VII. SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
199. Our principal conclusions and recommendations
are as follows:
(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 difficulties, 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 Office
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 Office 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 Office 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 offence 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 effect to its provisions and facilitate
early ratification (paragraph 110).
(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).
(viii) We welcome the publication of the
Museum & Galleries Commission's guidelines on Restitution
and Repatriation (paragraph 130).
(ix) It is unreasonable to expect all
museums to possess full information on all their holdings. However,
in principle we consider that information on collections should
be accessible and should not be unreasonably withheld from those
with a legitimate interest, including claimants or potential claimants.
In setting priorities for the conduct of research on collections
and making information about these collections accessible, museums
should give consideration to the interests of originating communities
(paragraph 131).
(x) We commend the procedures adopted
by Glasgow City Council for handling claims for return of cultural
property which provide an important model which others should
examine and may wish to follow (paragraph 136).
(xi) We consider that it would not
be appropriate to enact new legislation giving general powers
to the trustees or boards of national museums and galleries to
dispose of objects in a broader range of circumstances than is
currently permitted. Where a special case can be made for return
in circumstances affecting national museums and galleries, such
return should require specific parliamentary sanction through
new primary legislation most carefully prescribing the special
additional circumstances in which disposal is to be permitted
(paragraph 142).
(xii) We do not consider that it would
be appropriate to establish an independent body to undertake a
role in the consideration of claims which would otherwise be undertaken
by the governing body of a museum or to consider collectively
claims affecting more than one institution (paragraph 144).
(xiii) We consider that it is appropriate
for a service to advise museums on return issues to be developed
as a point for advice and information, for example, on the number
and nature of claims made and on procedures followed. It is essential,
however, that this point of contact for information is not seen
as a participant in the decision-making process itself (paragraph
145).
(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).
| 
