Conclusions and recommendations
1. The
Government's reply to the Committee in March 2001 referred to
a Home Office working party being given the proposed national
database of stolen cultural objects to consider "urgently"
in January of that year. We do not consider those terms of reference
to have been implemented in any way. (Paragraph 27)[117]
2. Illicit Trade Advisory
Panel (ITAP), reporting on progress in 2002, stated that: "Information
retrieval [i.e. a national database] is perhaps the field in which
progress has been least satisfactory and in which the reasons
for delay are least persuasive." (Paragraph 32)
3. The British Art
Market told us that its reaction to absence of progress on a national
database was "to sum it up in a word … frustration".
Mr Browne said that "I think it is lost in discussion somewhere
in departments, but it is to be regretted." (Paragraph 32)
4. We would draw attention
to a target set for a reduction in vehicle crime by the Prime
Minister and recommend that he gives consideration to a similar
performance objective for the theft of cultural objects. (Paragraph
36)
5. We regard the lack
of progress made on a national database of illegally removed cultural
objects to be lamentable. This is especially true given the existence
of analogous systems in the commercial sector, and elsewhere,
as well as precedents for public/private cooperation in other
areas where law enforcement is working alongside legitimate commerce
to suffocate illicit markets. We welcome the Home Office's recognition
of the unsatisfactory progress made to date and the new commitment
to ensuring that the project now comes to fruition along the lines,
and within the timetable, set out by Ministers. We will return
to assess the implementation of the Government's latest undertakings
in March 2004. (Paragraph 40)
6. We welcome indications
of progress by UNESCO on a database of relevant international
legislative provisions, past and present, but we regard this as
of secondary importance compared to a national database of stolen
and illegally removed objects. (Paragraph 42)
7. We regard the inability
of DCMS to refuse export licences for tainted objects as a serious
weakness in arrangements and are very concerned at this further
potential for the UK's accession to the UNESCO Convention and
the Dealing in Cultural Objects Act 2003 to be undermined by gaps
in practical arrangements. It hardly matters whether the UK accedes
to multilateral instruments in this area if our import system
is not strengthened and our export arrangements are open to abuse
confounding the very purposes of international agreement. (Paragraph
45)
8. The Secretary of
State said that if the Government wished to take comprehensive
action on the import of illicit cultural objects it should form
part of government legislation. We agree whole-heartedly and recommend
that, after an appropriate period, ITAP review the impact of the
new Act (achieved via a Private Member's Bill) and the extent
to which it has contributed to the UK's fulfilment of its obligations
under the UNESCO Convention. However, the Government should commit
itself now to introducing remedial legislation — backed
up by adequate and appropriate resources — if this is found
to be necessary. (Paragraph 46)
9. The Government
does at last seem to have elements of a strategy in place, or
under consideration, with regard to tackling the illicit trade
in cultural objects. However, the differential pace at which these
elements are developing, and apparent weaknesses in the practical
arrangements on the ground, detracts from a sense of a coordinated,
robust and effective approach. (Paragraph 47)
10. We recommend that
the DCMS liaise with the Attorney-General on the relationship
between the statutes covering museum governance and charitable
status respectively. It should include a definitive answer; in
any reply to this Report to the British Museum's query over its
ability to respond to moral claims for the return of objects.
(Paragraph 52)
11. We welcome the
prospective change to the absolute ban on national museums returning
human remains in response to claims validated by, as yet unknown,
systems and principles. The potential to respond at all is the
first, and vital, step. We look forward to considering the results
of the DCMS' consultation on the principles and methodology that
will underlie this new permissive regime. As we have said above,
the results of the Attorney-General's consideration of the British
Museum's query over the potential effect of charity law in this
field are also relevant. It would be ideal if the Attorney-General's
conclusions were made part of the consultation, if at all possible,
to avoid different strands of this debate confusing the issue
and damaging the prospects for genuine progress. (Paragraph 55)
12. It is difficult
to imagine a clearer example of a moral claim to which a charity's
trustees might wish to give effect than that of Ethiopia for the
return of its most sacred artefacts. (Paragraph 58)
13. The DCMS should
not wait for a valid spoliation claim to be made (that cannot
be satisfied by compensation) to start to seek a change in the
law. The lead-in time is simply too long. (Paragraph 61)
- We regard the Government's position on spoliation
as a regrettable retreat from the consensus achieved amongst the
museums and galleries community following our predecessor's Report.
We urge the Department to reconsider. We note the potential for
an alternative route to be found via the British Museum's consultation
of the Attorney-General over the effect of charity law. However,
while we commend this initiative by the Museum, we regret that
the Government has not had clarification of this point on its
own agenda. We recommend that the DCMS makes efforts to encourage
a speedy and positive outcome to the British Museum's query.
(Paragraph 62)
117 This list has been amended to ensure the conclusions
and recommendations are self-standing Back
| 
