APPENDIX 61
Supplementary memorandum submitted by
the Commission for Looted Art in Europe
1. Following the various hearings by the
Select Committee on "Cultural Property: Return and Illicit
Trade", the Commission for Looted Art in Europe would like
to submit supplementary written evidence on a number of key issues
relating to the regulation of the art market.
2. One of the key issues addressed by the
Committee has been that of the availability of provenance information
when works of art come up for sale. The Commission is most concerned
that auction catalogues and other sales information continue to
contain very little data on provenance, especially for the years
1933-1945. This not only exposes buyers to the danger of inadvertently
purchasing a looted work, but also makes the detection and recovery
of stolen or looted art works more difficult.
3. The Commission believes it is essential
in order to prevent the present and future trade in stolen or
looted works of art that vendors of cultural property be legally
obliged to provide all provenance information that they possess
to a central regulator which would keep such information on a
national register.
4. Persons or agencies concerned to trace
and identify stolen cultural property would be able to submit
details to the registry of works for which they are searching,
and would be notified of any discoveries on the database.
5. The regulatory body would also have the
power to require the production of information on the history
of ownership of a work of art from dealers and auction houses,
where evidence is produced showing that the work of art from dealers
and auction houses, where evidence is produced showing that the
work of art in question may have been stolen. Currently, dealers,
auction houses and the Art Loss Register do not provide information
about the current owner, whereabouts or history of a looted work
of art to a theft victim or his/her representative on the grounds
of "confidentiality", leaving the victim no option except
to obtain such information through the courts. The provision of
such information is a legal obligation. A regulator with power
to require this information would ensure justice be available
to all.
6. It is essential that the art trade operates
transparently and accountably. A central regulatory authority
would provide the assurance and confidence that transparency and
accountability are the watchwords of the art market, just as they
are of other financial markets, such as the securities market.
7. It is essential that the database be
operated neutrally and independently, and as part of the regulatory
mechanism. Funding for the database could be found through private
sector financing and through a levy on the art market and the
insurance companies, in line with precedents in other markets.
8. Self-policing of the art trade has not
to date fully prevented the trade in stolen or illicitly exported
cultural property. The central regulator would establish proper
and enforceable codes of due diligence for both buyers and sellers
of cultural property. These would include the provision of all
ownership and provenance records, as in 3 above, by vendors and
their agents to the central database; warranties as to title when
selling works; the disclsoure of information, as in 5 above; and
the registering of the identity of new owners. Sanctions would
be available to the regulatory body should vendors or the art
trade fail to comply.
June 2000
| 
