Vol. 408 No. 1
5 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach his views on whether there should be a common cultural policy for the European Community; and whether this should be extended to any national restrictions on trade within the Community in cultural property; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
The richness of European culture lies in the diversity of the distinctive national cultures of the member states.
We are strongly in favour of Community action in the cultural sphere and have been involved in a range of such activities. One such instance is the European Community scheme of prizes for literature and translation which we are organising this year as part of our Cultural capital celebrations.
We have recently supported a measure for a specific treaty article giving Community competence in the area of culture and this should help to increase Community action in this sphere in tandem with the member states.
Through our membership of the Community's Committee on Cultural Affairs, we are involved in the formulation of the cultural policy of the Community. The Community Ministers with responsibility for Culture meet during each Presidency to consider and decide on these matters.
In relation to cultural property, the question of the effect of the internal market on cultural property is being considered. Article 36 of the Treaty of Rome allows for specific restrictions on trade in order to protect national treasures of artistic, historic or archaeological value. The Committee on Cultural Affairs is considering how best this and other measures might be used by member states to safeguard the cultural heritage in each state when there is free movement of goods generally. The matter will shortly be put to the Council of Ministers of Culture.
Does the Taoiseach agree that if you introduce a new Article into the Treaty of Rome covering cultural property there is a possibility that it could reduce the protection provided by Article 36, so far as our capacity to restrict exports of cultural property is concerned, in the sense that the two Articles would then be read together by the court? Does the Taoiseach agree this is a danger and further that cultural artefacts should not be subject to the disciplines of the internal market regarding free movement?
I think there would be fairly widespread agreement on that. We have worked with the Commission in tabling a specific proposal for a new Article. I would be reasonably confident that there would be fairly widespread agreement by the member states that the new situation of the free market will have to be coped with so far as cultural property and items of artistic and cultural interest are concerned.
Would the Taoiseach not agree that there would not be total unanimity on that because a number of member states make quite a significant income from trading in cultural property that originated in other member states— I instance the art market in London as one example? Does the Taoiseach agree that such interests would tend to use any new Article in the Constitution concerning culture to challenge the compatibility with the Treaty of Rome of any measures we might have in place previously defended by Article 36?
I am not quite clear on the scope of the Deputy's argument. Our efforts would be directed to ensuring that we can maintain the existing controls we have under the National Monuments Acts, and the Documents and Pictures (Regulation of Export) Act, 1945. We would also be anxious to ensure that whatever would replace the existing Article would be more satisfactory from our point of view. There could not be any question of it being in conflict with the Treaty of Rome because the intergovernmental conferences will bring forward proposals to amend the original Treaty.
The new Treaty would then contain less protection for our existing legislation than the old Treaty, that is the point.
Would the Taoiseach clarify whether the negotiations or discussions to which he has referred will make a clear distinction between cultural property which is, so to speak, being marketed and cultural property which is in the possession of various member states, for example the Elgin Marbles, which are an integral part of the cultural property of Greece or indeed some Irish Celtic artefacts which are in the possession of the British Museum? In the logic of what he is saying, does he envisage that the ultimate conclusion of these discussions will make a distinction between the two kinds of markets and will provide for the return to peripheral countries in Europe of intrinsic elements of their own cultural property which were taken at different times and in different circumstances?
The Deputy is opening rather a large can of worms.
One which I thought you might like, Taoiseach.
This is an area where widely diverse views are passionately held; but the proposal we have put forward is not retrospective and deals with the movement between member states from now on. The question of the return of artefacts to the countries from which they were originally taken is a much wider issue altogether and is not on the table at the moment.
