Examination of Witness (Questions 340
- 359)
WEDNESDAY 10 MAY 2000
DR NEIL
CHALMERS, MR
LEN POLE
AND MS
SHARON PAGE
340. I see that you are in favour of the United
Kingdom joining UNIDROIT and UNESCO. Why have we not so far, do
you think?
(Ms Page) I do not know exactly why the Government
decision so far has been not to sign up to it. Certainly from
our perspective, and we have already touched on the point of international
law, issues of ownership and title are hugely complex because
they are international, and what both the UNESCO Convention and
the UNIDROIT Convention at least do is set out an international
framework so that there is some kind of uniformity across the
world in terms of cultural property issues. We do appreciate that
there are technical and legal problems with both conventions but
we would ideally not want to see the baby thrown out with the
bath water. The principle of having some framework to deal with
those issues on an international basis has got to be a good thing
because of those complexities.
341. Do you feel we are getting closer to joining?
(Ms Page) Certainly my understanding so far is that
there has been a decision at this point in time not to.
Mr Faber
342. Ms Page, can I ask you a little bit more
about your work on the Spoliation Working Party? First of all,
have you undertaken a lot of research into what is held in museums?
Have you been able to catalogue in any way what is held in these
places from that particular period?
(Ms Page) Indeed. The work that the national museums
and indeed the non-national museums have been doing takes two
strands. One strand is to produce practical guidelines in terms
of dealing with claims, dealing with acquisitions, dealing with
international loans. The other strand is very much putting in
place a framework for the museums to carry out research into their
collections initially to identify works that they may have that
have gaps or question marks for the provenance in the 1933 to
1945 period. All national and non-national museums began that
process just over a year ago. Obviously it is an enormous task,
particularly for museums that have millions and millions of items
in their collections. We have urged museums to try and focus on
those areas that are a real risk to make that research more meaningful.
The first stage of that research was published earlier this year
in which 350 items where there are gaps or question marks over
their provenance was published on the web site and that information
is now in the public domain so that claimants or anybody else
carrying out research can access all the provenance information
for those works.
343. Do you think that historically museums
have perhaps been reluctant to focus on those years in particular
because they knew that in many instances there might be a problem?
(Ms Page) I do not think there has been a reluctance
for that reason. I think the reality is that traditionally in
terms of museum collections, particularly in relation to fine
art, the emphasis when you were looking at an acquisition was
to check out authenticity rather than ownership. Traditionally
that has been what the focus has been. The art world is relatively
informal in terms of documentation and contractual arrangements
for acquiring works of art, so I think there are clearly gaps
and problems in that period. I do not believe it is because museums
think, "Oh, goodness me, there is a problem there so let
us sweep it under the carpet." I think it is part of a larger
problem that the further back you go the more problem there is
in trailing through provenance because, as I say, the focus has
always been on, is it by the artist who it purports to be by,
not who owns it and are there any claims.
344. If, as this process goes forward and more
items are discovered or identified where a valid claim can be
made by a descendant of the family, how would you see some of
the legislative barriers and the practical barriers to restitution
being lifted in the future?
(Ms Page) Obviously, particularly in terms of the
national museums, those barriers are very real ones because, as
I explained earlier, they are set out in their founding documents
and a museum is a statutory body so it can only act within the
powers that it has. I think it is fair to say that to overcome
those restrictions it would require some form of primary legislation
to give museums additional powers. I think it is probably worth
balancing against that the fact that those restrictions on museums,
whether it is by their founding statutes or under charity law,
are there for a reason. All museums hold their collections in
trust for their stakeholders, whether it be the British nation
or their local community, and there is an important balance to
be struck there between individual claims and the broader responsibilities.
345. That is going to be my next question, and
this is for everyone. Do you think that by reducing those legislative
barriers for spoliation only you are looking at the thin end of
the wedge and trustees are going to run into problems in these
areas and with other areas?
(Ms Page) I think potentially it will be problematic.
The frustrating thing at the moment is that one's abilities to
act are very constrained but I think one must weigh that very
carefully against the potential problems of losing that balance
between individual claimants and the overall responsibilities
of museum trustees.
(Dr Chalmers) Speaking personally, and we have not
very recently discussed this in the trustees of our museum, I
would certainly welcome some greater flexibility in terms of the
management of our collections. There would need I think to be
checks and balances such that if ever there were any proposal
to dispose of an object, that is, give it or lend it on a permanent
basis to another institution, there were an opportunity for appeal
and more public consideration. Actually having the ability to
manage one's collections both in terms of acquisitions and disposals
to a greater extent than we have at the moment is something our
museum would welcome.
(Mr Pole) I just wanted to put forward a broader point
of view in relation particularly to collections of ethnography
and the range of forms of acquisition by means of which ethnographic
collections have been added to museums. The great majority may
be by gift but there are clearly some examples where a certain
amount of coercion has taken place. It just points up the necessity
of taking a long term view and of looking at the complexities
that are involved in all the various types of acquisitions that
museum collections have been subject to.
346. If the Advisory Panel were to come up with
recommendations that certain families of descendants were entitled
to compensation, would you see that as a sensible way forward
and who would you see paying for it?
(Ms Page) Obviously it is a potential answer if that
was something that the claimant would be happy with and the Panel
felt it was the right solution. On a purely practical basis museums
currently do not receive funding to deal with claims of that nature.
From an entirely mercenary perspective I think it would be for
the Government to fund claims of that nature, and obviously that
would be for the Government and the Panel to decide. In real terms
museums currently do not have provision to make those kinds of
payments.
347. Perhaps I could ask Dr Chalmers and Mr
Pole about the earlier evidence that we were hearing from Mr Ormond-Parker
when I think, Mr Pole, you were held up as a shining beacon of
good practice, if I heard right. Both of you have collections
of human remains and you must come across problems where people
approach you either through his organisation or directly. What
do you think could be done to improve what is clearly an uneasy
relationship at the moment? There is no suggestion that either
of you have failed to reply to letters, but obviously there are
museums who do that. You have said that maybe it is for logistic
reasons, the size of the museum and the number of people they
have, but there is clearly an uneasy working relationship.
(Dr Chalmers) There are two things that can be done.
One is in terms of information about collections. I think there
could be and should be more done to make that information more
readily available such that one knows clearly what is available.
In the case of the Natural History Museum we have not been able
to make that information available in the past because the information
has simply not been good enough quality. We have put in a lot
of effort in the last two years to make sure that we now do have
very good quality information and that is now in the public domain.
348. That is fascinating. You are saying that
a museum of the size of the Natural History Museum is not able
to do that it does rather pose the question of whether the smaller
museums are able to do it?
(Dr Chalmers) Exactly so. If you look at the various
ways in which the material was acquired over a long period of
time, often over very indirect routes, it is not surprising that
many museums find themselves uncertain as to the provenance and
the identity and the nature of the material they hold. It took
us about two years of very hard and expert research work to go
through the holdings from our Australian and Torres Straits holdings
to clarify that. We are now able to make that information available
to the Australian Government and to anybody who requests it. That
is on the information side. In terms of the actual objects, principally
bones, bits of skeleton, where there is a cranium, a skull, a
limb bone or whatever it is, that is much more difficult. We are
bound by the British Museum Act at the moment to retain all of
those objects that are registered within the collections and not
dispose of them. We feel that we have a duty to the nation to
retain those objects and we have a duty to the scientific international
community to use them as a very valuable scientific resource.
We would find it extremely difficult to return any such objects
if there was any doubt at all about their continued safety and
their accessibility. If they were to be buried or cremated then
that would not at all be a possibility for us.
(Mr Pole) It does seem to me in relation to museums
throughout the country that are members of the Museum Ethnographers'
Group, that is, to a large extent local authority museums as well
as national museums of course, that what is important is to generate
an atmosphere where contact between the museums and their originating
communities is going to be developed, and that is the context
in which requests can be made, whether that is a request for the
return of human remains or for other forms of cultural property.
Mr Maxton
349. It really is a dilemma between our first
witness and yourself on this whole issue of human remains. You
are basically saying that Britain's interests and international
research are more important than the cultural communities around
the world, are you not?
(Dr Chalmers) I am saying that both must be taken
into account. The phrase that was used when you were receiving
evidence from the previous witness was "the middle way".
If there could indeed be a middle way I am sure that our museum
would welcome that and I am sure that the Standing Advisory Group
would welcome that. If it is possible to put the material into
a special area which satisfied the requirements of the community
who are making the claim and satisfied ourselves about the ability
of the international scientific community with the appropriate
area of specialism to do the work that they wished to do upon
it, that would be very much the way forward.
350. But at the end of the day, if it was your
great-grandfather's body that was lying in a museum in Britain
and you were an Aborigine from Australia and your customs of burial
or disposing of the dead were cremation, do you not have some
right to expect that body to go back and to be cremated as is
the custom of your community? Who has the prior claim?
(Dr Chalmers) I cannot give an easy answer to that.
I would be dishonest if I pretended there was one. I think there
is a very great difference between a situation where you can identify
an individual and where there are descendants of that individual
there. I think that is a different situation from, in the case
of our museum, the overwhelming majority of items we hold in our
human remains collection are unidentified individuals from often
unknown areas.
351. Can I switch back to the line of Mr Faber's
question? One of the problems we really do have with all this
is the fact that many museums around the world and in this country
either do not know exactly what they have got in their collections
in their entirety or, even if they do know, they do not know the
provenance of them. Should we not be putting an obligation upon
all museums (and funding that obligation, I accept) to carry out
a full survey of their total collections and to carry out the
provenance of it to them?
(Dr Chalmers) We are talking specifically about human
remains collections?
352. No. I meant all collections.
(Dr Chalmers) I am sure all museums would welcome
that. One has to recognise, because that is what we are there
for, the huge resources that are involved. To give a simple example,
in the Natural History Museum we have 68 million objects in our
collections. They are vast. We would love to be able to say exactly
what they were and where they came from. That is a subject of
major research and if this were a recommendation coming out of
the Committee that they should be properly funded, we would be
overjoyed.
353. But there are going to be problems with
funding along the other lines that Mr Faber said, if in fact,
in terms of spoliation you do get genuine claims for particular
objects being held by museums in this country, those people will
then presumably have a right either to claim the object itself
or compensation.
(Dr Chalmers) Yes.
354. Some of those will be immensely valuable
objects and who is going to fund that? I know Mr Faber asked the
question but we do not know who is going to fund that. If it is
some small museum in a local town you cannot expect them to fund
it.
(Ms Page) From a purely realistic perspective, for
sizeable value claims I do not think any museum in this country
has the funds to pay for it themselves without severely curtailing
other activities. That is the real situation, that we do not have
pots of money tucked away for a rainy day.
355. It has to come from elsewhere; it has to
come from government?
(Ms Page) Indeed, or otherwise the museum would have
to severely constrain what it did in relation to its other activities
to fund those claims.
356. Or return the objects, of course, to the
heirs?
(Ms Page) If it was able to do so, yes.
357. Why would it not be able to do so?
(Ms Page) If it did not have the powers to do so or
if it had full legal title to the item in question.
358. I understand that problem. I just do not
think it is about legal title. It is also about the fact that
if a major work of art is given back to the heirs, they might
say, "We are poor. This can make us rich or better off. We
are going to put it on the market", and it will then disappear
into a private collection where it may never be seen again. Is
that a problem?
(Ms Page) I think it is a real issue and there have
been examples of that happening elsewhere in the world. Clearly
for any museum to see a work which is enjoyed by millions of people
going into private ownership never to be seen again has got to
be a worrying prospect, whatever the validity and however compelling
the claim from the individual may be.
359. It really would probably have to be compensation
rather than return which would be the major way forward in this
area?
(Ms Page) It certainly is a potential option if that
is something that the claimant would be happy with. In many cases
the claimants want return of the object and that is the only option
which they see as being the equitable solution to their claim.
| 
