Vol. 416 No. 2
7 Mr. Nealon asked the Taoiseach the steps which are being taken to protect cultural and heritage objects, ranking as national treasures, from being moved out of the country with the disappearance of customs checks at EC internal frontiers in 1993.
Under existing legislation, a licence is required for the export of archaeological objects, as well as documents and pictures. This will still apply after 1992. Further legislative proposls to confirm the State's rights in the matter of our archaeological heritage and to broaden the definition of such objects are at a very advanced stage of preparation and it is intended to introduce this legislation at an early date.
In the context of free movement of goods, it should be noted that Article 36 of the Treaty of Rome allows for measures to be taken for the protection of national treasures of artistic, historical or archaeological value.
In pursuance of this, the member states are currently examining commission proposals for a directive and a regulation aimed at preventing the unlawful removal and illegal export of cultural goods from individual member states following completion of the internal market. These proposals also include a system which will facilitate the return to individual member states of unlawfully removed cultural objects which have been defined as national treasures.
As I understand it, there will be free movement of works of art and cultural objects after 1 January 1993. Can the Minister of State say if this country will have a right to prevent the export of certain defined objects after that date and, if so, how can these be controlled in the absence of internal frontier posts?
There are two aspects to this question, the first of which is, what can we do ourselves. I will be introducing a National Monuments (Amendment) Bill, I hope this year, which will broaden the definition of archaeological objects to include treasure trove. At the same time, under Article 36 of the Treaty of Rome, work will continue on this area at European Community level. Two points should be made. On 29 January 1992 in Brussels the Commission presented two proposals for Community instruments relating to cultural property for consideration by member states, the first of which is a directive on the return of cultural objects unlawfully removed from the territory of a member state and, second, a regulation on the export of cultural goods.
Ireland is not the only country concerned about this matter; obviously Italy, Spain, Greece and other member states are equally concerned about it. Therefore, it will be my role to monitor the position and to maintain contact with my counterparts in the Community throughout this period. I suggest to Deputy Nealon that we should not look on this issue in the context of our national territory. I see my role in relation to arts and culture complementing my role as Minister of State with special responsibility for European affairs in that this is a European Community matter. It is important that collectively we work together in the European Community to ensure control. I appreciate the Deputy's concern and the efforts he made when Minister of State but I am satisfied our cultural interests will be adequately served by the legislation I intend to introduce and my links with other Ministers for culture and art within the European Community.
I am sure the Minister of State is aware that the National Monuments (Amendment) Bill he intends to introduce will bring our legislation up-to-date in relation to the Derrynaflan judgment; in other words, that people will have the right to protect their own heritage. However, does the Minister of State intend to introduce legislation in advance of January 1993 to strengthen our hand and to prevent the export of important works of art?
I am very much aware, following the Derrynaflan judgment, that this legislation is required to broaden the definition of archaeological objects. It was recommended by the Supreme Court on that occasion that amending legislation be put in place. I am convinced, having looked at the position in other countries, that this legislation, combined with the Documents and Pictures (Regulation of Export) Act, 1945, in addition to the work being done in co-operation with other member states, will put in place in this country controls which are better than those applied by many of our European Community partners.
It is also worth noting that the Maastricht Treaty recognises the importance of culture. I am convinced that in working with our partners and in tightening up legislation we will ensure protection for our cultural and national treasures.
Is the Minister of State not aware that the 1945 Act is totally useless in that all that it requries is that a picture of the object be given to the various authorities and that it is the only legislation in the entire body of legislation under which a breach is not punishable by a fine? Given the removal of customs checks, how is the Minister of State going to ensure that our national treasures do not flow out of the country? It should be remembered that between £9 million and £10 million worth of antiques over 100 years old are being exported each year.
The Deputy referred to antiques; it is important to point out that his question specifically refers to national treasures. I am aware that the Hamilton report, which was initiated by Deputy Nealon, said that national institutions or a purchaser resident in the State would have an opportunity to acquire objects at a fair price. However, the report produced a constitutional minefield; in fact, the question of a fair price contained in the Hamilton report is very seriously in question. If we try to legislate for antiques and other objects outside national treasures we will be in a very difficult constitutional area. I intend to introduce a National Monuments Bill. The Documents and Pictures (Regulation of Export) Act, 1945, requires that export licences must be obtained in the case of all painting and documents over 100 years old. Exporters of paintings and documents governed by that legislation require a licence from the National Gallery and through the Taoiseach's Department.
This is a very long speech.
Licences are also required in respect of archaeological objects. I am prepared to examine suggestions put forward by Deputy Nealon and others and I would welcome further questions. However, he is broadening the debate at present.
