[CPProt.net] British government scraps key database. It was supposed to be a crucial element in helping to enforce the new Dealing in Cultural Objects Act

[Museum Security Network / Cultural Property Protection Net (Ton Cremers)]

>From The Art Newspaper:
http://www.theartnewspaper.com/


British government scraps key database
It was supposed to be a crucial element in helping to enforce the new
Dealing in Cultural Objects Act
By Martin Bailey 

LONDON. The British government has quietly dropped plans for a database of
stolen art and antiquities, although this was a key element in helping to
enforce a new law. The Dealing in Cultural Objects Act came into force at
the beginning of 2004, and the government then advised dealers that
consulting the projected database should be part of the "due diligence"
process, to help establish that they were not knowingly handling tainted
objects.
The Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) warned the trade last
year that in cases of suspected breaches of the new law, "a failure to
consult the database [once established] would be a further evidential factor
in determining whether the accused knew or believed that an object was
tainted."
The pilot "Database of stolen and unlawfully removed cultural objects" was
to have been available in April 2004.
Following inquiries from The Art Newspaper, DCMS has admitted that it and
the Home Office has decided "not to progress" the database. It said an
independent appraisal had reached three conclusions: a database would not
have a significant effect on reducing crime, the long-term sustainability of
the database could not be assured, and there were question marks over how
much demand there would be for such a database.
The U-turn is surprising, given DCMS's commitment to the scheme in the
build-up to the Dealing in Cultural Objects Act. The database had originally
been a major recommendation in the 2000 report of the Illicit Trade Advisory
Panel, chaired by Professor Norman Palmer. However, the scheme needed
support from the Home Office, which does not regard the recovery of art and
antiquities as a priority. The database would have been expensive-and the
question was whether it should be primarily funded by the government or the
trade.
Professor Palmer admits that he is disappointed with the news. He says that
some members "were outraged, with disbelief that this policy decision had
been taken without reference to the panel."
The House of Commons select committee on Culture, Media and Sport was also
scathing about the U-turn. "We are dismayed not so much by the decision
itself-although it does seem to fly in the face of the evidence we received
(not least from the Government)-but by the sheer amount of time it has taken
to be made."
Last month the British Art Market Federation, representing the trade,
pointed out that a nationally-run database, subsidised by public funds,
would have represented "a major deterrent against art crime".