THURSDAY 8 JUNE 2000
_________
Members present:
Mr Gerald Kaufman, in the Chair
Mr David Faber
Mr Ronnie Fearn
Mrs Llin Golding
Mr Alan Keen
Miss Julie Kirkbride
Mrs Diana Organ
Ms Claire Ward
Derek Wyatt
_________
MEMORANDUM SUBMITTED BY THE DEPARTMENT FOR CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT
EXAMINATION OF WITNESSES
MR ALAN HOWARTH, a Member of the House, Minister for the Arts, MS ISABEL
LETWIN, Treasury Solicitor, and MR HUGH CORNER, Head of Museums,
Galleries and Cultural Property Division, Department for Culture
Media and Sport, examined.
Chairman: Mr Howarth, we welcome you here today with your officials and
Mr Faber will ask the first question.
Mr Faber
676. Morning, Minister. It is a double whammy for me this
morning. I have had the pleasure of serving on the Finance Bill where I have
been listening to our very eloquent front bench spokesman all morning and now
I have come to listen to your team instead.
(Mr Howarth) Nothing if not a conscientious parliamentarian, Mr Faber.
677. Exactly. A couple of days before we went on recess last week
you answered a parliamentary question announcing the setting up of a Panel
looking into the matters which this Committee is looking into, a very eminent
group of people. Why did you decide to set up that Panel?
(Mr Howarth) Because I believe we need to look very searchingly to see
how we can build on the existing arrangements we have. We have some very
useful building blocks in place, policies of one kind and another and
practices by the trade to set barriers against the illicit trade whether in
stolen goods or illegally exported goods, but I am very far from satisfied
that we have everything in place that we need and I think that must be common
ground here today. What I felt it right to, do particularly following the
disappointment when we found ourselves unable to agree to subscribe to the
UNESCO and UNIDROIT conventions, what I felt important to do was to set up a
very expert Panel chaired by Professor Norman Palmer, who I think by
widespread agreement is an eminent legal authority in this field, with
representatives from the trade, archaeological community and museums community
to get down together to some hard practical work to examine the nature and
extent of the problem because there is a lot of assertion and very widely
discrepant statistics being bandied about and we need to get a much better
handle and surer grasp on the problem it is we have to deal with and then to
see what means, legislative and non-legislative, we could bring to bear to
improve our capacity to address the problem. The Panel will be underpinned
by an inter-departmental across Whitehall group of officials. I have
instigated the bringing together of all the departments that ought to have a
contribution to make and I hope that this whole process will lead to practical
recommendations to government by November.
678. You have used the expression the Panel will undertake "hard,
practical" work on the subject. We rather feel as a Committee that is what
we have been doing on the subject and it is probably not a coincidence that
I think virtually every member of your Panel has given evidence to this
Committee in the course of our inquiry. Whose views would you consider to be
more important, ours or the Panel's?
(Mr Howarth) I would have enormous respect for the views of this Select
Committee and may I say how valuable it is, in my judgment, that the Select
Committee has chosen to address this issue. Some enormously important spade
work has been done, some very interesting and helpful evidence has been
submitted to you and in your own questioning and enquiries you have helped
very importantly to focus the issues upon which I think government needs
itself to be focused. So many many thanks, if I may put it this way, for the
work that you have been doing and the advice that you give to Parliament and
to the Government in due course is going to be an extremely important
contribution to our efforts to determine an appropriate policy and I hope very
much that there will not be large amounts of daylight between what you
recommend and what we would wish to do. Given, as you say Mr Faber, many of
the same witnesses will have appeared before you as we will be consulting, I
would hope that we can move towards a useful consensus.
679. On a practical point, obviously this Committee comes out with
recommendations in the report which, although not wishing to split hairs, we
consider rather more than spade work and we will do that obviously quite soon,
and then the Panel is due to report in November. Does that mean we should not
expect a reply to our report before the Panel has undertaken its work?
(Mr Howarth) I would always wish to proceed courteously in relation to
the Committee and would certainly envisage offering you a reply well before
November. It might, however, have elements of provisionality about it, as I
hope you would accept was not inappropriate given that I will also be awaiting
the recommendations of the official Working Group and Panel that I have
convened.
680. Could I come on to the issue of UNESCO and UNIDROIT, again
looking at the Panel, we as a Committee can already see there is a majority
on the Panel in favour of signing both Conventions. Certainly from the
evidence we have had from them I can safely say that there is a majority on
the Panel for signing both Conventions. Could we deal with UNESCO first. On
9 February, I think in reply to a question that I asked, the Secretary of
State said that there were significant practical difficulties that remained
in implementing its provisions into United Kingdom law and three weeks later
in the House of Lords in reply to a question by Lord Renfrew you said: "We are
willing to look again at the difficulties of implementing the Convention."
Could I first of all ask you to be a bit more specific about the significant
practical difficulties you mentioned. You sent us a very helpful memorandum
in which you detail legal advice that you have been given on UNESCO and the
legal difficulties but, having gone through them all, the difficulties are
practical difficulties, they are not legal difficulties at all.
(Mr Howarth) As I understand it and as I am advised, if we were to
subscribe to the UNESCO Convention we would be taking on a legally binding
commitment to do certain things, to establish a national inventory of
protected property. But what is a national inventory? The view as to what
that may be appears to have changed from time to time within UNESCO. I think
we need to be quite clear what would be involved because it could be a
massively burdensome, bureaucratic and expensive process to draw up such a
national inventory, probably impossible to do it thoroughly. There is a
requirement under UNESCO to organise the supervision of archaeological
excavations, again a very large undertaking if you consider the range of
archaeological excavations. There are expensive, cumbersome questions and it
is legitimate to ask about the rationale for that. There is a requirement to
ensure the compliance of collectors and dealers with the ethical principles
of the Convention. What does it mean, that the government should ensure
compliance? This could again be an enormously oppressive system if we were
not careful about it. And an obligation on dealers to maintain registers of
cultural property in their stock. Again one has to consider, you possibly Mr
Faber may be sympathetic to this consideration, what the implications in terms
of the burden on quite small business might be.
681. I certainly have no wish to put burdens on small business but
you have identified the four areas I was about to ask you about. None of them
seem unsurpassable, none of them seem to be bad things, they all seem from the
evidence we have heard to be perfectly rational, sensible things to do in a
modern art market. You have already answered them and the significant
practical difficulties you have discussed. You have had representations from
Lord Renfrew and you are now willing to look again at the difficulties of
implementing it. Is that going to be the job of the Panel or is that
something you are doing internally within the Department?
(Mr Howarth) That will be part of the job of the Panel. The background
is my predecessor, having examined the practicalities of subscribing to
UNESCO, was disinclined to sign and asked officials to examine what UNIDROIT
might mean and we had advice from the Lord Chancellor's Department (which I
certainly could not set aside) in terms that the United Kingdom was not
currently in a position to agree to the ratification and implementation of the
UNIDROIT Convention. Against that background, the Secretary of State, as I
say with reluctance on our part, when asked by yourself and another
Parliamentary colleague in February said no, but he also said in the same
breath that we wished to look at other and possibly preferable means. Since
then we have had the benefit of further advice from UNESCO and a submission
to your Committee by Lyndel Prott which is helpful because it suggests that
some of the apprehension we had about the burdensome nature of proper
compliance may have been exaggerated. I think, if I may say so though, this
all does tend to demonstrate that the UNESCO Convention, at any rate, is a
fairly loosely-drafted Convention and if on the one hand it says in terms you
need to keep a national inventory and then on the other hand the leading
authoritative interpreter of UNESCO within the UNESCO organisation says an
inventory does not really mean an inventory, what is it that we are confronted
with? If you look at the history of this 30-year-old document signed up to
by 90 countries and yet you consider that we plainly do have a very
significant problem of illicit trade in antiquities and works of art, I think
one has to ask the question just how useful in practical terms is this? It
is a tradition in this country that if we sign international Conventions, if
we subscribe to European Directives we do so honestly and genuinely with an
intention to apply them scrupulously so we had better know what it is we are
committing ourselves to. I would like the Panel to look again to see whether
perhaps in light of the gloss we have now had on this Convention we could
subscribe to it. I would be very pleased if we could and I know it would be
very well-received by the archaeological community in this country and in the
international community generally.
682. I am sure they will be encouraged by that answer. You
mentioned UNIDROIT in passing. There clearly the problems are more legally
based, to do with the issue of limitation periods and property law. Again the
Secretary of State has said in his answer on that that he will look at
alternative options and he finishes his answer by saying "... which would
share some of the objectives of the UNIDROIT Convention." What are the
objectives of UNIDROIT you would like to share that you think are good
objectives? We know what the problems are because you have told us in your
document. What are the good things about UNIDROIT that you would like to see
implemented? How far advanced are you in seeing possible changes to future
legislation to implement them?
(Mr Howarth) The good things are in the objectives to deal with the
problem of trade in stolen goods and trade in illegally exported antiquities
and works of art. The progress so far to set up the Committee - the official
Working Group has already started to meet, my officials are embarking on
discussions with UNESCO officials and I think with Lyndel Prott individually
in order to examine all of this more closely and it will be a very important
part of the work that proceeds this summer and autumn.
Chairman
683. I would like to follow up some of the line of questioning
that Mr Faber has been putting to you, particularly in light of the
establishment of this Panel. It strikes me as rather curious proceeding, Mr
Howarth. Your Department has known for months that we have been conducting
this inquiry and you have known that you are going to come before us today and
yet two weeks before you come before us, just before the House goes up, you
get a planted question to establish a Panel that goes right across the work
of this Committee on this matter. I would be interested to know the rationale
behind that.
(Mr Howarth) The Panel has been in gestation for a rather longer
period, Mr Kaufman, and let us all agree that there are issues that need to
be addressed systematically and purposefully and constructively, and that is
what I wish to do. As I said earlier, I am extremely pleased that the Select
Committee is examining issues. We too have been examining these issues, you
might say - and I would not altogether disagree with you - at some excessive
length, but I am extremely anxious that we should make as brisk progress as
we can to get a good, practical set of outcomes.
684. So we are not allowed to put forward anything good and
practical. You need other advice in order to do things good and practical?
(Mr Howarth) On the contrary, and I am sorry that Mr Faber took offence
at my use of the term "spade work" - all I am saying is that you have worked
jolly hard and your witnesses have worked jolly hard and produced an important
body of material which is very valuable to anybody enquiring into these
issues. I, my Secretary of State and my Department will give the greatest
weight to your recommendations and we look forward very much to receiving
them.
Chairman: We are thrilled by that. Claire Ward?
Ms Ward
685. Mr Howarth, we are obviously pleased to hear that the
Department will consider our report and our recommendations but from previous
circumstances and reports and recommendations that this Committee has made,
it had not always received a welcome response from your Department. Will you
be able to guarantee a reply from your Department in reasonable time this
time?
(Mr Howarth) We did touch upon this just now. Yes, I would wish to
reply quickly and courteously to the Committee. If I say again that there may
be some elements of provisionality about my reply, it is simply that there is,
I think, further detailed work that will surely need to be done. We do need
to carry further the dialogue with others about the appropriate applicability
of the UNESCO and UNIDROIT Conventions in the legal circumstances of this
country. I think there is much more work to be done in establishing the
feasibility of a register of a database which we all agree would be an
extremely valuable practical tool. I am pleased that Resource, the successor
to the Museums and Galleries Commission, has already set in train a
feasibility study with a view to being able to establish a national database
of cultural objects. They are due to receive a report of that study in
August. Unless you are saying the Select Committee is going to say the last
word on all these topics in July, perhaps we can agree that that is going to
be one very important step forward in the process of defining appropriate
policy but we ought to get the details right and I hope that with the benefit
of the Select Committee's important recommendations we shall by November of
this year have clearly defined a set of policies to supplement those that are
already in existence. I would just say to the Committee please do not - and
I am sure you do not - under-estimate the significance of a number of policies
and practices that are already in place.
686. I hope so. Perhaps I can turn to another area of the
submission that you made to the Committee. In the memorandum that you sent
to us you stated: "We believe that objects which have been legitimately and
properly acquired in the past should remain in the institutions that legally
own them." As I lawyer I would say that the law is very important, but it is
not the only consideration, is it? Sometimes there are other considerations,
ethical and moral. Should the law always be the most important?
(Mr Howarth) I do not see how as a Minister I could advocate breach of
the law. I certainly agree that there are ethical considerations that ought
to be brought to bear, for example in the cases where applications are made
to museums in this country for the return of human remains where there are
sanctities in question and all kinds of sensitivities to which we should be
very respectful and we should try to be as constructive and sympathetic as we
can when museums receive such requests. Sometimes the law is no barrier to
restitution; sometimes, as in the case of Natural History Museum, it appears
that the law probably is a barrier but even where that is so I think we should
be willing to look sympathetically and constructively at whether it is
possible to ease the law so that if the trustees so wish they can make amends
and they can return human remains. I take human remains as a particularly
sensitive case in point and I do feel that there is a qualitative distinction
to be made between human remains and artefacts, between the remains of actual
human beings and, shall we say, sculptural renderings of human beings.
687. Should the law be changed to allow for the trustees to make
the final decision on whether items should be returned to a particular country
or to a particular individual?
(Mr Howarth) Possibly. I think that is a question upon which we would
value advice both from the Select Committee and from the Panel. In many
circumstances the law does permit trustees to return objects and there has
been, I think, a model examination of this issue by Glasgow City Council, for
example, on Glasgow city museums, not a easy debate, but I admire very much
the processes that were transacted there. In the case of the British Museum
Act, for example, and other statutes which govern the powers and duties of the
trustees of national museums and galleries, there are great difficulties. I
think we would need to take a very deep breath before we changed the governing
legislation but I do not say that is an issue that it is not appropriate to
look at.
688. One of the issues we touched on with the British Museum
earlier this morning related to items that had been acquired by them, perhaps
they would have considered legally but actually they were items that were part
of a forced sale during the Nazi regime or stolen items but current
legislation makes it difficult for them to be returned to their original
owners. How would you see that law being changed?
(Mr Howarth) I have set up a Spoliation Advisory Panel to examine this
question, among others, as it applies to the British Museum and other
institutions and it is a very important and also not a simple question and
they will advise me. Indeed, they have their first meeting this afternoon so
when I have had the benefit of their thoughts on the principles that ought to
apply it would be a better place to begin to make a judgment about that.
689. What is the timetable for them to make recommendations to
you?
(Mr Howarth) I have asked them to do so as rapidly as possible.
690. Do you have an idea in mind of when you would you like to
start to implement any changes? Are we talking another year, another two
years?
(Mr Howarth) I do not think there is any case for delay. Once we have
reached a conclusion we want to get on and implement it. There are always the
parliamentary housekeeping practicalities about getting legislative time.
691. But it is an important issue surely and I would not see that
would be something, if it was given government support, that would not get
support across the parties to introduce legislation to ensure that people
whose property was taken during that regime could not have it returned to them
or their descendants?
(Mr Howarth) I completely agree with you.
692. Finally one further question. Obviously this week the press
and indeed this Committee, has engaged in some discussion with the Greek
Government and with representatives on the subject of the return of the
Marbles. Have your Department had any discussions with the Greek Government
or with the British Museum on this subject?
(Mr Howarth) Yes we have. Let me preface what I say by saying that
what I say I say in the spirit of the warmest friendship to the Greek people
and to our friends and colleagues in the Government of Greece, and very
particularly on this day of all days. There has been correspondence between
the Secretary of State and the Greek Culture Minister and of course we have
had discussions with the British Museum on this whole subject. We believe the
legal position is that the Marbles were legitimately acquired by Lord Elgin
and brought here by permission of the legitimate authorities at the time and
we also believe that the acquisition of them by the British Museum was
legitimate, based upon the recommendation of a Select Committee, and purchased
by funds voted by Parliament. The advice I have, although I noted Mr Chairman
your observations to Mr Papandreou earlier in the week, that under the 1963
British Museum legislation the position is that the Marbles are legally held
in trust for the nation by the trustees of the British Museum and they do not
have powers to dispossess themselves of them. As Mr Papandreou also stressed
to you, the case he makes is not based upon legal arguments. I do not think
we can in any way ignore the legal arguments but he puts forward a political
case, a moral case, a cultural case and, again, I speak out of deep respect
for the commitment of the Greek people to democratic values and the great
classical traditions that originated in ancient Greece, but the Government
does not believe that a convincing case, morally or culturally, has been made
for the return of the Marbles although we will certainly continue to listen
both to what this Select Committee advises us and what our friends and
colleagues in Greece have to say to us.
693. Given that Mr Papandreou's argument when he appeared here on
Monday was very much about discussion in the future and certainly was not one
of legal title, they have moved on from that, to one that is looking for
further discussion on what might be possible rather than on the difficulties
of who owns the Marbles, and why they own them, and the history there, would
you say that the door is firmly closed now to any further discussion on re-
siting, lending, whatever term wishes to be used, of the Marbles to Athens or
is there still an open door policy on that?
(Mr Howarth) I would certainly not say that the door is closed to
discussion, of course not. We have said before and I say again that we are
happy to continue to discuss this issue with the Greeks under the auspices of
UNESCO as has occurred in the past. Certainly we would not wish to block our
ears to any arguments that they might wish to put to us but there are
principles which, in my view, we cannot lightly set aside which we would be
articulating to them in that dialogue.
694. But if you are happy to see discussion continue and you are
not convinced by the present arguments, what needs to change in order for that
discussion to progress?
(Mr Howarth) I think there needs to be a closer meeting of minds, a
closer mutual understanding of each other's point of view.
Chairman
695. Claire Ward put to you a question about objects looted in the
Holocaust which might be in the British Museum. The Chairman of the British
Museum Trustees Mr Greene, when he gave evidence earlier today, said that if
it were established that the British Museum was in possession of a looted
object or objects whose provenance was established and for which there were
claimants whose claim had been established, he would wish to return such
objects to the claimants but that the law did not permit him to do so. Is it
therefore your intention to change the law to allow the British Museum to do
what the Chairman of its Trustees says he wishes to do?
(Mr Howarth) Let me says first that I very much welcome the statement
from Mr Graham Greene that you have just told me of. I think that is
extremely constructive and altogether welcome. He was, of course, right that
the British Museum statute would not enable the trustees to make such a
return. I would decline, if I may without discourtesy, to answer your
straight question about would we change the law because I am awaiting the
advice of the eminent Panel I have established to examine this very question.
I do not think the case of the British Museum can be taken in isolation and
it seems to me sensible to wait and see what the very distinguished historians
and lawyers and philosophers have to tell us they would recommend to us as a
result of their deliberations. But I have also signified in the terms of
reference and in everything else that I have said about the establishment of
the Spoliation Advisory Panel that we will give the greatest weight to their
recommendations and it is our desire that this country should behave in a
civilised manner and do what we can, even at this stage in history, to put
those great wrongs to right.
696. This is not a matter for the Panel to advise on, is it? It
is a matter for the Government to decide on. The Chairman of the Trustees
said that were his museum to be in possession of such objects he would wish
to return them and you welcome that. He also says it would be against the law
for him to return them. I would not have thought the views of a Panel to
report now or at any other time would affect what you describe as the
"straight" question I put to you, and in those circumstances would it be the
intention of the Government to change the law so that the British Museum could
do what it wished to do, namely return objects looted by the Nazis to their
rightful owners or their descendants?
(Mr Howarth) My whole disposition is to say yes to you but I think I
should examine the arguments that are put to me by the extremely distinguished
people I have asked me to advise on this range of issues and I will decline
to make a decision on this matter until I hear from them.
Mr Fearn
697. During the course of the inquiry that we have had it has been
suggested that the trade in illicit goods is widespread but there is a centre
and a very big centre in London. Do you agree with those suggestions that
have been made?
(Mr Howarth) I do not know what the size of the problem is. Again, the
Panel I have established has been asked to map the problem and, as I said to
Mr Faber, get a handle, so to speak, on the nature of this problem that we
need to deal with. I hear the assertions that are made, I note some very
varying estimates of the scale of the problem and we need to assemble the best
evidence we can on the extent of it. I do not wish to be cynical in the way
in which I approach this problem, so I start from an assumption that our
famous auction houses and our eminent London dealers are people of good
character dealing in good faith. At the same time, I take very seriously the
allegations that are made about the trade in London more generally. The
allegations lack specificity and we need to get at this problem much more
closely.
698. I can understand why you are listening intently and reading
intently what this Committee has been doing and I can understand why you are
establishing a Panel because earlier on we had the Customs & Excise
representatives here and they do not have any expertise in this illicit trade
or seeing what the illicit trade is or even arresting that illicit trade.
When further enquiries were made time I thought they suggested there were not
too many experts in your Department, CMS. How many work on this? How many
have you got? It is obvious that across borders anybody can trade in all
kinds of stuff, small in pocket, and the Customs & Excise people have no idea
what is an illicitly traded object of high quality or anything like that. How
many have you got?
(Mr Howarth) What you have told me is worrying because it is the
responsibility of Customs & Excise to police export licences, but if I turn
to Mr Corner to answer the particular question of how many officials are
working in the export licensing division.
(Mr Corner) Currently there are 12 people in the Cultural Property
Unit of the Department but four of them are entirely concerned with the
processing of export licence applications. It is the unit which also deals
with, for instance, servicing the reviewing committee on export of works of
art, administration of acceptance in lieu, government indemnity. So in terms
of expertise in this particular field, I would have to say that it is pretty
thin.
699. Pretty thin?
(Mr Corner) Yes.
(Mr Howarth) Can I add that Lyndel Prott in his submission to the
Committee in answer to the anxiety we expressed that it would be a very
bureaucratic, expensive and complex thing to try and administer the UNESCO
Convention, said on the contrary there are countries that have small
committees that meet a couple of times a year serviced by a tiny number of
officials who also do other work. Again we need to examine very closely what
the real manpower and other operational requirements are to operate a system
that we determined was the best model. We have got the system that we have
at the moment. We need to see whether it should be strengthened and we need
to examine what the resource implications are. Again that is part of the work
of the official group and Panel.
700. I am glad you are going to look into that because it would
appear it is so very thin that there is hardly anything there at all to stop
anything happening. Archaeology sites in this country are being looted
regularly and even more so now than prior. Do you intend to take any action
on that one, extra to the action that has been taken already?
(Mr Howarth) I just question whether the situation is deteriorating as
you suggest. The evidence I have is since the coming into operation of the
Treasure Act and the development alongside it of the Portable Antiquities
Scheme, we have seen a much larger incidence of reporting of archaeological
finds and particularly through the good work of the finds liaison officers we
are funding through the Portable Antiquities Scheme we are seeing an education
of the community of metal detectorists so they are coming to appreciate the
importance of reporting finds and coming to appreciate that under our system
what they find, unless it is in that tiny group of finds that really are to
be classified as national treasure, is not going to be taken off them, they
will be able to keep it. It does seem to me that that illustrates an issue
of some importance across the continent of Europe. Do you have a system that
goes with the grain of human nature, that recognises what people's interests
and motives and desires are and does allow people to look for archaeological
finds, does allow them to keep them, provided that they stay within broad
rules of good practice, or does allow people to export works of art unless
they are of absolutely outstanding national importance, or do you have a
system that purports to be totally restrictive and is abused wholesale? This
is one of the issues that needs to be looked at across not just Europe but
across the globe.
701. Would your Department deal directly with Scotland Yard, for
instance, on any finds of stolen artifacts?
(Mr Howarth) Yes, indeed we do and perhaps again Mr Corner could give
you a fuller answer.
(Mr Corner) Members of my team are frequently in contact with Scotland
Yard consulting them about particular cases or reporting to them any cases
where we consider there is evidence of illicit trading.
702. Do those cases come to your notice because people move
around, dealers in London shall we say, or do you look at catalogues? How do
you get hold of these cases?
(Mr Corner) I think it is mainly through the system of expert advisers
who look at objects from the point of view of whether export licences are
needed and whether objects should be referred to the Waverley Committee, the
Committee on the export of works of art. In the process of doing so they will
often have to make enquiries about provenance and that may well throw up
issues which they will think it proper to refer to the police.
703. This is the thin body of people that you have?
(Mr Howarth) Exactly.
704. Two or three?
(Mr Howarth) Of course, I did mention expert advisers. We tap into a
quite wide circle of expert advisers in the national museums, particularly the
British Museum.
Derek Wyatt
705. The Chairmen and the women of the Select Committees had a
report out just before Easter, which touched upon the relationship and the
future of the Select Committees. It does seem to me that we did the Opera
House and you responded. We did the Dome. You responded. We did libraries
and you responded. Now we are doing this and you are responding. I am a bit
confused about the constitutional issues. Is there not a way in which rather
than you follow what we are doing, that we work together, since you are going
to double what we are doing, the only difference being that we do it public
and you do it in private.
(Mr Howarth) I do think there is a complementarity happily between the
programme of your Select Committee and the agenda that we have in the
Department. It should not be of any great surprise because we are looking to
see what the important issues are, where a political or governmental response
may be needed. If we happen to be working on the same topics simultaneously;
if we happen to be, if you like, advising each other; that seems to me to be
an entirely benign state of affairs.
706. Whereas the recommendations to change the way that
legislatures are brought into the Chamber means that there is the opportunity
to look at primary legislation before it enters the Chamber, here we are never
certain there will be any primary legislation. There may also be the
timetable. Is it not slightly ridiculous that there are two sets of
recommendations? More-or-less, that we can send a report out, thought of as
being carefully filed in the waste paper basket, until nine months' time when
it is taken out and, "Oh, goodness, Wembley. Goodness me." We do not get a
chance to debate on the Floor of the Chamber. Is there something
constitutional amiss here between not just your Department, but Departments
generally, in the work of the Select Committees?
(Mr Howarth) I do not think I am in a position to respond about the
point on Wembley but if I might take your report on libraries. It seems to
me tremendously helpful, a very useful examination. Both your Committee and
we in DCMS have been working towards getting a better integration between the
education systems and libraries and the public library system. If we are both
working towards that, and we both identify that as a key issue for progress,
that seems to me to be very positive. I am not sure that we ought to be
thinking too much in terms of cause and effect or precise divisions of labour.
I hope we can think in terms of a developing debate and shared exploration to
a quest for good policy.
707. If we just deal with that, do you think there is a role for
a Secretary of State to say, "I am nervous about saying how the Lottery may
be developing. Rather than set up endless more committees and things, I will
ask the Select Committee and I will take their recommendations seriously."
(Mr Howarth) First, of all the Secretary of State and all Ministers in
the DCMS take the recommendations of this Select Committee with the utmost
seriousness.
Chairman
708. What was the last recommendation of this Committee that you
adopted and implemented?
(Mr Howarth) I do not know from immediate recollection, forgive me,
Chairman. On the Libraries Report, which was your latest one, I am keen to
proceed very much in harmony with the thrust of your Committee, but if you ask
me to pluck out of the air some specific recommendation, I regret my powers
of recall are not quite as focused as they need to be. It is a question for
yourselves and for Parliament. How much do you feel you can handle? Although
Mr Fearn has suggested that the resources of the Department are insufficient,
and we would not necessarily seek to contradict that, we are fortunate in
having very capable officials and a wider network of advisers, such as those
to whom Mr Corner has referred. We have resources which possibly are not
available to yourselves, although we are always anxious to be of assistance
to this Select Committee. How much can you, yourselves, with the resources
available to you in terms of time and staff, answer all these questions and
get the details of policy fully developed? I do not know.
709. Let me move on. In Opposition, where we were for rather a
long time, (if my colleagues will forgive me for reminding them), the Labour
Shadow Arts Minister, Mark Fisher, was in favour of returning the Elgin
Marbles. I assume that was Labour Party Policy until 1 May, 1997? Is it
Government policy?
(Mr Howarth) My understanding is that your proposition is not correct.
That from 1992, when Mr John Smith became leader of the Labour Party, it was
consistently the policy of the Labour Party not to return the Elgin Marbles.
I have been at some pains to check on this. It is a not insignificant point.
Every successive Shadow Secretary, and now our present Secretary of State,
have taken the same position.
710. Let me put the same point I put earlier today. If Napoleon
had been more successful and we were a subject nation in 1816, and the
Arch-Duke Ferdinand from Austria had bought the Magna Carta, it would not
really matter whether he had legally acquired it. We, as a people, would be
furious and angry and would for ever want that back. That is the case really
that the Foreign Minister put to us on Monday. That the Elgin Marbles are
their crown jewels and they see no real reason why, at least in the ethical,
moral area, they should not have some share of ownership. What is your view
on that?
(Mr Howarth) First of all, I treat what he says with the greatest
respect. I understand the emotional importance and the symbolic importance to
him and the Greek people in this case. I would also say with respect that we
too in this country are heirs to the classical tradition. We equally cherish
the political and aesthetic values that spring from that tradition. I would
say that the diffusion of classical culture of ideas, values and of physical
relics and monuments over two millennia, has contributed in profoundly
important ways to the history that has led to the emergence of the world that
we have. It seems to me unthinkable that we should wish to reverse that
process. Important and magnificent as the Parthenon Marbles are, I cannot see
that they are unique in the sense that of all the monuments that have been
dispersed to the museums of the world, they alone should be brought back. I
do think if that principle were to be conceded, then there would be a flood
of demands which would follow. That argument cannot simply be set aside.
711. Just to take you up on that. Ten years ago my wife's family
lost something in the Lockerbie Air Disaster. For ever after they wanted to
have justice. We, for nine years, said that it would not be possible to get
out of Scotland, it had to have something else, until Mandela said, "Listen,
chaps, this is the best deal we can do. Let's go to the Hague and do it."
So we did it. So there is a way of doing these things. If you think there
are going to be 150 claims or 2,000 claims of stolen properties, is it not
incumbent upon intelligent and wise civilisations and democratic institutions
to find a new way of dealing with these issues? Almost an international
court, a Hague for the arts. It is a fact that there are stolen and looted
treasures around the world in every museum, I suspect, and there has to be
another way: not saying, "No, no, no," but, "Wait the minute." These are new
areas. They are new areas of ethics, law and morality. These things do not
necessarily belong to the British Museum or the Guggenheim. So is there not
a way that Britain can play a leading role in trying to make a new area and
develop this?
(Mr Howarth) I would suggest that we do need to make a distinction
between private property, as in the Lockerbie incident that you mentioned, and
the property which is held in museums. Museums everywhere surely ought to be
for all mankind. Certainly the British Museum is one of the world's greatest
museums. It is, as Dr Anderson puts it, an encyclopedic museum. The British
Museum is immensely distinguished in the international cultural community.
There are millions and millions of visitors who come from all over the world
to see what is there. They see what is there in a very rich and complex
context, which enables their own better education and cultural development.
I think the countries of the world would be narrow and impoverished culturally
if we were to undermine the principle of the museum, which, after all, is a
collection of important cultural objects that are brought from elsewhere. So
in a spirit, as I say, of the utmost respect and amity to the people of
Greece, I do have to say that in my judgment these are principles which cannot
be lightly set aside; but, of course, as Ms Ward was asking, we will be
willing to continue to discuss these issues, which are of high importance with
our Greek friends.
712. Earlier on, on the UNIDROIT/UNESCO Treaties, you said there
was slightly more empathy on your side to look again at this issue. I assume
that since there are 90 members, we have done an assessment of the impact of
the Treaty in these 90 countries. That there is a document somewhere in the
Department that says, "Ah, but if there is a national database, Germany have
done it but America haven't." Or, "Austria has done it but not France." What
analysis and assessment is there in the Department currently? If it is not
in your Working Party, will it be there?
(Mr Howarth) Yes, the research is being carried out to the extent that
we can. I fear that the data available for 90 countries may be very patchy
indeed. It will be an immense task to try and originate this research
ourselves but we are trying to gather what information is known to be
available. I would say, as I mentioned earlier, UNESCO has been in operation
for 30 years and yet we have a serious problem that we are all concerned
about. So we need to know, quite rightly, Mr Wyatt, just how much useful
practical effect it has had, but I fear it may be much less than its founders
would have wished. It is also interesting to note that very few applications
for return of property have been made under the European Union Directive for
the Return of Cultural Goods. A minuscule number in the six years have
elapsed; we, being among the very early subscribers to that Convention. There
is a question of the practical utility of such conventions. I am all for
subscribing to them as an earnest of goodwill and as a serious practical
commitment to do something useful and effective, but we need just to see how
useful and effective these measures really have proved to be and, of course,
might be in the future.
Mrs Golding
713. Minister, what stirred in your mind to set up this Panel of
experts? What are the reasons behind it?
(Mr Howarth) We pondered the question of whether it would be
appropriate for us to sign up to UNESCO or UNIDROIT. We were forced to
conclude that we could not at that stage. I was unhappy about it, I felt
there were serious problems, and it was not good enough. Therefore, I set up
a Panel to advise me on what we should best be doing.
714. What were your thoughts?
(Mr Howarth) I want to build on the very useful building blocks we
already have. There are plenty which are already in place. There is the
Export Control System, which we have had some discussion on, which may not be
perfect but does achieve a good deal. There is the Treasure Act and Portable
Antiquities Scheme. There is a whole array of sensibly designed measures in
the field of underwater archaeology. There are good practices, perhaps on too
small a scale, of the police and law enforcement agencies in this country.
There are the codes of practice, which have been very helpfully developed by
the trade since the early 1980s. There is all the good administrative
practice that the Museums and Galleries Commission developed. The conditions
for registration. The guidance they have issued. The rules that we enforce
in connection with acceptance in lieu and the Government Indemnity Scheme.
There are good things there which are already useful. The question is how we
build on them. We have to identify where the gaps are; where the problems
are; and shape additional policies to supplement what we already have.
715. But you are the team leader. You decide the policy in the
end. The issue that the Chairman asked you about, the six-year limitation on
the return of looted property by the British Museum, you did not give him any
reply that this would be one of the issues that had worried you considerably
and, therefore, you wanted to see something done about that. Was this not an
issue for you?
(Mr Howarth) Very much so. I should have mentioned it. The reason
why I set up the Spoliation Advisory Panel is because I think it is a very
important issue indeed.
716. What are your views on this?
(Mr Howarth) My personal desire would be to see a generous response to
claims made where they were proved to be substantiated, and where those who
were victims of Nazi looting could demonstrate that they were the forebears
that had good title. I would want to be as generous and decent as we possibly
could.
717. It is not a question of being generous and decent. It is a
case of a change in the law to allow somebody who has something in the British
Museum, and the Museum agrees belongs to them, but they cannot return it
because it is outside the six-year rule. It is more than being generous and
decent. It is a Government or Minister who says, "This cannot be right."
Surely that is something that concerns you?
(Mr Howarth) Of course it does. I am in sympathy. I am merely saying
that wishing to be generous and decent does not get you very far. It is not
just the British Museum. It is also the Tate Gallery. It is in the context
of the Tate Gallery that the only actual claim, which has so far been made,
occurs. This is the claim for the painting by Jan Griffier of The View of
Hampton Court. That will be the first case to be examined by the Spoliation
Advisory Committee as rapidly as possible. I must see what they recommend to
me. I must see what the implications are of their recommendations, in that
instance, for the wider system. As I have indicated all along, I will want
the Government's response to be as constructive as it can. I have always made
this clear. In the terms of reference of the Panel, they are invited to
recommend legislative change if they consider legislative change could be
appropriate.
718. Minister, I say again, you are the team leader there. Is it
right to people, who have a legitimate right to things which are in the
British Museum, that they are not able to have them back because of the
six-year rule? Surely you could be much more positive in saying, "I want this
to alter. When the Panel look at it, I want to know that this is going to be
altered." Have you no thoughts on issues like that?
(Mr Howarth) I do have lots of thoughts but no claim has been made to
the British Museum. It is an entirely hypothetical case that you are putting
before the Committee.
719. It is a moral case.
(Mr Howarth) I agree, it is a moral case. A moral case that would need
to be translated into legal realities. Let us get a coherent policy, which
is well based on intelligent consideration of all the complexities, and then
we will get it right.
720. Let us have a Minister leading.
(Mr Howarth) I hope that I have demonstrated a useful lead by setting
up the Panel to examine particular cases and to advise on the policy
implications of what they find. It does not seem to me sensible for anybody
in my position simply to insist on introducing whatever legislative or other
policy changes they wish on a caprice, however decent a caprice. We need a
proper basis of information and judgment upon which to decide, what in detail
and in practice we do to get it right, so that we can then be useful.
Rhetoric is only the beginning of the whole process.
721. Minister, I must say it as politely as I can, but I wonder
what Ministers are for.
(Mr Howarth) Ministers are for taking decisions. This Minister will
be very willing to take a decision when he has the basis on which to take a
decision.
Chairman
722. Mr Graham Greene, the Chairman of the British Museum
Trustees, did not say it would be generous to give people their own property
back. Mr Graham Greene did not say that it was a hypothetical question which
he did not wish to answer. Mr Graham Greene said that if it was established
that the British Museum was in possession of objects looted from the Nazis,
to which a valid claim could be established, he would want to give them back,
but could not give them back because the law would not let him give them back.
Therefore, the implication was that he would like the law changed, so he could
do what he felt was right.
(Mr Howarth) I am glad he said that.
Miss Kirkbride
723. I would like to ask a little bit about your Department's view
on cultural property and where it should reside, not in terms of the Elgin
Marbles, but due to the fact that one of the reasons why we find it difficult
to sign up to international conventions is the view that certainly the Italian
and Greek governments take of the wide protective nature of their cultural
property, that everything has protection, which if we were to adhere to in
international conventions, their rules on this creates even bigger burdens
because of their policing of their cultural property. Do you have any view
on whether or not the Government would like to see a more narrow definition
of what should be protected in other countries, which would ease the burden
internationally?
(Mr Howarth) Yes, I do. It is a very important dimension to this
discussion. It is something that we were touching upon just now in the
discussion about the Portable Antiquities Scheme and the Treasure Act. I drew
the contrast that in this country we have chosen to be selective and only to
insist that a small proportion of truly pre-eminent items should be, so to
speak, national treasures, which should be retained in this country. This is
because we think that if you try and regulate everything, you simply produce
a perverse reaction. People do not respond well to it and so you get
smuggling and other kinds of illegality. That is part of the difficulty that
we have in some of the Mediterranean countries.
724. Is that the reason why the Department and Home Office have so
few resources actually to police a situation, which you believe is
unpoliceable?
(Mr Howarth) We must, as I said earlier to Mr Fearn, devote appropriate
quantum resources when we are absolutely clear what the problem is that we are
addressing, and what we think are the best strategies for addressing it. But
you would need infinite resources to deal with the problems that are generated
by regimes that are so restrictive that they almost drive people into illegal
and, you might say, improper behaviour.
725. So what measures have taken place between our European
partners and the two big countries, Italy and Greece? Are there any
negotiations taking place at official level to encourage them to take a more
realistic view as to what they can protect?
(Mr Howarth) It is a very delicate matter. We have to consider how far
it is for us to suggest to them what their own domestic rules and regulations
ought to be. It may be wise to proceed very, very tentatively in that. But
then they ask us to assist them with enforcement and we are entitled to say
that it is not easy to enforce a regime that may be unrealistic in its
aspirations. We and my officials attend international meetings. We are fully
engaged in these discussions.
726. What kind of pressure is there and how do you justify the
fact that what may be branded as an illegal export in another country is
legally imported here?
(Mr Howarth) It is something I am very uncomfortable about. It is a
particularly important issue which I want us to examine. I am sure that your
Committee, Mr Chairman, will have views on this. I am uncomfortable
personally with the notion that it is legal in this country to import and deal
in items that have been illegally exported from other countries. I do not
like that. We need to get the hard practicality about what we might be able
to do. There are issues about extra territoriality that are not going to be
easy to resolve. We have just been talking about Greece. It is not really
for us to determine what the regime should be in other countries and, equally,
it is not easy for our judicial system to pass judgments on offences that may
have been committed in other countries. It may be useful if I asked Ms
Letwin, who is the Department's legal adviser and knows a great deal about
these matters, if she would wish to add anything.
(Ms Letwin) No, I think that is fine.
727. But it is a conundrum that it is your Department's
responsibility. How do you face this conundrum? The fact that we want to do
something here, import something here illegally, although we do not really
like the fact that it has been illegally exported, because we feel there are
laws which are too inadequate.
(Mr Howarth) UNIDROIT is, of course, one of the principal means that
has been adopted in the attempt to address this issue. This is an issue that
we need to form a clear view on and I very much look forward to receiving the
Select Committee's advice on this as in other matters.
728. You do not know either?
(Mr Howarth) I do not know yet.
729. If I may ask you about databases. Obviously with the
extension of IT and the internationalisation that permits, what views do your
Department have about the use of databases which might, in fact, be required
of art dealers, so that there is due diligence on art dealers to maintain
proper records? Obviously there is an historical problem now, so you have to
start making them. But how would your Department view going about that
process? Do you even think it is the way forward?
(Mr Howarth) I should be keen that we would make the best practical
progress we can. I agree with you that new technology opens up possibilities
that were not there before. One certainly sees them. The Museums and
Galleries Commission made the recommendation that serious work be put in hand
to construct a national database. I think it is in their submission to you.
Already, as I mentioned earlier, Resource, successor organisation to the
Museums and Galleries Commission, has commissioned a feasibility study which
will report in August on exactly this point. Whatever database Resource
might be able to assemble, drawing from museums and galleries as well as
libraries right across the country, and perhaps also extending the database
to cover works of art and antiquities that are in other hands too, I believe
they can do something very useful on this. They would also need to work with
the Art Loss Register and Interpol system and whatever counterpart systems
there were in other countries. Technology now does enable that kind of
networking to be entirely feasible, as I understand it. It is a very
important opportunity, which we must seize as quickly as we can.
730. Would you like to see it made a legal requirement not just on
galleries but on dealers?
(Mr Howarth) Codes of practice: I certainly think we could make it the
norm that dealers would participate and, of course, they already do quite
extensively with the Art Loss Register. There is always the problem with
rogue dealers, whoever they may be - and we are repeatedly told that there are
crooks around in London, although we are not told who they are, where they
are, although the police may have some ideas - but there is always the
difficulty about these systems in that those who want to pursue an illicit
trade are not going to conform, so it comes round to the question of: how do
you catch them? You do not, as I think it may be your view too, assist
yourself by having so demanding and oppressive a bureaucratic system that you
ask people to conform to that, so they are more-or-less driven to
non-compliance.
731. When Scotland Yard came here, they were in favour of a more
rigorous approach to keeping data on record. They presumed that would be the
remit of the Home Office. Would it be your remit or the Home Office's remit
to do this kind of thing?
(Mr Howarth) The Home Office and the law enforcement agencies are
represented in the official Working Group that I have set up. The
practicalities of collaboration between any system that the Home Office may
develop; and any system that Resource, (acting, in a sense, on behalf of
DCMS), might develop; are among the considerations that we are looking at.
Chairman: Thank you very much. This session is now concluded.
