Examination of Witnesses (Questions 20-39)
RT HON
TESSA JOWELL,
MP, MR NIGEL
PITTMAN AND
DR DAVID
GAIMSTER
8 JULY 2003
Q20 Derek Wyatt: Indeed, but a Private
Member's Bill, as we have already seen with Richard Allan, could
unlock some of that. Would I be right in thinking that the academics
at the British Museum are nervous because, if they allow one collection
to go, they then open themselves up? Is this not the burning issue
with collections worldwide over the next ten or 20 years? Ethiopia
happens to be the oldest civilisation in Africa and I understand
that people would like to have these things back. It is not unreasonable,
is it?
Tessa Jowell: The view you have
described and the strength of feeling you have described is not
unfair at all; but I think we have all got to be aware of the
consequence that follows if we say, "Okay, where artefacts
and treasures were acquired by whatever means, in some cases hundreds
and hundreds of years ago, where there is a wish that they be
returned they are returned", then the impact on our collections
and the impact on the role of a museum like the British Museum,
which sees itself very much as a museum for the world, will be
enormous. One of the reasons I find this particular issue so difficult
is that I am not clear about the extent one can rest on principle
without finding in effect that most of our museums are denuded
of many of their most important treasures and, therefore, denied
to millions and millions of people who come to this country in
order to see them.
Q21 Derek Wyatt: I understand that
debate. Has there been an analysis by the British Museum as to
how much looted treasure there is?
Tessa Jowell: You may wish to
request that information from the director of the British Museum
if he has already given evidence to you in the context of this
inquiry.
Q22 Alan Keen: I heard someone on
the radio criticising the Select Committee that reported yesterday
saying that MPs could not ask difficult questions. I thought they
were really difficult questions! The Chairman retaliated earlier
on by asking a question to which he said there was no answer.
You cannot beat that, can you! At least this Committee can ask
questions.
Tessa Jowell: It is the thoughtful
and reflective nature of this Select Committee!
Q23 Alan Keen: Can you comment on
the progress on the database of stolen cultural artefacts?
Tessa Jowell: I do not think I
have terribly satisfactory progress to report to you on the database.
It is a very good question, and it is a question to which there
is a pretty straight answer. I do not think that progress is very
good. I would just as a sideline say that the fact that we have
the Red List[4]
and the fact that UNESCO are collaborating on the development
of a database will be very important in relation to maximising
the protection for stolen treasures from Iraq. The problem we
have, and you made this recommendation in your last Report, is
the profound nature of the disagreement between the police, on
the one hand, and the art market and the industry, on the other.
In that, while both want a database, they want it for different
purposes and neither want to pay for it. I have come fairly recently
to this issue and I have to say became aware of it some months
ago. Obviously negotiation with the police is a matter for the
Home Office. The Home Office have made it quite clear in a letter
I have had this morning, and the minister replies to me, that
they are prepared to consider the case for Home Office contribution
to the cost of establishing and running a Metropolitan Police
database, providing that the Commissioner agrees; and providing
also that the link between investment in such a database and dealing
with money laundering, drug trafficking and the other criminal
activities that is increasingly associated with crime in the art
market is proven. As I say, on the other hand, you have the art
market who do not want that kind of closed database which the
police would maintain, which the police would control access to.
You have the art market that actually wants an open database.
I think we have got some difficult and, I hate to say it but I
fear, time-consuming negotiations in order to reach some kind
of common position.
Dr Gaimster: The database which
the Metropolitan Police are developing—they have had a database
for several years and that is now being upgraded—used by
the Metropolitan Art and Antiquities Unit based in London, London
being the centre for the movement of such objects around the country.
As the Secretary of State has already said, it is designed very
much in terms of detection and law enforcement; it is a closed
security, exclusive database to the police; and I think the tensions
are beginning to emerge across the sector in terms that the art
market itself, the museums, general public, magazines and so on
in the sector wish to have an open database into which everybody
has access, but this would not be possible. One option is to expand
the police database to make it national and be open, but I think
that is going to be very difficult because the police have very,
very different priorities. There I think the tensions are beginning
to emerge. There are different ambitions for the database amongst
the various stakeholders we are talking to about this particular
issue.
Q24 Alan Keen: Who is going to take
the initiative then? Whose duty is it?
Tessa Jowell: It is our job to
take it forward. There is also the question of cost. The costs
which have been quoted so far are high—upto £12 million.[5]
I have no departmental provision for that. We will do our best
to move forward. There are two proposals on the table. One is
with UNESCO in the lead on compiling an international database,
and they are moving ahead with support from my Department on that,
and a meeting of the countries that are parties to the convention
will take place in October which will provide a further opportunity
for discussion about that. It is my Department's job.
Q25 Alan Keen: Is the £12 million
the estimated cost of the database that the police want, the closed
one?
Dr Gaimster: A national database.
Q26 Alan Keen: The value of the research
base must be enormous. Could the stolen ones not be coded so that
not everybody could have access to them? The museums and police
could have access, but not the public themselves?
Tessa Jowell: It is very specifically
intended as a database that will record stolen property. A more
open database, which is what the industry prefers, has a number
of important weaknesses: first, that many archeological objects
do not register because of the low commercial value involved and
dealers, because they are reluctant to search, would be unlikely
to register items with a value of under £2,000; secondly,
there is a risk on an open database that stolen property simply
would not appear, and dealers would not register property that
they believed might be stolen; and, thirdly, the multiplicity
of databases does create a problem for those who are seeking to
perform due diligence and to search comprehensively for stolen
and illicitly imported objects.
Q27 Michael Fabricant: Just on the
database, and it is not really an area I want to go into, when
you talk about an "open database" do you mean something
like a website? We visited the Natural History Museum and they
are compiling a marvellous website of all their artefacts. It
would seem that if it were universally available for everyone
you could check against that on the internet that something is
not stolen?
Tessa Jowell: Yes, that is the
principle of an open database.
Michael Fabricant: I think your answer
to my colleague, Derek Wyatt, was absolutely right on the question
of the return of cultural objects. It is not only a question of
the law and whether or not it is spoliation or not; but it is
also a question of the care that is taken of these objects. These
objects are really held in stewardship for the history of humanity.
If they were returned to places where they were not then looked
after, because the humidity would not be right, maybe they would
not be cared for in the right way, or maybe (as in Iraq) they
may get damaged, I do not think future generations would thank
the British Government in forcing the British Museum to return
them.
Q28 Chairman: Could I just intervene
to say that the worst vandal of precious archeological sites in
Iraq was Saddam Hussein who did irreparable damage to the site
of Babylon rebuilding it in his own image. God help me, I went
to see it while I was there, and basically Babylon is dedicated
not to Nebuchadnezzar but to Saddam Hussein
Tessa Jowell: It is important
never to forget that.
Q29 Michael Fabricant: Returning
then to Iraq, I cannot remember whether it was Bismarck who said,
"Not a single Pomeranian grenadier is worth the life of a
French battalion". No doubt I will be corrected if I have
that wrong! I have to say, while we should have done everything
we could, of course, to defend cultural objects in Iraq, I do
not think 13,000 cultural objects are worth the life of a single
Royal Marine Commander. Having said that, Lord Renfrew, and I
think this was raised earlier on, did raise this whole issue both
with the Foreign Office, with yourself and with the United States'
Department of Defence and said that what was going to happen was
predictable. Earlier on we had this debate on what are the motives
of looters? Of course there are different sorts of looters. You
could equally as well ask what is the motivation of people who
went into the Baghdad hospital, the Saddam Hospital, and looted
incubators for no real motivation, other than people who find
themselves suddenly free are able to acquire things of doubtful
value. Are you truly convinced given the hindsight or, in Lord
Renfrew's case, the foresight that nothing more could have been
done to have ensured that looting would not take place?
Tessa Jowell: I find that an impossible
question to answer.
Q30 Michael Fabricant: Another one!
Tessa Jowell: I do find it an
impossible question to answer. The easiest answer is to say, no,
nothing could have been done. There is a complacency about that
which I do not like. I think we will all live with a question
for a very, very long time as to whether or not more could have
been done to protect these treasures. One of the things I think
is going to be important—and Nigel Pittman may wish to comment
further on this—is to look at what more can be done to prompt
people who have taken things home with them, or removed them from
a museum, to return them. I was very struck and moved by just
how important this was. All the reports of Iraqis in Baghdad,
who were facing turmoil, faced with the prospect of liberation,
cared passionately that liberation should be accompanied by the
existence of their cultural heritage—the evidence of their
cultural heritage. Lots has been said about the importance of
the contents of the Baghdad Museum for culture and civilisation
generally, but none of us should under-estimate its importance
in defining identity and creating security in the continuation
of identity before Saddam and after Saddam for the Iraqi people
themselves. That is why I am not prepared simply to dismiss your
question.
Q31 Michael Fabricant: You mentioned
about encouraging people to return objects which are stolen. You
will know that Iraq is potentially a country of huge wealth with
oil reserves and so on. You also know that the United States Government
has now put a great deal of money on the head of Saddam Hussein
and his sons. Have you considered either unilaterally as the United
Kingdom Government or in a bilateral agreement with the United
States setting up rewards for the return of these artefacts?
Tessa Jowell: No.
Q32 Michael Fabricant: Why not?
Tessa Jowell: There are two reasons.
In Basra, which was under the control of our troops, we did declare
an amnesty and things were returned, but it was not an amnesty
which offered reward for return because it was felt that that
could act as a perverse inducement for people to take more and
bring it back for the reward. That is the argument as to why you
do not provide a reward. Other steps have been taken in order
to safeguard these artefacts from leaving Iraq and also making
it very difficult for them to be sold on the international market.
One is the incorporation of a continued sanctions provision under
Resolution 1483 which has established the role of the Coalition
Provisional Authority. The second is tightening of border controls,
particularly with Jordan, and there have been instances where
people have been found leaving with artefacts that have been taken
off them and returned. I have already referred to the Red List,
our domestic legislation, the action that is being taken through
UNESCO and also the work that has been led under the auspices
of UNESCO across a coalition of international museums to support
the reparation, repair and restitution for the collection in the
Baghdad Museum and other museums around Baghdad.
Q33 Michael Fabricant: You made a
very strong and very good point about the amnesty. We saw the
return of property through that. You made the point that if you
were to set up a reward scheme now it could encourage people to
perversely burgle or loot once again. Can I ask you at least to
consider this: once the situation in Iraq becomes more stable,
once museums are being properly guarded again—and they are
not yet; I accept that—and things settle down, if there
are still large numbers of artefacts missing, might you then consider
again implementing a reward system?
Tessa Jowell: With great respect,
I do not think it is a decision for me, sitting here in Westminster.
This is a decision which will belong to the Iraqi leadership of
whichever museum. If they judge it to be right, no doubt they
will put something in place, but it is not a decision for me as
the UK Secretary of State.
Q34 Michael Fabricant: There is an
EDM down which I notice I have not signed for EDM 1245, "Iraq
and the 1954 Hague Convention on Cultural Property." This
EDM notes the huge destruction wrought on Iraq's cultural heritage.
It then goes on to note that the 1954 Hague Convention for the
Protection of Cultural Property in the event of armed conflict
has yet to be ratified by the United Kingdom Government. They
believe of course that it ought to be. Why has it not been?
Tessa Jowell: This was a position
considered by the UK Government and the UK Government was not
satisfied that it was an effective regime. You remember that the
Committee in its last report made recommendations in relation
to the Unidroit Convention. We took those recommendations very
seriously indeed and considered the balance of merit as between
becoming a signatory to the Unidroit Convention or UNESCO and
concluded that UNESCO, because of its greater reach and scope
not requiring primary legislation, was the best protective route
to take. That is why we have arrived at the position that we are
now at.
Mr Pittman: From information which
we were given yesterday, apparently almost daily there are still
items being returned. These are things which are coming in, it
seems, unbidden. People either say, "We had this in safe
keeping and now we are bringing it back" or, for whatever
reason, they are returning items. What they told us yesterday
that they were thinking about as a possible longer term measure
was not to offer rewards for return of items but that the museum
would be provided with some funds through the Coalition Provisional
Authority to acquire items which might appear on the open market
in Iraq.
Q35 Michael Fabricant: The equivalent
of a car boot sale?
Mr Pittman: That sort of thing.
What we did hear about yesterday too was the case of a hotel owner
in the north of Iraq who found there was somebody staying on his
premises who was trading material which appeared to have come
from the museum. He took the initiative to buy that material himself
and donate it back to the museum, which he has done. There are
clearly disinterested or very interested Iraqis who are prepared
to take that kind of action themselves.
Q36 Michael Fabricant: They should
be commended and maybe possibly compensated.
Tessa Jowell: For clarity, can
I go back to the point about the Hague Convention? The UK reached
a conclusion about the ineffectiveness of the protocol. UNESCO
then recognised that a second protocol was required to improve
the shortcomings in the original Convention, particularly to establish
a more effective system of protection for specially designated
cultural property, and negotiations on this protocol in which
the UK played a leading part were completed in 1999. In the light
of that, UK ministers—and my department will take the lead
in relation to this—have agreed that we should negotiate
with a view to ratifying both the Convention and the second protocol.
Notwithstanding that, although we were not party to the Hague
Convention, we did ratify the Geneva Convention. Therefore, the
strictures that were placed on any kind of damage to cultural
property during the course of action were established by that
framework.
Q37 Miss Kirkbride: I am sure you
will not be surprised to hear that I very much agree with my colleague,
Michael Fabricant. I was a bit concerned by your warm words on
the return of cultural property because I think I quote you correctly
in saying that over the next five or ten years this is going to
be a very hot topic. I wonder if you could absolutely clarify
for the Committee that there are no plans by the British Government
to change the law that would allow the British Museum to return
some of it.
Tessa Jowell: There are no plans.
The Government has no plans and has received no request from the
British Museum for an amendment in the law in order that the British
Museum can return any of the artefacts that are currently part
of its collection.
Q38 Miss Kirkbride: It is your view
that we should not do that. You, as Secretary of State for the
Department, believe that we should leave this kind of cultural
property in the hands of the museums that have it in the UK, despite
the emotional appeals by other countries for its return?
Tessa Jowell: I think these are
judgments which are best made by the trustees of the museums who
have a statutory responsibility to safeguard their collections.
Q39 Miss Kirkbride: You are in charge
of the law and, at the end of the day, stakeholders are told by
politicians what the framework of the law is going to be. You
are the one who decides this, not the trustees of the British
Museum.
Tessa Jowell: This is one of these
almost impossible questions, with great respect. I am not signalling
in what I hope are my reflective answers to you any intention
by the Government to change policy. Categorically, there is no
intention to legislate in this area. However, I think it will
be very important that the Government is open to what I expect
to be a very significant debate over the next five or ten years
about the relationship between major international museums, the
collections they have and the countries which in many cases, hundreds
or thousands of years ago, those collections were derived from.
4 Footnote by Witness: Developed by ICOM (International
Council of Museums) and Interpol, the Red List details categories
of Iraqi cultural objects most likely to be looted and appear
on the international illicit antiquities market. Available on:
www.icom.museum/redlist/irak/en Back
5
Footnote by Witness: The maximum £12 million estimates
for the proposed national open database of stolen and illegally
removed cultural objects were given by PITO (Police Information
Technology Organisation) in its options study published in 2001.
These were for five years, including start-up and running costs. Back
| 
