Máirín Quill
Question:19 Miss Quill asked the Minister for Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht the steps, if any, he will take to recover and restore paintings, believed to be on the wreck of the Lusitania, to their rightful owners. [2016/95]
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Wreck of the Lusitania.
Síle de Valera
Question:20 Miss de Valera asked the Minister for Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht in view of the fact that an underwater heritage order has been placed on the wreck of the Lusitania, the further action, if any, he intends to take; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [2192/95]
Liam Lawlor
Question:72 Mr. Lawlor asked the Minister for Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht his view on the claim that a United States District Judge has jurisdiction to settle ownership of the wreck of the Lusitania; the way in which he intends to bring the paintings into Irish ownership should they be retrieved and verified; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [1957/95]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 19, 20 and 72 together.
I refer the Deputies to my statement regarding the Lusitania on the Adjournment of the House on 25 January last. Following media reports that valuable paintings in which this country might have a legitimate interest may still be infact in waterproof lead cylindrical containers on the wreck of the Lusitania, the Commissioners for Public Works, with my agreement, made an underwater heritage order on 25 January 1995 in respect of the Lusitania, because of its historic importance.
In addition, I have sought legal advice on the question of using my powers under section 24 of the National Monuments Act, 1930, as amended by section 14 (4) of the National Monuments (Amendment) Act, 1954, to designate the wreck and its contents as archaeological objects.
Investigation of the media claims is ongoing. At this stage, while there is some suggestion to the effect that unknown paintings may have been carried on the Lusitania, there has otherwise not been satisfactory confirmation of the media reports. The matter will continue to be actively and urgently pursued but it would be foolhardy to say when the investigations will be concluded satisfactorily as the key people involved reside outside the jurisdiction.
The questions of legal ownership of the wreck and of the possessions of third parties that may still be on board are two separate issues, with two separate sets of problems to be resolved.
As to the actions taking place in the American courts, I am taking legal advice as to the implications of those actions, if any, for this jurisdiction.
It is premature at this stage to consider the question of recovering any particular item. Any initiative of that nature would have to be contingent on the outcome of the investigations now taking place.
How can the Minister and his Department establish with any degree of certainty whether the paintings in question remain in the wreck? Is the Minister aware that some would argue that the paintings, particularly those by Rubens, could not be intact because of the weight of the water and the length of time involved while others would argue that, if they were there in 1914, because of the frequency of unauthorised dives, they may have been plundered? What steps is the Minister taking to clarify whether the paintings are still in the wreck before we proceed any further with expensive legal transactions and procedures?
With the greatest respect to the Deputy, who is very interested in this matter. I suggest she is putting the cart before the horse. This is not a matter of being involved in expensive legal initiatives which would be unnecessary if it is proved, for example, there is no basis to the suggestion that there were paintings which were the property of Sir Hugh Lane and that the National Gallery might be the beneficiary; I suggest it is the other way around. We should remember that for 1,098 people the Lusitania is a grave. That is a most important point. It would be improper if there were uncontrolled tampering with a site in which so many people in 1915 — in 18 minutes — lost their lives.
Following the development of the law of the sea at the end of the 1980s and particularly following the passing of maritime jurisdiction legislation in the early 1990s here which established the 12 mile limit — this is an important issue — it was appropriate for me to protect the interests of the people by making an underwater heritage order. This means that no one can tamper with the site without a licence from the Office of Public Works under conditions.
There are two remaining issues; ownership of the vessel — this matter is being discussed in the courts in the United States — and ownership of objects which is the most complex because one is dealing with the rights of heirs, successors and others. This has to be taken into account. I have been seeking to establish what was being carried by Sir Hugh Lane and we have made progress. In one newspaper report there was a reference to two paintings by Rubens and one by Monet. Under the codicil to the will of Sir Hugh Lane the moral right in relation to expressionist paintings has already been dealt with by me when renegotiating the agreement between Ireland and England in 1993 in relation to the paintings by Rubens. In his main will he made considerable bequests to the National Gallery.
We have to approach the matter in that sequence: what is the right way to deal with the site? What is the appropriate way to deal with the vessel? How do we vindicate the right of the Irish people and make sure that nothing improper is done which would affect any benefit to this country or individual? I also sought legal opinion on how we can vindicate the right of the Irish courts to decide against any claims made by a court in any other jurisdiction.
I commend the Minister and support his action in enforcing the underwater heritage order. Will he indicate if the newspaper reports that Navy patrols will enforce the order are true and whether the Navy is in a position to enforce it? As the Minister knows, its primary role is to protect our fisheries and it has to cover 132,000 nautical miles with only seven ships.
My second question may help the Minister. I can quite understand the sensitivities in this regard as this vessel is the grave for many people but it occurs to me — and the Minister knows I am not a lawyer — that a claim to the wreck, its contents or the artefacts therein by anyone other than the State would be statute barred after 80 years. Will the Minister consider seeking legal advice on this matter?
On the first point I had an opportunity on another occasion to congratulate Deputy de Valera on her appointment and I wish her well in her position as party spokesperson. I am sure my colleague, the Minister for Defence and the Marine, will welcome her support for greater resources for the Navy. Many newspaper reports have speculated upon whether the Navy should do this but that is not the issue. Primary and specific duties are allocated to different parts of the service but I would remind Deputies that there are times when the different services, be it Army or Navy, are asked to be of assistance to the civil authority. It is in that sense, and in the best interests of the country, that I have made an order. I have written to the Minister for the Marine seeking his co-operation by way of assistance to the civil authority, whose rights have been vindicated by the making of a heritage order. On the second issue, there is merit in considering the making of an order under section 24 of the 1930 Act, as amended by section 14 (4) of the 1954 Act, for the simple reason that it would at least discipline the reporting of all objects. I would be very concerned if newspaper reports suggesting that the requirements of the keeper of wrecks, in consultation with the Director of the National Museum, had not been observed were true. The Deputy will be aware that when we discussed the 1993 national monuments legislation, the whole thrust of my arguing for the abolition of treasure-trove was to put an end to the idea that a person could take temporary ownership of something that was the people's right but rather that we should reward responsible citizenship and not give to individuals ownership rights of the people in common.