Memorandum submitted by the Home Office
CULTURAL PROPERTY: GOVERNMENT ACTION ON THE DEVELOPMENT
OF A NATIONAL CULTURAL DATABASE IN RESPONSE TO THE SEVENTH REPORT
FROM THE CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT COMMITTEE, SESSION 1999-2000
- This report aims to set out the Government's progress on the
development of a national database of unlawfully removed cultural
property listed on page xvii of the Committee's report of July
2000, and printed in italics below:
"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 wider international development of a database
of stolen and illegally exported cultural property."
- The Government's initial response to the Select Committee
Report was published on 31 October 2000. The Government signalled
its determination to take effective action to combat the illicit
international trade in antiques noting that in May 2000 it set
up the Advisory Panel on Illicit Trade (ITAP). Its terms of reference
were to consider the nature and extent of the illicit international
trade in art and antiques, to consider how the United Kingdom
can effectively prevent and prohibit illicit trade and to consider
recommendations (i) to (vi), including those relevant to the Home
Office. The Panel submitted its report, including ten key recommendations
to Ministers in December 2000. Recommendation number 5 stated:
"We propose the institution of a specialist national database
of unlawfully removed cultural objects. The database would cover
cultural objects unlawfully removed from any place in the world,
whether in the UK or overseas. Access to the proposed database
should be prescribed with carefully regulated and restricted levels
of access by means of a system of security codes. Differential
levels of access could, for example, be extended to police forces,
public authorities, commercial entities and private individuals."
- On 7 March 2001 a Second Special Report was published setting
out the Government's response. The Government welcomed the ITAP
recommendations and in relation to a national database, the Minister
of State at the Home Office at the time, Charles Clarke, informed
the Committee that he had convened a working party to consider
urgently the scope, aims and operation of a national database
of stolen/illegally removed cultural property. Charles Clarke
asked the working party to report to him by the end of March.
The report noted that it would be sensible to liaise with other
countries in order to ensure compatibility with other databases
worldwide.
The Home Office working
party was tasked with considering the scope, aims and operation
of a national database. Representatives were invited from the
Department of Culture, Media and Sport, HM Customs and Excise,
the Metropolitan Police (representing Association of Chief Police
Officers, ACPO), the Metropolitan Police Art and Antiques Unit,
the National Criminal Intelligence Service (NCIS), HM Inspectorate
of Constabulary, the Council for the Prevention of Art Theft (CoPAT)
and representatives from the two largest private database operators
in the field: Invaluable Group and the Art Loss Register (ALR).
The working party met for the first time in January 2001. At this
meeting the two private operators were asked to produce a draft
protocol and paper on the principles underlying the creation of
the new database by the end of February 2001. The Art Loss Register
submitted a paper on 13 February 2001, which was subsequently
superceded by a joint paper submitted on 27 February.
- The working party met for the second time in March 2001. It
was attended by the Home Office, Police Information Technology
Organisation (PITO), HMIC, NCIS, the Metropolitan Police, CoPAT,
Invaluable and the Art Loss Register. The working party agreed
that the database should ideally be:
- comprehensive
- accessible
- internationally compatible
- a proactive investigative tool and something that
all police forces will use
- secure and with guaranteed integrity
The working party also discussed the paper put forward by Invaluable
and ALR.
- There was concern that there was a potential conflict of interest
in having two commercial database companies as members of the
working party involved in the development of a user need and specification,
should they eventually wish to bid for a contract to run the database.
There was also concern that the participation of the two private
database operators and their vested interest in a private sector
approach was not allowing the working party to be objective and
consider all the options available at that time. As a result,
it was felt that the working party was not being effective and
in June 2001, the working party was disbanded.
- It was decided that the best way ahead was to invite the PITO
to produce an options analysis on the best way forward. On 14
November 2001, PITO published their report. The report worked
on the assumption that a new public/private database would need
to be created. Its main recommendation was a partnership between
government, police and commercial suppliers at an estimated cost
of some £12million over 5 years. In March 2002, a smaller
working group made up of police representatives, DCMS and Home
Office officials was reconvened to discuss the PITO report. The
Home Office view that was supported by police representatives
and DCMS was that before considering a complex procurement exercise
with such a large cost implication we should investigate the feasibility
of utilising the existing police and NCIS facilities.
- On 18 September 2002 a working group meeting took place, the
Home Office, DCMS, Metropolitan Police, PITO and NCIS were present.
Initial discussions focussed on NCIS and the fact that they had
agreed to look into the proposal of housing the database but had
not reported back. The Home Office agreed to write to NCIS on
this issue. It was also agreed at the meeting that a business
case for a national cultural database was essential and consequently
DCMS agreed to draw up an outline business case by the end of
October 2002.
- On 20 September 2002 the Home Office wrote to the NCIS Director
General to propose they house the database. On 02 October 2002
the Director General accepted the offer in principle. After careful
consideration the Ministers at the time decided in November 2002
that NCIS should not house the database on the grounds that it
would compromise the strategic focus and clarity of purpose of
the organisation.
- In January 2003 a working group made up of representatives
from the Home Office, DCMS, Metropolitan Police, PITO, NCIS and
HMCE met to reassess the options available to the government.
On 22 May 2003, DCMS produced a draft, outline business case and
emphasized that the document needed more work to develop specific
recommendations. On
15 July 2003, Home Office officials met with DCMS officials. At
this meeting the possibility of looking into expanding the Metropolitan
Police database was discussed, as was the CoPAT proposal that
had been sent to both government departments. It was agreed that
the Home Office would continue pursuing the Metropolitan Police
option and that DCMS would reply to CoPAT on behalf of both departments.
- On 19 August 2003, Home Office officials met with the
Metropolitan Police's Art and Antiques Unit to discuss the operational
implications of taking on a national role. In September 2003,
Ellie Roy, the Crime Reduction Director at the Home Office wrote
to the Deputy Commissioner, Sir Ian Blair to enquire about the
possibility of building on their current system to provide a national
service.
- The two most likely options, therefore, are a not-for-profit
national database established by the Council for the Prevention
of Art Theft (CoPAT) and the expansion of the Metropolitan Police's
database. The government has been working on both of these simultaneously.
The Home Office has been leading on the Metropolitan option and
the DCMS has been concentrating on the CoPAT proposal.
- The Council for the Prevention of Art Theft (CoPAT), a registered
charity, proposes to run the database on a 'not for profit' basis.
The charity would create a project board made up of all user groups,
including representatives from the government departments, police,
customs, the insurance industry and the art market. CoPAT would
establish an operating arm to run the service and would contract
one or more private database providers to do this. CoPAT costings
for its proposal are still being worked on. Access would be given
to vetted parties and some would be required to pay for this access.
Any funds generated in excess of the running costs would be put
back into the charity fund. In the medium to longer term the database
is expected to be self-financing.
- The Metropolitan Police's Art and Antiques Unit is currently
the only police unit of its kind in the United Kingdom and the
database they run is unique in that same respect. The Metropolitan
Police has valuable expertise that any national database will
need to run as an effective crime reduction tool. The Metropolitan
Police option would entail:
· expanding the capacity of
their database so that it would be able to hold over 100,000 items.
· developing web-based access
to the art and antiques industry to use for due diligence. The
Unit recognizes the importance of giving access to the trade and
acknowledges that in order to effectively target the trade in
illicit cultural property the art and antiques industry needs
to be able to police itself.
· the Unit estimates costs
being in the region of £100 - 200k per annum. Additional
staffing resources would take up a large proportion of this. The
remaining costs are to be allocated to developing the web-based
access to the industry and purchasing the necessary software.
- Both departments are in the process of assessing which option
should be taken forward. The next step is to allow both options
to develop a business case.
· The Metropolitan Police
Service has agreed in principle to take on this national role.
With ACPO's support, the next step
is to develop a detailed business
plan encompassing exact costings and a formal assessment of the
technical characteristics of the web-based access to the trade.
This assessment will make close reference to the DCMS Business
Plan that contains a characteristics breakdown of what they would
consider to be an effective system for all stakeholders and in
particular the art and antiques trade.
· The CoPAT proposal
is being refined and the charity is currently putting together
a business plan that they will submit to the government in the
near future.
- Once both options have developed a detailed business case
the government will be able to make an informed decision as to
the best way forward. It has been agreed that any proposal should
initially be developed by the government as a pilot project. The
database can then be expanded and altered as is deemed necessary.
The pilot project will ensure that any database delivers to all
stakeholders at a reasonable cost.
Home Office
5th November 2003
|
