Examination of Witness (Questions 400
- 414)
THURSDAY 18 MAY 2000
MS ANNE
WEBBER AND
MR DAVID
LEWIS
400. Is it your feeling that, actually, looted
Communist art is perhaps as big as or bigger than Nazi looted
art?
(Ms Webber) I do not think I am in a position to answer
that question, really, but I am sure that, of course, there are
thousands of people who are expropriated of works by the Communist
regimes; but I am not an expert on that and I could not really
answer the question very easily for you.
401. In the European context then, do you think
Governments have been lily-livered over this, do you think there
is a much stronger resolution needed? What would you like Governments
to do?
(Ms Webber) I think that Governments throughout Europe
are really taking this on in a very serious way. I think that
the Washington Conference was symptomatic of that; 45 nations
went to Washington and endorsed the Washington Principles. There
was a Council of Europe Resolution which you may be aware of,
which went through in November last year unanimously, which called
for the removal of all legal impediments to the restitution of
looted cultural property in Europe, and there is to be a conference
later this year to discuss how that might happen. It certainly
needs to happen, at a national level there need to be ways of
dealing with this and there need to be ways of dealing with this
at an international level, because these are matters, of course,
of international law, and the principal remedy in international
law for theft is restitution. We also have various international
statutes and treaties to which we are signatory in this country,
which began in the wartime period, in 1943, as Professor Petropoulos
referred to, there was a London Declaration, which said that all
transactions during the war were declared null and void. And we
have various post-war treaties; in 1945 the British and the Americans
committed to restitution, in Austria 1947, in Germany in 1949,
and we have, obviously, the European Universal Declaration of
Human Rights and the European Convention on Human Rights, all
of which enshrine the right to private property as a fundamental
human right. Now I think that we need to have, as I say, both
at a national level and an international level, ways of regulating,
so that looted works, stolen works, are not able to be sold through
the international market, as they have done for the last 55 years.
Mr Faber
402. Can I bring you up to the present day,
and in particular your comments in your document on current Government
proposals for claims they are setting up with the Panel and the
NMDC Advisory Committee. You are guardedly critical of the DCMS,
in a number of ways, about the way in which they have gone about
setting up this Panel. Could you tell us a little bit, first of
all, you refer to two DCMS documents, where you complain about
lack of consultation, and you have key concerns about the terms
of reference for the Panel. I wonder if you could enlarge on those
a little for us?
(Ms Webber) Yes, I can.
403. Mr Lewis, please feel free to come in at
any time, if you wish.
(Mr Lewis) I think it would be best to give the detail;
maybe I should just point out that this paper was prepared before
the final version of that Panel, because this was dated March,
and so Anne can bring you up to date because there have been events
since then. Although I think the fundamental points made in this
paper are still absolutely valid, Anne will bring you up to date
on the detail.
(Ms Webber) Obviously, as I said before, we are very
much in favour of there being a non-litigatory way of dealing
with these claims, and we would also like to see, obviously, that
the British Government commits itself to restitution of such looted
works, not only in line with other Governments throughout Europe
but, I should also say, in line with the Foreign Office; there
seems to be a split in Government on this, that the Foreign Office
is committed to restitution of looted works of art, and indeed
is supporting cases for restitution in other countries. So it
is slightly confusing; the Department for Culture and the Foreign
Office are not working together on this issue. But in relation
to the proposal for a Claims Panel, as David Lewis said, since
we wrote this, of course, the membership of the Panel has been
announced, which we welcome, it is an interesting body of people.
But the concern that we have is, there was no consultation, not
just with us, as perhaps the expert body on this subject, but
also with the Advisory Committee, which was set up by the national
museums to advise the national museums and to supervise their
work in researching their collections, and, in an area where there
are not many people who are knowledgeable about this subject,
it comprises a small body of people who are quite knowledgeable.
So it was a matter of some concern that a body was set up under
the auspices of the national museums and the DCMS was not itself
consulted. And, indeed, there was no consultation, in fact, I
think, on 17 February the Government announced the establishment
of the Panel prior to a consultation meeting with three representative
bodies, and it was only after 17 February that letters were sent
out to a number of other bodies asking for consultation, but then
the final terms of reference were, again, published before those
bodies had any chance to comment at all.
404. You argue about the draft terms of reference,
and there are three main concerns which you seem to have. You
say: "The applicable laws must be decided and made public
from the outset;" presumably, you are saying that you want
to see the Government remove any potential legal barriers to restitution
that may currently exist?
(Ms Webber) Absolutely, both on the level of which
Professor Petropoulos was talking earlier, in terms of waiving
statutes of limitations,—
405. And good faith as well, yes.
(Ms Webber) And good faith, the whole question of
whether the museums are going to claim good faith; and the museums
have already said that they bought these works, they were not
fastidious about what they acquired, and you have heard also what
happened in America, questions were not asked about what works
people were acquiring. Which is why we are in a situation that
we published in February 350 works listed by name, and several
thousand other works, 4,500 works, drawings, in the British Museum
alone, which have no provenance for this period; so it would be
unseemly, I think, if there were to be claims of good faith, and
so on, in this situation. And then on the other issues you point
out, which is that, restitution, we would like to see the Government
commit to bringing in legislation to enable restitution in these
cases, because for claimants to go through this procedure and
not know that that is—
406. That would answer the point which Sharon
Page from the Tate made to us, I do not know if you have seen
her evidence to us, where she felt that there would be very real
problems if museums had full legal title about restitution; that
is the impediment that you would like to see removed?
(Ms Webber) Absolutely; and it is simply a matter
of political will. We have seen the waiving throughout Europe,
in Austria, Germany, France, Switzerland, any number of countries,
museums have accepted, the Governments have accepted, that it
is wrong for museums to be holding looted works in their collections.
As a matter of public interest, a painting hanging on a wall which
was taken from a family which subsequently had been murdered cannot
be in the public interest when it is private property. And I know
that you were talking earlier about it would be a great loss to
the public for such works to be removed from their view, but there
are two things I would say to that. One is that we live in a society
where we believe in private property, the right to private property,
and we also believe in the law of theft, we believe in justice,
so works should be returned to their owners, given that. And also
it should be up to the individual owner to decide what happens
to their property once it is returned to them, and if they want
to leave it in the museum that should be up to them. But as a
right it is enshrined in law that, if something is stolen from
you, you have the right to get it back.
407. I was going to ask you about public access
and you have answered that very firmly. Moving on from that then,
do you think that the Panel should have the provision to consider
claims for items which are held in private hands as well as public?
(Ms Webber) If I can address the issue of what is
happening on private claims at the moment, there is a serious
problem, which I think affects claims anywhere. Whether it is
in private homes or in public hands, where they are in private
hands these works will have gone through dealers and auction houses,
similarly the works in museums have often gone through dealers
and auction houses. We are finding that there is a huge problem
in obtaining information, that the auction houses, the dealers,
the Art Loss Register, will not provide information to claimants
about the history of works, any information that they have in
their files is not available except through subpoena, and we would
like to see that it is mandatory or there is a requirement on
the auction houses and the dealers to provide information. I can
give you an example. A work that belongs to a family of ours that
turned up for sale in London last year with a dealer, it has taken
almost a year to find the name of the current owner; we still
have no information whatsoever as to whether this owner has any
kind of title to it. And, on the other hand, what is happening
the other way is that the auction houses and the dealers and the
registries are providing to the current owners the names, they
are telling the current owners, because they are obliged to do
so, that there is a possible claim and they are telling them the
name of the claimant, and, of course, what that enables somebody
to do, if they are not scrupulous, is dispose of the item in their
possession, sell it elsewhere, and, of course, that is very injurious
to people who have rightful claims.
(Mr Lewis) Can I just add to that, a small follow-up
point, to emphasise there is a very clear distinction between
objects which are in public hands, museums and other institutions,
compared with objects which have ended up, through all sorts of
circuitous routes, in private hands. Clearly, each object, whether
it is a painting, a drawing, a book, a piece of china, whatever
example you want to take, will have a complex history, but if
an object is in public hands, however it arrived there, I think
it is a matter of justice, if a claim is upheld, restitution to
the owner should be without legal impediment. I see no justification
for a public body, owned by the state, directly or indirectly,
hanging objects on its walls, without the acquiescence of the
proven owner, I emphasise proven owner, not merely an unproven
claim but a claim that is upheld; if that should be the case,
a public body should offer restitution, it is, in my view, unacceptable
for a public institution not to act in that way.
Mrs Golding
408. What kinds of records were found in East
Germany when you had access to files there; were there any records?
(Ms Webber) Yes; it is an interesting question. Again,
Professor Petropoulos is probably a better expert on the files
and the archives than I am, but certainly there are ... One of
the greatest sources of information, of course, you were asking
about substantiating claims earlier, are the Nazi records themselves.
The Nazis were rather meticulous about keeping records of what
they stole and who they stole it from, and they inventoried, often,
the works that were taken, and those records are in the German
archives and, of course, are of immense assistance to us; in Germany
also there are archives of claims that were made in the post-war
period too. But, yes, the Nazi archives; and there are also Nazi
archives in Russia, of course, which we would like to see, which
also include very important information about the looting.
409. So you do not have access to the Russian
files; is that what you are saying?
(Ms Webber) Some of the Russian files are available,
but, in general, no; that is another thing that we would like
to see. Again, in the Washington Principles, there was a commitment
that nations should open up all their archives and records to
enable research to be done and claims to be brought, of course,
and obviously we need to establish the definitive history of the
period. And even the Matte«oli Commission, the French Government
Commission, which reported last month on these issues, said that
they were being obstructed, they had been sitting for some time
and they produced several volumes of their report, which I am
sure you know about, they said they had been obstructed by the
art trade in being able to research a lot of things, and they
asked that all files and records be made available. I might just
add that, in relation to Switzerland, for example, Professor Petropoulos
was saying that there is not much known really on the Swiss trade,
but there is, again, a Swiss Government Commission, the Bergier
Commission, which is due to report at the end of next year, and
they are going to produce five volumes, and on every other subject
I think they have produced one volume, but, on art, I think the
Swiss role in art was so extensive they are going to be producing
five volumes on it.
410. So you are hopeful of having even more
work to do; or is hopeful the wrong word?
(Ms Webber) I do not see the work lessening.
Mr Keen
411. You said, in your submission to us, and
in reply to David Faber just now, that DCMS did not consult properly,
in your opinion, and we heard in earlier sessions in this inquiry
that the United Kingdom refuses to sign the UNIDROIT and UNESCO
Conventions. Why is it; why should this country be acting in this
way and others not? Who is advising DCMS; it cannot be just a
clerk who knows nothing about the subject, somebody must be advising
them? Can you give us some theories on this, because it is very
important to us?
(Ms Webber) I think there are two things; one might
answer that in two ways. One is that I think this whole subject
has been shrouded in silence for 55 years, and nobody has helped
families, nobody has admitted where the looted works are, the
works have been actively concealed by the art trade for over 55
years, when people have asked where they were people have said
they did not know where they were, so it has been like searching
for a needle in a haystack for them. I think that, understandably,
the art trade feels that they do not want any restrictions on
their operations. What we would believe here is that, unfortunately,
as a result of self-policing, which is what has happened, self-policing
has brought us to the situation where we are now, which is where
our museums are having to spend valuable resources, which they
really do not have, on researching their collections to identify
looted works, hours and hours and hours of time is being spent
doing this, not just in this country but also abroad. Now we need
to have a situation, and what we believe is that the shadow that
now lies over the art trade could be removed by regulation; for
every other important market, both domestically and internationally,
there is regulation, the securities market operates with regulations,
and you have transparency and accountability. And we believe that
if there were that with the art market then the art market would
thrive, it would clear up all these questions of uncertainty over
title, it would clear up questions of concerns about the lack
of provision of information and about the reluctanceto provide
information on the grounds of confidentiality. If there were a
proper system in place, of course, we understand the need for
confidentiality but that must not be, I think, more important
than the rule of law, and we would like to see that these international
conventions, the rights internationally, are acceded to and regulations
put in place. You talked earlier about the car log-book; it seems
extraordinary today that it is more difficult to buy a stolen
car than it is to buy a painting which was stolen from a family
who may have been murdered. And we do not want a situation in
50 years' time where, if somebody from Kosovo, or somewhere else,
were to come to us and ask for help, we discovered that there
were lots of looted works, again in the museums and again in our
collections; we surely want to learn from history. We live in
a civilised society and surely it is only right that we have a
properly regulated trade in these works, that this does not happen
again.
(Mr Lewis) Can I also respond, if I may, to the first
part of your question, DCMS, and so forth; and, obviously, we
do not advise the DCMS, so one can only make a conjecture. I think
there is a history here. Firstly, for 50 years, not 55, let us
say 50 years, post-war, this whole area of activity went along
undisturbed, nobody bothered, nobody enquired, occasionally, but
by and large it went along without any complicated questions;
within the last few years this has begun to change. There is,
inevitably, and I think, and one understands it, in some areas,
an attitude here. Britain, luckily, was not occupied by the Nazis,
was not mainland Europe, it did not, therefore, have this awful
situation that so many other countries had, where the Nazis moved
in, looted everything in sight and then, when the war ended, things
were dispersed all over the place, and the whole complex situation
that we are confronted with. So there is a feeling in Britain,
well, luckily, and for all sorts of obvious reasons, Britain was
not directly involved in this, therefore, in a sense, we are a
little bit apart. Now I suspect this is part of the approach.
I think it is wrong, because, inevitably, works of art, being
moveable, it is perceived as a store of wealth, and all the rest
of it, whether it is a valuable painting or a very individual
book, or personal property which has no real value but immense
sentimental, personal attachment. But I think there is a bit of
a problem here, because it is felt, well, if something, by chance,
either is here, or, by chance, the survivor or the descendant
of that survivor happens to be here, well, it is not quite the
same as if it were in France, or Belgium, or other countries,
I suspect, I think that is part of the reason. And I can only
emphasise that I think that this is an unfortunate consequence,
and I think that the British Government, certainly as regards
items in public hands, I emphasise that, should have a certain
standard no less than other countries who are now beginning to
act in a highly constructive manner.
412. Your submission arguments are very persuasive
to me, and I am a very ordinary British citizen, brought up to
believe that British justice is above all else in the world, I
do not believe that, but, obviously, I am beginning to doubt it
even more now, but I have always been brought up to be proud of
that. Now why is it, you have explained that nothing has happened
for 50 years so people think we should not bother, why are they
not bothering? There must be some reason, somebody must be saying
to the DCMS, if I applied for a job in the DCMS next year and
they sat me behind a desk and said, "This is one of your
responsibilities," I would listen to you, and I would think,
"That's very persuasive;" who would be advising me to
take no notice of this and let things be, who would be doing that,
that is what we are trying to get to?
(Ms Webber) I think you would have to ask the DCMS.
413. I know; we want some help from you?
(Mr Lewis) If I may, Mr Keen, I do not think we are
saying they are not bothering, to use your words, they are bothering;
what we are saying is that the conclusions they are reaching,
having been bothered, are wrong, or are partly right. I will make
just one simple analogy. If the police recover something, unfortunately,
one of us goes home tonight and something has been burgled, and
some silver stolen from my sideboard, or whatever, and in a year's
time, luckily, it does not often happen, luckily, the police will
recover it and they will accept that it is your property, because
you have got a photograph, or you have got other evidence of whatever,
they give it back to you. They do not discuss whether maybe you
should have compensation, maybe they should put a plaque on the
wall, maybe the compensation should not be at market value, possibly
it might be, they will say, "Come along to the police station,
and if we are satisfied it is yours," obviously, if the claim
is upheld, "here it is." This is the point that we made
continually to DCMS, and, for reasons best known to themselves,
and I cannot answer why, they have not accepted that. I record
my deep, continuing concern.
414. Is it the museum authorities themselves
who say, "No; we have got this, we don't want to give it
away, so don't accept any of these requests," is it?
(Mr Lewis) Part of it may be, this is a stone in a
pond causing ripples, and sometimes people would like the pond
to be rather calm and do not like the ripples. Again, it is difficult
for us to get into the mind of DCMS.
(Ms Webber) Absolutely. I would guess that there is
some concern about setting precedents. You asked about the difference
between this and other forms of loot; we are talking about private
property taken from individuals by the Nazis, by an illegitimate
regime, which was acknowledged by the whole world to be illegitimate,
so I think it is very different from anything else, from all the
other issues that you are dealing with here. I think there is
probably also a concern that the museums will be stripped of their
paintings, there will be nothing left. Now the sad truth is that
most of these families to whom these works belong are dead; the
few people that have come to us are elderly people. We have managed
to locate quite a lot of paintings, but locating is one thing,
being able to recover is another. We are talking about in the
hundreds, throughout the world, of survivors who are able to make
claims; so I think that any concern about museums being stripped
of their collections is inappropriate. The Museums Association
have taken the same view as us, I think, on this, and obviously
we share the same view that it is a matter really of public interest,
museums should be setting an example, it is the lot of public
education that it should set an example to the public about these
works, that they should not have stolen paintings there, it is
not right.
Chairman: Thank you very much indeed.
Again, a very valuable session, and we are grateful to you.
|
