Oral evidence

Taken before the Culture, Media and Sport Committee on Tuesday 11 November 2003

Members present:

Mr Gerald Kaufman, in the Chair
Mr Frank Doran
Mr Adrian Flook
Alan Keen
Rosemary McKenna
Ms Debra Shipley
Derek Wyatt

 

In the absence of the Chairman, Alan Keen took the Chair

_______________

Memorandum submitted by HM Customs & Excise

Examination of Witnesses

Witnesses: MR MARK FUCHTER, Senior Policy Manager, and MR PETER HIGGINS, Head, Law Enforcement Policy (Prohibitions and Restrictions), HM Customs & Excise, examined.

 

Q239  Alan Keen: Good morning. Can I first of all apologise for the Chairman not being here at the moment. He is tied up on a broadcast or a meeting over the telephone line, but he will be along fairly soon. Thank you very much for coming. Would you like to make an opening statement before we start putting questions.

Mr Higgins: No statement. You are familiar with our particular roles, are you?

 

Q240  Alan Keen: Yes, it would be helpful, I think, to explain that.

Mr Higgins: I am Peter Higgins. I am Head of Law Enforcement Policy in Customs & Excise. As you may know, in law enforcement, Customs is divided into policy, our detection staff who are the people that you see at the ports and the airports, and the investigation and intelligence people. My side of the house looks after some of the prohibitions and restrictions, particularly drugs, particularly paedophiles and assets-recovery which impacts upon the detection staff in front-line operations.

Mr Fuchter: My side of the house, as summarised in the short note, is that we deal with policy in respect of a long list of prohibitions and restrictions mostly on the regulatory side, one of which is cultural goods and others are firearms, things like Customs' new responsibilities in terms of illegal meat and things like that. If I may add, to summarise the memorandum we have given you, in essence, it is an attempt to update you on what has changed since 2000. Broadly, much has not changed, but we have endeavoured to answer the specific questions that you have asked us to inform you about and also to flag up where there are one or two changes in law.

 

Q241  Mr Flook: Do you think that as an organisation you work closely with the police when it comes to cultural objects coming into the country?

Mr Fuchter: Yes, I think we do. It is my particular team that liaises with the Art and Antiques Unit. The numbers are small, but we do work pretty closely. We probably work more closely with the Department.

 

Q242  Mr Flook: With the Home Office?

Mr Fuchter: No, DCMS.

 

Q243  Mr Flook: In what ways?

Mr Fuchter: In terms of most of the information we have had. I have tried to summarise in the paper some of the recent topical cases, if you like, that we have had and I think we are struck that much of that is coming through DCMS, but we do work very closely with the police. It tends to be back and forth what do we know about what is going on, particularly in respect of Iraq.

 

Q244  Mr Flook: I get this impression that there are gentlemen and ladies sitting in Whitehall and chaps and ladies at the ports and there is a dislocating time between the two and the information you may get does not necessarily feed into what then happens at the ports. We have been told of an incident where some rather old artefacts came in from Iraq and your officers on the ground thought that they could have been receptacles for carrying drugs and, therefore, they were drilled into.

Mr Fuchter: I am not aware of that case, I have to say. On the earlier point of timeliness of being joined up with where I work, which tends to be a head office approach, we pride ourselves on being very joined up. There is a very close relationship in my team between, on the one hand, advising the Minister and, on the other hand, advising operational staff through senior managers. We use things like our Intranet so that when the Iraqi antiquities issue broke of course, we were able to put a general alert on our Intranet that all staff, all front-line staff would have to be aware and vigilant about it. We sent a specific message, I mentioned this in the paper and it probably sounded a bit repetitive, but we sent a specific message through our suspect information system which goes direct to front-line staff, so we are quite happy in this respect that we can get the right sort of message out fairly quickly. It will always be improved by things like ever better information coming to us, clearer pictures, for example, of the goods, and I must admit I am not aware of the case and it would be unfortunate if we had, although probably another manager would commend the officers for thoroughness in terms of looking for class A drugs.

 

Q245  Mr Flook: But I still get the impression, and it is not your responsibility, that there are only a handful of Metropolitan policemen and not many others in other police forces and quite a number, although a decreasing number, of Customs & Excise who are more concerned about the importation of illegal drugs than they are about cultural objects or Britain being used as an entrepôt for the illegal passing of and money laundering in that way. How high up do you think your emphasis on cultural objects is since the last time you came to see us?

Mr Higgins: I do not think there is any doubt because class A drugs are one of Customs & Excise's PSA targets that that is very high on our agenda with other things like fiscal products, tobacco, and our efforts to curtail the illegal market in that area. Having said that, we have about 3,500 Customs officers at our ports and airports, all of whom or virtually all of whom have responsibility not only for drugs and fiscal products, but for the wide range of prohibitions and restrictions for which we are responsible. When those officers are conducting any kind of search, they will be aware not only, and the example you gave was quite a good one perhaps, of looking for drugs, but also whether this is an item of cultural heritage that we would also have an interest in.

 

Q246  Mr Flook: On that particular point, the Met organise the occasional symposium to try to educate people who would not know otherwise sometimes what is a cultural object. Do you have a decent enough budget to put people on that course and do you release front-line staff to go on it as often as you think should be done, particularly since the whole reason for us doing this is that it has gone up the scale of priorities, looking at antiques from the Middle East? Do you think you have allocated enough resources and picked the right people to go on those courses?

Mr Fuchter: I am not aware, I will be honest, whether we have sent anyone on that particular course, but what we do, and in fact this is going on anyway and it was not generated by the particular interest in Iraq, is to conduct seminars. They are quarterly, but they are in different parts of the UK. We go around the UK constantly keeping awareness topped up about export controls generally, and cultural goods form part of that seminar. In terms of the front-line detection staff in the context of imports, it is back to more the immediate alerts on the Intranet which we know is a means of communication that people will use, but I was not personally aware of this training and I think we would be happy to consider it. There is always an issue that we would probably not train 3,500 staff and it would be a case of targeting as I find in other similar areas of responsibility.

Mr Flook: Perhaps we can ask the Clerk to forward the details to Mr Fuchter.

Chairman: I apologise for not being here at the start of the meeting and thank Alan for taking the Chair.

 

Q247  Derek Wyatt: Can you just explain again the import side. Say, a DHL bag comes in from Oman or Dubai which might have something like computer parts in it, but you are nervous. What actually happens if you think it is not computer parts? Where does the package go?

Mr Higgins: Well, it depends why we are nervous. If it is from a regulatory point of view, then the business services people will pick that up as being a mis-described entry either because it is mis-described for valuation or whatever. If we are nervous because it is being smuggled in the sense of cultural goods, our detection staff will ask the airport authorities to present that particular package for examination and to open it to verify whether or not it is the correct description or whether it is something which is being smuggled and liable to forfeiture.

 

Q248  Derek Wyatt: So approximately how many of those cases have there been since the Iraqi War? How many have been opened?

Mr Fuchter: Can I just clarify that we can only act in terms of imports in the context of the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1483 in the context of Iraq. We do not have any exact numbers of parcels that we might have opened. We know about commercial consignments where we have set what we call a profile, which is like a flagging mechanism, on our import control system and that has identified cargoes. They tend to be larger commercial cargoes and we know that we have intercepted those and satisfied ourselves that they did not contain Iraqi antiquities, but I cannot comment in respect of a particular package coming through DHL, I am afraid, as we do not have that sort of level of detail.

 

Q249  Derek Wyatt: We are told that packages do come in from Oman and Dubai and are in a bonded warehouse somewhere at Heathrow or near Heathrow and then somehow make their way across to America. How does that work? You send it to London and then somebody comes in, changes the address and it goes on to New York without anyone intercepting it?

Mr Fuchter: I would speculate, and it is speculating, that it is quite possibly originally addressed "En route to New York", but because of the way the freight companies operate sort of a hub system, if you like, then that parcel could well transit through Heathrow. I understand that is what happened in the case of the Golden Guns where there was never any intention for that parcel to come into the UK, but it was what we call in transit to the USA. In essence, Customs in terms of cultural goods, we are in some difficulty there. Parcels coming through somewhere like Heathrow will not touch down in the UK for very long and our staff are aware that they have to move very quickly if they want to examine anything in transit.

 

Q250  Derek Wyatt: Let's assume it comes into Britain rather than being en route to America. Do you have X-ray facilities so that you do not necessarily have to undo things and you can actually X-ray to see? Is that common?

Mr Higgins: There are certainly X-ray facilities at Heathrow, not at all airports.

Mr Fuchter: And we do have them at the main postal depots, yes.

 

Q251  Derek Wyatt: And how many real experts do you have on Iraqi antiques in Customs & Excise? You said you send stuff out, but where are the experts then?

Mr Fuchter: I am not aware that we would have any particular experts and it is not our approach to employ experts in Iraqi antiquities directly. We would go for expertise to the British Museum or some similar authority if there were to be a suspect detection. I think really it is impractical for us to engage in it. When something like the Iraqi antiquities issue comes up, it is more about refocusing those people out there who are good at looking for things, understanding risks and are well trained to search for things, look for space and things like that rather than quickly teaching them to look out for Iraqi antiquities, so it is raising awareness rather than skills transfer, if you like.

 

Q252  Derek Wyatt: What successes have you had then on Iraqi antiques?

Mr Fuchter: We have not made any detections of Iraqi antiques being attempted to be smuggled into the UK.

 

Q253  Derek Wyatt: So is it that you think that it is just hype that people are saying that hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of small items are coming through? We are being told that they are coming through at some alarming rate, but you do not think they are?

Mr Fuchter: We have not received any intelligence saying, "This is the sort of profile of what is happening". We have been looking and we have looked in both commercial consignments and we have stopped passengers, but we have not found anything. When it started to emerge that a lot of the antiques may actually still be in Iraq, we were careful to ensure that we did not all switch off and I think we introduced a hastener to our Intranet alerts to all staff, but the bottom line is that we have not found anything in the course of our activities.

 

Q254  Derek Wyatt: Has the UNESCO Convention, now we have signed up, had implications for staffing for you?

Mr Fuchter: No.

 

Q255  Derek Wyatt: And you do the imports as well as the exports now?

Mr Fuchter: We will not act against all imports until the new Act is in place at the end of the year.

 

Q256  Ms Shipley: I recently, very recently, in the last week or so, had the opportunity to spend a few hours with Customs & Excise at one of our ports and actually it was very impressive. It was very, very interesting and very, very impressive and I can see very clearly how people have focused on people-trafficking, which is hugely important and probably the most important, and drugs, hugely important, lots and lots and lots and lots of talk about cigarettes, and I know there is a revenue issue there, but compared to drugs and people, I would not put it that high on the focus, but lots and lots and lots of talk about cigarettes, cigarettes and more cigarettes and that was it really. There was not a peep about what we are discussing today. Not one single person raised anything about it, not when I was looking at the X-rays that can be done, not when I was talking directly one to one, not when they were talking about the intelligence coming in, and it was an excellent presentation, truly outstanding work, and I would suggest that this is below zero on the priority list, possibly with good reason. Could I have your opinion on that?

Mr Higgins: Could I just make one comment which is that Customs of course is not responsible for the people element. That is for the Immigration Service, although we do find them.

 

Q257  Ms Shipley: Interestingly, Customs & Excise took the time to talk to me about how they could find people, how they could X-ray people, how their equipment could find people, but they never once, and you are making my point really, talked about cultural objects, which they are responsible for. Now, I would suggest that actually the people-smuggling is hugely more important and serious than the art ones and I am glad that they did talk about it and it is to their credit that they did, but, and here is the but, how high in the priorities is what we are discussing today?

Mr Higgins: I am not surprised they talked about people because I suspect you were at a port in the south-east somewhere where our people do pick up people in the backs of lorries, et cetera, through the checks that we do for our own assigned matters. In terms of tobacco, in terms of drugs, in a sense I am not surprised that they focused on that because that is where our main PSA targets are and that is what they find most of all, but we have a long list of other items which we are responsible for administering in terms of primarily import prohibition and restrictions and whereas they may not have mentioned that to you, I have no doubt at all that they will have been very aware that in their searches for drugs, tobacco or whatever, those items are of interest and will be a matter which, if found, need to be taken forward for possible forfeiture and seizure.

 

Q258  Ms Shipley: What would you say your working relationship with the police, the specific specialised police, is?

Mr Fuchter: As far as I know, it is good. As I said in response to the earlier question, the Art and Antiques Unit liaise with my team and we disseminate what they give us and vice versa, I understand, so we regard that as effective.

 

Q259  Ms Shipley: Given that there is always room for improvement in everything, how would you improve things?

Mr Fuchter: I think we are interested in the database of stolen and what ultimately, I suppose, will be tainted objects as well. We would certainly be interested in that. It is difficult to say. I suppose a flow of intelligence probably both ways, but to go back to the earlier point about the presentation, Customs officers are intelligence-driven and if the presentation very much focused on imports, then I would not expect them to say much about cultural goods because, perhaps aside from the response to the Iraqi antiquities which has tended to be at certain key ports because they get certain traffic from the high-risk countries, I would not expect that you would hear much about it and it would be part of our export responsibilities.

 

Q260  Ms Shipley: You have just said that a flow of information both ways is what could be improved, so tell me where the problem is at the moment with the flow of information both ways.

Mr Fuchter: I am not sure there is a problem because if there were a problem, it might manifest itself, for example, with NCIS and we are strategic customers of NCIS, we inform also, but we draw on their annual UK threat assessment. If there were to be sitting in NCIS, for example, a number of intelligence logs that are going nowhere, there are no operational units to adopt them or develop them, then that would indicate that there is a problem. If there is no intelligence, is it because no one is looking or because it is not happening on the huge scale that anecdotally people suspect? That is probably the challenge we are facing. We are not swamped with referrals from, for example, the London market saying, "Hey, Customs, this is another thing you missed". I know that sounds reactive, but it is an indicator that we are not getting deluged, and hopefully we would not wait until we are deluged, but there are no indicators which suggest we are looking in the wrong direction or anything like that.

 

Q261  Mr Doran: Hearing other witnesses in this area, it seems to me that there are two clear problems. One is the lack of a national strategy which I get the feeling we are slowly groping towards, but we have still got some way to go, and the other is the relatively low priority in some areas which is given to the theft of or dealing in cultural objects. When I look at your own submission, and this is not something I blame Customs & Excise for because you are not responsible for your own legislation, but it does strike me that there are a number of gaps in the way the system is operating at the moment. In your evidence in 2000 it was quite clear that you had no statutory right to interfere unless there was some other taint, if you like, to the objects, and an association with firearms I think is mentioned in your paper. In the latest one, I see at paragraph 11 of your submission you say, "There is no specific prohibition or restriction in the Act that will allow Customs to use powers of search and forfeiture in CEMA. Customs' power to search for suspected tainted goods will be confined to cases where cultural objects are controlled for other purposes (eg firearms)". That seems to me like a fairly significant hole in the dyke.

Mr Fuchter: There are several things there. In terms of an overall strategy with DCMS, we would welcome it if there is to be more of a joined-upness. We think we are very joined up in terms of what we do, and I gave you some examples on that, but we would certainly welcome the development of a strategy and perhaps, as you said earlier, there is always room for improvement. On the specific point in paragraph 11, what we are trying to relay there is that normally Customs' law, if you like, is built around, "Let's establish something in relation to the goods" because it is all about goods. If they are controlled either by means of a restriction or a prohibition over which you can lay enforcement powers to do with prosecution, action against the owner/importer/smuggler of those goods, they are two separate things. The point there is that in the new Act, it could have said, "Well, in section 1(1) let's create a prohibition on the importation of tainted goods", but I have to say that Customs fully accept the complexity had that been the option that was taken, so I do not think it is a loophole per se. It is probably standing back and looking at the options being an import licensing regime, a complete prohibition or dealing with it, as is the option, in terms of tainted goods. It looks to me, coming at this from a Customs officer's point of view, that this was probably the only realistic starting point, and that is my interpretation, in terms of putting into place some import controls on cultural goods. At least we can now act in terms of enforcement. I think there would be challenges as to how tainted goods looks in practice and is definable in a court of law. From our point of view, prohibition is easier, but we fully accept the DCMS representations that to have everything prohibited of this nature at Heathrow would cause the holding up of passengers and goods in a way that would attract a lot of criticism.

 

Q262  Mr Doran: It seems to me that even if you have information that something is tainted - that is my interpretation of your paragraph 11, that something is tainted - you do not have the power to search for it.

Mr Fuchter: That is right.

Q263  Mr Doran: What is the point of it and how does it work?

Mr Fuchter: To some extent we need to wait and see, but our assessment is that in terms of exports, there will very probably be suspicion in terms of an export licensing matter which will enable us to activate our powers in relation to exports, so I do not think there is a problem. With imports there could be some isolated cases, but again our best assessment at this stage is that there will be implications which will allow us to use those powers, for example, a false declaration or valuation of the goods. To use an example of one of the cases we have referred to, the Bulgarian jewellery and Roman coins, although not particularly high value, under the future operation of this Act we would still be able to act because there was a failure to declare it and those goods were liable to revenue, so there was a breach of the revenue and that is how we acted. It probably sounds a bit belt and braces, but against an import licensing regime, which our understanding is no one is really ready for yet, there is a lot more work, I suspect, and a prohibition, which would probably be impractical, we think is a way forward.

 

Q264  Mr Doran: It does not sound like belt and braces to me, but I can understand the DCMS situation, and I am sure you do as well. London accounts for something like 25 per cent of the international arts market which is a very substantial proportion and nobody wants to see that damaged, but we do want to see it cleaned up. My concern is that if we are going to clean it up, we need to make sure that all the points in the system, firstly, are working together and, secondly, that they understand the importance of this trade because we heard some information in private from the Metropolitan Police unit which deals with this area and they are becoming more and more concerned that the trade in illicit objects is becoming linked to the drugs trade. It is another way of transferring money. Is that something you are aware of?

Mr Higgins: Under the UK threat assessment that NCIS have produced, certainly the potential for that has been identified and we share that as a potential way of money-laundering, as it were, through high-value goods. I have to say, however, that we have found nothing which holds up that contention at this stage. That is not to say that the opposition, as I put them, will not get into that. I would venture to suggest that if that was going on in any particularly big way, particularly at export, we would have twigged that because we do run export controls under the Proceeds of Crime Act on the export of currency and other monetary instruments and we do actually make a lot of seizures through those checks and I am sure we would have come across cultural goods as part of that, but I do share that as a potential problem area.

 

Q265  Mr Doran: One of the areas of concern which seemed to come across from the police, it was not explicit and it was not targeted at Customs & Excise, was that generally there is a low level of knowledge about what actually is a cultural object and they are involved with training with other police forces. What do Customs & Excise do to make sure their officers are fully aware and fully trained in this area?

Mr Fuchter: Really in terms of circulating the nature of the goods that are at risk, the specific goods that may have been stolen and are being sought, I have to say I will probably take away from this that we need to look again at that. We feel that it is better to train, as I said earlier, our officers on techniques. We would be concerned if we tried to empower them too much in terms of expertise in terms of cultural goods, but I have to say most of our focus is on enforcement techniques and detection techniques, relying on an understanding of what goods are at risk, what goods may have been stolen and what goods they should be looking out for.

 

Q266  Alan Keen: When you came before us in 2000, there seemed to be a difference between Customs & Excise and the police with regard to that assessment of whether crime was linked to the import of cultural objects. Have you had any meetings with the police since that time to find out what the facts are on it?

Mr Fuchter: We have had meetings fairly recently, not least to probe, "Are we missing any intelligence? What is happening? What are the facts?", as you say, and we are not being told there is a lot of information that Customs could and should be acting upon. I do not want that to sound complacent. We are very keen to hear about it and act upon it and I think our record is pretty good in terms of, as I said right at the beginning, it tends to be that we get referrals more through DCMS and some of those cases that we have summarised where we have acted upon them, but we are not aware that there is a pile of intelligence sitting, for example, in any police force that is not being acted upon.

 

Q267  Alan Keen: If that is the case then, should DCMS have a role in getting the facts sorted out? You are saying one thing and the police seem to be saying another. Either the police are exaggerating or theirs is just anecdotal and you were correct in what you have just said, that somebody needs to reconcile it, or do you think that what the police said in 2000 was really just off the cuff and not serious?

Mr Fuchter: I would not dare say that. I have to say intelligence positions do change fairly quickly. I am talking about the current picture where, for example, we look at the UK threat assessment and the very real points that that points up about the potential involvement of organised and serious criminals, but then we look underneath and see that this is part of our role to say what should Customs in the round be doing about this. Well, the first thing we have to do is evaluate what the "this" is and when we ask for some feel of quantity, what is at risk, what is going wide, we are not getting told there is anything underneath the threat assessment, for example, which certainly talks about the potential, but we are not saying that people are saying to us that there is nothing underneath that. It may be it is anecdotal evidence, but equally maybe the police intelligence relates to matters Customs cannot act upon.

Chairman: Gentlemen, thank you very much indeed and I am very sorry I missed the earlier part of your evidence.

 

Memorandum submitted by the Home Office

Examination of Witnesses

Witnesses: CAROLINE FLINT, a Member of the House, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, and MR STEVE WILKES, Head of Burglary Unit, Home Office, examined.

 

Chairman: We are particularly obliged to you, as of course you are a Minister in another Department, for having come here today.

 

Q268  Mr Doran: Thank you very much for coming to this inquiry, as the Chairman said. Obviously DCMS is the lead Department, but the Home Office has a very important role particularly in the policing and detection side. One of the issues which has concerned us is what appears to be the lack of a national strategy for dealing with illicit cultural objects and, secondly, the low priority which seems to be given particularly amongst police forces in this area. It would be interesting from you just where the Home Office sees this issue on the scale of importance.

Caroline Flint: I hope the memorandum that I have provided to the Committee gave some idea of what has been happening since this really was first initiated particularly in relation to the database. Having looked at the sequence of events, I have been concerned that it has taken quite a long time to get the relevant parties to agree on a common strategy in this area. Clearly the issue about the placing of stolen items of artistic and cultural value is important, but it is also seen, I suppose, in the Home Office in the scheme of things and against all the other competing priorities. For example, the Metropolitan Police when they did do a trail audit of some 9,000 objects of cultural value, they identified them as being linked to 3,000 burglaries and that is in a year when up to 75,000 burglaries were happening in the London area, so it is a difficult issue. Obviously we are talking about high value, we are talking about heritage, we are talking about cultural objects of high value, but it also is set against other policing priorities. In relation to some of the other areas that I cover in terms of drugs and organised crime, I am aware clearly, and I am sure members of the Committee are because you have probably taken evidence on this during this inquiry or in the past, that there are links between the purchase of these objects with a view to laundering money, but also we have some information to suggest that they are also being used by terrorists in terms of financing activities as well. There is some evidence there, but it is not clear to the extent of how big a role it is playing in relation to organised crime against the other more traditional uses of money-laundering through banks and what-have-you, so it is important, but it does sit alongside a number of other competing and pressing priorities. I think some of it is actually making some of the links better as to when these thefts occur and if they are, they can be traced back or traced into a wider scheme of activity involving criminal behaviour, particularly in terms of drug-trafficking and other types of organised crime.

 

Q269  Mr Doran: That is helpful, but one of the difficulties for me though is that this is a crime which operates at a number of different levels. There is the higher end and all the major publicity which we see when a significant painting or work of art disappears, there are the cultural artefacts, some of which may be imported into London which is obviously the major art centre in the world, and then there is the day-to-day stuff which goes on throughout the country. A lot of burglaries, for example, are carried out specifically to get objects such as, fireplaces, baths and fittings of houses, and the impression I have from my own experience is that this is seen as very much the lower end of the scale and some police forces seem to treat it almost as vandalism rather than theft. We have a situation where the Met has a unit, it is a very small unit, but it is obviously very effective and we have seen the officers and they seem to be very well trained and know their stuff. They obviously have a lot of frustration because there is no network, no one in the other police forces throughout the country they can liaise with and then that extends to the other non-police services involved, like Customs & Excise and we have just seen their witnesses. From your paper and from what you have just said, we are starting to move, but we are starting from a very low base.

Caroline Flint: I think that is a fair point and I would hope that the options we now have on the table, and one option is that the Met should expand its service in terms of its own database, or there is the other option of the not-for-profit option with CoPAT, give us a way forward. I think in trying to come to some conclusion on the database and practically getting it up and running might actually aid and assist in getting those forces around the country to pass information on and get it on the database for them to use it, but also for the trade itself, designated organisations and groups, not just in London, but elsewhere around the country to access that database hopefully when it is finally up and running and give some more sense of importance into this area. I think the other issues are always trying to make sure, certainly in terms of organised crime, that it is making the links and a burglary involving a major piece of art or what-have-you, making sure that we do not necessarily lose sight of the fact that that might be a crime in and of itself, but it could be linked to other crimes, organised crimes, criminal activities, and I think making those links is increasingly what we are trying to do in that area which is why the Proceeds of Crime Act, looking at the assets people have at their disposal which may include objects of art and what-have-you, should raise question marks as to how they got them and how they paid for them.

 

Q270  Mr Doran: Do you accept that the database, whilst it is important, is not likely to be the solution to all of the problem? I notice in your submission that there are ongoing discussions about the Metropolitan Police Art and Antiques Unit taking on a national role, but perhaps I could suggest to you that it is just as important that local forces throughout the country develop their own resources. There is no point in having a database if you do not have people trained to understand what a cultural object is and what its importance might be in relation to the database.

Caroline Flint: I think that is a fair point, but it is also against a lot of competing priorities on local forces in terms of the crimes that they are charged to deliver on. As I say, I think sometimes there could be better use of the intelligence to make the links between some of these crimes in terms of, for example, class A drugs and other organised crime and where the stealing or acquiring of art and cultural objects is involved as well. I do not know whether Steve Wilkes, who is Head of the Burglary Section in the Crime Reduction and Delivery Team and has been involved in this issue since August last year, would like to tell you more about that and the issues at force level and where he might see that linking into the Met if they do go forward with an expanded role.

Mr Wilkes: I think there are two points I would like to make. One is that the vast majority of burglary involves theft of jewellery, money, hi-fis and videos, not cultural items. That is a very minor part of the problem in the UK. The forces have been pushing to tackle the volume crime which is that typically affecting people on low incomes in the more deprived areas and concentrating a lot of their effort there. The other thing is that the actual provision of a national database will help those forces investigate those crimes, so it will actually give them a tool which can help, so it will give them some capacity to do more to tackle the problem which they do not have at the moment and it is very hard for them sometimes to investigate this type of crime.

 

Q271  Mr Doran: What about the lack of trained officers throughout the rest of the country? The Met seems to be the only one which has a trained team. Are you saying that the resources do not allow that?

Mr Wilkes: I am not aware of how many forces do have officers in this sort of art and antiques-type unit. I think some have had such units in the past, but I would hope that if we get this database up, the forces would actually think, "Right, we now have something we can use to investigate this problem and we ought to put more resources in".

Caroline Flint: Perhaps it would be helpful to the Committee if we write to you to indicate if there are forces and if they have any specialised personnel in this area. The Metropolitan Police, as in a number of other policing areas, have tended to take the lead on certain issues because of the bulk of activity in that area and of course London being the major centre in terms of the arts in the UK and the industry, the galleries, the museums and everything else that is here as well as a trading route for people who want to buy legitimately, but also unfortunately for those people who want to deal in this area in an illegitimate way as well, so I think that has grown out of the fact that they deal with the bulk of the business in this area and have created this expertise. One would hope if there was the option, and, as I say, there are two options at the moment on the table, that they expanded, there is a role within that to alert and give better guidance and support to the forces outside of London where they come upon these cases, but I will certainly provide some information to the Committee of what we know about whether there are any specialist resources in any of the other forces, if that is helpful.

 

Q272  Derek Wyatt: Just going back over some of Frank's points on the database, we have the timetable of events that we started this in May 2000 and here we are in November 2003 and nothing has happened. Do you accept that the Police Information Technology Organisation's estimate of £12 million over five years is the cost of the database? Has that been accepted by the Home Office?

Caroline Flint: Well, we have had various amounts put to us. One, as you quite rightly say, was the £12 million or thereabouts put before by PITO, but also in terms of the CoPAT option, it has varied from £6 million to £1 million and in other areas possibly under £1/2 million in terms of getting the database expanded in relation to the Met, so the amount of money has varied, from what I understand, in terms of how different organisations have put forward different sums. I would like to be able to say that we are clear at this point of what should be the final amount of money, but actually that has not been clear because the sums have changed. Steve, I do not know if you want to add any more to that in terms of the variation of bids in this area that we have received.

Mr Wilkes: Certainly PITO identified various options around £12 million. We then had a proposal from CoPAT in April which came up with, I think it was, a start-up sum of £6 million. In the latest material I have seen from them it is talking of a much smaller figure. Talking to the Met about possibly expanding their database, we are talking about less than £1/2 million. Again in the option put forward by CoPAT there are still a lot of issues to be resolved about exactly what the database would do, what users want from it, how it will be paid for, so a lot of issues around costs and funding to be resolved yet.

 

Q273  Derek Wyatt: It has been going on for nearly four years, so are we going to fiddle while Rome burns? Who is actually going to make the decision then and when are they going to make it? Is it yours, Minister?

Caroline Flint: Well, having come into this and seen the sort of trail which, I agree with you, there does seem to have been along the way, I think a combination of departments and others trying to find a practical solution to the point we are at now, which is where I suppose I came into this, where the Met who, I should say, initially were not interested in playing this role and one of the things which was an obstacle was the issue about whether they were prepared to have the database accessed by authorised representation from the industry itself, which now we have overcome. We have now got the Met option and we have also got the CoPAT option. We are going to provide some funding to have some independent consultants look at those two options and I am hoping that we will have an outcome by March next year so that we can go fully ahead knowing exactly the business case that has been made, be absolutely clear about what sums are needed to make it work and actually make a decision at the end of all of this. Like yourselves, I have read through the various meetings and the paperwork since this was started and some of the goalposts have changed because, as I say, the Met now feel they do want to be part of this which has changed obviously the situation quite considerably, but, as you just said yourself, the figures involved kept changing too.

 

Q274  Derek Wyatt: And you are not opposed to a public-private partnership?

Caroline Flint: No.

Q275  Derek Wyatt: There is no problem over that?

Caroline Flint: We are not opposed to that if we feel that it can do the job and it can meet the requirements in terms of value for money at the end of the day. That is an issue that we are not opposed to.

 

Q276  Derek Wyatt: The witness who came in front of us last week said, "We expect tomorrow, 5^th November, to look at serious and incredible proposals with a realistic time-frame". Did that meeting happen and is there a realistic time-frame?

Mr Wilkes: That was the meeting of the Advisory Panel at which CoPAT presented their options and they put together a timetable there, the first phase of which was an initial pilot and then carrying out a user-needs analysis and they estimated that that would take ten months to carry out.

 

Q277  Derek Wyatt: Have you approved that or is that just on the table at the moment?

Mr Wilkes: No, we have still got that option and the Metropolitan Police option we are still reviewing.

 

Q278  Derek Wyatt: Do you think it would be sensible to have two separate systems, one from the Home Office and one from the Department of Culture? Do you think that is going to happen, that there will be two separate databases?

Caroline Flint: No, I do not think we are saying that we want two separate databases. At the moment we have got the two options. We are going to provide funding in the Home Office to have some independent valuation of those and I think the idea is that we go with one of those options. At the moment we have those two options, so I do not want to preempt it and, as with anything, there are probably pros and consultation on both sides, but that is why we are going to pay for some independent evaluation of it and then come back hopefully with a decision for a body to run with this.

Q279  Derek Wyatt: So if I have understood your time-frame, March for a decision one way or the other, then implementation which might take another year to 18 months?

Caroline Flint: We want to pilot it out. The other issue as well is that we also want to see what happens as it starts being actually used. We feel that we do need to look at some flexibility in there to see if there are other things we have not considered when it is actually up and running that need to be taken account of, issues around making sure we have the process for the industry to access the information because obviously that is another important aspect of this, and we want obviously to try and have a system where the industry to a certain extent can help police it themselves rather than having to ring through, if it is police officers involved, to say, "Can you check this out? Can you check that out?" and all of that business, so we need to look at those issues about, for example, whoever might have access to it initially perhaps changing as it becomes operational and there are things we did not think about.

 

Q280  Derek Wyatt: If I can push you, that sounds like two and a half years' time.

Caroline Flint: I hope not.

 

Q281  Derek Wyatt: We have had three and a half years of meetings that have gone nowhere, so the issues you are raising now must surely have been raised in these meetings previously. They are not new issues, are they?

Caroline Flint: I think you have seen the business plan that DCMS put together and they produced in May this year. We have also had from PITO their outline of how they think it should be run. It is not so much about deciding what it should do, but it is just about some practical implementation of how it will happen and I am as keen as anybody to get this up and running because it does seem to me that the basic reasons for having it are agreed and it is just a question now of evaluating the two proposals we have got on the table and moving ahead on this and then obviously finding the money for it. I would be keen, for example, if we can make a decision before March next year, but some of that does depend on both CoPAT and the Met being able to put forward a detailed business case for their options for the independent consultants to have a look at and agree with. If the pilot does not show anything new or it seems to be running successfully, I do not see why you have then to wait more time if there do not seem to be any hitches in the system. If we have something for ten months as a pilot and if it is working all right, then we can move ahead to full implementation.

Mr Wilkes: I would agree with all of that. I think we can get something up and started fairly quickly, but it will take time to develop. When CoPAT presented their proposals to the Advisory Panel last week, the Advisory Panel certainly welcomed them in principle, but had some real issues about exactly how it would work, how it would be funded, what data would be put on there, how it would be put on there, who would have access, so there are still a lot of issues to be resolved unfortunately, but we are really keen to take them forward and get the database up and running as quickly as possible.

 

Q282  Alan Keen: I certainly would not argue with what you said earlier, that crime involving cultural objects is not one of the number one priorities that the police service has, but we have always been extremely impressed by the very small unit of police who specialise in this sort of crime. I cannot remember whether they said that it will be increased in size. Is that the case or are they just suggesting that it would be a good thing to have more resources? Are you aware of the current situation for expansion?

Caroline Flint: As far as I am aware, there are some issues at the moment that they are upgrading, for example, their technology, which obviously is quite important in this area as well, so there is an upgrading in terms of technology they are using and obviously having more information on a database, you have got to keep ahead of the times in terms of the technology. Also I think there would be some staff implications, but then I think the other aspect of this which was a sticking point early on is the agreement by the Met that it actually helps them if there is some organised access from the industry to the database in and of itself, so, as I said before, designated organisations or persons will, therefore, be able to check out if something that is currently in their possession or which they have come across is something they should be worried about as to whether it has been stolen and how it got there. I think some of those operational aspects can help in terms of the staffing as well so that obviously if someone from the industry identifies something on the database as a stolen article, it is then that they can obviously say to the police, "Right, this is where we need you to investigate this operationally. Here's the article and this is where we got it from". As far as staffing, that is the situation on that, but there would be some need for some additional staff in the unit and I agree with you that they have a very specialised unit and within the boundaries of how they work I think they do a very good job.

Mr Wilkes: The other area they need staffing for is because they have increasing areas with other forces where they need to deal with enquiries and material sent to them by the forces and put that on the database.

 

Q283  Alan Keen: I was asking some questions of Customs & Excise just before you came in because in 2000 during the last inquiry there did seem to be a difference in perception, and we were not sure what was fact and what was not. Customs & Excise said they had not really been given any solid evidence at all about there being a strong connection between drugs and serious crime and cultural artefacts.

Caroline Flint: I think that is a fair comment from Customs & Excise. We know there are links, but the extent of them has not really been thoroughly examined in the sense of how large it is in relation to organised crime. I do not know if you have got anything to add to that.

Mr Wilkes: No. We have anecdotal examples of trading in cultural items being linked but no strong evidence on the total extent of the problem.

 

Q284  Alan Keen: Some of my contributions are not really helpful to the inquiry, but it is worth mentioning that there is the story (I am not sure where it came from) of an alert over a large statue of a heron being translated, when it got to the county force, into a four foot herring! It crossed my mind that if it was one of the original fish from AD30 or whatever it was it would have helped to explain the story of feeding all those people. If it was one of those items would it not have been worth an awful lot of money?

Caroline Flint: I think one of the issues raised in some of the earlier reports was whether there was more information we could gather in terms of the insurance industry and in terms of the people who own objects in the UK having them stolen and then putting a claim in for them, whether there is any information from those sources that could add to our general knowledge in these areas, but one would have hoped that if there had been a claim against something that had been stolen that would be picked up because it would be reported to the police anyway. It is about closing some of these gaps and seeing if there is any information we can pool together to give us a better picture of this. As Steve said, hopefully the database will help forces outside of London to be a bit clearer about where they can go and also for the database to have some additional resources and staff being able to give better guidance to forces about what they should be looking out for and joining up the dots.

 

Q285  Rosemary McKenna: Is there any work going on in police forces or in any centralised area within the Home Office on that very subject? When I asked the Metropolitan Police about the recent theft from the home of the Duke of Buccleuch in Scotland which was kind of portrayed as a theft because it was a piece of art that somebody particularly wanted, they suggested that was not the case, that it was to be used in the future as a source of income. In another way it was a crime because it was either to be used for ransom or insurance purposes or something that would bring money to the criminal and not, as people have suspected for some time, stolen to order. Is there any way you can gather information?

Mr Wilkes: I do not know of anything off the top of my head. Maybe this is something we could follow up.

 

Q286  Rosemary McKenna: I think it is because it seemed to me that the Metropolitan Police were saying that this could be an increasing incidence. It was something quite different from the kind of art theft that most people envisage when they think of art theft.

Caroline Flint: I think the difference is between someone asking for something to be stolen so they can look at the object and appreciate it compared to the idea that an organisation would see acquiring such an object and selling it on and adding to the money for whatever activity they are undertaking, terrorism or some other criminal behaviour. Also, with the legislation that has gone through Parliament we are cracking down on issues concerning financial accounts. So if people can have assets not in cash and not in bank accounts but in objects, that is an issue we need to be looking out for as money laundering laws bite and the more work we are doing with the financial sector to track down dodgy accounts the better. One offshoot of that could be people looking to have assets not in the traditional sense of bonds or cash. To be honest with you, that is not something that we have a particular unit looking at but we cannot take our eye off the ball in terms of any future developments.

 

Q287  Chairman: Minister, this is in no way a personal criticism of you because you are a pretty recent arrival at the Home Office, but as has been pointed out by Mr Wyatt, we issued our report early in the year 2000. We made a number of recommendations. Some of those recommendations relate to the Department of Culture, Media and Sport and we will be having the Secretary of State before us later this morning. The fact is that not one single recommendation that we made three and a half years ago has been carried out. It has been acknowledged by the Metropolitan Police, when we met them and the statistics show this in any case, that this illegal trafficking is one of the three worst in the world, the others being drug trafficking and this is used for the laundering of drug money, and the other is armaments. It is acknowledged that London is one of the world centres of the art trade, it is worth £4 billion a year. It is acknowledged that London is one of the major centres for this illegal trafficking. The police are anxious and have been anxious right through from our previous inquiry to have this official database. Nothing of any kind has happened. The memorandum that has come to us from the Home Office dated November 5 says you had a series of meetings, working parties, etcetera, etcetera, but at the end of it all not one single piece of specific action has been taken. Surely this is inexcusable.

Caroline Flint: Obviously when I came into this I was keen to look at the trail of events as well. I cannot make any excuses for that, Mr Chairman. It does seem as though there have been a series of meetings of all the parties who could have put something into the pot on this in terms of solutions and along the way there seem to have been a number of obstacles that should have been foreseen. I do not want to prejudice any outcome in terms of the two options we have currently on the table from the Met and from CoPAT. The most practical way forward from my point of view would have been if the Met could have been seen as a major player in terms of expanding their service. I understand that the block there was that at that time the Met wanted a closed database, they did not want to have access outside of themselves and so that was a sticking point in terms of running the system. That seems to have been turned around now and we have had an acknowledgment from the Met that they are prepared to have open, if regulated, access outside of the police service to the database and that is good. There was another issue of conflict in that two organisations on the working party that Charles Clarke set up were also interested in competing for the database and then there were issues about whether they should be on the working party or not and there were procurement issues. As I said, there are a number of reasons why it has not happened, but that does not of itself justify the fact that nothing happened. We seem to have two options that show a way forward which we can hopefully come to some resolution on and I will try and do my best to get that executed as quickly as possible, but we need to make sure from the Home Office point of view that DCMS are happy with that framework for how we go forward on this and we will work together to try and get that done as quickly as possible. I was very interested in the trail of events as well and I think any progress was very slow and maybe some of the hurdles should have been preempted and moved on quicker from.

 

Q288  Chairman: I accept your goodwill and although it is patronising to say so, I exculpate you from this mess, but the fact is that it is a hopeless mess. It is three and a half years since we issued our report. This trade is not some piece of fancy frippery, it is not the illicit sale of the odd Gainsborough or something like that, it is a huge international criminal activity which, even if one did not care about the illicit trade in these objects, fuels the drug trade, which is one of the major objectives of the Government and the Home Office. The whole of the Government machinery is utterly ineffectual. The Met have two or three people; Customs & Excise, which is not your responsibility, have nobody trained to deal with these issues; and the Department of Culture, Media and Sport, heaven only knows what goes on in that building because it is not any kind of action. Here we are, we have the Home Office, it is a major department of state, it is not some little tiddler, which is what the DCMS unfortunately regards itself as, it has got immense powers, it has the power to legislate, it legislates all the time. We have two Bills from the Department before this House now. What conceivable guarantee is there that if we make a recommendation in the next two or three months or whenever it is that the database should be set up you will not go trundling through this cumbersome procedure that results in nothing? You mentioned Charles Clarke, I cannot remember the number of offices that Charles Clarke has held since he took this action in paragraph 3 of your note. As I say, it is like a steward on the train when something goes wrong, you are the person who is here and therefore you are in the firing line even though it is not your responsibility. Can you give us a guarantee, if we make a recommendation within the next few weeks that this database be set up and be set up by the Home Office and be an official database, that it is your intention to do it and it will happen next year?

Caroline Flint: It is our intention to get it up and running next year. I cannot disagree with what you have said. What I want to be sure of and what I have asked officials to assure me of is that the two options on the table, both the Met option and the CoPAT option, are options that actually both Home Office officials and DCMS officials feel are valid ones. I do not want to be in a situation, if we are moving forward with these two options, where suddenly someone turns round and says it is back to the drawing board again. We have had a lot of going back to the drawing board in relation to this issue. In terms of my brief, I am trying to make sure that the advice I am getting is that these are two viable options. There are issues with both of them that need to be looked at and there are issues about procurement in there as well, but we are satisfied that there is a case for one or the other being the way forward. In order to show our goodwill the Home Office is providing the finance to have these independently assessed and we will move forward with supporting the pilots next year. I am trying to make sure that this database can be up and running next year and be part and parcel of trying to deal with the illicit trade of goods in this area. We are committed to getting that sorted out. At the moment, in terms of getting the proposals from the Met and CoPAT, we have been told they will need until February to put those in to us for independent assessment. If they could do that earlier than that then that would be great. In terms of any pilots, if they show that they are working well then I do not see why the pilots need to go on just for the sake of it, especially if we can then say we are happy, it is working in practice as well as it worked on paper, let us move on. I do not know if there is anything from the official side you want to say to back up that these are the options we feel we are going to make a decision on and I hope they are, I hope the advice I am getting is right on that because I do not want to be back to square one.

Mr Wilkes: These independent consultants will be really helpful because I have not really had the capacity or skills in my team to put enough effort into this database. So getting some independent consultants in to get to the bottom of all these issues will really help us make the final decision.

 

Q289  Chairman: If I may, and once again without being patronising, let me give you a tip and that is this. You mentioned in the course of your response to me "the advice I am getting," but advice is a recipe for protracted inaction. Ministers tell civil servants what to do and I suggest you tell them rather than wait for their advice because their advice will keep you going until you move on to your next job, no doubt a promotion and somebody else takes your place.

Caroline Flint: Mr Chairman, I can assure you that I am making sure the advice they give me stands up to my scrutiny, but I have also told them I want this sorted out asap.

Chairman: Thank you. We are very pleased to see you.

 

Memorandum submitted by Dr David Gaimster

Examination of Witnesses

Witnesses: RT HON TESSA JOWELL, a Member of the House, Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, DR DAVID GAIMSTER, Senior Policy Adviser, Cultural Property Unit, MR ALAN DAVEY, Director of Arts and Culture, Department for Culture, Media and Sport, examined.

 

Q290  Chairman: Secretary of State, we would like to welcome you here today. Is there an opening statement you would like to make?

Tessa Jowell: No, there is not. This is a follow-up session from the earlier session that we did at the beginning of the summer, so, no, I am ready to take your questions and do my best to answer them.

Chairman: Thank you. Derek Wyatt.

 

Q291  Derek Wyatt: We have been quizzing your colleague Caroline Flint about the database issues. It does seem to us incomprehensible that it is nearly four years and still there does not seem to be the likelihood of a database. Can you explain to us why this decision is taking so long to make?

Tessa Jowell: First of all, I think I can reassure you that we are now, eventually, at a point where certainly a pilot project for the database looks likely to begin either at the end of this year or early next year. I agree with you, it has taken a very long time to make progress and I have taken some trouble to try to understand exactly why we face the degree of delay that we have and it will be for you to judge whether the reasons are sound. It might be helpful to you if we submit as a further very short memorandum an analysis of the period of time since your recommendation was made and the two relevant departments, my Department and the Home Office, embarked on their work. By way of explanation it is important to say two things: first of all, this is an extremely complex project; and secondly, there have been, and indeed remain, differences of view between my Department, the industry and the Home Office about the best way forward and much of the last two or two and a half years has been spent on negotiating those differences. We are now at a point where I think there is agreement about a number of the features of the database. First of all, that it should be open. This particular point points to a point of difference between my Department and I think particularly the police who wanted to see a database to which only they would have access. My Department sees this database as allowing due diligence by those who want to acquire a particular object and checking it against the database is a means of ensuring that that process of due diligence has been undertaken. I have to say that I think the methodology of the database has also been clarified by the process of working up the proposals and then taking through the recent legislation in relation to stolen or removed cultural objects.

 

Q292  Derek Wyatt: Is it your view that, with a fair wind now, given the three and a half years lapse, a pilot might start some time in the new year, maybe in March, as we were told by the Home Office half an hour ago, but that it might be another 18 months before we have finally got this up and running? So it will be nearly six years since this was muted. Do you think the pilot will run for three months or six months?

Tessa Jowell: The intention is that the pilot will run for a year. The pilot itself will be reasonably inexpensive, the estimates are about £300,000. The costs of the fully established database will obviously be greater than that. I think one of other reasons that there was a delay in the early stages was that some very alarming estimates of cost were produced for which neither department had any financial provision. The timescale is now established. The pilot will be up and running. It will run for a year. So in March 2005 I would expect us to be in a position to be able to make a judgment about the form of the final database and for work to be undertaken there. I fully understand your scepticism about the length of time. I share that scepticism. Having looked in detail at the history, I am persuaded that there are answers to the doubts about whether or not this has really been a process in which all the necessary people have been fully engaged.

 

Q293  Derek Wyatt: When you make a decision in March 2005 it will not be the case that either you or the Home Office cannot afford the system, will it?

Tessa Jowell: By then we will be facing a new spending round. We will have to find the means to fund this. It will be new expenditure for my department and I am sure it will be new expenditure for the Home Office. It will be a new proposal and we will have to secure the money in order to implement it in the normal way.

Derek Wyatt: Can I move on to Professor Palmer who came to see us last week.

 

Q294  Chairman: Before you do that, Derek, I would just like to recapitulate because until you just said what you said I thought maybe I was not hearing right. I have just been described in another forum I have been in this morning as senile and cracking up and it may well be that because I am senile and cracking up I misheard. We recommended this back in July 2000. You are now telling us that a decision will be made in 2005. What has taken five years, including the 16 months still to come?

Tessa Jowell: I have tried as candidly as I can, Chairman, to set out for you the reasons for the length of time because I do not think that those who have been engaged in this process see it as a delay. They have addressed the process as a form of dispute resolution because there is a disagreement between the best model for providing the database. Some time has undoubtedly been taken exploring what have been two contrasting models. As to why it will take until 2005, I hope I have explained the reason. There is now sufficient agreement in order to begin this. The pilot will begin next year. It will run for a year. This is a new service. The proposal, quite rightly, no-one would have expected this, by your Committee was not a costed proposal. The process of the last three years has been trying to scope the proposal and get to grips with its costs and, as I say, the costs have been widely divergent. One estimate put the cost at around £12 million, another has put the costs at a much more modest level. These have been the issues which have driven the period of time that it has taken to get us to this point, but I hope you are reassured by the fact that there is now agreement on the way forward and an agreed date in March next year when the pilot will begin.

 

Q295  Derek Wyatt: In July 2000 the Prime Minister issued a statement jointly with the Prime Minister of Australia in which he endorsed "the repatriation of indigenous human remains wherever possible and appropriate from both public and private collections". That was also three years ago. Will there be a timetable published with Professor Palmer's report so that we have a better idea of what is intended with respect to all this?

Tessa Jowell: Again, this has taken a considerable period of time. When I have probed this, the reasons are various. As you will have heard from Professor Palmer in his evidence, this has been a matter of great complexity. As is often the case with such advisory groups, there are difficulties in getting people together. I understand that Professor Palmer had a period of illness. All these have been factors which have contributed to the working group sitting for the length of time that it has and I think, in fairness, we all owe a debt of gratitude to Professor Palmer and the members of the group for the thoughtful and helpful report they have produced. I do not think they were given any deadline by which they were expected to report. So the timescale that they were given was an open-ended timescale. We now have the report, it was published last week and we are proposing to undertake a period of further consultation on the recommendations that have been made.

 

Q296  Derek Wyatt: Last Tuesday he was in front of us and on Tuesday evening there was a Channel 4 News excerpt where it seemed, certainly from the television coverage, as though the Natural History Museum was not signed up to this process and would not be so keen to be involved in expatriation. Could you comment on that?

Tessa Jowell: I have been interested in this. I think you have actually had Neil Chalmers, the Chairman of the Natural History Museum, in front of you. He produced a minority report and there are undoubtedly areas where he disagrees with the main recommendations. I think that we need to probe his reasons for disagreement as part of the consultation that will now follow. For instance, Dr Chalmers' view is that the proposal for an advisory panel is overall prescriptive. He is of the view - and I think that this is an important point of policy that we need to think about and to address - that the recommendations are based on a presumption that where a claim is made the remains will be returned. I think that we will have to engage the public policy, the public interest, the scientific, medical and ethical and other reasons as to why not every application by a national government or group may result in the return of the remains. I think that Neil Chalmers has raised some significant points, particularly significant for the British Museum, that we need to address.

 

Q297  Derek Wyatt: So if you are going out to further consultation, what is the timescale in your own mind as to when there will be decisions reached on this?

Tessa Jowell: The period of consultation is consistent with the Cabinet Office guidelines, it will be a three month period of consultation.

 

Q298  Derek Wyatt: Secondly, one of the problems is that the Natural History Museum considers itself to be the best in the world and we understand the reasons for that, but is there a way in which the Natural History Museum could open up in Sidney as part of another Natural History Museum, an association or a partnership? If they are scared about scholarship or if they are worried about how they will be treated, they could have some say in that, but that actually aborigines and Maoris, mainly aborigines, could get access to this in their own country. Is that an area that you broached with the Natural History Museum itself?

Tessa Jowell: It is not an issue that I have yet broached with the Natural History Museum. It is an issue that I certainly will. It is an issue, as I am sure you will understand, which is raised across the board in relation to the positioning of our great museums as global institutions. I think this reflects the changing role of museums in the modern world where natural ownership may be less relevant than it was 20 or 30 years ago. I am very open to those kinds of discussions. It may well be that one of the consequences of the debate in relation to Professor Palmer's report is to do just that.

 

Q299  Derek Wyatt: Are you going to set up a further working group to look at sacred objects within collections, as recommended by the Human Remains Working Group?

Tessa Jowell: Sacred objects is a part of the overall debate that we have not really addressed. This will be part of the consultation and that will be a first stage, an opportunity to address those particular issues and if it is necessary to set up a further working group then I will do that. What I am not keen to do is to build in indefinite delay rather than confronting some of these difficult issues and helping the trustees of our museums to reach a conclusion.

 

Q300  Derek Wyatt: In Professor Palmer's report there is an audit of what is there for human remains, but we do not yet have an audit of what we have in sacred remains. Is that going to get commissioned anyway?

Tessa Jowell: That will be part of the consultation. I am certainly very happy to talk with the museum directors and to ask them to undertake such an audit for the sake of completeness.

Derek Wyatt: Thank you.

 

Q301  Mr Doran: Obviously the discussion about the database is important, but what I want to probe a little is how that fits in to the rest of the strategy, if there is one, because the evidence we have heard so far about the weakness of the system has certainly concerned me. Even if we have the database, I would be concerned about how it would operate and there are a number of areas I want to probe. The first is the co-ordination between the government departments involved, particularly the DCMS, the Home Office and the Treasury for Customs & Excise. We have heard police evidence, we have heard Customs evidence and it is quite clear that there are serious deficiencies in the resources which are applied and the training of officers who may be dealing with cultural objects. The Met has three officers for the whole of London and the centre of the world art trade, for example, and no dedicated officers in Customs and minimal dedicated officers throughout the rest of the country. Is that an issue which concerns DCMS and is it something which you are applying pressure on?

Tessa Jowell: Yes, it does concern me. Much of this fragmentation was thrown into very sharp relief by our intervention to support the situation facing the National Museum in Baghdad and the situation more generally in Iraq. Yes, I think there is a degree of fragmentation which we can overcome. We can overcome it as long as we have a common understanding about the best way in which to proceed, hence the importance of the debate about the database. Over the last six to 18 months we have established a greater degree of clarity in relation to the policy more generally. First of all, signing up to the 1970 UNESCO Convention has established a date line beyond which we are responsible as a Government for honouring the terms of the UNESCO Convention in relation to stolen or looted artefacts, so I think that that provides a degree of clarity. Secondly, I think the action that has been taken in Iraq, the gaps that were revealed in relation to our efforts in Iraq and our ability to support the Private Member's Bill so that we now have a new offence on the Statute Book which will be effective at the end of next month closes a very important loophole that was revealed in the context of Iraq, but it was also a loophole that had concerned many of those in the industry for a very long time. I think the third area of progress is the work that we have been able to do with particularly the Art Market Foundation and the other relevant organisations whose integrity and credibility rests on their commitment to fighting, I mean the shadier parts of the market. I think we now have the commitment from those organisations which police the industry, we have the commitment from Government through legislation and we have the commitment from Government through the action we are taking to establish a database that means that we are in a much clearer position and will be once we have the national database established in 2005 than certainly has been the position to date. I think it is important to reflect on the extent to which this is an area of policy to which everybody is prepared to sign up. You do not get many people saying they think that allowing looting or the theft of treasures from one country to another or a market in stolen and looted goods is a good thing, but, as your question reflects, putting the action in place to deal with it is considerably more challenging because we rest on an international convention, UNESCO, we rest on industry commitment to sign up to the policing of self-regulatory action which the industry can do and then, of course, there is a role for Government, there is a role for the police, but it works most effectively in a context of those other measures being properly in place.

 

Q302  Mr Doran: All the evidence is that there is a complete lack of resources in this area being devoted by the police and by Customs & Excise. Is that something that concerns you?

Tessa Jowell: It is. In terms of the scale of the problem, I think this is likely to be an under-resourced area. When we were very concerned recently about the evidence that some treasures which had been removed from museums in Iraq were being taken across the border, first of all we were able, through the negotiation of UN Resolution 1483, to ensure that sanctions remained in relation to prohibiting the removal of treasure from Iraq. Secondly, through discussion with Treasury ministers we have been able to achieve greater vigilance by Customs & Excise in relation to the scrutiny of items that are coming into the country. I would be misleading you if I were to suggest that this is an area of work which is sufficiently central and sufficiently well resourced for us to provide comprehensive protection both for other countries where we wish to provide that or comprehensive protection domestically against the unlawful and illegal art market which operates, but we are making progress and I think I would like to reflect further on the effectiveness of that in the year 2005.

 

Q303  Mr Doran: It sounds as though it is still a low priority for some departments.

Tessa Jowell: It has been a low priority. It has become a much higher priority for my Department. As I hope I have made clear, the reason it has become a higher priority is because of Iraq. One of the lasting effects of the action that we took in Iraq will be to generalise the vigilance that we applied there to other countries.

 

Q304  Mr Doran: You mentioned the Private Member's Bill, the Dealing in Cultural Goods (Offences) Act 2003 and obviously that is an important step. Customs say in their submission that there is no specific prohibition or restriction in the Act that will allow Customs to use powers of search and forfeiture in their own and dedicated legislation. So Customs' powers to search for suspected tainted goods will be confined to cases where cultural objects are controlled for other purposes, eg foreign arms. They do not have the powers to act where the only issue is whether they are dealing with cultural property or not, it is only when it is connected with something else, perhaps drugs, firearms or some other illicit material. That seems a terrible gap in the Act.

Tessa Jowell: I understand that when the legislation was being drafted Customs & Excise actually resisted inclusion of those powers because they were concerned about the resource consequences for them.

 

Q305  Mr Doran: That takes us back to priorities.

Tessa Jowell: You are absolutely right and I would not want to mislead the Committee in suggesting that this was an area of our collective responsibility as a Government that is sufficiently well resourced. I think that we will be in a better position because of the measures that have been put in place, but clearly we will have to make an assessment in the light of the impact of the legislation, the database and so forth as to the likely need for further resources. It is also important not to load too much onto what was a Private Member's Bill. If this is action the Government wishes to take then it should form part of Government legislation.

Dr Gaimster: Our legislation is really all about changing the culture in the marketplace, it is not about putting people into jail and that has always been our approach. It is about making due diligence more effective for the marketplace, encouraging better practice and that is what the Bill does. It is very short, it has only got six clauses including its title. It is not a comprehensive protection in that sense but it helps, it is a contribution to transforming the culture in the marketplace in the UK.

 

Q306  Mr Doran: I understand that, but some of the other evidence that has come before us, which I think we are beginning to accept is mainly anecdotal, shows signs of a link between the trade in illicit cultural items and drugs and firearms and money laundering. These are issues that we have to take seriously. Whilst I accept that this is not meant to be a belt and braces approach and I accept that sometimes you have to work to change cultures, there are what seems to be a couple of other gaps. Am I right in thinking that the legislation does not extend to Scotland?

Dr Gaimster: That is right.

 

Q307  Mr Doran: I am attracted by the idea of the international art market moving from London to Scotland.

Tessa Jowell: Yes, moving to Aberdeen!

 

Q308  Mr Doran: On a serious point, is that something which is being discussed with the Scottish Executive?

Dr Gaimster: Of course we cannot legislate in Westminster on behalf of Scotland on devolved matters such as criminal justice. In the meantime we are talking to our counterparts at official level in the Scottish Executive and they are scoping bringing forward a parallel measure in Scotland at the moment and we are hoping to hear the outcome of that exercise very shortly.

 

Q309  Mr Doran: I do not want to try and trap you on this one, but I have been given a note about some legal evidence which was given to ITAP and apparently they have received legal advice to the effect that if DCMS discovers that a cultural object is illicit or tainted then the Department does not have the power or the right to refuse to issue an export licence, at least if the object originates from outside the EU. That seems to me a strange situation. I have got an example which I will run through very quickly. For example, if dealer X in London has an illicit object from China and he applies for an export licence to take it to Switzerland, DCMS checks up the detail of the export licence application and finds that the object is illicit, but the Department nevertheless has to issue an export licence. The concern is that that gives some legitimacy to what is really an illicit item, so it can be moved on. Again, that seems to be a gap in the legislation. I do not know if you have had a chance to consider that legal advice.

Tessa Jowell: I will ask Dr Gaimster to come in on this, but we are aware of that gap. There are also issues that we are having to address and on which we are taking advice at the moment on compatibility with EU law.

Dr Gaimster: It has been one of the key concerns for ITAP, the use of our export licensing regulations, our arrangements there, to see if we can monitor and kerb the use of our export licensing system as a way of using the UK to launder objects in the way that you describe. A working party has been set up by ITAP to focus on this particular issue in more detail. That working party met earlier this year and since then the Department has been commissioning legal advice on the way forward. What we can do to adjust our systems is to make them more compatible to other policies that we are bringing forward such as the new legislation, the Dealing in Cultural Objects (Offences) Act. Speaking as secretary of the ITAP, the panel is now turning its attention to areas of enforcement for the key areas of policy that they have been developing through UNESCO and the new legislation and that will be a key area for them to consider. At the moment the Department is requesting and considering legal advice on what is and what is not possible in terms of our current arrangements.

 

Q310  Mr Doran: Have you met this problem in practice? Are you aware of any examples?

Dr Gaimster: Yes, we have received several examples of this kind of problem from the trade and from Customs, but ITAP's policy has always been to try to use the export licensing system as a means of slowing down the use of the UK as a port of entry and export for illegally removed and stolen cultural property.

 

Q311  Mr Doran: I understand the softly-softly approach which you are taking, but there are a lot of other issues which are connected to the trade of illicit cultural goods and I mentioned illegal drugs etcetera. At the same time we know that London is by far the largest market in the world and it is obviously an important economic generator for the country. How much does that dictate the approach that you take?

Tessa Jowell: London and New York are the two biggest markets in the world. When I came here the last time I made it clear that the important thing is that the art market in London is a clean art market and the procedures in place are rigorous in dealing with any criminal activity. We are aware of the link to organised crime and we have to be vigilant about that, but certainly all the trade institutions are signed up to co-operate with this.

 

Q312  Chairman: Secretary of State, in the report that we issued approximately three and a half years ago we said, among other things, "We very much welcome the view taken by the British Museum in making clear and unequivocal statements that it would wish to return objects looted during the period 1933-1945 and not subsequently returned. We recommend that ministers in the Department of Culture, Media and Sport be in cross-party consultations as a matter of the utmost urgency" - and I stress those two words - "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 1933-1945". The response of your department was: "The Government agrees with the Committee that it would not be appropriate to give the boards of the national museums and galleries general powers to dispose of objects in a broader range of circumstances than is currently permitted, but it also agrees that there may be a case for legislation to permit disposals in very specific and tightly defined circumstances. The Government therefore accepts the Committee's recommendation that there should be consultation specifically on the case for legislation to permit the return of human remains ...". I will pause at that point because this is a dual thing. During sessions of this inquiry now, in the year 2003, it was indicated to us that the Department of Health was going to be used as a vehicle for that and yesterday at Question Time you confirmed that. Would you be kind enough to specify exactly what the Department of Health Bill will provide for and what the timetable for enactment and implementation will be?

Tessa Jowell: I did have some difficulty hearing you, Chairman. Can I be clear? Are you asking two questions? Are you asking about legislation in relation to spoliation, and then -----

 

Q313  Chairman: I am separating it out, Secretary of State, because there are two aspects to this. I will read two sentences from your response: "The Government therefore accepts the Committee's recommendation that there should be consultation specifically on the case for legislation to permit the return of human remains" - that is relevant to what I have just been asking about but I thought that that would split it off because it is a different matter, and the rest of the sentence went - "and to permit the return of objects which were wrongfully taken during the period 1933-1945. The Minister for the Arts has written to the relevant bodies to set this consultation in train". That latter part I shall come to in a moment. The part that I am wanting to ask you about now is "legislation to permit the return of human remains". As I say, it was indicated to us in a previous evidence session in this Committee, and you said in terms in the House of commons yesterday at Question Time, that there is to be a Department of Health Bill to deal with the human remains part of it, relating, as I understand it, to human tissue. In view of the fact that you have now confirmed in terms that there is to be such legislation from the Department of Health with an input from your own Department what I am asking for is, what precisely will be provided for by the Department of Health Bill, when you expect it to be enacted and when, after its enactment, you expect it to be implemented.

Tessa Jowell: The first proviso I have to give, and it was Estelle who answered the question yesterday, is that this is obviously subject to the final decisions in relation to the Queen's Speech, but we have negotiated with the Department of Health inclusion of a clause in the Human Tissue Bill which we hope will be included in the Queen's Speech. Why have we done it that way? First of all, it is because we did not expect that it would be possible to secure our own separate legislative slot and the principles that the Department of Health have already published for their legislation are that first of all explicit consent is a fundamental principle underlying the holding, removal and use of human tissue and, secondly, that a licensing regime would apply in which a regulatory authority would be responsible for overseeing certain activities in relation to human tissue. It is our view that human remains should be subject to the same kind of regulation as is intended for human tissue so that there is a synergy between the safeguarding of human remains and the safeguarding of human tissue.

 

Q314  Chairman: I am not clear what that means. It is quite unusual for a Minister to make a statement about forthcoming legislation in advance of the Queen's Speech, but that is what you did yesterday. You did it in terms and you did it at the despatch box on the floor of the House and it was in response to a question - I have not got the Hansard in front of me -----

Tessa Jowell: Yes. Estelle was asked a question by Julie Kirkbride.

 

Q315  Chairman: That is right She asked you the question. She was at that time, and indeed technically still is, a member of this Committee though that may change as a result of her appointment yesterday. Nevertheless, she asked you that question. You replied, and it was very much an extension of what was said to us in these precise terms, and not by a minister, at a previous sitting of this Committee. When a minister commits herself on the floor of the House to legislation then one assumes, and certainly in your case I would take it for granted, that that was done in good faith. That being so, I do not think it is too much to ask exactly what that legislation will do. As was said before this Committee and, as you said in the House yesterday, it related to human tissue, but I am assuming that human tissue includes skeletons, bones and matters of that kind. Therefore, I am assuming that the legislation to which you referred in the House yesterday will cover the commitment that you made in response to our report. What I am therefore asking, and it is you yourself who have made this quantum leap in assuming it will be in the Queen's Speech, is, what will be the timetable for doing it and what will be the timetable for its implementation?

Tessa Jowell: Chairman, can I just deal with the point about revealing what is in the Queen's Speech? I can make clear to you what we would like to see in the Queen's Speech and how we would like the legislation to be framed. Whether it is in the Queen's Speech is obviously a matter for the Queen and for the Cabinet and you better than anybody else understand the conventions. I have not read the Hansard of yesterday but I am quite sure that Estelle, in answering the question, if she omitted to make the conditionality clear, would have wished to do so. My answer to you is in the following terms, that yes, we would like to see this legislation in order to take forward the work of Professor Palmer's Committee. I have just been given a note which makes clear that Estelle Morris, the Minister for Arts, yesterday said that she hoped to use the proposed legislation, so she was quite clear about the conditionality. I cannot tell you this morning that it will definitely be in the Queen's Speech but we hope. To cut to the quick of this, what we would hope to see is a single clause that would make it possible for trustees who at the moment, as you know, have very particular responsibilities which more or less prohibit them from allowing de-accessioning of items in the collection, to do so specifically in the context of human remains. It would give the trustees discretion to de-accession certain human remains were an application made by an individual or by another government.

 

Q316  Chairman: That is fair enough because, as Julie Kirkbride said yesterday, and it was what was said round this table when we looked at these things, there may well be very good reasons why a museum would wish to hold on to such material.

Tessa Jowell: Exactly.

 

Q317  Chairman: And we have never recommended that it should be compulsory for it to happen. We will have to wait for the Queen's Speech on that. Let us take the second part of the departmental response. "The Government therefore accepts the Committee's recommendation that there should be consultation to permit the return of objects which were wrongfully taken during the period 1933-1945. The Minister for the Arts has written to the relevant bodies to set this consultation in train". I went that autumn, representing this committee, to a conference on spoliation in Vilnius and I read this out to them and there was great applause for it. Where have we gone since then? We have got a second response in March 2001, nearly two and three-quarter years ago, on what was to happen after the Minister for the Arts had written to the relevant bodies. What was said in that was that there had been consultation with the National Museums Directors' Conference, the Museums Association, the Museums Standing Group on Repatriation, the Tate Gallery and Resource, the Council for Museums' Archives and Libraries. It went on, and forgive me for going on at length but this is what your department said: "There has been general agreement from those consulted that the removal of legislative barriers to restitution should be sought. The Government has begun cross-party discussions about the possibility of permitting the trustees or boards of national museums and galleries to be able where appropriate to return items which were wrongfully taken during the period 1933-1945. It is also exploring the possibility of achieving this by means of a Regulatory Reform Order under the Regulatory Reform Bill currently progressing through Parliament". That did not happen. That was two and three-quarter years ago. The immediate vehicle which was mentioned was not used, so where are we now, two and three-quarter years beyond that?

Tessa Jowell: Two and three-quarter years beyond that we have up and working in response to the consultation a panel which is chaired, as I think you know, by Norman Palmer, who reported to you on the way it is working last week, or during the course of this hearing anyway. It has met on six occasions. The advice to my department from those who sit on the panel is that legislation which might have been necessary is not now thought to be necessary. The Advisory Panel has the power to direct me as Secretary of State to submit the case for legislation but it has not done so. Since the panel was established only five cases have been considered.

 

Q318  Chairman: You refer to Professor Palmer. We had the immense treat of having Professor Palmer before us last week and if the word "opaque" did not exist it would have to be invented to describe the way in which he responded to questions. What I am not clear about is that our understanding, and indeed the British Museum made it absolutely clear when they came before us on the last inquiry, that they could only divest if the law was changed to allow them to divest, and I do not see how the Spoliation Advisory Panel can require them or enable them to divest when they told us that their statute did not permit them to divest unless there was a change in the law.

Dr Gaimster: On that question about what the panel can and cannot do, it can recommend DCMS to consider legislation but it has not actually done so. I think the Secretary of State has already made that point.

 

Q319  Chairman: Sorry, but, whatever it recommends or does not recommend, was the British Museum right when it came before us three and a half years ago to say that, whether it wanted to divest or not (and it envisaged circumstances in which it might want to divest) statute would not permit it to divest unless the law was changed?

Dr Gaimster: That is still the current position.

 

Q320  Chairman: So what on earth is the use of having a Spoliation Advisory Panel to make a recommendation if the recommendation cannot be implemented?

Dr Gaimster: I understand what you are saying, Chairman. What it has been recommending in several of these cases is resolution through compensation, and I understand that this has happened in one case to date, so they are exploring recommending other options for resolving claims and compensation has been taken up in one example in the last few years. There have been other options for resolution. It is not just about the return.

 

Q321  Chairman: That was not an option that the Government itself looked at. The Government did add, and I have got in front of me what you told us, "The Committee will be aware that on January 18 the first report of the Spoliation Advisory Panel was published. The panel recommended that an ex gratia payment should be made to the former owners of a painting in Tate Britain of which the owners lost possession during the Nazi era. The Government immediately accepted and implemented this recommendation". Fine, but that is not what I am asking about.

Tessa Jowell: Chairman, let me try and deal with this. You are absolutely right that there was an expectation that the necessary legislation would be taken. The Spoliation Advisory Panel was set up and part of its job in advising me and acting in considering specific cases of spoliated property is to make clear when their powers are inadequate to the task before them. They have not done that, and so in the absence of a recommendation in practice and through the exercise of their functions as a panel that legislation is necessary, we have not sought to bring legislation forward. Were they to do so then we would obviously seek to bring legislation forward.

 

Q322  Chairman: Secretary of State, in March 2001 you said you were exploring the possibility of bringing legislation forward. You were going to do it by an order under the Regulatory Reform Bill which was then going through Parliament. It was acknowledged then, under your predecessor (you were not yet the Secretary of State), that the only way this could be done would be by a change in the law. The Spoliation Panel under Professor Palmer is without doubt one of the most elegant organisms ever created by government. That is not the point. The point is this, that the British Museum told us three and a half years ago that it could only divest if the law were changed because statute did not permit it to divest even if it wished to. Your department acknowledged that that was so by saying that it was exploring the possibility of changing the law through a statutory instrument under a bill going through Parliament. That did not happen. If the Spoliation Advisory Panel were to make a recommendation it would be a futile recommendation because the British Museum would still not be able to divest. What I am simply saying is that, three and a half years after we made that recommendation, two and three-quarter years after the Government wished to commit itself to legislation, nothing has happened.

Tessa Jowell: Chairman, it is simply not true to say that nothing has happened. The Spoliation Advisory Panel has been established and is undertaking its work. I misled you in saying that Professor Palmer had chaired it. It is in fact Sir David Hirst who chairs the Spoliation Advisory Panel. Subsequent advice indicated that the proposal was far too contentious to be dealt with by using a regulatory reform measure, and so I have received no further advice from Sir David Hirst or from my officials that legislation is necessary in order to facilitate the work of the Spoliation Advisory Panel. I accept your point that were a case to arise in the context of the British Museum or any other of our national museums where the trustees are precluded from de-accessioning items in their collection (they can make loans or whatever) and in those circumstances that was an obstacle to justice being delivered to the family or the descendants of somebody whose property was removed and found itself in the British Museum post the Nazi regime, then of course we would do so. There has been one case so far in relation to a particular painting and that was resolved by an ex gratia payment. I gather that there is another matter before the panel at the moment which involves some drawings in the British Museum. The question is whether or not the return of the drawings is the desired outcome or whether an ex gratia payment is the desired outcome. My argument to you is that first of all the original vehicle that was proposed was subsequently established to be an inappropriate one and, secondly, as I am sure you would accept, you legislate when there is no agreement or regulation or code of practice, all the other non-legislative instruments that we use, that would be effective. That is not yet the case in relation to the work of the Spoliation Advisory Panel.

 

Q323  Chairman: I was never under the impression that this commitment to legislate was based upon waiting for an example. Mr Wyatt has gone to deal with identity cards. Let us look at the situation. You say that there is a case of drawings, that it has not yet been established whether those whose ownership of the drawings seems to have been established want financial compensation or want the return of the drawings. If they wanted the return of the drawings you would not be able to do it, would you?

Tessa Jowell: The trustees could loan them. I would like to write to you with a considered view on this but they are not wholly hamstrung from preventing the items from leaving the museum. They could certainly loan them, presumably pending legislation. Let me give you considered advice on that. Chairman, I would say to you this, that your Committee made recommendations. The Government in the previous Parliament and my predecessor provided you with a response. It is a response which in the passage of time has been varied because (a) it was considered in the circumstances not to be appropriate, and (b) there are other means at our disposal. The general view is that the Spoliation Advisory Panel is working well and has not encountered the lack of legislation as a limitation on its ability to work.

 

Q324  Chairman: But that is not what your department said in its response to our report.

Tessa Jowell: It may not have been, Chairman, with great respect, but you also have to allow for the fact that circumstances change, and circumstances changed in 2001. You had a new Secretary of State who took a different view. You had the establishment of the Spoliation Advisory Panel which has now learnt from experience and to whom I look for advice on these matters. They have not advised me that they need legislation in order to do their work. If they advise me that they do then I will obviously do everything I can to put that power in place.

 

Q325  Chairman: When you say circumstances have changed, one circumstance has not changed, not relating to what the Government committed itself to, though it did not carry out its commitment. What was said in paragraph 19 of your second response in March 2001 was this: "There has been general agreement from those consulted that the removal of legislative barriers to restitution should be sought". That was not a change of policy from you as Secretary of State. You cannot change the general agreement from those consulted. They said it should happen. The fact is you have not done it and the fact is that we might as well not have published that last report for any scintilla of action that has been taken by anybody as a consequence of that report, and I have got a strange feeling that we might as well not publish a report on this inquiry either.

Tessa Jowell: Chairman, I really take exception to that. There is a further point which experience varied in that at the time when you were last considering this a flood of claims was expected. That never materialised and, as I have indicated to you, the Spoliation Panel has considered only five cases. Those five cases are considered to be adequately dealt with within the existing powers available to the Committee. To say that my department has not acted on your report is simply not the case. I can take you recommendation by recommendation through the action that has been taken. You may not like the judgement that has been made in relation to the recommendations on spoliation but as Secretary of State I am responsible for making those judgements and have done so. You will no doubt want to make comment about that in your subsequent report arising from this inquiry, but to suggest that we have not taken seriously the recommendations that this Committee made is simply a misrepresentation of the action that my department has taken.

 

Q326  Chairman: I do not want to get into a wrangle with you, Secretary of State. All I can say is that where you actually committed yourselves to action, and I take it that the department is a continuing entity whoever is the Secretary of State, those actions have not been taken.

Tessa Jowell: No, those actions have been varied. It is not as if, through some act of dereliction and negligence, nothing has been done. The position was reconsidered and a different conclusion was reached in the light of different evidence that came before those who are concerned with this from that which was expected, namely, that a very large number of submissions was expected. They have not materialised in practice and I am sure you will accept that it is important for parliamentary time to be used in a way which is appropriate and that government intervention is proportionate.

 

Q327  Chairman: As I say, I am not going to get into a wrangle with you, but the fact is that in the response of March 2001 it was said that parliamentary time would be used: "It [the Government] is also exploring the possibility of achieving this by means of a Regulatory Reform Order under the Regulatory Reform Bill currently progressing through Parliament". There is a parliamentary opportunity. Your department indicated that it was going to take advantage of the parliamentary opportunity and it did not do it.

Tessa Jowell: And subsequent consideration concluded that that parliamentary opportunity would be inappropriate. Further consideration judged that legislation was not necessary in light of the level of demand.

Q328  Chairman: I accept what you say. Dr Gaimster made it absolutely clear that if divesting were to take place legislation would be required. If legislation were required you would have to find a place in the legislative programme. You cannot even promise me that there is a place in the legislative programme for the bill you spoke about yesterday afternoon.

Tessa Jowell: Because I cannot reveal, even to you, Chairman, the contents of the Queen's Speech.

 

Q329  Chairman: Not even to me. I am just a humble backbencher.

Tessa Jowell: I think that is a judgement that only you would recognise.

Chairman: Thank you.