Examination of Witnesses (Questions 268-279)
HOME OFFICE
11 NOVEMBER 2003
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 £½million
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 £½ 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 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.
|
