Sandy Nairne, Director of National Portrait Gallery, UK HARDtalk

Now it is time for HARDtalk. I am speaking to Sandy Nairne, a

man used to working at the rarefied heights of fine art. But for eight

years, the director of London's National Portrait Gallery also had

to delve deep into the murk. He was one of the top people at the Tate

Gallery when two of its most prized paintings by JMW Turner were stolen

after being loaned to a German gallery. After years of

negotiations and millions of dollars, the Tate got their

paintings back. The deal was legal - but was it ethical?

Sandy Nairne, welcome to HARDtalk. You were one of the directors of

the Tate when these two paintings by JMW Turner were stolen. Give me

some idea of how important these works are? These are two of his

most important late works. They were part of what we know as a

bequest. They were the works chosen by the artist himself had to leave

to the nation. Why are they an important part of the Turner infra?

They are wonderful swirling masses of paint. They are up to do with

his ideas about colour theory. They also look forward to Impressionist

paintings. You see him at the end of his life in the 1840s looking

forward to things that would come. You say they were part of his

bequest, but you loaned them to a gallery in Frankfurt. I thought

part of the terms of the bequest was that they were in permanent

display in London. He wanted to make sure that there was a proper

place to see his work. It didn't restrict where they could be linked.

I think the Tate trustees have always felt that these are

important works and they should be shown in the right circumstances in

public galleries around the world. The exhibition in Frankfurt was one

of those occasions. And yet in 1994 they were stolen with relative ease.

Did you check the arrangements sufficiently well? We checked, of

course. The national security advise her's advice was there. The

shop was tremendous. These two works and another one by Friedrich

was stolen at the same time. On occasion, thieves will get through

the best defences. Just two months after the paintings were stolen in

1994 the Frankfurt police said they were being walked by a Middle man

who ended up going to jail for handling stolen property -- shop

around. He was acting on behalf of another man. Edgar Liebrucks... It

was only five years later that the police went to him. They asked for

help. Why was there a delay of five years in following up that lead?

think the authorities in Frankfurt, both at the city police and the

federal police who were involved did everything to pursue, first of

all the thieves, they caught them and charged and convicted the

thieves but that took some time to get the evidence lined up. They

were also pursuing who might now have the pictures. I think they

came to the view after some years that it was - that it had emerged

that whoever was holding the pictures was not whoever had first

organised the theft. It was after that that they were prepared to see

if they could be some arrangement by which negotiations would take

place, perhaps for the return of these works. You were apparently

forcing the pace - just prior to following up the Edgar Liebrucks'

leader you decided you would buy back the title, the ownership for

about $12 million in order to get your hands on the $14 million that

the insurer has had paid out for the paintings. -- 40. That is

adding it up retrospectively. The insurer has had paid the Tate after

the theft. The funds were sitting in a trust account. Nothing could

be done, they would just have to sit to one side until the point at

which they were recovered and the bonds would have gone to the

insurer and the title would have been exchanged. There was an idea

that it could be possible to see whether buying back of the title

was not actually helpful to the jurors - they would get something

back, and it might actually be a better situation to the Tate if the

pictures might emerge later. At the point Mecca at which this

arrangement was made nobody knew of the pictures would come back.

was also in the Tate's great interest because you're trying to

open a new gallery at that stage and money was of paramount

importance. It may have seemed as though up the money was used to

create Tate Modern, but it... It was used as a balancing sum through

government accounting. It was used to buy a warehouse? The government,

the Treasury, very sensibly said that if this asset is not being

used it can be used in the background, absolutely. Some of it

was used for the freehold. In a sense it is government estate - it

is public estate. Wasn't it a tremendous gamble given that

statistics suggest that it is pretty unlikely that once art is

stolen that you will get it back? It was a big gamble on your part.

think the trustees took the view that the money was not being used

and if there was an arrangement that could be made with the insurer

has them that arrangement should be made. It was a separate matter to

see whether it was possible to carry on doing their duty of myself

or anybody working for at the Tate to see if we could recover these

two really important works. It had nothing to do with the fact that

you, by that stage, had an idea where you might go to track them

down? You thought - let's get the money and use it while we can.

there was no linking at point. The fact that the insurance work was

done first and then a new link was made in Frankfurt... You recover

the first painting in the year 2000. The second when you got back into

1002. Your total costs according to own press released Tomic most of

this was for information, as you put it. What came from the

authorities in Frankfurt was the view that if the Tate was prepared

to to make a payment leading to the recovery of the work than they felt

it was justified. Would take good and just do this. It had to go

through -- the Tate couldn't just do this. It had to go to the High

Court to make sure it was appropriate and legal. I would like

to explore whether it was appropriate and legal. Just the

amount itself - it is a large amount of money to pay for

information. You say in the book you have written about your

experiences that works in public ownership I usually unable to be

sold. Market value is hypothetical. Given that, I wonder why you

thought it was necessary to fork out that amount of money? It was

about whether or not these works could come back into public use.

The question is - there is a debate - what is the value to be placed,

alternately? How important is it to have public works... Did you strike

a hard enough bargain? authorities in Germany, and it was

them who did this, they made it clear it was the only arrangement,

the only offer. You wrote a letter in November 2002 to be passed on to

those holding the second JMW Turner painting saying that the Tate is

the only gallery that will be able to pay for the return of his

painting. It sounds like you were saying you're in a strong

bargaining position. That was after we had made many attempts to secure

the return of the second painting. We had not succeeded. At that point

I was conveying a considerable frustration, which there was, as to

whether or not we could make the arrangement worked to get the

second painting back. Then there is the question as to where the money

ended up. You dealt with his lawyer, Edgar Liebrucks. Under British law,

there is a clear distinction between paying rewards for

information leading to the return of something and paying a ransom.

It is illegal under British law to give benefit to a criminal involved

in a theft. How certain can you be that all the money you handed over

was not going to a criminal? started from a few with the

Frankfurt authorities that they believed that the paintings were

now in the hands of those who had not been involved in the theft.

They took a judgement that in making an arrangement with the

thieves for the recovery it was something that was beneficial to

them as well, not just to get the paintings back, but for them to

pursue other criminals or other criminal information in their own

investigations which were quite separate from the Tate. That was a

judgement made in Germany by the Frankfurt authorities. We had to be

certain that it was appropriate from a British perspective as well.

That is why they were so much work done to take it to the High Court.

Edgar Liebrucks himself said at one. Back when the negotiations were

getting very bored down, he was expressing the frustration with

what you describe as the other side. You quote him as saying that he has

no means to persuade them to honour the arrangements. After a pause, he

said... They are criminals. You must have had some suspicion that

money you were paying could end up in the hands of the bad guys?

could end up with all kinds of people. Edgar Liebrucks had been

given a special status. The Frankfurt authorities had given him

the immunity to be a conduit. That conduit was what was agreed money

could be paid two. I think what was happening here is reckoning the

overall sum was still less than 10% of the overall value of the

paintings. That is often used as a marker for the fee or reward.

trying to get to the point as to whether you are certain that none

of the money paid ended up in the hands of criminals. You produced a

press release or a press briefing note on the recovery of the second

painting saying that there was no direct payment to criminals. There

was no direct payments to criminals. I can be absolutely clear on that.

Of course you can be clear on that, but the question is whether they

may have been in direct payment. Whether it is a bit of sophistry to

say that you didn't hand the money over to somebody with a swag bag on

their back. It is public money. That is exactly what was knocked

out by the judge. That is why he looked at it in a High Court case

and why he is adjudication was that the circumstances did allow the

basis of that - of allowing it - was that the Frankfurt authorities

would themselves then pursue the money. That was up to them as to

how they did that, how far they did that and how successful they were.

Isn't there a danger in paying out this money - it was 10% of a huge

amount of money - more than �3 million, but you were sending out a

message that crime pays. Nobody Every circumstance of the recovery

of higher value I to facts, paintings, there is enormous care

following that. -- artefacts. The Metropolitan Police, others who

looked at it look Dad it extremely carefully. One has to be quite

clear that it is possible to recover stolen goods but at the

same time emphasise why things should be in museums. They should

be cared for forever. I am wondering whether your passion in

terms of getting the paintings back may be blinded you to some of the

implications at the time. In the book that you produced, you quote a

former of Art Squad policeman saying that they can be a downside

to the advertising of the awards. It can encourage criminals to

commit more theft. I am wondering if that could be applied to what

you did before the turn -- Turners. I am wondering whether morally,

strategically looking back to you think it was the right thing to do.

Absolutely. You do not think it could be a fuel for crime?

Certainly not. The book encourages that because it is important first

to discuss these issues. We need to talk about it. It was clear that

there was in duty on behalf of the Tate trustees, to see whether the

paintings can be brought back. The question of passion was not in it.

It was about working with the authorities, taking their advice,

they have used and weighing up what was right. -- taking their views.

There should never be reward without each case being considered

carefully. We need to send a message to criminals that it does

not work. Except that in this case it did. You are putting things

together about where dealers in the monies went. We do not know that.

He is inconceivable to imagine that this money ended up, to know

exactly where it ended up. -- is inconceivable. It released

paintings that were being held by people not involved in the original

theft. It meant that the German authorities could pursue

information, the money and what they thought was the right course

of action. Where do you think the money ended up? Are -- I do not

know. I am curious about an underworld in Frankfurt. It is said,

did I investigate the criminal underworld of Frankfurt, I did not.

I am not an expert in criminal investigation. I work in a museum.

You have to balance whether the pursuit of the paintings is the

same as the pursuit of justice. course. What we were advised was

that this was the right thing to do. It was a decision made with every

advice from every kind of authority. To go to the general point, it

matters greatly about why public ownership matters, how we make sure

that the information about stolen goods, part of this and is about

how we make sure that people share information about theft. People are

often very reluctant to talk about it. There do seem to be some black-

and-white areas out of these as well. Some lie-in, misleading that

some lying. The Tate put out a

press release to... This is a misunderstanding. The Tate did not

release that. It was drafted but not released. It said that there is

no information, discussions being conducted. This was done in order

to... no, it was drafted in case it needed to be released. It was a

worry and I was in the middle of it. The statement was simply a draft

kind not issued by the Tate. There was no-one... We discussed with the

police whether we might need to. did smuggle the police had been

without telling Her Majesty's customs. This was an operation...

Which meant not telling customers. It meant saying, as it is, that it

is a 19th century painting. There was an episode where you seemed,

from the ball, to be keeping the Frankfurt police in the dark. --

from the book. It could spell disaster for the operation to

recover the painting. The Frankfurt police might intervene. Does that

not worry you at all, the fact that it was seen as if the franc for

pollies could get in the way of your recovery of the painting

rather than actually carry on and catch the criminals? That this

point, this was the way of doing it that was authorised by the

prosecutor's office. In Germany they run the police force. They are

the commanding authority over the police. Their view was to allow a

direct connection. Work with the solicitor. It was all right to

hoodwink the police? We were not giving them all the information.

would not have done this if we had not have the absolute clarity with

the prosecutor's office in Frankfurt that this is how it

should be done. All through this you suggest that you are getting

the sufficient legal advice, so forth, and you talk about an

institution will need to get the paintings back. I wonder if you

think that you have occasionally strayed on the wrong side of the

moral, ethical? I considered, of course, all the time. What I came

back was, what was the right authority from the institutional

and national authority. These are works of international importance.

The morale and the ethical matters had to be considered exactly as I

said. I know we were doing the right thing. Art, it seems, remains

remarkably easy to steal. Especially in comparison to

stealing $50 million worth of gold, jewellery carb banknotes. Is there

anything more that we can do to protect art while keeping it open

to the public? Actually it is not easy to steal. I can see why you

say that. These were easy to steal, in relative terms. There is much

more detail than what I give in the book as to how was accomplished and

it is not as easy as it seems. Those working around the world to

share wonderful paintings, if you think about how many great

exhibitions we have between say that there are any but the

incidence of higher value theft is very few. It is very rare but they

tragedy. Do you think, given in your questions that you have raised

about the way in which we recover those works that to end up been

stolen, deer have any lingering unease, regret about how the

paintings were recovered? It was the only way that was possible. It

was to the credit of the Frankfurt authorities that they were

enlightened enough to say that there could be a way for the people

to have these paintings on view again. They saw that. The other

lesson is that we need to keep thinking all the time. If the high

value works of art have caused interest in criminal circles we

need to make sure they cannot accomplish from doing, and in ways

that they think they can, and that this does not happen. You would

fork out $5 million again? Were it to happen? No, I would hope that

there are ways to figure it out without giving a fee. It was a long,

laborious set of negotiations. That is what my book describes. It was

tricky, I do not think there is a way we could have done it

differently. It is a terrible thing and it should not happen. Sandy

It was another heart and he humid day yesterday triggering some

fantastic thunderstorms. -- hot. Yet again it will beat humid. First

thing this morning a few showers in the east. In most places, dry.

Through parts of south Lincolnshire, Yorkshire and East Anglia there

will be packed she cloud and scattered showers. -- patchy. A

fine start to the day across Wales. Dry and bright with light wind. In

Northern Ireland, a reasonable start to the day. Slowly the sky

should tend to Brighton. For Scotland it is looking much more

promising first thing on Wednesday. Slowly the damp and drizzly

conditions will ease. It is looking much more dry than Tuesday.

Northern Ireland, Scotland should see the sky a Brighton and it will

be dry. The showers will be heavy, thundery. Into the evening,

sunshine and how easy across the south-west of England and Wales. --

and hazy. This is the weather front that will move in. It will draw the

moist air from the Atlantic. The rain is set to be heavy,

particularly for England and Wales, into central and southern England