Examination of Witnesses (Questions 502
- 519)
TUESDAY 23 MAY 2000
MR EDWARD
DOLMAN, MR
SIMON TAYLOR,
MR CHRISTOPHER
ELWES AND
MR PAUL
WHITFIELD
Chairman: Gentlemen, thank you very much
indeed for coming to see us. I have a personal note from the head
of Sotheby's explaining why he could not come and be here, and
we accept that. We are most grateful to you for being here. You
have had the opportunity of hearing evidence from the forces of
law and order that we have heard so far today. I will ask Mr Fraser
to ask the first question.
Mr Fraser
502. You have heard the General in his points.
He talked about codes of practice, he talked about you as being
mediators, he said that a register should be got together of buyer
and sellers, and he talked also about auction houses in Italy
being financial houses. He also said that there was an unwillingness
to co-operate on occasions and the use of confidentiality clauses
are often presented when discussions take place. Do you believe
that auction houses in London need to be "protected"—and
that is the word that the General used—in the way he described
by the legislation that, perhaps, he may propose?
(Mr Dolman) I am not aware of any unwillingness on
the part of Christie's to co-operate with the police or General
Conforti. We do feel that we have a duty of confidentiality to
our clients, but if specifically requested by Scotland Yard, by
the Inland Revenue or through a court order, we will always make
available to the police the names that we have of our clients.
(Mr Elwes) I think also that Scotland Yard confirmed
that there was a considerable amount of co-operation between them
and the auction houses.
(Mr Taylor) Can I remind you that General Conforti
actually referred to Sotheby's co-operation in a recent matter
of some furniture that was exported by an owner from Italy. We
are absolutely co-operative with well-founded requests at all
times.
(Mr Whitfield) I subscribe with that.
503. Given those points that you have all made,
which I expected you to do, there is this image of London as a
major centre of illegal trade in cultural property. This must
be damaging to the art market. How can we counter that?
(Mr Elwes) It is a relatively new image, as far as
I am concerned. When you run through the mathematics of thefts
recorded in England, one can get to a significant figure, but
I think from my company's point of view, we are certainly not
aware of any significant amount of stolen property trading being
found through the Art Loss Register or through any other research
that we do ourselves. So I express surprise at the suggestion
that the auction houses themselves and the recognised fine art
trade are effectively alleged to be handling stolen property.
504. Can we go down the line so that we get
a point from you all?
(Mr Dolman) In our written evidence we gave some of
the statistics. In 1999 Christie's sold 168,000 lots. They were
scanned by the Art Loss Register. Our auctions are undertaken
in public, so we distribute our catalogues widely, and we make
sure that all relevant authorities have access to our catalogues
and can make claims if they feel that there is a case. In 1999
we had 69 disputes over title out of 168,000 lots offered. That,
to me, does not seem to indicate that London is a hot bed of illicit
trade in works of art.
(Mr Taylor) I too would take issue with some of the
figures that are bandied about. The four principal sale rooms
are responsible worldwide, not just in this country, for some
$4.5 billion of art sales each year, and yet some of the figures
quoted for stolen art are larger than that on an annual basis.
I do not think that is borne out by any evidence at all. I would
again refer one back to the checking that is done by the Art Loss
Register, which is increasingly being extended to more and more
of the work done by the auction rooms.
(Mr Whitfield) I only add to those remarks that I
agree with them. Our staff who deal with works of art from clients
are trained to ask questions, not always overtly, but they ask
questions about authenticity, they also ask questions at every
stage about ownership, title and these matters, and they try to
satisfy themselves. They will never knowingly catalogue or offer
anything which they suspect the vendor may not have good title
to, and indeed the vendors warrant in their contracts with us
that they do indeed have marketable title.
505. Finally, on the subject point that Mr Whitfield
has just pointed out about research and ownership, could the rest
of you gentlemen describe the research into provenance of an object
that you would expect to undertake to fulfil your obligation of
Due Diligence.
(Mr Elwes) I think that touches on a very major issue,
which, indeed, Scotland Yard has just hinted at. There is a vast
problem, I suspect, that they have in positively identifying stolen
property. We have a very much easier task when we get to a level
where the works of art themselves are individual or where they
are of a certain price level, because then they are bound to have
been recorded at some point somewhere. I speak probably for all
auctioneers, certainly with my company, that a very large percentage
of the antiques are effectively duplicated time after time after
time. They are brought in for sale, or we go out and get them
for sale, throughout the whole of the UK. We quite often go to
peoples' houses to pick them up. So at the level where we are
able to scan, where we are able to use the Art Loss Register,
we can of course make those division checks, otherwise to a very
large degree we have to rely on our instinct or the instinct of
our employees to say that something does not seem quite right
in this instance, or whatever gut instinct they have, and then
to endeavour to follow it up from there. The volume of relatively
modest antiques that are being traded throughout the United Kingdom
is vast, and these are not identifiable even in some cases by
the people from whom they have been stolen.
(Mr Dolman) I would agree with that, and I think it
is worth noting just how low the average value of a lost at auction
is. People often think that Christie's and Sotheby's and others
sell nothing but Picassos at $40 million. The average value of
the lots we sell is more like $5,000 and at that level it can
be extremely difficult to trace a meaningful provenance further
back than the assurances we get from the consignor that they have
good title to the property that they have brought to us for sale.
Where we can establish provenance for items we sell, of course
we do as much research as we possibly can, because, as the good
lady from Scotland Yard explained, it does in fact increase the
value of the item at auction if we can give a full provenance.
Our specialists are all taught, from day one when they enter Christie's,
that it will be greatly to the detriment of the company and their
careers if we are seen to be selling stolen art or art related
to the Holocaust. It is absolutely frowned upon at a very high
level if they get anywhere near or attempt to think about putting
something like that through auction. We have compiled our own
database of relevant names that we believe are associated with
property stolen in the Second World War, and we do make all the
necessary checks that we feel we can to establish good provenance
on the lots we sell.
(Mr Taylor) How long have you got, because this is
a very, very lengthy process? I would like to split it into two
parts. Firstly, import/export, which our European colleagues,
as you have heard from the General this morning, are concerned
about. I will give you one example. If we know a work of art has
come from Italy, we do insist on seeing the export licence from
Italy. We are extremely diligent in ensuring that the work has
the correct export papers from whatever country. We have an in-house
file on some 70 countries' export laws. These have been extremely
difficult to compile, in part because in some countries you will
get different answers from different lawyers as to what the export
laws are. As to provenance and the specific, more recent issue
of the Holocaust art—we have been very, very aware of this
in the late 1990s—in terms of the research that we do, it
may start with questioning of the consignor, checking of dealer
archives where names are known, and an inspection of the actual
item. We have our own files of particular stencils and labels
that may trigger further enquiries. From that we may go on to
applications to other bodies or other scholars working in the
field of restitution. For example, any Rosenberg label triggers
an enquiry to the Rosenberg archives in New York. We have a huge
in-house team that is dedicated to following up those inquiries.
If we come across a problem during that process, we have a way
of dealing with it. We tend to go back to our vendors and say,
"Would you mind, effectively, releasing us from the duty
of confidentiality?", and we then go on to pursue further
enquiries. I will give you one example, a Courbet that we offered
in London last year was coming to us from Japan. While in transit
we researched it and discovered a Rosenberg reference. As it turned
out, when we researched it further it had actually already been
restored to the family in the 1950s and we were, therefore, able
to go ahead and sell it. The point is that where we have concerns,
we go into them very, very thoroughly. We will print every detail
of provenance that we can find, in particular for the 1933 to
1945 period. We have no commercial interest in hiding anything.
It will merely end us in more trouble in due course.
Chairman
506. Just on provenance, you heard the response
from the representatives from New Scotland Yard and the suggestions
for provenance certificates or establishments with the minimum
threshold, and secondly, for a national audit register. Have you
any reactions to either or both of those suggestions?
(Mr Taylor) The individual certification of items
is an extremely difficult area. Every single Penny Black with
a certificate presents all sorts of problems. You could limit
it to certain companies of certain sizes. The danger of that is
that you put an administrative burden and a regulatory burden
on the large, overt, well publicised companies while not in any
way restricting the activities of those individuals who probably
are indulging in illicit trade.
(Mr Elwes) I think that the threshold itself is a
danger, because as I said earlier on, the difficulties occur with
the lower valued items. If you try to regulate above a threshold
you by definition will be leaving everything below that threshold
free to go on selling ad infinitum. I think that is a big
problem.
(Mr Dolman) I think another point worth making is
that the very nature of art is that quite often things that later
become valuable have very little value when they are first created.
For instance, if you took an 1890 Van Gogh drawing, it was worth
very little indeed, because no one was buying, the poor chap was
starving and thinking about what he was going to do with the rest
of his life. For the item's document to have relevance it would
have to apply throughout its life into areas where the provenance
is particularly critical, and would therefore have to apply retrospectively
back to 1890, or in the case of the Van Gogh, when it was worth
extremely little at all. You would have to decide early on which
items being manufactured or produced by artists right now should
be accompanied by a log book, and that would be millions of items
per day produced worldwide.
Derek Wyatt
507. I think it was Sotheby's, but if it was
not I am sure I will be corrected very quickly, that there was
a case in Hong Kong about three weeks ago with respect to provenance.
I think the Chinese Government asked you not to go ahead with
an auction. What was the issue there?
(Mr Taylor) It was associated with Sotheby's and Christie's
with different items being sold on different days. The issue was
that the Chinese felt that Sotheby's, and indeed Christie's, should
not sell items which had been looted from the Summer Palace in
1860. There were three messages that we gave back to the Chinese
and that we say now. Firstly, under both local and international
law it was perfectly clear that our vendors had title to these
items. Secondly, certainly the items at Sotheby's had been on
the international auction market before and no prior claim had
been made for them. Thirdly, if one takes this to extremes and
goes back into the 19th century, then, for example, The Louvre
will have to return a great deal of the war loot that they have.
So, at the same time whilst we take this very, very seriously,
we did engage in a dialogue with the Chinese authorities. In 1998
we suggested that the Chinese auction houses—there is a
flourishing market within China—should make available to
the Art Loss Register all their catalogues, which include works
which are marked with the symbol to indicate that they should
never leave China. We recommended that as a process that would
help the Chinese strengthen their own controls against the smuggling
of art.
508. Even though you accept they were looted
in the first place, in fact they had provenance, and for you that
was all that mattered?
(Mr Taylor) I think there is a legal issue.
(Mr Dolman) I think one of the issues we have to address
is that we go back to whether things are illegally exported or
not, quite often, and the question is; are the export laws clearly
defined, understandable or enforced by the particular countries
that these items have been taken from? Certainly in China's case,
it is very difficult to clearly define what should not have been
exported or what could have been exported legally. These items
had been on the open market and sold at auction in the late 1980s,
so there was a track record of selling these items. I also want
to point out that we, at Christie's, were not approached by the
Chinese Government, we were approached by various lobby groups
within China. We did not have direct discourse with the Chinese
Government.
509. I assume the British or French stole these
at some stage in a battle, and so they were illegally taken in
the first place, that is the issue. It is not unreasonable that
the Chinese Government should want them back, is it?
(Mr Dolman) The Chinese Government got them back.
There are lots of arguments here to do with the spoils of war
and ownership of property title.
510. If we apply your current thinking, in Africa,
Mali is being denuded of stuff, in Burma there is a whole industry
of stolen items. It is stolen, it is looted and it is on the market
now. The same applies for the Chinese in the 19th century.
(Mr Elwes) Sadly, I did not actually have any sales
in Hong Kong, but I think that surely there must be a question
here of legitimate title, which I think is at odds with your follow-on
to that. I think that the looting from Africa that you have just
referred to does not imply that by that point people would have
legitimate title to it. I think Edward Dolman and Simon Taylor
were both assured that title had passed and was a bona fide title.
In which case I think they had a duty to the vendor to protect
the vendor's property.
511. Last week we heard from Glasgow City Council
where they did have title but they realised that what they had
was not really theirs?
(Mr Elwes) They are not auctioneers though and they
are not acting on behalf of a vendor.
512. We are trying to get to the bottom of ownership
and provenance. You do not want to, it seems to me, have a national
database. It is nothing to do with you, it is up to the police
or the Government. You are not in favour of it and you like the
status quo from the sound of it?
(Mr Elwes) I have no problem with a national database.
(Mr Whitfield) There is a database.
(Mr Elwes) The more effective it can be, the easier
our job is. We all support the one that is in existence at the
moment.
Chairman
513. The police say that they would like a national
register?
(Mr Elwes) We are delighted, particularly if it is
available to us. We do not have a problem with that, but there
are the practical issues which we have already identified, and
the police recognise this too, as to how do you identify items.
I personally-and I am sure the police were hinting at this strongly—am
terrified of being completely flooded by enquiries on items that
it is impossible to identify with any accuracy, which I think
would make it very difficult to concentrate where one can identify.
(Mr Taylor) Can I turn to Mr Wyatt's point about Glasgow
Council? I believe our practice is actually in line with what
Glasgow City Council do. They had a number of requests for return
of goods. They acceded to the return of the Ghost Shirt to the
Lakota. We do not sell American Indian material here in London,
we sell it in New York. We are incredibly sensitive to ritual
items and regularly return items to North American tribes. By
the same token, in Australia, where we sell Aboriginal artifacts,
we are very, very sensitive to those items that have ritual significance.
At the same time, Glasgow Council actually chose not to return
Benin Bronzes, which is more in the art sphere, though it is arguable
that they are ritual objects. I would like to think that we were
acting in, effectively, the spirit of this moment by continuing
to trade in items such as Benin Bronzes, albeit very rarely, sadly.
514. The Glasgow City Council were public spirited
enough to return the Ghost Shirt. Mr Wyatt has been talking about
objects of international origin, what about objects of domestic
origin? You may, perhaps, recall, Mr Taylor—but you deal
with a very large number of objects, so you may not—that
not too long ago statues from a listed building, St Francis' Monastery
in my constituency, found their way to you and you were about
to sell them when through intervention from myself they were withdrawn
and returned to St Francis' Monastery. How would objects like
that have reached you? What action would you have taken to ascertain
that you were free to sell them?
(Mr Taylor) I am very sorry to say that I do not know
the details of that particular item.
515. I do not necessarily ask you about that
item, but if you can supply me with a note about it it would be
helpful, but let us take that area. Large objects, huge objects,
how would something like that find its way to you? What action
would you and your colleagues take to ascertain their origin and
whether they were actually something you had the right to sell?
Let me make it absolutely clear, I hope I have not made any such
implication and I am not in any way implying anything underhand
or illicit in what you did. I am seriously interested in knowing
how it could happen.
(Mr Taylor) Was it identified in the catalogue as
coming from the church?
516. It must have been, because a constituent
got on to me about it and said, "What are they doing about
things about to be sold at Sotheby's?" I got on to the Chief
Executive of the Council and the Chief Executive of the Council
got on to you, and they were withdrawn. Do not let us pursue that
too much, it is not fair.
(Mr Taylor) Wherever we come across items, particularly
where we can establish where they came from, we should check that
they did legitimately leave their place. In this case, obviously,
we failed. We occasionally, for example, are offered furniture
with Royal stamps. We always check with the Palace because in
the 1920s and 1930s a considerable amount of furniture was thrown
out and sold by the Royal Collection, but we still go through
the process of checking. I apologise if in this case we failed
to do that diligence. Having established where the statues came
from we did not check that they were legitimately removed. As
is very often the case from historical buildings, things can be
legitimately removed.
(Mr Whitfield) There have been things from this House
that have been legitimately on the market and have been, fortunately,
repurchased by the House.
(Mr Dolman) Had these figures been illegally removed?
Chairman: They cannot have been legally
removed, because the building at the time was owned by the Roman
Catholic Church.
Mrs Organ
517. I have to say that the last time I visited
the Palace I thought it was about time they had another little
throw out by the look of the chairs. You seemed, at the beginning,
to be disputing the claims that the Metropolitan Police and others
were making about the fact that London is the centre of the illegal
trade, and you say that you are behaving in as careful and scrupulous
a manner as possible. If it is not you that is handling these
illegally exported and stolen items, who is?
(Mr Elwes) There are many other outlets for the sale
of things that could have been stolen from people's houses.
518. Are we talking about Camden market here?
(Mr Elwes) And car boot sales.
519. We are talking about valuable items, we
are not talking about a little bit of brass or something.
(Mr Elwes) I do not think they necessarily are, they
have based their information on items that form the basis of insurance
claims, which I think is a very sensible method of looking at
it. They do not, however, put any volume behind that, and yet
I do know for certain that volume does apply in this. I think
it would be very much more helpful to everybody if we were actually
aware of the number of major items that were thought be going
through the London sale rooms. They are also talking about an
alleged amount of money stolen and stolen property being offered
not just in London, there is the whole of England to look at as
well. I do seriously believe that, when you are talking about
volumes, it would be worth while looking at the car boot sales
at the bottom end. It is very much back to that level that I have
been talking about today all of the time.
|
