Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 25 Jan 1995

Vol. 448 No. 1

Adjournment Debate. - Protection of Lusitania Wreck.

Mr. Deasy

I regret I was not given an opportunity to raise this matter last evening because in the meantime the Minister has issued a statement saying he intends putting an underwater heritage order on the Lusitania wreck concerned. I understand there has been panic in the Minister's office since I submitted this question last Monday afternoon.

It is a shame that until now nothing practical has been done to protect the wreck of the Lusitania. The content of the question I submitted to the House is not correct. I stated that the Lusitania is lying on the seabed off the Old Head of Kinsale whereas it is lying about ten miles west of the village of Butlerstown in west Cork.

My late mother heard the explosion when the ship was sunk on 7 May 1915, she was attending school in the nearby village of Courtmacsherry. When she reached the area only minutes later the Lusitania had sunk with the loss of more than 1,100 lives. It was well known even then that the huge liner contained a large quantity of gold bullion, now estimated at £170 million. It was also speculated at that time that Sir Hugh Lane, Director of the National Gallery, had on the voyage three very valuable paintings, one by Monet and two by Rubens. This bags the question why a serious effort was not made previously to recover those treasures. I believe there was also a consignment of industrial diamonds on board.

Apparently unauthorised diving teams have been going down to the wreck in recent years and months and there is a strong suspicion that very valuable items, such as those to which I referred, have been removed. What does the Minister's order mean? Why was it not made sooner? I believe it was made under the provisions of the Merchant Shipping (Salvage and Wrecks) Bill, 1993 or under the provisions of some other legislation. How does the Minister intend investigating the wreck and recovering the treasures and artefacts, if they are still there? I read in a newspaper article last week that a wealthy businessman in America has a set of golf clubs made from one of the propellers of the Lusitania. It appears the ship has been well ravaged by diving teams. Why was action not taken last June when, according to The Sunday Press one of the people claiming ownership of the wreck — Mr. Bemis of New Mexico — complained to the Director of Public Prosecutions that he has a right to the wreck. He is contesting its ownership and complained about the illegal removal of artefacts from it. Why was action not taken at the time he lodged his complaint? Apparently major damage was done and artefacts removed between the months of June and August. Can the Minister say why action was not taken? It may be too late as the treasures may have been taken at this stage.

The wreck lies 11.8 miles off the Irish coast. Surely it belongs to the nation. I am at a loss to understand why a court battle about ownership is being fought in America, in Norfolk, Virginia by Mrs. Muriel Light and the said Mr. Greg Bemis. Why have those people a right to the ownership of this wreck when it is in Irish territorial waters? I hope the Minister can clarify some of these matters. I hope he can find out as soon as possible if the artefacts are still on or near the wreck and if they have been removed, what he intends to do and how he intends to recover them?

Minister for Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht (Mr. M. Higgins)

I will try in the limited time available to me to answer as many of the questions as I can for Deputy Deasy, to whom I am grateful for raising this important issue.

I am sure all Members of the House are aware of the extensive newspaper and other media coverage regarding the removal of artefacts from the wreck of the Lusitania. My Department, in consultation with a number of other Departments are investigating these reports with a view to establishing the current position accurately, to determine what actions are necessary, and to take the immediate necessary actions.

I should stress that the discovery of a relatively recent wreck such as the Lusitania is not in the same category as, say, the discovery of an ancient Viking ship which would have no known owner. In the case of any wreck and associated artefacts with no known owner the State has asserted its right of ownership, a right established through the National Monuments Acts, and explicitly set out in the recently enacted National Monuments (Amendment) Act, 1994. While I understand there is a dispute in the American courts regarding the ownership of the wreck of the Lusitania, it seems apparent that a clear claim to ownership should be established eventually through these courts so that it is unlikely that the question of State ownership of the wreck should arise.

The question of ownership of possessions of passengers or the cargo on board not pertaining to the wreck should be seen as a separate issue, even if more complex, involving the establishment of clear ownership, succession rights and salvage rights.

Perhaps of most interest to this House is the report referred to by Deputy Deasy that Sir Hugh Lane, who was lost when the vessel was sunk, had a number of valuable paintings with him on board and that these paintings were protected sufficiently to withstand serious damage from the sea over all these years. If the reports are true then these paintings may form part of Sir Hugh Lane's bequest to the National Gallery.

Taking all these matters into account I have now decided that there are two clear immediate objectives to be met in this case. First, there is an immediate need to protect the wreck from further unregulated tampering to ensure that the State's interest in both the paintings, if they exist, and in other artefacts with no known owner is protected and, secondly, to establish if a painting or any other artefact in which the State may have an interest has been removed and, if so, to take every step possible to recover the material.

The Office of Public Works advised me yesterday that it would be appropriate to place an Underwater Heritage Order on the site of the wreck. I have accepted this advice and asked that office to proceed with issue of the order. This has now been done and comes into effect immediately.

An underwater heritage order is an order of the Commissioners for Public Works which, in the main, prohibits diving within, or other interference with the site of a wreck or object of historical, archaeological or artistic importance on the sea bed. The protection afforded is extensive. A member of the Garda Síochána may without warrant seize and detain any equipment which he reasonably believes is being used in the commission of an offence, found in, at, or in the vicinity of the site of the wreck; and the seized equipment would be liable to forfeiture upon conviction for contravention of the prohibition. The maximum penalties on conviction on indictment are £50,000 and/or five years imprisonment.

This order and the accompanying enforcement powers will ensure that no legal dives on the site will take place except under and in accordance with a licence issue by the Office of Public Works. If such dives are permitted the licence can be issued subject to conditions that ensure adequate protection. I am satisfied that the measures agreed by me with the Commissioners should ensure that no material will be removed from the jurisdiction without authorisation.

With regard to the second objective to discover the facts concerning the reports that some material, including a painting in which the State might have an interest, may already have been illegally removed, I assure the House that investigations are under way and that this investigation involves a number of Departments.

The measures I have taken will immediately ensure that the wreck is protected. I have instituted inquiries with all the other relevant Departments in relation to tracing any objects that may have been removed.

I thank Deputy Deasy for raising this issue. There are matters being discussed in another jurisdiction but I would draw the Deputy's attention again to a distinction I made. There is the issue of ownership of the wreck, the issue of ownership of possessions of those who were passengers and there are also salvage rights. This matter was brought to my attention last week and I was interested in its coverage in the newspapers over the weekend. I moved to act immediately to ensure that both the national interest in the wreck and any benefit to the Irish State from the Hugh Lane bequest would be assured.

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputy Mary O'Rourke was selected by me to raise a matter on the Adjournment. However, I understand the Deputy is unavoidably absent and wishes very much to extend her apologies to the House, the Minister and the Department concerned.

The Dáil adjourned at 9.20 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Thursday, 26 January 1995.