Deputy Enright has been given permission to raise on the Adjournment tonight the question of an 8th century cross which is not in the possession of our museum authorities.
Adjournment Debate: Eighth Century Bronze Cross Find.
First, I should like to take this opportunity of thanking the Chair for granting me an opportunity to raise this important matter here in the House. Yesterday morning I was appalled to read in our national newspapers and to hear and see on radio and television that a historic cross had been found and retained by a person in whose possession it still is. It appears from the articles and news items that efforts had been made to sell this cross in the United States. I was further appalled to find that this famous 8th century bronze cross from Clonmacnoise, one of our most famous historic sites, had been offered for sale to the John Paul Getty Museum in Malibu, California, for $1.75 million but that that museum was not interested.
Many people to whom I spoke yesterday and today were dismayed that this person was fined a sum of only £10 and, secondly, that the finder still had possession of the cross. This find was made prior to the passing of the amended National Monuments Act which is why the justice was permitted to impose only a maximum fine of £10. The Minister in question, Deputy Treacy, his predecessor, Deputy Doyle and some previous Ministers of the Department and departmental officials were concerned at the size of fine. Nowadays, at least, a fine can be imposed of up to £50,000 in the event of a find of this nature not being reported.
There is a very glaring loophole in the law at present when such treasures as this bronze cross and the Derrynaflan Chalice can be retained by the finder. The matter is before the Supreme Court following the decision in the Derrynaflan case and we await the Supreme Court decision which it is to be hoped will be made at the earliest possible opportunity.
It is essential that such treasures, which are so much associated with our history and culture, should be retained in the National Museum for the benefit of the people and for future generations. We talk here about the past, about our history of which we are proud but at present such items can be sold outside this country. It is questionable whether they should be capable of being sold outside the country. Immediate action is absolutely necessary.
I put it to the Minister that we should be actively considering a constitutional referendum. It is incumbent on the Government to hold such a referendum so that the people can be given the opportunity of stating clearly and unequivocally that they are opposed to private individuals selling our most valuable treasures to millionaires around the world. To these millionaires and to some institutions outside Ireland, £3 million or £5 million is very little money to pay for such items, which are so interwoven with our history, culture and past. The referendum should deal with the matter of a person who makes such a find being forbidden by the State to take possession of it.
I am also advocating, as part and parcel of the Bill which would go before the House concerning such a referendum, that there should be a reasonable scheme of reward, that reasonable compensation should be paid to the finder of such an article. A committee should be appointed which would have power to pay a just, reasonable amount in compensation. I go so far as to suggest that such a committee should comprise some of the following people: a person appointed from the National Museum and somebody appointed by the Minister from his own Department, also an auctioneer or experienced valuer and, finally, that it be chaired by a judge of the standing of a High Court judge in Ireland. Some of the matters that I feel the committee should take into consideration would be the value of the article, the difficulty in obtaining the historic item, the care taken by the finder in excavating the object and in its preservation. The degree of co-operation with the State should also be taken into account in regard to the reporting of the find. These matters should be part and parcel of the compensation to be paid.
Some people will disagree with me and say that no such compensation should be paid for items which are part of our history and culture, but I am against that viewpoint. If we do not reward a finder, then the likelihood is that such an item will be hidden and smuggled out of the country. The Minister and his officials are aware that from countries such as Italy and Greece many valuable items have been smuggled out to Switzerland and other parts of Europe and to the United States. We would not wish to see that happen in this country. If you suppress or only give infinitesimal awards it will encourage people to take property out of this country. It is essential to encourage some degree of reward and this we would be very anxious to do.
This country has a very rich inheritance. We are particularly pleased and proud of the history, culture and inheritance that have been handed down to us. Now that we have the National Monuments (Amendment) Act which compels a person to report a find, it is essential that we take the matter to the next logical step which is to hold the necessary referendum, otherwise the position will remain very vague. The matter at present rests with the Supreme Court but the Government should be considering taking positive action. I am appalled that Irish men and women would even consider selling historical treasures outside of Ireland. If people are prepared to do this for monetary gain we must ensure that the necessary laws are passed and a referendum is held so that people would not be able to sell these treasures outside of Ireland. I put it to the Minister of State that this referendum should take place at the earliest possible date.
Those are my views on this matter and I feel very strongly about it. I am sure the Minister of State will be anxious to take immediate action on this matter and I hope he will take action along the lines I have advocated to him. If it is in order, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, I would like to allot my colleague, Deputy Nealon, the time which is remaining to me.
I venture to anticipate the agreement of the Minister of State for that request. Does the Minister of State agree?
The Minister of State has a great interest in this matter and, indeed, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, you have long shown a great interest in this area also. I thank my colleague, Deputy Enright, for allowing me to speak on this matter and I am delighted that I am present in the House to endorse fully everything he has said. I have had a special interest in this matter in the past and dealt with the most recent find, the Lough Kinale Book Shrine. That find was brought to a very quick and very satisfactory conclusion for all the parties concerned. The legal end is tied up and there will be no difficulty about it.
Deputy Enright talked about a just reward. I also think that there should be a just reward but there should be no question of the person who makes the discovery, be it accidental or by meticulous effort, becoming the rightful owner of what amounts to part of our heritage. One of the most outrageous scenes I have witnessed on television was when the finders of the Derrynaflan Chalice, popping champagne, asked the entire nation to take part with them in the celebrations and this after they had ripped them off of £5.5 million. I ask the Minister of State to give us some indication as to when the result of the court case in regard to the Derrynaflan Chalice will be known? As Deputy Enright has said, and as I am sure the Minister of State will agree, the only possible way of solving this problem for all time and of preventing a constant recurrence of what we are seeing now and what we have seen in the past is by way of the holding of a referendum.
I understand that another referendum will have to be held as a result of the difficulties which arose in regard to the Single European Act and I ask the Minister of State to ensure that a single question on this matter will be included on that occasion. This could be done at very little extra cost. I sought to have that done at the time of the referendum on the Single European Act but it was thought that that matter was so important that there should be no fudging of the issue and as a result it was not included. I am sorry now that it was not included.
I would like the Minister of State to indicate the date of the more recent discovery and to say whether, if the discovery were made now, it would be covered by the underwater provisions in the National Monuments (Amendment) Act. I believe it would be. I also suggest that in any referendum to be held a retrospective clause should be included which would cover all past discoveries which are not yet in the possession of the State.
The staff of the National Museum, the Office of Public Works and the Department of the Taoiseach are sometimes blamed for this problem but I would like to say that there is no element of slowness on their part, as I have discovered, once the right decisions have been made and the necessary financial wherewithal have been given to them to solve the problem. A pefect example of this is the Lough Kinale Book Shrine. From the day it became known to the National Museum and the Department of the Taoiseach only ten days elapsed before the legal end was tied up. Cash was paid over and the Lough Kinale Book Shrine was among our greatest national collection in the National Museum.
We do not want to upset the bargaining positions of those involved but I, and I am sure Deputy Enright too, would like an assurance from the Minister of State that a reasonable amount of cash will be made available so that a solution can be obtained. This is a very important issue and I know, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, that you if you were not in the Chair you would be contributing to this debate. This is a problem we must solve. We will not be forgiven if we do not solve it. A solution has to be obtained. No one can say whether we will ever obtain a book similar to the Book of Kells or find a chalice similar to the Derrynaflan Chalice but no one ever knew either that we would find the Lough Kinale Book Shrine which rates alongside the Cross of Cong, the Tara Brooch, the Derrynaflan Chalice etc.
Provided the more sophisticated methods which are now in use are used legally I believe great finds similar to the Lough Kinale Book Shrine and the Derrynaflan Chalice will be made on a recurring basis. Past experience suggests that such finds will be made. I am aware of the Minister of State's interest in this matter and of the extraordinary amount of heritage material which exists within his own area of County Galway and, indeed, within my own area of County Sligo, where an important slab, perhaps important as the Lough Kinale Book Shrine, was found in the back of a car following a chase by officials of the National Museum. It was on its way to America in the custody of a man who, because of his occupation, would not expect to be hit by lightning.
I have no doubt that the Minister of State will give us an assurance in this respect but I emphasise once again that the only solution to this problem is the holding of a referendum and it should be held at the first available opportunity.
I want to thank the Deputies for raising this very important matter. In speaking about our heritage and our artefacts they speak for all the Members of this House and I am sure for all the people. I hope the fact that they have raised this matter in this House will bring to the light of those involved in the holding of State treasures that they are the property of the Irish people and rightly belong in the National Museum which would hold them in trust for all the people of this country. The existence of the cross in question came to the attention of the National Museum in December, 1986 and when it was brought to the attention of the Department of the Taoiseach in January last, an inderdepartmental working party was set up to consider and monitor the action necessary to deal with this and other related cases.
Investigations showed that a consortium was involved in the midlands who were arranging to sell the valuable cross in the United States. Museum authorities in the USA were alerted to the fact that the export from this country of this item in this manner would be an illegal act. Subsequently, the Getty Museum, one of the most prestigious in the USA, turned down the offer of the cross which had been made to it for a sum of $1.75 million.
In April of this year, the officials of the National Museum of Ireland were approached by a solicitor acting on behalf of the finder or finders. He described it as a cross approximately 18 inches high of wood and metal, with decoration similar to the Lough Kinale Book Shrine. It is dated to the seventh or eighth century AD. The National Museum were, subsequently, given the opportunity of seeing the object and of taking photographs. From subsequent investigations, it became clear that not only the date of finding but the find place were not as indicated by the finders. Proceedings were instituted against one of the finders for failure to report the find within the statutory 14 days required. He was convicted and fined £10 under the old Monuments Act. The National Monuments Act, 1987, has now increased this penalty to a maximum of £50,000 with the possibility of a year's imprisonment. The charge of giving false information to the National Museum officials was dismissed on the technicality that it was not given to the Director of the National Museum.
Further investigations into this and other related cases are proceeding.
It is proposed to have a meeting of the interdepartmental working group in the aftermath of the court case of 17 November to consider the next steps including clarification of the position regarding ownership and the possibility of acquiring the object for the National Museum. They will also be considering the necessary action in other related cases. It must be realised that this is part of a wave of plundering of archaeological objects by organised groups whose intention is to sell the object or objects to the highest bidder and if necessary, to illegally export them for that purpose.
I assure the House that the Taoiseach has made it quite clear that the full rigour of the law will be applied to deal with the activities of those who would seek to deprive the Irish people of their archaeological heritage and of the opportunity of having it conserved and displayed in our National Museum.
I would like to take the opportunity to congratulate the Director and staff of the National Museum and the Garda for their success in preventing the illegal export of this item and for ensuring that it can be available for scholars and the public generally for study and appreciation. On behalf of the Irish people I would also like to thank the Curator of Sculpture at the Getty Museum in the US for the very positive attitude they have adopted there to the offer made to them for this very important artefact.
Deputy Enright, who raised this matter, has requested that we hold a constitutional referendum to give an opportunity to the people to show the regard they have for our heritage and all objects and artefacts found in any part of our country by any person or persons. That is a praiseworthy suggestion but as a very important case is before the Supreme Court at the moment we cannot even consider holding a referendum or we would find ourselves in contempt of court. However, we will consider it when the Supreme Court decision has been made as we cannot at this stage prejudge that decision.
Deputy Enright and Deputy Nealon made a number of points regarding compensation. The practice of the National Museum has been that compensation is paid in respect of a loss incurred by somebody. The museum has always paid awards to finders of objects. Finders' awards must also take account of the circumstances of discovery. Often the museum is asked to pay awards to finders in respect of objects owned by other people, that is, the landowners from whose land objects have been removed, unknowingly or otherwise. The museum is considering setting up a new system — or maybe an updating of the present system — of payment of awards to ensure that any artefacts or objects found can come into the custody, control and care of the National Museum on behalf of the people as quickly as possible.
Deputy Nealon asked when the Supreme Court will rule on the Derrynaflan case. It is expected that the Supreme Court may reach this case before its Christmas recess. We hope it will do so and we await its decision with interest. I would like to be able to take immediate action on this and on other matters but we are constrained by the legalities to be decided in the Supreme Court and we cannot prejudice those or make decisions that may be in conflict with any decision that may be made by the Supreme Court.
Again, I congratulate the Director and staff of the National Museum, the people in the US for their positive attitude, the officials in the Department of the Taoiseach and my Department for their co-operation in these matters, and Deputies Enright and Nealon for raising this matter. I make a final appeal on behalf of the people of Ireland to the people who now hold this cross to come forward and offer it immediately to the National Museum so that it can be held in trust for them and for the people of Ireland. The finders will find a reasonable, fair and positive attitude will be forthcoming from the museum director and his staff and they can take into account the fact that this case has been dealt with under the old Monuments Act rather than the new 1987 National Monuments Act. I hope that in the interests of the country and of preserving our heritage they too will adopt a positive attitude and come forward and co-operate with the director and staff of the National Museum.
The Minister stated it must be realised that this is part of a plundering of archaeological objects by organised groups whose intention is to sell these illegally if necessary. We have some valuable, indeed priceless, objects in the National Museum. Is the Minister satisfied as to the very tight security necessary in that building? I recommend that he gives that matter the closest possible attention, particularly because of what he has stated here. Very vigilant and tight security is necessary at our National Museum against people who are prepared to plunder and steal such items and then try to sell them outside Ireland.
This is pure curiosity on my part, but would the ownership have been copperfastened had this matter come to light since the enactment of the new National Monuments Act by the underwater provision in that Act?
Those are two very important questions. I assure Deputy Enright that I am absolutely satisfied with the vigilance of the staff of the National Museum in maintaining, protecting and caring for all the objects and artefacts in the museum. Security is one matter to which they give prime attention.
As regards Deputy Nealon's question, I do not think it would be possible to give a clear answer. It would be open to anybody to appeal any decision such as that to the courts. Based on the law as it stands and on the new Act passed by the Oireachtas this year, the courts would be the final arbiters vis-á-vis the ownership of any object, taking into account the circumstances and the location in which it was found.
The Dáil adjourned at 5.30 p.m. until 2.30 p.m. on Tuesday, 24 November 1987.