encourage people to perversely burgle or loot Q36 Michael Fabricant: They should be
once again. Can I ask you at least to consider this: commended and maybe possibly compensated.
once the situation in Iraq becomes more stable, once Tessa Jowell: For clarity, can I go back to the point
museums are being properly guarded again—and about the Hague Convention? The UK reached a
they are not yet; I accept that—and things settle conclusion about the ineVectiveness of the protocol.
down, if there are still large numbers of artefacts UNESCO then recognised that a second protocol
missing, might you then consider again was required to improve the shortcomings in the
implementing a reward system? original Convention, particularly to establish a more
Tessa Jowell: With great respect, I do not think it is eVective system of protection for specially
a decision for me, sitting here in Westminster. This designated cultural property, and negotiations on
is a decision which will belong to the Iraqi leadership this protocol in which the UK played a leading part
of whichever museum. If they judge it to be right, no were completed in 1999. In the light of that, UK
doubt they will put something in place, but it is not ministers—and my department will take the lead in
a decision for me as the UK Secretary of State. relation to this—have agreed that we should
negotiate with a view to ratifying both the
Q34 Michael Fabricant: There is an EDM down Convention and the second protocol.
which I notice I have not signed for EDM 1245, Notwithstanding that, although we were not party
“Iraq and the 1954 Hague Convention on Cultural to the Hague Convention, we did ratify the Geneva
Property.” This EDM notes the huge destruction Convention. Therefore, the strictures that were
wrought on Iraq’s cultural heritage. It then goes on placed on any kind of damage to cultural property
to note that the 1954 Hague Convention for the during the course of action were established by that
Protection of Cultural Property in the event of framework.
armed conflict has yet to be ratified by the United
Kingdom Government. They believe of course that Q37 Miss Kirkbride: I am sure you will not be
it ought to be. Why has it not been? surprised to hear that I very much agree with my
Tessa Jowell: This was a position considered by the colleague, Michael Fabricant. I was a bit concerned
UK Government and the UK Government was not by your warm words on the return of cultural
satisfied that it was an eVective regime. You property because I think I quote you correctly in
remember that the Committee in its last report made saying that over the next five or ten years this is going
recommendations in relation to the Unidroit to be a very hot topic. I wonder if you could
Convention. We took those recommendations very absolutely clarify for the Committee that there are
seriously indeed and considered the balance of merit no plans by the British Government to change the
as between becoming a signatory to the Unidroit law that would allow the British Museum to return
Convention or UNESCO and concluded that some of it.
UNESCO, because of its greater reach and scope not Tessa Jowell: There are no plans. The Government
requiring primary legislation, was the best protective has no plans and has received no request from the
route to take. That is why we have arrived at the British Museum for an amendment in the law in
position that we are now at. order that the British Museum can return any of the
Mr Pittman: From information which we were given artefacts that are currently part of its collection.
yesterday, apparently almost daily there are still
items being returned. These are things which are
coming in, it seems, unbidden. People either say, Q38 Miss Kirkbride: It is your view that we should
“We had this in safe keeping and now we are not do that. You, as Secretary of State for the
bringing it back” or, for whatever reason, they are Department, believe that we should leave this kind
returning items. What they told us yesterday that of cultural property in the hands of the museums
they were thinking about as a possible longer term that have it in the UK, despite the emotional appeals
measure was not to oVer rewards for return of items by other countries for its return?
but that the museum would be provided with some Tessa Jowell: I think these are judgments which are
funds through the Coalition Provisional Authority best made by the trustees of the museums who have
to acquire items which might appear on the open a statutory responsibility to safeguard their
market in Iraq. collections.
Q35 Michael Fabricant: The equivalent of a car Q39 Miss Kirkbride: You are in charge of the law
boot sale? and, at the end of the day, stakeholders are told by
Mr Pittman: That sort of thing. What we did hear politicians what the framework of the law is going to
about yesterday too was the case of a hotel owner in be. You are the one who decides this, not the trustees
the north of Iraq who found there was somebody of the British Museum.
Tessa Jowell: This is one of these almost impossible Q42 Miss Kirkbride: What is the diVerence? It
questions, with great respect. I am not signalling in happened in living memory. I completely sympathise
what I hope are my reflective answers to you any with the people it happened to but it was an act of
intention by the Government to change policy. war in the same way as other collections might have
Categorically, there is no intention to legislate in this been seen as acts of war but they did not happen to
area. However, I think it will be very important that happen in living memory. What is the diVerence?
the Government is open to what I expect to be a very People are here to complain about it?
significant debate over the next five or ten years Tessa Jowell: It is by now convention that Spoliation
about the relationship between major international is a term which is applied to cultural property that
museums, the collections they have and the was removed during the Nazi period. It is the
countries which in many cases, hundreds or technical term that has that very specific application.
thousands of years ago, those collections were Restitution has a broader application.
derived from.
Q43 Miss Kirkbride: It is a special case?
Tessa Jowell: Yes. Spoliation is a special case.
Q40 Miss Kirkbride: Is not that just a green light for
many of these countries to come and knock on Q44 Miss Kirkbride: It is interesting that it should
your door? not apply to other areas.
Tessa Jowell: No. I really ask you to be more Tessa Jowell: No, because restitution does.
sophisticated than that. There is no headline that
anyone can draw from what I have said that the Q45 Miss Kirkbride: Yes, but the door is closed to
Government intends to enter into legislation that restitution, whereas it is open to spoliation. As a
would open the doors of our museums and see politician I can see why but as a practical argument
collections walking out to countries around the I find it quite hard to sustain. On the issue of human
world. That is not what I am saying. I hope that you remains, I think that is quite worrying and very
accept that and that nobody will seek to important. We are all mankind. It seems to me that
misrepresent that. I am being absolutely clear that my DNA material, irrespective of where it was
there are no plans. The Government has no plans; I found, is still my, our, the people of the world’s
have no plans as the Secretary of State to amend the DNA material and it could be extremely important
law. I am reflecting however that I expect that there in the future. I am not desperately keen to see it
will be a major debate which may take however long buried or burnt.
in this area. I think it will focus on a number of Tessa Jowell: We have at the moment a panel which
diVerent aspects of the collection at the British is sitting under the chairmanship of Professor
Museum and museums in other parts of the world. Palmer considering the whole issue of claims for
That is the point I am making. restitution of human remains. You will be aware of
some of the most widely publicised cases. This was a
group that was set up in early 2001 and it had four
Q41 Miss Kirkbride: I am obviously very pleased by key terms of reference: to establish the current legal
status of human remains within the publicly funded
your answers. On the other hand I do think it does
collections of the UK; to look at the powers that
give some hope to countries who feel that we have
museums and galleries have in relation to de-
despoiled their collections by removing them and
accession, releasing these from their possession; to
not giving them back and that they might come and
look at the circumstances in which material other
bang on your door. I would be grateful if you could than human remains might be included in any
clarify for me what the diVerence is between legislation to change the law of governance in
“spoliation” and “restitution”. What is the relation to human remains; and also to consider
Department’s definition of the diVerence between whether clarity might be provided by a statement of
the two? principles in order to guide decisions to be taken by
Dr Gaimster: Spoliation was one particular theme museums in this respect. That is the framework to
picked up in the original Select Committee report. It which Professor Palmer’s working group is
deals with objects wrongfully taken during the Nazi addressing itself. They will be reporting in the
era. The issue involves museums today which have autumn and it may well be that if your inquiry is
objects, works of art, in their collections that they continuing then you will be able to receive their
have acquired that may have been removed report and to include that in your deliberations.
originally during that period from their original
owners. In our memorandum we explained the kind Q46 Miss Kirkbride: Why is the Department open
of programme we are taking forward to look at minded about human remains when it is not open
individual cases of objects that may have been minded about cultural ones?
spoliated during that period that are now in British Tessa Jowell: There is a debate in the academic and
collections. In the last few years, we have had museum world which is trying to address or identify
something like four cases which we are dealing with the distinction between ownership of cultural
and an advisory panel to the Government is dealing artefacts, cultural heritage, and human remains. It is
with, case by case. That seems to be progressing in a hotly debated issue. There are protagonists on
terms of dealing with that issue reasonably well and both sides of the argument. The main fault line is
quite successfully. those who would argue that somehow human
remains are a diVerent status to cultural objects; that regime, 1933 to 1945. Far from the British Museum
the sense of the being, the sense of the person, not wanting to give those things up, Graham Green
potentially oVers a clearer case for return of human speaking as chairman of the trustees of the British
remains to the country of their origin than do Museum to this Committee—page 49 of the
cultural artefacts where culture has become report—said, “There is no doubt we would wish to
increasingly globalised and internationalised. That return anything we found in those circumstances.”
is the argument and it is within that framework that We made a recommendation on that. The
the Panel under Professor Palmer will be reaching its Government accepted the recommendation. We
conclusions. You are absolutely right. If you put have a second special report dated March 2001
together the legislative lock on cultural objects saying there has been general agreement from those
leaving museums that have them in their trusteeship, consulted that the removal of legislative barriers to
spoliation and the work of the Spoliation Panel and restitution should be sought. Not a thing has been
the committees that are currently meeting on human done. I realise that archaeology is a very long subject
remains, it gives you a flavour of the controversy but I would have thought several years in which
that I referred to and the controversy which this absolutely nothing of any kind whatsoever has been
Committee will no doubt want to embrace over the achieved by your department and the promised
next few years. possibility of legislation has not been brought
forward, frankly, is just not good enough.
Q47 Miss Kirkbride: It seems to me that the logic Tessa Jowell: Of course I understand and accept
between all three issues is quite hard to understand. your impatience. The way in which the department
I cannot quite grasp where it is okay and where it is decided to proceed on the specific issue of human
not okay. Equally, when it comes to human remains, remains was by setting up the working group to
I do not think the human remains that came from which I have referred. That was established early in
Egypt, Ethiopia or anywhere else are any less 2001 so shortly after your report was published.
diVerent than the cultural remains that came from a That working group is due to report imminently, as
period of time in that same country. I equally would I have made clear. To say the department has done
accept that 2,000 or however many years later it is nothing is not fair. What we have done is to intercede
now something which really belongs to the people of another stage between the recommendation of your
the world because perhaps we all came from report and moving to a decision. The stage that we
Mesopotamia in the beginning. I do not know; I am interceded was to seek expert advice and guidance
not good on ancient history. It is partly our culture on what I think this discussion this morning has
and our DNA that is at stake and it gets sent back made very clear is an immensely complex subject.
very often not for it to be kept and preserved for
future generations. I am surprised that the Q50 Chairman: It is perfectly clear to me. I do not
department is open to this debate because it may well know what we are going to recommend at the end of
push you down a road that requires its restitution. this but if it is going to take three years simply to tell
Tessa Jowell: As we do regularly with diYcult issues us what you have just told us now I really do not see
like this, what we have done is to commission what point there is in this select committee issuing
independent experts to provide us with advice. I reports and making recommendations. We have
have not yet seen their report. It will be a report to your second reply, March 2001, which is nearly two
me. We will get it in the autumn and I will then and a half years ago now. “There has been general
consider its recommendations, not just in the agreement from those consulted that the removal of
context of the claims for restitution of human legislative barriers to restitution should be sought.”
remains but also in the wider context. We will We are now in July 2003. In 2000, representing this
respond accordingly. Committee, I went to a conference on these issues at
Vilnius and I was able to hold up a letter from Alan
Q48 Chairman: On the issues Julie Kirkbride has Howarth accepting our recommendations, saying,
been discussing with you, there has been a retreat by “We are doing something.” There was great
your department from the position they took three pleasure. I do not particularly want to go back to
years ago. Vilnius but I do not think I would be very welcome
Tessa Jowell: Can I ask you why you say that? there if I did.
Tessa Jowell: Professor Palmer is an eminent
Q49 Chairman: When we issued our report almost academic in this area. I believe he will provide us
exactly three years on 18 July 2000, Alan Howarth with sound advice and we will then move forward. I
then speaking for the Government said, on page 43 do not think it is fair and it is not accurate in fact to
of our report, “I think we should be willing to look say that absolutely nothing has happened. My
sympathetically and constructively at whether it is department takes this Committee’s reports very
possible to ease the law so that if the trustees so wish seriously indeed but you make recommendations to
they can make amends and they can return human Parliament. They are also recommendations to us.
remains.” We made a fairly cautious We then have to consider how best to implement
recommendation. In three years, nothing whatever them. A decision was taken early in 2001, before I
has been done. In the same way, we made a was Secretary of State, that the best way to proceed
recommendation and we dealt with the issue of the was by the establishment of a group working to the
very, very specific subject of material looted from the terms of reference that I have outlined. I do not
Jews and others during the period of the Nazi know when you expect to conclude your inquiry but
it sounds to me possible that this group will have dealing with objects that have been removed in these
reported before you conclude your inquiry, in which circumstances or objects over which there may be
case you can incorporate their report into your some question mark in terms of ownership. We are
consideration of evidence, if you so wish. hoping to work with the Museums Association and
the Illicit Trade Advisory Panel together to develop
Q51 John Thurso: I want to ask you about the through a process of meetings with museum
Portable Antiquities Scheme but I think it is directors new, more concrete guidance on how
absolutely right that the Government is wary. There objects such as these can be acquired and what are
must be some occasions where objects of cultural or the protocols for establishing museums of
particularly religious significance should merit going temporary safety.
back. After all, we in Scotland benefited from the
return of the Stone of Destiny which was much Q52 John Thurso: With regard to the scheme itself, I
appreciated. I am sure other countries would think something like 100,000 objects since 1997 have
appreciate the same. At paragraph 121 of the last been dealt with which would probably have
report, there was a recommendation that the otherwise gone unrecorded. Firstly, what is the
department conduct a review of the circumstances in department’s attitude towards the scheme? I hope it
which it is appropriate for museums in England and will be supportive. Secondly, given that it is
Wales to act as repositories of last resort of currently funded by a variety of bodies, particularly
antiquities likely to have originated within those Lottery funding that will run out in 2006, and given
countries. What progress has been made on that? that the cost of the scheme is a very modest 1.2
Dr Gaimster: The Illicit Trade Advisory Panel has million a year, would the department be prepared,
been looking at that question in some detail and it given its success, to take on board that funding to
has been addressed in terms of an issue in its report ensure that the scheme can go forward in the future?
of December 2000 and also in its progress report. Tessa Jowell: This has been a successful scheme. The
This is a question that the panel is taking forward early piloting showed that quite quickly. We have
with the Museums Association in terms of looking at Lottery funding for the next three years, as you say.
the whole climate and the practice of acquiring Putting the Portable Antiquities Scheme on a
objects. Also, museums acting in this role. At this permanent footing will obviously be a decision for
stage in 2000 the term was “repositories of last the next spending round, but yes, it has proved to be
resort” and Professor Renfrew has some concern successful and we ought to try to ensure that we can
about that term. The term that we are now looking fund it in the long term.
at is one of temporary safety, particularly for objects
that have been removed during times of armed Q53 John Thurso: I think that is a very hopeful
conflict. The plan is to organise a conference for answer.
museum directors on this issue. We were going to Tessa Jowell: I think it is as hopeful an answer as you
have it this July. The work on the Bill took can give if you are Secretary of State facing the next
precedence, I am afraid, so we are going to be spending round but not having yet negotiated the
hosting this in the early autumn. The Museums next spending round.
Association over the last few years has refined its John Thurso: I wish you well.
codes of practice and ethical statements, but those Chairman: Secretary of State, we are within a minute
are rather theorised statements. They do not oVer of the time at which you need to go so thank you very
concrete guidance for museums where they are much indeed.
904625PAG1 Page Type [SO] 10-12-03 21:19:07 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1
Tuesday 28 October 2003
Members present:
Mr Frank Doran Alan Keen

Michael Fabricant Miss Julie Kirkbride
Mr Adrian Flook Rosemary McKenna
Memorandum submitted by the Natural History Museum
ILLICIT TRADE IN CULTURAL OBJECTS

The Natural History Museum is pleased to give evidence to the Committee for its inquiry into
Government policy on illicit trade in cultural objects. Our evidence relates to two issues being considered
by the Committee: illicit trade and human remains.
The Natural History Museum holds some 70 million objects in its collections of botanical, mineralogical,
palaeontological and zoological material, together with a substantial library collection. The British Museum
Act (1963) defines the Museum’s powers and responsibilities with respect to its collections. The Museum
provided detailed information on its policies and position in evidence to the Committee’s earlier inquiry
in 2000.
1. Illicit Trade
The Natural History Museum reviews and publishes its collections policies and procedures on a regular
basis—usually every five years. The Museum’s policies have for many years included commitments to
acquire objects only when proper title can be established, and when the objects have been obtained in
accordance with UK, international or other relevant national laws. Since the Committee’s earlier inquiry,
the collections policies have been revised to include the following policy statements on acquisitions:
— “Under the terms of the UNESCO 1970 Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing
the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property, which the UK ratified
with eVect from 1 November 2002, the Museum will reject any items that have been illicitly
traded.”
— “The Museum will use the National Museum Directors’ Conference Statement of Principles and
Proposed Actions on Spoliation of Works of Art during the Holocaust and World War II period
(1998) and report on them in accordance with the guidelines”.
2. Human Remains
As a part of its wide range of research activities, the Museum supports research on human origins and
variation, and related fields, maintaining a collection of human remains from all parts of the world as an
essential resource. The Director of the Natural History Museum, Sir Neil Chalmers, has been a member of
the DCMS Working Group on Human Remains, which was established in 2001 following the Culture,
Media and Sport Committee’s inquiry in 2000 Cultural Property: Return and Illicit Trade.
We look forward to the release of the Working Group report and to any Government response to the
report. If the current inquiry is still in progress at that time, the Museum will draft further evidence in
response to the report and the response, but in the meantime would like to register its continuing interest
in the Committee’s work on this issue.
July 2003
Witness: Sir Neil Chalmers, Director, The Natural History Museum, examined.
Chairman: Sir Neil, thank you very much indeed for assessment and weighing of those balances, there
coming to see us. I was saying to my colleagues, should be return permitted under certain
before we opened the doors, that this is, in a sense, circumstances.
even more déjà vu than in other inquiries since, so far
as I can remember, from the Government’s point of
Q56 Michael Fabricant: If the law were changed,
view absolutely nothing has changed since we
who would be the arbiter? Would it be the museum?
looked at these matters previously. Anyhow, at that
Should there be a third party?
point Mr Fabricant was not with us so it is to some
Sir Neil Chalmers: I would favour a museum such as
extent new ground for him. Therefore, we will give
ours having the equivalence of an ethics committee
him the chance to ask the first questions.
(which is very common, let us say, in university
Michael Fabricant: Which is another way of saying
medical schools and in hospitals) under which
my questions might be a little naive, but anyway . . .
research proposals and return proposals could be
Chairman: No, if I had wanted to say that, I would
considered. That ethics committee would have upon
have said it!
its membership experts who are authoritative both
in the relevant fields of research and in the fields of
Q54 Michael Fabricant: I think it is correct to say— understanding of the part of the world from which
but correct me if I am getting it wrong—that the the claims are being made. I think that ethics
Natural History Museum is the primary repository committee should report to the governing body of
for human remains in the United Kingdom. That is the museum (our board of trustees in our case). But
so, is it not? I also think that it is important for everybody to see
Sir Neil Chalmers: That is. that such a process is fair and transparent and I feel
that there should be an independent authority,
Q55 Michael Fabricant: As you have not made an someone with licensing authority, which says: If you
opening statement—and I particularly want to are going to be keeping human remains, this is a
concentrate on the subject of human remains privilege, you have to accord with the highest
because I think it is rather diVerent from the vexed standards of care and you have to show that your
questions concerning the Elgin Marbles or methods of considering claims for return are
whatever—would you like to make a statement or at transparent and defendable.
least say what your views are regarding the return of
human remains, should they be requested, outside Q57 Michael Fabricant: I see huge parallels here
this country? between the benefits you are describing and that of
Sir Neil Chalmers: Certainly. Thank you. Much of the governance of the BBC, where they feel they can
what I will say will be very similar to what I said to be their own judge and jury, and, even when they
this Committee in the year 2000. My position has not make the right judgment, people often think: “This
really changed. We have, as you have said, very large is not transparent.” In recent months or years, what
collections—very important scientifically, very claims have there been? I do recognise the
important for research—bringing benefit to importance of maintaining many of these remains as
humanity, not just to our museum, in the fields of a scientific resource. In your judgment, what claims
medicine, in the fields of our understanding of our have recently been made and what burden would
own origin, and in many other fields. We see this as a that put on scientific resource if it had been possible
worldwide resource of great importance. We are not for all those claims to have been met?
permitted to return, as you know, at the moment, by Sir Neil Chalmers: The claims that we have received
the British Museum Act 1963, and we actually would over the last five years, let us say, have averaged, I
favour some limited ability to return in very specific think I am right in saying—and my colleagues
cases. It is clear that, although there is very great behind me have the factual information if it would
research value from our collections, there are also help the Committee—about one a year. Quite often
considerable genuine concerns of communities they are repeat claims from a particular claimant
around the world who see ancestors of theirs or representative body, whether it is from Australia or
fragments of skeletons from their ancestors in North America.
collections such as ours and this causes them great
distress. We recognise that. We see that it is very
Q58 Michael Fabricant: When it is a single claim,
important that a balance should be established
are these just for a single body or for an entire group
under which you can weigh up on the one hand the
of specimens? How large are these individual claims?
value to humanity of holding the collections and
Sir Neil Chalmers: It varies. Sometimes it is for an
doing important research and on the other hand
individual person or fragment of a skeleton;
trying to meet the concerns of indigenous
sometimes it is a general thing, saying, “We would
communities. At the moment we have our hands
like all of our Aboriginal”—or Maori or North
tied. We have no ability to return whatsoever. I
American Indian—“remains from that particular
would favour the law being relaxed, very specifically
tribe returned.” It varies from one to the other.
relating to human remains and not to other parts of
our collections, in order that, where there were a
claim for which the case for return was so Q59 Michael Fabricant: Were a claim made for an
overwhelming and the case for retention (because entire . . . I was going to use the word “species” but
the scientific and research value was not seen to be so I do not think that is the correct word to use . . . for
great) was less, that in such cases, after very careful an entire group of remains, would that not reduce
28 October 2003 Sir Neil Chalmers
substantially your resource to be able to do research human remains in our collection fall into that
into DNA and all the other research that could be category. We know of probably five or six from
done in the future? Australia and a smaller number than that from other
Sir Neil Chalmers: Yes, it would. It would be very parts of the world where it might be possible to
damaging, particularly if it were a broad claim. The identify the individual if one did further research.
claims which come to us from Australia tend to be We do not have clear names in any individual case
broad: “Return everything.” That would be, to my But you can imagine that if a descendant came and
mind, irresponsible and undefendable, because we said, “That is my ancestor who you are holding,”
would forego the major benefits that come from our you would be more sympathetic to that than if you
holding those remains and doing research upon had a fragment of a skeleton of unknown identity, of
them. I think that the number of occasions when you not very certain age, from a very broad
could identify a case where it was right to return geographical area.
would be very few and they would be very specific to
an individual.
Q64 Miss Kirkbride: The irony of that, is it not, that
Q60 Michael Fabricant: What representations have you would then have to test that fragment of remains
you made to the Government asking for a change in to demonstrate a genetic link with the person who is
the law to enable you to make returns when claiming it back? Therefore you would be using your
appropriate to do so? own research, if it is possible, in order to establish the
Sir Neil Chalmers: We have made it clear, claim of the relationship to the person who lives
particularly to DCMS, that we are willing to make today.
this kind of change. We have made it both privately, Sir Neil Chalmers: I think that is a correct
in conversations with oYcials, and I have made that conclusion and from what I have understood about
clear to a minister, to Estelle Morris, in fact, and I the position of the claimant communities from
think they well know my position. Australia, they would not be opposed to that.
Q61 Michael Fabricant: What response, as far is it

is not private, have they made back to you? Q65 Miss Kirkbride: Right. And you still think it is
Sir Neil Chalmers: I think they are interested and right to go ahead, despite the irony.
sympathetic. They have not committed themselves, Sir Neil Chalmers: Indeed. I would emphasise that I
as far as I am aware, to a very specific form of action, do not see more than a very small number of
but I think they are sympathetic. I think they occasions when this would actually happen, because
understand our positions. the enormous majority of our collections are not
claimed for at all and, where there are claims, they
Q62 Chairman: Could I ask you, before I call Julie are going to be very broad indeed, about a whole
Kirkbride, we shall be asking, of course, but have category about which we have very imperfect
they given you any explanation in your discussions information in terms of identity.
with them as to why they have done nothing
whatever about this in the nearly four years since we
last looked at it? Q66 Miss Kirkbride: How old are these fragments
Sir Neil Chalmers: They have not given any reason likely to be?
to me directly as to why they have not done Sir Neil Chalmers: Up to 200 years old. Usually they
anything. I have read the statement they gave to this are 100 to 200 years old—the ones that are being
Committee in July, which is that they are waiting for claimed from North America and from Australia
the report of the working group—which, as you will and from New Zealand, in particular.
know, has now submitted its report and of which I
was a member. I think they are saying that they will
wait to see what the working group says and then Q67 Miss Kirkbride: It might be that, in establishing
they will come up with their response. the principle that they can be repatriated, you are
Chairman: Thank you. giving the sense of a coach and horses later on, to
broaden that definition, to give encouragement to
Q63 Miss Kirkbride: I can see why you might not people who did not think there was any before.
want to give an example which comes to mind of Sir Neil Chalmers: That would be my initial
where you might be willing to send back remains, reaction. But what I would hope is that you could
but could you, in order to help the Committee have have a sensible framework for decision-making and
an idea of what you have in mind, give us a build up a sensible dialogue with claimant
hypothetical example of where you think it might be communities such that the extreme positions that
appropriate to make a return? one sees being adopted would be modulated. I would
Sir Neil Chalmers: Yes. If there were to be a claim for hope that there would be cases where claimant
the return of a skeleton of an individual, or a part communities would say, “Yes, we see the benefits of
skeleton of an individual, where the name of the continuing research on these collections, even
individual were known and the claim were made on though they are from our ancestors, because we can
behalf of descendants who were known, that would see how we would benefit.” I would like us to get into
be a claim, it would seem to me, that it would be very dialogue, so that you prevent this coach-and-horses’
diYcult to resist. I should say that very, very few atmosphere.
Q68 Miss Kirkbride: I am not particularly versed in “No, techniques are developing all the time.” It
these things, but, from what one reads in the would be irresponsible to throw away this
newspapers, for the people who want their remains opportunity. The third example I would give is that
back it is cultural that they have to be buried in a we use our collections to train people. We train
certain place. forensic anthropologists so they can recognise
Sir Neil Chalmers: Yes. humans from diVerent parts of the world. Recently
anthropologists trained at our museum have used
Q69 Miss Kirkbride: I do not see how they can their skills to help identify war victims from mass
breach that principle: it is either right and proper for graves in Kosovo. They use those skills also to
them to be buried where they came from or not. I do identify victims from earthquakes. This is a major
not see how you would get them to compromise on good that comes from having that large resource,
that view. comparative resource, as something which trains
Sir Neil Chalmers: You could well be right. I have experts.
certainly heard those positions taken; that is they
want everything returned, mandatorily, without Q71 Mr Doran: You mentioned the restrictions that
exception and without any discussion. That to me is exist on museums, particularly yours and the British
just not possible. I have heard less extreme Museum and others at the moment in relation to the
statements, saying, “We do recognise that there is disposal of assets. I was not clear whether you were
value in research being carried out upon the recommending a change in the legislation when you
collections and we can see a way that the climate of talked about the panel and the various other systems
understanding and working together would be that might be put in place.
improved.” I may be unduly optimistic, I may be Sir Neil Chalmers: I know you will be seeing the
unduly naive, but I would hope that that is what in
Chairman, who will, I am sure, give you a synopsis
fact would prevail over the years. I personally think
of what is in the report. My own view, which I have
that our inability to respond to any request
stated to this Committee on several occasions, is that
whatsoever to return anything at all is damaging and
I believe there should be a change in the law. It
is creating a climate of mistrust and confrontation
absolutely must be permissive and not mandatory.
which does not help us in the museum and nor does
That is crucial. To have mandatory return, as one
it help the claimant communities.
has in the United States, for example, under
Miss Kirkbride: As a plug for the museum, could you
NAGPRA, where a claimant community makes a
tell the Committee—which I do not think has any
claim and it is validated, the material has to go back.
scientists—
Michael Fabricant: I a Master of Science. I think that is deeply damaging and wrong. There
must not be any hint of mandatory return
whatsoever either in the reformulation of any
Q70 Miss Kirkbride: One of us is a scientist—what legislation or in the setting up of regulations such
has been established, what kind of research has been that eVectively mandatory return is introduced by
possible, what you have done? What do we know the back door. I am concerned that that might
now that we would not have done if you had not had happen.
this collection of human bits?
Sir Neil Chalmers: Could I give three examples.
First, we recently had surgeons come into the Q72 Mr Doran: You could achieve that by the
museum and examine a number of knee joints from simple provision of an amendment to the British
both male and female skeletons from diVerent parts Museums Act which took the shackles oV you a bit.
of the world in order to work out how better to carry Sir Neil Chalmers: I am not a lawyer but, as I
out knee replacements. They could not do this by x- understand, that is the case. We have had legal
ray, they could not do this by invasive surgery advice in the museum upon our legal situation.
themselves. They came and did the research on our Despite claims that you read in the press, we do not
collection so that they could better treat patients. have the freedom to return under the British
The second example: With the advent of DNA Museum Act 1963. The law is unclear. We feel
technology, to which you have referred, we are now exposed, we would prefer to have things clarified.
able to read into skeletal material the history of
disease in humanity. We can see how the disease
spread and how we as human beings have reacted to Q73 Mr Doran: Obviously there are a lot of diYcult
diseases like malaria, TB and even the spread of questions involved here. You have mentioned the
Asian flu. DiVerent people from diVerent parts of importance of the collection. At our previous
the world react diVerently—because we are inquiry last year we had the chance to see some of
genetically somewhat diVerent. Finding out about your collection—not the human remains, but some
the capacity of human beings to respond to insult by other parts of the collection—and clearly there are
disease is crucial to understanding how you can cure immense benefits in having the collection which is
it. We are at early days yet because the recovery of held centrally in the Natural History Museum. On
DNA from skeletons is very recent—the ability to do the other hand, one of the things which seems to be
so—but that itself illustrates a very important missing from most of the papers I have seen is an
argument. It is sometimes said by claimant ethical dimension to all this. I would be interested to
communities: “You have got all you know from hear from you what part you feel that ethics plays in
skeletons, why not hand them back now.” We say, all this.
Sir Neil Chalmers: I think it does play a very Q76 Mr Doran: You mentioned new technologies,
important part. One of the things I have learned like DNA examination. It occurred to me: How
more about, if you like, over this three-year interlude would you react if an English village discovered
since this was raised, is the need for a clear ethical through DNA testing that Uncle Fred from 500
framework, because you are always going to have to years ago was lying in the vaults of the Natural
make diYcult decisions where you are balancing History Museum?
competing good things, if I may put it quite simply, Sir Neil Chalmers: I would react in just the same way
and, without some sort of framework against which as I have been describing to Miss Kirkbride. If there
to make those judgments, I do not see how we can was, indeed, a named individual with a direct
make progress. There must be some sort of ethical descendant, I would want to be very sympathetic. I
framework against which you can judge the value to would hope that any ethical framework we set up or
humanity of holding collections because of research, that was set up nationally would recognise that as a
training and education on the one hand, and on the very compelling reason for looking favourably upon
other hand measure the concerns of claimant return. I would hope that we could persuade any
communities despite the diversity of their such person about the value of the research we were
backgrounds and the diVerent kinds of community doing and come to an agreement about how long we
cultures that they hold. I am not an expert in that at might continue to hold the remains for and for how
all, and I would be quite the wrong person for you to long. I have heard examples, clear examples,
probe because it is simply beyond my expertise, but I particularly from North America, where indigenous
absolutely see the need for it. communities have come to those sorts of agreements
with researchers in this country, to the benefit of
Q74 Mr Doran: One of the areas where I have some everybody, and I would hope we could do that.
diYculty with the “repel all borders” sort of
approach—and I am not suggesting you are Q77 Mr Doran: It is a two-way process. I want to be
presenting that—is that a great deal of the legacy parochial for a minute. In my own constituency,
which you hold in the Natural History Museum is Aberdeen University runs the Marshall Museum,
the result of our imperial past. One of the features, which may be a small museum but quite an
if you like, of the twentieth century is that many of important one. Quite recently it was discovered that
the communities which were totally disregarded and one of the holdings was a tribal headdress from a
which were pillaged in many respects are now Canadian tribe. It is quite an interesting illustration
beginning to assert themselves, and I can understand of what you are talking about because the tribe
why the extreme position you outlined—give us discovered that this headdress, which was owned or
back everything without question—is being claimed by the Canadian Blood Tribe, was
enunciated. I can see that. But it does put you in a apparently one of four ceremonial headdresses and
much more diYcult position if we get into a real contact was made with the Marshall Museum
ethical and political argument of how this is best to Trustees. It was an integral part of a sun dance by the
go forward. Blood Tribe, with reserves in Southern Alberta,
Sir Neil Chalmers: I agree with that. I recognise the Canada, who negotiated and the headdress has gone
appalling conditions under which some items in our back. But the interesting thing for me is that out of
collections were obtained—not by us directly, I that has come a relationship between the university
should say, but by other people who collected and and the tribe and the university feels that it is
then the material came to us. We would not, as a actually benefiting more from that relationship than
museum, wish to defend it; we would deplore it and holding on to the headdress. It has learned a lot more
we recognise the outrage that those cases cause to about the artefact that it held and now has a real
claimant communities. Nonetheless, we have the dialogue which is developing the museum. That is a
material now and it is very diYcult, as it were, to very positive example, I think, at least so far, of
read back into history the ethical and moral
returning an artefact.
framework that we operate now, in the twenty-first
Sir Neil Chalmers: I agree. I have heard of several
century, back a couple of hundred years. I think the
other examples of that sort. They tend to involve
right thing is to say, given that we would not in any
ethnography, where you are returning an artefact
way wish to condone what has happened in the past,
rather than a human skeleton, and, in most cases
how do we now deal with the issue which is going to
where there is return, the object returned is not
provide the best benefit for humanity in the way that
destroyed. Sometimes it is buried as part of closure,
I have described. It is not an easy answer at all. I am
a funeral, but often it is kept within that community
certain that simply handing back on a mandatory
basis is quite wrong. and it can still be used for research and scholarship
and you get the reciprocal benefits which can exceed
the loss. However—and this was a point I made to
Q75 Mr Doran: I understand that. In your the Committee in 2000—in many cases where we
collection of human remains do you have any UK have requests for return, we know that what will
specimens? happen is that the skeletons when returned will be
Sir Neil Chalmers: Yes. Indeed, the majority of our cremated or buried and will be put beyond scientific
specimens are from the UK. About 12,000 of the research use and you are not going to get that sort of
20,000 items in our collection are from the UK, reciprocal benefit. That is a real diYculty that we
which are not contested. have to face. I think it is a diVerence between
physical anthropology and biological research on know their provenance, and (b) these days, as Mr
the one hand (which is very much the area I was in) Fabricant said, there is a lot more you can do with
and ethnographic research on the other. them than you did do. But who has the right to
those? They may have originated in one particular
Q78 Chairman: When we were looking at this last country, but it could be argued that they belong to
time and looking over the general field and not all humanity.
simply human remains, one of the clinching Sir Neil Chalmers: That is the argument I put. I think
arguments for us about sometimes resisting requests you will notice the phrase I have used repeatedly in
for return—and there is a diVerent sense relating to answering your questions, which is “the benefits to
human remains—was that if you did that all the humanity” that accrue from the research we carry
museums would return everything and you would out. I believe that is absolutely right. Particularly
not have museums and the places of origin would when you get back to those sorts of distances of time,
not have anywhere to put the stuV that they got it is very diYcult indeed, if not impossible, to identify
back. There was also the issue—not relating, again, a group which has a special claim upon those
to human remains—of sometimes dubious remains, and it is the whole world that has the
provenance. The whole point about human remains potential of benefiting from knowing our own
is the provenance: that is the basis of your holding ancestry, where human beings came from, benefiting
them and that is the basis sometimes for people from the medical advances I have described,
wanting them back. Where does one draw the line? benefiting from the ability to do better surgery or
I suppose one could say that it is sentiment or whatever it might be. I think there you have to say
religion or tradition, but what about, for example, humanity must have some advocates.
the Egyptian mummy that has been recently
returned, it cannot be a matter of religion because Q80 Chairman: It has to be on a case by case basis,
Islam was not there when the mummies were has it not?
created. It cannot be a case of ethnicity because the Sir Neil Chalmers: On individual cases, absolutely.
Egyptians at that time did not have the ethnicity of Absolutely. That is why I would argue all the time
Egyptians today, unless one assumes that the Copts for considering in each case, in a balanced way:
are the heirs of the Ancient Egyptians. For you, if What is the benefit to humanity? How strong is the
you could have that mummy, what would be the claim for return? You then come to your decision on
clinching argument for you to return it other than that case. In my case, I would almost always—I have
that the Egyptians would have liked it back? to say this very clearly—come down on the side of
Sir Neil Chalmers: You have hit on one of the most the benefits to humanity from holding items for
diYcult questions that we have to face. I think you research.
draw the boundary between what you might
consider for return and what you might say, “There
is no question we would ever return at all”—which Q81 Michael Fabricant: I personally have huge
concerns the great majority of objects in our sympathy with the scientific argument that you have
collection. You would draw that boundary very presented today. But perhaps I may ask you this:
tightly and you would say, “My opinion is only while I assume that the storage of human remains
recent ancestors”—and we are talking here of no will be done in such a way to preserve them in the
more than 100 years or so—“where you have clear best way possible, is there any code of conduct
descendants who are able to say ‘That was my direct regarding the way they are stored?—really relating
ancestor’.” Because I think there is something that, I guess, to the ethical dilemma that Frank
special about holding human remains. It has to be a Doran spoke about. If someone came to you and
matter of opinion rather than absoluteness, absolute said, “We would like a ritual performed on a regular
fact, but to me there is something diVerent and basis,” would you be open to that? Has anyone come
special about human remains. It is a privilege. If the to you and said, “There are particular rituals that we
remains are recent and if you have somebody who would like performed”?
claims to be the descendant, I think then you just Sir Neil Chalmers: Yes, we have had good
have to say, “This is a diVerent universe in which we discussions with some communities, in which we
are operating.” This is a diVerent domain of have asked them and they have put to us what it is
discussion and discourse and we just have to make a about the way in which we hold collections that they
diVerent set of judgments then. But I would not draw want to see. I do not know if we have had any cases
the boundary much more broadly than that of people wanting to perform rituals. It may be that I
personally. am going to get an example right now. (Information
received) Yes, rituals are possible but none has yet
taken place. We have certainly heard strong
Q79 Chairman: In the case of the artefact that statements from some communities saying, “We
Frank Doran was talking about, as in the case of the would like our community to have access to our
Glasgow shirt (if I may so describe it), there was a ancestors but no other community at all.” They feel
very, very strong sentiment that those who claimed that it is that exclusivity which is important as part
ownership and whose ownership was acknowledged of their claim.
were depleted through not having it. That is a very
fair argument; one which was heeded. But what
about prehistoric remains, for example? And, again, Q82 Michael Fabricant: How do you treat such
the whole point of prehistoric remains is that (a) you requests?
Sir Neil Chalmers: We have respected them. We do Sir Neil Chalmers: I have not been privy to the
say though that we must and will allow validated legislative process. I have been told that this is
scientific researchers to have access to the collection something that the Minister favours but beyond that
because that is the whole point of having them. So . . . or that she is looking at, I am sorry. I am trying
we cannot concede to that request but, I think where to remember the detail of the telephone
we can reasonably accede to the request of a conversation. She asked my opinion, as to whether I
claimant community about the conditions under felt the law should be changed to allow relaxation. I
which we store objects, of course we are more than said yes, in the way I have described to you.
pleased to discuss that with them.
Q87 Michael Fabricant: Because you will be dealing
with civil servants, oYcials, as well as ministers—I
Q83 Chairman: Could I ask a follow-up question. I suppose I can ask you this—have you detected that
think it ought to emerge clearly from these hearings there has been any delay because of the change in the
that we do have a very, very respectable record in ministerial structure within DCMS? Or has the
this country. There have been reports in the press natural progression, if there is a natural progression,
over the years that the Metropolitan Museum of Art continued unabated?
in New York is absolutely full of stolen objects, and Sir Neil Chalmers: I think it has continued. I think
the same has been said of the Museum of Natural that the change in ministers has not actually slowed
History in New York, even in these categories. things down. That is my own impression, just talking
Therefore, although obviously these are universal to others.
questions, I think it is very important to get on the
record that British museums have a very good, clean Q88 Chairman: If nothing is happening you cannot
record on these issues. When we had the British actually put a stop to it, can you?
Museum in on the last inquiry, they made it very Sir Neil Chalmers: I can only talk about what has
clear that if they had any stolen objects, for example, been happening at my level, if you like, and not what
has been happening at ministerial level.
they would very much like permission to be able to
return them. That did not refer to the Parthenon Q89 Michael Fabricant: Has DCMS given you any
Marbles, which they denied were stolen, and indeed indication as to when they think the law might have
which the record of the select committee in the changed, given that they seem to agree that there is
nineteenth century demonstrated were indeed not a need for this?
stolen. Sir Neil Chalmers: I think they are hoping that their
Sir Neil Chalmers: I would be delighted if that Minister will be able to make a statement or
statement did go on record, Chairman, because I contribute to a statement that will be part of the
think it is absolutely right. Queen’s Speech, as I understand it. But I know no
more than that.
Chairman: They made a statement in response to our
Q84 Michael Fabricant: Earlier on you told me that
previous report saying they would legislate. I went to
you had had meetings or a meeting with Estelle a conference and proclaimed it as the “great
Morris in connection with the working group. How achievement” of the British Government, this Select
many meetings have you actually had? Committee, international eVort, etcetera. The only
Sir Neil Chalmers: This was not a working group legislation that I know about is the private members
meeting, this was a telephone conversation I had bill by an opposition member.
with her.
Q90 Michael Fabricant: There will be an
opportunity in November to question the Secretary
Q85 Michael Fabricant: In that case, how many
of State herself and Caroline Flint regarding this
meetings has the working group had with DCMS in matter.
its aim to get the law changed? Sir Neil Chalmers: I can only report to you what I
Sir Neil Chalmers: The working group overall has have heard in a telephone conversation and had in a
met a large number of times. I honestly cannot conversation with Vince, as I have said.
answer that question. I believe it is in the report
somewhere. It is a large number of times over three Q91 Chairman: We are grateful to you, Sir Neil.
years. Without wanting to anticipate what I am sure What we have had from you is what we might have
the Chairman will say to you, and the Minister, I expected, a decent, civilised, constructive approach.
think there was very little disagreement about the Thank you very much.
need for the law to be changed. There was some Sir Neil Chalmers: May I say something? It is about
discussion about the exact legal devices that were the a totally diVerent issue, if I may. It is just to say how
best to bring about such change, but I think much I appreciated the report which you did on free
everybody on the group favoured, as I understood it, admission the last time I appeared before you, I
a relaxation to enable, at the very least, the kind of think in this very room. The recommendations were
changes for which I have been arguing. extremely helpful and I would just ask you to keep
pressing those recommendations. That would be
very much appreciated.
Q86 Michael Fabricant: Given that there is this Chairman: Much appreciated. Thank you. I hope
happy consensus, have you detected any movement that next time Greg Dyke comes before us he will
at all in the legislative process? speak in that tone!
Memorandum submitted by the Museums Association
THE ILLICIT TRADE IN CULTURAL PROPERTY
1. Background
1.1 The Museums Association (MA) is an independent organisation representing museums and galleries
and people who work for them. The association has over 4,500 individual members and 600 institutional
members. These institutional members encompass around 1,500 museums in the UK ranging from the
largest national museums to small volunteer-run independent museums. The Museums Association is a
democratic organisation; its governing Council is elected by the membership. It was founded in 1889 and is
a registered charity. It receives no regular government funding.
1.2 The MA welcomes the opportunity to submit evidence to this inquiry. We are pleased that the
committee has agreed to re-examine the issue of illicit trade in cultural property. The Government has taken
positive steps to combat illicit trade, but much more remains to be done. We think it appropriate that this
inquiry should also touch on issues around the return of objects from museum collections to originating
communities. Illicit trade and repatriation are two faces of a single problem: illicit trade today continues to
rob people from across the world of their cultural heritage; there is an argument that the presence of some
objects in UK museums has the same eVect. The time is right for a two-pronged approach to the problem
of the degradation of the culture of other countries.
1.3 The MA’s recommendations are highlighted in bold in this document.
2. The MA’S Comments on Progress on the Recommendations of the Former Committee and those
of the Illicit Trade Advisory Panel with Particular Regard to: the Development of Databases on
Relevant International Legislation and Unlawfully Removed Cultural Objects
2.1 We welcome the Government’s recent moves to address the UK’s position regarding the illicit trade
in cultural material, including accession to the 1970 Unesco Convention and support for the Dealing in
Cultural Objects (OVences) Bill.
2.2 However, much remains to be done by the government, including ensuring the provision of databases
of objects and of international cultural property legislation and regulations (ITAP recommendations 5 and
6). It is hard to see how the new criminal oVence can operate eVectively in the absence of such databases.
2.3 The Government also needs to do more to deter the illicit looting, sale and export of UK cultural
material. In particular the police still need to take crime against cultural property in the UK more seriously
(ITAP recommendation 3) and the government needs to do more to make the system for licensing exports
of archaeological material excavated in the UK fully comprehensive and to improve compliance. (This is in
addition to changes being made to the Export Licensing System to prevent London being used as a staging-
post for exports of illicit material from source countries to the USA and other market countries.)
2.4 Perhaps most importantly of all, as noted in ITAP recommendation 9, the Government should
promote educational work to create a climate in which collecting illicit cultural property is seen as
unacceptable. (As, for example is the case with rare birds eggs.) No government—not even in the UK—can
police every archaeological site in its jurisdiction, nor can it monitor every border crossing to enforce export
controls. The solution ultimately is in the hands of collectors. Collectors should follow the practice of
museums and demand evidence of an object’s history. If they fail to do so then, at the end of the day they
will be the real looters. We believe that one thing inhibiting progress towards the prevention of illicit trade is
that outside museums and archaeology there is no real stigma attached to the purchase of cultural material
which may have been illicitly traded; the government has lead responsibility for trying to change attitudes.
2.5 Increasingly, and particularly since the Culture, Media and Sport Committee’s report of 2000, UK
dealers try to be careful about what they trade in and avoid material if they think it may be illicit. However,
we believe it is likely that some dealers inevitably make mistakes (or take short cuts) as the information
needed to establish an item’s status is often unavailable. The central problem involves what are known as
“unprovenanced” objects, without accompanying information about their previous history. Of course,
when these objects come to market, someone knows where they originated, but isn’t saying. The trade’s
argument that client confidentiality must be respected means in cases such as these that little can be said
publicly about provenance. This is an unsatisfactory state of aVairs. It will only prove possible to fully
combat the sale of illicit cultural material when the trade is fully transparent and clear chains of ownership
are available to potential purchasers: this is the case with cars and with houses. There seems little reason why
the art trade should continue to argue that client confidentiality should be allowed to continue to such a degree.
2.6 In general many parts of the trade seems to prefer to assume items are all licit, “innocent until proven
guilty”. It would be safer—and more realistic—to regard certain categories of material as likely to be illicit
unless proven otherwise. Objects without a known recent history should not normally be traded or collected.
2.7 This is the practice followed by UK museums and organisations such as the National Art Collections
Fund. Under the (voluntary) Registration Scheme for Museums in the UK, administered by Resource
museums and galleries are required to “refrain from acquiring an object if there is reason to suspect
that . . . the object has been acquired in, or exported from, its country of origin (including the UK), or any
intermediate country, in violation of that country’s laws or any national or international treaties.”
2.8 The Museums Association Code of Ethics (2002) now requires that museums should avoid acquiring
any object that has no secure ownership history, unless it was exported from its country of origin before
1970. To ensure it is acceptable, any purchase should be accompanied by full and proper documentation,
including, critically, evidence of any relevant export licences from the country of origin. The Code requires
that museums:
“5.7 Exercise due diligence when considering an acquisition or inward loan. Verify the ownership
of any item being considered for acquisition or inward loan and that the current holder is
legitimately able to transfer title or to lend. Apply the same strict criteria to gifts, bequests and
loans as to purchases.
5.8 Reject any item if there is any suspicion that it was wrongfully taken during a time of conflict,
unless allowed by treaties or other agreements.
5.9 Reject any item if there is any suspicion that it has been stolen unless, in exceptional
circumstances, this is to bring it into the public domain, in consultation with the rightful owner.
5.10 Reject items that have been illicitly traded. Note that the UNESCO Convention (on the
Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of
Cultural Property) was finalised in 1970. Reject, therefore, any item if there is any suspicion that,
since 1970, it may have been stolen, illegally excavated or removed from a monument, site or wreck
contrary to local law or otherwise acquired in or exported from its country of origin (including the
UK), or any intermediate country, in violation of that country’s laws or any national and
international treaties, unless the museum is able to obtain permission from authorities with the
requisite jurisdiction in the country of origin.
5.11 Reject any item that lacks secure ownership history, unless there is reliable documentation
to show that it was exported from its country of origin before 1970, or the museum is acting as an
externally approved repository of last resort, or in the best judgement of experts in the field
concerned the item is of minor importance and has not been illicitly traded.
5.12 Contact colleagues and appropriate authorities both in the UK and overseas for any
information or advice that may be necessary to inform judgement regarding the legitimacy of items
considered for acquisition or inward loan.
5.13 Comply not only with treaties which have been ratified by the UK Government, but also
uphold the principles of other international treaties intended to curtail the illicit trade, if legally
free to do so.
5.14 Report any suspicion of criminal activity to the police. Report any other suspicions of illicit
trade to other museums collecting in the same area and to organisations that aim to curtail the
illicit trade.
5.15 Avoid appearing to promote or tolerate the sale of any material without adequate ownership
history through inappropriate or compromising associations with vendors, dealers or auction
houses. Refuse to lend items to any exhibition that is likely to include illicitly traded items.
5.16 Decline to oVer expertise on, or otherwise assist the current possessor of any item that may
have been illicitly obtained, unless it is to assist law enforcement or to support other organisations
in countering illicit activities.”
2.9 Best practice for museums is well established in principle. But museums need support to turn this into
practice. The Museums Association and DCMS are working together to encourage museums to work
together to draw up detailed guidance on due diligence procedures that should be followed when acquiring
material of overseas origin. An initial seminar for directors of UK museums that collect internationally is
being held on 19 November 2003. This group will also be invited, possibly on a future occasion, to comment
on outline proposals that have been drafted by the Illicit Trade Advisory Panel and the Museums
Association about how museums should act as places of temporary safety for overseas cultural property.
There is also a need to finalise similar proposals, also drafted by ITAP and the MA, about an approach to
museums acting as repositories of last resort for inadequately provenanced but important archaeological
material that is likely to have originated in the UK.
2.10 In the longer term we believe museums will benefit from having the support, on acquisition and other
cultural-property matters, of a government-supported central advisory point. In its international strategy
Resource has undertaken that by March 2006, it will investigate the most eVective way to provide cultural
property advice to the sector. We are concerned that, on this timetable, we may have to wait as much as five
years before the sector has access to this much-needed advice. We believe that DCMS has a role to play in
helping Resource to bring this timetable forward to ensure a cultural property advisory service for museums is
established speedily.
2.11 One further issue which we believe is relevant here is the Government’s approach to the protection
of underwater heritage. The UK has not acceded to the 2001 UNESCO Convention on the protection of
underwater cultural heritage. The previous Minister with responsibility in this area, Baroness Blackstone,
explained to us that the UK had not acceded because there was no scope for discretion in application of the
convention, and that it was simply unfeasible—as well as undesirable—for the UK to oVer protection to all
the thousands of wrecks in its waters. The point may be valid but, nevertheless, we believe that this should
not be used as an excuse for a failure to protect underwater cultural heritage. All the countries present at
the vote on the Convention’s adoption, including the UK, committed themselves to apply the rules in the
Annex to the Convention. However, by entering into an arrangement with a commercial company to salvage
bullion from the wreck of HMS Sussex, the government has broken these rules. It is one thing for the
government to argue that it cannot protect all the wrecks in British waters; it is quite another for the
government to be a partner in the exploitation of a historically significant wreck in international waters.
Other current cases, including the Titanic, serve to highlight the lack of protection applied to cultural
heritage when it is under water rather than under ground. Although the current DCMS Review of Heritage
Protection nominally includes underwater archaeology, it seems unlikely that this general review will be able
to deal with the special issues relating to the submerged material remains of our maritime heritage. The
Government should work towards a clear policy for the protection of underwater heritage.
3. The MA’S Comments on Progress with Tackling the Two Areas for Further Work Identified by
the Previous Committee: Human Remains, and Items Potentially Removed From their Lawful
Owners between 1933 and 1945, within the Collections of Publicly Funded Museums and Galleries
3.1 The Museums Association Deputy Director is a member of the DCMS Working Group on Human
Remains and supports the dispute-resolution proposals for museum collections of human remains set out in
the Working Group’s forthcoming report. He is also a member of the Working Group on Human Remains
established by the Church of England and English Heritage, which is looking at the excavation and retention
of human remains of English origin and is expected to report in Spring 2004.
3.2 As neither of these groups has yet reported publicly it is not appropriate to go into detail here about
the recommendations, but from the Museums Association’s point of view it is important to draw the
committee’s attention to the fact that it is clear that museums need a more systematised approach to holding
human remains and higher standards. To achieve this they will in many cases need increased external
support and advice and improved accountability and scrutiny.
3.3 It is true that there has been little visible progress since the previous Committee reported in 2000 in
dealing with the problem of items in museum collections, which might have been removed from their owners
between 1933 and 1945. There have still only been a handful of claims, including a new claim made against
the Samuel Courtauld Trust earlier this month. Only one case, that referred to in the Committee’s report of
the Jan GriYer painting in the Tate’s collection has yet been resolved. In that instance the Government
agreed to pay compensation to the family of the rightful owners of the painting. The previous Committee
had expressed the view that it would be desirable for secondary legislation to be enacted which would allow
works of art in similar cases to be returned, if the owners or their rightful heirs preferred. This issue
apparently remains problematic for DCMS and some national museums.
4. The MA’S Comments on the Scale and Implications of the Looting of the Iraq Museum in
Baghdad and Museums and Archaeological Sites Elsewhere in the Country
4.1 New reports continue to emerge concerning the looting and destruction of historic sites across Iraq.
It is disgraceful that looting is continuing and that the Coalition Provisional Authority appears largely
unable to prevent it. The international community has taken steps, such as the preparation of the “red list”,
to prevent material looted from Iraq’s museums reaching markets in the west. But the ongoing looting of
unexcavated sites has served as a reminder that, in times of conflict, it is highly desirable to prevent looting
and destruction of cultural property at source. Preventing illicit trade once objects have been removed from
their context is at best shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted.
4.2 We welcome government’s announcement that it aims to ratify the 1954 Hague Convention and
Protocol for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict, along with the 1999 Second
Protocol. We believe that it should make its commitment explicit by outlining a timetable for ratification.
5. Broader Issues Relating to the Return of Objects from Museum Collections

5.1 We are pleased that the Secretary of State has recognised the importance of return and repatriation
and is taking a greater interest in them. We believe that most museums will benefit from a clearer government
policy framework and from government support and assistance in addressing the issue. However, we
caution against excessive government involvement in individual cases, which we believe should where ever
possible be negotiated on a museum-to-museum basis, with appropriate assistance from independent

advisory panels. Ultimately decisions about return are for the governing bodies of individual museums,
taking into account a wide range of advice and acting in an open and accountable way.
5.2 A small number of additional points about return may be of help. In 1997 research found that 97% of
Museums Association individual members thought that items should be repatriated under certain specified
circumstances (for example, if the items would be preserved in a museum after repatriation). Almost 50%
agreed with the statement “Circumstances have changed and in many cases there are grounds for
repatriation, even if the items may not be preserved in a museum”.
5.3 Demands for repatriation in Australia, Canada and the USA have led to a profound shift in museum
philosophies. Museums in these countries now generally have a concept of sharing responsibility for
museum collections with communities of origin. This is generally not the case in the UK, where (with some
notable exceptions) museums see themselves as having the main responsibility for objects in their care.
5.4 In Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United States the return of indigenous human remains
and sacred material is now the norm. This is not the case in the UK, although there are increasing examples
of return from non-national museums in the UK. In 2003 returns have included human remains from the
Royal College of Surgeons, Manchester Museum and the Horniman Museum and returns of cultural
material by the Marischal Museum at the University of Aberdeen.
5.5 The argument that if one item is returned it is the beginning of a “slippery slope” that will lead to
huge amounts of repatriation is not we believe viable. Evidence from Australia, Canada and the USA
suggests that only a small proportion of museum collections are likely to be subject to repatriation requests.
In the UK, even since its high-profile return of a Ghost Dance shirt Glasgow Museums has received very
few other repatriation claims. In general the volume of requests for the return of items from UK museums
is low (although the strength of feeling and significance of those claims is, of course, often high).
5.6 Repatriation negotiations can bring benefits for museums. If handled properly, a repatriation request
need not be a negative experience—it can lead to future co-operation and partnership.
5.7 Most museums are too small to have their own procedures for dealing with repatriation requests and
so they would benefit from outside support. At one level this is simply advice, such as the cultural property
advice point, discussed above. In some cases museums, even large national museums, are finding it helpful
to have government-supported advisory mechanisms: Tate and other national museums have made use of
the Spoliation Advisory Panel. We believe that analogous advisory panels would be useful for requests for the
return of other types of material.
5.8 Museums would also benefit from further guidance on contentious cultural property matters.
Authoritative guidance is now available on many aspects of illicitly traded material and on spoliated
material. Soon authoritative guidance on human remains is likely to be made available. Sacred material
raises specific issues and we believe a further inquiry into the treatment and possible return should be considered
by DCMS.
October 2003
Witnesses: Dr Maurice Davies, Deputy Director, and Ms Helen Wilkinson, Policy OYcer, the Museums
Association, examined.
Chairman: Thank you very much indeed for coming about the spoliation issue, to which we responded
to see us. You have been kind in listening to some of that we were perfectly content for the law to be
the previous evidence, so you know which direction changed. Recently, within the past couple of
we are coming from. months, DCMS have done another limited
consultation about bringing in provisions to change
legislation on human remains in museums within a
Q92 Michael Fabricant: First of all, may I welcome Department of Health Bill which may be coming
you this morning. You have been listening to this before the next session of parliament. We have
conversation: you have been in the public gallery. responded to that, that we also support the idea of
Does the Museums Association diVer in its view at changing legislation.
all from that of the Natural History Museum
regarding the question of the change in the law to the
repatriation, possible repatriation of human Q93 Michael Fabricant: Interestingly, though, I
remains? think in your evidence you say that the “slippery
Dr Davies: No, not at all. We have felt for some time slope” argument really does not apply in connection
that the law should be changed to allow the return of with making returns, not only of human remains but
human remains, and also, following this cultural objects.
Committee’s report in 2000, that the law should be Dr Davies: Yes.
changed to allow the return of items found to be
right for return by the Spoliation Advisory Panel. I Q94 Michael Fabricant: But is that not because we
think I am right in saying that DCMS did a limited really have not got onto a slippery slope yet, simply
consultation with the museum sector in late 2000 because museums have held fast. Would there not be
28 October 2003 Museums Association
a slippery slope if we started making major returns question—of certain objects? Who would actually
of cultural objects to other countries? Would they decide what is sacred and what is not? Are there
not all then start claiming? shadows of degree or shades of degree of sacredness?
Dr Davies: I think the interesting thing is to look at I am sorry to pursue this. When did something
evidence from other countries where high profile become so sacred that it automatically ought to be
returns have happened and where a slippery slope returned?
doesn’t exist—or a coach and horses, to use Miss Dr Davies: I think there are two comments I would
Kirkbride’s reformulation of it this morning. I think like to make on that. The first one is that I have been
also Glasgow is a really interesting case. The in the interesting position of being involved in
Glasgow shirt was an incredibly high profile and arguments between anthropologists about what
public return, much more public in its decision sacred is and it is clear that there is no agreement
making than is usually the case. My understanding whatsoever. The other point that is interesting, that
is that, in spite of that, and the worldwide attention I think is coming to the fore—and this was an
that that case received and the evident amenability important part of the deliberations of the Human
of Glasgow City Council as the governing body of Remains Working Group of which I am a member—
Glasgow Museums to cases for return, they have is the human rights implications. DiVerent parts of
received next to no claims for future returns, which the Human Rights Act can act in diVerent ways, but
suggests to me, if they are like any other museum there are many things in there about equality of right
service of that size and they have millions of objects to practise religious belief and so on. There is quite
in their collection, that you are looking at one item a long section in the report when it is published
out of millions as being returned. So it is a tiny about the implications of the Human Rights Act,
amount. My understanding is that, even in the case but I think it is key. There are problems in human
of the British Museum with its collection of millions rights terms about making judgments from our, if
and millions of items, there are actually claims for, you like, Western perspective about the sacredness
at the most, maybe 100 items. of something. Whereas to us it might not be sacred
at all and we might not have much respect for the
Q95 Michael Fabricant: They are quite high religion that holds it sacred, if that religion genuinely
profile items. holds it sacred, then, in human rights terms, they
Dr Davies: Of course. The thing you often see is that have as much right to their views of what is sacred as
the items that are claimed often have an iconic we do to ours—if you see what I mean. So it is a
status. In a sense, the return often has a symbolic terribly diYcult area.
purpose and a political purpose beyond the actual
significance of the individual object. I think, in terms Q98 Chairman: If I could interrupt, there are some
of a sense of a post-imperial re-balancing of cultural things which are absolutely indubitably sacred, are
power—as I like to think of it—in a sense, the return there not? They are quested after as works of art. A
of one item is almost enough. It is almost a gesture of huge furore was taking place, around the time when
courtesy, sometimes between governments but more we did our previous inquiry, about the theft of icons
often actually between museums or museums and from Greek-Cypriot churches, with a smuggling ring
cultural groups. prosecuted in the end, because of the Cypriot
Government, in the United States. There cannot be
Q96 Michael Fabricant: With due respect to any question that icons stolen from churches are
Glasgow, I do not think I could agree with you when sacred objects. Or can there be?
you say that the Ghost Dance shirt had national or Dr Davies: I could not see how you could question
international publicity in its return. The return of it, no.
that would be very, very diVerent from the return of
the Elgin Marbles or the return of Cleopatra’s Q99 Michael Fabricant: I wonder if I could move on
Needle or some object like that. Surely that would to the return of objects looted in the 1933–45 period.
create a slippery slope. I gather that back in March 2001 the Department of
Dr Davies: Possibly. All I can say is that the evidence Culture, Media and Sport reported there was
so far does not suggest that that is the case and places agreement concerning how these ought to be treated.
that have returned things have not been met with lots I wonder if you could say a few words about what
and lots of further claims. The number of claims that progress has been made since then.
are, in a sense, unresolved is very, very small. They Dr Davies: As far as I know, there has been no sign
are of intense importance for the claimants, and of progress at all. As I mentioned, there was a
often, as you have said, because of the importance of consultation to which the Museums Association
the object, but the actual volume is tiny. My sense is responded, saying we were happy with the proposals
that it will remain tiny. to legislate.
Q97 Michael Fabricant: In another part of your Q100 Chairman: I am sorry, you were not or were?
evidence you talked about sacred objects and said Dr Davies: We were happy, yes, as this Committee
that in many ways they should be treated in the same recommended. My understanding is that the British
way as human remains. Whereas one can clearly Museum has a diVerent interpretation of the current
define what is human remains and what are not legal position—and I am not competent to comment
human remains, might there not be arguments over on it or judge it but I know that a lot of lawyers have
the degree of sacredness—it is almost a theological been arguing for some time. The British Museum are
arguing that there is some kind of way in which the understanding is that there is a possibility that
Charities Act can override the British Museum Act. legislation as regards human remains could be
Whether or not that is an issue that is making things contained within a Department of Health Bill that
more diYcult from DCMS’s point of view, I do not concerns human tissue—because there are amazing
know, but for some reason it does not seem to be as resonances and overlaps between the work being
simple as it should be. I understand also that there done by the Department of Health following
might be definitional problems about restricting the Alderhey and all the rest of it and the human remains
definition. As I say, it needs expert legal opinion working group. There has been a lot of cross-over
really, but, again, witnesses and lawyers are arguing between the two groups. So the Department of
about whether or not the British Museum, for Health legislation can provide a legislative
example, under the British Museum Act, has in fact opportunity to amend national museum legislation.
the power to return certain categories of things when
there is a moral justification for doing it or not. Q105 Michael Fabricant: So on Tuesday 11th, not
only should we have a Home OYce Minister and the
Q101 Chairman: Could you clarify that a bit more, Secretary of State for DCMS along, but maybe we
please, the potential or reputed clash between the should have a Minister from the Department of
Charities Act and the British Museum Act. Health as well, it would seem.
Dr Davies: I am not a lawyer—and this has to be Dr Davies: I am not qualified to judge.
prefaced with “This may be wrong”—but my Michael Fabricant: Well, perhaps this Committee,
understanding is that there is a legal argument that and this is a rhetorical question, ought to suggest
it may be the case that there is a provision in the that this should all come under one government
Charities Act that allows charitable bodies to department.
dispose of their property when there is a moral Chairman: I think that what you have said about the
justification for doing so—so that might be Department of Health is very interesting because it
something that was seized by the Nazis and has is the first indication that any of us around the table
ended up in a museum collection. In the case of a has heard that there is such a possibility and no
non-national museum that was a charity, that is how doubt we can find that out from the Secretary of
it would work: you would need to go through the State. I say “no doubt we can find that out”, but it is
Charities Act to get the right permission to give away highly ambitious, so we shall seek to find that out
essentially your property which you hold for your from the Secretary of State when she appears
charitable purposes. As I understand it, the legal before us.
argument at the moment is whether that provision in
the Charities Act overrides the prohibition on Q106 Rosemary McKenna: It would be interesting,
disposal in the British Museum Act. Chairman, to find out from every Secretary of State
just exactly what they hope to be in the Queen’s
Q102 Michael Fabricant: Presumably as far as the Speech and what they would feel should go into the
British Museum itself is concerned, the Charities Act Queen’s Speech. However, can I take you back to the
would not apply if they are not a registered charity. Glasgow issue because I think there is a very
Dr Davies: They are a charity that is exempt from interesting relationship between the people of
registration. I do not have the legal expertise, but my Glasgow and their museums. They absolutely adore
understanding is that the legal advice the British their museums. I think the Council has responded
Museum have received is that the Charities Act may extremely well to all the issues about repatriation,
well apply and may well take precedence over the about all the sensitivities surrounding that and there
British Museum Act. was absolutely no fuss at all about the return of the
shirt; in fact it was celebrated which I thought was
Q103 Michael Fabricant: Let us just be clear about really, really good. They have also, I believe, made it
this. Since March 2001 no change then; that is, there clear that if there were any object that had come to
has been no change at all in government, actual the City by various means during the period of
legislative process. Just as we heard from Sir Neil 1933–45, they would be more than happy to return
Chalmers earlier on that there has been no change at those, but as yet there has not been a claim. Is that
all, despite the fact that there seems to be correct? Are you aware that that is the situation?
agreement—though we are hoping there might be Dr Davies: I do not know of any of the facts of the
something in the Queen’s Speech in that respect—in case as regards Glasgow at all, but I know, for
the general wish of this Government, quite rightly, example, the British Museum has also said, I think
to be able to return property which was looted in the in evidence to this Committee, that were it found to
1933–45 period. Nothing has happened, as far as have things in its collection that were looted by the
you know, since 2001. Nazis, then it would also be happy, indeed want, to
Dr Davies: As far as I know, yes. return them.
Q104 Michael Fabricant: Have you been privy to Q107 Rosemary McKenna: Would it be an issue of
any conversations? Are you expecting anything in provenance or somebody making the claim? How
the Queen’s Speech? would they be identified?
Dr Davies: No. As far as the Queen’s Speech is Ms Wilkinson: Perhaps I can explain how that
concerned—and I am sure I have been privy to works. The national museums initially and then later
diVerent conversations from Sir Neil Chalmers—my the regional museums went through their collections
to identify objects which had come into the Dr Davies: No, it is not human embryology, it is the
collection which had a gap in their provenance issue of the holding of human remains by the
between 1933 and 1945, so there was a possibility medical sector, if you like, so it is the same issue of
that they might have been looted or illegally taken holding human remains for research purposes.
from people in Germany or occupied countries There has been a lot of work going on and
during that period. The databases of those objects continuing to go on to make sure that any regime
have now been published and the onus is on the that is brought in for medical research and for
families or the descendants of the owners to identify hospitals will work appropriately in the context of
objects which they feel might be theirs and their museums and indeed churches because there are
claims are submitted to a panel which adjudicates, some churches that have relics and so on on display.
but it is fair to say that there has still only been a very Also there is a big issue about relating that regime to
small number of claims, I think four or five, so it is archaeology as well because there is a lot of UK-
very early days. origin human remains excavated regularly and often
they are not reburied, so again any regime that is
Q108 Rosemary McKenna: Do you expect that brought in for the medical sector has the potential of
there would be a build-up or there would be a having an impact on museums, archaeology and
momentum? churches, so in a sense it all has to be lined up a bit,
Ms Wilkinson: It is hard to predict, but I think as the I suppose.
databases become better known, word may spread Mr Doran: I am struggling to be convinced. It still
and yes, there may be more claims. seems to be a bit cobbled together, but we will see
what the legislation brings.
Q109 Mr Doran: I was intrigued at the legal issues
that you raised earlier about the British Museum Q111 Chairman: Before you go on, Frank, I have
and the other museums’ power. I have a legal two questions, one to Dr Davies and one in fact to
background, although I have not practised law for you. To Dr Davies, how have you become aware of
many years since I came into Parliament, but it does this legislation, this Department of Health
strike me as a little bit tenuous. It does say one thing, legislation? Through what channels has this
correct me if I am wrong, that there is a drive for information been provided to you?
some change in the situation coming from the Dr Davies: Several ways. There have been various
museum sector itself. public consultations by the Department of Health to
Dr Davies: I think as we heard from Sir Neil which the Museums Association responded to one,
Chalmers, certainly in the case of the Natural I think, earlier this year.
History Museum, there is a feeling that the absolute Ms Wilkinson: It was in the spring of this year.
restriction on disposal has actually made the Dr Davies: So there was a public consultation which
relationship between the Natural History Museum we responded to in the spring about legislative
and claimants more confrontational, so I think there change and we responded about the museum
there is a clear sense that there are benefits in implications of that. Then there was a document
relaxing the legislation. I think in the case of the from the Department of Health that summarised the
British Museum, there is a case of spoliated material, consultation and I think said what the Department
so the British Museum needs to be able to return if of Health was minded to do. As a consequence of
the Spoliation Advisory Panel decides that is the that, I have met with oYcials of the Department of
right thing to do, so in both of those cases there is a Health, so that is one route. Then another route is
desire, yes, from within the museums for legislation via my membership of the Working Group on
to be changed and I think it is interesting that most Human Remains. As I sit here talking to you, I am
museums in Britain are not governed by legislation aware that I have no clear sense of what is
which restricts their powers of disposal to such a confidential and what is not to that committee, but
degree and we see a gradual, a small, but steady flow certainly my understanding is that in the Human
of items being returned. You mentioned the Remains Report, which is due to be published within
headdress from the Marischal Museum and there the next few weeks, there is a fair discussion of the
have been returns of human remains this summer Department of Health situation and its relationship
from the Manchester Museum, the Horniman to museum collections of human remains.
Museum and the museum at the Royal College of Chairman: Perhaps we could ask for a preview of
Surgeons. Again the evidence seems to be that when that. The other question, before Frank turns back
museums have the legislative power to return things, into a questioner, is Dr Davies talked about a
then very carefully and on a case-by-case basis some potential clash between the Charities Act and the
decisions are made to return things. British Museum Act, so if there were such a clash,
how would it be resolved? Would it be through an
Q110 Mr Doran: I said to Sir Neil, and I have got action in the courts?
the relevant extracts of the legislation in front of me,
that it did seem to me, as a lawyer, to be relatively Q112 Mr Doran: That would be the normal way
simple to amend the Act without any complex unless Parliament decided to do something about it,
legislation, but I began to get nervous when you but it really does strike me as a lawyer’s device to try
made the reference, for example, that the legislation and get out of a bottleneck, and maybe that is the
on human remains might be stuVed into something best way of putting it. Just as you were talking
else which is dealing with human embryology. earlier, it did strike me that a more fruitful way of
looking at individual questions was to examine the cases are taken to court, the courts locally will not
basis on which museums held an artefact. If we were take cases around the looting of archaeological sites
talking about something, for example, which had in the UK and so on seriously. My understanding is
been acquired and we could trace the history back to that in a sense cultural property crime is not in the
the 1931–45 period, did they lawfully own it, did category of oVences on which police forces have to
they lawfully hold it? That would undermine the report to the Home OYce each year as part of their
provisions in the 1963 Act and I think any court performance management regime, so, as a
would infer in that legislation that if there was no consequence, it is not something that the police are
good title, then the Act would not apply to it. That motivated to devote a lot of resources to because it
would be my legal interpretation of the situation, does not get them extra ticks in their annual returns
and that is advice for free. I am not being paid for to the Home OYce. Without being privy to any
this as I do not carry any indemnity insurance! Just details, it does seem to me that DCMS’s
moving on to your evidence, this is an inquiry about commitment to combatting the illicit trade could be
illicit cultural artefacts and there are one or two spread a bit more through government so that other
points I would like to pick up from your evidence. It government departments could also put some
is quite clear from what you were saying that you do resources into backing the relatively recent policy
not have a very high opinion of the resources we change by government.
devote in this country to the trade in illicit artefacts.
Dr Davies: No. Q114 Mr Doran: You mean primarily the Home
OYce?
Dr Davies: Yes, I suppose so.
Q113 Mr Doran: Can you say a little bit more about
that because it is an issue that has worried me for a Q115 Mr Doran: I certainly have the strong
long time, as somebody who is interested in impression that the police and the courts almost
antiques, that it seems that in the police scale of treat the sort of cultural crimes that we are talking
priorities, houses which are broken into, fireplaces about as vandalism and no more, that it does not
which are stolen and that sort of thing has a very, rate any higher than that.
very low rating on their scale and you can take that Dr Davies: Yes.
through the number of artefacts which are smuggled
into the country. We have heard that London is Q116 Mr Doran: You mentioned as well in your
supposed to be the hub of the international market. paper that with a lot of the people who deal in
Dr Davies: I think, firstly, to give some credit to cultural artefacts, some of them operating illegally
DCMS, that actually in policy terms the situation as and some not, there may be problems there. You
regards the illicit trade has wholly changed from talk about the ‘innocent until proven guilty’
how it was when this Committee considered the approach.
subject three years ago. The country has now Dr Davies: Yes.
acceded to the UNESCO Convention and, thanks to
government support, the Trading in Cultural Q117 Mr Doran: Do you have any thoughts on that
Objects OVences Bill has successfully gone through and how we can improve the situation?
Parliament, so we now are in a situation where for Dr Davies: In UK museums relatively recently, over
the first time it is both government policy, backed up the past maybe even five years, but five to ten years,
by a small change to the criminal law, that trading I think the attitude towards certain categories of
in illicit artefacts from overseas is undesirable and is potential acquisition has been to assume that the
now a criminal oVence or will soon be a criminal item is guilty until proven innocent, so museum ways
oVence, so I think there is a huge change there. of operating now require that you prove something
Therefore, in terms of government commitments at is legitimate before you acquire it rather than you
a policy level and, to a smaller extent, at a legislative assume it is legitimate unless there is evidence to the
level, there have been some changes. Certainly now contrary.
within DCMS there is far more eVort and energy put
into those issues of combatting illicit trade. I am not Q118 Mr Doran: Does that put museums at a
really an expert in this at all and some of the disadvantage in the market?
witnesses who follow me may be able to talk about Dr Davies: Yes. There are growing examples of
this with more knowledge, but I think that at a museums turning down things that are on sale in the
national level the Arts and Antiques Squad of the London art market, so there are things which
Metropolitan Police are quite active and they are museums have identified that they would want for
quite active internationally in combatting cases of their collections for cultural reasons and when they
attempts to import illicit cultural material into do the due diligence to try to trace the history of the
Britain, so I think again at the international level and item, they find gaps in it which mean that the
at the government policy level things are either okay museum can no longer acquire the item, so whilst
or are getting better, although of course there could there is no question of the thing being on sale
always be more resources. It seems to me that the illegally or anything, it is an ethical issue. In terms of
problem comes much more at a local and regional museum ethics, whilst this item is ethically
level where it is not a priority for the police and I acceptable to the art trade to trade in it in London,
think I have even heard stories about how even if museums operate, I suppose, to a higher ethical
standard or a diVerent ethical standard, so museums but if you ask where they come from and what their
will not acquire it and so it then gets sold presumably date is, et cetera, et cetera, a lot of the traders will
to a private collector. have no idea.
Dr Davies: I heard a slightly more frightening story
Q119 Mr Doran: You talk about museums doing which I have to present to you as anecdotal, but
due diligence. Presumably it is perfectly possible for there is an expert in numismatics, coins, at the
the people who trade in these objects to do exactly British Museum and I have heard that when he
the same diligence? arrives at a coin fair there is much shuZing as the
Dr Davies: In principle, but I think there is a very coin dealers remove from display certain trays of
important resources issue because if a museum is items and put them under the counter so that he does
acquiring something, it is acquiring it in perpetuity, not start asking precisely those questions. I think
so the justification for spending a lot of resources on that it remains to be seen how the criminal oVence
checking it if you are going to have it for 200 years will work in practice and how much energy the
is higher than if you are a dealer where it might just policy will put into enforcing or investigating the
pass through your hands for a year or so and if you criminal oVence, but I think that a lot of the changes
are an auction house, you are only acting as an in the art market have happened at the top end, at
agent, so it is only passing through your hands for a the most expensive end, if you like, and the most
matter of weeks, so I think there is a discussion to be high-profile end of the market and I think there is an
had about proportionality, if you like. I think you enormous amount that probably still has to follow
could not reasonably expect Sotheby’s to make through to the rest of the market.
absolutely the same degree of checks into every item
as, say, the British Museum would because they are
Q122 Mr Doran: Another issue for me is the
dealing with the item for diVerent purposes.
diVerent rules in diVerent countries. I was in Italy
with friends recently and I have recently acquired
Q120 Mr Doran: And if a museum went to two pieces of Roman glass which I am very proud of
Sotheby’s to examine an item it was interested in and they were horrified at my being able to buy them
buying, did the due diligence and found that it did on the open market in the UK. How do we deal with
not come up to the mark as far as it was concerned, that problem?
I would expect that that would be a warning to Dr Davies: There is a strong argument from the trade
Sotheby’s? and from collectors which I have a certain sympathy
Dr Davies: Yes, and again I do not have enough with that in Italy, as an example, the cultural
knowledge of individual cases, but I certainly know property laws are far too strict and they are
that there are cases where, as a result of unreasonably strict because in a sense their
representations from museums or archaeologists, assumption is that nothing should be exported
auction houses have withdrawn things from sale, so unless proved otherwise, whereas in the UK the
there is an element of that certainly. In your report assumption tends to be the other way around, that
of 2000, you, with some regret, concluded that it was almost everything you put through the export
not possible to have the equivalent of a log book for licensing system, if it is a legitimate item, will get an
cultural objects and I think we have said in our export licence unless it is of national importance and
evidence now that really until something analogous then a museum has a chance to raise the money to
to that is introduced, there will always be a certain buy it. Well, it is almost the opposite in Italy and I
degree of risk. I think over the past three or four think another diYculty in Italy and countries of a
years the attitude of lots of people within the similar regime is that a lot of the decision-making is
London art market has changed and the importance made at a local level, so you might buy your bits of
of publishing more information about provenance Roman glass in an antiques shop in Italy, take it to
and ownership history is growing, but I think it is the local departments that deal with it and you might
still a long way from, as we say in the evidence, if you
get one view in one city and another view in another
are buying a second-hand car or a house where it is
city about whether you can export it. There are
not necessarily publicly available information, but,
parallel art markets in Italy. There is a market in
as the purchaser, your lawyers can get hold of quite
items that can be exported which have world prices
a lot of information before you finally commit to
and then there is a market in items which can only
signing the contract and I think there are still no
be sold on within Italy which are much cheaper and
guarantees of that within the art market for similarly
obviously there is a big temptation to try to switch
high-value, high-risk items.
things from one to the other and to smuggle them
out and all the rest of it.
Q121 Chairman: There is a real problem though, is
there not, because, so far as I can see, traders often
make very little eVort indeed to establish Q123 Mr Doran: So the more complicated you
information about provenance? I was in Jerusalem a make it, the harder it is to enforce basically?
couple of weeks ago and I was shown a pair of Dr Davies: Yes, and there is an argument which may
cuZinks made of ancient Roman coins and the be true, I do not know, but there is an argument that
trader said that she would provide a certificate of the laws in Italy, because they are so strict and in a
authenticity of that, but if you go to those lovely sense applied in a local way with diVering
stalls in the Chelsea antiques market and look interpretations, that actually stimulates it. I do not
around and ask questions, they are lovely objects, know because, on the other hand, I think as this
Committee showed in its hearings in 2000, the subject to requests from Australian Aborigines for
Italians put an enormous amount of police resources the return of human remains in its collection and it
into fighting art crime quite unlike here. had a policy of not returning them, but late last year
I think it reversed its policy and it has now returned
all of its Australian Aboriginal human remains to
Q124 Miss Kirkbride: I would just like to pick up on
Australia. I think that the Horniman Museum some
a few things which you have said. Thinking about
time ago agreed to return certain items to Australia
the legislation we expect on keeping human tissue, I
and it took a long time, but it has now done so, and
think it actually does, having not thought about it
in the case of Manchester Museum I think similarly.
before, make quite a lot of sense that this is going to
I think the cases were considered some time ago and
potentially impact on museums. I was wondering if
there is anything in the provisions that we know will it has just taken a while to actually negotiate the
apply that very clearly directly will impact on practicalities of their return, so from all those places
museums, that by saying that hospitals have to do things have now gone back.
this, it will mean therefore that museums will have to
do it too and what they are? Q128 Miss Kirkbride: So the situations in those
Dr Davies: As I say, I think a lot of work has been cases are not to do with what Sir Neil said which is
going on over the summer and continues to go on on about establishing their identity and returning them
the form that the legislation might take, but I think to their relatives, but it was a just straightforward,
the particular problem or issue is that the legislation “You want them and you can have them back”?
for human tissue in the medical sphere will be framed Dr Davies: In those cases, yes, I think it was. I do not
not in terms of institutions doing things, but in terms think they were named individuals and I think in the
of certain acts, so, say, the act of retaining human case of the Royal College of Surgeons, one of the
remains for research purposes or the act of publicly issues is that not only are they not individuals, but
displaying human remains will be covered by the they are not even provenanced to a particular tribal
Bill. As a consequence, it does not matter who does group or anything, but they are just generally from
it really, but then obviously there is a need to then
northern Australia or southern Australia and I think
come up with a whole lot of exemptions because
some of those items have gone back. What happens
granny’s ashes on the mantelpiece have to be
in cases like that is that they might, for example, go
covered, so I know that the civil servants are
to the National Museum of Australia in Canberra
working very hard and getting alarmed when they
uncover another area in which in a sense human where research is then done on them to try to
remains are in common currency in the country and determine what their provenance is. Within
they have to work out what the legislative impact Australia there is this phrase which they use, called
might be. I know it is a very, very complicated piece a “Keeping Place”, and I think that is a kind of
of legislation, but I think you cannot legislate for indigenous phrase, but it means a kind of proper
hospitals because you get the possibility that a very, repository for human remains and the National
very disreputable scientific researcher might have Museum of Australia serves as a keeping place for
some things in their own ownership and do it outside human remains from other museums in Australia, so
the hospital sphere, if you like, so you need to a lot of them are gathered up there and they are
legislate to cover certain acts rather than certain stored in conditions which are seen as appropriate
kinds of institution. by Australian Aboriginals until research can be done
to discover more closely what their provenance is so
that they can be returned to the right tribal group or
Q125 Miss Kirkbride: So in the context of what you the right geographical area.
know is likely to happen, is there anything that very
specifically impacts on the Natural History
Museum? Q129 Miss Kirkbride: So the intention at the end is
Dr Davies: Well, my understanding is that one of the that they will be buried or burned, not that they will
key purposes of the legislation will be to regulate the be kept in a suitable place?
holding of human tissue for research and displaying Dr Davies: Yes, that seems to be the case. There are
it, so in a sense absolutely. various kind of riders to that because there are quite
a lot of examples of scientists in Australia and in
North America doing research on indigenous
Q126 Miss Kirkbride: That would be it?
human remains with full consent of tribal people, so
Dr Davies: Yes, so there have to be exemptions to
there is a growing way of working amongst
make sure that the Natural History Museum has an
scientists, and this tends to apply to remains that are
appropriate legislative regime around it.
uncovered now rather than ones that are out of the
ground, but perhaps some archaeological works
Q127 Miss Kirkbride: And you also mentioned, I done on tribal ground and some remains are
think to Frank, that you were aware of human uncovered and whereas a few years ago the
remains already having been given back by the Aboriginal groups would have insisted they were
Royal College of Surgeons. What were the immediately reburied, now it is becoming more
circumstances of that and why? usual for the scientists to come to an agreement with
Dr Davies: There have been three cases this year. The the tribal people at least for a certain period of time
Royal College of Surgeons has for some time been to undertake all the scientific research on them. They
are often reburied then after a year or two or samples there are so many chances and accidents and flukes
are sometimes taken. I have read quite a lot in the which have led to what has survived and what has
Working Group on Human Remains as we had not survived that that is not necessarily to argue in
some quite interesting evidence from scientists who favour of destroying things, but things are only here
are working in that way with full consent of as a result of many accidents anyway, so if another
indigenous people in particularly, as I say, Australia accident or quirk of policy leads to things not being
and North America. We also had representations here, then that is just another part of the historical
from some indigenous representatives in New story, I suppose, of what survives and what does not.
Zealand that they absolutely did not want things
destroyed because they thought that either now or in Q131 Miss Kirkbride: I think there is a very good
the future there might be Maori scientists who would book that you might buy your friends for Christmas
themselves want to do work on human remains, so which is all about the seven sisters of Eve which says
it is an impossible area actually to come to a decision that we are all descended from seven women, the
on, and I know this because I am a member of the whole of mankind, so it seems to me we have as
Working Group on Human Remains and had to much right to speak for mankind as indigenous
finally come down oV the fence, if you like. For me it tribes do today and that that material is as much
was impossible to come to a conclusion that satisfied mine as it is theirs.
every angle, so in a sense, as Mr Doran was saying, Dr Davies: I would only agree that it is incredibly
you have to kind of come up with an ethical diYcult. We sat through in the Human Remains
framework within which you can weigh up these Working Group some absolutely fascinating
competing demands for things. evidence sessions. People came from all over the
world to give evidence and the scientific discoveries
were jaw-droppingly wonderful. I read lots about
Q130 Miss Kirkbride: Yes, and I suppose full human origins because it is absolutely fascinating
consent might make us all feel better, but it does not and the scientific work is absolutely amazing and the
actually answer the point of what the future will claims from indigenous people were also absolutely
bring and what we might be able to accept for those wonderful and moving and genuine. What is so
remains later. diYcult is on both sides of the argument, that on the
Dr Davies: Yes. As you will see when the report side of the indigenous people, they absolutely
comes out, there are diVerences of view eVectively genuinely believe that one factor in the current
suVering of those people is the continued presence of
and I in the end came down on the view that was the
human remains out of the ground in museum
most favourable towards return and I found it very
collections in Britain, in this case, and they
diYcult to reach that decision. I had to conceptualise
absolutely genuinely believe that it will be part of
it for myself and try and come up with an ethical
healing those people, reducing their alcoholism and
framework within which to decide it. I think I reducing youth delinquency if things are returned.
decided that in the very longest term, in a 100-year/ Therefore, confronted with two, what I believe are,
200-year horizon, the issue becomes one of in a sense genuinely held sets of beliefs in things that are right
scientific benefit versus destruction, so if you take a that are often incompatible if you cannot reach some
very long-term view I would be incredibly kind of consensus, in a sense you have to make a
sympathetic with the view put by the Natural choice and it is very, very diYcult. What was so
History Museum because I am sure that these interesting is how it is so easy to see it as a kind of
remains have great scientific benefit and scientific conflict between Western beliefs and humanity as a
discoveries will come that we cannot even dream of whole and indigenous beliefs and small groups, but
as new techniques are discovered. However, if then actually it is not really like that at all because the
you look at it in a kind of shorter time horizon, I strength of feeling on both sides and the strength of
think it is an issue, as Mr Doran said, of post- belief that returning or not returning is absolutely
imperialism and of a very, very damaged people with the right thing to do for humanity makes it such a
incredible problems who had all their rights violated, diYcult decision. It was very, very interesting and I
their religion they virtually cannot practise because think it is also one of the reasons why those kinds of
the proper disposition of these remains is totally issues are not very amenable to legal resolution
important. Therefore, I in the end made a decision because it is not really about winning and losing, I
which I should not do as a museum person, but I do not think, but it is much more complicated and
made a decision on a rather shorter-term basis, but subtle than that in a way.
in a sense it seemed to me the right decision to make
now and for the next decade or two that largely Q132 Miss Kirkbride: Given that the decision will
things should be returned if the indigenous people have to be made, it will be interesting to see what
genuinely believe that to be the case and have the your working group actually recommends because I
religious authority and religious continuity to be the know where I stand on the argument. Just as a final
case, and I am absolutely aware that in 10 or 20 question, Frank talked about the return of property
years’ time I might really regret supporting the that had been looted or stolen in some shape or form
return of certain remains to Australia because the and you talked about the moral perspective of that
evidence is that we could make some wonderful and I would agree with you there. I just wanted to
discovery from them. One thing you learn working clarify what your view would be and whether or not
in museums is that it is the fragments of history and you would see a moral argument for the return of
cultural property that had been taken in our owner before you sold them. It was to stop car boot
imperialist past, the Elgin Marbles, et cetera, and sales and antique dealers either wittingly or
whether that same argument applies. unwittingly selling stolen goods. I was going to ask
Dr Davies: Well, it is incredibly diYcult, is it not, to you whether you are aware of this legislation and
know in a sense where you draw the line and you have already nodded that you do know about it,
certainly there seems to have been a clear consensus so I want to ask you this then: how do you consider
within the UK about items taken by the Nazis in the those Acts are working? Do you think that they
Second World War period, so for some categories of ought to be extended nationally? Thirdly, would that
material ethical retrospection goes back as far as not prevent a lot of the illicit trade that goes on in
there, but for further categories of material it does cultural objects?
not because there are items in museum collections Dr Davies: To answer your first question, I realise I
that were illicitly taken since the Second World War, have no idea how they are working in practice and it
but there is not really much discussion about would be very useful to know. I think I am right in
returning because the UNESCO Convention, which saying that the Illicit Trade Advisory Panel said in
was the international legal instrument for regulating its report1 that it would welcome at least serious
cultural property internationally, was not even consideration of extending those regimes across the
drafted until 1970 and then the UK did not sign until whole of England at least, or maybe England and
last year, so there is a whole lot of material there. Wales, so there would seem to be merit in extending
Then there is a whole argument about slavery and it. Sorry, what was the third part of your question?
things which have been here which represent
benefitting from slavery, so it is a very diYcult area
to know where you draw the line. I have to say I find
one of the most productive ways of discussing it, and
this slightly contradicts what Mr Doran said, is not Q135 Michael Fabricant: Yes, what would be the
to look at the legitimacy of the original acquisition, impact on the illicit trade in cultural objects
but actually to look at the ethical issue now really, specifically in relation to this inquiry which is the
the strength of the claim now. Really the Parthenon museums?
Marbles show that whilst the debate about whether Dr Davies: I think the impact on the top level of the
or not the original acquisition was legitimate or not, trade would probably be very little because I think
it does not really get you very far. There is a lot of they are already recording that sort of
scholarly energy gone into analysing the original information—I think they have to record it for VAT
acquisition, but it has not really gone very far to purposes, if nothing else—and I think they also
resolving the issue of whether they should be in under their codes of practice record that
London or Athens now or in the future with some information. I think at the lower end of the market
people thinking one thing and some people thinking and particularly in terms of dealing with lower-value
the other, so I think you have to look at each case on stuV stolen from people’s houses and so on in the
its merits, but what framework you use for that is not UK, it could make a huge diVerence. I think the
clear at all really. It is not very helpful, is it? other thing that again just feels like it might have
Chairman: It is extremely lucid actually, Dr Davies, potential with all this talk of databases is the
and it does clarify things. For example, if, which they potential for creating a database that in a sense
are not, the Parthenon Marbles were part of the positively vets things and I think one of the current
remit of this inquiry, it could perhaps be argued that databases oVers this service to owners of cultural
if the Greeks could pop them back on the Parthenon, property, so you do not wait until something is
then there would be a very strong argument for stolen and then put it on the database as stolen, but
letting them have them back, but since they have no while you legitimately own the item, you put it on the
intention of doing that, the question is whether they database as your property, so it does not then need
remain in the museum which exists or they are to be recorded as stolen for a potential trader to pick
assigned to a museum which does not exist. it up quickly as belonging to you. It seems to me that
there are various possibilities in terms of both
Q133 Michael Fabricant: I just wanted to follow up 1 Footnote by witness: The Illicit Trade Advisory Panel’s
something which you said earlier on. You talked Recommendation 13 reads:
about the diYculty in providing passporting, as you Regulation of the Market in Second-hand Goods
We have noted the Special Report of the Parliamentary
called it, for cultural objects for determining their Committee on the Kent County Council Bill and the
provenance. About three years ago there were two Medway Council Bill. These Bills enable the councils
sister Bills passed in Parliament which were concerned to regulate the market in second-hand goods
promoted by the Kent and Maidstone unitary (including art and antiques) in their administrative areas.
While we support the aim of these Bills, we are concerned
authorities with the help of the Kent Constabulary. about the piecemeal implementation of such private
Dr Davies: Yes. legislation, because this is likely to result in variations in
regulatory regimes among diVerent local authority areas.
We believe that this could be extremely confusing and agree
Q134 Michael Fabricant: Good, you know them. with the Parliamentary Committee’s conclusion that “the
What those Bills did was to say that any objects sold Government should reconsider the case for public
legislation to regulate the market in second-hand goods”
over quite a small value, I think it was something like and that “such legislation should be introduced at an early
£5 or over, you had to certify that you were the stage”.
putting some requirement on dealers and traders think the idea of a system of positively recording
and also in recording things positively. Certainly things in legal ownership may do a lot to stop illicit
when you have cases of looting overseas from trading.
museum collections, one of the biggest problems is Michael Fabricant: Well, our next set of witnesses
often that they do not have inventories with enough are in fact people who maintain databases and you
information on about what was stolen and we saw have already suggested an interesting line of
that in the case of the Iraq Museum. If there had questioning.
been a website with all of their collection on, it would Chairman: Thank you very much indeed—extremely
have been much easier to identify things, so again I helpful and much appreciated.
Memorandum submitted by the Art Loss Register

The thrust of the evidence sought from the private sector databases is around:
1. What do you do?
(a) Background
The Art Loss Register was founded in 1990 as an industry initiative by the Art Trade and the Insurance
companies to tackle the problem of stolen art and increase recoveries. Its mission is:
— To identify and recover stolen and missing works of art.
— To deter art theft and unauthorised sale of works of art.
— To provide a central “checkpoint” to prospective purchasers and lenders.
— To reduce the trade in stolen art.
Its shareholders include the major auction houses, insurance companies, the International Foundation
for Art Research, and management but it operates as an independent commercial concern. It is the central
internationally recognised database available for searching of stolen and looted items of which there are, on
the database, in excess of 140,000 uniquely described and many others which are not unique but which may
have been stolen or looted at the same time and may be recovered through “proof of association”. The
company has a staV of 20 including 13 fine art graduates speaking 8 diVerent languages, in oYces in London,
New York and Cologne. (See Flag 6) (not printed)
(b) Recoveries
The company has been responsible for the recovery of over £85 million of stolen art over the last 10 years,
all of which are fully documented. The company is not merely a passive database matching operation but
also has extensive experience in the research of Holocaust-type losses and in active recovery eVorts including
close liaison with the police in many countries. For example, during 1999 the company undertook 80 days
negotiations for the return of a Cézanne, sold subsequently at Sotheby’s for £18 million. At any one time
the company is handling over 200 recoveries, some of which take years to complete.
(c) Operations
The recovery process begins with the registration on the database of lost items by theft victims and their
insurers which are then systematically checked against the catalogues of the major auction houses, enquiries
and searches for major museums, dealers and galleries, financial institutions and law enforcement agencies
around the world. When an item is matched with an item on the database, the ALR notifies the theft victim
and law enforcement authorities. At that point the work of art may be detained and the parties negotiate
a settlement often with the ALR’s help, or legal process commences, or eVorts are made to support the police
if the objects location is not known.
(d) Holocaust research

The company also maintains a substantial database of Holocaust victims’ claims for looted art and
antiques and provides a research service both for them and for the art trade who wish to confirm before they
purchase that an item has no Holocaust connection.
2. How does this assist the trade?
(a) Auction Houses

The major Auction Houses contract with the Art Loss Register for their catalogues to be searched prior
to sale in order to identify any stolen objects which can then be withdrawn, and the experts frequently refer
to the Art Loss Register on specific items before cataloguing. The catalogues often carry a statement that
they are submitted to the ALR and search certificates can be obtained from us. The Company does not
merely identify a stolen object, but provides a service to the Auction houses, whereby an innocent purchaser
who has consigned the item for sale is them given assistance by the Art Loss Register in recovering their
purchase price by a process of “down-lining” ie moving down the chain of buyer and seller until bad faith
is demonstrated. This enables the object to be surrendered without undue cost to the consignor and leads
to an increase in intelligence for the police and further recoveries.
(b) Dealers
Over 250 dealers use the Art Loss Register to check items before they purchase. The same service of
“down-lining” is provided to them, together with extensive research on provenance and Holocaust related
issues. The codes of conduct of many of the trade associations encourage searching with the Art Loss
Register of which some are shareholders. The ALR are part of the vetting committee of the major fairs.
(c) Museums
Over 30 museums subscribe to the Art Loss Register for items to be checked against the database before
purchases and further research undertaken if necessary and a search certificate provided.
(d) Collectors
Increasingly collectors require a Search Certificate before purchase and they and museums may wish to
check their inventory in order to confirm that there have been no claims on items, which they hold.
(e) Art stolen from the Trade

A significant proportion of the items on the ALR’s database were items stolen from the trade itself.
Recovery of the items reduces the insurance cost for the trade and provides a deterrent to future theft.
The searches above are all conducted under a contract between the ALR and the member of the art trade,
which requires co-operation with the police in the event of a match.
(f) Active Searching not under Contract

In addition the Art Loss Register reviews many auctions, auction sites, dealer sites on the Internet,
advertisements in trade magazines where there is no contract with the individual dealer. Searches under
contract vary between 250 and 300,000 per year and those not under contract another 100–200,000 per
annum. The Art Loss Register is searching approximately one third of the total art trade transactions of
significant value worldwide and this proportion is growing. The art trade is contributing a substantial
proportion of the costs of the operation and value the professional advice provided from the expertise of
the art historians and those with specialist knowledge of problems of title.
(g) Archaeological Losses

Many stolen antiquities have been identified by the ALR and recently the International Association of
Dealers in Ancient Art (IADAA) maintains a protocol whereby all potential purchases by their members
above a value of £10,000 must be checked against the database. An audit trial of all checks of the database
is maintained. The ALR has been involved in advising parties in relation to major archaeological losses. In
one case involving a dispute in excess of £20 million the company developed the concept of an international
trust financed by a major museum, which would have the items on display. The terms of the trust would
require the items to be exhibited in those countries which had a reasonable claim and eventually repatriated
to the country should complete proof be obtained of their original excavation. The ALR has assisted in the
recovery of items from Iraq and Iran which have resulted in arrests.
3. How does it benefit the police and/or Customs and Excise? and
4. What co-ordination or co-operation is there with the police/Customs and Excise?
The Art Loss Register works routinely and closely with the great majority of the individual police forces
in the United Kingdom and with over 35 foreign police services as well as Interpol. The company’s services
are free to the police and include the following:
(a) Logging of losses submitted by police forces. The Company receives thousands of losses from police
forces internationally and the database includes police losses from 1970 and earlier. This is
particularly valuable because in many cases the police have destroyed their hard copy records and
the ALR is the only record remaining. The police frequently recommend to victims that they
should contact the Art Loss Register if their insurance company has not already done so.
(b) Searches. The police frequently refer to the Art Loss Register when they are investigating crime and
find goods, which may be stolen. The Company also provides teams with laptops to support police
raids, cataloguing items discovered as well as searching against the database.
(c) Training. The Company contributes to the training of policemen worldwide and participates in
Interpol and other conferences.
(d) Gathering of intelligence. The Art Loss Register’s down-lining and routine operations produce
much intelligence for the police. The Art Loss Register does not in any way provide a substitute
service for police but often police forces will allow the Art Loss Register to down-line on a case
until evidence of criminal activity is found when the case is passed back.
(e) Expert Evidence. The Company provides expert evidence to police forces for trials and
investigations on matters such as whether a dealer purchased in good faith, whether the Art Loss
Register was checked etc. There have been a number of cases of dealers claiming to have checked
with the Art Loss Register or tampering with Search Certificates.
(f) Negotiations. The Art Loss Register does not enter into negotiations with any parties for the
surrender of stolen items or for the provision of intelligence without the approval of the police,
and this may be in several diVerent jurisdictions. The company has very clear Public Policy
Principles (Annex C) (not printed) and does not countenance the payment of any money for
intelligence unless this is handled by the police and nor will the Company pay ransoms or extortion
money unless the police direct us to do so. The Company does provide significant funds for
operations where the police request money for informers.
(g) Customs and Excise. The Company operates very closely with Customs and Excise in a number of
countries, both in providing checks on exports and imports resulting in a number of recoveries,
particularly for US Customs.
5. What compatibility is there between the various databases (and between the databases and the ACIS
database available online)?
The ALR has already incorporated the ACIS data available on line into its own database and already has
much of the Metropolitan Police old data incorporated from registrations of losses over the years.
In terms of networking databases no progress has been made although there have been various
government initiatives to do so, eg GRASP but with little success.
Various national police forces have been reluctant to surrender their data, but a distinction should be
made between case and object data. Police often give the Art Loss Register object data in order that we can
find items but once a match is made the Art Loss Register has not necessarily been given the details of the
owner etc and these details are held by the police.
It is clearly important that the trade should only have to search in one place and hence why the Art Loss
Register captures any publicly available data such as from the French Police, and Interpol in order that
search of the Art Loss Register incorporates as much data as possible.
6. Is your database suYcient and/or necessary in relation to “due diligence” by the industry?
The wording of the Art Loss Register search certificate states that all relevant information on provenance,
the circumstances of purchase etc, must be given to the Art Loss Register in order that a Search Certificate
is valid. This is to prevent a search being undertaken by member of the trade who suspects that an item is
stolen but does not give the reasons for their suspicions to the database.
If the item is not then on the database a search certificate may be used by a dishonest member of the Art
Trade as an umbrella. It is therefore probably fair to say that a search of the Art Loss Register database
is a necessary part of due diligence but not necessarily suYcient. In certain cases no other research can be
undertaken, but in some cases a search of the database is not considered by the Art Loss Register to be
anything like suYcient and we would propose to the trade that further research should be undertaken.
Since many police forces have not made all their data available for searching, there will be occasions in
which a stolen item may be given clearance.
7. What is the balance to be struck between “recovery of goods” and “apprehension of criminals”?
Although police responsibility include the recovery of stolen goods, police priorities will probably always
be the apprehension of criminals and the recovery of goods will usually be important in terms of evidence
for trial rather than the highest priority in itself. It is therefore often helpful to the police for the Art Loss
Register to concentrate on the recovery of stolen property since this may also lead to further intelligence for
the police which may lead to arrests, convictions and thereby deterrents. The allocation of eVort between
the Art Loss Register and the police seems to work well and often takes place routinely with those police
forces who in public emphasise that they do not see a particular role for a private database company.
The recovery of stolen property is important not only to victims, for whom they may be financially,
emotionally or culturally important, but also as a further deterrent to crime, the great majority of which is
financially motivated. Furthermore the recovery of stolen property removes an instrument which is being
increasingly used by terrorists and drug criminals to move value around the world when money laundering
regulations have made it increasingly diYcult for them to do this with cash.
8. How does the UK eVort relate to systems in other countries?

No doubt the Home OYce or police would wish to comment on the relationship of the police eVorts to
those overseas but as far as the Art Loss Register is concerned our database is highly international with
oYces in the USA and Germany and loggings and searches are conducted for over 50 countries with the staV
travelling to 20 or 30 countries each year. Often this ability is much appreciated by the police who cannot do
so themselves without a long and bureaucratic process and their overseas travel budgets are very limited.
The UK is the world leader in terms of expertise in stolen art in the private sector.
9. What progress has been made towards a comprehensive national database since the Committee’s, and
ITAP’s, recommendations in 2000 (not to mention ITAP’s firm demarche in 2002)?
The Art Loss Register’s operations continue to develop as the central and internationally recognised
database for the insurance industry, art trade and many police forces, even though it is not a comprehensive
UK national database.
The Art Loss Register were represented on the Home OYce Working Party and undertook extensive
writing of draft protocols, operational procedures, addressed public policy issues etc . Because the final
report by PITO was restricted, we have not been able to comment on its recommendations oYcially.
However we understand that there was some police reluctance to be involved in a public private sector
partnership.
We have not been given the reasons for this but if there are good reasons they have certainly been
overcome in relation to many other similar operation as outlined in question 10 below. Furthermore there
are government agencies which rely on private contractors and partnerships in areas of much greater
national and international security importance than a database of stolen art open to searching by the art
trade.
10. What are the implications for the private sector operations of developments in this direction; what models
are you aware of for public-sector developments in this direction?
The private sector is eVectively providing a substantial measure of the due diligence required in terms of
the number of items that should be searched, the audit trail, the follow up to matches and other assistance.
If the Government tried to develop its own service with no reference to the private sector then there would
eVectively be a competitive position in which the Government would be in a diYcult position. It would have
to justify both legally, financially and operationally why this should be a government service rather than one
run by the private sector or in partnership.
There are a number of very close parallels where the government and private sector are co-operating to
provide database services in relation to due diligence.
(a) Stolen Vehicles

The Government, through the DVLA makes available data on stolen vehicles to database companies who
provide a searching service for those purchasing or financing second hand vehicles. This system works well
with the private motor trade or finance houses being charged for searches and this searching is one of the
reasons that the recovery of stolen motor vehicles is approximately 70% (albeit many of them damaged) as
compared to the art trade recovery of stolen property which is probably under 5% overall even if somewhat
higher for high value pictures.
(b) Stolen Plant

There is also the example of The National Plant & Equipment Register (TER), a private commercial
company run by the same management as that of the Art Loss Register, which has developed a database of
the ownership and of stolen construction and agricultural plant and equipment. This is financed by the
insurance industry and the construction and agricultural trade in a similar fashion to that of the Art Loss
Register. TER maintains significant expertise on the numbering systems, identification, tracing of spare
parts, and active recovery eVorts on stolen plant and equipment and have assisted police with over 1300
recoveries with total values of £8 million. Virtually all the insurers subscribe and the company operates
closely with overseas police forces. (see TER Review for further details) (not printed)
The Police National Computer has a section of its stolen property database for plant and equipment but
the entry of data has been undertaken over the years by those who would have no responsibility for searching
it and who lack the necessary expertise. It fell into disrepute and a report was requested from TER by the
Police Information Technology Organisation (PITO) to take this data, cleanse it, re-order it and make it
available for searching. During this process it was discovered that only about 2% of the data had been
entered properly and much of the data was useless. (See Flag 7) (not printed)
TER has worked with PITO which runs the Police National Computer (PNC) and the individual police
forces in the United Kingdom for over eight years and a protocol is now being established which will govern
the entire relationship between the police service in the UK and Northern Ireland and TER. This will include
all matters relating to the data quality of police data held on the PNC.
In Holland the Dutch Police gave up running their database of stolen art and antiques ( Kunst en Antiek
Nationaal Systeem Art Loss Data ) because it was a relatively low priority and they found it diYcult to get
their provincial police forces to log stolen items with them. The data has been licensed to the Art Loss
Register who now search for the stolen objects and inform the Dutch police when items are matched, who
retain the case (ie details of owner address etc) themselves.
There would appear to be no significant arguments against DCMS using the private sector to provide the
necessary database. We understand that the arguments against the involvement of the private sector have
come from the police. Certain overseas police forces as stated already co-operate closely with the Art Loss
Register behind the scenes but publicly state that they see little if any role for a private sector company. The
private sector companies have never argued in favour of being given all the case or sensitive information
about the ownership or criminal aspects of the theft or investigation. The private sector has argued only in
favour of the object data ie the details of what have been stolen being available in order that the trade could
undertake due diligence.
If the police forces were to provide the due diligence searching service themselves, they would have to pool
their data internationally which some of them have stated that they will not do or obtain some form of search
engine which would search all their object data. For a dealer to search one National database is almost
bound to be inadequate because of the easy movement of stolen objects.
The areas which would have to be addressed in any Public Private sector Partnership between the police
and a private company would include:
(a) Follow up in the event of a match.
(b) Not approaching individuals who have had losses, which have been logged with the police but not
by insurers to request fees for advertisements, recoveries or other services.
(c) The provision of statistical and other research.
A draft protocol has been already developed in relation to The Equipment Register.
It is important to note that the police are already using private companies in support of police operations,
for forensic laboratory work, valuations, fraud investigations etc.
11. Do the police themselves have the necessary expertise and resources to implement a specialist database of
this sort?
In general they do not. The Carabinieri in Italy with several hundred police involved in stolen art and to
a lesser extent the French Police through OCBC, do have expertise and resources to run major databases
but these are not currently open for searching by the art trade as envisaged for a formal process of due
diligence with audit trails, follow up to recoveries etc.
It would be very diYcult for most police forces (with the possible exception of Italy and France) to recruit
and retain the necessary expertise to run a database for the art trade to search and enter into competition
with the Art Loss Register. The cost and liability would be considerable.
Most police forces do provide examples of data on the Internet and this is the easy option but both the
police and the Art Loss Register do not believe that the whole of their databases should be available on the
Internet for searching without an audit trail or control. This would merely benefit criminals (See Principles
Paper Flag 2) (not printed).
12. Is the issue being addressed as any sort of priority—what discussions or consultation has there been since
2000, with the Home OYce, DCMS, each other and/or the police, in terms of moving this project forward?
The Art Loss Register joined the Home OYce working party created in 2000 which put forward concrete
proposals from the private sector to undertake a cost free trial, although we have heard nothing from the
Home OYce since their letter of 23 May 2001 saying that they would write when they had further progress
to report
We understand that some funding may have been made available to Scotland Yard to develop their
current database and improve their data, and that one suggestion was that this should be extended to being
available to all UK police forces.
Given the points that we have made in answer to the questions above we doubt that this would be
successful, in terms of providing a due diligence database for the Art Trade.
October 2003
Memorandum submitted by Mr Richard Ellis, Trace

The following are brief answers to those questions posed by way of illustrating the thrust of the evidence
sought by the Committee, and can be expanded on as required.
What do I do?—I currently manage Trace, a part of the Invaluable Group. Trace maintains a
comprehensive database of stolen art, antiques and cultural property. The database holds in excess of
120,000 records of stolen objects, together with illustrations where available. The database is unique in that
it is a pro-active database, screening auction house catalogues and dealers’ stock prior to sale, on a daily
basis, identifying stolen property prior to sale.
The company receives catalogues from over 950 auction rooms around the world, processing the sale lots
onto a single searchable database, thus providing the largest Pre Sale database in the world. The presale
database also holds some dealers stock, all of which is screened every night by the “Stolen Property
Database”. Possible matches of stolen items are reviewed manually, with probable matches being
electronically forwarded to members of the company’s Police Liaison Team for confirmation and recovery.
The circulation of stolen art, antiques and cultural property is enhanced through the publication of “Trace
Magazine” and use of the company web site, leading to additional recoveries.
How Does this Assist the Trade?—Over 950 auction rooms around the world, and an increasing number
of dealers submit their catalogues and stock lists to the company for inclusion on the Pre Sale Database.
This provides them with (a) Enhanced route to market leading to higher levels of sales, and (b) a Due
Diligence check for their listed property against a comprehensive database of stolen objects.
In addition, dealers are increasingly contacting the company for Due Diligence checks to be performed
by the company on other objects that they wish to purchase.
The company now checks in excess of 4.5 million objects against the stolen property database every year,
providing the most extensive due diligence available anywhere.
How does this benefit the police/customs and excise?—The company retains the details of the investigating
police service in respect of all reports, and in the event of stolen property being identified in the market, the
relevant police authority is informed, enabling them to recover the property and instigate investigations into
those responsible for its theft and dishonest handling.
In addition, the Police Liaison Team, which includes two former specialist detectives, assist the police by
attending searches and checking on suspect property. Recovered property for which the owner cannot be
found is circulated in Trace Magazine in an attempt to re-unite it with its rightful owners.
There is a special arrangement wit the Norfolk Constabulary, which enables them to access the Stolen
Property Database through a secure Internet access, and to check on property themselves. There are other
benefits to both Norfolk and the company through this trial scheme.
What compatibility is there between the various databases?—At the present time, none, other than most
stolen property data is now received in the Object ID format, which provides the minimum standard
required to adequately circulate uniquely identifiable property.
Is your database suYcient and/or necessary in relation to due diligence?—Very! The unique automated
screening of the Pre Sale Database by the Stolen Property Database provides the largest and most
comprehensive due diligence check in the world.
Without the use of this technology it would be impossible to screen the breadth of the art and antiques
market for stolen objects. The company plans to upgrade the technology over the next year, and to enhance
the screening process by the introduction of “Art Trained” personnel to review the matches and to perform
selective manual catalogue screening.
What is the balance to be struck between “recovery of goods” and apprehension of criminals?—A key priority
is to identify the criminals responsible for the theft of property and its dishonest handling. Identification of
the property provides an audit trail leading to the criminals involved. The more stolen property identified
and recovered will expose more criminals, and reduce their route to market for stolen cultural property.
How does the UK eVort relate to systems in other countries?—Considering the scale of the UK art market
and its importance world wide, a comparison of the UK database eVorts in the public sector is poor. Add
to that the fact that the UK is also a major loser of its own cultural property, but has no single system to
monitor these losses, the lack of action is breathtaking. It is a reflection of the scale of the situation that the
two leading private sector systems are both based in the UK.
What progress has been made towards a comprehensive national database? Having been a member of the
Home OYce Working Group until June 2001, it would appear very little other than a confirmed recognition
of its need. The cost implication as set out in the PITO report and a reluctance to adopt a Public Private
Partnership, appear to have left government with no clear idea as to how to solve a problem, which since
the looting of national museums in both Afghanistan and Iraq, coupled with a series of high profile cultural
property thefts at home and elsewhere abroad, is seen to be getting progressively worse.
What are the implications for the private sector operations of developments in this area?—I believe the
implications for the private sector companies in this area are that they must provide comprehensive
international systems, capable of providing services to an international community in an international
market place. To achieve this there has to be a constant review and upgrading of technologies, closer co-
operation with the trade, law enforcement, insurance industry and governments, with a provision for more
accessible systems through which stolen objects can be identified.
What Models are you aware of for public sector developments in this direction?—As far as I am aware
there are two possible alternatives currently being reviewed:
(a) The provision of a national database through the upgrading of the Metropolitan Police database
at New Scotland Yard, which in my opinion would fail to meet any of the requirements for a
national system, and would unnecessarily burden the Metropolitan Police with a responsibility,
they should not have.
(b) There is a proposal for the National Database to be operated under the control of the Council for
the Prevention of Art Theft, a registered charity, on behalf of government. The charity would
provide an operating model that would include representatives of all stakeholders, including
government and law enforcement, on its board. As a “Not for Profit” organisation, any surplus
funds generated through the operation of the database would be channelled back into the running
of the service, which could be further oVset through charitable donations. The Charity would
eVectively operate the database through a Joint Venture Operation utilising the best elements
available in the private sector.
Do the police have the expertise and resources to implement a specialist database?—No. One of the crucial
failings of the ACIS database, which I introduced to New Scotland Yard, was the total lack of any art-
trained personnel to operate it. The result was incomplete and poorly entered data leading to the ultimate
failure of the system. To operate the system as a national resource, there would have to be a large increase
in trained staYng levels. Secondly, the system should be accessible to the trade where most stolen art,
antiques and cultural property is recycled. The police are reluctant to provide such accessibility. Thirdly,
the system should be proactive, and should screen the market place. The police do not have the systems or
the staV to do this.
What discussions or consultation has there been since 2000 with the Home OYce, DCMS, police, in terms
of moving this project forward?—There appeared to be great urgency to introduce a national system when
the then Home OYce Minister Charles Clarke set up the working group in 2000. However, following the
general election, and the disbandment of the working group little, or no progress appears to have been made.
27 October 2003
Memorandum submitted by Salvo
Many Databases
Salvo’s principle message is that databases are proliferating so no one database will win the race to
supremacy. The Government should concentrate on bringing together the various interest groups. The
Government should also decide what the recommended national database is aiming to achieve.
Why have Databases
Databases exist to reduce crime. Interestingly one of your witnesses was asked about the Kent Bill. Earlier
this year we asked Kent Police if the Kent Bill had reduced theft and burglary in Kent. The answer they gave
was no. People lose sight of their objectives very easily it seems.
Types of Database
There are two broad types of database—open access and restricted or closed access. Closed systems tend
to exclude people from having a role in helping to catch criminals and recover goods. Open systems seem
more eVective at recovering the types of stolen goods we cover. We do not know if closed or open systems
catch more criminals. We do know that the police need to seek and avail themselves of the public’s help if
they are to succeed.
Advisory Panel
The remit of the Illicit Advisory Panel is too broad. The Panel may know a lot about high value antiques
from Iraq, Rome and London antiquities, but they know much less about staddle stones from
Northampton, cheap fireplaces in Bangor and stolen garden ornaments. The Panel’s solutions will close
doors to certain criminals but open many doors to others. Care is needed before action is taken.
Committee’s Questions
What do you do?
Salvo is a partnership of three that networks information about antique and reclaimed materials from
buildings and gardens to dealers, DIY-ers, mainstream construction, police and heritage organisations.
Salvo started in 1992. In 1995 we started the “Salvo Code” for dealers which now has 110 signees, mainly
UK, but also European and North American. SalvoNEWS is a printed and e-mailed newsletter, each edition
of which circulates to between 500 and 2,500 people. In tandem with our aim of helping to reduce the 33,000
tonnes of reclaimable materials landfilled very day in the UK by stimulating the market, we started the
“Salvo theft alerts” database to warn the trade about illicit materials entering the market in the hope that
the trade would:
1. Avoid buying stolen items.
2. Help seize and recover stolen items.
3. Help in the arrest and identification of criminals.
Benefit for the trade
Salvo Theft Alerts helps the legitimate trade avoid stolen items. Salvo Theft Alerts may also help the
dodgy trade work out whether something they know to be stolen may be diYcult to sell because it is “hot”.
Each theft alert contains the crime reference number and a police contact telephone number. Since
interceptions of stolen goods are often hundreds of miles from, or even in a diVerent country to, the original
theft, it is crucial that police crime reference numbers and telephone numbers appear alongside each theft
alert to help police local to the intercept tie up the theft with the originating police, in order to make instant
arrests and seizures. Without police details goods could be avoided by dealers but no items would ever be
intercepted.
Case in point
Several years ago on a Friday night a wrought iron balustrade was smashed oV with a sledgehammer
extensively damaging the stone staircase of a listed Georgian customs house that had been empty for years.
A local dealer told us that night. The local police were also told. We sent out an e-mail to the trade that
night. The next afternoon, in a dealer’s yard about 60 miles from the crime, a van turned up in the back of
which was a load of wrought iron stair balustrade. The written description matched. The dealer arranged
for one member of staV to engage the van-driver in conversation while he called the police. Twenty minutes
later three squad cars turned up, lights flashing and tyres screeching into a yardful of bemused Saturday
shoppers. The police took a look inside the van and called the police in the town of the theft to confirm that
a crime had taken place. It was Saturday afternoon and no-one was available to help. They tried to contact
the owner of the building from where the balustrade had come, but they could not find out who owned it.
They tried for an hour, holding the van in the dealers yard and generally disrupting that dealer’s prime
Saturday selling time. It was obvious that the material was stolen, but the police refused to act. Without a
crime reference number they felt powerless to arrest (they could be accused of making a false arrest) and
they knew the CPS would not proceed. So they let the van-driver and the goods go, and that was the last
that was ever seen of him or the balustrade. The dealer who made the intercept was very unhappy, and we
vowed never to run a Salvo theft alert without a crime reference number again. We do, however, now run
theft alerts called H2i (hard to identify) which alerts the trade to possibilities of stolen items.
Benefit for the police and/or Customs and Excise

Salvo theft alerts have helped the police by:
1. Helping to circulate information quickly by e-mail on the same day to the trade, some auction houses
and 12 UK police FIB’s.
2. Helping to recover stolen goods.
3. Helping to arrest and convict criminals.
4. Helping to check seized goods against our database especially when the seizure is by police who may
have little expertise in antique-identification from photographs. We have not heard of Customs using Salvo
Theft Alerts. They may do but we would not necessarily know.
Coordination or cooperation with the police/Customs and Excise

Salvo does not co-ordinate the police in any way. We have never been involved operationally. We merely
pass on information given to us by the police and public. We do cooperate with the police and will do
whatever is asked. We would like to be more involved with police policy but have never been invited.
Compatibility between the various databases (and between the databases and the ACIS database available
online)
These days all databases are compatible in a computing sense. Salvo has started to join data from diVerent
databases together in real time. Data from one of our databases now appears on a GIS map based recycling
database run by the Building Research Establishment. In future there will be thousands of theft databases.
We are devising a system for them all to be searchable with one click of the mouse.
The contribution of your database to “due diligence” by the trade

Salvo Theft Alerts is an open database. We have thought long and hard about “closing” our database but
have not yet seen any compelling reason for so doing. It has been suggested that we should do this by Trace
and ALR. However, Salvo Theft Alerts statistically is the best performer of the three with an average 14%
recovery rate between 1995 and 2000. One reason given for restricting access is that it somehow proves due
diligence. However, it is easy for us to know if a dealer has checked our database.
Proving due diligence using an open database

If in court a dealer said, “I checked Salvo’s database on 23 March and the fireplace was not on it”, we
could absolutely and easily verify whether or not the fireplace was on the database on 23 March. We could
not check whether the dealer checked the database, but that is academic if the item was not on it. If the dealer
claimed to have checked the database and not found the fireplace but the fireplace was on it on 23 March,
then a claim of due diligence by the dealer will not have been proved. If the dealer claimed that the database
was “down”, whether or not it was is irrelevant, unless he rang us up he would not have proved due diligence.
The problem is that due diligence checking is not realistic if a dealer has to check a dozen databases. This
is why we are looking on single click pan-database searching. Such systems cut across commercial and
operational interests. If they are in the public interest perhaps they should be publicly regulated and funded
by a levy on insurers.
The ALR have a closed system although a criminal could pay to search their system. Trace have a closed
system although they print theft alerts in their paper and anyone can subscribe. So neither have strictly
closed systems at all.
At present we do keep log files of requests made to the database and these could be used by police
computer forensics to find out who made the request. I guess this could be of limited use to the legal system.
Our database is not suYcient in the sense that it does not have every theft of architectural and garden
antiques logged on it. We reckon to receive information on between 5 and 10% of reported thefts, and we
receive between 100 and 200 theft alerts per year. So we guess that there are around 1,000–2,000 architectural
and garden thefts a year in total in the UK. Due diligence with respect to unlawfully removed objects, as
opposed to stolen ones, has not been considered by the Government, but there are perhaps so few cases as
to make it not worthwhile. Salvo Theft Alerts would easily cope with these too. We believe our system is as
powerful as the major search engines, so we should not have a problem with bandwidth, capacity and usage.
The balance to be struck between “recovery of goods” and “apprehension of criminals”

This is a good question. Why do we have theft databases? Is it to alert the trade to allow them to avoid
items, or is it to catch criminals or recover stolen goods? Simple guidance is needed. At present, if a dealer
acts to help catch criminals, he or she usually exposes their staV and business to danger. The police say “do
nothing, take details. let the criminals go and phone them afterwards”. The insurers say, “do nothing, we
don’t want the stuV back, we will write oV the loss on an actuarial basis”. The heritagists say, “don’t deal
in architectural and garden antiques in the first place, then there would be no problem (apart from bigger
landfill sites)”. Many dealers ignore the dangers and have a go, often resulting in the recovery of goods and,
less often, arrests and convictions. Salvo does not take rewards, and the best dealers are not influenced by
them. We have not seen evidence that rewards work, and I believe they may encourage higher value crime,
and corruption. The simplest way of reducing crime would be if licensed dealers were allowed to buy known
stolen goods cheap to repatriate to the losers, for which insurers would then foot the bill. For uninsured
goods the dealer would foot the bill. The dealer would take details, registration numbers, photos etc of the
seller (who most of the time is not the thief), and pass that information to the police. The police could then
decide to act or not, but at least the goods would be recovered. At present when known stolen goods turn
up in a van in a reputable dealer’s yard, the police generally do not act, the criminal gets away, and the goods
disappear. It should be stated that some theft is likely to be insurance fraud anyway.
Insurance fraud example

This happened a few years ago. A dealer buys a nice pair of urns from a county gent who turns up in his
yard. The dealer pays £1,500 by cheque. The vendor lives 100 miles away. A few days later a Salvo theft alert
is raised and, sure enough, it is for the theft of the same urns. The dealer contacts the police who visit the
loser and ask him to go and identify the urns. The owner turns up and says they are not his urns. The dealer
can plainly see they are, but if the owner denies it, what can you do? It turns out that the insurers have paid
£5,000 for the loss of the urns. So the owner has made a cool £6,500 out of the deal, enough for a family
skiing holiday if other finances are a bit low.
The UK’s eVort in relation to systems in other countries

The UK has the most honest dealers and the best theft databases. My guess would be that incidence of
crime is lowest, and recovery highest, in the UK. However, there is a problem and the situation is not rosy.
Currently the UK’s appetite for interceptions is going down, our theft database is getting less information,
crime has shifted from high to lower value, harder to identify, items and is increasing; and recovery has
plummeted.
What progress has been made towards a comprehensive national database since the Committee’s, and ITAP’s,
recommendations in 2000 (not to mention ITAP’s firm demarche in 2002)
Salvo held meetings with the Art Loss Register in 2001 and with Trace in 2002, both of whom are able
to input thefts on to Salvo’s system directly. Of the 12 subscribing police forces, one uses the system directly,
two others are considering it. The rest forward information about theft to Salvo by post. Most police forces
seem to find theft databases operationally problematic. The ones that have joined Salvo Theft Alerts seem
to believe that making theft alerts public encourages intercepts and recoveries, and reduces crime. The idea
of a home oYce database would not be very good in our field. The police do not generally have the degree
of expertise needed to keep databases accurate enough to be useful.
Police expertise example

During a periodic cull of Salvo Theft Alerts to see how many thefts in a police area had been recovered,
we asked about the theft of a large statue of a “heron” (which was in fact a crane). “Well,” the oYcer said,
“it’s not surprising we haven’t found it yet, we were looking for a 4ft herring”.
Models for public-sector developments in this area

None.
Do the police themselves have the necessary expertise and resources to implement a specialist database of
this sort
They do not have the expertise, and throwing money at them is not the answer. The trade need one place
to search for stolen objects, yet more theft databases are being set up around the world every day.
Due diligence
In the USA due diligence is a legal requirement upon the owner in the event of a theft to be diligent about
looking to recover the stolen goods. If they are not they cannot claim on their insurance for the loss. We
should adopt this in Britain. No-one can help reduce theft if theft is not reported and if insurers do not care
about recovery. In the UK insurers have claimed that garden theft has reached epidemic proportions in
order to frighten people into paying unnecessary premiums. Then when thefts occur the insurers do nothing
and just pay up. Insurers must be diligent too.
10 November 2003
Witnesses: Mr Julian RadcliVe OBE, Chairman, The Art Loss Register, Mr Richard Ellis, Director, Trace
(part of the Invaluable Group), and Mr Thornton Kay, Director, Salvo Theft Database, examined.
Q136 Chairman: Gentlemen, welcome to this for a very substantial eVort and, therefore, the
inquiry. We have had contacts with you before and additional cost for us to receive from the
indeed I have had the pleasure of visiting you. Before Government the data we do not currently have
I call other colleagues, I would just like to ask you: would be relatively small. I do not think the problem
are we any further forward since we last saw you? to getting government agreement is wholly a
Mr RadcliVe: I think it is fair to say that the financial one, though I think that is part of it, but I
Government may not have made very much think the main problem has been that the police who
progress, but I think our three companies continue hold stolen object data and the criminal and case
to make considerable progress and, in the absence of data that goes with it are reluctant to enter into
the Government producing a clear and agreed agreements with private sector companies under
policy, we are doing our best and increasingly being which that data would be available for searching,
pretty successful in filling the void. even though for stolen vehicles, stolen construction
equipment and in many other areas public-private
Q137 Chairman: But there is a void? partnerships have been set up and I think work
Mr RadcliVe: Yes, there is definitely a requirement pretty successfully.
and we are filling part of it collectively and
individually. It could be filled very much better if the Q139 Chairman: We are going to have somebody
Government agreed with us as to how to make from the Home OYce come to talk to us about this,
certain that the rest of the police data that we do not but is this simply a question of guarding one’s
have came on to our databases or we had a proper territory or is there, in your view, a wider public
partnership with the Government. interest that prompts the police to take up this
attitude?
Q138 Chairman: In view of the fact that you Mr Ellis: I think perhaps I could answer that with
yourself have said that it could be done better by the my previous experience of having been in the police.
Government, it is not, therefore, any denigratory There is a certain nervousness, and let me put it no
remark to say that there could be a much more stronger than that, that what the police hold is not
comprehensive register if the Government did it, and only property data on what has been stolen, but they
obviously what you do is highly valued. The hold criminal intelligence about those thefts and
question is, and we will ask them about it: why after about potential suspects and they are very nervous
all this time have we moved no further forward in about having a form of public-private partnership
terms of getting a register for the Government? It which might somehow compromise their
would not be all that expensive, would it? investigations and the presentation of evidence to
Mr RadcliVe: I think we have in the private sector, or court subsequently. That said, the proposals which
certainly my company has, said that we are already have been put forward from the private sector, and
undertaking and have payment from the art trade I know Mr RadcliVe will correct me if I say anything
28 October 2003 Mr Julian Radcliffe OBE, Mr Richard Ellis and Mr Thornton Kay
which is not right, but we have proposed the working Mr RadcliVe: The fragmentation of police forces in
of a system which would rely solely on the property this country is not helpful to national or
data being released into the private sector to allow international criminal issues, I think it is fair to say,
those systems to proactively search the marketplace hence why there have been eVorts to make—
which frankly no other national database anywhere
in the world provides, so eVectively by utilising what Q142 Chairman: Sorry to interrupt, but that
the private sector already contribute in this field, you fragmentation, which I am sure everybody around
would be establishing virtually a revolutionary type this table would in fact approve of, does not prevent
of database which would only work to safeguard the police, for example, from having the Home
victims of crime and the art market itself, so there system to which every police force can log in.
has to be a mechanism found to get around this Mr RadcliVe: Absolutely, but I am not saying that
reluctance on the part of the police and, therefore, the fragmentation of the police force is a bad thing.
the Home OYce to share this data. I am aware, and I am not saying that at all. What I am saying is that
here I must don a hat of Council for the Prevention in order to get ACPO and 43 police forces all to agree
of Art Theft, that there has been a proposal that that to give their data on stolen cultural objects to a
registered charity operates, if you like, as the buVer central database and to make certain that that is
between government, police and the operation of the audited, checked and eVective does require
database and that may be a way forward. eVectively 43 people to agree and some Home OYce
encouragement thereof.
Q140 Mr Flook: Can we just look at that a little bit Q143 Mr Flook: And that is the important thing, is
further, that that may be a way forward. How would it not, and that is lacking at the moment?
that work with your three diVerent, competing Mr RadcliVe: That is lacking at the moment, yes.
companies? Mr Ellis: Yes, that is lacking. There is also, I think,
Mr RadcliVe: When we were members of the Home a lacking in understanding. This is where there has to
OYce working party we put together one private go hand in glove with the introduction of a national
sector initiative to the Government which meant database some form of education of the police
that any potential competition between us would be themselves of the nature of this as a crime within the
subsumed into one overall activity, so I do not think United Kingdom. It is invariably cross border and
the fact that we compete a bit, and in fact there are with the fragmentation of the police forces and the
things that we each do which the other one does not concentration of the police resources, quite rightly,
do, would in any way be an impediment and indeed to dealing with the local issues, there is not an overall
I can quote other examples. For example, on stolen view which in fact the databases and the private
vehicles there are two or three companies providing sector see because we receive the reports from a
a competitive service, but they all get the same data whole variety of police areas and not merely the one
so that the police give, through the DVLA, all the that the police force is concentrating on and this
data on stolen vehicles to three companies who then fragmentation results in there being no overall
provide it back to the motorcar trade to search. I am concept of a scale of crime which does not perhaps
absolutely convinced that there is no impediment in reach the National Crime Squad level of seriousness,
terms of the private sector in providing what is but it is, nonetheless, too serious and, because of its
required. The only impediment is to get the police to cross-border nature, above the normal policing
agree in principle to do it and we produced actually duties of the police force for, say, a given
not only a concept of how to do it, but we actually constabulary area, so the criminals in this field are
produced a detailed protocol dealing with the able to operate with some degree of impunity.
sensitive issues, as Dick Ellis has mentioned, like
making certain that we did not receive data about Q144 Mr Flook: Can I turn to Mr Kay and to some
criminal intelligence and so on which we should not of the architectural and garden antiquities that get
get. The practical issues can, I am sure, be resolved, stolen. There was a case locally when Hestercombe
and we just need a decision in principle from the Gardens lost two very large urns and they ended up
Home OYce and to follow what they have done in in Devon and Cornwall Constabulary, although
other fields which is to make the object data they were stolen from Somerset. I do not know if
available to the trade for searching through a public- Salvo got involved with that, Mr Kay, and your son
private partnership. is one of my constituents, it is worth pointing out.
Chairman: Well, we will pull that answer out and put Mr Kay: Devon and Cornwall Police have only
it to the Home OYce Minister when she comes recently joined up with our system. We work with
before us, thank you. twelve police forces now.
Q145 Mr Flook: Are you having to go out and

Q141 Mr Flook: Just looking at how you deal with market what you do to them?
it, Mr RadcliVe, in your summary you said that you Mr Kay: The diYculty with dealing with police is
deal with a number of UK police forces, but does the that they are quite a large organisation and you
structure of the police with what is eVectively a normally have to approach each force on an
global problem and the fact that we have 42 or 43 individual level and sometimes we make headway
police forces, does that impact adversely on your and sometimes we do not. Some of them will not
ability to help resolve situations? have anything to do with us for operational reasons
and others think it is very good PR and useful for the Q147 Mr Flook: Therefore, to a certain extent both
capture of criminals and repatriation of stolen the Home OYce and DCMS three years on from the
goods. Committee’s Report still seem to be in some element
of confusion as to what they are saying to your
businesses?
Q146 Mr Flook: We have had a little go at the Home Mr Kay: I do not know if it would be helpful to read
OYce for not co-ordinating or helping to co- an extract from a letter. This is Tessa Jowell and it
ordinate the police to have a singular approach to was on 18 June. This is a letter which has gone out
this. I know that Salvo’s noses were rightly put out, to other people who have made comments in our
or, rather, you were very angry that your noses were trade and it says, “Finally, on the question of impact
put out of joint on the cultural objects field in that on your industry, the Bill does not necessarily oblige
the DCMS had sort of ignored the fact that you had dealers to take steps to ascertain provenance or to
made representations before and had assumed that exercise due diligence to avoid committing the
you had made representations with regard to this oVence”. Also somewhere else I have read that the
Private Member’s Bill. Do you want just to add to Bill itself is not likely to involve the prosecution of
that? more than one dealer every three years, so it seems
Mr Kay: Well, we have had a letter from the Minister as though the Bill is intended to prevent the
and we have accepted that it is water under the laundering of antiquities from Iraq on the London
bridge, although there is a bit of confusion as to antiques market, but in the domestic sense it seems
exactly what happened. Salvo represents informally to have caused a certain amount of confusion, and
the trade in architectural and garden antiques. They we do not understand it. If it is not a requirement of
have no trade association representation and dealers to check provenance or exercise due
BAMF, the British Art Market Federation, I think, diligence, as far as the Minister is concerned, then we
were being looked to by the Government to do not really understand what the Bill is about
represent their interests and there is a bit of a anyway.
question mark over what they were suggesting.
There are still diYculties with regard to that Bill.
One of the things that I would like to say, talking Q148 Mr Flook: Would you like to add to that, Mr
about databases which I think everybody assumes RadcliVe?
are theft databases, but actually the Dealing in Mr RadcliVe: My understanding is—and there has
Cultural Objects Bill itself is something which been case law in Switzerland, the United Kingdom
requires more than that, it requires databases of and the USA—where judges under the old
unlawfully removed objects from listed buildings in legislation have said that because the custom and
Britain and nobody seems to have given that any practice of the trade is changing and because
thought at all. We have two and a half million databases are now available, whereas they were not
buildings which fall within either listing or ten years ago, if a dealer failed to check the database
conservation areas. Just to give you an example of and he could have done so and the item was on the
where we are, the other databases deal in antiques database then that would weigh against him in the
where they have a value in that, so it is accepted that arguments in court and in the same way if a victim
the trade in those is secure, if you like, they are not could have entered an item on a database and did
going to be thrown away, whereas in our neck of the not then the victim who suVered the theft might have
woods ten years ago it was about 25,000 tonnes a day that weigh against them in the same sort of way. I
of reclaimable materials which included things like think it is fair to say that whatever, and I am no
fireplaces which go into landfill and now it is 33,000 expert on the legislation, the legislation both
tonnes a day. Therefore, whilst the Government on UNIDROIT and UNESCO worldwide and the
the one hand is trying to regulate the dealers to specific Bill here say I think the respectable elements
prevent them from dealing illicitly and removing of the trade realise that checking a database is now
things, they are doing nothing to help reduce the increasingly a requirement to prove due diligence,
amount of stuV that is going into landfill. In the and I can tell you that from our searches. Our
1980s, for example, with PPG15, which was then searches five years ago were ninety something per
extant, it had a clause in it which recommended that cent from the major auction houses because we
when things were going to be demolished, materials could get hold of the catalogues and we could make
for demolition should be traded on the second-hand certain we checked. The checking we are getting now
market. That was taken out in the mid-1990s and it from the fairs and the dealers are going up at a very
has never been put back in, so from where we are, we rapid rate, true from a small base, but they are now
were seeing the Dealing in Cultural Objects Bill, and going up at a very rapid rate and the reason for that
still do to an extent, as being a constraint on trade is because the dealers understand this is now a
and something which is going to make life harder, precondition of being a reputable member of the
and it is a very serious threat to a dealer if he is going trade in many aspects.
to be put into prison for several years for doing Mr Ellis: Just touching on the legislation, if I can just
something, and listed buildings legislation is very correct one thing that was said, the Dealing in
complex, and he could quite legitimately have Cultural Property Act that is currently being
something in his yard which he felt did not fall within introduced is not specifically directed at antiquities
the scope of the legislation which actually could be from Iraq, it was brought in to deal with a much
proved in court that it did or someone could try and wider problem, eVectively plugging a hole that
prove that it did. existed within our Theft Act and the dishonest
handling which permitted, if you like, dealers or says, “well, where has it come from?” The owner
other people to acquire objects outside of the says, “I have just removed it from my listed building
jurisdiction and bring it into this country where they without consent” and the dealer says, “Fine, I will
would no longer be dishonestly handling the take it and put it in my showroom” at that point he
property because it is not a continuing oVence, the is committing an oVence. That is the nature of the
oVence being completed at the point of which they oVence and that is the nature of the database we are
obtain control and possession of it. That was the talking about that would cover this unlawful
purpose of introducing this specific piece of removal. So far although we have dealt with police
legislation, it does, of course, hit Iraq like a nail on forces for the last 12 years we have never had a single
the head but then again there is other legislation listed buildings oYcer come to us and say,
which has been introduced through order of Council “somebody has removed something against the law,
in respect of Iraq. Let me just mention the Kent and can you help us try and get it back?” Never. We have
Medway Act and something that I heard being said never heard of an owner being done. Currently the
earlier, a matter of two weeks ago I attended a owner is committing an oVence, the dealer is not but
meeting at the Kent Police Headquarters where they the owner is. There are very few instances of owners
were reviewing this particular piece of legislation actually being taken to court under the current listed
and the comment that was made to me, from both buildings legislation, the 1990 Planning Act, it does
the Trading Standards OYcers and the police was happen but it is not common.
that what the Act appeared to be doing was actually
not being restrictive towards the legitimate dealer Q149 Michael Fabricant: In the two earlier sessions
but was clearly identifying those that needed police we have heard about inaction from various
and trading standards attention. Again if you look government departments regarding this. I just want
at due diligence and the dealers that do not comply to cast Mr RadcliVe’s mind back to May and earlier,
to a code of due diligence, such as the Council for the 2001. I have a copy of a letter here from the Home
Prevention of Art Theft, they are identifying OYce written to you. I am just going to quote very
themselves as the people that need watching and the briefly from it. It is dated 23 May, 2001. This letter
people that need policing. This is the important was written by the head of Violent and Property
aspect of coming back to the database, and as Julian Crime Section, “we are currently awaiting a
RadcliVe has said those dealers that comply and ministerial decision on how to proceed and I will be
those dealers that check with the database of stolen in contact with you and with other members of the
property are the ones who are adhering, they are Working Group as soon as I have anything further
acting in good faith, it is those dealers or those to report. I understand that the slow progress being
individuals that do not comply to due diligence that made must be frustrating for you but it is obviously
clearly require the attention of the police. European important to ensure that we establish the most
legislation allows for a good faith purchaser to claim eVective process for taking forward this work”.
compensation from the requesting state for the Have you heard from them since?
return of an object and the only way that they can Mr RadcliVe: No.
do that satisfactorily to the court, and this has been
borne out in the High Court and it has been borne Q150 Michael Fabricant: Can you just outline to us
out in US courts, is by demonstrating they have been the correspondence that took place immediately
dually diligent. It comes back to this aspect of how prior to 23 May, what was the genesis of this
can they do that, and one of the essential ingredients correspondence?
is to first and foremost check that the object is not Mr RadcliVe: When the Working Party was formed,
stolen or that the object itself has not been illegally which we were members of, we submitted to the
exported from a country of origin. I return really to Working Party all of the letters that we had
what I had started to say about a way in which this exchanged with ACPO, the Home OYce and many
could be achieved. If have you a neutral body which other bodies to illustrate the fact that we had made
allows on to its administration representatives from more progress with foreign police forces, for
the police, from Government and also brings to the example the Dutch Government have given us their
table those specialist areas, such as Salvo, such as the police data so we can search for it and we make
Arts Lost Register, such as Trace and then provides recoveries and then tell them what we have found so
services through a charitable organisation then you they can follow it up for criminal purposes. It
are providing a focal point of expertise to people like seemed to us to be extraordinary that we have made
the police from all of the diVerent 43 forces when more progress with foreign police forces than we
they need to have some expert advice and you are could with our own police forces when we were a
providing a neutral platform which you can provide British company and there was a British private
at an economic cost the services which are available. initiative in the Home OYce Working Party. We set
Mr Kay: Can I just make the point that when I was the scene by saying we have been trying to get this
talking I was talking about unlawful removal, not done for eight or 10 years and indeed there was one
stolen items. I would agree it is the case that all letter from Sir John Steven’s, the current
dealers check on theft but none that I know check on Commissioner, who was then Chairman of the
unlawful removal. What this Bill says is if an owner ACPO Crime Committee advocating that all the
takes something out of his listed building without ACPO members should use the private sector for
consent, takes it down the road to a dealer and says: getting the object data out to be searched for by the
“Would you like to buy this from me?” The dealer trade. Just before we wrote that letter I think the
Government had decided to get the Police with Norfolk Constabulary where they forward to
Information and Technology Organisation to us the details of art and antiques that have been
undertake a report, which we have not seen stolen within their force area, they are logged on to
oYcially, which stated that if the police and the our database, they have access to our database from
Government were to run a database themselves it their force intelligence bureau. If you like this is a
might cost £12 million and if it was going to be model that could be adopted and rolled out. They
eVective it would be a very major undertaking. I provide us with those victim details that the victims
think everyone read that and said, that is not the way themselves have consented for that information to
to go, we did not think it was the right way to go, we be released under the Data Protection Act, and this
suggested a way to go and we have never had a is another issue that the police have to adhere to, but
proper answer as to why they were not prepared to providing the victim opts into a course of action
go the route that we recommended and a route under the Data Protection Act then that information
which other police forces have gone down can be released. It is important in many aspects that
internationally and a route which we have actually it is because what will happen to the object is that it
demonstrated works in other sectors, like stolen will go through a process of resale and it will
vehicles and stolen construction plant and ultimately float to its appropriate place within the
equipment.
art market where it becomes recognised by the sort
of systems that we operate, but this could be some
Q151 Michael Fabricant: Mr Ellis did point out years later. From the statistics that we have been
earlier on that the police had reservations regarding able to work out it could be seven years, or at least
intelligence information that they keep on computer seven years is the peak period for the recovery of
and they would, quite understandably, not wish to paintings after the date of theft. In that time the
share that with the private sector. The Dutch Police police may have destroyed the records that they held
Service also contains similar intelligence of the incident in the first place so to restore that
information, how do they get round the problems object to the victim clearly the police would have
that they were able to work with you whereas the destroyed that record and you need to have that
Home OYce took the view they were unable to work information at least held. Some of the other criminal
with you? intelligence goes into existing police intelligence
Mr RadcliVe: It is very simple, you extract from the systems and it is completely separate. Even if you
police computer just the object data. For example were to have a system that held a certain amount of
this portrait of Margaret Thatcher has been stolen,
data relating to the crime so that it would assist the
we need the details of it, the measurements of it, the
police to gauge the seriousness of the actual rate of
artist, a photograph of it, and that is not usually
incident of the crime, the level of the crime so that
sensitive criminal data, it is the fact that it has been
they could monitor crime pattern analysis, that type
stolen, needs to be looked for and needs to be
available for due diligence. When it was stolen, who of information, that could be in restricted fields and
is suspected, who owned it, maybe the date, all of viewable only to the police, which is purely a
that is not necessary for us in running the database technical issue. I think the nervousness which they
for due diligence. It is very simple for the police to feel is, in my opinion, now irrational.
extract the object data and give it to us. There are
some things that need to be covered by protocol, for
example it is possible for our art historians to work Q153 Michael Fabricant: Thank you for that
out who owned that item because they can go answer, it is very helpful. If I can just return to Mr
through sale catalogues and go through exhibitions RadcliVe for a moment regarding this letter, the final
and they might be able to work out that was owned sentence in the letter is “I will write again as soon as
by the House of Commons and therefore was stolen I have something definite to report, which I hope will
from here and we have to agree that we will not be shortly”. As you said in an earlier answer you
follow up that sort of information even if it comes have not heard anything since, and I repeat the date,
into our hands. A private owner who has reported an 23 May, 2001. Was any attempt made by you or by
object as stolen to the police is secure in knowing your colleagues to contact the Home OYce to say,
that private companies will not approach them “what has happened?”
because we have a signed undertaking not to do so. Mr RadcliVe: Yes, I have contact with the Home
We are doing that with stolen plant equipment and OYce on other issues and I followed up on this when
other areas with the police every day of the week. I knew that the PITO Report had been written.
PITO came to visit us as part of their investigation
Q152 Michael Fabricant: Your answer to me seems and after a few months had elapsed and I knew they
eminently logical. I know that Richard Ellis cannot had probably written their report and I asked
speak for the Police Service now and he cannot whether we would be given a copy of it or find out
speak for the Home OYce but nevertheless he has what the recommendations were and I was told
experience in that area and did raise that issue “no”, it was restricted and oYcially we would not be
himself earlier on, I wonder if you would like to able to see it. After that, and I think it is fair to say
comment on that? for all of us despite the huge amount of work we did
Mr Ellis: I agree with everything that Julian has said. and after an extensive production of papers in very
It is interesting that not all police forces have found short time scales we heard absolutely nothing
this to be an obstacle, we actually have an agreement oYcially.
Q154 Michael Fabricant: Do you think as a would have produced more criminal intelligence and
consequence that crime, if nothing else, has not been we would provided more deterrents to this crime if
attenuated? they had done so.
Mr RadcliVe: I think there is absolutely no doubt, Michael Fabricant: That is a damming indictment,
and in fact we can prove on a number of specific Chairman.
cases, that if police data on stolen objects had been Chairman: I think that is a fitting note on which to
handed to our respective databases over the last two end, it provides us with questions which the Home
years we would have made more recoveries, we OYce will have to answer when they come before us.
Thank you very much indeed.
907055PAG1 Page Type [SE] 10-12-03 21:22:21 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1
Members present:
Mr Chris Bryant Rosemary McKenna

Mr Frank Doran Ms Debra Shipley
Michael Fabricant Derek Wyatt
Mr Adrian Flook
Memorandum submitted by the British Art Market Federation

1. The British Art Market Federation (BAMF) represents The Antiquarian Booksellers’ Association;
The Antiquities Dealers Association; Bonhams; The British Antique Dealers’ Association; Christie’s; The
Fine Art Trade Guild; LAPADA, The Association of Art and Antique Dealers; Phillips; The Royal
Institution of Chartered Surveyors; Society of Fine Art Auctioneers; The Society of London Art Dealers;
and Sotheby’s.
2. BAMF gave evidence to the Committee’s inquiry, “Cultural Property: Return and Illicit Trade
(1999–2000)”. Since the report of the Committee, BAMF has been involved in a number of initiatives aimed
at the elimination of the illicit trade in cultural goods. The Federation played a leading part in the Minister
for the Arts’ Advisory Panel on Illicit Trade whose report, published in December 2000, reflected many of
the recommendations of the Committee in its own report (HC371-I (1999–2000)).
3. BAMF welcomed the Committee’s endorsement of the economic and cultural benefits of the British
Art Market (Report paragraph 25) and deplores the damage that illicit activity can do to the reputation of
the legitimate market. (For statistics of the British Art Market, see Annex)
4. If the illicit market is to be eliminated, practical measures are needed to bear down on those knowingly
handling stolen or looted objects. In its written evidence to the Committee in 1999, BAMF proposed the
establishment of a “private or governmental international database for stolen art”. The Committee
(Paragraph 54) endorsed this recommendation. The Illicit Trade Advisory Panel also called for the
institution of a database of unlawfully removed cultural objects.
5. BAMF very much regrets the lack of progress in achieving this aim, which it considers to be central
to the campaign against the illicit market. The Art Market has played its part by helping to establish the Art
Loss Register, which is regularly consulted by members of BAMF. However, if the problem of the illicit
traYc in stolen art is to be solved, much greater resources and international co-operation are needed.
6. The Illicit Trade Advisory Panel also recommended the establishment of a comprehensive and
universally accessible database of international legislative information. So far, there has been no progress
on this recommendation.
7. BAMF continues to believe that these practical measures would make a significant contribution
towards ending the illicit market in stolen and looted cultural goods.
8. BAMF would be happy to give oral evidence to the Committee, if required.
Annex
THE BRITISH ART MARKET STATISTICS (2002)
1. Key Indicators
(a) Total Art Sales £4,200 million
(b) Total employees 37,063
(c) Global market share 25%
(d) EU market share 59.7%
(e) Ancillary economic generation (advertising £561 million
and printing, art fairs, conservation,
restoration and framing, insurance and
security, packing and shipping, professional
services and technology)
2. Structure of British Market
Total Number of Businesses Total Employees Total Sales (£ millions)

Dealers 10,217 19,940 £2,100
Auctioneers 754 17,123 £2,100
3. UK Imports/Exports: Antiques and Fine Art

Total Imports from non EU Countries £1,892 million
Total Exports to non EU Countries £2,289 million
4. Market Growth
In the period 1998–2001 the UK’s share of the global market increased by 1.6%. The EU as a whole
experienced a decline in global market share of 7.2%. In the same period, the US’s market share increased
by 7%.
(Sources: (1) (2) and (4)—The European Art Market 2002 Report prepared by Kusin & Company for The
European Fine Art Foundation.
(3)—UK Overseas Trade Statistics, analysed by Antiques Trade Gazette, August 2003).
September 2003
Witnesses: Mr Anthony Browne, Chairman, The British Art Market Federation (BAMF), and Member of
Illicit Trade Advisory Panel (ITAP), Mr Richard Aydon, Executive Committee Member, BAMF, and Group
Legal Director and Company Secretary, Christie’s International plc, Mr James Ede, Chairman, Antiquities
Dealers Association, and Member of ITAP, and Mr Johnny Van Haeften, Managing Director, Johnny Van
Haeften Ltd, and Deputy Chairman, Society of London Art Dealers, examined.
Chairman: Gentlemen, thank you very much indeed than the large firms in London and so on of which
for coming to see us. We understand that you have people have heard, to much smaller operations, for
other preoccupations today and therefore we have whom, frankly, the burden of having to pay an
somewhat re-timed our session in order that you amount of money every time you want to search
may do us justice and then conduct your other something is an obstacle. It is actually at the fringes,
essential activities. Mr Fabricant? if you like, of the market that things are likely to
leach into the market which then change hands
Q154 Michael Fabricant: Thank you, Chairman. several times. One of the recommendations that we
Good morning. Thank you for making it this originally put to your Committee, which was
morning. Could you tell me how important it would endorsed by the Illicit Trade Advisory Panel, was
be and how useful it would be if there were a national that there should be a generally available database.
database. It does not need to contain confidential policy
Mr Browne: We think it is the most important information and so forth; it really needs simply to
practical step that can be taken to confront the illustrate the property that has been stolen. If you
concern that this Committee has had and ministers take very famous works of art that are stolen, it is
have had on the illicit market here in the United quite clear their notoriety is such that they simply
Kingdom, because it would make it much harder for cannot enter the legitimate marketplace. The
people to dispose of the products of their crimes and database will have the eVect of extending that
it would, I think, act also as a deterrent to thieves further down the scale, and I think that would be
who at the moment think that chattels are a good very beneficial.
target for crime. I also think that it is important from
a wider perspective, because of the linkage that we
often read about in terms of the people who are Q156 Michael Fabricant: Would it be unreasonable
caught for other crimes who are in possession of or unfair to say that actually London is currently the
stolen goods. weak link in the market, that London is the
equivalent of a car boot sale, and that, if you want
Q155 Michael Fabricant: How do you imagine or to dispose of illicit objects of art, London is the place
envisage this database would work in an ideal currently to do it?
situation? Would it be a database to which you Mr Browne: Not according to the findings of the
would subscribe or would it be freely available on Illicit Trade Advisory Panel. We did a great deal of
the internet? work on that actually. It is very convenient for
Mr Browne: At the moment, as I think you heard in people to say, “Well, we have got a very large
the last session you had, there is the Art Loss legitimate marketplace here, ergo there must be an
Register and other databases which members of this illicit market.” I think the two are entirely separate.
federation use widely, and they are very eVective and Certainly we found very little evidence for it. I am
they are very good. The problem which they suVer happy to expand on the illicit market point if you
from is that the people whom I represent go further wish, but I do not want to monopolise this.
4 November 2003 Mr Anthony Browne, Mr Richard Aydon, Mr James Ede and Mr Johnny Van Haeften
Q157 Michael Fabricant: Let us not do that at the Mr Browne: I do, because one of the key elements is
moment. I want to ask you one more thing. You it has to be internationally compatible.
mentioned the witnesses who came last week. Three Michael Fabricant: Thank you.
of them of course represented databases. One of
them was from the Art Loss Register, who had made Q162 Chairman: Before I call Mr Wyatt, following
approaches to the Home OYce for a free trial of a the question Mr Fabricant has put to you, you say,
sort of national database of the sort we have been very understandably, that the Government in your
discussing, where it would be generally available on view should take the lead. The statistics with which
the Internet, not only obviously to people in the we have been provided show that total art sales are
United Kingdom but also potential purchasers £4,200 million, that we have a quarter of the global
throughout the world. When the contact was made market and three-fifths of the European market.
back in 2001, the then head of the Violent and Those are colossal figures and show how cardinal the
Property Crime Section at the Home OYce said, in role of the United Kingdom is. That being so, do you
relation to the establishment of such a service, “I have any rational explanation for the Government
understand that the slow progress being made must dragging its feet in this way over a number of years,
be frustrating for you.” She went on to give an despite the fact that the whole thing was highlighted
assurance: “It is obviously important to ensure that in our previous report, let alone other contributions
we establish the most eVective process for taking to these discussions?
forward this work. I will write again as soon as I Mr Browne: Not really. I think it is lost in discussion
have something definite to report, which I hope will somewhere in departments, but it is to be regretted.
be shortly.” We learned yesterday there was no The Government, I have to say, to pay it tribute, has
subsequent letter from the Home OYce and the been on the whole very supportive of us—I mean,
whole thing was dropped. I wonder what might be hugely in terms of—
your reaction to that and what action you might
have taken in the meantime or could take now to Q163 Chairman: Supportive in every way, short of
encourage such a national database being action!
established? Mr Browne: Short of doing any . . .
Mr Browne: I suppose my reaction, to sum it up in a Mr Ede: It is a question of cash.
word, is frustration. I think that we have tried very Mr Browne: I would think it is resources. If I may
hard for this. At the moment there has not really widen things, the easy part is, in a sense, to do things
been any progress, as you have quite rightly like sign up to conventions. The diYcult part is
reported. As far as what we are doing, we have been actually to commit resources, to make practical
pressing like mad for it. Our view is entirely steps to deal with these issues. I think that is the
consistent and has been for quite a number of thing. It is practical measures—very often not very
years now. dramatic practical measures—that could make a big
diVerence.
Q158 Michael Fabricant: You have supported the Chairman: Thank you. Mr Wyatt.
eVorts of Julian RadcliVe of the Art Loss Register.
Mr Browne: Yes. Q164 Derek Wyatt: When you say it is expense,
have you put a paper to the DCMS to say how much
Q159 Michael Fabricant: And you have been it will cost?
pressing, you say. Have you been pressing since Mr Browne: No, because, as I say, we want to see
2001? how they would want to go about it. May I turn the
Mr Browne: Yes, before that. 2000, I would say. We thing round, Mr Wyatt? The point is that we already
take part in the Illicit Trade Advisory Panel and we have the Art Loss Register which we subscribe to.
made this recommendation. You will be talking, I What we were doing was reacting to widespread
know, to Professor Palmer later, and it was, as far as public concern about the illicit market. We are
we, the representatives of the art market on this saying that if there really is a determination to solve
panel, were concerned, a rather important part of this problem, this is the practical step which should
this report. It is, I am afraid, frustrating that no be taken. It is not us saying, “We would like this for
progress has been made. As you know, a lot of my our own purposes”—we already have the Art Loss
members support Julian RadcliVe’s Art Loss Register—but it needs this real practical step to be
Register already. I think from the point of view of taken which would actually, as I said to Mr
our federation, we have taken a somewhat agnostic Fabricant earlier, have a number of, I think,
view as to whether this should be done entirely by the benign eVects.
Government or whether it is a private/public
partnership or whatever. We are interested in the Q165 Derek Wyatt: But if I turn it around and say
end result, not necessarily how it is achieved. that, perhaps, if I were Minister of Art, I would say
to you, “Okay, I am going to take 0.1% of your
budgets on each sale and that would go to do this,”
Q160 Michael Fabricant: But do you take the view
would you have any deep objection?
that the Government should take the lead in this if—
Mr Browne: I would. And may I say, on the figures
Mr Browne: Yes.
the Chairman has quoted, there are people sleeping
under the arches because they confuse turnover with
Q161 Michael Fabricant: Yes? profit. I think that the market is already paying quite
substantial sums of money to the Art Loss Register for London, the amount of material of
to carry out checks and the people who can aVord to Mesopotamian origin dealt with here is very
do it are doing it. As I said to you earlier, the small.
problem is that it does not stretch to people who
have less resources—small businesses, in particular. Q169 Derek Wyatt: Does that mean it is going
The art market is almost overwhelmingly composed elsewhere? Is it coming through London from Dubai
of small businesses and for them this is a major and from Jordan?
problem. Mr Ede: With Heathrow particularly being a sort of
hub, pieces may well go through Heathrow from,
Q166 Derek Wyatt: You said that you would come say, Dubai to the United States or elsewhere. That is
back to something Mr Fabricant asked earlier, that not to say that they end up on the London market.
there is a . . . whether it is perceived wisdom or truth, My experience—and of course we have given very
I am not sure . . . that the illicit trade in all this is in stringent guidance to our members on this subject—
London. You are saying, “No, it is not,” or “Perhaps is that this material is not coming through London.
it is not.” Could you just expand on that? And not Nobody will handle Mesopotamian antiquities at
just you, but if any of your colleagues want to the moment at all.
come in.
Mr Browne: I am sorry to monopolise, but, since I Q170 Derek Wyatt: How do you make a market,
was on the Illicit Trade Advisory Panel, I will give an then?
answer. The problem with the illicit trade is that, by Mr Ede: I do not think there is a market at the
its very nature, it is actually very hard to pin down moment. I think what has happened in Iraq has
and find out where it is and what it is worth. I think completely destroyed that market, including the
one of the most confusing statistics which is often market in material which is legitimate but which has
quoted is the “value” of the illicit trade. When a no published provenance.
picture is stolen that may have an insured value of
£10 million, what is it worth? It is not worth £10
Q171 Chairman: Consequent on the answers you
million. To say this market is worth £4 billion or £10
have just given to Mr Wyatt, I have already asked
billion or whatever figure has been thrown up, all
you to elucidate one puzzle which, with your best
you can do is attack it from the end of: Where have
eVorts, you have failed to do. Could I ask you now to
the losses occurred? This is what the Illicit Trade
elucidate two more. We recently had before us two
Advisory Panel did. We looked at, for example, the
absolutely excellent oYcers from New Scotland
plunder of archaeological sites. We looked at
Yard but, so far as I can gather, that is just about it.
insured losses for art. We looked at thefts from
You talk about what is going through Heathrow, for
churches. You can aggregate all that but where these
example. There is not one single dedicated oYcer of
things are going is a much harder problem to solve.
Customs & Excise trained to deal with these matters.
We found it actually very diYcult—partly because
Yet—and I do not know the current figures—when
the London art market is a very open market and
we conducted our previous inquiry and met the
actually people can see what is going on in it, so if
carabinieri in Rome, they had 300 people. What is it,
something does eventually turn up in a legitimate
together with the failure of the Government to
market, then, through the Art Loss Register and so
address itself constructively and actively to these
on, it can be recovered, it can be identified. I think
matters, taking into account the size of our market,
the transparency of the market is actually its major
that puts it so low down on the list of priorities?
strength in that respect.
Mr Browne: I would like to be able to answer that
question. I really do not know the answer to that
Q167 Derek Wyatt: Do any of your colleagues want question. We did, you will recall, in our previous
to comment on that? evidence to your Committee, Chairman, make the
Mr Ede: I think we have the most stringent laws in point about how important it was to have oYcials
this country. The new cultural oVences bill which who are properly trained in this area. It is quite
has now become law means that we have tougher complicated and it requires a pretty high degree of
laws on this than any country in the world. I think it knowledge, particularly in James Ede’s field of
is true to say that London of course is a huge market antiquities. It is something we lament greatly. It just
and any percentage of a very large market will be does not seem to be high priority.
illicit. That is why the database is so important, so Mr Aydon: I wonder if it is not possibly a question
that we can attack this from the bottom. of it not being an attractive career route through the
police. Maybe there are more interesting areas in the
Q168 Derek Wyatt: If I may, Chairman, it is good force in which oYcers want to work and this does
to see Richard Allan MP here because it was his bill. not really attract interest or very many applicants.
I am glad he is here. We have been told that the Mr Browne: We would always be very happy to play
looting of Iraq is much bigger and has gone on for our part in trying to add to the knowledge of people.
much longer actually than just since the war. There is no reason why we could not do that. But it
Is it your perception that London is the centre of just needs to be a higher priority, Chairman.
this? Mr Ede: I think you also have to ask yourself the
Mr Ede: No, there is no evidence of that. Of course question: If large resources were thrown at this
there is tremendous looting in Iraq and has been for problem, maybe you would find that the problem
a long time, but, if you look at the statistical figures was not as big as has been suggested. I think actually
that is the nub of the matter: there would not be very Q175 Mr Flook: What was the response of the
much for them to do. It would clearly be useful to prospective client—now no longer client—to you
have a dedicated oYcer in each county constabulary doing that?
who was an expert in antiques, so that there was Mr Aydon: We told him what the law was and he had
some cross-pollination and some movement of no choice but to accept it and he has accepted it so
intelligence and information—the lack of which we far.
suVer very badly now. In the past, I have rung
Scotland Yard to get information on a theft I knew
to have taken place in Huntingdon, to be told that Q176 Mr Flook: Was he likely to have been a
they did not know anything about it. But I do not middleman himself—or middlewoman, even?
think the problem is as great as it is suggested. Mr Aydon: No. He told us that he had inherited it.
It was a family object that he had inherited.
Q172 Mr Flook: Mr Browne, for the sake of the

record and as a constituency interest, Mr Chairman, Q177 Mr Flook: And he was called Mr Smith from
if I may be so bold, last week we had Thornton Kay Northampton.
of Salvo come before us, and I know he e-mailed Mr Aydon: No, no, no. He is a middle-eastern
you. Could you just confirm that your organisation businessman. And there was a provenance that he
has not consulted Salvo. I think that is what he gave us going back, oh, 20 years or so, with some
was asking. documentary evidence to back it up. But in our
Mr Browne: Yes, exactly. I am very grateful to have academic research—and this comes back to the
the opportunity to put this record straight. It is point about research and checking: we did extensive
important to understand how our federation works. work with the scholarly books—we found that some
It is really a coalition of individual organisations, so of the dates in the published books did not quite
we do not have individual members. I think you have match the dates in the provenance that we were
a list of those, of which Salvo is not one, so I do not given. Now, the provenance may have been right
purport either to represent him or them and cannot and the books may have been wrong—it is not for us
represent their views because I do not necessarily to make a final judgment there—but there was
know what their views are. enough suspicion, bearing in mind the new Iraq
order, to oblige us to hand the object to the police,
which we did.
Q173 Mr Flook: He makes the point that there is Mr Ede: Recently, last year, I acquired a Greek stela
not an organisation that represents the architectural (a memorial tablet in marble) and, during the course
and gardening antique dealers. Is that a bit of a of research, discovered that it had been published as
loophole? “Loophole” is the wrong word. Is that a being in the Thebes Museum in 1923 in Greece. I
bit of a weakness? assumed it had been stolen during the war—because
Mr Browne: I would have thought so. He made that I acquired it from a dealer who had acquired it at
point to me and I suggested that he perhaps forms auction, and the auction house, I know, checks with
one—after all, all these organisations start the Art Loss Register. It did not appear on the Art
somewhere. If they have a community of interest, as Loss Register, so I assumed that it must have been
obviously they have, then it would seem sensible to during the war. I contacted the Greek embassy to
have an organisation. find out whether they had sold it. They assured me it
had been stolen. I handed it back to them, obviously,
Q174 Mr Flook: Good. Thank you for helping to and it turned out that it had been stolen since 1980
clear that up. Secondly, going quickly through your and they had not realised they had lost it. I asked
biographies, there are many decades of experience them for information about other pieces which
amongst the four of you from varying angles, and might have been lost at the same time and, to date,
particularly the legal angle from Christie’s. Could following four more letters to them, I have had no
you say a few words of where you have come across reply. This is what we are up against. That is why
illicit trade, in your experience as individuals. Were there is no point in throwing lots of policemen at
you surprised upon closer checking of the approach this. We need a database that works, that is free for
that the provenance was not what you thought it us to get into. The reason I say “free”—and I think
was? Could you give us a few examples. We have had this really does need to be hammered home—is that
the police view. I will not tell you what they said the vast majority of the members of my trade
about, say, the British Antique Dealers Association, association deal in objects that are worth between £1
until you answer. and £500. It costs £30 to do a check with the ALR.
Mr Aydon: I will comment from the auction house We cannot require our members to check things on
perspective, if I may. Certainly two areas where we that basis. We require them to check anything over
devote enormous eVort actually to checking £2,000; I would like them to check everything. It is
provenance, are areas such as Iraq and such as not foolproof, but it is cheap and it is eVective and it
objects which may have been taken in the 1933–45 also gives a very clear definition of due diligence—
period. As to Iraq, I personally have identified one very clear to everybody.
object which was suspicious, and which I handed to Mr van Haeften: My particular sphere is paintings,
the police under the regulations which came in which is perhaps slightly diVerent. Pictures are
earlier this year—in June, I think. slightly more identifiable, generally.
Q178 Mr Flook: And they are unique as well, are I have been a dealer since 1977. With the best will in
they not? the world, one or two things, I am sure, we have sold
Mr van Haeften: Yes and no. have inadvertently have been uncheckable. A
picture we bought in 1991, from a dealer in Holland,
Q179 Mr Flook: I accept that. we bought for £60,000 and sold it to another dealer
Mr van Haeften: Every work of art is essentially in London for £95,000. We thought we had done
unique. You get complications with somebody like frightfully well. I had two partners in the picture in
Peter Breughel the Younger, of the famous winter Holland, so between us we had made a very nice
scene or the “Bird Trap” there are 110 versions by profit—which was very good, less VAT and all the
various members of the studio. With pictures that other things. Anyway, after about six or seven years,
have been stolen most recently, the Art Loss he had been unable to sell the picture and sold it back
Register is extremely good. I am constantly in touch to us—largely because the title of the picture had
with them. More complications come with pictures changed: we thought it was Jacob at the Well; it
that are concerned with Nazi spoliation issues, turned out to be Levite and his Concubine, which is a
where a catalogue, let us say, in 1933, may describe very horrible story of murder and rape and pillage in
a landscape by Salomon van Ruysdael “with two the 12th Century. This was a much more diYcult
figures crossing a bridge”. Virtually every picture by picture to sell, with its recently-identified subject.
Salomon van Ruysdael has two figures crossing a The point of the story is that we bought it back from
bridge! Or a picture by Philips Wouwerman of the the dealer.
white horse. Well, he only painted white horses! It is
complicated unless you have a proper database with Q181 Mr Flook: For more or less than you sold it
illustrations. One of the things that Anthony for?
brought up, of which Sotheby’s is very aware, is that Mr van Haeften: For less than we sold it before. He
the London trade has had a reputation since the 17th was actually rather pleased to get rid of it, I think. It
Century of expertise and connoisseurship. That is is a common misconception that on every picture
why the trade in London is as big as it is and that is you sell, you make a profit. It does not unfortunately
why so many things come here. But we take go that way. We bought it back from him, and I sold
enormous pains to check the provenance of any it, then, in partnership with a German colleague of
work of art comes our way, speaking certainly for mine to another dealer in Holland, who in turn sold
the picture dealers, and I know it happens in every a half share of it to another dealer. This other dealer,
other discipline as well. It must be said that it is a who is a dealer in Amsterdam, recently advertised it.
complete pain to buy a work of art that has a tainted Its provenance—and it is in all the books, all the
provenance. It is a nightmare. literature, it is in a book called StekhoV, the picture
is by a man called Salomon van Ruysdael, illustrated
Q180 Mr Flook: Are you insured for that sort of in the book—includes a dealer called Houstika, who
situation? was a Jewish dealer in Amsterdam during the war.
Mr van Haeften: There is a thing called “defective The next part of the provenance is a man called
title insurance”, which luckily I have but which most HoVer in Germany in 1971. It was bought by this
insurance companies now do not give because of the dealer in 1972 in Holland from whom we bought it.
problems: the claims can be extremely high with the We are aware that this gentleman, Houstika, was a
increase in the value of works of art. I have had two successful dealer in Holland before the war. He
or three cases recently where inadvertently we have realised when the Nazis were about to invade that
bought works of art that have had dodgy this was the time to go and he took passage on a ship
provenances. In fact, in all cases, I have not claimed to America. Unfortunately, as it happens, he fell into
from my insurance company because the amounts the hold and was killed, which was very unfortunate.
have been relatively small, but I am terrified that one Needless to say, the Germans then stole most of his
day I am going to buy a picture by mistake that is stock. The diYculty arises in that, before his
worth £100 million or something. And that could unfortunate demise, he had sold thousands of
wipe out many dealers. It is interesting to note that pictures, so the fact that it had a Houstika
my insurance company make it a condition of my provenance did not necessarily mean that it was war
policy that every work of art that I buy, even if it has loot. It was then published and we now know that
been through Christie’s or Sotheby’s, must be Mr HoVer, during the war, was in fact a Nazi agent
checked with the Art Loss Register or I am not and sold a lot of pictures to the Germans, to the
covered. That is very important. A number of people Nazis in particular, but, again, not every picture he
have discovered recently that they cannot get sold was stolen. But this is enough to make one
defective title cover. Indeed, I am very careful to check. Of course one did one’s various researches. In
hang on to mine as long as I can, in case there is a big fact, the dealer to whom we sold the picture in the
issue. But, let me say that we are incredibly careful first place, having not been able to sell it, had put it
about checking everything as far as we possibly can. through Christie’s, it was not spotted by Christie’s or
A database would be absolutely essential to make Sotheby’s, it was in the book, it had not been spotted
sure that things do not escape the net, because, by the Art Loss Register. The point of the rather
sparing Julian RadcliVe’s blushes, things do tortuous story which I will get to eventually, is that
occasionally sneak through. If I may, Chairman, a large number of people who were involved during
give you an example of something that happened to the picture’s history are Jewish dealers themselves,
me last week—it was very pertinent that it happened. the last person who had it is Jewish; and we now have
to give back the money to the person to whom we Petersburg, though he had no reason particularly to
sold it and he has to give the picture back to the heirs do so. It really does illustrate how complicated this
of the painting; and all the way down the line the whole issue is.
whole history of the picture has to be unravelled and
each person has to go back to the person from whom
they got it and eventually we will get back to the Q183 Mr Doran: I would like to pick up my
dealer in Holland from whom we bought it in 1991. colleague Mr Fabricant’s point. I will not be quite as
All the way down the line, each time this happens, crude as he was: the point I want to explore is
whether London is the weak link, but I am not going
there is going to be another loss, another financial
to suggest it is a boot sale. It seems to me from the
embarrassment, another series of lawyers’ letters,
evidence we have heard so far, including your own,
legal actions. The poor fellow who has the painting
that this is a very, very complex issue. There is no
at the moment has had a horrible letter from the
question about that. But it is also clear that the art
heirs saying that it is appalling that he did not know
market operates on diVerent levels. Mr Ede made
that the picture was stolen and he had not done his
the point that the bulk of your members operate at a
research, and the poor chap had put the provenance
much lower level than the exalted level we have been
quite openly in all the advertisements. So it is quite
talking about just now. When you look at the
an emotive issue. Unfortunately this does happen all
resources which are devoted to the diYculties which
the time. We do find—you cannot help it—that there
we are exploring, illicit trade, et cetera, then they
are things that turn up. There was a picture that was seem to be fairly minimal. You are making a case
stolen from a museum in Warsaw during the war now for a national register which we, I think,
that came through Christie’s, illustrated in colour— support. I do not think there is any question of it
sorry, I am not getting at Christie’s, it is just being an advantage, but I wonder whether that
unfortunate that a few things have happened this would tackle the other institutional problems that
way—and eventually, I had to give it back to the we face. The Chairman has mentioned, for example,
Polish Government because I was the end user. But the lack of proper police resources. We did hear
Christie’s were very helpful and honourable about it some evidence in private, as he suggested, on the
and we came to a solution. No two paintings are the very limited resources provided by the Metropolitan
same. Each case has a diVerent connotation or Police—I think it is about three oYcers. In the rest
complication. It is extremely complex. Without a of the country it is very diYcult to find a police force
database, well, it is absolutely hopeless. Pictures, as I that has a dedicated oYcer. That seems to be a major
say, are easier than antiquities because generally you diYculty if we are to deal with the issue. I would like
have a series of steps to go: first, the artist; second, to hear your views on that, first of all, before I move
the subject; third, the medium it is painted on. It is on to some other to some other weaknesses which
more complicated if you have, say, a “jade cup and seem obvious to me.
cover”. That does not give you enough description; Mr Browne: I agree with what you have said. I think
you need to have an illustration. they are weaknesses. It is complex. One cannot say
that any one step is going to be a remedy for all these
Q182 Mr Flook: Just for the record, the police were problems, as some of the cases you have heard
very complimentary. illustrate. Not even a database is a remedy in the case
Mr van Haeften: Oh, good. We do try very hard. of multiples, of things that are not unique, of which
Mr Browne: I have one tremendously good example some things can be really quite valuable—in the case
which illustrates the diYculties. A few years ago, of, particularly, prints and porcelain and so on—but
Christie’s held a sale on behalf of the Austrian it would go a long way. There is no one single step.
Government of the contents that had been stored in The nature of chattels generally, works of art,
the Mauerbach Monastery. It was not the contents antiques or whatever, or even collectables, is that
of the monastery, but it was pictures, ownership they circulate, people own them, and you do not
necessarily have a way of being 100% certain about
unknown, that had disappeared during the war.
everything. That just is the nature of it. We would
The Austrians made every attempt, through
take on trust. If you came in with something and you
intergovernmental contacts and so on, to find the
said, “I inherited this from my father,” unless there
owners of these pictures that had just turned up, had
was some very strong reason to question that in
just been impounded in the war. After a great deal of
terms of subsequent research, one would take it as
communication, Christie’s held this sale. A few years
trust. Of course.
later, I was in Russia and I was talking to the Deputy
Minister of Culture, who opened the catalogue and
said, “This picture belongs to the Russian museum Q184 Mr Doran: What came across to me quite
in St Petersburg.” I pointed out to him that if he had clearly, when we were listening to the police and
read the catalogue carefully he would have seen that from my own knowledge of the situation, is that
the specialists in the Russian museum catalogue had there seems to be a huge amount of ignorance. In my
actually helped to catalogue the picture. It had own experience I know that, for example, empty
apparently been lent to a museum in the Crimea, just country houses are often a target and the police seem
shortly before the war. It had obviously been to treat these as vandalism rather than the theft of a
captured by the Germans and it turned up. It had a valuable fireplace or valuable wall panelling or
happy ending, in so far as the American purchaser of whatever. Do you get yourself involved with the
this picture donated it back to the museum in St police? Do you oVer your expertise?
Mr Browne: We do talk to them, and, as I have said, Mr Browne: I would love to respond to that. I think
we would be happy to . . . I think one of the problems Richard probably would be better at this one, but I
actually is the way in which people are moved about would just like to make a general statement. I do not
all the time. And this is not just in the police force; actually believe that that is true at all, that there is a
one notices it in other areas too. As soon as someone lack of integrity. The reason it attracts so much
builds up a certain level of expertise, they are moved attention is by the very fact that auctions are open.
into something completely diVerent. The fact that It is such a transparent market: you can really see
we have all been round a long time, I mean, it does what is going on in it.
take a long time to learn about these things. It may
be to do with the career path of policemen, I do not Q189 Mr Doran: I am not sure the court in New
know, but it would be good if people could actually York would agree with that.
remain in place. It seems to me that as soon as they Mr Browne: This is another issue, and Richard may
get quite knowledgeable, they get moved on. want to comment on that. But that is not so much
the function of the auction itself; it is to do more with
Q185 Mr Doran: But there is an issue, I think, about other issues, as you know. As a matter of fact—and
raising awareness. You are just raising the profile of it is quite useful to put this on record, because I was
this sort of crime. talking to ministers when the Government were
Mr Browne: Yes, I agree. supporting us on the issue of artists resale rights
against the background of the very case to which you
refer, and I had quite a lot of comments rather
Q186 Mr Doran: With just the expertise we have similar to the one you have just made—the two
gathered in this room today, you could be a very salerooms you mention account for 25% of the UK
valuable influence. art market, which is actually the biggest percentage
Mr Browne: Yes. anywhere. I am so tired of reading—I wish I had a
pound for every time I have read it—that they
account for 90% of the art market. They do not. May
Q187 Mr Doran: Do you have a policy in that I put that on record because I think it is important
respect? to put it in perspective. But they are very important.
Mr Browne: We shout it from the rooftops whenever I am not denigrating their importance at all.
we can. That is our policy, I suppose. It is an issue, Mr Aydon: I think it is important to say about the
when a major work of art is stolen, as recently in the case in New York that it was not about the
case of the Leonardo picture at Drumlanrig, that it provenance of objects or stolen objects; it was
does attract a great deal of attention in the press and about pricing.
then it dies down. The problem is that this is an
ongoing problem and far less glamorous things are
stolen all the time. Q190 Mr Doran: I understand that. That is why I
made the point about integrity.
Mr Aydon: We shall certainly be holding a seminar
Mr Aydon: That is now happily resolved. As far as
on the new Dealing in Cultural Objects (OVences)
the provenance issues are concerned, I think the
Act—a sort of teach-in for the trade—later on in
point that Anthony made is well made: that it is an
the year.
open process. Catalogues are published to the world,
Mr Browne: That is a sort of internal thing, to
thousands upon thousands of them—from the big
communicate internally with the market, but I think
auction houses, at any rate. They are sent to the Art
you would find us open to suggestions on how we
Loss Register for reviewing and they are sent to
could help in that direction.
other interested parties, museums and so on. So we
are very open about the objects that we are oVering
Q188 Mr Doran: We may be able to come up with for sale. If anybody does have a question or a claim
some for you. Let me move on a bit. There is a or a challenge, we take it extremely seriously: if it
problem about enforcement. The whole question of cannot be resolved before sale takes place, the object
auction houses is something that has troubled me for is withdrawn, held, the police will be involved if that
a while. I did introduce a ten-minute rule bill in the is appropriate. I believe we do take great eVorts to
House of Commons a couple of years ago on the address the concerns that you are raising.
buyer’s premium, but there has been quite a
considerable focus on the two principal auction Q191 Mr Doran: Do you want to say something,
houses over the last few years—because of the Mr Ede?
prosecution in America of Mr Taubman; the EU Mr Ede: I would like to make a brief point about the
inquiry; and a host of other issues, including some market in general. The vast majority of dealers do
recent press coverage of the way that one of the not want to handle stolen goods. The vast majority
auction houses allegedly handled some paintings of dealers are trying to make a living, and if you give
which had a suspect provenance. It is quite clear them the tools and at the same time show them that
from the way you have presented your evidence that it would be very diYcult to sell anything that could
the importance of London in the market depends a be demonstrated to be stolen, you have done the job.
great deal on integrity but, again, it seems to me that What we do not need is masses more bureaucracy
the regulation of the auction market is one of the and masses more police and masses more laws. We
weak links. I do not know if you would want to have the strongest laws that there are in the world. It
respond to that. is quite clear, following this new act, that the market
understands what the position is—and it certainly very serious steps and eVorts to deal with points of
will be, once we have had these various seminars, legitimate concern and I believe we should be given
that everybody will have been told. We now need the the opportunity to work that out.
tool to enable us to make sure that these stolen goods
do not get into the market in the first place. Q196 Mr Doran: I am not extrapolating from Mr
Taubman’s case that there should be modernisation;
it is from a whole range of things. I do not want to
Q192 Mr Doran: Some of your dealer colleagues in make any unfounded allegations here but there has
Italy might question whether we have the strongest been concern for quite a number of years about the
rules in the world or whether they have. relationship between the two major auction houses
Mr Ede: They do not enforce theirs, that is the and the way in which policies are determined. The
diVerence. introduction of the buyer’s premium is just one of
Mr Browne: That is a serious question. them, but if we move away from that there is a
Mr Ede: They do not enforce them. virtually unregulated market at auctions now. There
has been an explosion in the number of auction
houses which have opened, some of them with
Q193 Mr Doran: One final point here, again on the questionable experience. These are issues which are
question of the auction houses. I appreciate that we of just as much concern as the top end of the market.
do not want greater regulation and bureaucracy, Mr Aydon: I am afraid I can only speak from the
but, at the same time, the legislation which covers perspective of one of the big auction houses. My
auction houses is ancient. It dates from 1845. It is comments come from that perspective.
minimalist in its approach. Obviously there have Mr Browne: Could I make a general point. We very
much support it, subject to some amendments which
been developments in the common law. We now
the Government agreed to Richard Allan’s bill. We
work in a global market. Do you think there is any
are not against sensible regulations that target
case at all, to enhance the reputation of the British criminal activity. The thing that terrifies me is
market, that that legislation should be modernised? imposing on the market as a whole regulations that
Mr Browne: I thought it was 1969. in fact will just fall as a burden on those who would
Mr Aydon: I am just thinking of your date of 1845. normally behave properly and that probably the
There has been legislation since then. criminals would ignore anyway, given that the
absolute key to London is its international
competitiveness. Last year I think we attracted
Q194 Mr Doran: There have been bits and pieces, works of art worth over £1.7 billion from vendors
tinkering around the edges. outside the European Union. They are using our
Mr Aydon: I would like to see self-regulation given services because we have the best market here and we
a chance. are most experienced at it. I am very much against
untargeted regulatory intervention. If there is a
serious problem that regulation needs to address—
Q195 Mr Doran: We have had that for 200 years and I thought Richard Allan’s bill did because it
or more. plugged a gap in the existing law—that is fine. We
Mr Aydon: I do not think you can take one high are very keen to isolate the criminal, of course,
profile case, the American case—which was the because the activities of the criminal damage the
background for your remarks—I do not think you reputation of the legitimate market on which we
can take that unhappy incident and then extrapolate depend.
from that the fact that we need to have regulation. I Chairman: Thank you very much, gentlemen. I hope
believe certainly that the major auction houses take the rest of your day is useful to you.
Witnesses: Professor Norman Palmer, Chairman, Illicit Trade Advisory Panel (ITAP), and Chairman,
Human Remains Working Group (HRWG), Dr David Gaimster, Secretary, ITAP, and Mr James Dowling,
Secretary, HRWG, Department for Culture, Media and Sport examined.
Chairman: Thank you very much for coming to see its relationship with DTI and, in particular, the
us. We were going to have a sequence of questions Home OYce with regard to the prevention of illicit
starting with spoliation, but in fact Mr Fabricant trade in art?
wishes to follow the theme of our previous Dr Gaimster: Good morning. On the question about
questioning and therefore we will disrupt everything the relationship between DCMS and DTI and the
we have organised. Home OYce in the field of measures against the illicit
art market, we are in fairly constant consultation,
firstly, with the Home OYce, on one of your key
Q197 Michael Fabricant: Thank you, Chairman. I recommendations for the development of a due
thought there would be a little more continuity if we diligence database. That is where we have most
continued on the theme of the illicit art trade, since contact at the moment because, following the
that is what we have been concentrating on with introduction or the work on the new legislation,
witnesses in the last series of evidence. Could which did require some consultation, as you can
someone explain to me the role that DCMS plays in imagine, we have now concentrated very much on
4 November 2003 Professor Norman Palmer, Dr David Gaimster and Mr James Dowling
the due diligence database work. That has taken a said in the report that “. . . the field in which progress
considerable amount of consultation and time. With has been least satisfactory and . . . the reasons for
the DTI, equally, we are now beginning to put more delay are least persuasive” referred to “the
eVort into working with them on implementation of accessibility of required information” presumably
the measures that we have already put in place in our the database.
policy development stage. We have been developing Professor Palmer: That was our view then. That was
a four-point programme, if you like, at the moment, stated in our 2001 progress report which was
over the last two years: one UNESCO; secondly, the published in autumn 2002. It would be an unusual
new legislation, the new criminal oVence; thirdly, the thing if we felt any less anxious about the
database work; and we are looking also at the export implementation of this proposal now than we did a
licensing regime, and working with DTI there on year ago. The Illicit Trade Panel is quite certain that
exports and so on. So we are moving now from, this database is crucial in a number of respects to its
essentially, very much a policy development stage recommendations generally. It said so in fact in the
into looking at and working with those questions of progress report. It said that, after accession to
implementation and enforcement which you have UNESCO, the two most important things—and
already brought up this morning in your they were side by side—were the new criminal
questioning. oVence, which we now have, and the databases—
databases because there was an additional one
Q198 Michael Fabricant: I was going to ask if you relating to overseas laws as well. Why is it so critical?
were there. Clearly you were. If this is an example of First of all, how are you going to mount a
joined-up government, it is not a very good example, prosecution under the new criminal oVence, which
it seems to me. Back in 2001 the Home OYce were requires the prosecution to prove that someone
oVered the provision of a two-year free trial of a either knew or believed that an object was tainted
database. You have just heard the evidence given a (unlawfully removed), if there is not some means of
few moments ago—and again last week—that if checking that. We see this as an essential building
only there were a database with pictures of art that block, an essential cog in the prosecution wheel. But,
had been stolen, it would help considerably in similarly, of course, there is the question of defence.
preventing the trade in illicit art which seems to The Iraq Sanctions Order, the Order in Council
flourish in London. Could you just go into a little bit made pursuant to the United Nations Security
more detail. You have said there has been Council resolution in the middle of this year,1
consultation. What has gone on in practice between actually imposes criminal liability on people who
2001 and now? In 2001, the then Head of Violent and deal in or fail to hand to a constable property
Property Crime Section said she would be coming unlawfully taken from Iraq unless they can show
back very shortly with information regarding the that they did not know or have reason to suppose
provision of a database on the internet. Here we are that it was unlawfully taken from Iraq. How are
in 2003, almost 2004, and there has been no delivery. people going to show that they had no reason to
What actually has DCMS been doing to gee-up the believe it was stolen if they cannot say, “I checked
Home OYce and why have they not been geed-up? the register and the register said it was not there”—
Dr Gaimster: As I have already explained, we have or the red list, or whatever. I think it is an extremely
sat at one time on the working party that was hosted important point, given, particularly, that the burden
by the Home OYce. I think the memorandum that of proof of the mental element, quite contrary to the
you are expecting from the Home OYce will explain Theft Act 1968 and the new criminal oVence, under
the chronology of what has been going on in terms the new Iraq provision is on the defence. You may
of consultation in the last two or three years. We well say this is a very diYcult thing for a defendant
have sat on that committee. We have also sat on a to show unless there is some recognised procedure or
subsequent group, a working party, following the mechanism by which title can be verified. It is
demise of the initial working group. We have been certainly the case that we regard this as important—
putting as much pressure as we can across no less important, if anything more important than
government to try to raise this issue up everybody’s it was a year ago. We do recognise of course that
agenda because we believe that this is another of the steps are being made and we also recognise there
key building blocks in the programme of measures have been certain false trails. There was the PITO
that we want to see being developed across Report,2 I think towards the end of 2001, which led
government. I think Professor Palmer will probably nowhere; there was the disbanding of the Committee
say more about how he sees the strategy, but we have chaired by Charles Clarke; and there have been
been putting as much pressure as we can on both the other things as well. But we feel, I think, that without
Home OYce and colleagues in law enforcement, a realistic and coherent proposal on which to work
who were very sympathetic, I think, mostly, to the now, we cannot get anywhere near developing the
issues that we are trying to raise and the policy that back-up mechanisms, the actual nuts and bolts
we are trying to promote.
1 Footnote by witness: The Iraq (United Nations Sanctions)
Q199 Michael Fabricant: I wonder whether it might Order 2003, SI 2003/1519, implementing United Nations
Security Council Resolution No 1483 (22 May 2003) came
be appropriate, then, for me to ask Professor Palmer into force on 14 June 2003. Para 8 of the Order in Council
whether he shares my frustration with the total lack deals with illegally-removed Iraqi cultural property.
of delivery in this area and whether he still subscribes 2 PITO stands for Police Information Technology
to the remark that he made back in 2002, when he Organisation.
provisions, which would make these various other may or may not be accurate. Are you aware of the
measures work in practice. When you have a oVer that was made by Julian RadcliVe of the Art
register, you have to decide whether there is a duty Loss Register in his letter to the Home OYce back in
to consult it. Do you owe a duty to your buyers? Do May 2001 to provide the same database totally free
you owe a duty to the victims of art theft to consult of charge for two years?
the register? What happens if you do not? What Professor Palmer: Yes, I was aware of that oVer at
happens if you consult the register and you find that the time and I was aware that I think it was
what you have is stolen? Do you just hand it back or approached with a certain circumspection—I
what do you do? Is the register or the database the cannot remember the detail of it. We have been
only means of checking title? Should you be granted awaiting for some time the evolution of further
immunity if you have checked it and there is nothing private initiatives on this and it is certainly
there, or should you use other methods as well? At something that we would not rule out. I ought to add
the risk of going on too long, I do want to emphasise that in my view this is not just a question of
that, whatever the cogency of the reasons for the economics, and I believe that that is the view of the
lack of progress, it is a matter of concern to the Illicit Department as well; it is also a question of
Trade Panel, which was reappointed by Alan techniques and methods and perhaps even cultures
Howarth, as I am sure you will remember, in order and policies. In any event, I do not want this matter
to invigilate the progress of its own reforms. I have to become one of the value of property which is
written to the Minister I think twice this year about stolen. We talk about the size of the illicit art market
it and I saw the Minister, Baroness Blackstone, last and so on and we tend to talk about it in terms of
year about it and she did reassure me of the figures, not even numbers of items stolen but values.
Department of Culture’s continued commitment to We were not able to put a higher figure, and we did
this. It is, as you know, a matter for the Home OYce not try to falsify it of course, on the outflow from the
to take forward as a law enforcement matter. United Kingdom than £200 million worth of art a
year. That is not, by law enforcement standards, an
Q200 Michael Fabricant: That has been a very enormous criminal market. Even so, we think that,
helpful and important answer, actually, because you first of all, any illicit removal pollutes the market and
have not only pointed out the importance regarding is a bad thing; it aVects its credibility. Secondly, these
the provenance of the art in question but also the are often matters of great sentimental or emotional
importance of a register with regard to there being value—or heritage value, come to that. Thirdly, we
suYcient evidence to either prove guilt or, somewhat owe a duty under the UNESCO Convention to
unusually in our legal system, to prove innocence, safeguard our own heritage and, finally, we have to
which is a complete departure, I think, from the protect not only the art market, in terms of buyers
principle of English law. I wonder if you might just and sellers, but also borrowing markets. The United
clarify, for me at least and perhaps the rest of the Kingdom museums and galleries borrow a vast
Committee, whether I am right in thinking that the amount of art, so we need provenance checks there
register, as you have referred to it, would be a as well. Nothing can be more embarrassing than
database available on the internet; that anyone when an art exhibition is taking place and a claim is
could just log on to and look through pictures of art. brought by a third party against that museum or
How would one actually use it in practice? gallery. So there are reasons, other than the buying
Professor Palmer: When we produced our report in and selling trade, why we have to be very
December 2000 we did refer to an open, public and circumspect about this, and it is very hard to put a
freely accessible database, whilst recognising, of money value on it.
course, there will have to be levels of access, with
certain levels of material accessible only to the Q202 Michael Fabricant: We all recognise the
police, some to the trade and some to ordinary cultural value of these things and these things cannot
individuals. That said, we are awaiting and will look always be quantified in terms of material and
very carefully—and I hope objectively—at any financial value. I still want to take you back, if I may,
proposal which comes forward. I certainly have to this oVer (I thought your answer skirted about the
listened very carefully to suggestions that this should subject, shall we say) of the two-year database. You
be a public/private partnership. I do appreciate, of said it was treated with some circumspection. Would
course, the funding implications and there is you personally have welcomed the provision back in
certainly no proposal of which I am aware at the 2001 of a two-year, trial database which would have
moment of which it can be said that we have ruled it gone live, been freely available and actually not cost
out anticipatorily without actually examining it the taxpayer anything for those two years?
more closely. We are due to hear presentations, I Professor Palmer: I would have needed to look at it
believe, tomorrow on this; there is a meeting of the more closely than I was advised I should look at it at
Illicit Trade Panel tomorrow and we hope to take the time.
this further. So our thinking on this is not ossified,
save only in this: that we have an immutable Q203 Michael Fabricant: Who advised you not to
conviction that something must be done. look at it at the time?
Professor Palmer: I cannot remember, and perhaps
Q201 Michael Fabricant: As you know, the police I should not mention names, but I gather there was
reckon that it would cost £12 million to operate a a view within the Department that this was
wholly publicly funded database of this type, which premature—
Q204 Michael Fabricant: “Department” being embarrassing to have the criminal oVence without
Culture Media and Sport or the Home OYce? the database backing it up. I think the time has come
Professor Palmer: No, the Department for Culture. to show that progress will be made.
And that the matter was being considered by Charles
Clarke’s Committee in any event. It was before or
around the time that the Illicit Trade Panel was set Q208 Michael Fabricant: One final question: do you
up and we had not actually committed ourselves in think it is purely coincidental that you are having
any event to a database at that time. We did not this meeting tomorrow when the Minister from the
report until December. So although I became aware Department of Culture, Media and Sport is coming
of the oVer some time between May and Christmas before this Committee next week?
of 2001 I think it is fair to say that we were not Professor Palmer: Frankly, I think it is entirely
encouraged to look at that in any detail. coincidental.
Michael Fabricant: You are a generous man. Thank
you, Chairman.
Q205 Michael Fabricant: If you had not been
discouraged to look at this, would you have actually
looked at it? Q209 Derek Wyatt: Can we just go back to human
Professor Palmer: Yes, we did consider the question remains, for a moment? There is a report that has
of whether it should be wholly privately run and we been made but it has not been made public. Are you
inclined at the time to the view that it should be free able to tell us what the recommendations are if we
and it should be the responsibility of the cannot see this report?
Department. I think we were echoing this as late as Professor Palmer: Yes, I am. I have checked that
the progress report which was delivered last year. about half-an-hour ago. I understand that I can and
There are, I think it is fair to say, those on the Illicit that it will be released oYcially at lunchtime
Trade Panel who are not instinctively attracted to an tomorrow.
initiative of this kind which makes money for
somebody and would prefer to see it as a public
service, so it did not feature particularly prominently Q210 Derek Wyatt: That is a result. I am going to
in our observations, particularly, as I say, as I think guess little bits then. Has an audit been done of the
it arose before the Illicit Trade Panel—certainly major museums that hold human remains?
before it started sitting. Professor Palmer: Yes.
Q206 Michael Fabricant: Do you believe the Q211 Derek Wyatt: So that we know exactly, in the
Department of Culture, Media and Sport has been report tomorrow it will say “This museum in
driving it suYciently hard with the Home OYce? Liverpool or that museum in Edinburgh has this,
Professor Palmer: There is a view amongst certain and these are the issues that it raises”?
members of the Illicit Trade Panel that if it is a
Professor Palmer: Yes, that is quite right. Resource
question of money then whoever finds the money is
put up the sum of £10,000 for the performance of
a secondary question; that if there is a responsibility
what we call our scoping survey, which does give a
there then the money must be found, full stop. In my
picture of the location and distribution of human
experience the Department of Culture has been
trying hard to take this forward and I have sympathy remains in English museums.
with their attempts to penetrate what appears to be
the Home OYce’s impenetrability on this matter. Q212 Derek Wyatt: Apart from tissue problems,
That being said, there comes a point when you which I understand the Department of Health has
cannot listen to excuses any more. A point I cannot raised, what are the other issues, do you think, that
emphasise too strongly is that the purpose of the need to be resolved before the remains are actually
Illicit Trade Panel is to get all sections of the arts given back?
community together, speaking to one another. We Professor Palmer: This is a matter on which, as I am
have succeeded in doing this for three years but there sure you are aware, there is a sharp divergence of
is an emerging sentiment in some quarters that, for argument. In many cases the distance—
example, the trade has accepted the burdens without
gaining the benefits. There is a feeling that if this
does not progress soon the committee will, perhaps, Q213 Derek Wyatt: Between who and who?
begin to fall apart—not to put too fine a point on Professor Palmer: Between, on the whole, those
it—in which event a lot of the eVort will have been museums which wish to retain human remains in
wasted. order to pursue scientific research and to achieve
what, it has to be said, are most extraordinary and
Q207 Michael Fabricant: Do you think we have fascinating results, often of practical benefit to
reached the point where you cannot listen to excuses medicine and science, and those claimants from
any more? overseas—almost invariably from overseas—who
Professor Palmer: We expect tomorrow to look at are normally representatives of the indigenous
serious and credible proposals with a realistic time- communities who feel that it is an insult to them and,
frame for showing us the way in which this goes worse than that, that it tends to the disquiet of their
ahead. I think there are members of the panel, and I ancestors, to suVering, to lack of tranquillity and
would share this view, who would find it quiescence that these are still in museums.
Q214 Derek Wyatt: So there are no we made certain recommendations, and one actually
recommendations in the report? I am guessing now, was accepted by the Government who have done
because unless you can tell us some highlights we are nothing whatever to implement it. Everybody is
struggling. having a lovely time dealing with matters of great
Professor Palmer: Yes. I am very happy to tell fascination but nothing is actually happening. You
you the highlights and there are indeed said in a reply earlier on that you had permission to
recommendations. give us your conclusions. Can you give us them?
Professor Palmer: I not only can but had begun to
Q215 Derek Wyatt: Could you give us a little do so and would be happy to continue doing so. The
flavour, for the Committee’s sake? first, as I say, is the recommendation that there
Professor Palmer: Yes, certainly. Firstly, we are of should be a national human remains and advisory
the view that it would appropriate for the arguments panel, an independent, government-appointed
for and against the retention of human remains to be forum before which claims and controversies
capable of being submitted to a national human relating to the retention of human remains by
remains advisory panel. This is a matter which has English museums can be heard. Reference to the
to be approached on a case-by-case basis. The panel will not be compulsory; as in the case of
arguments are weighty and deserve the highest spoliation it will be consensual. The
respect. Our committee could not say of any specific recommendations of the panel will be advisory, it
remain “That shall go back” or not, that was not will be up to the parties whether to adopt them or
within our terms of reference; what we have decided not. Again, that follows the parallel of the Spoliation
is that there is a compelling case for an open, public, Advisory Panel. We expect that the panel would be
objective, transparent and consistent resolution able to make recommendations not only about the
mechanism by which claims can be heard and, specific case but also to the Department of Culture
hopefully, resolved. about what should happen in given instances—for
example, whether there should be legislative change
Q216 Derek Wyatt: Would that discussion—if it or not. That, again, follows the provisions of the
was an Aborigine or Maori or an Indian from Spoliation Advisory Panel which was set up in, I
America—be held in public so it was truly think, May 2000. That is the first of our
transparent? recommendations, but there are others. Secondly, it
Professor Palmer: That would need to be decided. is quite clear that the law relating to human remains,
We have taken to a large degree our parallel from the both within and beyond English museums, is in an
Spoliation Advisory Panel, which as I am sure you unsatisfactory state. This unsatisfactory state is
are aware deals with very sensitive matters relating exacerbated by the constraints that are limiting—or
to family and property and the horrible events that in the view of national museums are limiting—them
people suVered in the past. I think that might have from releasing human remains even when they want
to be a matter on which individual claimants are to do so. So we have also recommended that there
consulted, as to whether there should be public should be a relaxation of national museum
attendance at hearings, for example. That has not governing statutes in order to permit them, at their
been the case hitherto with the Spoliation Advisory election, to release human remains in those cases
Panel, which I may say, in my view, is a very where they consider it appropriate.
successful institution. On the other hand, of course,
the Spoliation Advisory Panel does publish and has Q218 Chairman: Have you any idea whatsoever as
in the case of the GriYer claim published a full to whether any of this will be (a) accepted and (b)
report,3 and we anticipate that would equally be the implemented? Otherwise you will have been wasting
case with a claim for the return of indigenous your time and we, once again, will have been wasting
human remains. our time (which we are quite used to doing).
Professor Palmer: It is for the minister to consider
Q217 Chairman: It strikes me more and more, whether the arguments which we advance in favour
Professor Palmer, without any disrespect to you or of these two reforms are persuasive or not. We are
your colleagues, that we are in an episode of Yes, firmly of the view that they are and we would be
Minister here, in which an appearance of activity interested to hear any counter-arguments. My view
conceals no activity. One had the feeling, I remember is that they are so serious and realistic and credible
it when we were conducting our previous inquiry, that there must logically be a serious prospect of
that this working party was set up at the time to their being recognised and accepted. I appreciate,
stymie the work of this Select Committee.4 OK, I however, that those more experienced in political
would not have minded about that if any result matters than me might be sceptical on this point.
whatever had emerged from all of this, but what we However, that is what we propose. We also propose
are in is a position in which we conducted an inquiry, that museum holdings of human remains should be
subject to a licensing authority, akin to and possibly
3 Footnote by witness: Report of the Spoliation Advisory assimilated with the licensing authority, the human
Panel in respect of a painting now in the Tate Gallery, 18 tissue authority, that is proposed in relation to
January 2001. medical institutions, and that such licensing should
4 Footnote by witness: The Select Committee published its
Seventh Report on 18 July 2000. The Working Group on
be dependent inter alia upon subscription to a code
Human Remains in Museum Collections was established in of practice by which the museum will demonstrate
May 2001. that it has proper standards, ethical and professional
standards, for the care and safe-keeping of human Chalmers provided a minority report. Is it possible
remains and that it has access to a proper claims for you to elucidate the diVerences between the main
resolution process. consensus and the NHM?
Professor Palmer: I do not have Sir Neil Chalmers’
Q219 Chairman: Can you suggest to us any time- permission to do so, I have no objection to doing so
scale in which anything will actually be done? personally, but I think perhaps I should ask the
Professor Palmer: I entertain a confident oYcials whether this would be an appropriate course
expectation that the relaxation of national museum to take or not.6
statutes in order to allow the discretionary release of Chairman: I do not know where to go from here
human remains is achievable within the foreseeable actually. You have got me absolutely baZed and
future—I would say, and this is a figure grabbed stymied, which I suppose is an achievement of a
from the air, within six months. Whether that is the kind. Mr Flook, perhaps you can build on this.
case, of course, remains to be seen, but we have had
discussions about this and we do know that in the Q223 Mr Flook: Professor Palmer, the Working
case of one national museum, the Natural History Group came up with a number of recommendations.
Museum, it is regarded by that institution as the Have you costed those?
most important recommendation and indeed as the Professor Palmer: No. We are waiting for the
sine qua non to anything else. It seems quite clear to Department to cost those. We have some figures
us that there is not a great deal else that can be which have been given to us about the cost of a
achieved if museums consider themselves debarred human remains advisory panel.
from returning material even if they want to.
Q224 Mr Flook: Do you want to expand on that?
Q220 Chairman: Please forgive me, Professor Professor Palmer: We are told that if the parallel
Palmer, but I do not believe I have, in my recent were adopted of the Spoliation Advisory Panel the
experience, come across responses so exquisitely cost would be about £4,000 per meeting.
phrased which, nevertheless, do not lead me to
believe with confidence that anything whatever is Q225 Mr Flook: How many meetings would you
going to happen. “Is achievable within the expect in a year? They work on annual budgets, I
foreseeable future but whether it will be remains to am told.
be seen”. I acknowledge entirely that you are not Professor Palmer: Yes, it is extremely diYcult to tell.
responsible for action or inaction, you can make We do not know whether the existence of a human
recommendations, but taking into account all the remains advisory panel would encourage people to
years that have gone by “. . . achievable within the settle claims without reference to it, or whether it
foreseeable future but if so remains to be seen” does would lead to a spate of claims at all. We do not
not exactly strike me as a landmark in progress in know whether museums would accept references to
this controversy. this panel or not.
Professor Palmer: It is a little early to determine
whether there is to be a landmark—
Q226 Mr Flook: What is your view?
Professor Palmer: My view is that they would, in the
Q221 Chairman: Please stop me interrupting you. I
main, yes, certainly.
am absolutely overwhelmed with admiration for
you, Professor Palmer, and I am not being rude. “It
is a little early to determine . . .”—that is brilliant. Q227 Mr Flook: They would—?
Professor Palmer: Surely you would agree with the Professor Palmer: They would accept references to
proposition that, logically, we cannot say yet it.
whether recommendations which have not been
released until tomorrow are going to be accepted Q228 Mr Flook: So in coming to your conclusions
or not?5 C you have not had any detailed discussions as to the
costs?
Q222 Chairman: Absolutely. I am dazzled. I feel I Professor Palmer: No.
am intruding on some arcane ritual in seeking to get
this information. It is not your fault, I understand Q229 Mr Flook: It seems to me, from what people
this completely; it is the fact that we have got three have been talking about up until now, including
government departments not one of which seems yourself, that one of the issues is that the
actually to be able to bring itself to do anything. This Government are not doing whatever they are not
is not what this Government was elected to do, but doing because there may be cost implications. If cost
then, of course, that is not your responsibility. Could implications are one of the biggest hurdles, have not
I ask you two other questions then? Please forgive any of you when looking at these things looked at
my exasperation because it is not exasperation with how they could get over that hurdle and had a
you; if I had any hair I would tear it, but that is a discussion about costs?
diVerent matter. I understand that Professor
6 Footnote by witness: At this point Mr James Dowling,
5 Footnote by witness: At this point Mr Bryant made DCMS, indicated [to the Committee] that it would be
observations which suggested that he agreed with Professor appropriate for Professor Palmer to comment on the
Palmer on this point. minority and majority positions.
Professor Palmer: It is not so much a question of cost Q234 Mr Flook: If the Government has costed
as a question of proportionality. We have looked at them, what are the costs?
the matter of proportionality—in other words, Professor Palmer: If the Government has costed
whether it is justifiable having regard to the gains them I am not aware of the costings at which it has
and benefits that will be derived from it to set up such arrived.8
a committee.
Q235 Mr Bryant: A very quick question. Bearing in
Q230 Mr Flook: That does not seem to drive the mind what you have just said about the
Government in other areas, so I am surprised it significance—and I think all of us on the Committee
necessarily drives it in this area. would accept the spiritual and religious aspects of
Professor Palmer: It is a little early to say whether it this are very important to many communities
is driven or not but we do devote a section in our around the world—Mr Flook seems to be suggesting
report to an analysis of this question of you are asking for a blank cheque, but it is not a very
proportionality and we make it very plain that this big cheque, is it, really? If there were 20 meetings in
is not simply a matter of economic benefit and a year it is £80,000.
disbenefit. Whatever atmosphere of frivolity it may Professor Palmer: If there were 20 meetings in a year,
have been appropriate to introduce on this yes. There have been, I think, four meetings of the
Committee, we are dealing with extremely serious Spoliation Advisory Panel in two-and-a-half years,
matters that touch the very heart and spirit of some and I do not expect that the number of meetings of
people. We are dealing not only with matters of the human remains advisory panel would be
morality, ethics, spirituality and religion but the substantially in advance of that. We are,
scientific mission of some museums to push back our incidentally, I should say, dependent on the evidence
knowledge about the dawn of humanity. These are which we are given and that is the only figure which
the sorts of benefits and questions which we think a we have—£4,000 a meeting. I understand a fairly
human remains advisory panel would be needing to substantial part of that is legal advice as well because
consider. That, we submit, is not simply a question it has been considered necessary for the Spoliation
of economic gains and disbenefits. Advisory Panel to have an independent legal adviser
outside the Treasury solicitors.
Q231 Mr Flook: It is one as far as the Government
is concerned, spending taxpayers’ money to be able Q236 Mr Bryant: If I am not reading between too
to match your aims. many lines here, you seem to be therefore suggesting
Professor Palmer: Yes, quite so. that, in answer to your own question of
proportionality, if we were talking about £20,000 or
Q232 Mr Flook: So whatever you may say and may even £40,000 then that would be money extremely
advise, there will be a cold calculation done well-spent.
somewhere in a room as to whether or not your Professor Palmer: Yes, I would certainly think so. I
recommendations can be taken forward. To put it think that would show respect towards the issues
another way round: that cold calculating, civil and towards the people whose concerns are
servant, advising a minister, will have a view as to involved.
what you are advising—was there somewhere a
meeting where you are going to be able to say “We Q237 Derek Wyatt: Can I move on to the second
can aVord this”? area, which is spoliation? I have had some interest
Professor Palmer: Of course, yes. We are intelligent, for a while now in Ethiopia and the Maqdala
practical people. treasures which were looted in 1868. Do you not feel
that if you are going to have a national committee
Q233 Mr Flook: What was the figure? for looking at human evidence there should be an
Professor Palmer: We did not arrive at a final figure equal one for looking at stolen treasures which are
but we certainly were concerned throughout to come categorically stolen? There is no doubt or fuss, they
up with proposals that were economically have definitely been stolen, they were definitely
practicable, realistic and viable.7 After all, look at looted and they went to the highest bidder (it is well-
what we have proposed: that there should be documented) and the Ethiopian church would like
legislation permitting museums to release their them back.
possession—ownership, if you like—of human Professor Palmer: I would need to consider the
remains. It is diYcult to put a cost on that. What we arguments on that. My job has been to consider
did with the Illicit Trade Advisory Panel was to human remains, spoliation as such, as a member of
make proposals and then the Government, again, the Spoliation Advisory Panel, and the
costed them. We did not think they were contemporary illicit trade. I have however heard it
extravagant. said, and I can see the force of the logic behind it,
that the time might be coming when it might make
7 sense to have a national repatriation panel, whatever
Footnote by witness: A concern to avoid the duplication of
costs was one of the factors informing the Working Group’s
proposal that its recommendations regarding a new 8 Footnote by witness: The Chairman of the Working Group
regulatory authority to oversee museum holdings of human advised oYcials of DCMS in 2002 and 2003 that, if DCMS
remains be assimilated within the more general regulatory wished the Working Group to refer to specific resource
authority proposed in regard to medical institutions by the implications, the Working Group would look to DCMS to
Department of Health. provide relevant data.
it might be called—national claims advisory body— in the number of claims which have come forward
which might consider all of these matters in the recently and we might, therefore, see an increase in
round, perhaps even look at them comparatively the number of meetings. Nevertheless, I do not think
and relatively. However, I emphasise I have not there has been any suggestion that it has not met
reached a settled view on this, this is a matter I have often enough to deal satisfactorily with claims. I am
heard suggested and it might be a matter of by no means suggesting that if there were a national
resources. If it were to be the case that we were going claims advisory panel it would meet on any
to have separate panels on spoliation, human particular number of occasions a year or not; that is
remains, sacred objects (which is another possibility) entirely a matter for dealing with the flow of claims.
then there might come a time eventually when all the I must say, this is a long way down the track and it
strings might be drawn together and it would be is not something on which I have, certainly as far as
eVective and intelligent to have a single body. the Department is concerned, any authority to
speak. What I am giving you is purely my personal
opinion.
Q238 Derek Wyatt: It does not seem to me that Chairman: Professor Palmer, it has been a treat
there is much of a momentum if you have only had having you here. You have certainly given us a
four meetings in two-and-a-half years on your first number of issues on which we can question the
one; it seems to me that that is just being cynical at members of the Government who are going to come
the outset, that there should be many more meetings. before us next week. We are grateful to you indeed.
In this instance, the Ethiopian church has been to see I see from your CV that you have an enormous
the British Museum—they are hidden, they are not number of activities to which you devote yourself. I
even on show, they cannot be on show and they are would suggest, if you can find the time, you conduct
not allowed to be on show. What is the purpose of master classes in how to deal with select committees.
having them in a drawer that no one can access? You Thank you very much.
can say that there is this thinking and so on, but who
is driving this in the Government? 9 Footnote by Witness: The figure of four meetings in the first
Professor Palmer: Let me, first of all, say that the two-and-a-half years referred to the period during which the
number of meetings to which I referred of the Spoliation Advisory Panel considered its own constitution
Spoliation Advisory Panel, which is there to deal and procedure and resolved the claim relating to the GriVer
painting (see above), following which there was a
with claims, is a suYcient number of meetings to considerable lapse of time before any further claim emerged
deal with those claims.9 There has been an increase for consideration by the Panel.
908573PAG1 Page Type [SE] 11-12-03 01:58:46 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1
Members present:
Mr Frank Doran Rosemary McKenna

Mr Adrian Flook Ms Debra Shipley
Alan Keen Derek Wyatt
In the absence of the Chairman, Alan Keen took the Chair
Memorandum submitted by HM Customs and Excise
Introduction
1. Customs welcome the chance to update our memorandum of April 2000 and to give oral evidence to
the Select Committee. This submission follows the outline of our earlier memorandum and aims to address
the topics raised by the clerk to the Committee.
The Role of Customs

2. Customs are responsible for the enforcement of controls on the export of cultural goods from the UK.
National prohibitions on the export of cultural goods are set out in the Export of Goods (Control) Order
1992, made under the Import, Export and Customs Powers (Defence) Act 1939. The Export of Objects of
Cultural Interest Order, which is expected to come into force on 1 May 2004, will replace the 1992 Order,
but without changing any of Customs’ powers.
3. EU controls on the export of cultural goods are principally derived from Council Regulation (EEC)
No 3911/92 of 9 December 1992.
4. The only import restriction currently in force specifically related to cultural goods is United Nations
Security Council Resolution No 1483 (dated 22 May 2003), which prohibits the import and export of Iraqi
cultural objects and which is given eVect in the UK by The Iraq (UN Sanctions) Order SI 1519. This Order
came into eVect on 14 June 2003.
5. Customs will have an enforcement role in relation to the Dealing in Cultural Goods (OVences) Act
2003, which comes into force on 30 December 2003.
General Customs Provisions

6. General Customs requirements in relation to imports and exports are common throughout the EU and
set out in Council Regulation (EEC) No. 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs
Code. Customs enforcement powers are mainly derived from the Customs and Excise Management Act
1979 (“CEMA”). This also sets out the principal oVences and sanctions in the event of an illegal import
or export.
7. Supplies of art and antiques and other cultural objects are liable to VAT at the standard rate, with a
special scheme in place for dealers.
Customs Powers to Prevent Illegal Exports

8. The main UK legislation enabling the Commissioners of Customs and Excise to enforce controls on
goods subject to export prohibitions and restrictions is Section 68 of CEMA. This provides that
“. . . if any goods are exported or shipped as stores; or brought to any place in the United Kingdom
for the purpose of being exported or shipped as stores . . .”
and the exportation is or would be contrary to any prohibition or restriction in force, then the
goods will be liable to forfeiture and any person concerned guilty of an oVence.
Customs Powers in Relation to Imports

9. Similar provisions relate to imports. Section 49 of CEMA makes the import of prohibited goods liable
to forfeiture. Section 170 establishes oVences in relation to the import of prohibited goods. There is no EU
import licensing regime in relation to cultural objects, nor any national import licensing restrictions.
10. In relation to both imports and exports, Section 139 of CEMA gives Customs powers to detain or
seize goods liable to forfeiture. Customs also have powers to restore seized goods on appropriate terms,
determined by the Commissioners.
Dealing in Cultural Goods (Offences) Act 2003

11. The new Act creates an oVence of dishonestly dealing in a cultural object, knowing or believing the
object to be tainted. Dealing includes importing and exporting. There is no specific prohibition or restriction
in the Act that will allow Customs to use powers of search and forfeiture in CEMA. Customs’ power to
search for suspected tainted goods will be confined to cases where cultural objects are controlled for other
purposes (eg firearms) or we are engaged on a lawful search under another power. We expect that many
cases will involve other Customs oVences such as evasion of revenue or false declaration, and therefore we
will be able to use CEMA powers. If not, Customs will rely on Section 19 of the Police and Criminal
Evidence Act 1984 (“PACE”) for seizure where there is an oVence as described in the Act.
12. The Act gives Customs powers to investigate and prosecute oVences where there is any dealing with
tainted cultural objects by way of importation or exportation. However, such investigations may not be
straightforward and it is likely that they will be confined to the most serious and clear-cut cases. Establishing
an oVence will require suYcient evidence that firstly, the person knew or believed the goods to be tainted
and secondly, the goods were removed or excavated after the date of commencement of the Act.
13. In practical terms, these issues will have less impact when dealing with exports, where there could be
an export licensing oVence that would fall within Section 68 of CEMA. However, enforcement of imports
of cultural objects will not be as eVective as a regime based on import licensing. Our interpretation is that
we will act against attempts to import cultural objects from third countries where we receive information
that the goods are tainted or where we detect them in the course of our multi-functional activities at the
frontier.
Movements Within the EU

14. Goods destined for an EU country may require a UK licence issued by DCMS. Although there is no
regulatory role for Customs (ie no Customs declaration is required), there is a requirement that the UK
licence accompany the goods and be produced to Customs if we so request—for example, in circumstances
where we are responding to intelligence.
15. Council Directive 93/7/EEC of 15 March 1993 sets out the procedures on the return of cultural objects
unlawfully removed from the territory of a Member State. To date there have been no requests from
Member States under the directive.
Exports to Countries Outside the EU

16. Cultural goods being exported to countries outside the EU may be controlled under UK licences
issued by the DCMS or under EU harmonised licences. The latter are issued by DCMS or the recognised
authority of another Member State. Customs enforcement powers are essentially the same in both cases.
VAT in Relation to Cultural Goods

17. Works of art, antiques and collector’s items are not liable to any import duty but are entitled to a
reduced VAT rate of 5% at the time of import provided that they had not been exported from the UK in
the previous 12 months.
Stolen Goods
18. The import and export of stolen property are not assigned matters for Customs and we are not able to
use CEMA provisions to stop and examine consignments for such purposes. However, Section 19 of PACE
provides statutory power for Customs to detain goods identified during checks made for Customs’ purposes
where the oYcer suspects that the goods are the subject of a criminal oVence.
19. Where there is suspicion that cultural objects were stolen in the UK and are being exported, Customs
can use CEMA powers in those cases where there are grounds to suspect an export licensing oVence that
would fall within Section 68 of CEMA. On importation, where we suspected the goods might be stolen we
rely on Section 19 of PACE to hold them whilst we inform the police. Thereafter we would release the goods
if the police did not follow this up.
Customs Procedures
Regulatory checks
20. Cultural goods that are being exported outside the EU with an export licence must be declared to
Customs on an export declaration. The declaration, the export licence and the goods must be presented to
Customs before shipment. Customs may inspect the oYcial and commercial documentation and may also
examine the goods. Customs will ensure that the export of the goods is endorsed on individual licences.
Exhausted licences are returned to DCMS.
Preventing illegal exports

21. Under Section 53 of CEMA, which gives powers to control the movement of goods intended for
export, Customs may prevent the shipment of cultural objects until any query on their licensability is
resolved by DCMS. Customs operate an electronic profile system to identify possible illegal exports. Our
profiling looks at four elements: the exporter (and other parties involved), the nature of the goods, the
destination and the documentation. Our detailed guidance to staV sets out the particular risks and type of
response in each case. This is reinforced by quarterly awareness-raising seminars to front line staV on export
controls during which we cover cultural goods. Every month the Metropolitan Police Art and Antiques Unit
provide colour images of UK cultural objects that are missing or have been stolen. These are circulated to
front line Customs staV at ports and airports. Customs have had some involvement in the development of
the national cultural objects database and would obviously benefit once it is established.
Investigations
22. Customs are responsible for the investigation of alleged breaches of export control requirements.
Customs have conducted several investigations into possible breaches of the export controls on cultural
goods but none have resulted in a criminal investigation. Some recent examples are summarised at
paragraph 25. Regulatory breaches (such as failure to produce a licence, or incorrect Customs declarations)
have been dealt with by local customs staV.
Penalties
23. OVences for breaches of controls fall into two categories. These are:
— strict liability oVences, which apply when a breach is committed regardless of the knowledge or
intent of the exporter; and
— oVences relating to deliberate evasion of the controls.
The maximum penalties are:
— for strict liability oVences, on summary conviction a penalty of three times the value of the goods
or £1,000, whichever is the greater; and
— for deliberate oVences, on summary conviction a penalty of £5,000 or three times the value of the
goods whichever is the greater or to imprisonment for a term of up to six months. On conviction
on indictment a penalty of any amount, or imprisonment for a term of up to seven years, or both.
Customs have powers to compound oVences, ie accept a monetary amount in lieu of pursuing criminal
proceedings.
Customs Activity
Dealing with suspected breaches of export controls

24. Customs follow up suspected breaches with appropriate enquiries, often conducted by intelligence or
investigation staV. In many cases, the results of those enquiries will mean that the goods are released.
Customs seizures over the last four years are:
1999–2000 : 10 consignments totalling 90 objects worth £0.82 million
2000–01 : 6 consignments totalling 6 objects worth £0.38 million
2001–02 : 10 consignments totalling 31 items worth £1.2 million
2002–03 : 1 consignment totalling 1 item worth £0.56 million
These are a mix of imports and exports.

Some recent cases

25. The following are example of cases in 2002 and 2003 that were investigated by Customs where for
various reasons, ultimately no seizure was made.
The Old Times Coach

An export licence was granted by DCMS for the export of a horse drawn coach. DCMS received
information that this coach was back in the UK and was actually the unique “Old Times Coach”. DCMS
referred the matter to Customs as a possible oVence. A photograph supplied with the licence application had
been doctored to disguise the coach. Customs got to the point where, in order to progress the investigation,
investigators needed an expert witness statement to prove that the coach was of Waverley standard1. We
were unable to obtain such a statement and so could take no further action.
The King’s Warrant for a Patent for Hooke’s Watch with Springs
Its US owner had had two previous export licence requests refused for this manuscript as it was considered
to be of Waverley standard and the owner had turned down a matching oVer from the Clockmakers’
Museum. DCMS contacted Customs, as they were aware that the owner was selling the manuscript and
feared it had been illegally exported. After some investigation Customs discovered the manuscript in a safety
deposit box of a London bank. The manuscript had never left the UK.
Lewis Carroll Glass Negative

Its owner applied for an export licence but the glass negative was exported in error by a shipping agent
whilst the application was being considered. Customs accepted that this was not deliberate evasion. The
negative was considered to be of Waverley standard. Customs contacted US Customs to see whether we
could assist DCMS’ eVorts to negotiate its return but without success. The negative is still in the USA and
its owner has been told that the negative is liable to forfeiture if it returns to the UK.
Blake Painting
The painting “God Blessing the Seventh Day” was bought by a US national for £650,000. During
discussions between the owner and the Tate Gallery he withdrew his application for an export licence. The
painting was subsequently sold to another US national for £1.3 million. As no similar oVer was received in
the UK and there was no evidence to refute the value an export licence was granted and the painting exported
to the US. At DCMS’ request Customs examined the paperwork attached to the export declaration but
found no grounds to prevent the export. Customs also conducted enquires with US Customs but concluded
that this was a bona fidae sale.
Bulgarian Jewellery and Coins

Customs are currently in the process of returning a recent seizure of Roman coins and other precious
metal objects illegally exported from Bulgaria. In this case Customs seized the goods at importation because
they had not been declared and were of significant value, thereby avoiding revenue due on such goods.
Looting of Iraqi Antiquities and Customs Role in Enforcing the Iraq (UN Sanctions) Order 2003
26. After the Secretary of State for Culture Media and Sport wrote to the Economic Secretary in April
2003, Customs alerted all front line staV to look out for looted Iraqi antiquities. We backed this up with a
similar message through our suspect information system, which is relayed to all detection staV. We
circulated the emergency Red List of Iraqi Antiquities along with the DCMS statement “Safeguarding Iraq’s
Cultural Heritage”.
27. Customs attended a meeting organised by a British Museum/UNESCO on 29 April 2003. We also
attended a briefing at the US Embassy which highlighted the goods that were missing. We relayed details
of these items to our front line staV.
28. For commercial imports, Customs also set a profile (a “flagging” mechanism) on CHIEF, our
electronic freight control system to identify any possible illegal imports of cultural objects from Iraq and its
surrounding countries. Where profiles are activated Customs oYcers are directed to a hyperlink to the
Interpol / International Council of Museums Iraq Red List. We have had further contact with the Art and
Antiques Unit to share intelligence and ensure our profiling is up-to-date.
1 The “Waverley criteria” form the test for nationally significant cultural objects.
29. To date Customs have not detected anything that we believe to be looted Iraq antiquities and we have
not received any intelligence of traYcking in such goods into the UK. However, we have been involved in
the following two importations that attracted media interest.
Statue of Saddam Hussein—In early June there were press reports of a statue of Saddam on display at a
Marines barracks. DCMS identified it as a cultural object under UN Security Council Resolution 1483 and
Customs were asked why we had allowed it to be imported. The statue had been cleared by Customs on
arrival on 30 May 2003. At that time, the original Iraq UNSCR (No 661) had been lifted and, although
UNSCR 1483 had been passed, the enabling Order was not in place. The statue had been declared to
Customs and had no significant commercial value. Customs therefore had no powers to act.
Iraqi Display Weapons—On 17 April 2003, whilst UNSCR 661 was still in force, Customs staV at
Heathrow seized a consignment of five firearms and a number of swords and daggers being smuggled from
Kuwait to the USA. Two of the firearms were gold plated. This incident was reported in the UK press shortly
after publicity that US forces operating in Baghdad had discovered such weapons, said to belong to Uday
Hussein. Customs cooperated with US Customs in a “controlled delivery” to their destination in a successful
operation to identify who was behind the smuggling attempt.
Customs Resources
30. Customs are responsible for the enforcement of a wide range of prohibitions and restrictions on the
movement of goods. In deploying their resources against these responsibilities Customs must take account
of both the Government’s key priorities and how the resources they deploy can make as eVective a
contribution as possible to the overall enforcement eVort. Customs are changing emphasis from static based
detection staV to flexibly deployed teams that are fully mobile. Deployment is on the basis of risk assessment,
driven by intelligence.
31. Some oYcers, such as members of the Heathrow Export Enforcement Team focus on freight exports.
Much of their eVort is directed against strategic exports such as arms, dual use goods and UN sanctions, but
they may also deal with exports of cultural goods. Customs’ Detection staV, as part of their multi-functional
responsibilities, undertake anti-smuggling controls at import and export. With the exception of new
Detection teams targeting illegal imports of meat and other products of animal origin, Customs do not
assign dedicated roles to oYcers but they are deployed flexibly on a mobile basis and are responsible for
detection of the full range of import and export prohibitions and restrictions and revenue evasion.
32. It is our policy that when an oYcer detects what they suspect to be cultural objects, they seek advice
from DCMS Export Licensing Unit on whether the goods are licensable. If there is an issue of expert
identification of the item, our normal practice is to seek expert advice from bodies such as the British
Museum. We do not believe that there is a suYciently strong case to justify employing such experts “in-
house”. We believe it is more eVective to focus front line staV on detection techniques, awareness of their
wide range of responsibilities and awareness of, and responsiveness to particularly topical issues such as
Iraqi antiquities.
Links with Organised Crime

33. The National Criminal Intelligence Service (“NCIS”) are the lead enforcement authority on
intelligence related to organised crime. Customs will investigate any quality intelligence relating to the
international traYcking in cultural objects by organised criminals. Customs share NCIS’ assessment that
serious and organised criminals may be attracted to the global cultural property market and are alive to the
potential use of cultural goods as a relatively safe means of payment or moving assets. Under the Proceeds
of Crime Act 2002 Customs carry out controls at export for cash associated with criminal activity. However,
neither Customs nor NCIS have any specific intelligence of links between cultural goods and money
laundering, drug or arms traYcking.
UNESCO Convention
34. The two articles in the UNESCO Convention of particular relevance for Customs are Article 6 on
exports and Article 7 on imports. In considering these provisions, Customs’ major concern is that the
definitions in the Convention are not suYciently clear to provide a sound basis for enforcement.
35. The UK already has an export control system that goes much of the way to meeting Article 6 on
exports. This is, however, based on EU and national definitions rather than the Convention definitions.
Should the Government decide to implement an import licensing system based on by UNESCO articles,
Customs would regard as essential elements the existence of clear and unambiguous obligations upon the
parties, definitions of which goods would require a licence and a technical specification unit to give definitive
rulings in specific cases.
36. Customs have had one case which might typify the sort of case envisaged under Article 7. In 2002 at
the request of the Australian Federal Police, Customs returned a traction engine that had been illegally
exported from Australia. Although there was no UK Customs oVence, Customs co-operated under powers
provided in international assistance cases by the Criminal Justice and International Cooperation Act 1990.
HM Customs and Excise
10 November 2003
Witnesses: Mr Mark Fuchter, Senior Policy Manager, and Mr Peter Higgins, Head, Law Enforcement
Policy (Prohibitions and Restrictions), HM Customs and Excise, examined.
Q239 Alan Keen: Good morning. Can I first of all closely with the police. It tends to be back and forth
apologise for the Chairman not being here at the what do we know about what is going on,
moment. He is tied up on a broadcast or a meeting particularly in respect of Iraq.
over the telephone line, but he will be along fairly
soon. Thank you very much for coming. Would you Q244 Mr Flook: I get this impression that there are
like to make an opening statement before we start gentlemen and ladies sitting in Whitehall and chaps
putting questions. and ladies at the ports and there is a dislocating time
Mr Higgins: No statement. You are familiar with between the two and the information you may get
our particular roles, are you? does not necessarily feed into what then happens at
the ports. We have been told of an incident where
Q240 Alan Keen: Yes, it would be helpful, I think, some rather old artefacts came in from Iraq and your
to explain that. oYcers on the ground thought that they could have
Mr Higgins: I am Peter Higgins. I am Head of Law been receptacles for carrying drugs and, therefore,
Enforcement Policy in Customs & Excise. As you they were drilled into.
may know, in law enforcement, Customs is divided Mr Fuchter: I am not aware of that case, I have to
into policy, our detection staV who are the people say. On the earlier point of timeliness and being
that you see at the ports and the airports, and the joined up with where I work, which tends to be a
investigation and intelligence people. My side of head oYce approach, we pride ourselves on being
the house looks after some of the prohibitions very joined up. There is a very close relationship in
and restrictions, particularly drugs, particularly my team between, on the one hand, advising the
paedophiles and assets-recovery which impacts Minister and, on the other hand, advising
upon the detection staV in front-line operations. operational staV through senior managers. We use
Mr Fuchter: My side of the house, as summarised in things like our Intranet so that when the Iraqi
the short note, is that we deal with policy in respect antiquities issue broke of course, we were able to put
of a long list of prohibitions and restrictions mostly a general alert on our Intranet that all staV, all front-
on the regulatory side, one of which is cultural goods line staV would have to be aware and vigilant about
and others are firearms, things like Customs’ new it. We sent a specific message, I mentioned this in the
responsibilities in terms of illegal meat and things paper and it probably sounded a bit repetitive, but
like that. If I may add, to summarise the we sent a specific message through our suspect
memorandum we have given you, in essence, it is an information system which goes direct to front-line
attempt to update you on what has changed since staV, so we are quite happy in this respect that we can
2000. Broadly, much has not changed, but we have get the right sort of message out fairly quickly. It will
endeavoured to answer the specific questions that always be improved by things like ever better
you have asked us to inform you about and also to information coming to us, clearer pictures, for
flag up where there are one or two changes in law. example, of the goods. I must admit I am not aware
of the case and it would be unfortunate if we had,
although probably another manager would
Q241 Mr Flook: Do you think that as an commend the oYcers for thoroughness in terms of
organisation you work closely with the police when looking for class A drugs.
it comes to cultural objects coming into the country?
Mr Fuchter: Yes, I think we do. It is my particular Q245 Mr Flook: But I still get the impression, and it
team that liaises with the Art and Antiques Unit. is not your responsibility, that there are only a
The numbers are small, but we do work pretty handful of Metropolitan policemen and not many
closely. We probably work more closely with the others in other police forces and quite a number,
Department. although a decreasing number, of Customs & Excise
who are more concerned about the importation of
Q242 Mr Flook: With the Home OYce? illegal drugs than they are about cultural objects or
Mr Fuchter: No, DCMS. Britain being used as an entrepôt for the illegal
passing of and money laundering in that way. How
high up do you think your emphasis on cultural
Q243 Mr Flook: In what ways? objects is since the last time you came to see us?
Mr Fuchter: In terms of most of the information we Mr Higgins: I do not think there is any doubt
have had. I have tried to summarise in the paper because class A drugs are one of Customs & Excise’s
some of the recent topical cases, if you like, that we PSA targets that that is very high on our agenda with
have had and I think we are struck that much of that other things like fiscal products, tobacco, and our
is coming through DCMS, but we do work very eVorts to curtail the illegal market in that area.
11 November 2003 HM Customs & Excise
Having said that, we have about 3,500 Customs Q248 Derek Wyatt: So approximately how many of
oYcers at our ports and airports, all of whom or those cases have there been since the Iraqi War?
virtually all of whom have responsibility not only for How many have been opened?
drugs and fiscal products, but for the wide range of Mr Fuchter: Can I just clarify that we can only act in
prohibitions and restrictions for which we are terms of imports in the context of the United
responsible. When those oYcers are conducting any Nations Security Council Resolution 1483 in the
kind of search, they will be aware not only, and the context of Iraq. We do not have any details of exact
example you gave was quite a good one perhaps, of numbers of parcels that we might have opened. We
looking for drugs, but also whether this is an item of know about commercial consignments where we
cultural heritage that we would also have an have set what we call a profile, which is like a flagging
interest in. mechanism, on our import control system and that
has identified cargoes. They tend to be larger
commercial cargoes and we know that we have
Q246 Mr Flook: On that particular point, the Met intercepted those and satisfied ourselves that they
organise the occasional symposium to try to educate did not contain Iraqi antiquities, but I cannot
people who would not know otherwise sometimes comment in respect of a particular package coming
what is a cultural object. Do you have a decent through DHL, I am afraid, as we do not have that
enough budget to put people on that course and do sort of level of detail.
you release front-line staV to go on it as often as you
think should be done, particularly since the whole
reason for us doing this is that it has gone up the Q249 Derek Wyatt: We are told that packages do
scale of priorities, looking at antiques from the come in from Oman and Dubai and are in a bonded
Middle East? Do you think you have allocated warehouse somewhere at Heathrow or near
enough resources and picked the right people to go Heathrow and then somehow make their way across
on those courses? to America. How does that work? You send it to
London and then somebody comes in, changes the
Mr Fuchter: I am not aware, I will be honest,
address and it goes on to New York without anyone
whether we have sent anyone on that particular
intercepting it?
course, but what we do, and in fact this is going on
Mr Fuchter: I would speculate, and it is speculating,
anyway and it was not generated by the particular
that it is quite possibly originally addressed as
interest in Iraq, is to conduct seminars. They are
enroute to New York, but because of the way the
quarterly, but they are in diVerent parts of the UK.
freight companies operate sort of a hub system, if
We go around the UK constantly keeping awareness
you like, then that parcel could well transit through
topped up about export controls generally, and
Heathrow. I understand that is what happened in the
cultural goods form part of that seminar. In terms of
case of the Golden Guns where there was never any
the front-line detection staV in the context of
intention for that parcel to come into the UK, but it
imports, it is back to more the immediate alerts on was what we call in transit to the USA. In essence,
the Intranet which we know is a means of Customs in terms of cultural goods, we are in some
communication that people will use, but I was not diYculty there. Parcels coming through somewhere
personally aware of this training and I think we like Heathrow will not touch down in the UK for
would be happy to consider it. There is always an very long and our staV are aware that they have to
issue that we would probably not train 3,500 staV move very quickly if they want to examine anything
and it would be a case of targeting as I find in other in transit.
similar areas of responsibility.
Mr Flook: Perhaps we can ask the Clerk to forward
the details to Mr Fuchter. Q250 Derek Wyatt: Let’s assume it comes into
Chairman: I apologise for not being here at the start Britain rather than being en route to America. Do
of the meeting and thank Alan for taking the Chair. you have X-ray facilities so that you do not
necessarily have to undo things and you can actually
X-ray to see? Is that common?
Q247 Derek Wyatt: Can you just explain again the Mr Higgins: There are certainly X-ray facilities at
import side. Say, a DHL bag comes in from Oman Heathrow, not at all airports.
or Dubai which might have something like computer Mr Fuchter: And we do have them at the main postal
parts in it, but you are nervous. What actually depots, yes.
happens if you think it is not computer parts? Where
does the package go? Q251 Derek Wyatt: And how many real experts do
Mr Higgins: Well, it depends why we are nervous. If you have on Iraqi antiques in Customs & Excise?
it is from a regulatory point of view, then the You said you send stuV out, but where are the
business services people will pick that up as being a experts then?
mis-described entry either because it is mis-described Mr Fuchter: I am not aware that we would have any
for valuation or whatever. If we are nervous because particular experts and it is not our approach to
it is being smuggled in the sense of cultural goods, employ experts in Iraqi antiquities directly. We
our detection staV will ask the airport authorities to would go for expertise to the British Museum or
present that particular package for examination and some similar authority if there were to be a suspect
to open it to verify whether or not it is the correct detection. I think really it is impractical for us to
description or whether it is something which is being engage in it. When something like the Iraqi
smuggled and liable to forfeiture. antiquities issue comes up, it is more about
refocusing those people out there who are good at Mr Higgins: Could I just make one comment which
looking for things, understanding risks and are well is that Customs of course is not responsible for the
trained to search for things, look for space and people element. That is for the Immigration Service,
things like that rather than quickly teaching them although we do find them.
about Iraqi antiquities, so it is raising awareness
rather than skills transfer, if you like.
Q257 Ms Shipley: Interestingly, Customs & Excise
took the time to talk to me about how they could find
Q252 Derek Wyatt: What successes have you had
people, how they could X-ray people, how their
then on Iraqi antiques?
Mr Fuchter: We have not made any detections of equipment could find people, but they never once,
Iraqi antiques being attempted to be smuggled into and you are making my point really, talked about
the UK. cultural objects, which they are responsible for.
Now, I would suggest that actually the people-
smuggling is hugely more important and serious
Q253 Derek Wyatt: So is it that you think that it is than the art ones and I am glad that they did talk
just hype that people are saying that hundreds and about it and it is to their credit that they did, but, and
hundreds and hundreds of small items are coming here is the but, how high in the priorities is what we
through? We are being told that they are coming are discussing today?
through at some alarming rate, but you do not think Mr Higgins: I am not surprised they talked about
they are? people because I suspect you were at a port in the
Mr Fuchter: We have not received any intelligence south-east somewhere where our people do pick up
saying, “This is the sort of profile of what is people in the backs of lorries, et cetera, through the
happening”. We have been looking and we have
checks that we do for our own assigned matters. In
looked in both commercial consignments and we
terms of tobacco, in terms of drugs, in a sense I am
have stopped passengers, but we have not found
not surprised that they focused on that because that
anything. When it started to emerge that a lot of the
is where our main PSA targets are and that is what
antiques may actually still be in Iraq, we were careful
they find most of all, but we have a long list of other
to ensure that we did not all switch oV and I think
we introduced a hastener to our Intranet alerts to all items which we are responsible for administering in
staV, but the bottom line is that we have not found terms of primarily import prohibition and
anything in the course of our activities. restrictions and whereas they may not have
mentioned that to you, I have no doubt at all that
they will have been very aware that in their searches
Q254 Derek Wyatt: Has the UNESCO Convention, for drugs, tobacco or whatever, those items are of
now we have signed up, had implications for staYng interest and will be a matter which, if found, need to
for you? be taken forward for possible forfeiture and seizure.
Mr Fuchter: No.
Q255 Derek Wyatt: And you do the imports as well Q258 Ms Shipley: What would you say your
as the exports now? working relationship with the police, the specific
Mr Fuchter: We will not act against all imports until specialised police, is?
the new Act is in place at the end of the year. Mr Fuchter: As far as I know, it is good. As I said in
response to the earlier question, the Art and
Q256 Ms Shipley: I recently, very recently, in the Antiques Unit liaise with my team and we
last week or so, had the opportunity to spend a few disseminate what they give us and vice versa, I
hours with Customs & Excise at one of our ports and understand, so we regard that as eVective.
actually it was very impressive. It was very, very
interesting and very, very impressive and I can see
Q259 Ms Shipley: Given that there is always room
very clearly how people have focused on people-
for improvement in everything, how would you
traYcking, which is hugely important and probably
improve things?
the most important, and drugs, hugely important,
lots and lots and lots and lots of talk about Mr Fuchter: I think we are interested in the database
cigarettes, and I know there is a revenue issue there, of stolen and what ultimately, I suppose, will be
but compared to drugs and people, I would not put tainted objects as well. We would certainly be
it that high on the focus, but lots and lots and lots of interested in that. It is diYcult to say. I suppose a
talk about cigarettes, cigarettes and more cigarettes flow of intelligence probably both ways, but to go
and that was it really. There was not a peep about back to the earlier point about the presentation,
what we are discussing today. Not one single person Customs oYcers are intelligence-driven and if the
raised anything about it, not when I was looking at presentation very much focused on imports, then I
the X-rays that can be done, not when I was talking would not expect them to say much about cultural
directly one to one, not when they were talking goods because, perhaps aside from the response to
about the intelligence coming in, and it was an the Iraqi antiquities which has tended to be at certain
excellent presentation, truly outstanding work, and key ports because they get certain traYc from the
I would suggest that this is below zero on the priority high-risk countries, I would not expect that you
list, possibly with good reason. Could I have your would hear much about it as it would be part of our
opinion on that? export responsibilities.
Q260 Ms Shipley: You have just said that a flow of against the owner/importer/smuggler of those
information both ways is what could be improved, goods, they are two separate things. The point there
so tell me where the problem is at the moment with is that in the new Act, it could have said, “Well, in
the flow of information both ways. section 1(1) let’s create a prohibition on the
Mr Fuchter: I am not sure there is a problem because importation of tainted goods”, but I have to say that
if there were a problem, it might manifest itself, for Customs fully accept the complexity had that been
example, with NCIS and we are strategic customers the option that was taken, so I do not think it is a
of NCIS, we inform them also, but we draw on their loophole per se. It is probably a case of standing
annual UK threat assessment. If there were to be back and looking at the options being an import
sitting in NCIS, for example, a number of licensing regime, a complete prohibition or dealing
intelligence logs that are going nowhere, there are no with it, as is the option, in terms of tainted goods. It
operational units to adopt them or develop them, looks to me, coming at this from a Customs oYcer’s
then that would indicate that there is a problem. If point of view, that this was probably the only
there is no intelligence, is it because no one is looking realistic starting point, and that is my interpretation,
or because it is not happening on the huge scale that in terms of putting into place some import controls
anecdotally people suspect? That is probably the on cultural goods. At least we can now act in terms
challenge we are facing. We are not swamped with of enforcement. I think there would be challenges as
referrals from, for example, the London market to how tainted goods looks in practice and is
saying, “Hey, Customs, this is another thing you definable in a court of law. From our point of view,
missed”. I know that sounds reactive, but it is an prohibition is easier, but we fully accept the DCMS
indicator that we are not getting deluged, and representations that to have everything prohibited
hopefully we would not wait until we are deluged, of this nature at Heathrow would cause the holding
but there are no indicators which suggest we are up of passengers and goods in a way that would
looking in the wrong direction or anything like that. attract a lot of criticism.
Q261 Mr Doran: Hearing other witnesses in this Q262 Mr Doran: It seems to me that even if you
area, it seems to me that there are two clear have information that something is tainted—that is
problems. One is the lack of a national strategy my interpretation of your paragraph 11, that
which I get the feeling we are slowly groping something is tainted—you do not have the power to
towards, but we have still got some way to go, and search for it.
the other is the relatively low priority in some areas Mr Fuchter: That is right.
which is given to the theft of or dealing in cultural
objects. When I look at your own submission, and Q263 Mr Doran: What is the point of it and how
this is not something I blame Customs & Excise for does it work?
because you are not responsible for your own Mr Fuchter: To some extent we need to wait and see,
legislation, but it does strike me that there are a but our assessment is that in terms of exports, there
number of gaps in the way the system is operating at will very probably be suspicion in terms of an export
the moment. In your evidence in 2000 it was quite licensing matter which will enable us to activate our
clear that you had no statutory right to interfere powers in relation to exports, so I do not think there
unless there was some other taint, if you like, to the is a problem. With imports there could be some
objects, and an association with firearms I think is isolated cases, but again our best assessment at this
mentioned in your paper. In the latest one, I see at stage is that there will be implications which will
paragraph 11 of your submission you say, “There is allow us to use those powers, for example, a false
no specific prohibition or restriction in the Act that declaration or valuation of the goods. To use an
will allow Customs to use powers of search and example of one of the cases we have referred to, the
forfeiture in CEMA. Customs’ power to search for Bulgarian jewellery and Roman coins, although not
suspected tainted goods will be confined to cases of particularly high value, under the future
where cultural objects are controlled for other operation of this Act we would still be able to act
purposes (eg firearms)”. That seems to me like a because there was a failure to declare and those
fairly significant hole in the dyke. goods were liable to revenue, so there was a breach
Mr Fuchter: There are several things there. In terms of the revenue and that is why we acted. It probably
of an overall strategy with DCMS, we would sounds a bit belt and braces, but against an import
welcome it if there is to be more of a “joined- licensing regime, which our understanding is no one
upness”. We think we are very joined up in terms of is really ready for yet (there is a lot more work, I
what we do, and I gave you some examples of that, suspect), and a prohibition, which would probably
but we would certainly welcome the development of be impractical, we think is a way forward.
a strategy and perhaps, as you said earlier, there is
always room for improvement. On the specific point Q264 Mr Doran: It does not sound like belt and
in paragraph 11, what we are trying to relay there is braces to me, but I can understand the DCMS
that normally Customs’ law, if you like, is built situation, and I am sure you do as well. London
around, “Let’s establish something in relation to the accounts for something like 25% of the international
goods” because it is all about goods. If they are arts market which is a very substantial proportion
controlled either by means of a restriction or a and nobody wants to see that damaged, but we do
prohibition over which you can lay enforcement want to see it cleaned up. My concern is that if we are
powers to do with prosecution, or other action going to clean it up, we need to make sure that all the
points in the system, firstly, are working together Q266 Alan Keen: When you came before us in 2000,
and, secondly, that they understand the importance there seemed to be a diVerence between Customs &
of this trade because we heard some information in Excise and the police with regard to that assessment
private from the Metropolitan Police unit which of whether crime was linked to the import of cultural
deals with this area and they are becoming more and objects. Have you had any meetings with the police
more concerned that the trade in illicit objects is since that time to find out what the facts are on it?
becoming linked to the drugs trade. It is another way Mr Fuchter: We have had meetings fairly recently,
of transferring money. Is that something you are not least to probe, “Are we missing any intelligence?
aware of? What is happening? What are the facts?”, as you say,
Mr Higgins: Under the UK threat assessment that and we are not being told there is a lot of information
that Customs could and should be acting upon. I do
NCIS have produced, certainly the potential for that
not want that to sound complacent. We are very
has been identified and we share that as a potential
keen to hear about it and act upon it and I think our
way of money-laundering, as it were, through high- record is pretty good in terms of this. As I said right
value goods. I have to say, however, that we have at the beginning, it tends to be that we get referrals
found nothing which holds up that contention at this more through DCMS and some of those cases that
stage. That is not to say that the opposition, as I put we have summarised where we have acted upon
them, will not get into that. I would venture to them, but we are not aware that there is a pile of
suggest that if that was going on in any particularly intelligence sitting, for example, in any police force
big way, particularly at export, we would have that is not being acted upon.
twigged that because we do run export controls
under the Proceeds of Crime Act on the export of Q267 Alan Keen: If that is the case then, should
currency and other monetary instruments. We do DCMS have a role in getting the facts sorted out?
actually make a lot of seizures through those checks You are saying one thing and the police seem to be
and I am sure we would have come across cultural saying another. Either the police are exaggerating or
goods as part of that. But I do share that as a theirs is just anecdotal and you were correct in what
potential problem area. you have just said, that somebody needs to reconcile
it, or do you think that what the police said in 2000
was really just oV the cuV and not serious?
Q265 Mr Doran: One of the areas of concern which Mr Fuchter: I would not dare say that. I have to say
seemed to come across from the police, it was not intelligence positions do change fairly quickly. I am
explicit and it was not targeted at Customs & Excise, talking about the current picture where, for
was that generally there is a low level of knowledge example, we look at the UK threat assessment and
about what actually is a cultural object and they are the very real points that that points up about the
involved with training with other police forces. potential involvement of organised and serious
What do Customs and Excise do to make sure their criminals, but then we look underneath and see that
oYcers are fully aware and fully trained in this area? this is part of our role to say what should Customs
Mr Fuchter: Really in terms of circulating the nature in the round be doing about this. Well, the first thing
we have to do is evaluate what the “this” is and when
of the goods that are at risk, the specific goods that
we ask for some feel of quantity, what is at risk, what
may have been stolen and are being sought, I have to
is going wide, we are not getting told there is
say I will probably take away from this that we need anything underneath the threat assessment, for
to look again at that. We feel that it is better to train, example, which certainly talks about the potential,
as I said earlier, our oYcers on techniques. We but we are not saying that people are saying to us
would be concerned if we tried to empower them too that there is nothing underneath that. It may be it is
much in terms of expertise in terms of cultural anecdotal evidence, but equally maybe the police
goods, but I have to say most of our focus is on intelligence relates to matters Customs cannot act
enforcement techniques and detection techniques, upon.
relying on an understanding of what goods are at Chairman: Gentlemen, thank you very much indeed
risk, what goods may have been stolen and what and I am very sorry I missed the earlier part of your
goods they should be looking out for. evidence.
Memorandum submitted by the Home OYce
CULTURAL PROPERTY: GOVERNMENT ACTION ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF A

NATIONAL CULTURAL DATABASE IN RESPONSE TO THE SEVENTH REPORT FROM THE
CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT COMMITTEE, SESSION 1999–2000
1. This report aims to set out the Government’s progress on the development of a national database of
unlawfully removed cultural property listed on page xvii of the Committee’s report of July 2000, and printed
in italics below:
“We recommend that the Home OYce make a public commitment in the course of this year to establishing
a national database of stolen cultural property and cultural property exported against the laws of countries
concerned under national police control. The Home OYce should also seek to take forward detailed
discussions with the police service, the insurance industry, the art market and private database operators
about the development of an open system which can meet the needs and draw upon the skills and funds of the
private sector. Finally, the Home OYce should liaise closely with other countries to ensure that any national
development is compatible with wider international development of a database of stolen and illegally
exported cultural property.”
2. The Government’s initial response to the Select Committee Report was published on 31 October 2000.
The Government signalled its determination to take eVective action to combat the illicit international trade
in antiques noting that in May 2000 it set up the Advisory Panel on Illicit Trade (ITAP). Its terms of
reference were to consider the nature and extent of the illicit international trade in art and antiques, to
consider how the United Kingdom can eVectively prevent and prohibit illicit trade and to consider
recommendations (i) to (vi), including those relevant to the Home OYce. The Panel submitted its report,
including ten key recommendations to Ministers in December 2000. Recommendation number 5 stated:
“We propose the institution of a specialist national database of unlawfully removed cultural objects. The
database would cover cultural objects unlawfully removed from any place in the world, whether in the UK
or overseas. Access to the proposed database should be prescribed with carefully regulated and restricted
levels of access by means of a system of security codes. DiVerential levels of access could, for example, be
extended to police forces, public authorities, commercial entities and private individuals.”
3. On 7 March 2001 a Second Special Report was published setting out the Government’s response. The
Government welcomed the ITAP recommendations and in relation to a national database, the Minister of
State at the Home OYce at the time, Charles Clarke, informed the Committee that he had convened a
working party to consider urgently the scope, aims and operation of a national database of stolen/illegally
removed cultural property. Charles Clarke asked the working party to report to him by the end of March.
The report noted that it would be sensible to liaise with other countries in order to ensure compatibility with
other databases worldwide.
4. The Home OYce working party was tasked with considering the scope, aims and operation of a
national database. Representatives were invited from the Department of Culture, Media and Sport, HM
Customs and Excise, the Metropolitan Police (representing Association of Chief Police OYcers, ACPO),
the Metropolitan Police Art and Antiques Unit, the National Criminal Intelligence Service (NCIS), HM
Inspectorate of Constabulary, the Council for the Prevention of Art Theft (CoPAT) and representatives
from the two largest private database operators in the field: Invaluable Group and the Art Loss Register
(ALR). The working party met for the first time in January 2001. At this meeting the two private operators
were asked to produce a draft protocol and paper on the principles underlying the creation of the new
database by the end of February 2001. The Art Loss Register submitted a paper on 13 February 2001, which
was subsequently superceded by a joint paper submitted on 27 February.
5. The working party met for the second time in March 2001. It was attended by the Home OYce, Police
Information Technology Organisation (PITO), HMIC, NCIS, the Metropolitan Police, CoPAT, Invaluable
and the Art Loss Register. The working party agreed that the database should ideally be:
— comprehensive,
— accessible,
— internationally compatible,
— a proactive investigative tool and something that all police forces will use, and
— secure and with guaranteed integrity.
The working party also discussed the paper put forward by Invaluable and ALR.
6. There was concern that there was a potential conflict of interest in having two commercial database
companies as members of the working party involved in the development of a user need and specification,
should they eventually wish to bid for a contract to run the database. There was also concern that the
participation of the two private database operators and their vested interest in a private sector approach
was not allowing the working party to be objective and consider all the options available at that time. As a
result, it was felt that the working party was not being eVective and in June 2001, the working party was
disbanded.
7. It was decided that the best way ahead was to invite the PITO to produce an options analysis on the
best way forward. On 14 November 2001, PITO published their report. The report worked on the
assumption that a new public/private database would need to be created. Its main recommendation was a
partnership between government, police and commercial suppliers at an estimated cost of some £12 million
over five years. In March 2002, a smaller working group made up of police representatives, DCMS and
Home OYce oYcials was reconvened to discuss the PITO report. The Home OYce view that was supported
by police representatives and DCMS was that before considering a complex procurement exercise with such
a large cost implication we should investigate the feasibility of utilising the existing police and NCIS
facilities.
8. On 18 September 2002 a working group meeting took place, the Home OYce, DCMS, Metropolitan
Police, PITO and NCIS were present. Initial discussions focussed on NCIS and the fact that they had agreed
to look into the proposal of housing the database but had not reported back. The Home OYce agreed to
write to NCIS on this issue. It was also agreed at the meeting that a business case for a national cultural
database was essential and consequently DCMS agreed to draw up an outline business case by the end of
October 2002.
9. On 20 September 2002 the Home OYce wrote to the NCIS Director General to propose they house
the database. On 2 October 2002 the Director General accepted the oVer in principle. After careful
consideration the Ministers at the time decided in November 2002 that NCIS should not house the database
on the grounds that it would compromise the strategic focus and clarity of purpose of the organisation.
10. In January 2003 a working group made up of representatives from the Home OYce, DCMS,
Metropolitan Police, PITO, NCIS and HMCE met to reassess the options available to the government. On
22 May 2003, DCMS produced a draft, outline business case and emphasized that the document needed
more work to develop specific recommendations. On 15 July 2003, Home OYce oYcials met with DCMS
oYcials. At this meeting the possibility of looking into expanding the Metropolitan Police database was
discussed, as was the CoPAT proposal that had been sent to both government departments. It was agreed
that the Home OYce would continue pursuing the Metropolitan Police option and that DCMS would reply
to CoPAT on behalf of both departments.
11. On 19 August 2003, Home OYce oYcials met with the Metropolitan Police’s Art and Antiques Unit
to discuss the operational implications of taking on a national role. In September 2003, Ellie Roy, the Crime
Reduction Director at the Home OYce wrote to the Deputy Commissioner, Sir Ian Blair to enquire about
the possibility of building on their current system to provide a national service.
12. The two most likely options, therefore, are a not-for-profit national database established by the
Council for the Prevention of Art Theft (CoPAT) and the expansion of the Metropolitan Police’s database.
The government has been working on both of these simultaneously. The Home OYce has been leading on
the Metropolitan option and the DCMS has been concentrating on the CoPAT proposal.
13. The Council for the Prevention of Art Theft (CoPAT), a registered charity, proposes to run the
database on a “not for profit” basis. The charity would create a project board made up of all user groups,
including representatives from the government departments, police, customs, the insurance industry and the
art market. CoPAT would establish an operating arm to run the service and would contract one or more
private database providers to do this. CoPAT costings for its proposal are still being worked on. Access
would be given to vetted parties and some would be required to pay for this access. Any funds generated in
excess of the running costs would be put back into the charity fund. In the medium to longer term the
database is expected to be self-financing.
14. The Metropolitan Police’s Art and Antiques Unit is currently the only police unit of its kind in the
United Kingdom and the database they run is unique in that same respect. The Metropolitan Police has
valuable expertise that any national database will need to run as an eVective crime reduction tool. The
Metropolitan Police option would entail:
— expanding the capacity of their database so that it would be able to hold over 100,000 items;
— developing web-based access to the art and antiques industry to use for due diligence. The Unit
recognizes the importance of giving access to the trade and acknowledges that in order to
eVectively target the trade in illicit cultural property the art and antiques industry needs to be able
to police itself;
— the Unit estimates costs being in the region of £100–200k per annum. Additional staYng resources
would take up a large proportion of this. The remaining costs are to be allocated to developing the
web-based access to the industry and purchasing the necessary software.
15. Both departments are in the process of assessing which option should be taken forward. The next step
is to allow both options to develop a business case.
— The Metropolitan Police Service has agreed in principle to take on this national role. With ACPO’s
support, the next step is to develop a detailed business plan encompassing exact costings and a
formal assessment of the technical characteristics of the web-based access to the trade. This
assessment will make close reference to the DCMS Business Plan that contains a characteristics
breakdown of what they would consider to be an eVective system for all stakeholders and in
particular the art and antiques trade.
— The CoPAT proposal is being refined and the charity is currently putting together a business plan
that they will submit to the government in the near future.
16. Once both options have developed a detailed business case the government will be able to make an
informed decision as to the best way forward. It has been agreed that any proposal should initially be
developed by the government as a pilot project. The database can then be expanded and altered as is deemed
necessary. The pilot project will ensure that any database delivers to all stakeholders at a reasonable cost.
5 November 2003
Witnesses: Caroline Flint, a Member of the House, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, and Mr Steve
Wilkes, Head of Burglary Unit, Home OYce, examined.
Chairman: We are particularly obliged to you, as of disappears, there are the cultural artefacts, some of
course you are a Minister in another Department, which may be imported into London which is
for having come here today. obviously the major art centre in the world, and then
there is the day-to-day stuV which goes on
Q268 Mr Doran: Thank you very much for coming throughout the country. A lot of burglaries, for
to this inquiry, as the Chairman said. Obviously example, are carried out specifically to get objects
DCMS is the lead Department, but the Home OYce such as, fireplaces, baths and fittings of houses, and
has a very important role particularly in the policing the impression I have from my own experience is
and detection side. One of the issues which has that this is seen as very much the lower end of the
concerned us is what appears to be the lack of a scale and some police forces seem to treat it almost
national strategy for dealing with illicit cultural as vandalism rather than theft. We have a situation
objects and, secondly, the low priority which seems where the Met has a unit, it is a very small unit, but
to be given particularly amongst police forces in this it is obviously very eVective and we have seen the
area. It would be interesting from you just where the oYcers and they seem to be very well trained and
Home OYce sees this issue on the scale of know their stuV. They obviously have a lot of
importance. frustration because there is no network, no one in
Caroline Flint: I hope the memorandum that I have the other police forces throughout the country they
provided to the Committee gave some idea of what can liaise with and then that extends to the other
has been happening since this really was first non-police services involved, like Customs & Excise
initiated particularly in relation to the database. and we have just seen their witnesses. From your
Having looked at the sequence of events, I have been paper and from what you have just said, we are
concerned that it has taken quite a long time to get starting to move, but we are starting from a very
the relevant parties to agree on a common strategy low base.
in this area. Clearly the issue about the placing of Caroline Flint: I think that is a fair point and I would
stolen items of artistic and cultural value is hope that the options we now have on the table, and
important, but it is also seen, I suppose, in the Home one option is that the Met should expand its service
OYce in the scheme of things and against all the in terms of its own database, or there is the other
other competing priorities. For example, the option of the not-for-profit option with CoPAT,
Metropolitan Police when they did do a trail audit of give us a way forward. I think in trying to come to
some 9,000 objects of cultural value, they identified some conclusion on the database and practically
them as being linked to 3,000 burglaries and that is getting it up and running might actually aid and
in a year when up to 75,000 burglaries were assist in getting those forces around the country to
happening in the London area, so it is a diYcult pass information on and get it on the database for
issue. Obviously we are talking about high value, we them to use it, but also for the trade itself, designated
are talking about heritage, we are talking about organisations and groups, not just in London, but
cultural objects of high value, but it also is set against elsewhere around the country to access that
other policing priorities. In relation to some of the database hopefully when it is finally up and running
other areas that I cover in terms of drugs and and give some more sense of importance into this
organised crime, I am aware clearly, and I am sure area. I think the other issues are always trying to
members of the Committee are because you have make sure, certainly in terms of organised crime,
probably taken evidence on this during this inquiry that it is making the links and a burglary involving
or in the past, that there are links between the a major piece of art or what-have-you, making sure
purchase of these objects with a view to laundering that we do not necessarily lose sight of the fact that
money, but also we have some information to that might be a crime in and of itself, but it could be
suggest that they are also being used by terrorists in
linked to other crimes, organised crimes, criminal
terms of financing activities as well. There is some
activities, and I think making those links is
evidence there, but it is not clear to the extent of how
increasingly what we are trying to do in that area
big a role it is playing in relation to organised crime
against the other more traditional uses of money- which is why the Proceeds of Crime Act, looking at
laundering through banks and what-have-you, so it the assets people have at their disposal which may
is important, but it does sit alongside a number of include objects of art and what-have-you, should
other competing and pressing priorities. I think raise question marks as to how they got them and
some of it is actually making some of the links better how they paid for them.
as to when these thefts occur and if they are, they can
be traced back or traced into a wider scheme of
activity involving criminal behaviour, particularly in Q270 Mr Doran: Do you accept that the database,
terms of drug-traYcking and other types of whilst it is important, is not likely to be the solution
organised crime. to all of the problem? I notice in your submission
that there are ongoing discussions about the
Q269 Mr Doran: That is helpful, but one of the Metropolitan Police Art and Antiques Unit taking
diYculties for me though is that this is a crime which on a national role, but perhaps I could suggest to you
operates at a number of diVerent levels. There is the that it is just as important that local forces
higher end and all the major publicity which we see throughout the country develop their own resources.
when a significant painting or work of art There is no point in having a database if you do not
11 November 2003 Home Office
have people trained to understand what a cultural cases, but I will certainly provide some information
object is and what its importance might be in to the Committee of what we know about whether
relation to the database. there are any specialist resources in any of the other
Caroline Flint: I think that is a fair point, but it is also forces, if that is helpful.
against a lot of competing priorities on local forces
in terms of the crimes that they are charged to deliver Q272 Derek Wyatt: Just going back over some of
on. As I say, I think sometimes there could be better Frank’s points on the database, we have the
use of the intelligence to make the links between timetable of events that we started this in May 2000
some of these crimes in terms of, for example, class and here we are in November 2003 and nothing has
A drugs and other organised crime and where the happened. Do you accept that the Police
stealing or acquiring of art and cultural objects is Information Technology Organisation’s estimate of
involved as well. I do not know whether Steve £12 million over five years is the cost of the database?
Wilkes, who is Head of the Burglary Section in the Has that been accepted by the Home OYce?
Crime Reduction and Delivery Team and has been Caroline Flint: Well, we have had various amounts
involved in this issue since August last year, would put to us. One, as you quite rightly say, was the £12
like to tell you more about that and the issues at million or thereabouts put before by PITO, but also
force level and where he might see that linking into in terms of the CoPAT option, it has varied from £6
the Met if they do go forward with an expanded role. million to £1 million and in other areas possibly
Mr Wilkes: I think there are two points I would like under £° million in terms of getting the database
to make. One is that the vast majority of burglary expanded in relation to the Met, so the amount of
involves theft of jewellery, money, hi-fis and videos, money has varied, from what I understand, in terms
not cultural items. That is a very minor part of the of how diVerent organisations have put forward
problem in the UK. The forces have been pushing to diVerent sums. I would like to be able to say that we
tackle the volume crime which is that typically are clear at this point of what should be the final
aVecting people on low incomes in the more amount of money, but actually that has not been
deprived areas and concentrating a lot of their eVort clear because the sums have changed. Steve, I do not
there. The other thing is that the actual provision of know if you want to add any more to that in terms
a national database will help those forces investigate of the variation of bids in this area that we have
those crimes, so it will actually give them a tool received.
which can help, so it will give them some capacity to Mr Wilkes: Certainly PITO identified various
do more to tackle the problem which they do not options around £12 million. We then had a proposal
have at the moment and it is very hard for them from CoPAT in April which came up with, I think it
sometimes to investigate this type of crime. was, a start-up sum of £6 million. In the latest
material I have seen from them it is talking of a much
Q271 Mr Doran: What about the lack of trained smaller figure. Talking to the Met about possibly
oYcers throughout the rest of the country? The Met expanding their database, we are talking about less
seems to be the only one which has a trained team. than £° million. Again in the option put forward by
Are you saying that the resources do not allow that? CoPAT there are still a lot of issues to be resolved
Mr Wilkes: I am not aware of how many forces do about exactly what the database would do, what
have oYcers in this sort of art and antiques-type users want from it, how it will be paid for, so a lot of
unit. I think some have had such units in the past, issues around costs and funding to be resolved yet.
but I would hope that if we get this database up, the
forces would actually think, “Right, we now have Q273 Derek Wyatt: It has been going on for nearly
something we can use to investigate this problem four years, so are we going to fiddle while Rome
and we ought to put more resources in”. burns? Who is actually going to make the decision
Caroline Flint: Perhaps it would be helpful to the then and when are they going to make it? Is it yours,
Committee if we write to you to indicate if there are Minister?
forces and if they have any specialised personnel in Caroline Flint: Well, having come into this and seen
this area. The Metropolitan Police, as in a number the sort of trail which, I agree with you, there does
of other policing areas, have tended to take the lead seem to have been along the way, I think a
on certain issues because of the bulk of activity in combination of departments and others trying to
that area and of course London being the major find a practical solution to the point we are at now,
centre in terms of the arts in the UK and the which is where I suppose I came into this, where the
industry, the galleries, the museums and everything Met who, I should say, initially were not interested
else that is here as well as a trading route for people in playing this role and one of the things which was
who want to buy legitimately, but also unfortunately an obstacle was the issue about whether they were
for those people who want to deal in this area in an prepared to have the database accessed by
illegitimate way as well, so I think that has grown out authorised representation from the industry itself,
of the fact that they deal with the bulk of the business which now we have overcome. We have now got the
in this area and have created this expertise. One Met option and we have also got the CoPAT option.
would hope if there was the option, and, as I say, We are going to provide some funding to have some
there are two options at the moment on the table, independent consultants look at those two options
that they expanded, there is a role within that to alert and I am hoping that we will have an outcome by
and give better guidance and support to the forces March next year so that we can go fully ahead
outside of London where they come upon these knowing exactly the business case that has been
made, be absolutely clear about what sums are actually up and running that need to be taken
needed to make it work and actually make a decision account of, issues around making sure we have the
at the end of all of this. Like yourselves, I have read process for the industry to access the information
through the various meetings and the paperwork because obviously that is another important aspect
since this was started and some of the goalposts have of this, and we want obviously to try and have a
changed because, as I say, the Met now feel they do system where the industry to a certain extent can
want to be part of this which has changed obviously help police it themselves rather than having to ring
the situation quite considerably, but, as you just said through, if it is police oYcers involved, to say, “Can
yourself, the figures involved kept changing too. you check this out? Can you check that out?” and all
of that business, so we need to look at those issues
Q274 Derek Wyatt: And you are not opposed to a about, for example, whoever might have access to it
public-private partnership? initially perhaps changing as it becomes operational
Caroline Flint: No. and there are things we did not think about.
Q275 Derek Wyatt: There is no problem over that? Q280 Derek Wyatt: If I can push you, that sounds
Caroline Flint: We are not opposed to that if we feel like two and a half years’ time.
that it can do the job and it can meet the Caroline Flint: I hope not.
requirements in terms of value for money at the end
of the day. That is an issue that we are not Q281 Derek Wyatt: We have had three and a half
opposed to. years of meetings that have gone nowhere, so the
issues you are raising now must surely have been
Q276 Derek Wyatt: The witness who came in front raised in these meetings previously. They are not
of us last week said, “We expect tomorrow, new issues, are they?
5 November, to look at serious and incredible Caroline Flint: I think you have seen the business
proposals with a realistic time-frame”. Did that plan that DCMS put together and they produced in
meeting happen and is there a realistic time-frame? May this year. We have also had from PITO their
Mr Wilkes: That was the meeting of the Advisory outline of how they think it should be run. It is not
Panel at which CoPAT presented their options and so much about deciding what it should do, but it is
they put together a timetable there, the first phase of just about some practical implementation of how it
which was an initial pilot and then carrying out a will happen and I am as keen as anybody to get this
user-needs analysis and they estimated that that up and running because it does seem to me that the
would take ten months to carry out. basic reasons for having it are agreed and it is just a
question now of evaluating the two proposals we
Q277 Derek Wyatt: Have you approved that or is have got on the table and moving ahead on this and
that just on the table at the moment? then obviously finding the money for it. I would be
Mr Wilkes: No, we have still got that option and the keen, for example, if we can make a decision before
Metropolitan Police option we are still reviewing. March next year, but some of that does depend on
both CoPAT and the Met being able to put forward
Q278 Derek Wyatt: Do you think it would be a detailed business case for their options for the
sensible to have two separate systems, one from the independent consultants to have a look at and agree
Home OYce and one from the Department of with. If the pilot does not show anything new or it
Culture? Do you think that is going to happen, that seems to be running successfully, I do not see why
there will be two separate databases? you have then to wait more time if there do not seem
Caroline Flint: No, I do not think we are saying that to be any hitches in the system. If we have something
we want two separate databases. At the moment we for ten months as a pilot and if it is working all right,
have got the two options. We are going to provide then we can move ahead to full implementation.
funding in the Home OYce to have some Mr Wilkes: I would agree with all of that. I think we
independent valuation of those and I think the idea can get something up and started fairly quickly, but
is that we go with one of those options. At the it will take time to develop. When CoPAT presented
moment we have those two options, so I do not want their proposals to the Advisory Panel last week, the
to preempt it and, as with anything, there are Advisory Panel certainly welcomed them in
probably pros and consultation on both sides, but principle, but had some real issues about exactly
that is why we are going to pay for some independent how it would work, how it would be funded, what
evaluation of it and then come back hopefully with data would be put on there, how it would be put on
a decision for a body to run with this. there, who would have access, so there are still a lot
of issues to be resolved unfortunately, but we are
Q279 Derek Wyatt: So if I have understood your really keen to take them forward and get the
time-frame, March for a decision one way or the database up and running as quickly as possible.
other, then implementation which might take
another year to 18 months? Q282 Alan Keen: I certainly would not argue with
Caroline Flint: We want to pilot it out. The other what you said earlier, that crime involving cultural
issue as well is that we also want to see what happens objects is not one of the number one priorities that
as it starts being actually used. We feel that we do the police service has, but we have always been
need to look at some flexibility in there to see if there extremely impressed by the very small unit of police
are other things we have not considered when it is who specialise in this sort of crime. I cannot
remember whether they said that it will be increased whatever it was it would have helped to explain the
in size. Is that the case or are they just suggesting that story of feeding all those people. If it was one of
it would be a good thing to have more resources? Are those items would it not have been worth an awful
you aware of the current situation for expansion? lot of money?
Caroline Flint: As far as I am aware, there are some Caroline Flint: I think one of the issues raised in
issues at the moment that they are upgrading, for some of the earlier reports was whether there was
example, their technology, which obviously is quite more information we could gather in terms of the
important in this area as well, so there is an insurance industry and in terms of the people who
upgrading in terms of technology they are using and own objects in the UK having them stolen and then
obviously having more information on a database, putting a claim in for them, whether there is any
you have got to keep ahead of the times in terms of information from those sources that could add to
the technology. Also I think there would be some our general knowledge in these areas, but one would
staV implications, but then I think the other aspect have hoped that if there had been a claim against
of this which was a sticking point early on is the something that had been stolen that would be picked
agreement by the Met that it actually helps them if up because it would be reported to the police
there is some organised access from the industry to anyway. It is about closing some of these gaps and
the database in and of itself, so, as I said before, seeing if there is any information we can pool
designated organisations or persons will, therefore, together to give us a better picture of this. As Steve
be able to check out if something that is currently in said, hopefully the database will help forces outside
their possession or which they have come across is of London to be a bit clearer about where they can
something they should be worried about as to go and also for the database to have some additional
whether it has been stolen and how it got there. I resources and staV being able to give better guidance
think some of those operational aspects can help in to forces about what they should be looking out for
terms of the staYng as well so that obviously if and joining up the dots.
someone from the industry identifies something on
the database as a stolen article, it is then that they Q285 Rosemary McKenna: Is there any work going
can obviously say to the police, “Right, this is where on in police forces or in any centralised area within
we need you to investigate this operationally. Here’s the Home OYce on that very subject? When I asked
the article and this is where we got it from”. As far the Metropolitan Police about the recent theft from
as staYng, that is the situation on that, but there the home of the Duke of Buccleuch in Scotland
would be some need for some additional staV in the which was kind of portrayed as a theft because it was
unit and I agree with you that they have a very a piece of art that somebody particularly wanted,
specialised unit and within the boundaries of how they suggested that was not the case, that it was to
they work I think they do a very good job. be used in the future as a source of income. In
Mr Wilkes: The other area they need staYng for is another way it was a crime because it was either to be
because they have increasing areas with other forces used for ransom or insurance purposes or something
where they need to deal with enquiries and material that would bring money to the criminal and not, as
sent to them by the forces and put that on the people have suspected for some time, stolen to order.
database. Is there any way you can gather information?
Mr Wilkes: I do not know of anything oV the top of
Q283 Alan Keen: I was asking some questions of my head. Maybe this is something we could follow
Customs & Excise just before you came in because up.
in 2000 during the last inquiry there did seem to be
a diVerence in perception, and we were not sure what Q286 Rosemary McKenna: I think it is because it
was fact and what was not. Customs & Excise said seemed to me that the Metropolitan Police were
they had not really been given any solid evidence at saying that this could be an increasing incidence. It
all about there being a strong connection between was something quite diVerent from the kind of art
drugs and serious crime and cultural artefacts. theft that most people envisage when they think of
Caroline Flint: I think that is a fair comment from art theft.
Customs & Excise. We know there are links, but the Caroline Flint: I think the diVerence is between
extent of them has not really been thoroughly someone asking for something to be stolen so they
examined in the sense of how large it is in relation to can look at the object and appreciate it compared to
organised crime. I do not know if you have got the idea that an organisation would see acquiring
anything to add to that. such an object and selling it on and adding to the
Mr Wilkes: No. We have anecdotal examples of money for whatever activity they are undertaking,
trading in cultural items being linked but no strong terrorism or some other criminal behaviour. Also,
evidence on the total extent of the problem. with the legislation that has gone through
Parliament we are cracking down on issues
Q284 Alan Keen: Some of my contributions are not concerning financial accounts. So if people can have
really helpful to the inquiry, but it is worth assets not in cash and not in bank accounts but in
mentioning that there is the story (I am not sure objects, that is an issue we need to be looking out for
where it came from) of an alert over a large statue of as money laundering laws bite and the more work we
a heron being translated, when it got to the county are doing with the financial sector to track down
force, into a four foot herring! It crossed my mind dodgy accounts the better. One oVshoot of that
that if it was one of the original fish from AD30 or could be people looking to have assets not in the
traditional sense of bonds or cash. To be honest with resolution on and I will try and do my best to get that
you, that is not something that we have a particular executed as quickly as possible, but we need to make
unit looking at but we cannot take our eye oV the sure from the Home OYce point of view that DCMS
ball in terms of any future developments. are happy with that framework for how we go
forward on this and we will work together to try and
get that done as quickly as possible. I was very
Q287 Chairman: Minister, this is in no way a interested in the trail of events as well and I think any
personal criticism of you because you are a pretty progress was very slow and maybe some of the
recent arrival at the Home OYce, but as has been hurdles should have been pre-empted and moved on
pointed out by Mr Wyatt, we issued our report early quicker from.
in the year 2000. We made a number of
recommendations. Some of those recommendations
relate to the Department of Culture, Media and Q288 Chairman: I accept your goodwill and
Sport and we will be having the Secretary of State although it is patronising to say so, I exculpate you
before us later this morning. The fact is that not one from this mess, but the fact is that it is a hopeless
single recommendation that we made three and a mess. It is three and a half years since we issued our
half years ago has been carried out. It has been report. This trade is not some piece of fancy frippery,
acknowledged by the Metropolitan Police, when we it is not the illicit sale of the odd Gainsborough or
met them and the statistics show this in any case, that something like that, it is a huge international
this illegal traYcking is one of the three worst in the criminal activity which, even if one did not care
world, the others being drug traYcking and this is about the illicit trade in these objects, fuels the drug
used for the laundering of drug money, and the other trade, which is one of the major objectives of the
is armaments. It is acknowledged that London is one Government and the Home OYce. The whole of the
of the world centres of the art trade, it is worth £4 Government machinery is utterly ineVectual. The
billion a year. It is acknowledged that London is one Met have two or three people; Customs & Excise,
of the major centres for this illegal traYcking. The which is not your responsibility, have nobody
police are anxious and have been anxious right trained to deal with these issues; and the Department
through from our previous inquiry to have this for Culture, Media and Sport, heaven only knows
oYcial database. Nothing of any kind has happened. what goes on in that building because it is not any
The memorandum that has come to us from the kind of action. Here we are, we have the Home
Home OYce dated November 5 says you had a series OYce, it is a major department of state, it is not some
of meetings, working parties, etcetera, etcetera, but little tiddler, which is what the DCMS unfortunately
at the end of it all not one single piece of specific regards itself as, it has got immense powers, it has the
action has been taken. Surely this is inexcusable. power to legislate, it legislates all the time. We have
Caroline Flint: Obviously when I came into this I was two Bills from the Department before this House
keen to look at the trail of events as well. I cannot now. What conceivable guarantee is there that if we
make any excuses for that, Mr Chairman. It does make a recommendation in the next two or three
seem as though there have been a series of meetings months or whenever it is that the database should be
of all the parties who could have put something into set up you will not go trundling through this
the pot on this in terms of solutions and along the cumbersome procedure that results in nothing? You
way there seem to have been a number of obstacles mentioned Charles Clarke, I cannot remember the
that should have been foreseen. I do not want to number of oYces that Charles Clarke has held since
prejudice any outcome in terms of the two options he took this action in paragraph 3 of your note. As
we have currently on the table from the Met and I say, it is like a steward on the train when something
from CoPAT. The most practical way forward from goes wrong, you are the person who is here and
my point of view would have been if the Met could therefore you are in the firing line even though it is
have been seen as a major player in terms of not your responsibility. Can you give us a guarantee,
expanding their service. I understand that the block if we make a recommendation within the next few
there was that at that time the Met wanted a closed weeks that this database be set up and be set up by
database, they did not want to have access outside of the Home OYce and be an oYcial database, that it
themselves and so that was a sticking point in terms is your intention to do it and it will happen next year?
of running the system. That seems to have been Caroline Flint: It is our intention to get it up and
turned around now and we have had an running next year. I cannot disagree with what you
acknowledgment from the Met that they are have said. What I want to be sure of and what I have
prepared to have open, if regulated, access outside of asked oYcials to assure me of is that the two options
the police service to the database and that is good. on the table, both the Met option and the CoPAT
There was another issue of conflict in that two option, are options that actually both Home OYce
organisations on the working party that Charles oYcials and DCMS oYcials feel are valid ones. I do
Clarke set up were also interested in competing for not want to be in a situation, if we are moving
the database and then there were issues about forward with these two options, where suddenly
whether they should be on the working party or not someone turns round and says it is back to the
and there were procurement issues. As I said, there drawing board again. We have had a lot of going
are a number of reasons why it has not happened, back to the drawing board in relation to this issue.
but that does not of itself justify the fact that nothing In terms of my brief, I am trying to make sure that
happened. We seem to have two options that show the advice I am getting is that these are two viable
a way forward which we can hopefully come to some options. There are issues with both of them that need
to be looked at and there are issues about Mr Wilkes: These independent consultants will be
procurement in there as well, but we are satisfied that really helpful because I have not really had the
there is a case for one or the other being the way capacity or skills in my team to put enough eVort
forward. In order to show our goodwill the Home into this database. So getting some independent
OYce is providing the finance to have these consultants in to get to the bottom of all these issues
independently assessed and we will move forward will really help us make the final decision.
with supporting the pilots next year. I am trying to
make sure that this database can be up and running
next year and be part and parcel of trying to deal
with the illicit trade of goods in this area. We are
committed to getting that sorted out. At the Q289 Chairman: If I may, and once again without
moment, in terms of getting the proposals from the being patronising, let me give you a tip and that is
Met and CoPAT, we have been told they will need this. You mentioned in the course of your response
until February to put those in to us for independent to me “the advice I am getting,” but advice is a recipe
assessment. If they could do that earlier than that for protracted inaction. Ministers tell civil servants
then that would be great. In terms of any pilots, if what to do and I suggest you tell them rather than
they show that they are working well then I do not wait for their advice because their advice will keep
see why the pilots need to go on just for the sake of you going until you move on to your next job, no
it, especially if we can then say we are happy, it is doubt a promotion and somebody else takes your
working in practice as well as it worked on paper, let place.
us move on. I do not know if there is anything from Caroline Flint: Mr Chairman, I can assure you that
the oYcial side you want to say to back up that these I am making sure the advice they give me stands up
are the options we feel we are going to make a to my scrutiny, but I have also told them I want this
decision on and I hope they are, I hope the advice I sorted out asap.
am getting is right on that because I do not want to Chairman: Thank you. We are very pleased to see
be back to square one. you.
Witnesses: Rt Hon Tessa Jowell, a Member of the House, Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport,
Dr David Gaimster, Senior Policy Adviser, Cultural Property Unit, and Mr Alan Davey, Director of Arts
and Culture, Department for Culture, Media and Sport, examined.
Q290 Chairman: Secretary of State, we would like forward and much of the last two or two and a half
to welcome you here today. Is there an opening years has been spent on negotiating those
statement you would like to make? diVerences. We are now at a point where I think
Tessa Jowell: No, there is not. This is a follow-up there is agreement about a number of the features of
session from the earlier session that we did at the the database. First of all, that it should be open. This
beginning of the summer, so, no, I am ready to take particular point points to a point of diVerence
your questions and do my best to answer them. between my Department and I think particularly the
Chairman: Thank you. Derek Wyatt. police who wanted to see a database to which only
Q291 Derek Wyatt: We have been quizzing your they would have access. My Department sees this
colleague Caroline Flint about the database issues. database as allowing due diligence by those who
It does seem to us incomprehensible that it is nearly want to acquire a particular object and checking it
four years and still there does not seem to be the against the database is a means of ensuring that that
likelihood of a database. Can you explain to us why process of due diligence has been undertaken. I have
this decision is taking so long to make? to say that I think the methodology of the database
Tessa Jowell: First of all, I think I can reassure you has also been clarified by the process of working up
that we are now, eventually, at a point where the proposals and then taking through the recent
certainly a pilot project for the database looks likely legislation in relation to stolen or removed cultural
to begin either at the end of this year or early next objects.
year. I agree with you, it has taken a very long time
to make progress and I have taken some trouble to Q292 Derek Wyatt: Is it your view that, with a fair
try to understand exactly why we face the degree of wind now, given the three and a half years lapse, a
delay that we have and it will be for you to judge pilot might start some time in the new year, maybe
whether the reasons are sound. It might be helpful to in March, as we were told by the Home OYce half
you if we submit as a further very short an hour ago, but that it might be another 18 months
memorandum an analysis of the period of time since before we have finally got this up and running? So it
your recommendation was made and the two will be nearly six years since this was muted. Do you
relevant departments, my Department and the think the pilot will run for three months or six
Home OYce, embarked on their work. By way of months?
explanation it is important to say two things: first of Tessa Jowell: The intention is that the pilot will run
all, this is an extremely complex project; and for a year. The pilot itself will be reasonably
secondly, there have been, and indeed remain, inexpensive, the estimates are about £300,000. The
diVerences of view between my Department, the costs of the fully established database will obviously
industry and the Home OYce about the best way be greater than that. I think one of other reasons that
11 November 2003 Rt Hon Tessa Jowell MP, Dr David Gaimster and Mr Alan Davey
there was a delay in the early stages was that some Q295 Derek Wyatt: In July 2000 the Prime Minister
very alarming estimates of cost were produced for issued a statement jointly with the Prime Minister of
which neither department had any financial Australia in which he endorsed “the repatriation of
provision. The timescale is now established. The indigenous human remains wherever possible and
pilot will be up and running. It will run for a year. So appropriate from both public and private
in March 2005 I would expect us to be in a position collections”. That was also three years ago. Will
to be able to make a judgment about the form of the there be a timetable published with Professor
final database and for work to be undertaken there. Palmer’s report so that we have a better idea of what
I fully understand your scepticism about the length is intended with respect to all this?
of time. I share that scepticism. Having looked in Tessa Jowell: Again, this has taken a considerable
detail at the history, I am persuaded that there are period of time. When I have probed this, the reasons
answers to the doubts about whether or not this has are various. As you will have heard from Professor
really been a process in which all the necessary Palmer in his evidence, this has been a matter of
people have been fully engaged. great complexity. As is often the case with such
advisory groups, there are diYculties in getting
people together. I understand that Professor Palmer
Q293 Derek Wyatt: When you make a decision in had a period of illness. All these have been factors
March 2005 it will not be the case that either you or which have contributed to the working group sitting
the Home OYce cannot aVord the system, will it? for the length of time that it has and I think, in
Tessa Jowell: By then we will be facing a new fairness, we all owe a debt of gratitude to Professor
spending round. We will have to find the means to Palmer and the members of the group for the
fund this. It will be new expenditure for my thoughtful and helpful report they have produced. I
department and I am sure it will be new expenditure do not think they were given any deadline by which
for the Home OYce. It will be a new proposal and they were expected to report. So the timescale that
we will have to secure the money in order to they were given was an open-ended timescale. We
implement it in the normal way. now have the report, it was published last week and
Derek Wyatt: Can I move on to Professor Palmer we are proposing to undertake a period of further
who came to see us last week. consultation on the recommendations that have
been made.
Q294 Chairman: Before you do that, Derek, I would
just like to recapitulate because until you just said Q296 Derek Wyatt: Last Tuesday he was in front of
what you said I thought maybe I was not hearing us and on Tuesday evening there was a Channel 4
right. I have just been described in another forum I News excerpt where it seemed, certainly from the
have been in this morning as senile and cracking up television coverage, as though the Natural History
and it may well be that because I am senile and Museum was not signed up to this process and
cracking up I misheard. We recommended this back would not be so keen to be involved in expatriation.
in July 2000. You are now telling us that a decision Could you comment on that?
will be made in 2005. What has taken five years, Tessa Jowell: I have been interested in this. I think
including the 16 months still to come? you have actually had Sir Neil Chalmers, the
Tessa Jowell: I have tried as candidly as I can, Chairman of the Natural History Museum, in front
Chairman, to set out for you the reasons for the of you. He produced a minority report and there are
length of time because I do not think that those who undoubtedly areas where he disagrees with the main
have been engaged in this process see it as a delay. recommendations. I think that we need to probe his
They have addressed the process as a form of dispute reasons for disagreement as part of the consultation
resolution because there is a disagreement between that will now follow. For instance, Sir Neil
the best model for providing the database. Some Chalmers’ view is that the proposal for an advisory
time has undoubtedly been taken exploring what panel is overall prescriptive. He is of the view—and
have been two contrasting models. As to why it will I think that this is an important point of policy that
take until 2005, I hope I have explained the reason. we need to think about and to address—that the
There is now suYcient agreement in order to begin recommendations are based on a presumption that
this. The pilot will begin next year. It will run for a where a claim is made the remains will be returned.
year. This is a new service. The proposal, quite I think that we will have to engage the public policy,
rightly, no-one would have expected this, by your the public interest, the scientific, medical and ethical
Committee was not a costed proposal. The process and other reasons as to why not every application by
of the last three years has been trying to scope the a national government or group may result in the
return of the remains. I think that Neil Chalmers has
proposal and get to grips with its costs and, as I say,
raised some significant points, particularly
the costs have been widely divergent. One estimate
significant for the British Museum, that we need to
put the cost at around £12 million, another has put
address.
the costs at a much more modest level. These have
been the issues which have driven the period of time
that it has taken to get us to this point, but I hope Q297 Derek Wyatt: So if you are going out to
you are reassured by the fact that there is now further consultation, what is the timescale in your
agreement on the way forward and an agreed date in own mind as to when there will be decisions reached
March next year when the pilot will begin. on this?
Tessa Jowell: The period of consultation is and the Treasury for Customs & Excise. We have
consistent with the Cabinet OYce guidelines, it will heard police evidence, we have heard Customs
be a three month period of consultation. evidence and it is quite clear that there are serious
deficiencies in the resources which are applied and
Q298 Derek Wyatt: Secondly, one of the problems the training of oYcers who may be dealing with
is that the Natural History Museum considers itself cultural objects. The Met has three oYcers for the
to be the best in the world and we understand the whole of London and the centre of the world art
reasons for that, but is there a way in which the trade, for example, and no dedicated oYcers in
Natural History Museum could open up in Sidney as Customs and minimal dedicated oYcers throughout
part of another Natural History Museum, an the rest of the country. Is that an issue which
association or a partnership? If they are scared about concerns DCMS and is it something which you are
scholarship or if they are worried about how they applying pressure on?
will be treated, they could have some say in that, but Tessa Jowell: Yes, it does concern me. Much of this
that actually aborigines and Maoris, mainly fragmentation was thrown into very sharp relief by
aborigines, could get access to this in their own our intervention to support the situation facing the
country. Is that an area that you broached with the National Museum in Baghdad and the situation
Natural History Museum itself? more generally in Iraq. Yes, I think there is a degree
Tessa Jowell: It is not an issue that I have yet of fragmentation which we can overcome. We can
broached with the Natural History Museum. It is an overcome it as long as we have a common
issue that I certainly will. It is an issue, as I am sure understanding about the best way in which to
you will understand, which is raised across the board proceed, hence the importance of the debate about
in relation to the positioning of our great museums the database. Over the last six to 18 months we have
as global institutions. I think this reflects the established a greater degree of clarity in relation to
changing role of museums in the modern world
the policy more generally. First of all, signing up to
where natural ownership may be less relevant than it
the 1970 UNESCO Convention has established a
was 20 or 30 years ago. I am very open to those kinds
date line beyond which we are responsible as a
of discussions. It may well be that one of the
government for honouring the terms of the
consequences of the debate in relation to Professor
Palmer’s report is to do just that. UNESCO Convention in relation to stolen or looted
artefacts, so I think that that provides a degree of
clarity. Secondly, I think the action that has been
Q299 Derek Wyatt: Are you going to set up a
taken in Iraq, the gaps that were revealed in relation
further working group to look at sacred objects
to our eVorts in Iraq and our ability to support the
within collections, as recommended by the Human
Private Member’s Bill so that we now have a new
Remains Working Group?
oVence on the Statute Book which will be eVective at
Tessa Jowell: Sacred objects is a part of the overall
debate that we have not really addressed. This will be the end of next month closes a very important
part of the consultation and that will be a first stage, loophole that was revealed in the context of Iraq, but
an opportunity to address those particular issues it was also a loophole that had concerned many of
and if it is necessary to set up a further working those in the industry for a very long time. I think the
group then I will do that. What I am not keen to do third area of progress is the work that we have been
is to build in indefinite delay rather than confronting able to do with particularly the Art Market
some of these diYcult issues and helping the trustees Foundation and the other relevant organisations
of our museums to reach a conclusion. whose integrity and credibility rests on their
commitment to fighting, I mean the shadier parts of
Q300 Derek Wyatt: In Professor Palmer’s report the market. I think we now have the commitment
there is an audit of what is there for human remains, from those organisations which police the industry,
but we do not yet have an audit of what we have in we have the commitment from Government through
sacred remains. Is that going to get commissioned legislation and we have the commitment from
anyway? Government through the action we are taking to
Tessa Jowell: That will be part of the consultation. establish a database that means that we are in a
I am certainly very happy to talk with the museum much clearer position and will be once we have the
directors and to ask them to undertake such an audit national database established in 2005 than certainly
for the sake of completeness. has been the position to date. I think it is important
Derek Wyatt: Thank you. to reflect on the extent to which this is an area of
policy to which everybody is prepared to sign up.
Q301 Mr Doran: Obviously the discussion about You do not get many people saying they think that
the database is important, but what I want to probe allowing looting or the theft of treasures from one
a little is how that fits in to the rest of the strategy, if country to another or a market in stolen and looted
there is one, because the evidence we have heard so goods is a good thing, but, as your question reflects,
far about the weakness of the system has certainly putting the action in place to deal with it is
concerned me. Even if we have the database, I would considerably more challenging because we rest on an
be concerned about how it would operate and there international convention, UNESCO, we rest on
are a number of areas I want to probe. The first is the industry commitment to sign up to the policing of
co-ordination between the government departments self-regulatory action which the industry can do and
involved, particularly the DCMS, the Home OYce then, of course, there is a role for government, there
is a role for the police, but it works most eVectively Q305 Mr Doran: That takes us back to priorities.
in a context of those other measures being properly Tessa Jowell: You are absolutely right and I would
in place. not want to mislead the Committee in suggesting
that this was an area of our collective responsibility
as a government that is suYciently well resourced. I
Q302 Mr Doran: All the evidence is that there is a think that we will be in a better position because of
complete lack of resources in this area being devoted the measures that have been put in place, but clearly
by the police and by Customs & Excise. Is that we will have to make an assessment in the light of the
something that concerns you? impact of the legislation, the database and so forth
Tessa Jowell: It is. In terms of the scale of the as to the likely need for further resources. It is also
problem, I think this is likely to be an under- important not to load too much onto what was a
resourced area. When we were very concerned Private Member’s Bill. If this is action the
recently about the evidence that some treasures Government wishes to take then it should form part
which had been removed from museums in Iraq were of government legislation.
being taken across the border, first of all we were Dr Gaimster: Our legislation is really all about
able, through the negotiation of UN Resolution changing the culture in the marketplace, it is not
1483, to ensure that sanctions remained in relation about putting people into jail and that has always
to prohibiting the removal of treasure from Iraq. been our approach. It is about making due diligence
Secondly, through discussion with Treasury more eVective for the marketplace, encouraging
ministers we have been able to achieve greater better practice and that is what the Bill does. It is
vigilance by Customs & Excise in relation to the very short, it has only got six clauses including its
scrutiny of items that are coming into the country. I title. It is not a comprehensive protection in that
would be misleading you if I were to suggest that this sense but it helps, it is a contribution to transforming
is an area of work which is suYciently central and the culture in the marketplace in the UK.
suYciently well resourced for us to provide
comprehensive protection both for other countries Q306 Mr Doran: I understand that, but some of the
where we wish to provide that or comprehensive other evidence that has come before us, which I
protection domestically against the unlawful and think we are beginning to accept is mainly anecdotal,
illegal art market which operates, but we are making shows signs of a link between the trade in illicit
progress and I think I would like to reflect further on cultural items and drugs and firearms and money
the eVectiveness of that in the year 2005. laundering. These are issues that we have to take
seriously. Whilst I accept that this is not meant to be
a belt and braces approach and I accept that
Q303 Mr Doran: It sounds as though it is still a low sometimes you have to work to change cultures,
priority for some departments. there are what seems to be a couple of other gaps.
Tessa Jowell: It has been a low priority. It has Am I right in thinking that the legislation does not
become a much higher priority for my Department. extend to Scotland?
As I hope I have made clear, the reason it has Dr Gaimster: That is right.
become a higher priority is because of Iraq. One of
the lasting eVects of the action that we took in Iraq Q307 Mr Doran: I am attracted by the idea of the
will be to generalise the vigilance that we applied international art market moving from London to
there to other countries. Scotland.
Tessa Jowell: Yes, moving to Aberdeen!
Q304 Mr Doran: You mentioned the Private Q308 Mr Doran: On a serious point, is that
Member’s Bill, the Dealing in Cultural Goods something which is being discussed with the Scottish
(OVences) Act 2003 and obviously that is an Executive?
important step. Customs say in their submission that Dr Gaimster: Of course we cannot legislate in
there is no specific prohibition or restriction in the Westminster on behalf of Scotland on devolved
Act that will allow Customs to use powers of search matters such as criminal justice. In the meantime we
and forfeiture in their own and dedicated legislation. are talking to our counterparts at oYcial level in the
So Customs’ powers to search for suspected tainted Scottish Executive and they are scoping bringing
goods will be confined to cases where cultural forward a parallel measure in Scotland at the
objects are controlled for other purposes, eg foreign moment and we are hoping to hear the outcome of
arms. They do not have the powers to act where the that exercise very shortly.
only issue is whether they are dealing with cultural
property or not, it is only when it is connected with Q309 Mr Doran: I do not want to try and trap you
something else, perhaps drugs, firearms or some on this one, but I have been given a note about some
other illicit material. That seems a terrible gap in legal evidence which was given to ITAP and
the Act. apparently they have received legal advice to the
Tessa Jowell: I understand that when the legislation eVect that if DCMS discovers that a cultural object
was being drafted Customs & Excise actually is illicit or tainted then the Department does not
resisted inclusion of those powers because they were have the power or the right to refuse to issue an
concerned about the resource consequences for export licence, at least if the object originates from
them. outside the EU. That seems to me a strange
situation. I have got an example which I will run to organised crime and we have to be vigilant about
through very quickly. For example, if dealer X in that, but certainly all the trade institutions are signed
London has an illicit object from China and he up to co-operate with this.
applies for an export licence to take it to
Switzerland, DCMS checks up the detail of the Q312 Chairman: Secretary of State, in the report
export licence application and finds that the object is that we issued approximately three and a half years
illicit, but the Department nevertheless has to issue ago we said, among other things, “We very much
an export licence. The concern is that that gives some welcome the view taken by the British Museum in
legitimacy to what is really an illicit item, so it can be making clear and unequivocal statements that it
moved on. Again, that seems to be a gap in the would wish to return objects looted during the
legislation. I do not know if you have had a chance period 1933–45 and not subsequently returned. We
to consider that legal advice. recommend that ministers in the Department of
Tessa Jowell: I will ask Dr Gaimster to come in on Culture, Media and Sport be in cross-party
this, but we are aware of that gap. There are also consultations as a matter of the utmost urgency”—
issues that we are having to address and on which we and I stress those two words—“with a view to
are taking advice at the moment on compatibility securing agreement for early and expedited
with EU law. legislation to permit the trustees or boards of
Dr Gaimster: It has been one of the key concerns for national museums and galleries to dispose of objects
ITAP, the use of our export licensing regulations, which, in the view of the Spoliation Advisory Panel,
our arrangements there, to see if we can monitor and were wrongfully taken during the period 1933–45”.
kerb the use of our export licensing system as a way The response of your department was: “The
of using the UK to launder objects in the way that Government agrees with the Committee that it
you describe. A working party has been set up by would not be appropriate to give the boards of the
ITAP to focus on this particular issue in more detail. national museums and galleries general powers to
That working party met earlier this year and since dispose of objects in a broader range of
then the Department has been commissioning legal circumstances than is currently permitted, but it also
advice on the way forward. What we can do to adjust agrees that there may be a case for legislation to
our systems is to make them more compatible to permit disposals in very specific and tightly defined
other policies that we are bringing forward such as circumstances. The Government therefore accepts
the new legislation, the Dealing in Cultural Objects the Committee’s recommendation that there should
(OVences) Act. Speaking as secretary of the ITAP, be consultation specifically on the case for
the panel is now turning its attention to areas of legislation to permit the return of human
enforcement for the key areas of policy that they remains . . .”. I will pause at that point because this
have been developing through UNESCO and the is a dual thing. During sessions of this inquiry now,
new legislation and that will be a key area for them in the year 2003, it was indicated to us that the
to consider. At the moment the Department is Department of Health was going to be used as a
requesting and considering legal advice on what is vehicle for that and yesterday at Question Time you
and what is not possible in terms of our current confirmed that. Would you be kind enough to
arrangements. specify exactly what the Department of Health Bill
will provide for and what the timetable for
Q310 Mr Doran: Have you met this problem in enactment and implementation will be?
practice? Are you aware of any examples? Tessa Jowell: I did have some diYculty hearing you,
Dr Gaimster: Yes, we have received several examples Chairman. Can I be clear? Are you asking two
of this kind of problem from the trade and from questions? Are you asking about legislation in
Customs, but ITAP’s policy has always been to try relation to spoliation, and then—
to use the export licensing system as a means of
slowing down the use of the UK as a port of entry Q313 Chairman: I am separating it out, Secretary of
and export for illegally removed and stolen cultural State, because there are two aspects to this. I will
property. read two sentences from your response: “The
Government therefore accepts the Committee’s
Q311 Mr Doran: I understand the softly-softly recommendation that there should be consultation
approach which you are taking, but there are a lot of specifically on the case for legislation to permit the
other issues which are connected to the trade of illicit return of human remains”—that is relevant to what
cultural goods and I mentioned illegal drugs I have just been asking about but I thought that that
etcetera. At the same time we know that London is would split it oV because it is a diVerent matter, and
by far the largest market in the world and it is the rest of the sentence went—“and to permit the
obviously an important economic generator for the return of objects which were wrongfully taken
country. How much does that dictate the approach during the period 1933–45. The Minister for the Arts
that you take? has written to the relevant bodies to set this
Tessa Jowell: London and New York are the two consultation in train”. That latter part I shall come
biggest markets in the world. When I came here the to in a moment. The part that I am wanting to ask
last time I made it clear that the important thing is you about now is “legislation to permit the return of
that the art market in London is a clean art market human remains”. As I say, it was indicated to us in
and the procedures in place are rigorous in dealing a previous evidence session in this Committee, and
with any criminal activity. We are aware of the link you said in terms in the House of Commons
yesterday at Question Time, that there is to be a in response to our report. What I am therefore
Department of Health Bill to deal with the human asking, and it is you yourself who have made this
remains part of it, relating, as I understand it, to quantum leap in assuming it will be in the Queen’s
human tissue. In view of the fact that you have now Speech, is, what will be the timetable for doing it and
confirmed in terms that there is to be such legislation what will be the timetable for its implementation?
from the Department of Health with an input from Tessa Jowell: Chairman, can I just deal with the
your own Department what I am asking for is, what point about revealing what is in the Queen’s Speech?
precisely will be provided for by the Department of I can make clear to you what we would like to see in
Health Bill, when you expect it to be enacted and the Queen’s Speech and how we would like the
when, after its enactment, you expect it to be legislation to be framed. Whether it is in the Queen’s
implemented. Speech is obviously a matter for the Queen and for
Tessa Jowell: The first proviso I have to give, and it the Cabinet and you better than anybody else
was Estelle who answered the question yesterday, is understand the conventions. I have not read the
that this is obviously subject to the final decisions in Hansard of yesterday but I am quite sure that Estelle,
relation to the Queen’s Speech, but we have in answering the question, if she omitted to make the
negotiated with the Department of Health inclusion conditionality clear, would have wished to do so. My
of a clause in the Human Tissue Bill which we hope answer to you is in the following terms, that yes, we
will be included in the Queen’s Speech. Why have we would like to see this legislation in order to take
done it that way? First of all, it is because we did not forward the work of Professor Palmer’s Committee.
expect that it would be possible to secure our own I have just been given a note which makes clear that
separate legislative slot and the principles that the Estelle Morris, the Minister for Arts, yesterday said
Department of Health have already published for that she hoped to use the proposed legislation, so she
their legislation are that first of all explicit consent is was quite clear about the conditionality. I cannot tell
a fundamental principle underlying the holding, you this morning that it will definitely be in the
removal and use of human tissue and, secondly, that Queen’s Speech but we hope. To cut to the quick of
a licensing regime would apply in which a regulatory this, what we would hope to see is a single clause that
authority would be responsible for overseeing would make it possible for trustees who at the
certain activities in relation to human tissue. It is our moment, as you know, have very particular
view that human remains should be subject to the responsibilities which more or less prohibit them
same kind of regulation as is intended for human from allowing de-accessioning of items in the
tissue so that there is a synergy between the collection, to do so specifically in the context of
safeguarding of human remains and the human remains. It would give the trustees discretion
safeguarding of human tissue. to de-accession certain human remains were an
application made by an individual or by another
Q314 Chairman: I am not clear what that means. It government.
is quite unusual for a Minister to make a statement
about forthcoming legislation in advance of the Q316 Chairman: That is fair enough because, as
Queen’s Speech, but that is what you did yesterday. Julie Kirkbride said yesterday, and it was what was
You did it in terms and you did it at the despatch box said round this table when we looked at these things,
on the floor of the House and it was in response to a there may well be very good reasons why a museum
question—I have not got the Hansard in front of would wish to hold on to such material.
me— Tessa Jowell: Exactly.
Tessa Jowell: Yes. Estelle was asked a question by
Julie Kirkbride. Q317 Chairman: And we have never recommended
that it should be compulsory for it to happen. We
Q315 Chairman: That is right She asked you the will have to wait for the Queen’s Speech on that. Let
question. She was at that time, and indeed us take the second part of the departmental
technically still is, a member of this Committee response. “The Government therefore accepts the
though that may change as a result of her Committee’s recommendation that there should be
appointment yesterday. Nevertheless, she asked you consultation to permit the return of objects which
that question. You replied, and it was very much an were wrongfully taken during the period 1933–45.
extension of what was said to us in these precise The Minister for the Arts has written to the relevant
terms, and not by a minister, at a previous sitting of bodies to set this consultation in train”. I went that
this Committee. When a minister commits herself on autumn, representing this committee, to a
the floor of the House to legislation then one conference on spoliation in Vilnius and I read this
assumes, and certainly in your case I would take it out to them and there was great applause for it.
for granted, that that was done in good faith. That Where have we gone since then? We have got a
being so, I do not think it is too much to ask exactly second response in March 2001, nearly two and
what that legislation will do. As was said before this three-quarter years ago, on what was to happen after
Committee and, as you said in the House yesterday, the Minister for the Arts had written to the relevant
it related to human tissue, but I am assuming that bodies. What was said in that was that there had
human tissue includes skeletons, bones and matters been consultation with the National Museums
of that kind. Therefore, I am assuming that the Directors’ Conference, the Museums Association,
legislation to which you referred in the House the Museums Standing Group on Repatriation, the
yesterday will cover the commitment that you made Tate Gallery and Resource, the Council for
Museums’ Archives and Libraries. It went on, and Dr Gaimster: I understand what you are saying,
forgive me for going on at length but this is what Chairman. What it has been recommending in
your department said: “There has been general several of these cases is resolution through
agreement from those consulted that the removal of compensation, and I understand that this has
legislative barriers to restitution should be sought. happened in one case to date, so they are exploring
The Government has begun cross-party discussions recommending other options for resolving claims
about the possibility of permitting the trustees or and compensation has been taken up in one example
boards of national museums and galleries to be able in the last few years. There have been other options
where appropriate to return items which were for resolution. It is not just about the return.
wrongfully taken during the period 1933–45. It is
also exploring the possibility of achieving this by Q321 Chairman: That was not an option that the
means of a Regulatory Reform Order under the Government itself looked at. The Government did
Regulatory Reform Bill currently progressing add, and I have got in front of me what you told us,
through Parliament”. That did not happen. That “The Committee will be aware that on January 18
was two and three-quarter years ago. The immediate the first report of the Spoliation Advisory Panel was
vehicle which was mentioned was not used, so where published. The panel recommended that an ex gratia
are we now, two and three-quarter years beyond payment should be made to the former owners of a
that? painting in Tate Britain of which the owners lost
Tessa Jowell: Two and three-quarter years beyond possession during the Nazi era. The Government
that we have up and working in response to the immediately accepted and implemented this
consultation a panel which is chaired, as I think you recommendation”. Fine, but that is not what I am
know, by Norman Palmer, who reported to you on asking about.
the way it is working last week, or during the course Tessa Jowell: Chairman, let me try and deal with
of this hearing anyway. It has met on six occasions. this. You are absolutely right that there was an
The advice to my department from those who sit on expectation that the necessary legislation would be
the panel is that legislation which might have been taken. The Spoliation Advisory Panel was set up and
necessary is not now thought to be necessary. The part of its job in advising me and acting in
Advisory Panel has the power to direct me as considering specific cases of spoliated property is to
Secretary of State to submit the case for legislation make clear when their powers are inadequate to the
but it has not done so. Since the panel was task before them. They have not done that, and so
established only five cases have been considered. in the absence of a recommendation in practice and
through the exercise of their functions as a panel that
Q318 Chairman: You refer to Professor Palmer. We legislation is necessary, we have not sought to bring
had the immense treat of having Professor Palmer legislation forward. Were they to do so then we
before us last week and if the word “opaque” did not would obviously seek to bring legislation forward.
exist it would have to be invented to describe the way
in which he responded to questions. What I am not Q322 Chairman: Secretary of State, in March 2001
clear about is that our understanding, and indeed the you said you were exploring the possibility of
British Museum made it absolutely clear when they bringing legislation forward. You were going to do it
came before us on the last inquiry, that they could by an order under the Regulatory Reform Bill which
only divest if the law was changed to allow them to was then going through Parliament. It was
divest, and I do not see how the Spoliation Advisory acknowledged then, under your predecessor (you
Panel can require them or enable them to divest were not yet the Secretary of State), that the only
when they told us that their statute did not permit way this could be done would be by a change in the
them to divest unless there was a change in the law. law. The Spoliation Panel under Professor Palmer is
Dr Gaimster: On that question about what the panel without doubt one of the most elegant organisms
can and cannot do, it can recommend DCMS to ever created by government. That is not the point.
consider legislation but it has not actually done so. I The point is this, that the British Museum told us
think the Secretary of State has already made that three and a half years ago that it could only divest if
point. the law were changed because statute did not permit
it to divest even if it wished to. Your department
Q319 Chairman: Sorry, but, whatever it acknowledged that that was so by saying that it was
recommends or does not recommend, was the exploring the possibility of changing the law through
British Museum right when it came before us three a statutory instrument under a bill going through
and a half years ago to say that, whether it wanted Parliament. That did not happen. If the Spoliation
to divest or not (and it envisaged circumstances in Advisory Panel were to make a recommendation it
which it might want to divest) statute would not would be a futile recommendation because the
permit it to divest unless the law was changed? British Museum would still not be able to divest.
Dr Gaimster: That is still the current position. What I am simply saying is that, three and a half
years after we made that recommendation, two and
three-quarter years after the Government wished to
Q320 Chairman: So what on earth is the use of commit itself to legislation, nothing has happened.
having a Spoliation Advisory Panel to make a Tessa Jowell: Chairman, it is simply not true to say
recommendation if the recommendation cannot be that nothing has happened. The Spoliation Advisory
implemented? Panel has been established and is undertaking its
work. I misled you in saying that Professor Palmer Tessa Jowell: It may not have been, Chairman, with
had chaired it. It is in fact Sir David Hirst who chairs great respect, but you also have to allow for the fact
the Spoliation Advisory Panel. Subsequent advice that circumstances change, and circumstances
indicated that the proposal was far too contentious changed in 2001. You had a new Secretary of State
to be dealt with by using a regulatory reform who took a diVerent view. You had the
measure, and so I have received no further advice establishment of the Spoliation Advisory Panel
from Sir David Hirst or from my oYcials that which has now learnt from experience and to whom
legislation is necessary in order to facilitate the work I look for advice on these matters. They have not
of the Spoliation Advisory Panel. I accept your point advised me that they need legislation in order to do
that were a case to arise in the context of the British their work. If they advise me that they do then I will
Museum or any other of our national museums obviously do everything I can to put that power in
where the trustees are precluded from de- place.
accessioning items in their collection (they can make
loans or whatever) and in those circumstances that
was an obstacle to justice being delivered to the Q325 Chairman: When you say circumstances have
family or the descendants of somebody whose changed, one circumstance has not changed, not
property was removed and found itself in the British relating to what the Government committed itself
Museum post the Nazi regime, then of course we to, though it did not carry out its commitment. What
would do so. There has been one case so far in was said in paragraph 19 of your second response in
relation to a particular painting and that was March 2001 was this: “There has been general
resolved by an ex gratia payment. I gather that there agreement from those consulted that the removal of
is another matter before the panel at the moment legislative barriers to restitution should be sought”.
which involves some drawings in the British That was not a change of policy from you as
Museum. The question is whether or not the return Secretary of State. You cannot change the general
of the drawings is the desired outcome or whether an agreement from those consulted. They said it should
ex gratia payment is the desired outcome. My happen. The fact is you have not done it and the fact
argument to you is that first of all the original vehicle is that we might as well not have published that last
that was proposed was subsequently established to report for any scintilla of action that has been taken
be an inappropriate one and, secondly, as I am sure by anybody as a consequence of that report, and I
you would accept, you legislate when there is no have got a strange feeling that we might as well not
agreement or regulation or code of practice, all the publish a report on this inquiry either.
other non-legislative instruments that we use, that Tessa Jowell: Chairman, I really take exception to
would be eVective. That is not yet the case in relation that. There is a further point which experience varied
to the work of the Spoliation Advisory Panel. in that at the time when you were last considering
this a flood of claims was expected. That never
Q323 Chairman: I was never under the impression materialised and, as I have indicated to you, the
that this commitment to legislate was based upon Spoliation Panel has considered only five cases.
waiting for an example. Mr Wyatt has gone to deal Those five cases are considered to be adequately
with identity cards. Let us look at the situation. You dealt with within the existing powers available to the
say that there is a case of drawings, that it has not yet Committee. To say that my department has not
been established whether those whose ownership of acted on your report is simply not the case. I can take
the drawings seems to have been established want you recommendation by recommendation through
financial compensation or want the return of the the action that has been taken. You may not like the
drawings. If they wanted the return of the drawings judgement that has been made in relation to the
you would not be able to do it, would you? recommendations on spoliation but as Secretary of
Tessa Jowell: The trustees could loan them. I would State I am responsible for making those judgements
like to write to you with a considered view on this but and have done so. You will no doubt want to make
they are not wholly hamstrung from preventing the comment about that in your subsequent report
items from leaving the museum. They could arising from this inquiry, but to suggest that we have
certainly loan them, presumably pending legislation. not taken seriously the recommendations that this
Let me give you considered advice on that. Committee made is simply a misrepresentation of
Chairman, I would say to you this, that your the action that my department has taken.
Committee made recommendations. The
Government in the previous Parliament and my
predecessor provided you with a response. It is a Q326 Chairman: I do not want to get into a wrangle
response which in the passage of time has been with you, Secretary of State. All I can say is that
varied because (a) it was considered in the where you actually committed yourselves to action,
circumstances not to be appropriate, and (b) there and I take it that the department is a continuing
are other means at our disposal. The general view is entity whoever is the Secretary of State, those
that the Spoliation Advisory Panel is working well actions have not been taken.
and has not encountered the lack of legislation as a Tessa Jowell: No, those actions have been varied. It
limitation on its ability to work. is not as if, through some act of dereliction and
negligence, nothing has been done. The position was
Q324 Chairman: But that is not what your reconsidered and a diVerent conclusion was reached
department said in its response to our report. in the light of diVerent evidence that came before
those who are concerned with this from that which Tessa Jowell: And subsequent consideration
was expected, namely, that a very large number of concluded that that parliamentary opportunity
submissions was expected. They have not would be inappropriate. Further consideration
materialised in practice and I am sure you will accept judged that legislation was not necessary in light of
that it is important for parliamentary time to be used the level of demand.
in a way which is appropriate and that government
intervention is proportionate. Q328 Chairman: I accept what you say. Dr
Gaimster made it absolutely clear that if divesting
were to take place legislation would be required. If
legislation were required you would have to find a
place in the legislative programme. You cannot even
Q327 Chairman: As I say, I am not going to get into promise me that there is a place in the legislative
a wrangle with you, but the fact is that in the programme for the bill you spoke about yesterday
response of March 2001 it was said that afternoon.
parliamentary time would be used: “It [the Tessa Jowell: Because I cannot reveal, even to you,
Government] is also exploring the possibility of Chairman, the contents of the Queen’s Speech.
achieving this by means of a Regulatory Reform
Order under the Regulatory Reform Bill currently Q329 Chairman: Not even to me. I am just a humble
progressing through Parliament”. There is a backbencher.
parliamentary opportunity. Your department Tessa Jowell: I think that is a judgement that only
indicated that it was going to take advantage of the you would recognise.
parliamentary opportunity and it did not do it. Chairman: Thank you.
9123631005 Page Type [SO] 11-12-03 02:02:44 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1
Written evidence
Submitted to the Culture, Media and Sport Committee
1. Memorandum submitted by Professor Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, Director,

The McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research
I hope I am not too late to present a short submission to the Committee. You will recall that we
corresponded earlier when I sent you the documentation concerting the Government’s inactivity and
failure to respond to correspondence, concerning the threat to Iraq’s cultural heritage in the weeks
preceding the recent war.
While I would be perfectly happy, if invited, to touch on other matters (and I certainly support the
memorandum submitted to you by the Council for British Archaeology), I feel it may be most useful if
I send you a short memorandum I have just completed on the matter of museum acquisitions. There
may be the impression that the Dealing in Cultural Objects (OVences) Bill sets adequate standards in
this area, which is certainly indeed the case. It will define and enact a criminal oVence in a very specific
manner. But museums, private collectors and dealers, if they are to behave ethically, need to follow very
much higher standards of due diligence and this is the main point which I have set out in the
accompanying paper.
I believe it would be extremely helpful if the Standing Committee were to endorse the position taken
since 1998 on acquisitions by the Trustees of the British Museum and since 2002, by the National Art
Collections Fund, when supporting acquisitions by museums.
Museum Acquisitions: A Note
When considering Museum acquisitions, it is important to stress that the responsible collector, the
responsible dealer and the responsible museum will need to employ a much higher standard of diligence
than that implied by the avoidance of committing an oVence under the new Dealing in Cultural Object
(OVences) Act. For it is in fact quite diYcult to establish and document that a specific cultural object
such as an antiquity is “tainted”, for instance through being illegally and clandestinely excavated and
illegally exported.
The whole problem with the illicit and clandestine trade is that it is indeed clandestine, and looted
objects rarely come with a label informing you that they have been looted. This means that whenever
one buys an antiquity which has no specific and documented provenance—an unprovenanced antiquity—
there is the serious risk that it does indeed come from an illicit excavation, perhaps a very recent one.
That was the serious issue with the Sevso Treasure, to give a familiar example, and it is the problem
with many antiquities which come onto the market. For that reason, in the exercise of due diligence, it
is desirable that collectors, dealers and in particular museums should simply not purchase unprovenanced
antiquities. Above all they should not purchase recently unprovenanced antiquities—that is to say
unprovenanced antiquities for which there is no documentation at all prior to a recent date.
Now everyone accepts, I think, that antiquities which left their country of origin many years ago and
have long formed part of a known collection are in some sense water under the bridge. It is perfectly
reasonable for a respectable museum to purchase an antiquity which is know through secure
documentation to have left its country a century or so ago. Indeed 1970, the year of the UNESCO
convention is often taken as the watershed. So if an antiquity has appeared on the market or in a
collection after 1970 and lacks secure provenance it must be regarded as suspect (even if it cannot actually
be shown to be “tainted” within the meaning of the Act) and should not be purchased.
Since 1998 that has been the position adopted by the Trustees of the British Museum who have stated:
“Wherever possible the Trustees will only acquire those objects that have documentation to
show that they were exported from their country of origin before 1970, and this policy will
apply to all objects of major importance.”
This is the position which I believe has been recommended by the Museums Association. And it is
also the policy which has been approved by the National Art Collections Fund in the making of grants
for acquisition, so that no museum or public collection can receive a grant to purchase an antiquity unless
this condition is fulfilled. It is of course a more stringent condition than is required to avoid committing
an oVence under the new Act. It should be noted that the policy applies as much to gifts oVered to
museums as to purchases by museums, and it is applied also to conservation procedures and to temporary
exhibitions.
It is to be hoped that a comparable criterion will be included among the tests applied when antiquities
are being considered for acceptance by the state under the “in lieu” scheme in place of what used to be
called Death Duties. For it would indeed be an anomaly if looted or recently unprovenanced antiquities
were used to generate tax benefits. And we should seek to ensure that the same logic is applied to any
tax benefits which might arise from other charitable donations or transfers.
There is just one exception to be considered—the notion of a museum as a “repository of last resort”
for antiquities originating within its local region, which, although they may indeed be the product of
looting (for instance they might have been seized by the police) do need to find a permanent home. Here,
once again, the British Museum policy oVers an appropriate model:
“The Trustees recognise the principle that regional and national museums must sometimes act
as repositories of last resort for antiquities originating within their areas of responsibility, and
they will on occasion approve the acquisition of antiquities without documented provenance
when it can be reliably be inferred that they originated within the UK, and where such payment
as may be made is not likely to encourage illicit excavation.”
It should be clear that there are never grounds under this rubric for acquiring antiquities originating
outside the United Kingdom. To do so simply encourages the looting process, albeit indirectly. But just
as the British Museum can in some cases properly acquire illicit antiquities originating within the UK,
so can regional museums in the case of antiquities which can be shown to have originated within the
relevant region.
It is sometimes argued that the private collector is performing a service by oVering an unprovenanced
antiquity “a good home” and by making it widely available to scholars. But that argument is far
outweighed by the circumstance that in purchasing it (or even accepting it as a gift) the collector is
participating in and in that sense contributing to the illicit traYc which sustains and drives the looting
process. The very rare exception where it is actually the policy in the country of origin willfully to destroy
antiquities was recognised by UNESCO in the case of Afghanistan by approving the establishment of a
designated repository (in Switzerland) to hold antiquities from Afghanistan until such time as there may
be a government there which will responsibly value and curate its heritage. There is no case for museums
in Britain seeking to undertake such a role.
Museums have a key role in countering the illicit traYc in antiquities because they are often consulted
and taken as role models by collectors. Moreover collectors often aspire to present or bequeath their
artefacts to well known museums, and often seek to lend them for temporary exhibition. In declining to
accept recently unprovenanced antiquities for exhibition or for conservation museums are declining to
give tacit acceptance to the looting process. That is the position which most museums in Britain have
now adopted, encouraged by the policies of the Museums Association. Increasingly also museums are
declining to lend their objects for exhibition elsewhere unless there is prior agreement that recently
unprovenanced antiquities will be excluded altogether. This is not, however, the position in some
prominent museums overseas, such as the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York or the Boston
Museum of Fine Arts. The time has perhaps come to consider whether there should be a general policy
of declining to make loans to an institution which does not have (and follow) an explicit and ethical
policy on museum acquisitions.
Annex 1
Letter from the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Archaeology to the Prime Minister,
dated 11 February 2003
Archaeological Sites in Iraq
We are writing to ask that, in the event of military intervention, some attention be given to the problem
of archaeological sites and museums in Iraq. We understand of course that military considerations will be
the top priority, along with humanitarian concerns. But there are many archaeological sites in Iraq, many
of which date back to the earliest roots of our civilisation in Mesopotamia, which may be at risk, as well as
important museums vulnerable to looting in the event of civil disorder.
We enclose a note from the Chairman of the British School of Archaeology in Iraq, Dr Harriet Crawford,
currently based in London, which summarises the range of points we should wish to make.
We should be glad to discuss this further either at ministerial or oYcial level, along with Dr Crawford.
Note from the Chairman of the British School of Archaeology in Iraq
The Reconstruction of Iraq

— The heritage of Iraq has considerable potential for the crucial task of forging national unity in Iraq,
a country with no natural borders and an extremely disparate population which is in severe danger
of splitting into a number of warring segments. All these groups do however share a common pride
in their past, a pride which was successfully exploited by Saddam Hussein.
— The history and archaeology of the country are of major global significance: Iraq is the source of
many aspects of Western culture as we know it today.
— The archaeological and historical remains are a non-renewable resource.
For all these reasons it is extremely desirable that any reconstruction plans include some provision for
safeguarding the archaeological sites, the standing monuments and the artefacts in museums and private
collections.
The immediate need

Guards to be placed on major monuments and museums to prevent looting and illicit digging. The former
was a major problem at the end of the Gulf war.
It will also be necessary to alert border patrols and border guards to the possibility of large-scale
smuggling of illicitly obtained antiquities. Such activities are currently well documented. Structural
assessments may need to be carried out on any damaged monuments to ensure their safety.
The National Museum already has a desperate need for materials to allow them to carry out essential
conservation on extremely important items in their collections which have suVered badly from twelve years
of sanctions when even the most basic chemicals and equipment were unavailable.
The medium term needs

A major new dam on the upper Tigris is threatening a minimum of 60 sites which include the major
Assyrian sites of Ashur and Kar-Tikulti-Ninurta. An independent feasibility study needs to be undertaken
to determine the country’s real need for irrigation water and to minimise the damage to the heritage.
Consideration might be given to setting up an international rescue operation to examine as many sites as
possible before they are flooded.
Great damage has been done to the marshes of southern Iraq by major drainage projects thus virtually
wiping out a unique ecological niche and a unique way of life. A study is needed to assess the possibility of
reversing this process.
In the longer term the antiquities of Iraq could become an important economic asset as tourism and
especially Arab tourism begins to expand.
Annex 2
Letter from Lord Renfrew of Kairmsthorn to the Prime Minister, dated 2 April 2003
On 11 February 2003, I wrote to you on the subject of archaeological sites in Iraq on behalf of the All-
Party Parliamentary Group on Archaeology, and received a prompt reply from the Direct Communications
Unit (18 February) indicating that you had arranged for a Minister in the Foreign & Commonwealth OYce
to reply to me directly. Having heard nothing, I contacted the FCO on 24 March, receiving a somewhat
garbled reply and have received no further response to my own reply to that of the same day.
Subsequently, I have been approached by journalists asking whether I know anything about steps the
Government may be making to safeguard museums and archaeological sites in Iraq. Unfortunately, I have
had to reply that so far as I am aware, the matter has not received the attention which it merits. I would be
very grateful for any information that could indicate otherwise, which I would be happy to pass on to
journalists who may enquire in the future.
Annex 3
Letter from Lord Renfrew of Kairmsthorn to the Rt Hon Baroness Blackstone,

Minister for the Arts, dated 2 April 2003
Thank you very much for your helpful response on the Romanian matter. May I now take up with you
the slightly strange situation which has arisen concerning the problem of archaeological sites in Iraq? My
impression is that this is not directly your responsibility, but I think you should know of the position. On
11 February, 1 wrote on behalf of the All-Party Parliamentary Archaeology Group to the Prime Minister
and received promptly a reply from his OYce dated 18 February saying that the Prime Minister had asked
for a Minister in the Foreign & Commonwealth OYce to reply directly. Having heard absolutely nothing,
I faxed Lady Symons on 24 March and received a rather confused fax by way of reply on 24 March. 1 replied
on the same day, asking for encouragement to believe that the central point had been taken on board and
have had no further reply.
I am left with the distinct impression that no specific planning has been made in relation to the antiquities
of Iraq. It was the intention of my original letter of 11 February to give some warning of the issue. I shall
write again to the Prime Minister’s OYce and to the FCO but thought you should perhaps be aware of the
issues. I enclose (1) my origina1 letter to the Prime Minister; (2) my letter to Lady Symons and (3) the fax
from Mr Ward of the FCO and my reply of the same day.
Annex 4
Letter from Mr Mike O’Brien, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the

Foreign OYce, dated 16 April 2003
Archaeological Sites in Iraq
Thank you for your Group’s letter and enclosure of 11 February to the Prime Minister about
archaeological sites and antiquities in Iraq. I am replying as Minister-responsible for our relations with Iraq
and apologise for the delay in doing so.
We share your concerns about the importance of protecting and preserving archaeological sites and
museums in Iraq and note the work done by the Iraqi Antiquities Service and the expertise available in UK
through Dr Harriet Crawford, Chair of the British School in Iraq and Professor Nicholas Postgate, former
Director.
We are naturally concerned about the looting and damage that has recently aVected some sites in Iraq.
Coalition forces continue to take law and order very seriously and have started patrols with local police to
crack down further on looting, which already shows signs of diminishing. Local communities are themselves
beginning to take responsibility for stopping the looting, and coalition forces will provide support to them
where they can. Our latest evidence is that looters are largely avoiding sites of religious or historical
sensitivity. It is, however, imperative that archaeological sites and museums are sealed as a matter of urgency
and we are assessing how best to achieve this. In Basra, British Forces have already secured the museum to
prevent further looting.
Now that military action is drawing to a close the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) has
started and will continue to take the lead on archaeological issues, in close liaison with the British Museum,
UNESCO, the Ministry of Defence and the FCO.
Neil MacGregor of the British Museum is already taking a lead alongside international colleagues from
Europe and the US to ensure a co-ordinated response from the professional archaeological fraternity.
British Museum staV do, of course, command respect and support from a wide range of other professional,
including those from Iraq, Iran and Syria.
It is important in all this that we work closely with UNESCO. The British Museum, with UNESCO, will
be hosting a symposium of international colleagues on 29 April. We are also working to ensure that UK
administrators and professionals are part of the US Organisation for Reconstruction and Humanitarian
AVairs (ORHA). OYcials from DCMS will be joining ORHA in the next few days.
We are taking measures to ensure that antiquities looted from Iraq are returned if they reach the
international art market. A UN sanction currently requires state parties to the UN to impose import
controls on objects from Iraq, including antiquities. This means that no objects could reach the UK legally
without an import licence. There is absolutely no intention to issue such licences. We are confident that the
legitimate art market will co-operate fully, and Tessa Jowell has written to the British Art Market
Federation and other key bodies.
This leaves, though, the substantial market in illicit trade. The Private Members Bill “Dealing in Cultural
Objects (OVences) Bill” has just had its second reading. It has all party support and we are looking for ways
of ensuring its speedy progress through its remaining stages.
I agree that Iraq’s antiquities could play an important economic role as tourism begins to expand. Our
immediate priority is to ensure a peaceful and stable Iraq that can play a full role in the international
community. This environment will ultimately enhance prospects for tourism. We note the suggestions you
make about sites aVected by the new dam on the Upper Tigris and in the southern marshes and have passed
them to DCMS.
Annex 5
Letter from the Rt Hon Tessa Jowell MP, the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport
to Lord Renfrew of Kairmsthorn, dated 5 May 2003
Protection of Iraq’s National Heritage

Thank you for your letter of 28 April.
I apologise for the delay in replying to your letter sent to my Department on 2 April, however at the time,
rather than replying directly to you, my oYcials liaised with the Foreign OYce about a suitable response to
your original letter of 11 February. I understand that you have now received a response from Mike O’Brien.
You were present at the British Museum seminar on 29 April, so you will already know about the steps
that the Government took before the conflict and what measures are being taken now to protect Iraq’s
cultural heritage. Consequently you will be aware that the MoD did consult with the archaeological
community before the conflict started and troops were accordingly briefed to avoid key sites of cultural and
historical interests.
There were a large number of competing priorities during the war and coalition forces had to take
decisions based on their knowledge of the risks involved. The military guarded hospitals and museums from
looting where they could but in many towns and cities the situation was too unstable for troops to undertake
static guarding of specific sites until the security situation allowed for such activity.
As you heard from Donny George on 29 April, we now know that organised groups planned the looting
in Baghdad Museum in addition to the casual looting that has taken place. US troops are now guarding the
Baghdad Museum and have confirmed that the looting of artefacts is under control.
We are pleased that Neil MacGregor is taking the lead alongside UNESCO and international colleagues
from Europe and the US to ensure a coordinated response from the archaeological community. As I stated
at the seminar on the 29 April, British Museum experts and oYcials from my Department will join the US
OYce for Reconstruction and Humanitarian AVairs (ORHA)in Iraq in the next couple of weeks.
In addition we are taking measures to ensure that antiquities looted from Iraq are returned if they reach
the international art market. A UN sanction currently requires state parties to the UN to impose import
controls on objects from Iraq, including antiquities. This means that no objects could reach the UK legally
without an import licence. There is no intention to issue such licences. We are confident that the legitimate
art market will cooperate, and I have written to the British Art Market Federation and other key bodies.
This leaves, though, the substantial market in illicit trade. We have just received confirmation that the
Private Members Bill “Dealing in Cultural Objects (OVences) Bill” will go into Committee on 14 May and
is likely to receive its report and third reading on the 13 June.
We are also aware of your concerns about the recent US proposal for the UN to lift sanctions on Iraq
and we will be speaking to the US, the UN and others to explore how best to ensure this element of
protection remains in place for the foreseeable future.
We welcome the statement issued by UNESCO on Tuesday 29 April, which calls for the selective
imposition of sanctions on all Iraqi cultural objects. The maintenance of import sanctions would continue
to make it a criminal oVence to import Iraqi antiquities into the UK.
Annex 6
Letter from Lord Renfrew of Kairmsthorn to the Rt Hon Tessa Jowell MP,
the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, dated 12 May 2003
Protection of Iraq’s National Heritage

Thank you very much for your helpful letter of 5 May which has been forwarded to me in Athens. I am
asking my secretary in Cambridge to send this reply on to you.
It is indeed helpful that Sir Neil MacGregor and colleagues at the British Museum are working with
international colleagues to encourage a co-ordinated response to the unfortunate looting of the Iraqi
National Museum in Baghdad.
May I first welcome in particular the two last paragraphs of your letter, in which you express the
Government’s intention to ensure that the element of legal protection for Iraqi antiquities currently
provided by the existing UN sanctions Will remain in place when those more general sanctions are lifted.
It is extremely helpful that the Government supports the UNESCO statement of 29 April on that subject.
This is a welcome and constructive statement of the Government’s intentions in this matter. and we shall
look forward to seeing how the matter is handled in the course of the discussions on the lifting of the existing
sanctions which are now beginning at the UN Security Council.
I note in your second paragraph that the MOD did consult with the archaeological community before
the conflict started, and recall that in your speech on April 29 at the British Museum you stated that these
consultations had taken place with persons from the University of Newcastle and University College
London. I am not aware of any individuals with specialist knowledge of Iraqi antiquities currently at the
University of Newcastle, nor have I been able to identify which specialist at University College, London was
involved in such consultations. When the history of these unfortunate events comes to be written these
matters will perhaps be clarified, and the lack of any direct consultations between Government
representatives and the oYcials of the British School of Archaeology at Iraq who had taken a number of
steps to contact them may be explained. The apparent failure to respond to such approaches, including my
own letter to the Prime Minister of 11 February, remains a matter for concern and puzzlement.
Allow me, however, to end on a positive note, and to say how much the archaeological community do
welcome the measures which you yourself have taken since those unfortunate events, and to stress the
importance which will be attached to the assurances given in the last two paragraphs of your letter.
11 September 2003
2. Memorandum submitted by the British Museum

I see that you will be taking evidence from the Secretary of State on 8 July on progress on the
recommendations of the Committee’s Enquiry into Cultural Property carried out in 2000.
Recommendation (vii) in that enquiry made reference to the Portable Antiquities Scheme, a project to
encourage members of the public who find archaeological objects in England and Wales (metal detector
users and others) voluntarily to report their finds.
It would be very helpful if the Committee could ask the Secretary of State whether the Department will
provide long-term funding for the Scheme, because the present lottery-funded project will end in April 2006
and the Government has not made any commitment to fund it beyond that.
Since 1997 the Scheme’s Finds Liaison OYcers have examined over 100,000 objects, many of which would
have otherwise gone recorded, adding significantly to our understanding of the archaeology and history of
England and Wales. The staV of the Scheme also play an essential role in making the Treasure Act work.
This year, thanks to lottery funding, 32 new posts are being created in addition to the 1.4 pilot schemes that
currently exist so that by December there will be a national network of Finds Liaison OYcers. Their role is
to encourage members of the public to report their finds; to turn the tap oV after three years would be very
damaging.
The All-Party Parliamentary Archaeological Group’s report on The Current State of Archaeology in the
United Kingdom (January 2003) recommends that the Government should give long-term support for future
of the Scheme. This could be achieved through Resource’s Renaissance for the Regions initiative, whereby
Government funding is being delivered to a network of regional museum hubs. The crucial period for a
decision will be the next Spending Review next year.
Please find below a short briefing note on the Portable Antiquities Scheme, together with a leaflet
explaining it. (not printed)
PORTABLE ANTIQUITIES SCHEME

The Portable Antiquities Scheme is a voluntary scheme to record archaeological objects found by
members of the public. Since 1997 the Scheme’s Finds Liaison OYcers have examined over 100,000 objects,
many of which would have otherwise gone recorded; adding significantly to our understanding of the
archaeology and history of England and Wales.
The data generated is published on the Scheme’s website—www.finds.org—and passed on to the relevant
Sites and Monuments Record; the primary source of information about the historic environment.
Currently the Scheme is being rolled out across England and Wales this year and is funded by the Heritage
Lottery Fund, DCMS, Resource and other partners until April 2006. After this its future is uncertain,
although the Government is giving active consideration to the question of long-term sustainability of the
Scheme, and has said that it will consider sympathetically the Scheme’s future funding requirements in its
forthcoming Spending Review, but no firm commitment has been given.
Cost
The Portable Antiquities Scheme currently costs about £1.2 million per annum to fund a network of 37
Finds Liaison OYcers and a central unit of nine posts; including four Finds Advisers, an Education OYcer
and co-ordination and support staV.
Benefits
1. Until the advent of the Portable Antiquities Scheme there was no proactive system for recording
portable antiquities which fall outside the Treasure Act.
2. The objects recorded contribute to our understanding of the past on a scale not previously imagined
leading to the discovery of many new archaeological sites, including Roman villas and Anglo-Saxon
cemeteries.
3. The Scheme has brought together archaeologists and metal detector-users, ensuring best practice by
finders and increasing archaeological fieldwork opportunities for members of the public.
4. The Scheme has an important educational role bring archaeology and history to life for children,
young people and adults. Finds days, displays and exhibitions on the work of the Scheme give people the
opportunity to handle our past and get involved.
5. The Scheme has an increasing profile with the media, especially television. The Finds Liaison OYcers
have worked closely with BBC Hidden Treasures (to be screened in August), Two Men in a Trench and
Time Team.
6. The Finds Liaison OYcer are locally based and provide a important identification service
(complimenting that of museums) to finders in their region oVering advice on best practice and conservation.
7. The Scheme is vital to the eYcient and smooth running of the Treasure Act, advising finders on their
obligations under the law, and helping to satisfy the Government’s obligations under European and
International law.
4 July 2003
3. Memorandum submitted by the British School of Archaeology in Iraq

The British School of Archaeology in Iraq has had a representative in Iraq since 5 June on secondment
to the CPA. From the field reports we have received we would like to make the following points:
The secondees have worked magnificently under almost impossible conditions and their eVorts have been
thwarted at almost every turn by the chaotic state of the administration. There are no clear divisions of
responsibility between the CPA, the military and the emerging Iraqi civilian administration, nor are there
any proper lines of command or channels of communication.
— The looting of the Iraq museum and the wanton destruction which accompanied it mean that the
most urgent requirements are the refurbishing, securing and refurnishing of the buildings and
oYces, followed by a programme of conservation and reconstruction of the damaged artifacts.
Before this can begin laboratories need to be re-supplied and additional emergency training
undertaken by the staV.
— The looting and destruction of sites apparently continues more or less unabated.
— The borders continue to be virtually unguarded.
HM Government is to be warmly congratulated on having ratified UN resolution 1483 so rapidly, but
the benefits of this legislation are to a large extent nullified by the military’s refusal to step up border patrols.
The result is that antiquities are able to move fairly freely out of Iraq. The most significant seizures of looted
materials have been made outside Iraq. (One also wonders what goods and people are being smuggled into
the country). There are also said to be antiquities markets operating openly within the country.
Summary of actions which might be taken:
— DCMS may want to consider if it is cost-eVective to second people until the internal administrative
problems have been sorted out.
— It is hoped that the Government will bring pressure to bear on the military to increase border
patrols and on the governments of countries bordering Iraq to encourage them to do the same.
— Every eVort needs to be made to help rebuild the Iraqi police force and army and to help Iraqi
archaeologists to get back into the field in order to protect sites.
— The emergency training of conservators in other countries to be facilitated by the issue of travel
documents, the provision of finance and foreign language training.
— Very Important: We understand that a new Security Council resolution is being discussed that
would be the precursor to other nations sending troops into Iraq to help out the Coalition. We are
deeply concerned that the UN does not accidentally rescind paragraph seven of UNSCR 1483, as
the UK ban on the import of Iraqi cultural objects is specifically written so that it will
automatically end if 1483 is in any way terminated.
1 September 2003
4. Memorandum submitted by the Council for British Archaeology on behalf of the

Standing Conference on Portable Antiquities
Status
1. The Standing Conference on Portable Antiquities is a delegate body including representatives of all
the main British archaeological bodies with a concern for portable antiquities (a list of members is appended
as an annex to this memorandum). Convened by the Council for British Archaeology, it usually meets
annually and is supported by the CBA’s Portable Antiquities Working Group which meets more regularly
and acts as the executive arm of the Standing Conference. Both bodies are chaired by Dr P V Addyman
CBE, former Director of York Archaeological Trust and this memorandum has been compiled by the
CBA’s Working Group on behalf of the Standing Conference.
2. The Standing Conference was established in 1995 to discuss issues of concern to British archaeologists
about how activities relating to recovery, reporting and trade in portable antiquities aVect the conservation
and management of the wider cultural heritage and people’s interest in it. Over the years it has concerned
itself with the Treasure Act; the Portable Antiquities Recording Scheme; European regulations on the
import and export of antiquities; underwater finds of portable antiquities; the incidence of metal detecting
and numerous other subjects. Recently it has noted with increasing concern the growth of the illicit trade
in antiquities and has made representations to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport on a number
of occasions with the recommendation that the United Kingdom Government should adopt various
international instruments designed to combat this trade—notably the 1970 UNESCO Convention and the
1995 UNIDROIT Convention.
3. The Standing Conference gave evidence to the Committee’s previous enquiry on the Illicit Trade in
2000 and submitted a memorandum at the time. Several members of the Illicit Trade Advisory Panel are
also active in the Standing Conference (Dr Peter Addyman, Lord Renfrew and Dr Roger Bland) and this
memorandum reflects their views. In addition this memorandum includes reference to three resolutions, on
Iraq, the Hague Conventions and the Portable Antiquities Scheme (quoted below), which were agreed at its
last meeting on 27 June 2003.
4. This memorandum is limited to the first and third of the three areas that the Committee wishes to cover
in its present enquiry: progress on the recommendations on the Committee’s Report on Cultural Property
in July 2000 (session 1999–2000, 7th Report) and on the recommendations on the Report of the Illicit Trade
Advisory Panel (December 2000) and on Iraq. The second area of interest, that of human remains and
spoliated art, falls outside the Standing Conference’s area of expertise.
5. On Iraq, the Standing Conference fully endorses the points made in the memorandum submitted by
Dr Harriett Crawford on behalf of the British School of Archaeology in Iraq and wishes to draw the
Committee’s attention to a resolution on the subject which was agreed at a meeting of the Standing
Conference on 27 June.
Progress on the Recommendations of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee’s Report on
Cultural Property (July 2000) and on the Report of the Illicit Trade Advisory Panel
(December 2000)
6. The Standing Conference believes that it is essential to keep at the forefront of any discussion of these
issues the fact that the damage caused by the looting of sites to recover antiquities for sale in the international
market is one of the principal causes of destruction of the archaeological resource in the world today.
Although the damage principally aVects sites abroad, there is also a significant problem of looting of
archaeological sites within the UK, and there is undoubtedly a significant trade in such looted antiquities.
London is one of the biggest centres of the art and antiquities market.
7. The Standing Conference welcomes the actions taken by the Government so far in this area, notably:
— the establishment of the Advisory Panel on the Illicit Trade;
— acceptance of the 1970 UNESCO Convention;
— the support given to the Private Member’s Bill on Dealing in Cultural Objects (OVences);
— the extension of the definition of Treasure under the Treasure Act 1996 and updating of its
associated code of practice; and
— support to the Portable Antiquities Scheme.
However, despite these developments, much work remains to be done on the recommendations of the two
committees and we wish to highlight the following areas where further progress is needed or new cases or
events have reinforced the need for action.
Public Education
8. One of the UK’s obligations as a state party to the UNESCO Convention is “to endeavour by
educational means to create and develop in the public mind a realisation of the value of cultural property and
the threat to the cultural heritage created by theft, clandestine excavations and illicit exports”. The Standing
Conference believes that a sustained and eVective campaign of public education on these issues, funded by
the Government, is likely to have more impact than any other single measure. We would urge that this
should become a matter of some urgency following the passage of the Dealing in Cultural Objects (OVences)
Bill. Aside from our treaty obligations, this campaign will be doubly necessary if the Dealing in Cultural
Objects (OVences) Bill does obtain Royal Assent this autumn. This will require a culture change among all
those who participate in the market in cultural goods, especially antiquities and it is essential that all those
parties who are aVected by it are fully aware of their obligations. We therefore urge the Government to
ensure that adequate resources are devoted to this purpose.
Dealing in Cultural Objects (Offences) Bill

9. The Standing Conference welcomes they support the Government has given to this Private Member’s
Bill and hopes that it has a smooth passage through the House of Lords. However, it is a matter of concern
that, for constitutional reasons, the Bill excludes Scotland from its scope. We understand that the Scottish
Executive has expressed the view that a separate, parallel measure needs to be taken through the Scottish
Parliament but it has not announced a timetable for doing this. Assuming the Bill does receive Royal Assent
this year we would urge that parallel legislation be introduced into the Scottish Parliament despatch, because
the absence of such legislation in Scotland will create a dangerous loophole which will could give rise to the
creation of a market in illegally removed cultural objects in Scotland, which could then be taken into the
other parts of the UK.
Export Licences
10. Objects looted from abroad regularly appear on the market in this country and are then exported
abroad. If these objects have been in this country for less than 50 years—as will generally be the case—they
are not normally referred to the expert advisers, who are mostly the staV of the national museums who can
be expected to have some knowledge of the market and be alert to objects that may be illegally exported
(most looted objects will fall into this category). This is an important loophole in the Government’s defences
against the illicit trade.
11. Furthermore, all objects found in the soil or the territorial waters of the UK that are more than 50
years old require a licence, regardless of their value. Nevertheless, many archaeological objects from the UK
are oVered for sale on the Internet in currencies which make it clear that they are likely to sold abroad.
12. The Illicit Trade Advisory Panel recommended in 2000 that checks should be carried out on cultural
goods imported into the UK within the last 50 years and that the Export Licensing Unit at the DCMS should
be strengthened. These recommendations have not yet been implemented despite the fact that it is more than
two years since the Report was published. The Standing Conference recommends that the Government
should pay urgent attention to this issue.
The UK Heritage of Movable Cultural Property: The Portable Antiquities Scheme

13. The Government’s initiative (which as prompted by CBA research into the relationship between
metal detecting and archaeology) to promote the voluntary recording of archaeological finds made by
members of the public through the Portable Antiquities Scheme (also known as “Finding our Past”), is
strongly welcomed by us as it is transforming our understanding of the moveable archaeological heritage
in England and Wales. However, it rests on very insecure foundations. Since 1997 the Scheme’s Finds
Liaison OYcers have examined over 150,000 objects, most of which would have otherwise gone unrecorded,
adding significantly to our understanding of the archaeology and history of England and Wales. The data
generated is published on the Scheme’s website—www.finds.org.uk—and passed on to the relevant Sites and
Monuments Record as the primary source of information about the historic environment. The initiative has
widely been acknowledged as representing an important advance in public archaeology. It helps to monitor
agricultural damage, improves community involvement in archaeology, fosters social inclusion, and
educates the less responsible metal-detectorists who may be motivated by profit. In addition, the successful
operation of the Treasure Act clearly depends on the existence of a network of finds liaison oYcers.
14. The Scheme is being rolled out across England and Wales this year with funding from the Heritage
lottery fund, DCMS, Re:source and other partners until April 2006. At present the (Government has made
no commitment to fund the Scheme beyond March 2006, although in her evidence to the Select Committee
on 8 July the Secretary of State made some encouraging comments. At its meeting on 27 June, the Standing
Conference on Portable Antiquities passed the following resolution:
“The Standing Conference on Portable Antiquities wholeheartedly welcomes the decision of the
Heritage Lottery Fund and the Government to fund for three years a national Portable Antiquities
Scheme, a total of 46 posts, but notes concern that no guarantees have been given that this will be
funded beyond April 2006, and urges the Government to give long-term support for the Scheme,
recognising that it would be particularly dangerous to turn the tap oV once finders have been
encouraged to report their finds under the Scheme. The Conference urges that the devolved
administrations should also provide resources to provide analogous schemes in Scotland and
Northern Ireland, adapted to local conditions.”
15. If the Scheme should cease to be funded in 2006, it would have seriously detrimental consequences
for the stewardship of our archaeological heritage and would run completely counter to the welcome
advances that this Government is making elsewhere in combating the illicit trade.
Databases
16. Both the Select Committee and the Illicit Trade Advisory Panel recommended the establishment of
a database of stolen cultural property and yet no tangible progress has been made. The Standing Conference
urges the Government to redouble its eVorts to establish such a database which is urgently needed in the
light of the Government’s acceptance of the UNESCO Convention and of the likely passage of the Dealing
in Cultural Objects (OVences) Bill.
Law Enforcement Agencies

17. The law enforcement agencies have a key role in combating the illicit trade. It was apparent from the
Select Committee’s inquiry in 2000 that the illicit trade in cultural objects was not an area to which the police
and HM Customs and Excise accorded a high priority and it remains a matter of grave concern to the
Standing Conference that there is little evidence that this has changed in the three years since. We would
draw attention to the recommendation of the Illicit Trade Advisory Panel that there should be an art and
antiques unit of the police with a national remit. This remains an urgent priority and it is also important
that HM Customs and Excise, which will be given additional powers under the Trading in Cultural Objects
(OVences) Bill, should accord a higher priority to stemming the illicit trade in cultural objects.
Underwater Cultural Heritage

18. We wish to draw the attention of the Committee to the need for consistency in how disposal of cultural
property is handled across diVerent cultural regimes, geographies and archaeological practice on land or at
sea. The recent case where HM Government through the Defence Disposals Agency of the Ministry of
Defence has entered a partnering agreement with a US commercial salvage firm to recover and sell oV alleged
17th century bullion from the supposed wreck of the warship Sussex, in international waters oV Gibraltar
has raised an extremely wide range of issues of principle—especially given that the basic intention of the deal
is that the cost of the recovery work and HMG’s share in the profits should derive largely from the sale of
artefacts. The agreement is widely regarded (so far as the secret nature of the contract and of archaeological
information from the project allows it to be ascertained), as being in substantial contravention of all
principles of archaeological best practice—despite subsequent attempts by Government to strengthen
archaeological aspects of the proposals. This includes international criticism, not least the General
Assembly of ICOMOS. We would also draw attention of the Committee to Mr O’Hara’s Early Day motion
250, which we fully endorse.
19. The Committee may also wish to note that a diVerent approach has been adopted by the DoT in
developing an international agreement to protect artefacts and other remains on the Titanic.
20. The Sussex case shows the urgent need for the Government to review as a matter of urgency its
decision not to ratify UNESCO’s 2001 Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage,
and to develop a much clearer practical policies for implementation of the Convention in line with proper
standards for procurement of archaeological services, recovery and disposal of “Treasure” and accounting
for cultural assets.
Unidroit Convention
21. The Standing Conference notes that the Select Committee in its Report of 2000 recommended that
the UK Government should sign the 1995 UNIDROIT Convention, rather than the 1970 UNESCO
Convention, but that Government, following the advice of its Illicit Trade Advisory Panel, has in fact chosen
to become a party to the UNESCO Convention. While we welcome acceptance of the UNESCO
Convention, which we believe has the most important role to play in combating the illicit trade in
archaeological objects and in raising public awareness, we believe that it is also desirable that the
Government should sign the UNIDROIT Convention and introduce the necessary legislation to give eVect
to it.
Hague Convention
22. The Standing Conference agreed the following resolution at its meeting on 27 June 2003:
“Further to its previous resolution of March 2002 calling on the UK government to ratify the 1954
Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict and
noting with concern that cultural property has suVered grave and often deliberate damage and
removal during recent armed conflicts, the Standing Conference on Portable Antiquities welcomes
the Government’s agreement in principle that the UK should negotiate with a view to ratify the
Convention and now calls on the Government to set out a clear timetable for ratification for the
Convention and the First and Second Protocols to coincide with the 50th Anniversary of the
Convention in 2004”.
23. We are pleased to note that DCMS and other Government Departments have started work on these
matters, and urge that the timetable for ratification that we have called for be published forthwith.
Iraq
24. The Standing Conference agreed the following resolution at its meeting on 27 June 2003:
“We the undersigned,1 recognising the international value of the cultural heritage for Iraq’s long-
term sustainable social, cultural and economic development, and the threat to international
knowledge and Iraqi identity, note with consternation the eyewitness evidence in diVerent parts
of Iraq of continued systematic looting and consequential destruction of archaeological sites and
monuments, and the theft of cultural property’ from museums and archives and libraries.
We oVer, within our respective competencies, roles and available resources, further assistance,
training and capacity building to support Iraqi specialists in restoring collections and re-
establishing stable management of Iraq’s cultural heritage.
We welcome measures taken so far to seek to control trade in Iraqi antiquities, and the work of
DCMS in seeking to co-ordinate oVers of assistance from the UK.
But in order for these measures to be eVective we call on both the UK and the US Governments
to act URGENTLY to:
(i) recognise that safeguarding Iraq’s internationally renowned cultural heritage for the
benefit of all is a fundamental plank of sustainable reconstruction;
(ii) work closely with UNESCO in providing and co-ordinating international specialist
support in response to Iraqi requests, ensuring clear and accountable lines of
responsibility and openness in communication;
(iii) enable Iraqi specialists, with the support of relevant international experts as necessary, to
develop a realistic medium to long-term programme of conservation of artefacts, library
and archival materials, sites and monuments to secure their permanent value for Iraq;
(iv) put in place proper customs and excise controls in preparation for an Iraqi Customs and
Excise department, and seeking further collaboration with neighbouring countries, to
encourage greater vigilance of borders to stop the flow of looted cultural property
leaving Iraq;
(v) ensure Iraqi specialists, and any specialists whom they wish to assist them, have the liberty
and means—supported by coalition military escort where necessary—to access and assess
the extent, scale and impact of looting and other damage upon museums, archives,
libraries, monuments and sites;
(vi) establish, in liaison with specialists, a framework ofpractical security and cultural heritage
management, including the reintroduction of Department ofAntiquities site guards, to
minimise further looting or damage; and
(vii) ensure that extra resources are made available to relevant bodies by the Coalition
Governments to ensure that appropriate expertise is available to undertake such work in
a timely and eVective manner.”
25. We believe that important lessons need to be learned from the looting of cultural sites, museums,
archives and libraries during and since the conflict in Iraq. The Committee’s inquiry presents an important
opportunity to take evidence to review the UK’s policy and practice for military planning as well as intra-
and post-conflict security in relation to the cultural heritage. We believe that this would helpfully include
scrutiny of current military resourcing, access to and utilisation of heritage expertise, and training.
1 The following organisations support this resolution: All Party Parliamentary Archaeology Group (APPAG); British Academy
Archaeology Section; British Archaeological Association; British Museum; British School of Archaeology in Iraq; Council
for British Archaeology; English Heritage; Finds Research Group 700-1700; ICOMOS UK; ICOM UK; Institute of Field
Archaeologists; Museums Association; Oxford Archaeology; Prehistoric Society; Pre-Construct Archaeology; RESCUE: The
British Archaeological Trust; Resource; Society of Antiquaries of London; Royal Archaeological Institute; Society of
Antiquaries of Scotland; Society for Medieval Archaeology; Society for Post-Medieval Archaeology; Society for the
Protection of Ancient Buildings Trust for Wessex Archaeology; UK Institute for Conservation; York Archaeological Trust.
26. We would also stress that the need for the role of cultural heritage in rebuilding Iraq needs to be
recognised across all the key UK government departments and expressly in funding streams managed by
the Department for International Development; also that the need to ensure that Britain’s clear moral
obligations towards re-building Iraq’s cultural heritage does not become an undue burden or drain for
DCMS and other organisations, such as the British Museum or English Heritage, in delivering their duties
and responsibilities towards the UK’s cultural heritage.
Oral Evidence
27. The Standing Conference, having considered problems of import, export and sale of illicit and other
antiquities for a considerable time, has accumulated much data and expertise on aspects of the Culture,
Media and Sport Committee’s inquiry. It would greatly value the opportunity to enlarge upon its
conclusions in oral evidence to the Committee.
Annex
STANDING CONFERENCE ON PORTABLE ANTIQUITIES—MEMBERS AND OBSERVERS
Member Organisations
Association of Local Government Archaeological OYcers
British Archaeological Association
British Museum
Council for British Archaeology
Council for Scottish Archaeology
Finds Research Group
Institute of Field Archaeologists
Joint Nautical Archaeology Policy Committee
McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, University of Cambridge
Museums Association
National Monuments Record for England (English Heritage—formerly RCHME)
National Museums and Galleries of Wales
National Museums of Scotland
National Trust
National Trust for Scotland
Portable Antiquities Scheme
Prehistoric Society
Rescue—The British Archaeological Trust
Resource—The Council for Museums Archives and Sites
Roman Finds Group
Royal Archaeological Institute
Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historical Monuments of Scotland
Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historical Monuments of Wales
Scottish Museums Council
Society of Antiquaries of London
Society of Antiquaries of Scotland
Society for Medieval Archaeology
Society of Museum Archaeologists
Society for Nautical Archaeology
Society for Post-Medieval Archaeology
Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies
Standing Conference of Archaeological Unit Managers
Surrey Archaeological Society
Ulster Museum
United Kingdom Institute for Conservation
University College London
Wessex Archaeology
Observers
Department of Culture Media and Sport
Cadw: Welsh Historic Monuments
English Heritage
Environment and Heritage Service for Northern Ireland
Historic Scotland
National Council for Metal Detecting
Secretariat: provided by Council for British Archaeology
Chairman: Dr Peter Addyman CBE
September 2003
5. Memorandum submitted by the Group Caring for the Ancestors of Hawaii

Aloha nõ kãkou. Our interest in the matter of human skeletal remains held in collections of publicly
funded museums and galleries in the United Kingdom stems primarily from our responsibility for the care
and protection of ancestral Hawaiian remains and funerary possessions, including the approximately 150
Hawaiian skulls held in the collections of the Natural History Museum in London, England. Attached is a
listing of our repatriation eVorts, including the institutions involved, the year, number of ancestral remains,
and origins from which the remains were removed from and henceforth returned to. We are experienced in
repatriation and reburial and are trained in traditional Hawaiian cultural protocol. Our organization has
been engaged in a concerted eVort to return our ancestors remains home from the Natural History Museum
for over 14 years. This testimony supplements our testimony submitted in 2001 to the Working Group on
Human Remains entitled, A Matter of Honor and Duty: Bringing Our Ancestors Home for Reburial Natural
History Museum, London, England, a copy of which is also attached.
1. Publicly funded museums and galleries in the United Kingdom must be required to document its
collections of human remains from jurisdictions outside of the UK. In addition, such institutions must
provide to living descendants responsible for the care and protection of human remains held in these
museum and gallery collections access to all such information. Furthermore, such institutions must provide
access to the institution’s archival records to assist with the identification of the origins of the ancestral
remains for purposes of accurate repatriation and recognition of family connections. Museums and galleries
must required (or, at a minimum, encouraged) to comply with requests of indigenous peoples for
information and should not engage in practices intended evade such requests or to withhold information
regarding its collections of human remains and their funerary possessions.
2. Publicly funded museums and galleries in the United Kingdom must allow living descendants
responsible for the care and protection of the human remains held in its collections to be able to visit with
their ancestors, including the conduct of culturally appropriate ceremonies prior to actually returning the
remains. Our organization has tried on three occasions to conduct cultural protocols with the iwi kũpuna
(ancestral bones) of Hawaiians held at the Natural History Museum in London and each time the museum
refused our request, despite our travelling half way around the world to visit with the ancestors. The ability
to conduct these ceremonies is part of our cultural responsibility to our ancestors to provide them with care
and protection. The right to do this is inherent in our relationship with our ancestors and it is inappropriate
for this right to be denied. The Natural History Museum, and all other publicly funded museums and
galleries in the United Kingdom should be encouraged to halt the practice of prohibiting the conduct of
ceremonies. Rather, the staV should be urged to learn the cultural practices of the peoples whose human
remains they hold in order to more clearly understand, as with Hawaiians, that the practice of withholding
ancestral remains from living descendants is considered hewa (wrong) and an act of desecration. We
Hawaiians have never withheld the remains of any British citizens and we would appreciate the same
courtesy be extended to us in return.
3. The Committee on Culture Media and Sport and the Working Group on Human Remains must
recommend and support appropriate amendments to existing legislation in order to require, allow and
provide for the repatriation of all human remains from foreign jurisdictions including Hawaii in which bona
fide claimants present requests for the return of identifiable ancestral remains. These amendments could
follow procedures similar to those applicable in the United States under the Native American Graves
Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA). Those procedures includes an inventory of human remains
and funerary possessions, a request by a bona fide claimant with experience in repatriation, and a process
by which to transfer physical possession of the ancestral remains and funerary possessions to the indigenous
claimant.
4. The Committee on Culture Media and Sport and the Working Group on Human Remains must
recommend that all publicly funded museums and galleries in the United Kingdom apply the principle of
informed consent of living descendants responsible for the care and protection of ancestral human remains
to issues relating to human remains in its collections including: (a) the display of human remains, (b)
information relating to human remains, (c) access to human remains, (d) the storage of human remains, and
(e) the repatriation of human remains for final disposition. In addition, informed consent must be acquired
from those living descendants in order for institutions to conduct any type of research on human remains
whose cultural aYliation is known due to the lack of familial connection between the museum and gallery
staV and the ancestral remains.
5. The issue of the repatriation of human remains cannot be resolved unless the requests of living
descendants are recognized as legitimate and respected. The fact that human remains may be of scientific
value, either now or in the future, does not convey on the scientific community rights pre-eminent over the
rights of living family. The Committee on Culture Media and Sport and the Working Group on Human
Remains must acknowledge the right of legitimate claimants to determine the disposition of human remains.
This would be a strong first step towards a resolution of these important issues and enable equitable
discussion. We note that such measures would not necessarily preclude scientific research.
6. It is suggested that the Working Group on Human Remains develop a Statement of Principles that is
based on the recognition of the right of indigenous groups to determine the future of their ancestors’
remains. Such rights should be unhindered by selective criteria other than criteria narrowly drawn and
developed with the participation of indigenous people regarding establishment of the legitimacy of the
request. There is a significant body of policy, legislation and experience, both within and outside the United
States, which can be used by the Working Group in developing such a Statement of Principles. The
Committee on Culture Media and Sport should support this eVort.
7. In light of the history of human remains collecting and the ongoing legitimate concerns of indigenous
groups, the Committee on Culture Media and Sport and the Working Group on Human Remains should
acknowledge that the descendants of human remains have the pre-eminent right to determine the future of
these remains.
2 September 2003
6. Memorandum submitted by Mr Charles Hill
INQUIRY INTO ILLICIT TRADE IN CULTURAL OBJECTS
The Scale and Implications of the Looting of the Iraq Museum in Baghdad and Museums and
Archaeological Sites Elsewhere in Iraq
Issues confronting the Committee’s inquiry are wider than recent wars in Iraq suggest.
A carrot and stick approach is a better idea to assist in the recovery of looted Mesopotamian antiquities
stolen from the Iraq Museum and elsewhere than just a legislative stick. In my opinion, and based on my
experience in dealing with art crime, government policy is more likely to be eVective with both incentives
and disincentives.
The 1990 cut oV date in recent legislation (Section 8 of the Iraq (United Nations Sanction) Order 2003)
is short sighted and arbitrary. Larger works of art and archaeological artefacts that were stolen and came
out of Iraq prior to 1990, or for which their acquisition date is contrived, should be recovered as well as those
looted since the first Gulf War. We need to develop confidential sources of information about these things.
A carrot and stick approach to antiquities dealers will help to do that.
I suggest that the Committee recommend to the Government an amnesty period for the return of Iraqi
antiquities that are known or believed to have been looted that is similar to the ones for firearms that the
police in this country periodically oVer. A year’s amnesty from the date of the Committee’s next published
report would be enough.
I also suggest that the Committee consider suggesting to the Government that an oVer is made to
reputable antiquities dealers for some of their costs in returning items. This would be to reimburse
reasonable transportation costs during an amnesty period. It is a small carrot, but would be an encouraging
incentive. The reason for this is that some of these items were bought in good faith before the recent sea
change in attitudes towards antiquities dealers. They have become pariahs, and Lord Renfrew’s and
Professor Riccardo Elia’s mantra, “Collectors are the real looters”, indicates their popular status. Perhaps
Professor Norman Palmer’s DCMS Ministerial Advisory Panel on Illicit Trade could be reconvened to
oversee and adjudicate such an incentive programme.
The attempt to curb the trade in looted antiquities could usefully include a curb on the trade in fakes and
forgeries of Mesopotamian art and artefacts. I see a lacuna in recent legislation that would allow fakers of
Mesopotamian antiquities opportunities to sell them, if they could prove that they were not looted originals
and they had no proveable intention to deceive. Of course, that should not include museum quality
reproductions such as the British Museum’s gold and lapis lazuli dagger and sheath from Ur (2600–2500
BC). The wider sale of quality reproductions like that might usefully help to defray the costs of the British
Museum’s and others’ good work in helping to stem the illicit antiquities trade.
8 September 2003
7. Memorandum submitted by the Commission for Looted Art in Europe

We understand that your Committee is currently taking further evidence on the subject of “Cultural
Property: Return and Illicit Trade” and would like to know if you are intending to look at the spoliation
aspect of this issue.
As you will know, Recommendations xvii, xix and xx in your 2000 Report have not been taken forward,
despite the Committee calling for progress to be made as a matter of urgency. Restitution remains
legislatively unavailable, even where trustees of a museum may wish to eVect it. You may also be aware of
the two recent articles in the Guardian, of which I am attaching copies, which set out some issues relating
to current practice with the art trade.
We should be interested to learn what your plans are, and look forward to hearing from you.
4 November 2003
8. Supplementary memorandum submitted by the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport
(incorporating a statement submitted jointly with the Home OYce)
I undertook to write to you following the oral evidence I gave on 11 November. Since then, you have
also written asking a number of specific questions, to which I have pleasure in providing my response.
Legislation
1. You questioned me on the Department’s position with regard to legislation following the
recommendations of the Committee’s July 2000 Report. Although the absence of any legislative time
prevented us from taking early legislative action on these, we were able to give eVect to your
recommendation concerning unlawfully removed cultural objects through supporting Richard Allan’s
Private Member’s Bill which as you know has now completed its progress onto the statute book. Taken
together with our accession to the 1970 UNESCO Convention, these measures have put the UK at the
forefront of major market countries working hard to curb the international illicit trade in cultural objects.
2. On the matter of human remains, we considered it prudent to await the outcome of the Working
Group, which my predecessor established under the able chairmanship of Professor Norman Palmer and
which reported to us in September this year. I am moreover very pleased that my colleagues at the
Department of Health have been so cooperative in our work to include measures in the Human Tissue Bill,
which was announced by the Queen last week.
3. It is also worth noting that, via the Working Group’s Report, and the subsequent announcement of
our intention to legislate at the earliest possible opportunity, to enable museums to return human remains
in their custody, we have fulfilled (and, indeed, exceeded) all the Committee’s July 2000 recommendations
concerning human remains.
4. On the matter of items spoliated during the 1939–45 Nazi era, early attempts to take forward the
recommendation for a change in the legislation, using the Regulatory Reform Act, were unsuccessful
because the Act proved to be an unsuitable vehicle. Moreover, it subsequently transpired that, rather than
the “thousands of claims” that it was suggested we would receive, there have in fact been only five claims
made to the Panel.
5. The Panel has the express power under paragraph 9 of its terms of reference to make recommendations
to me as regards the need for legislation to alter the powers and duties of any institution. If such
representations are made to me, then I will consider very carefully how to take forward such legislation.
Clarification of Oral Evidence [By Footnotes]

6. I would like here to add three footnotes to the oral evidence that I gave on 11 November.
7. First, at the end of my response to Q317, I noted that the Spoliation Advisory Panel “has the power
to direct me as the Secretary of State to submit the case for legislation but it has not done so” (emphasis
added). I should be grateful if you would include a footnote along the following lines for clarification:
“Paragraph 9 of the Spoliation Advisory Panel’s Terms of Reference provides that when advising the
Secretary of State the Panel shall be free to recommend any action which they consider appropriate, and in
particular may . . . direct the attention of the Secretary of State to the need for legislation to alter the powers
and duties of any institution.”
8. Second, I also noted in this response that “The advice to my department from those who sit on the
panel is that legislation which might have been necessary is not now thought to be necessary.” However, Dr
Gaimster’s reply in Q318, and my own replies in Q321 Q322 and 324, further clarify this point: for example
at Q322 I said, “I have received no further advice from Sir David Hirst or from my oYcials that legislation
is necessary in order to facilitate the work of the Spoliation Advisory Panel”. Therefore, whilst the Panel
has power to recommend legislation, it has not yet done so.
9. Third, in Q320, Dr Gaimster is reported as saying that “What [the Panel] has been recommending in
several of these cases is resolution through compensation” (emphasis added). In fact, compensation has to
date been recommended in just one case. I should therefore be grateful if you could also add a footnote to
set the record straight here.
Natural History Museum

10. I undertook at the hearing to ask the Natural History Museum whether they would consider opening
an annex in Sydney. I have to advise you that this is however, not permitted under the legislation governing
the Museum. The Act which governs both the Natural History Museum and the British Museum (The
British Museum Act 1963) allows me to designate new repositories for the collections of the British Museum
or National History Museum. However, the legislation does not contain a power to designate repositories
abroad i.e. outside Great Britain. This is not something which Parliament envisaged at the time that the Act
was passed. By contrast, the possibility of loaning an object to a country outside the United Kingdom was
addressed and is provided for in section 4 of the Act.
Undertakings by the Secretary of State and Supplementary Questions from the Committee
Question (i): A considered view in writing on the possible courses of action open to the trustees of national
museums in response to validated claims for the restitution of spoliated items from within their collections. It
would be helpful for this memorandum to include an assessment of the circumstances in which the Department
would pursue legislative change to permit the return of such items from national museums and galleries.
11. As I have explained above, I would await any recommendation from the Spoliation Advisory Panel
before putting forward legislative proposals.
12. In relation to possible courses of action, any specific course open to the trustees in such cases will be
for them to consider, in the light of their legal powers and the particular circumstances of any case. We have,
though, tried to indicate below the general framework of actions that might be open to trustees in response
to validated claims for restitution. (This includes the reply I undertook to give concerning the powers of
Trustees to make loans.)
(1) Loans
13. Whether or not the trustees of the national museums will be able to loan an item will depend on their
interpretation of their statutory powers in particular circumstances and the manner in which they decide to
exercise those powers. However, the broad general principle that runs through the legislation governing the
diVerent national museums is that trustees may lend items, although the precise nature of their powers varies
from statute to statute.
14. An indication of the diVerences in the legal powers of the trustees of the national museums so far as
the loaning of objects is concerned can be gained from looking at the statutes governing the following groups
of institutions by way of example: (1) the British Museum and the Natural History Museum, (2) the Victoria
and Albert Museum, the Science Museum, and the Armouries (3) the Museum of London and (4) the
National Gallery, Tate Gallery and the National Portrait Gallery. (For ease of reference, the relevant
sections of the governing statutes are included at Annex A). The variety of provisions is illustrated by the
fact that in the case of the British Museum and the Natural History Museum the ability to loan is limited
to public exhibition, whereas the legislation governing the National Gallery, Tate Gallery and the National
Portrait Gallery gives a power to loan whether or not the loan is for the purpose of public exhibition.
(2) General Powers

15. The trustees of national museums could also be expected to consider the extent of their statutory
powers when they are faced with a claim for the return of an object. Each case would need to be considered
on its own facts by reference to the relevant institution’s governing legislation to establish whether there is
any possibility of returning an object. It is conceivable that, in some limited circumstances, there could be
suYcient flexibility in the statutory framework to enable an institution to transfer an item from its collection.
As is the case with the legal powers in respect of the loaning of objects, the legal powers of the national
museums relating to other matters vary from institution to institution.
16. For reference the relevant statutory provisions for the following groups of national museums are
attached at Annex B: (1) the British Museum and the Natural History Museum, (2) the Victoria and Albert
Museum and the Science Museum and (3) the National Gallery Board, the Tate Gallery Board and the
National Gallery Board. DiVerent statutes use diVerent terminology in the relevant provisions. For
example, the concept used in connection with disposal in the British Museum Act 1963 is one of unfitness
(see section 5(1)(c)) whilst the equivalent provisions in the other legislation cited is that of unsuitability save
in the case of the National Portrait Gallery. Here the legislation provides for circumstances where the
identification of an individual in a portrait is discredited.
(3) Compensation
17. The trustees in any given case could also consider the possibilities of compensation, depending on the
circumstances, although they may need prior Government approval.
(4) Section 27 of the Charities Act 1993 etc

18. Another course might be to apply to the Charity Commissioners (under section 27 of the Charities
Act 1993), or to the Attorney General or the Courts, to seek authorisation to return the property where the
trustees regard themselves as being under a moral obligation to do so. These are uncharted legal waters in
relation to national museums governed by statute. Sir Anthony Mason’s lecture of 1 October 2002 (attached
at Annex C) indicates the legal complexities surrounding this area and mentions the memorandum
submitted to you by the Charity Commission in April 2000, which describes the diVerent courses of action
open to trustees.
Question (ii): An analysis of “the period of time since your recommendation was made and the two relevant
departments, my Department and the Home OYce, embarked on their work”. The Committee takes this to
mean an analysis of the process of consideration from July 2000 to now. The Committee would be most assisted
in coming to its conclusions if this analysis included particular attention to the following areas:
— A full explanation of the principles agreed by the first working party in March 2001 and the extent
to which these principles continued, and continue, to inform proposals for implementation;
— Discussion, decision and rationale for disbanding the initial working group; whether guidance was
sought from the OYce of Government Commerce or reference made to Government Accounting;
— The nature of DCMS participation in, or consultation over, the subsequent study undertaken by the
Police Information Technology Organisation (PITO);
— Consideration by the Department, singly and/or jointly with the Home OYce, of the PITO report’s
conclusions; and the use made of its analysis, conclusions and/or cost estimates in subsequent
discussions;
— The extent to which precedents, and/or analogies, of public/private cooperation provided by The
National Plant & Equipment Register (a database of stolen construction equipment and related
information) and HPI and Experian (databases of stolen cars and related information) informed the
process of consideration.
— The rationale for the DCMS and Home OYce working on two diVerent and competing options for a
national database at this stage of the process.
— The DCMS’ view of the need for independent review of the options and the involvement of the
Department in the appointment of consultants to carry out this review.
It would also be helpful for the Committee to receive (i) a summary of the CoPAT proposal put forward to
ITAP on 5 November, and (ii) the outline business case presented to the working group in May 2003 (referred
to by the Home OYce Minister at Q281).
19. I have pleasure in enclosing a copy of a joint memorandum on the behalf of Caroline Flint and myself,
together with the requested documentation (see below).
Question (iii): The Secretary of State said that: “when the [Dealing in Cultural Objects (OVences)]
legislation was being drafted, Customs and Excise actually resisted inclusion of those powers [to act in respect
of imports of tainted cultural property] because they were concerned about the resource consequences for
them.” With regard to the new Act, witnesses from Customs drew a distinction between complete prohibition,
a licensing regime and the adopted course, about which Customs said, “At least we can now act in terms of
enforcement.” Please clarify what powers were sought for inclusion in the new Act by DCMS and resisted by
Customs as indicated by the Secretary of State. Please clarify whether the DCMS views the Dealing in Cultural
Objects (OVences) Act as meeting the obligations placed upon the UK in respect of imports by Article 7 of the
relevant UNESCO Convention.
20. It would be helpful first to explain how the relevant provisions of the Act work. Section 4(1) to (3)
enable Customs to bring proceedings for the oVence created by the Act where it involves the importation
or exportation of a tainted cultural object. We do not expect Customs generally to exercise these powers.
Where they have evidence that such an oVence has been committed, we would normally expect Customs to
forward that evidence to the police for them to consider prosecution. The importance of investing Customs
with this power is that it acts as the trigger for them to be able to exercise search and seizure powers in
relation to tainted cultural objects within the context of investigating whether an oVence has been committed
under the Act. These powers of investigation are conferred by subsection (4) of Section 4. In eVect what
that subsection does is to attract Customs’ investigation powers (including their powers of search etc.) under
the Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE) 1984.
21. There is an assumption underlying one of the questions asked by Mr Doran (Q304) that Customs
only have power to act in relation to tainted cultural objects when it is connected with something else, for
example drugs, firearms or some other illicit material. As explained above, this is not in fact the case.
Customs have now clarified that, by virtue of Section 4 making a suspected import or export of tainted goods
an assigned matter, they are able to search for such goods whether in passenger or freight traYc and can
use their search and seizure powers under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. Customs are waiting
to see what sort of cases arise and until the picture is clearer they believe that their ability to maintain seizure
will, depending on the facts of the particular case, also have to rely on other Customs provisions; for
example, evasion of revenue or some other prohibition.
22. The Committee has been concerned to understand why no general prohibition on the importation of
tainted cultural objects has been imposed. The best place to start in considering this is probably the Select
Committee’s Report on Cultural Property: Return and Illicit Trade of July 2000. In paragraph 105 of that
Report the Committee stated—
“HM Customs also indicated that, ‘in the absence of specific intelligence or reasons to target a
particular consignment, we would have no means by which to routinely enforce an import licensing
system on movements from within the [European] Community’. HM Customs considered that a
prohibition on importation of certain categories of cultural property without a licensing system
‘would not be terribly eVective’ because there would be little evidence ascertainable by the Customs
to lead it to detain a consignment.”
23. This evidence seems to have led the Committee to conclude (in paragraph 107) “that the single most
important measure to be taken is a change to the criminal law of the United Kingdom relating to the illicit
trade . . . At the same time, we are mindful of the need to ensure that any new oVence is practical and
enforceable. For this reason, and in the light of the evidence of HM Customs and Excise, we have rejected
the proposal that it should be an oVence to import into the United Kingdom cultural objects illegally
exported from another country.”
24. Both DCMS and Customs continue to take the view that it would be inappropriate to impose a
substantive prohibition on the importation of tainted cultural objects. This is not something that DCMS
have ever pressed for inclusion in connection with the new oVence. DCMS have accepted Customs’ belief
there are a number of practical reasons against it. It would not be obvious to frontier oYcers at the time of
import or export that the objects were tainted. In the absence of the clearest evidence Customs’ action would
be highly contentious and would be likely to generate a lot of appeals. In short, it would not be an eVective
method of control. There would also have been an issue of how to treat intra-EU traYc.
25. Although DCMS and Customs do not believe it is feasible to impose a substantive prohibition on the
importation of tainted cultural objects, we consider that powers should be conferred on Customs oYcers to
investigate (including being able to use powers of search and seizure) where they suspect that a person has
or is committing the oVence under the Act by importing or exporting a tainted cultural object. The
mechanism that has been used to achieve this is to attract the investigation (including search and seizure)
powers conferred on Customs oYcers under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. The same
approach has been adopted in the case of the Biological Weapons Act 1974, the Chemical Weapons Act
1996 and for nuclear weapons under the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001.
26. Although, because of resource implications, Customs’ initial thinking was that they did not wish to
have an explicit prosecution role under Section 4 of the Dealing in Cultural Objects (OVences) Act 2003, it
was agreed that these powers were necessary to trigger their powers of search and seizure under the Police
and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and that their use of prosecution powers would be entirely discretionary.
Article 7 of the 1970 UNESCO

27. It was considered that no additional legislation was required to implement the obligations imposed
on the UK by the 1970 UNESCO Convention, including those in Article 7. Having said that, the new Act
will strengthen the protections that exist in the UK against those who act dishonestly in importing objects
that have been illegally removed from monuments and from parts of buildings, and therefore will contribute
to meeting the objectives enshrined in article 7(b) of UNESCO.
Question (iv): On 8 July, the Secretary of State told the Committee that the Home OYce had indicated that
it was prepared to consider the case for . . . a contribution to the cost of establishing and running a Metropolitan
Police database providing . . . [inter alia] . . . the link between investment in such a database and dealing with
money laundering, drug traYcking and other criminal activities increasingly associated with crime in the art
market is proven.” Whose task is it to gather and disseminate such intelligence? Is it part of joint Home OYce/
DCMS work on options for a database to research and assess these links?
28. Please see the joint memorandum referred to above, under (ii).
Question (v): In the Department’s memorandum, submitted in advance of the session on 8 July, reference is
made to the other database recommended by ITAP (for relevant international legislation applying to cultural
objects). The memorandum said that this initiative was being taken forward by UNESCO with DCMS
assistance. What progress has been made with this database?
29. The DCMS Ministerial Advisory Panel in its Report of December 2000 recommended the institution
of a comprehensive and universally accessible electronic database of international legislation on cultural
property. The database should be run as a service available to all who transact in cultural objects. It should
seek to record information about past as well as present laws and about judicial decisions construing those
laws. It should, like other modern law databases, be constantly updated. Proof of reference to the database
will be relevant to a possessor’s legal position.
30. It was agreed by ITAP (The illicit Trade Advisory Panel) that UNESCO is the best organisation to
take the lead on this initiative, and DCMS has been discussion for some time with UNESCO on the launch
of the first phase of such a database. Such a resource would have the widest possible dissemination through
availability in its original language and automatic translation into the two oYcial languages of UNESCO.
31. At its 32nd General Conference in October 2003 UNESCO voted a budget for launching at the
earliest possible date an electronic cultural property legislation database “bringing together all national
legislation applicable in Member States of UNESCO concerning the import, export and transfer of
ownership of cultural property and also including models of the export and import certificates for cultural
property in use in Member States”. DCMS was instrumental in ensuring that the UK was among the States
Parties registering support for the necessary amendment to the budget vote on major programmes and
projects relating to cross-cutting cultural property themes for 2004–05.
32. UNESCO will shortly be issuing an invitation to States Parties to submit all national legislation
concerning the import, export and transfer of ownership of cultural property and also including models of
the export and import certificates for cultural property in use in the Member States.
Human Remains
Question (vi): The report of the Working Group on Human Remains concludes that the principle of consent
should underpin the approach to the retention and treatment of human remains by museums just as it underpins
the proposed provisions of the Human Tissue Bill. Does the Department agree with this?
— If this principle, and other provisions of the proposed legislation, are not to apply to human remains
held by museums is it a matter of circumscribing the ambit of the proposed legislation or simply not
extending it?
33. We do not envisage that the consent requirement for the holding of human tissue will be diVerent for
museums than for any other sector aVected by the Bill.
Spoliation and Wider Return Issues

Question (vii): In what circumstances would the DCMS reanimate the process of seeking legislative change
to allow the trustees of national museums to restore spoliated items to their pre-1933–45 owners and how would
this be achievable?
34. I refer you to my answer to (i) above.
Question (viii): Professor Palmer raised the possibility of establishing a single mediation and advisory body
which would subsume the roles and functions of the Spoliation Panel and proposed Human Remains Panel and
advise Government with regard to other, wider, repatriation issues (ie the recommended work on sacred
objects). Will this proposal form part of the consultation about to be launched by DCMS in reply to the
WGHR?
35. This is an issue I shall consider further before issuing the consultation document.
IRAQ
Question (ix): What is the latest state of intelligence on losses from the National Museum in Baghdad and
other museums and sites around Iraq?
36. As was made clear in the Department’s evidence to the Select Committee hearing on 8 July this year,
there was a great deal of conflicting information immediately after the arrival of Coalition troops in
Baghdad and it is now clear that by far the majority of the most important items in the Baghdad Museum
collection had been removed for safekeeping long before the start of the recent conflict.
37. The original scale of losses at the Museum was thought to be as high as around 170,000 items, but
this has now been re-estimated at around 3,000 items, of which 30 or so are considered to be highly
significant items, probably stolen by professional thieves. It is very diYcult to get a final accurate assessment
of numbers of missing pieces because many of the pieces assumed missing had not been catalogued or given
a museum number. Many of the missing artefacts may never be recovered at all since they were probably
stolen several years ago by senior figures in the Ba’ath regime: Saddam’s eldest son, Uday, is known to have
made huge profits from the international trade in antiquities.
38. The amnesty conducted by US forces has had very positive results. Almost 2,000 items have been
returned, including key pieces, such as the 5,200-year-old Sacred Vase of Warka, one of the greatest
treasures of Mesopotamian antiquity, which was recovered by the Museum in June.
39. In addition, the Nimrud gold treasure was located intact in the vaults of the Central Bank of Iraq in
early July and is now back in the bank vaults pending security improvements at the Baghdad Museum. It
is intended to exhibit the Treasure at eight locations in the US, Japan and in Europe in order to raise much
needed funds for the Baghdad Museum and the country’s archaeological sites.
40. The Museum’s staV have stressed that while work is continuing on preparing a detailed inventory of
items still missing, they also want to now move forward on re-equipping the Museum and reopening some
of the galleries as soon as possible.
41. In late June the British Museum sent a team to the Iraq Museum, primarily to work on a conservation
survey of damaged artefacts. They are now arranging to follow up this initiative through top-up training of
Iraqi conservators at the BM in London. When the security situation in Iraq is more stable, the BM plan
to lead an international team of conservators who will spend three months working in Iraq helping train
museum staV and promoting the spread of best practice.
42. The UN Security Council has adopted Resolution 1483 of May 2003 lifting sanctions on Iraq but,
thanks to UK pressure, maintained the restrictions, among other goods, on the import and trade in
unlawfully removed Iraqi cultural property. The Iraq (UN Sanctions) Order 2003 made under the United
Nations Act 1946 brought these restrictions into eVect within the UK on 14 June, with a maximum penalty
of 7 years imprisonment. Given the emergency nature of the post-conflict looting crisis in Iraq and the
potential use of the UK as a marketplace for looted Iraqi cultural objects, the UK Government implemented
the UNSCR embargo on illegally removed Iraqi cultural property as comprehensively as possible.
43. Recent press reports indicate that three London antiquities dealers have been arrested in a secret
police operation for allegedly dealing in artefacts looted from Iraq. In connection with the arrest, Police
recovered an Assyrian stone relief looted in 1991 after the Gulf War from the palace of Ashur Nasir-pal II
in central Iraq. The recent action illustrates the eVectiveness of the Iraq (UN Sanctions) Order.
44. The press has just reported the seizure of further consignments of looted artefacts from Iraqi
museums and sites at an airport in France and also in Kuwait, where 33 cuneiform tablets were taken from
a dealer of Sardinian origin.
45. The new Iraqi Culture minister al-Jazairi has also announced that an oYcial enquiry will be set up
investigate the looting of museums and libraries during the recent conflict.
46. On the question of Iraq’s archaeological sites, it is true to say that, although looting has been common
in Iraq since the 1990 Gulf War, the recent conflict has escalated the situation and, despite best eVorts of
Coalition authorities, a high level of looting continues.
47. The 10,000 or so documented archaeological sites in Iraq are generally in remote desert regions. They
are diYcult to protect, particularly since civilian guards (paid employees of the Iraqi State Board of
Antiquities) are not allowed to carry firearms. On those sites where civilian guards are stationed it is all too
easy for the guards (usually only one guard) to be overrun by looters.
48. By the end of July this year Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) cultural staV (DCMS) struck a
voluntary agreement with army commanders in each of the CPA regions to place guards on the 50 most
important sites, as identified by international scholars, and to monitor the more remote sites. This
surveillance has involved regular flyovers by helicopter flights or site visits from troops stationed near to the
sites. Action has also been taken to ensure that salaries are paid to site-guards on the Iraqi State Board of
Antiquities payroll. The CPA is currently bidding for funds to double the number of guards on
archaeological sites, to arm them and to equip them with transmitter radios and all-terrain vehicles so that
they can monitor vulnerable sites in conjunction with local police forces.
49. The return of normal archaeological activity to Iraq will greatly alleviate the problem because
archaeologists generally supply their own security. But this will take some time to achieve and in the
meantime the sites are vulnerable. This eVectively means that the best way to reduce looting is to stabilise
Iraq so that normal archaeological activity can be resumed.
Joint Supplementary Memorandum submitted by the Home OYce and the

Department for Culture, Media and Sport
Cultural property: Government response to the questions raised at, and following, evidence given before
the Culture, Media and Sport Committee on 11 November 2003.
1. This joint Home OYce and Department for Culture, Media and Sport memorandum covers:
(a) the two issues on which Caroline Flint, Member of the House and Parliamentary Under-
Secretary of State at the Home OYce, promised to report back to the Committee;
(b) two further questions subsequently raised with the Home OYce by the Committee;
(c) the issue regarding the planned database of stolen or illicitly removed cultural items on which
Tessa Jowell, Member of the House and Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport,
promised to report back to the Committee; and
(d) several issues relating to this undertaking subsequently raised with the Department for Culture,
Media and Sport by the Committee.
2. All of these issues are very closely related and we felt it would be more helpful to the Committee
to cover them in a single joint memorandum.
3. Caroline Flint agreed to report back to the Committee on two questions:
(a) what resources are available within police forces across the country to deal with illicit trade in
cultural items; and
(b) what work had been undertaken to investigate why cultural items are stolen.
4. Resources devoted to tackling the illicit trade in cultural objects across all the forces are limited.
This is not surprising considering that:
(a) the extent of the illicit trade in cultural objects is not known but is much smaller than volume
crimes such as burglary, vehicle crime and street crime; and
(b) the trade in arts and antiques is concentrated in London.
The majority of forces do, however, have a due diligence oYcer who is tasked with dealing with issues
around stolen cultural artefacts. A national database will help such oYcers to carry out their duties more
eVectively and a crucial part of the project to take forward the development of a national database will
be to actively promote its use among police forces.
The art and antiques industry in the United Kingdom as a whole is vast and no police force has, or
will ever realistically have, the available resources to police this industry closely. For this reason it is
essential that the industry should police itself. We hope that the development of a national database,
along with the promotion and training that will accompany it, will create a two-pronged approach with
the industry and the police working together to combat this illicit trade.
5. With regard to any investigation into why cultural items are stolen, no extensive work has been
undertaken to date to look into the specific reasons why cultural items are stolen. However, the
Metropolitan Police’s Art and Antiques Unit believe that the motivation for the illegal removal of cultural
objects from another country is financial gain. The financial gain is limited for those in the source
country; nonetheless, large sums are involved in the disposal process within the UK and risks are low.
If anybody was successfully prosecuted, the sentence is likely to be comparatively low. The financial gain
is therefore the primary motivation, but what cannot be said with certainty is how much of the funds
obtained are used to fund terrorist activity or other organised crime.
Some cultural heritage items are stolen to feed the demand of pre-identified illicit markets within the
UK. Evidence suggests that the vast majority of items of cultural heritage stolen within the UK are
disposed of within the UK.
6. Further to these questions the Committee has requested that this memorandum tackle a further
two points.
(a) An apparent discrepancy arising in evidence. The Minister suggested that a major obstacle had
been overcome—presumably recently—in the form of police apprehension over a database that
was accessible beyond the service. However, the Home OYce memorandum reports agreement
by the first working party (which included the Met) to principles for the database in March
2001—one of which was ’accessiblility’. The Committee would appreciate clarification on this
point.
(b) The Committee would also appreciate the view of the Home OYce on potential precedents or
analogies to public/private partnership in providing theft alerts and related data. The examples
that the Committee have in mind are The National Plant and Equipment Register (TER)—in
relation to heavy construction equipment—and HPI and Experian—in relation to cars—where,

we understand, data is provided on an on-going basis from the Police National Computer. The
Committee would be grateful for a comparison between current proposals for the cultural
objects database and the way these vehicle databases operate (as well as a summary history of
the public sector involvement in the development of the latter).
7. With regard to accessibility to the database, there is no discrepancy in the evidence given to the
Committee. Everybody who took part in the second working party meeting in March 2001 agreed the
criteria set out in our earlier memorandum. However, at the time the Metropolitan Police had a good
reason why they could not meet this criteria in developing its own database: they were working closely
with the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and were hoping to link up their database through a
secure FBI intranet system. It was made clear at the meeting that this system would be for international
police force use only as an investigative tool and not for private sector use. The FBI was prepared to
work with the UK only on this basis. Hence, although the Metropolitan Police supported the agreed
criteria, they could not provide a trade-accessible database at that time. That is why the Home OYce
had to pursue other options at that stage.
8. With regard to potential precedents or analogies regarding public/private partnerships, as stated at
the Select Committee meeting on 11 November 2003, the two proposals we have on the table at the
moment are in the process of developing more detailed business plans. Until this level of detail is available,
we will not be able to make an accurate or useful analogy to existing public/private partnerships. We
are aware of the work that is being undertaken in partnership with the private sector in other areas and
will be looking closely at how we can perhaps use this to assist us in our work. We would be happy to
provide a more detailed analysis once we have more information from each option.
An important point to make at this early stage is that the companies listed by the Committee do not
receive data directly from the Police National Computer. The information comes from monthly
downloads from the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) and extracts from the PNC. However,
there is no direct connection to the PNC, the information is first modified to include only the vehicle
details and then put on a cartridge that is delivered to the companies. These companies do not have data
on the victims and their contact point is always the force in question. If the DVLA and the Police
agreements are breached in any way they can stop providing updates.
9. Tessa Jowell, Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, promised to report back to the
Committee on the following point: to provide an analysis of the period of time since your
recommendation was made and the two relevant departments, DCMS and the Home OYce, embarked
on their work.
10. Our previous memorandum (as submitted by Caroline Flint to the Select Committee on 5
November 2003) set out in chronological order all the steps that have been taken since July 2000 to
develop a national cultural database. It also highlighted some of the obstacles faced. The memorandum
aimed to draw attention to what had happened over the past three years by way of background to the
position we are now in and the full significance of the steps we are now taking. We believe it is important
to look to the past to help us go forward but we must now concentrate on the task in hand and focus
on doing what is necessary to develop a national database. We are happy to expand on the earlier
document and do so below.
The Committee asked for a full explanation of the principles agreed by the first working party in March
2001 and the extent to which these principles continued, and continue, to inform proposals for
implementation.
11. The first working party was in January 2001 and the second in March 2001. The working party
was tasked with considering the scope, aims and operation of a national database.
12. Some of the discussion points on the database principles are listed below. The database should:
(a) contain only object data and not crime data. The latter should be kept on the Police National
Computer. One suggestion was that a Crime Reference Number should be held against each
object to allow police to cross reference with the PNC;
(b) not be developed without considering international implications;
(c) have an image capability;
(d) data should be entered by trained cataloguing personnel;
(e) encompass a comprehensive system that would have the capacity to search for illegally
excavated/removed objects, both in this country and abroad;
(f) include images and descriptions of objects that were likely to be the subject of illegal excavation;
(g) be able to handle high levels of data and to search them against the stolen database, this was
deemed to be an essential feature of a proactive system;
(h) allow access to members of the art trade, the insurance industry, and private individuals. This
would have to include diVerent levels of access and audit trails;
(i) be compatible with the international Object ID standard as recommended in the ITAP report
of December 2000;
(j) allow for information already gathered by the police to be recycled and therefore not adding
yet another paper task to oYcers’ duties;
(k) allow data to be captured electronically. This was deemed to be some way oV; and
(l) have an integrity protocol agreed by ACPO.
13. At that early stage the working party can best be described as a brainstorming session and, as
mentioned in paragraph 5 of our previous joint memorandum, it did establish some general principles.
These principles have not changed and we still believe that, ideally, the database should be comprehensive,
accessible, a proactive investigative tool used by all police forces and secure with guaranteed integrity.
However, it has been agreed that, in order to take this work forward as soon as possible and ensure that
the database develops according to user needs, we may be required to consider some compromises. For
example, although we firmly agree and support the fact that any database needs to be internationally
compatible, we recognise that this is an aspect of the database that may have to be developed over time.
The Committee asked about the discussion, decision and rationale for disbanding the initial working group;
whether guidance was sought from the OYce of Government Commerce or reference made to Government
Accounting.
14. As stated in paragraph 6 of our previous joint memorandum, there were two reasons for disbanding
the working party in its current form.
15. First, there was a potential conflict of interest in having two commercial database companies as
members of a working party involved in developing a user specification, should they subsequently decide
to bid for any contract to run the database. If it were decided to go for a public/private sector partnership,
under EC law we would need to run an open competition for the contract. OYcials at the Home OYce
were advised by the Commercial and Procurement Unit that there was a potential conflict of interest.
The Commercial and Procurement Unit always has due regard to Government Accounting when
providing advice. In this instance, other bidding companies would have legitimate cause for complaint if
a company that had participated in the working group drawing up the criteria were awarded the contract.
16. Second, private database companies might naturally have an interest in pursuing a private sector
approach. We did not rule out taking forward a private sector approach but the company’s participation
meant that the working group could not consider all the potential options objectively.
The Committee asked about the nature of DCMS participation in, or consultation over, the subsequent
study undertaken by the Police Information Technology Organisation.
17. On 9 May 2001, Charles Clarke (then Minister of State at the Home OYce) wrote to Alan Howarth,
Parliamentary Under-Secretary for the Department of Culture, Media and Sport to inform him of the
progress on developing a national database. In this letter, Charles Clarke asked the DCMS minister for
his views on disbanding the working group and tasking the Police Information Technology Organisation
(PITO) to produce an options analysis. Subject to DCMS’s agreement, PITO would begin work to
produce a report within three months.
18. In his reply to Charles Clarke of 24 May 2001, Alan Howarth agreed to the disbanding of the
working group and for PITO to be tasked with producing an options analysis.
19. Both the Home OYce and DCMS were consulted by PITO throughout and subsequently the draft
report was sent for comment to oYcials in both departments as well as to ACPO, NCIS and the
Metropolitan Police. The source documents used for the report included the Select Committee Report
of July 2000, the ITAP report of December 2000 and the minutes for the first two Working Party meetings
in January and March 2001.
The Committee asked about consideration by the DCMS, singly and/or jointly with the Home OYce, of the
PITO report’s conclusions; and the use made of its analysis, conclusions and/or cost estimates in subsequent
discussions.
20. As stated in paragraph 7 of our previous memorandum, DCMS took part in a smaller working
group that was reconvened in March 2002 to discuss the PITO report. Both the Home OYce and DCMS
were of the view that, before considering a complex procurement exercise with a large cost implication,
we should investigate the feasibility of utilising existing police and NCIS facilities.
21. The PITO report provided a useful analysis of the various options available to us at that time.
The option identified in the report as “preferred” was a partnership between the government, the Police
Service and existing commercial suppliers. This option included a suggestion that the database should
be independently managed by NCIS. Given this finding, it was appropriate that our eVorts should then
focus on approaching NCIS.
22. With regards to cost estimates, in November 2001 when PITO produced their report, an estimated
cost over five years of̈ 12 million for a public/private partnership and £14 million for a new police database
seemed, to all parties, to be too expensive. But until we had investigated other options we could not
adequately judge the reasonableness of this. In the light of the current estimated costs of the Metropolitan
Police and the CoPAT options, we believe we were right to pursue more cost-eVective solutions.
The Committee questioned the rationale for the DCMS and Home OYce working on two diVerent and
competing options for a national database at this stage of the process.
23. These options only came to the fore recently and they came to us at around the same time. Prima
facie, both the Metropolitan police and CoPAT proposals are viable options, but they have varying
characteristics and, until we receive more details of each (including, but not solely, of costs) we are not
in a position to make a well-informed decision on which one should be taken forward.
24. Working on two diVerent options is an attempt by both departments to focus their eVorts on
making the most of available resources by using the expertise that exists in their respective fields. There
is no ready-made solution and these two diVerent options encapsulate the best from both the industry
and the police.
25. We are not working separately on these two options. Whilst it is true that DCMS has been leading
on the CoPAT option, and the Home OYce on the Metropolitan Police option, in order to develop the
optimum solution, oYcials are staying in close contact.
On 8 July, the Secretary of State for the Department of Culture, Media and Sport told the Committee
that the Home OYce had indicated that it was prepared to consider the case for . . . a contribution to the
cost of establishing and running a Metropolitan Police database providing . . . [inter alia] . . . the link
between investment in such a database and dealing with money laundering, drug traYcking and other criminal
activities increasingly associated with crime in the art market is proven.” The Committee asked whose task
is it to gather and disseminate such intelligence? Is it part of joint Home OYce/DCMS work on options
for a database to research and assess these links?
26. There is no single organisation tasked with gathering intelligence on organised crime, this work
is undertaken by a wide range of organisations. However, when making reference to the links between
the illicit trade in cultural objects and organised crime we have drawn on information supplied by NCIS
and the Metropolitan Police’s Art and Antiques Unit. One of NCIS’ core functions is to gather
intelligence on organised crime and the Art and Antiques Unit naturally picks up valuable intelligence
through their work. These two organisations are, therefore, best placed to give accurate information as
to the links between this trade and organised crime.
27. The link between the illegal trade in cultural items and organised crime has been shown through
individual cases but the extent of this link has not yet been investigated fully. Although a strong argument
has been put forward by the Metropolitan Police Art and Antiques Unit, largely in the form of case
studies, the full crime reduction potential behind a cultural database is unclear.
28. The Interpol Criminal Information System (ICIS) also shows links to organised crime in individual
cases, notably with money laundering and drug traYcking oVences. However, NCIS has confirmed to
us that the extent of the link between the illicit trade in cultural property and organised crime has not
been accurately assessed.
29. The Home OYce will consider whether to request such an assessment. In deciding whether to take
such work forward, the Home OYce will have to make sure that it was deemed to be cost-eVective,
especially given the competing priorities facing those involved in tackling organised crime. We would
also need to consider whether the development of the database should be delayed pending the results of
the assessment.
The Committee asked for DCMS’ view of the need for independent review of the options and the
involvement of the Department in the appointment of consultants to carry out this review.
30. DCMS believes the best way forward is to work with the Home OYce to assess which option
should be taken forward. Once both options have developed a detailed business case the Government,
with the help of independent consultants, will be able to make an informed decision as to the best way
forward. Amongst other things, the exercise will refine diverse user needs, systems requirements, data
handling, access issues and operating costs.
31. It has been agreed that any proposal should be developed initially by Government as a pilot project.
The database can then be expanded and altered as informed by the pilot and future user-needs.
32. A national database needs to benefit all parties involved in reducing the illicit trade in cultural
objects, and this includes the police and all those who operate in the marketplace. The pilot project will
ensure that the database delivers a valuable due-diligence tool to all stakeholders.
33. The appointment of independent consultants will help to resolve outstanding issues and lead to a
swifter decision on the way forward. They will be able to approach the subject with complete impartiality.
An independent scoping exercise undertaken by consultants will defeat any future arguments that the
final decision was marred by vested interest.
34. Both the Home OYce and DCMS will be working together shortly on setting the terms of reference
for the independent consultants. It is envisaged that the consultants should report back to Government
on the way ahead by the end of March 2004. Once the consultants have reported the two Departments
will discuss the strategy and timeframe for the pilot project.
The Committee asked for (i) a summary of the CoPAT proposal put forward to ITAP on 5 November,
and (ii) the outline business case presented to the working group in May 2003 (referred to by the Home
OYce Minister at Q281).
35. Please find these documents annexed. The CoPAT proposal is a text-based version of the oral
presentation given to the DCMS Illicit Trade Advisory Panel on 5 November 2003.
28 November 2003
9. Supplementary memorandum submitted by Salvo

Evidence given to the Committee by HM Customs and Excise, the Home OYce and DCMS on
11 November 2003
HM Customs
The thrust of questions concerned imports or through traYc of cultural goods from abroad, but nothing
on the movement of the UK’s own cultural goods to countries abroad. The Dealing in Cultural Objects Act
(DICO) is about the import and export of foreign cultural goods into and out of the UK, and the export of
the UK’s cultural goods abroad. When the EU Works of Art Export Licence Directive was introduced in
1999, one employee of Customs (on the early morning shift at weekends at Heathrow) started impounding
stained glass removed from churches due to be exported outside the EU because no EU licence had been
applied for. Customs claimed that any object from any building, with no lower value, needed a licence. So
a brick would need a licence. DCMS baulked at this and accompanied Thornton Kay of Salvo and a dealer
to Brussels to seek clarification of the law. SALVO suggested that the EU law should only apply to scheduled
monuments and not to listed buildings or ones in conservation areas. The point at issue became: if an item
has been legitimately removed from a demolished building, even if that building had once been listed, once
permission had been given for the demolition, that item was no longer a “cultural good” and so did not need
a licence. The new Act “DICO” goes against this, and brings in a huge amount of additional material from
demolished buildings. Therefore, unless “cultural goods” are better defined, DCMS will be forced into
issuing, and HM Customs into policing, thousands, or tens of thousands of EU Works of Art Export
Licences each year—the very thing that DCMS sought to avoid. The cost will be enormous.
Home Office
The Metropolitan Police say they found 9,000 objects of cultural value and high monetary value linked
to 3,000 of 75,000 annual burglaries. They have they never told Salvo of a single instance of such a theft. Is
this because no object was been removed from a listed building or garden (in which case none of the 9,000
objects would fall within the definition of cultural good or the ambit of DICO) or were they all from
overseas? Sadly, no-one on the committee asked, and no-one asked how many theft alerts had subsequently
been raised, and what success at recovery had there been. Since various agencies currently exist why had the
police not used them? Why has the Metropolitan Police Service suddenly, and for the first time ever, put up
a small database of stolen items on the internet in the past few months when it never bothered before? Could
it be they feel that they may lose some control to outside agencies? The idea that a database does not already
exist for “fireplaces, baths and house fittings” is not true. Salvo’s has existed for eleven years. Why have the
Met not used it when a quarter of the UK’s police forces have and still do, and an average of 14% of items
raised as Salvo Theft Alerts have been recovered (but not in the Met area of course)?
Regarding the estimated £12 million cost, we would very much like to tender for the database. We
currently run a national database with 80,000 users a month, at an annual cost of less than £30,000. The
average cost to for us to register an object including discussions, phone calls and photos is about £50. Some
objects are placed on the database by the police themselves (none by the Met). We have already developed
the technology and would not be seeking to recover our development costs from the Home OYce. The Met
and the Council for the Prevention of Art Theft (CoPAT) have no technology to speak of. It would be an
expensive fiasco if the Home OYce were to use either of these two agencies. Why don’t they simply use Trace,
the Art Loss Register and Salvo who would do this enormously cheaper and better. Why are they
considering a proposal by CoPAT (with no track record) to tender when the three agencies who have a track
record going back 10 years have not been invited? It is quite obvious from what the Minister, Caroline Flint
MP, said that both CoPAT and the Met are scrabbling to make up for lost time in terms of technology for
fear of losing out to the three other agencies. If the Home OYce use the Met or CoPAT the taxpyer will foot
the bill for another hugely expensive computer experiment. Salvo’s is currently the only open database
usable by the police and visible on the internet by anyone.
2 December 2003
10. Memorandum submitted by FindStolenArt
Section 1—Introduction
FindStolenArt.com Ltd was founded in May 2000 by student—David Todd and operates as a non-profit
organisation.
FindStolenArt was developed with the aim of assisting Police Forces, across the United Kingdom, in the
recovery and return of stolen antiques.
Since the outset the service has remained free to the police service.
FindStolenArt.com is the first of its kind to allow the public and related organisations to search a database
for information concerning stolen and recovered antiques.
The database and its layout has been constructed for ease of use. It has been designed bearing in mind
that the system itself is to be used by police oYcers and its development has been shaped over time with input
from the police and a variety of related organizations.
Approximately 27 police forces are currently actively using the website as an open and interactive
database for stolen and recovered antiques. In particular Devon & Cornwall and Avon & Somerset police
have used our database services extensively.
All police forces are registered onto the Website and have the ability to use the system, it is certain that
with the BBC behind the project the number of police oYcers and the frequency with which they use the
website will increase considerably.
The website is subject to network eVects, the more people that use the website the more useful it becomes
to others and the likelihood that valuables are recovered and returned also increases significantly.
Various organisations including museum security councils and the national trust, strongly believe that the
service we provide is long overdue.
This project has been undertaken and developed non commercially but as a valuable service to the British
public to help contend with the theft of antiques.
Use of the database
1. Designed as an easy to use system for police oYcers.
2. The website facilitates greater co-ordination between due diligence oYcers.
3. The fact that the database is online, means that it acts as an eYcient means of circulating information
about stolen items.
4. The database facilitates communication and cross force liaison, by allowing oYcers to view items that
have been stolen from particular regions over time.
Advantages of an online database

The Website allows oYcers to make direct entries into the database using the Internet (www). Presenting
an eYcient and eVective use of police resources in terms of the amount of time and money saved through
using the system.
— Faster processing of information
— Quicker circulation within minutes rather than days
— Reducing the need for paperwork
— Direct control of items entered into the database
— Accessible from multiple locations
— Maintain a database and circulate information simultaneously
Supporting Policing Requirements

FindStolenArt supports policing requirements, to the eVect that it saves time and manpower. There are
various options open to the police oYcer taking the report of crime. The most suitable of the following
options can be chosen.
(1) Input the items directly onto the database via the website.
(2) Pass the details to his crime oYcer to upload on his behalf.
(3) Send the item and theft details to FindStolenArt by post or email if the oYcer does not have access to
a PC. However this method is not encouraged and is rarely used because of the increased implementation
of IT within the police.
There are also no restrictions on the value of an antique, for it to be included in the database.
Other Private Databases

There are established oZine database for stolen art however they operate with a number of highly
significant number of failings. These organisations are profit-orientated and highly commercial. Although
they have corporate websites they do not allow access to their databases via the internet.
— An oZine database cannot be viewed by anyone other than employees of the respective company.
This means that the police, public, related organisation do not have access to those databases and
cannot input items into those databases themselves. Also they cannot visually see the items but
have to rely on descriptions over the telephone in the reporting or searching of an item.
— These databases charge the British public who have been the victims of a crime expensive fees to
log details of the lost items. FindStolenArt.com was created to respond to such unfair treatment
and to provide a more eVective means of circulating and identifying stolen and returnable
property.
— Other databases have set limits to the value of a stolen item that can be displayed on the database
and so items that may be antique but below £200 will not be circulated. FindStolenArt.com has
also responded to that failing.
— Individual police oYcers are increasingly reluctant to work with such organisations because of the
failings in the service as are victims of crime because of the high costs involved. They therefore
have to rely on contracts ties with the insurance industry for business.
Section 2—Access Levels and Protection
Access levels to members of the public—Browsers

Full access to the records in the database is available only to authorised users and not members of the
public.
Members of the public are only able to browse and search the database by keyword but do not have
authorised access to the database and can not make any changes to the database.
Access levels to police forces and authorized personnel—Catalogers

The ability to make entries into the database is restricted to authorised users only. Police forces have been
allocated a username and password via their assigned due diligence oYcers. This level of access enables
police forces to manage their account which includes the ability to enter, edit and remove items from the
database.
Police forces are also able to browse through the accounts of other police forces to search through items
that have been stolen in a specific region.
Users are given only three attempts to supply the correct username and password after which time they
are automatically barred from the Account Section of the website. This is a preventative measure against
unauthorised access to the database.
Administrators
Individuals who are to manage the overall system are able to control all aspects of the database including
the access status of users.
Protection against false reports and claims

Stolen items will only be uploaded onto the database if the details of the theft have been reported to the
police and a verifiable Crime Reference Number can be supplied.
All entries into the database require a crime reference number, the date of theft and the contact details of
the oYcer in charge of the case.
Protection oVered to persons reporting stolen and recovered property

Private personal information regarding the identity and details of the theft victim are not stored at all on
the database.
The police oYcer in charge of the case is left to maintain correspondence with the aggrieved person.
Section 3—Company Staff and Operational Levels
Current StaV
Director of Operations — David Todd, Management Studies (BA) Hons.
Police Liaison OYcer — Stan Smith, Ex Greater Manchester Police OYcer, with 30 years of service.
Financial Backing
Financial backing was provided by private individuals, who have previously been the victims of art theft.
The majority of the contributions were made by Mr Edward Todd, father of Mr David Todd.
The development of the Website and the resources used in getting the system used have been considerable.
However now that the system has been developed it now operates with minimal operating costs. Police
liaison, management of the database and administration costs takes an average of 4 hours per week.
Recovery rate
To date, approximately 11% of stolen items that have appeared on the database, have since been
recovered. However we are not always informed of successful recoveries made by the police.
Return Rate
To date approximately 14% of recovered items featured on the database have been returned to the rightful
owner by the police.
Section 4 — Basic Features
Browser Compatibility
FindStolenArt.com supports both Microsoft’s Internet Explorer and Netscape browsers, version 4.0 or
higher, running on all platforms.
Search Facilities
The database has full text searching capabilities and is searchable by category or by Keyword. To
complete a keyword search the user can enter a word or collection of words into the text search box
Images
Pictures can be uploaded with each description and these pictures can be viewed in varying sizes. Clicking
on a thumbnail picture will open a window that displays a larger picture of the item.
Descriptions
All of the items in the FindStolenArt database are catalogued using the Object ID international standard
for describing cultural objects. It has been developed through the collaboration of the museum community,
police and customs agencies, the art trade, insurance industry, and valuers of art and antiques.
The Object ID project was initiated by the J. Paul Getty Trust in 1993 and the standard was launched in
1997. It is being promoted by major law enforcement agencies, including the FBI, Scotland Yard and
Interpol; museum, cultural heritage, art trade and art appraisal organisations; and insurance companies.
Having established the descriptive standard, the Object ID project now helps to combat art theft by
encouraging use of the standard and by bringing together organisations around the world that can
encourage its implementation.
2 December 2003
Printed in the United Kingdom by The Stationery OYce Limited

12/2003 912363 19585

Cultural Objects: Developments Since 2000: House of Commons Culture, Media and Sport Committee

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Cultural Objects: Developments Since 2000: House of Commons Culture, Media and Sport Committee

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

House of Commons

Culture, Media and Sport

Report, together with formal minutes, oral and

Ordered by The House of Commons

The Culture, Media and Sport Committee is appointed by the House of

2 Action taken by Government 8

Conclusions and recommendations 27

List of written evidence 32

In summary our predecessor recommended: a national database of stolen and illegally

Background: previous Report — July 2000

4. The previous Committee’s key recommendations were for:

a) UK accession to the UNIDROIT Convention5 (in preference to the UNESCO

4 Previous Report, paragraph 10

b) Home Office commitment to the establishment of an accessible and internationally

c) establishment of a criminal offence of trading in cultural property stolen, illicitly

d) the avoidance, by museums, of acquisitions without secure provenance.7

The response from the Government

8 Previous Report, paragraphs 129 and 142

9 Previous Report, paragraphs 153 and 193

10 Previous Report, paragraph 166

11 Previous Report, paragraph 193

The Government’s formal replies

a) reported the broad agreement of ITAP with the previous Committee’s

b) deferred an answer on UK accession to UNIDROIT or UNESCO conventions (with

c) said it was considering the question of a new criminal offence; and

12 Previous Report, Session 1999-2000, HC 371-ii, QQ 681 and 682

13 Previous Report, paragraph 166

14 Fourth Special Report, Session 1999-2000, HC 944, paragraph 3

15 Second Special Report, Session 2000-01, HC 316, paragraphs 8, 11, 13 and 14

c) consider the drawing up of a statement of principles (and supporting guidance) on the

16 Second Special Report, Session 2000-01, HC 316, paragraph 17

17 Second Special Report, Session 2000-01, HC 316, paragraph 19

2 Action taken by Government

Date Event or action taken

November 1999 Establishment of the Spoliation Advisory Panel.

October 2000 Initial reply to the Committee from the Government.

March 2001 Working Group on Human Remains established.

Date Event or action taken

November 2003 Report of the Working Group on Human Remains published.

A database for stolen and tainted cultural objects

23 ITAP Progress Report (2001), paragraph 40 (a)

27 Q 154 but see also Q 171

31 Q 266 and see Q 260

33 QQ 268 and 283

34 QQ 268 and 269

38 Previous Report, paragraph 54

39 Ev 78, paragraph 6 and see Q 149

43 QQ 24, 150, Ev 42, Ev 78 (paragraph 7) and Ev 117, paragraph 22

46 Ev 120 and Ev 43ff

47 ITAP Progress Report (2001), paragraph 40

52 QQ 273, 287 and 291

54 Ev 117, paragraph 13, and Ev 116, paragraph 7

56 Ev 116 and see Ev 40

57 QQ 268, 269, 273, 287 and 288

proposals on the table and advise on a decision between them to be made by

a) submission of detailed proposals for analysis by February 2004 (earlier if possible);

b) a decision between options before March 2004;

c) an initial pilot phase for a year (at a cost of £300,000); but

d) roll-out as soon as the pilot phase could be judged a success.59

Relevant international legislation

59 QQ 273, 281, 288, 292 and 294

Criminalisation of dealing in tainted cultural objects

64 Ev 69 and QQ 262 and 263