:00:02. > :00:06.Now it is time for HARDtalk. I am speaking to Sandy Nairne, a
:00:06. > :00:09.man used to working at the rarefied heights of fine art. But for eight
:00:09. > :00:14.years, the director of London's National Portrait Gallery also had
:00:14. > :00:17.to delve deep into the murk. He was one of the top people at the Tate
:00:17. > :00:20.Gallery when two of its most prized paintings by JMW Turner were stolen
:00:20. > :00:23.after being loaned to a German gallery. After years of
:00:23. > :00:33.negotiations and millions of dollars, the Tate got their
:00:33. > :00:52.
:00:52. > :00:57.paintings back. The deal was legal - but was it ethical?
:00:58. > :01:03.Sandy Nairne, welcome to HARDtalk. You were one of the directors of
:01:03. > :01:08.the Tate when these two paintings by JMW Turner were stolen. Give me
:01:08. > :01:15.some idea of how important these works are? These are two of his
:01:15. > :01:24.most important late works. They were part of what we know as a
:01:24. > :01:34.bequest. They were the works chosen by the artist himself had to leave
:01:34. > :01:34.
:01:34. > :01:39.to the nation. Why are they an important part of the Turner infra?
:01:39. > :01:45.They are wonderful swirling masses of paint. They are up to do with
:01:45. > :01:49.his ideas about colour theory. They also look forward to Impressionist
:01:49. > :01:53.paintings. You see him at the end of his life in the 1840s looking
:01:53. > :01:58.forward to things that would come. You say they were part of his
:01:58. > :02:01.bequest, but you loaned them to a gallery in Frankfurt. I thought
:02:01. > :02:05.part of the terms of the bequest was that they were in permanent
:02:05. > :02:13.display in London. He wanted to make sure that there was a proper
:02:13. > :02:16.place to see his work. It didn't restrict where they could be linked.
:02:16. > :02:19.I think the Tate trustees have always felt that these are
:02:19. > :02:23.important works and they should be shown in the right circumstances in
:02:23. > :02:29.public galleries around the world. The exhibition in Frankfurt was one
:02:29. > :02:37.of those occasions. And yet in 1994 they were stolen with relative ease.
:02:37. > :02:46.Did you check the arrangements sufficiently well? We checked, of
:02:46. > :02:52.course. The national security advise her's advice was there. The
:02:52. > :02:59.shop was tremendous. These two works and another one by Friedrich
:02:59. > :03:05.was stolen at the same time. On occasion, thieves will get through
:03:05. > :03:10.the best defences. Just two months after the paintings were stolen in
:03:10. > :03:15.1994 the Frankfurt police said they were being walked by a Middle man
:03:15. > :03:25.who ended up going to jail for handling stolen property -- shop
:03:25. > :03:27.
:03:27. > :03:32.around. He was acting on behalf of another man. Edgar Liebrucks... It
:03:32. > :03:37.was only five years later that the police went to him. They asked for
:03:37. > :03:43.help. Why was there a delay of five years in following up that lead?
:03:43. > :03:46.think the authorities in Frankfurt, both at the city police and the
:03:46. > :03:49.federal police who were involved did everything to pursue, first of
:03:49. > :03:54.all the thieves, they caught them and charged and convicted the
:03:54. > :03:59.thieves but that took some time to get the evidence lined up. They
:03:59. > :04:03.were also pursuing who might now have the pictures. I think they
:04:04. > :04:07.came to the view after some years that it was - that it had emerged
:04:07. > :04:11.that whoever was holding the pictures was not whoever had first
:04:11. > :04:14.organised the theft. It was after that that they were prepared to see
:04:14. > :04:22.if they could be some arrangement by which negotiations would take
:04:22. > :04:31.place, perhaps for the return of these works. You were apparently
:04:31. > :04:37.forcing the pace - just prior to following up the Edgar Liebrucks'
:04:37. > :04:43.leader you decided you would buy back the title, the ownership for
:04:43. > :04:51.about $12 million in order to get your hands on the $14 million that
:04:51. > :04:57.the insurer has had paid out for the paintings. -- 40. That is
:04:57. > :05:00.adding it up retrospectively. The insurer has had paid the Tate after
:05:00. > :05:05.the theft. The funds were sitting in a trust account. Nothing could
:05:05. > :05:08.be done, they would just have to sit to one side until the point at
:05:08. > :05:15.which they were recovered and the bonds would have gone to the
:05:15. > :05:21.insurer and the title would have been exchanged. There was an idea
:05:21. > :05:24.that it could be possible to see whether buying back of the title
:05:24. > :05:29.was not actually helpful to the jurors - they would get something
:05:29. > :05:33.back, and it might actually be a better situation to the Tate if the
:05:33. > :05:36.pictures might emerge later. At the point Mecca at which this
:05:36. > :05:39.arrangement was made nobody knew of the pictures would come back.
:05:40. > :05:42.was also in the Tate's great interest because you're trying to
:05:43. > :05:49.open a new gallery at that stage and money was of paramount
:05:49. > :05:55.importance. It may have seemed as though up the money was used to
:05:55. > :06:00.create Tate Modern, but it... It was used as a balancing sum through
:06:00. > :06:04.government accounting. It was used to buy a warehouse? The government,
:06:04. > :06:08.the Treasury, very sensibly said that if this asset is not being
:06:08. > :06:13.used it can be used in the background, absolutely. Some of it
:06:13. > :06:20.was used for the freehold. In a sense it is government estate - it
:06:20. > :06:24.is public estate. Wasn't it a tremendous gamble given that
:06:24. > :06:29.statistics suggest that it is pretty unlikely that once art is
:06:29. > :06:32.stolen that you will get it back? It was a big gamble on your part.
:06:32. > :06:36.think the trustees took the view that the money was not being used
:06:36. > :06:39.and if there was an arrangement that could be made with the insurer
:06:39. > :06:43.has them that arrangement should be made. It was a separate matter to
:06:43. > :06:46.see whether it was possible to carry on doing their duty of myself
:06:46. > :06:50.or anybody working for at the Tate to see if we could recover these
:06:50. > :06:55.two really important works. It had nothing to do with the fact that
:06:55. > :07:00.you, by that stage, had an idea where you might go to track them
:07:00. > :07:04.down? You thought - let's get the money and use it while we can.
:07:04. > :07:10.there was no linking at point. The fact that the insurance work was
:07:10. > :07:14.done first and then a new link was made in Frankfurt... You recover
:07:14. > :07:24.the first painting in the year 2000. The second when you got back into
:07:24. > :07:26.
:07:26. > :07:35.1002. Your total costs according to own press released Tomic most of
:07:35. > :07:38.this was for information, as you put it. What came from the
:07:38. > :07:43.authorities in Frankfurt was the view that if the Tate was prepared
:07:43. > :07:53.to to make a payment leading to the recovery of the work than they felt
:07:53. > :07:54.
:07:54. > :08:02.it was justified. Would take good and just do this. It had to go
:08:02. > :08:05.through -- the Tate couldn't just do this. It had to go to the High
:08:05. > :08:08.Court to make sure it was appropriate and legal. I would like
:08:08. > :08:12.to explore whether it was appropriate and legal. Just the
:08:12. > :08:17.amount itself - it is a large amount of money to pay for
:08:17. > :08:22.information. You say in the book you have written about your
:08:22. > :08:27.experiences that works in public ownership I usually unable to be
:08:27. > :08:34.sold. Market value is hypothetical. Given that, I wonder why you
:08:34. > :08:39.thought it was necessary to fork out that amount of money? It was
:08:39. > :08:44.about whether or not these works could come back into public use.
:08:44. > :08:50.The question is - there is a debate - what is the value to be placed,
:08:50. > :08:54.alternately? How important is it to have public works... Did you strike
:08:54. > :08:57.a hard enough bargain? authorities in Germany, and it was
:08:57. > :09:03.them who did this, they made it clear it was the only arrangement,
:09:03. > :09:07.the only offer. You wrote a letter in November 2002 to be passed on to
:09:07. > :09:11.those holding the second JMW Turner painting saying that the Tate is
:09:11. > :09:14.the only gallery that will be able to pay for the return of his
:09:14. > :09:22.painting. It sounds like you were saying you're in a strong
:09:22. > :09:26.bargaining position. That was after we had made many attempts to secure
:09:26. > :09:29.the return of the second painting. We had not succeeded. At that point
:09:29. > :09:34.I was conveying a considerable frustration, which there was, as to
:09:34. > :09:37.whether or not we could make the arrangement worked to get the
:09:37. > :09:44.second painting back. Then there is the question as to where the money
:09:44. > :09:48.ended up. You dealt with his lawyer, Edgar Liebrucks. Under British law,
:09:48. > :09:55.there is a clear distinction between paying rewards for
:09:55. > :09:59.information leading to the return of something and paying a ransom.
:09:59. > :10:04.It is illegal under British law to give benefit to a criminal involved
:10:04. > :10:11.in a theft. How certain can you be that all the money you handed over
:10:11. > :10:13.was not going to a criminal? started from a few with the
:10:13. > :10:17.Frankfurt authorities that they believed that the paintings were
:10:17. > :10:21.now in the hands of those who had not been involved in the theft.
:10:21. > :10:24.They took a judgement that in making an arrangement with the
:10:24. > :10:28.thieves for the recovery it was something that was beneficial to
:10:28. > :10:31.them as well, not just to get the paintings back, but for them to
:10:31. > :10:35.pursue other criminals or other criminal information in their own
:10:35. > :10:38.investigations which were quite separate from the Tate. That was a
:10:38. > :10:42.judgement made in Germany by the Frankfurt authorities. We had to be
:10:42. > :10:48.certain that it was appropriate from a British perspective as well.
:10:48. > :10:52.That is why they were so much work done to take it to the High Court.
:10:52. > :10:57.Edgar Liebrucks himself said at one. Back when the negotiations were
:10:57. > :11:00.getting very bored down, he was expressing the frustration with
:11:00. > :11:07.what you describe as the other side. You quote him as saying that he has
:11:07. > :11:12.no means to persuade them to honour the arrangements. After a pause, he
:11:12. > :11:17.said... They are criminals. You must have had some suspicion that
:11:17. > :11:21.money you were paying could end up in the hands of the bad guys?
:11:21. > :11:25.could end up with all kinds of people. Edgar Liebrucks had been
:11:25. > :11:34.given a special status. The Frankfurt authorities had given him
:11:34. > :11:40.the immunity to be a conduit. That conduit was what was agreed money
:11:40. > :11:44.could be paid two. I think what was happening here is reckoning the
:11:44. > :11:54.overall sum was still less than 10% of the overall value of the
:11:54. > :11:59.paintings. That is often used as a marker for the fee or reward.
:11:59. > :12:04.trying to get to the point as to whether you are certain that none
:12:04. > :12:08.of the money paid ended up in the hands of criminals. You produced a
:12:08. > :12:15.press release or a press briefing note on the recovery of the second
:12:15. > :12:19.painting saying that there was no direct payment to criminals. There
:12:19. > :12:23.was no direct payments to criminals. I can be absolutely clear on that.
:12:23. > :12:27.Of course you can be clear on that, but the question is whether they
:12:27. > :12:33.may have been in direct payment. Whether it is a bit of sophistry to
:12:33. > :12:37.say that you didn't hand the money over to somebody with a swag bag on
:12:37. > :12:42.their back. It is public money. That is exactly what was knocked
:12:42. > :12:47.out by the judge. That is why he looked at it in a High Court case
:12:47. > :12:51.and why he is adjudication was that the circumstances did allow the
:12:51. > :12:54.basis of that - of allowing it - was that the Frankfurt authorities
:12:54. > :12:59.would themselves then pursue the money. That was up to them as to
:12:59. > :13:04.how they did that, how far they did that and how successful they were.
:13:04. > :13:10.Isn't there a danger in paying out this money - it was 10% of a huge
:13:10. > :13:20.amount of money - more than �3 million, but you were sending out a
:13:20. > :13:26.
:13:26. > :13:36.message that crime pays. Nobody Every circumstance of the recovery
:13:36. > :13:43.of higher value I to facts, paintings, there is enormous care
:13:43. > :13:53.following that. -- artefacts. The Metropolitan Police, others who
:13:53. > :13:56.looked at it look Dad it extremely carefully. One has to be quite
:13:56. > :14:01.clear that it is possible to recover stolen goods but at the
:14:01. > :14:05.same time emphasise why things should be in museums. They should
:14:05. > :14:10.be cared for forever. I am wondering whether your passion in
:14:10. > :14:20.terms of getting the paintings back may be blinded you to some of the
:14:20. > :14:20.
:14:20. > :14:23.implications at the time. In the book that you produced, you quote a
:14:23. > :14:29.former of Art Squad policeman saying that they can be a downside
:14:29. > :14:38.to the advertising of the awards. It can encourage criminals to
:14:38. > :14:48.commit more theft. I am wondering if that could be applied to what
:14:48. > :14:51.
:14:51. > :14:54.you did before the turn -- Turners. I am wondering whether morally,
:14:54. > :15:01.strategically looking back to you think it was the right thing to do.
:15:01. > :15:10.Absolutely. You do not think it could be a fuel for crime?
:15:10. > :15:18.Certainly not. The book encourages that because it is important first
:15:18. > :15:24.to discuss these issues. We need to talk about it. It was clear that
:15:24. > :15:29.there was in duty on behalf of the Tate trustees, to see whether the
:15:29. > :15:34.paintings can be brought back. The question of passion was not in it.
:15:34. > :15:44.It was about working with the authorities, taking their advice,
:15:44. > :15:48.they have used and weighing up what was right. -- taking their views.
:15:48. > :15:52.There should never be reward without each case being considered
:15:52. > :15:57.carefully. We need to send a message to criminals that it does
:15:57. > :16:07.not work. Except that in this case it did. You are putting things
:16:07. > :16:07.
:16:08. > :16:13.together about where dealers in the monies went. We do not know that.
:16:13. > :16:23.He is inconceivable to imagine that this money ended up, to know
:16:23. > :16:26.exactly where it ended up. -- is inconceivable. It released
:16:26. > :16:31.paintings that were being held by people not involved in the original
:16:31. > :16:34.theft. It meant that the German authorities could pursue
:16:34. > :16:44.information, the money and what they thought was the right course
:16:44. > :16:53.of action. Where do you think the money ended up? Are -- I do not
:16:53. > :16:57.know. I am curious about an underworld in Frankfurt. It is said,
:16:57. > :17:07.did I investigate the criminal underworld of Frankfurt, I did not.
:17:07. > :17:13.I am not an expert in criminal investigation. I work in a museum.
:17:13. > :17:18.You have to balance whether the pursuit of the paintings is the
:17:18. > :17:24.same as the pursuit of justice. course. What we were advised was
:17:24. > :17:29.that this was the right thing to do. It was a decision made with every
:17:29. > :17:37.advice from every kind of authority. To go to the general point, it
:17:37. > :17:42.matters greatly about why public ownership matters, how we make sure
:17:42. > :17:48.that the information about stolen goods, part of this and is about
:17:48. > :17:58.how we make sure that people share information about theft. People are
:17:58. > :17:58.
:17:58. > :18:05.often very reluctant to talk about it. There do seem to be some black-
:18:05. > :18:15.and-white areas out of these as well. Some lie-in, misleading that
:18:15. > :18:16.
:18:16. > :18:22.some lying. The Tate put out a
:18:22. > :18:28.press release to... This is a misunderstanding. The Tate did not
:18:28. > :18:32.release that. It was drafted but not released. It said that there is
:18:32. > :18:40.no information, discussions being conducted. This was done in order
:18:40. > :18:50.to... no, it was drafted in case it needed to be released. It was a
:18:50. > :18:59.worry and I was in the middle of it. The statement was simply a draft
:18:59. > :19:03.kind not issued by the Tate. There was no-one... We discussed with the
:19:03. > :19:11.police whether we might need to. did smuggle the police had been
:19:11. > :19:17.without telling Her Majesty's customs. This was an operation...
:19:17. > :19:22.Which meant not telling customers. It meant saying, as it is, that it
:19:22. > :19:29.is a 19th century painting. There was an episode where you seemed,
:19:29. > :19:36.from the ball, to be keeping the Frankfurt police in the dark. --
:19:37. > :19:43.from the book. It could spell disaster for the operation to
:19:43. > :19:48.recover the painting. The Frankfurt police might intervene. Does that
:19:48. > :19:51.not worry you at all, the fact that it was seen as if the franc for
:19:51. > :19:57.pollies could get in the way of your recovery of the painting
:19:57. > :20:01.rather than actually carry on and catch the criminals? That this
:20:01. > :20:07.point, this was the way of doing it that was authorised by the
:20:07. > :20:17.prosecutor's office. In Germany they run the police force. They are
:20:17. > :20:17.
:20:17. > :20:24.the commanding authority over the police. Their view was to allow a
:20:25. > :20:34.direct connection. Work with the solicitor. It was all right to
:20:35. > :20:37.
:20:37. > :20:42.hoodwink the police? We were not giving them all the information.
:20:42. > :20:46.would not have done this if we had not have the absolute clarity with
:20:46. > :20:50.the prosecutor's office in Frankfurt that this is how it
:20:51. > :20:59.should be done. All through this you suggest that you are getting
:20:59. > :21:04.the sufficient legal advice, so forth, and you talk about an
:21:04. > :21:08.institution will need to get the paintings back. I wonder if you
:21:08. > :21:16.think that you have occasionally strayed on the wrong side of the
:21:16. > :21:22.moral, ethical? I considered, of course, all the time. What I came
:21:22. > :21:27.back was, what was the right authority from the institutional
:21:27. > :21:37.and national authority. These are works of international importance.
:21:37. > :21:37.
:21:37. > :21:44.The morale and the ethical matters had to be considered exactly as I
:21:44. > :21:50.said. I know we were doing the right thing. Art, it seems, remains
:21:50. > :21:54.remarkably easy to steal. Especially in comparison to
:21:54. > :22:01.stealing $50 million worth of gold, jewellery carb banknotes. Is there
:22:01. > :22:08.anything more that we can do to protect art while keeping it open
:22:08. > :22:15.to the public? Actually it is not easy to steal. I can see why you
:22:15. > :22:19.say that. These were easy to steal, in relative terms. There is much
:22:19. > :22:29.more detail than what I give in the book as to how was accomplished and
:22:29. > :22:30.
:22:30. > :22:35.it is not as easy as it seems. Those working around the world to
:22:35. > :22:43.share wonderful paintings, if you think about how many great
:22:43. > :22:50.exhibitions we have between say that there are any but the
:22:50. > :22:57.incidence of higher value theft is very few. It is very rare but they
:22:57. > :23:03.tragedy. Do you think, given in your questions that you have raised
:23:03. > :23:08.about the way in which we recover those works that to end up been
:23:08. > :23:13.stolen, deer have any lingering unease, regret about how the
:23:13. > :23:19.paintings were recovered? It was the only way that was possible. It
:23:19. > :23:24.was to the credit of the Frankfurt authorities that they were
:23:24. > :23:29.enlightened enough to say that there could be a way for the people
:23:29. > :23:38.to have these paintings on view again. They saw that. The other
:23:38. > :23:41.lesson is that we need to keep thinking all the time. If the high
:23:41. > :23:45.value works of art have caused interest in criminal circles we
:23:45. > :23:52.need to make sure they cannot accomplish from doing, and in ways
:23:52. > :24:00.that they think they can, and that this does not happen. You would
:24:00. > :24:09.fork out $5 million again? Were it to happen? No, I would hope that
:24:09. > :24:16.there are ways to figure it out without giving a fee. It was a long,
:24:16. > :24:20.laborious set of negotiations. That is what my book describes. It was
:24:20. > :24:26.tricky, I do not think there is a way we could have done it
:24:26. > :24:36.differently. It is a terrible thing and it should not happen. Sandy
:24:36. > :24:51.
:24:51. > :25:01.It was another heart and he humid day yesterday triggering some
:25:01. > :25:02.
:25:02. > :25:09.fantastic thunderstorms. -- hot. Yet again it will beat humid. First
:25:09. > :25:14.thing this morning a few showers in the east. In most places, dry.
:25:14. > :25:24.Through parts of south Lincolnshire, Yorkshire and East Anglia there
:25:24. > :25:29.
:25:29. > :25:34.will be packed she cloud and scattered showers. -- patchy. A
:25:34. > :25:40.fine start to the day across Wales. Dry and bright with light wind. In
:25:40. > :25:45.Northern Ireland, a reasonable start to the day. Slowly the sky
:25:45. > :25:50.should tend to Brighton. For Scotland it is looking much more
:25:51. > :25:58.promising first thing on Wednesday. Slowly the damp and drizzly
:25:58. > :26:03.conditions will ease. It is looking much more dry than Tuesday.
:26:03. > :26:13.Northern Ireland, Scotland should see the sky a Brighton and it will
:26:13. > :26:17.
:26:17. > :26:27.be dry. The showers will be heavy, thundery. Into the evening,
:26:27. > :26:29.
:26:29. > :26:37.sunshine and how easy across the south-west of England and Wales. --
:26:37. > :26:43.and hazy. This is the weather front that will move in. It will draw the
:26:43. > :26:47.moist air from the Atlantic. The rain is set to be heavy,
:26:47. > :26:57.particularly for England and Wales, into central and southern England
:26:57. > :26:58.