Annex
Letter to the Minister for the Arts from
the President of the Board of Deputies of British Jews
We thought it might be helpful if we put on
the record without further delay, our specific concerns. We both
acknowledge that however much we may deplore the delay that has
occurred so far; the lack of adequate or appropriate prior consultation;
and other matters, which we shall set out hereafter, we must accept
current realities. We wish to help the process forward. And the
allegation that Greville—or, indeed, either of us—would
wish to "sabotage" the process is both offensive and
out of touch with the reality of our efforts in this process,
over so many years.
In the circumstances, we ask you please to take
our concerns very seriously. The main ones are these:
1. We ask the Panel to recognise that each
case must be treated on its own facts, but the overriding principle
must be that where a claimant establishes ownership, that claimant
should have the choice as to what happens to his or her property.
If the claimant requires restitution, then we
submit that the Panel should in principle seek to assist the claimant
in the recovery of his or her property. We recognise that there
may be legal difficulties involved, but with goodwill—and
the correct approach from the Panel—we have no doubt that
this objective can often be achieved.
Equally, where the claimant who establishes
ownership is content to allow his or her property to remain with
the gallery or museum concerned, provided that there is a reasonable
arrangement as to compensation, then we submit that the Panel
should not only recognise that this would provide a satisfactory
solution but do everything possible to ensure that it is achieved—and
as swiftly as possible.
2. Assuming that the Panel accepts the above
as both reasonable and proper, in the public interest and in that
of the claimants, then we cannot understand why the terms of reference
remain so as to make the alternatives apparently just that—one
or the other. If a claimant is content to allow his or her painting
to remain in the institution, why should part of the agreement
not be that a plaque acknowledges its origin, as well as rewarding
compensation?
3. Next: delay. We believe the Panel could
and should have been set up months ago. That said, we are deeply
worried in case there is further delay, as claimants may be elderly
and/or unwell.
4. You will no doubt recall that when you
saw us about the draft terms of reference, we expressed our dismay
at the lack of prior consultation—not least because the
press had been briefed on the draft before you saw us or we saw
the draft. You have now—again, without consultation with
us—sent out requests for comments to other distinguished
individuals and organisations within the Jewish community. Each
in turn has contacted either of us or both of us—and all
share our concerns.
In the above circumstances, please may we know
the timetable upon which the Panel will work; what claims have
been notified to you as a result of the publicity given to the
(wholly appropriate) steps taken by the public museums and galleries.
April 2000
| 
