Examination of Witnesses (Questions 40-53)
RT HON
TESSA JOWELL,
MP, MR NIGEL
PITTMAN AND
DR DAVID
GAIMSTER
8 JULY 2003
Q40 Miss Kirkbride: Is not that just
a green light for many of these countries to come and knock on
your door?
Tessa Jowell: No. I really ask
you to be more sophisticated than that. There is no headline that
anyone can draw from what I have said that the Government intends
to enter into legislation that would open the doors of our museums
and see collections walking out to countries around the world.
That is not what I am saying. I hope that you accept that and
that nobody will seek to misrepresent that. I am being absolutely
clear that there are no plans. The Government has no plans; I
have no plans as the Secretary of State to amend the law. I am
reflecting however that I expect that there will be a major debate
which may take however long in this area. I think it will focus
on a number of different aspects of the collection at the British
Museum and museums in other parts of the world. That is the point
I am making.
Q41 Miss Kirkbride: I am obviously
very pleased by your answers. On the other hand I do think it
does give some hope to countries who feel that we have despoiled
their collections by removing them and not giving them back and
that they might come and bang on your door. I would be grateful
if you could clarify for me what the difference is between "spoliation"
and "restitution". What is the Department's definition
of the difference between the two?
Dr Gaimster: Spoliation was one
particular theme picked up in the original Select Committee report.
It deals with objects wrongfully taken during the Nazi era. The
issue involves museums today which have objects, works of art,
in their collections that they have acquired that may have been
removed originally during that period from their original owners.
In our memorandum we explained the kind of programme we are taking
forward to look at individual cases of objects that may have been
spoliated during that period that are now in British collections.
In the last few years, we have had something like four cases which
we are dealing with and an advisory panel to the Government is
dealing with, case by case. That seems to be progressing in terms
of dealing with that issue reasonably well and quite successfully.
Q42 Miss Kirkbride: What is the difference?
It happened in living memory. I completely sympathise with the
people it happened to but it was an act of war in the same way
as other collections might have been seen as acts of war but they
did not happen to happen in living memory. What is the difference?
People are here to complain about it?
Tessa Jowell: It is by now convention
that Spoliation is a term which is applied to cultural property
that was removed during the Nazi period. It is the technical term
that has that very specific application. Restitution has a broader
application.
Q43 Miss Kirkbride: It is a special
case?
Tessa Jowell: Yes. Spoliation
is a special case.
Q44 Miss Kirkbride: It is interesting
that it should not apply to other areas.
Tessa Jowell: No, because restitution
does.
Q45 Miss Kirkbride: Yes, but the
door is closed to restitution, whereas it is open to spoliation.
As a politician I can see why but as a practical argument I find
it quite hard to sustain. On the issue of human remains, I think
that is quite worrying and very important. We are all mankind.
It seems to me that my DNA material, irrespective of where it
was found, is still my, our, the people of the world's DNA material
and it could be extremely important in the future. I am not desperately
keen to see it buried or burnt.
Tessa Jowell: We have at the moment
a panel which is sitting under the chairmanship of Professor Palmer
considering the whole issue of claims for restitution of human
remains. You will be aware of some of the most widely publicised
cases. This was a group that was set up in early 2001 and it had
four key terms of reference: to establish the current legal status
of human remains within the publicly funded collections of the
UK; to look at the powers that museums and galleries have in relation
to de-accession, releasing these from their possession; to look
at the circumstances in which material other than human remains
might be included in any legislation to change the law of governance
in relation to human remains; and also to consider whether clarity
might be provided by a statement of principles in order to guide
decisions to be taken by museums in this respect. That is the
framework to which Professor Palmer's working group is addressing
itself. They will be reporting in the autumn and it may well be
that if your inquiry is continuing then you will be able to receive
their report and to include that in your deliberations.
Q46 Miss Kirkbride: Why is the Department
open minded about human remains when it is not open minded about
cultural ones?
Tessa Jowell: There is a debate
in the academic and museum world which is trying to address or
identify the distinction between ownership of cultural artefacts,
cultural heritage, and human remains. It is a hotly debated issue.
There are protagonists on both sides of the argument. The main
fault line is those who would argue that somehow human remains
are a different status to cultural objects; that the sense of
the being, the sense of the person, potentially offers a clearer
case for return of human remains to the country of their origin
than do cultural artefacts where culture has become increasingly
globalised and internationalised. That is the argument and it
is within that framework that the Panel under Professor Palmer
will be reaching its conclusions. You are absolutely right. If
you put together the legislative lock on cultural objects leaving
museums that have them in their trusteeship, spoliation and the
work of the Spoliation Panel and the committees that are currently
meeting on human remains, it gives you a flavour of the controversy
that I referred to and the controversy which this Committee will
no doubt want to embrace over the next few years.
Q47 Miss Kirkbride: It seems to me
that the logic between all three issues is quite hard to understand.
I cannot quite grasp where it is okay and where it is not okay.
Equally, when it comes to human remains, I do not think the human
remains that came from Egypt, Ethiopia or anywhere else are any
less different than the cultural remains that came from a period
of time in that same country. I equally would accept that 2,000
or however many years later it is now something which really belongs
to the people of the world because perhaps we all came from Mesopotamia
in the beginning. I do not know; I am not good on ancient history.
It is partly our culture and our DNA that is at stake and it gets
sent back very often not for it to be kept and preserved for future
generations. I am surprised that the department is open to this
debate because it may well push you down a road that requires
its restitution.
Tessa Jowell: As we do regularly
with difficult issues like this, what we have done is to commission
independent experts to provide us with advice. I have not yet
seen their report. It will be a report to me. We will get it in
the autumn and I will then consider its recommendations, not just
in the context of the claims for restitution of human remains
but also in the wider context. We will respond accordingly.
Q48 Chairman: On the issues Julie
Kirkbride has been discussing with you, there has been a retreat
by your department from the position they took three years ago.
Tessa Jowell: Can I ask you why
you say that?
Q49 Chairman: When we issued our
report almost exactly three years on 18 July 2000, Alan Howarth
then speaking for the Government said, on page 43 of our report,
"I think we should be willing to look sympathetically and
constructively at whether it is possible to ease the law so that
if the trustees so wish they can make amends and they can return
human remains." We made a fairly cautious recommendation.
In three years, nothing whatever has been done. In the same way,
we made a recommendation and we dealt with the issue of the very,
very specific subject of material looted from the Jews and others
during the period of the Nazi regime, 1933 to 1945. Far from the
British Museum not wanting to give those things up, Graham Green
speaking as chairman of the trustees of the British Museum to
this Committee—page 49 of the report—said, "There
is no doubt we would wish to return anything we found in those
circumstances." We made a recommendation on that. The Government
accepted the recommendation. We have a second special report dated
March 2001 saying there has been general agreement from those
consulted that the removal of legislative barriers to restitution
should be sought. Not a thing has been done. I realise that archaeology
is a very long subject but I would have thought several years
in which absolutely nothing of any kind whatsoever has been achieved
by your department and the promised possibility of legislation
has not been brought forward, frankly, is just not good enough.
Tessa Jowell: Of course I understand
and accept your impatience. The way in which the department decided
to proceed on the specific issue of human remains was by setting
up the working group to which I have referred. That was established
early in 2001 so shortly after your report was published. That
working group is due to report imminently, as I have made clear.
To say the department has done nothing is not fair. What we have
done is to intercede another stage between the recommendation
of your report and moving to a decision. The stage that we interceded
was to seek expert advice and guidance on what I think this discussion
this morning has made very clear is an immensely complex subject.
Q50 Chairman: It is perfectly clear
to me. I do not know what we are going to recommend at the end
of this but if it is going to take three years simply to tell
us what you have just told us now I really do not see what point
there is in this select committee issuing reports and making recommendations.
We have your second reply, March 2001, which is nearly two and
a half years ago now. "There has been general agreement from
those consulted that the removal of legislative barriers to restitution
should be sought." We are now in July 2003. In 2000, representing
this Committee, I went to a conference on these issues at Vilnius
and I was able to hold up a letter from Alan Howarth accepting
our recommendations, saying, "We are doing something."
There was great pleasure. I do not particularly want to go back
to Vilnius but I do not think I would be very welcome there if
I did.
Tessa Jowell: Professor Palmer
is an eminent academic in this area. I believe he will provide
us with sound advice and we will then move forward. I do not think
it is fair and it is not accurate in fact to say that absolutely
nothing has happened. My department takes this Committee's reports
very seriously indeed but you make recommendations to Parliament.
They are also recommendations to us. We then have to consider
how best to implement them. A decision was taken early in 2001,
before I was Secretary of State, that the best way to proceed
was by the establishment of a group working to the terms of reference
that I have outlined. I do not know when you expect to conclude
your inquiry but it sounds to me possible that this group will
have reported before you conclude your inquiry, in which case
you can incorporate their report into your consideration of evidence,
if you so wish.
Q51 John Thurso: I want to ask you
about the Portable Antiquities Scheme but I think it is absolutely
right that the Government is wary. There must be some occasions
where objects of cultural or particularly religious significance
should merit going back. After all, we in Scotland benefited from
the return of the Stone of Destiny which was much appreciated.
I am sure other countries would appreciate the same. At paragraph
121 of the last report, there was a recommendation that the department
conduct a review of the circumstances in which it is appropriate
for museums in England and Wales to act as repositories of last
resort of antiquities likely to have originated within those countries.
What progress has been made on that?
Dr Gaimster: The Illicit Trade
Advisory Panel has been looking at that question in some detail
and it has been addressed in terms of an issue in its report of
December 2000 and also in its progress report. This is a question
that the panel is taking forward with the Museums Association
in terms of looking at the whole climate and the practice of acquiring
objects. Also, museums acting in this role. At this stage in 2000
the term was "repositories of last resort" and Professor
Renfrew has some concern about that term. The term that we are
now looking at is one of temporary safety, particularly for objects
that have been removed during times of armed conflict. The plan
is to organise a conference for museum directors on this issue.
We were going to have it this July. The work on the Bill took
precedence, I am afraid, so we are going to be hosting this in
the early autumn. The Museums Association over the last few years
has refined its codes of practice and ethical statements, but
those are rather theorised statements. They do not offer concrete
guidance for museums where they are dealing with objects that
have been removed in these circumstances or objects over which
there may be some question mark in terms of ownership. We are
hoping to work with the Museums Association and the Illicit Trade
Advisory Panel together to develop through a process of meetings
with museum directors new, more concrete guidance on how objects
such as these can be acquired and what are the protocols for establishing
museums of temporary safety.
Q52 John Thurso: With regard to the
scheme itself, I think something like 100,000 objects since 1997
have been dealt with which would probably have otherwise gone
unrecorded. Firstly, what is the department's attitude towards
the scheme? I hope it will be supportive. Secondly, given that
it is currently funded by a variety of bodies, particularly Lottery
funding that will run out in 2006, and given that the cost of
the scheme is a very modest 1.2 million a year, would the department
be prepared, given its success, to take on board that funding
to ensure that the scheme can go forward in the future?
Tessa Jowell: This has been a
successful scheme. The early piloting showed that quite quickly.
We have Lottery funding for the next three years, as you say.
Putting the Portable Antiquities Scheme on a permanent footing
will obviously be a decision for the next spending round, but
yes, it has proved to be successful and we ought to try to ensure
that we can fund it in the long term.
Q53 John Thurso: I think that is
a very hopeful answer.
Tessa Jowell: I think it is as
hopeful an answer as you can give if you are Secretary of State
facing the next spending round but not having yet negotiated the
next spending round.
John Thurso: I wish you well.
Chairman: Secretary of State, we are
within a minute of the time at which you need to go so thank you
very much indeed.
| 
