Memorandum submitted by Mr Richard Ellis,
Trace
The following are brief answers to those questions
posed by way of illustrating the thrust of the evidence sought
by the Committee, and can be expanded on as required.
What do I do? —I currently manage
Trace, a part of the Invaluable Group. Trace maintains a comprehensive
database of stolen art, antiques and cultural property. The database
holds in excess of 120,000 records of stolen objects, together
with illustrations where available. The database is unique in
that it is a pro-active database, screening auction house catalogues
and dealers' stock prior to sale, on a daily basis, identifying
stolen property prior to sale.
The company receives catalogues from over 950
auction rooms around the world, processing the sale lots onto
a single searchable database, thus providing the largest Pre Sale
database in the world. The presale database also holds some dealers
stock, all of which is screened every night by the "Stolen
Property Database". Possible matches of stolen items are
reviewed manually, with probable matches being electronically
forwarded to members of the company's Police Liaison Team for
confirmation and recovery.
The circulation of stolen art, antiques and
cultural property is enhanced through the publication of "Trace
Magazine" and use of the company web site, leading to additional
recoveries.
How Does this Assist the Trade? —Over
950 auction rooms around the world, and an increasing number of
dealers submit their catalogues and stock lists to the company
for inclusion on the Pre Sale Database. This provides them with
(a) Enhanced route to market leading to higher levels of sales,
and (b) a Due Diligence check for their listed property against
a comprehensive database of stolen objects.
In addition, dealers are increasingly contacting
the company for Due Diligence checks to be performed by the company
on other objects that they wish to purchase.
The company now checks in excess of 4.5 million
objects against the stolen property database every year, providing
the most extensive due diligence available anywhere.
How does this benefit the police/customs
and excise? —The company retains the details of the
investigating police service in respect of all reports, and in
the event of stolen property being identified in the market, the
relevant police authority is informed, enabling them to recover
the property and instigate investigations into those responsible
for its theft and dishonest handling.
In addition, the Police Liaison Team, which
includes two former specialist detectives, assist the police by
attending searches and checking on suspect property. Recovered
property for which the owner cannot be found is circulated in
Trace Magazine in an attempt to re-unite it with its rightful
owners.
There is a special arrangement wit the Norfolk
Constabulary, which enables them to access the Stolen Property
Database through a secure Internet access, and to check on property
themselves. There are other benefits to both Norfolk and the company
through this trial scheme.
What compatibility is there between the various
databases? —At the present time, none, other than most
stolen property data is now received in the Object ID format,
which provides the minimum standard required to adequately circulate
uniquely identifiable property.
Is your database sufficient and/or necessary
in relation to due diligence? —Very! The unique automated
screening of the Pre Sale Database by the Stolen Property Database
provides the largest and most comprehensive due diligence check
in the world.
Without the use of this technology it would
be impossible to screen the breadth of the art and antiques market
for stolen objects. The company plans to upgrade the technology
over the next year, and to enhance the screening process by the
introduction of "Art Trained" personnel to review the
matches and to perform selective manual catalogue screening.
What is the balance to be struck between
"recovery of goods" and apprehension of criminals?
—A key priority is to identify the criminals responsible
for the theft of property and its dishonest handling. Identification
of the property provides an audit trail leading to the criminals
involved. The more stolen property identified and recovered will
expose more criminals, and reduce their route to market for stolen
cultural property.
How does the UK effort relate to systems
in other countries? —Considering the scale of the UK
art market and its importance world wide, a comparison of the
UK database efforts in the public sector is poor. Add to that
the fact that the UK is also a major loser of its own cultural
property, but has no single system to monitor these losses, the
lack of action is breathtaking. It is a reflection of the scale
of the situation that the two leading private sector systems are
both based in the UK.
What progress has been made towards a comprehensive
national database? Having been a member of the Home Office
Working Group until June 2001, it would appear very little other
than a confirmed recognition of its need. The cost implication
as set out in the PITO report and a reluctance to adopt a Public
Private Partnership, appear to have left government with no clear
idea as to how to solve a problem, which since the looting of
national museums in both Afghanistan and Iraq, coupled with a
series of high profile cultural property thefts at home and elsewhere
abroad, is seen to be getting progressively worse.
What are the implications for the private
sector operations of developments in this area? —I believe
the implications for the private sector companies in this area
are that they must provide comprehensive international systems,
capable of providing services to an international community in
an international market place. To achieve this there has to be
a constant review and upgrading of technologies, closer co-operation
with the trade, law enforcement, insurance industry and governments,
with a provision for more accessible systems through which stolen
objects can be identified.
What Models are you aware of for public sector
developments in this direction? —As far as I am aware there
are two possible alternatives currently being reviewed:
(a) The provision of a national database
through the upgrading of the Metropolitan Police database at New
Scotland Yard, which in my opinion would fail to meet any of the
requirements for a national system, and would unnecessarily burden
the Metropolitan Police with a responsibility, they should not
have.
(b) There is a proposal for the National
Database to be operated under the control of the Council for the
Prevention of Art Theft, a registered charity, on behalf of government.
The charity would provide an operating model that would include
representatives of all stakeholders, including government and
law enforcement, on its board. As a "Not for Profit"
organisation, any surplus funds generated through the operation
of the database would be channelled back into the running of the
service, which could be further offset through charitable donations.
The Charity would effectively operate the database through a Joint
Venture Operation utilising the best elements available in the
private sector.
Do the police have the expertise and resources
to implement a specialist database? —No. One of the
crucial failings of the ACIS database, which I introduced to New
Scotland Yard, was the total lack of any art-trained personnel
to operate it. The result was incomplete and poorly entered data
leading to the ultimate failure of the system. To operate the
system as a national resource, there would have to be a large
increase in trained staffing levels. Secondly, the system should
be accessible to the trade where most stolen art, antiques and
cultural property is recycled. The police are reluctant to provide
such accessibility. Thirdly, the system should be proactive, and
should screen the market place. The police do not have the systems
or the staff to do this.
What discussions or consultation has there
been since 2000 with the Home Office, DCMS, police, in terms of
moving this project forward? —There appeared to be great
urgency to introduce a national system when the then Home Office
Minister Charles Clarke set up the working group in 2000. However,
following the general election, and the disbandment of the working
group little, or no progress appears to have been made.
27 October 2003
| 
