Memorandum submitted by the Home Office
CULTURAL PROPERTY: GOVERNMENT ACTION ON THE
DEVELOPMENT OF A NATIONAL CULTURAL DATABASE IN RESPONSE TO THE
SEVENTH REPORT FROM THE CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT COMMITTEE, SESSION
1999-2000
1. This report aims to set out the Government's
progress on the development of a national database of unlawfully
removed cultural property listed on page xvii of the Committee's
report of July 2000, and printed in italics below:
"We recommend that the Home Office make
a public commitment in the course of this year to establishing
a national database of stolen cultural property and cultural property
exported against the laws of countries concerned under national
police control. The Home Office should also seek to take forward
detailed discussions with the police service, the insurance industry,
the art market and private database operators about the development
of an open system which can meet the needs and draw upon the skills
and funds of the private sector. Finally, the Home Office should
liaise closely with other countries to ensure that any national
development is compatible with wider international development
of a database of stolen and illegally exported cultural property."
2. The Government's initial response to
the Select Committee Report was published on 31 October 2000.
The Government signalled its determination to take effective action
to combat the illicit international trade in antiques noting that
in May 2000 it set up the Advisory Panel on Illicit Trade (ITAP).
Its terms of reference were to consider the nature and extent
of the illicit international trade in art and antiques, to consider
how the United Kingdom can effectively prevent and prohibit illicit
trade and to consider recommendations (i) to (vi), including those
relevant to the Home Office. The Panel submitted its report, including
ten key recommendations to Ministers in December 2000. Recommendation
number 5 stated:
"We propose the institution of a specialist
national database of unlawfully removed cultural objects. The
database would cover cultural objects unlawfully removed from
any place in the world, whether in the UK or overseas. Access
to the proposed database should be prescribed with carefully regulated
and restricted levels of access by means of a system of security
codes. Differential levels of access could, for example, be extended
to police forces, public authorities, commercial entities and
private individuals."
3. On 7 March 2001 a Second Special Report
was published setting out the Government's response. The Government
welcomed the ITAP recommendations and in relation to a national
database, the Minister of State at the Home Office at the time,
Charles Clarke, informed the Committee that he had convened a
working party to consider urgently the scope, aims and operation
of a national database of stolen/illegally removed cultural property.
Charles Clarke asked the working party to report to him by the
end of March. The report noted that it would be sensible to liaise
with other countries in order to ensure compatibility with other
databases worldwide.
4. The Home Office working party was tasked
with considering the scope, aims and operation of a national database.
Representatives were invited from the Department of Culture, Media
and Sport, HM Customs and Excise, the Metropolitan Police (representing
Association of Chief Police Officers, ACPO), the Metropolitan
Police Art and Antiques Unit, the National Criminal Intelligence
Service (NCIS), HM Inspectorate of Constabulary, the Council for
the Prevention of Art Theft (CoPAT) and representatives from the
two largest private database operators in the field: Invaluable
Group and the Art Loss Register (ALR). The working party met for
the first time in January 2001. At this meeting the two private
operators were asked to produce a draft protocol and paper on
the principles underlying the creation of the new database by
the end of February 2001. The Art Loss Register submitted a paper
on 13 February 2001, which was subsequently superceded by a joint
paper submitted on 27 February.
5. The working party met for the second
time in March 2001. It was attended by the Home Office, Police
Information Technology Organisation (PITO), HMIC, NCIS, the Metropolitan
Police, CoPAT, Invaluable and the Art Loss Register. The working
party agreed that the database should ideally be:
— internationally compatible,
— a proactive investigative tool and
something that all police forces will use, and
— secure and with guaranteed integrity.
The working party also discussed the paper put
forward by Invaluable and ALR.
6. There was concern that there was a potential
conflict of interest in having two commercial database companies
as members of the working party involved in the development of
a user need and specification, should they eventually wish to
bid for a contract to run the database. There was also concern
that the participation of the two private database operators and
their vested interest in a private sector approach was not allowing
the working party to be objective and consider all the options
available at that time. As a result, it was felt that the working
party was not being effective and in June 2001, the working party
was disbanded.
7. It was decided that the best way ahead
was to invite the PITO to produce an options analysis on the best
way forward. On 14 November 2001, PITO published their report.
The report worked on the assumption that a new public/private
database would need to be created. Its main recommendation was
a partnership between government, police and commercial suppliers
at an estimated cost of some £12 million over five years.
In March 2002, a smaller working group made up of police representatives,
DCMS and Home Office officials was reconvened to discuss the PITO
report. The Home Office view that was supported by police representatives
and DCMS was that before considering a complex procurement exercise
with such a large cost implication we should investigate the feasibility
of utilising the existing police and NCIS facilities.
8. On 18 September 2002 a working group
meeting took place, the Home Office, DCMS, Metropolitan Police,
PITO and NCIS were present. Initial discussions focussed on NCIS
and the fact that they had agreed to look into the proposal of
housing the database but had not reported back. The Home Office
agreed to write to NCIS on this issue. It was also agreed at the
meeting that a business case for a national cultural database
was essential and consequently DCMS agreed to draw up an outline
business case by the end of October 2002.
9. On 20 September 2002 the Home Office
wrote to the NCIS Director General to propose they house the database.
On 2 October 2002 the Director General accepted the offer in principle.
After careful consideration the Ministers at the time decided
in November 2002 that NCIS should not house the database on the
grounds that it would compromise the strategic focus and clarity
of purpose of the organisation.
10. In January 2003 a working group made
up of representatives from the Home Office, DCMS, Metropolitan
Police, PITO, NCIS and HMCE met to reassess the options available
to the government. On 22 May 2003, DCMS produced a draft, outline
business case and emphasized that the document needed more work
to develop specific recommendations. On 15 July 2003, Home Office
officials met with DCMS officials. At this meeting the possibility
of looking into expanding the Metropolitan Police database was
discussed, as was the CoPAT proposal that had been sent to both
government departments. It was agreed that the Home Office would
continue pursuing the Metropolitan Police option and that DCMS
would reply to CoPAT on behalf of both departments.
11. On 19 August 2003, Home Office officials
met with the Metropolitan Police's Art and Antiques Unit to discuss
the operational implications of taking on a national role. In
September 2003, Ellie Roy, the Crime Reduction Director at the
Home Office wrote to the Deputy Commissioner, Sir Ian Blair to
enquire about the possibility of building on their current system
to provide a national service.
12. The two most likely options, therefore,
are a not-for-profit national database established by the Council
for the Prevention of Art Theft (CoPAT) and the expansion of the
Metropolitan Police's database. The government has been working
on both of these simultaneously. The Home Office has been leading
on the Metropolitan option and the DCMS has been concentrating
on the CoPAT proposal.
13. The Council for the Prevention of Art
Theft (CoPAT), a registered charity, proposes to run the database
on a "not for profit" basis. The charity would create
a project board made up of all user groups, including representatives
from the government departments, police, customs, the insurance
industry and the art market. CoPAT would establish an operating
arm to run the service and would contract one or more private
database providers to do this. CoPAT costings for its proposal
are still being worked on. Access would be given to vetted parties
and some would be required to pay for this access. Any funds generated
in excess of the running costs would be put back into the charity
fund. In the medium to longer term the database is expected to
be self-financing.
14. The Metropolitan Police's Art and Antiques
Unit is currently the only police unit of its kind in the United
Kingdom and the database they run is unique in that same respect.
The Metropolitan Police has valuable expertise that any national
database will need to run as an effective crime reduction tool.
The Metropolitan Police option would entail:
— expanding the capacity of their database
so that it would be able to hold over 100,000 items;
— developing web-based access to the
art and antiques industry to use for due diligence. The Unit recognizes
the importance of giving access to the trade and acknowledges
that in order to effectively target the trade in illicit cultural
property the art and antiques industry needs to be able to police
itself;
— the Unit estimates costs being in
the region of £100-200k per annum. Additional staffing resources
would take up a large proportion of this. The remaining costs
are to be allocated to developing the web-based access to the
industry and purchasing the necessary software.
15. Both departments are in the process
of assessing which option should be taken forward. The next step
is to allow both options to develop a business case.
— The Metropolitan Police Service has
agreed in principle to take on this national role. With ACPO's
support, the next step is to develop a detailed business plan
encompassing exact costings and a formal assessment of the technical
characteristics of the web-based access to the trade. This assessment
will make close reference to the DCMS Business Plan that contains
a characteristics breakdown of what they would consider to be
an effective system for all stakeholders and in particular the
art and antiques trade.
— The CoPAT proposal is being refined
and the charity is currently putting together a business plan
that they will submit to the government in the near future.
16. Once both options have developed a detailed
business case the government will be able to make an informed
decision as to the best way forward. It has been agreed that any
proposal should initially be developed by the government as a
pilot project. The database can then be expanded and altered as
is deemed necessary. The pilot project will ensure that any database
delivers to all stakeholders at a reasonable cost.
5 November 2003
| 
