Vol. 450 No. 1
8 Mr. McGahon asked the Minister for Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht in relation to his claim to the Lusitania and its cultural treasures the proposals, if any, he has to make a site inspection of the historic wreck; and when the inspection will take place. [3282/95]
46 Mr. Deasy asked the Minister for Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht the plans, if any, being made to search the wreck of the Lusitania for art treasures, such as paintings, which were reported to be on board when the liner was sunk in May 1915. [4688/95]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 8 and 46 together.
I refer the Deputies to my reply to Questions Nos. 19, 20 and 72 on 1 February 1995; as reported in columns 967 to 972 of the Official Report for that day. The investigations to which I referred in that reply are ongoing. Until such time as reasonably firm conclusions regarding various claims and speculations made in the media can be drawn, it is premature to think in terms of site inspection or of recovery of art objects to which Ireland has a claim.
I placed a heritage order on the site of the Lusitania primarily to protect the grave of the many people who lost their lives when the ship sank.
Has any previous inspection of this tragic ship taken place and, if so, have any treasures been recovered? Has the Minister plans to make an underwater inspection himself and, if so, can he assure the House——
With or without oxygen?
——he will take all necessary precautions because Ireland cannot afford to lose yet another irreplaceable treasure?
Not yet anyway.
I deeply appreciate the regard in which the Deputy holds me, but I have no intention of placing a heritage order on myself.
I want to give the Deputies who tabled these questions the maximum information. They will be aware that one of the reasons for placing the heritage order was to control diving in the area. There has been well documented evidence of dives which took place before the heritage order was made. I acknowledge with gratitude the fact that legislation on maritime jurisdiction, implementing the 12 mile limit, was put in place by previous Governments. That enabled me to place a heritage order on the site of the Lusitania and will ensure that dives near the wreck cannot take place without a licence. Legislation on the salvage of wrecks is also in place requiring that objects discovered must be reported and the advice of the Director of the National Museum sought.
The recent media reports about an unauthorised dive after I placed the heritage order on the site are being investigated by the gardaí.
Will the Minister comment on the reports in the newspapers on 4 February about an unauthorised dive? Is he aware that an out of court settlement was recently made in the United States between Mrs. Light and Mr. Bemis over the ownership of the wreck? Where does that leave the Irish nation in regard to ownership of the artefacts? What does the Government propose to do about this? I understand the Minister has instigated legal proceedings in the United States.
I gave the House as much information as I can. Media coverage of the Lusitania is couched mainly in terms of valuable objects. A total of 1,095 people lost their lives in the tragedy and I put a heritage order in place not only to protect the artefacts on the wreck but to protect the site as a grave. I understand that an out of court settlement was recently made in the United States in the Bemis and Light case. One of their claims was based on ownership of the vessel and the other on salvage rights. The Irish interest would arise if a person inflated that judgement to make a claim for objects left on board the wreck. The passengers' next-of-kin are entitled to property rights and the Irish State is the beneficiary of the Sir Hugh Lane's will.
A specific interest would arise in regard to the codicil to the will if the paintings referred to were, for example, impressionists. In his main will Sir Hugh Lane left all the remaining paintings to the National Gallery. I sought the advice of the Solicitor General in this matter and we are having our interests represented in the United States.
On the other matter that was raised it would be important, at an appropriate stage, to assess the present state of objects there. In that regard a senior member of my Department has worked to establish what was carried on board, what is there and what reports are available to us on people who have died. At an appropriate stage I will have discussions with my colleague, the Minister for Defence and for the Marine, to decide on the most appropriate measures.
In encouraging the Minister to make an inspection of the site of this historic wreck, will he consider inviting the entire Cabinet. In view of the levels of hot air in the Cabinet, I suggest that oxygen would not be required on such a visit.
We should not be flippant; it was, after all, a grave. I gave the House the details of how many people died within 18 minutes. I have been sharing with the House such information as we had. I am sure the House is anxious that Ireland's rights would be vindicated in relation to the property of the Irish people and, more important, that any diving done within our jurisdiction is done in an orderly and proper way, respecting the laws we have put in place together.
Let us treat the matter seriously.
A report was made by a very serious-minded, Irish-based diver that an unauthorised landing has been made on the site of that wreck by British divers since the underwater heritage order was made. How far has the investigation into that incident gone? Will these British divers be apprehended and charged? What action does the Minister propose to take, and how seriously is he taking that report?
Is the Minister satisfied that the Irish Naval Service, with all the demands made upon it, have the resources to police the wreck in the manner in which it ought to be policed if the underwater heritage order is to have any effect and act as a deterrent to unauthorised diving?
The Garda Síochána is preparing a report on the most recent report on an unauthorised dive and any necessary measures will be taken following that. I will certainly vindicate the heritage order.
How does the Minister enforce it?
I do not want to go into details, but there are many ways of enforcing the order. The order can be enforced, and it is not a defence to claim to be ignorant of the order which is published.
The second part of the Deputy's question relates to vigilance on the site. The Minister for Defence, who has had discussions with me, has responded positively to my request for the use of the Naval Service in aid of the civil power. In addition we have been offered co-operation from fishing vessels. Also on his suggestion, we are preparing notice of our order for the Hydrographer of the Department of Defence in Britain which means that the existence of the order will be brought to the attention of all people likely to use our waters.
Like Deputy Quill I am worried about the enforcement of the underwater heritage order. When this question was raised before we were assured that the Departments of the Marine and Defence would do all they could to police the area. I asked then, and I ask now, whether they have the personnel and the back-up to do that and, if not, what will the Minister for Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht do to implement such underwater heritage protection? When will the Minister publish the report of the investigation into the unauthorised dive which is supposed to have taken place on 4 February?
I cannot publish it until I get it.
The Minister could always leak it.
As to its publication. obviously the Garda Síochána will liaise with the Minister for Justice. When I read the report I will decide what action is appropriate. It would be well for Deputies to bear in mind that I had no doubt in placing this underwater heritage order; it was the right thing to do. If an issue of resources to implement it arises, I will address that. The important thing at the moment is that I will examine the report of the Garda Síochána or its breach and take such action as is appropriate to vindicate the order. That is the right thing to do at this stage. I have also sought the co-operation of others in ensuring that the order is respected. That is as far as we can go now and I will be delighted to bring further information to the House as matters proceed.
Does the Minister agree that, 80 years having elapsed since that tragic occurrence, it is time significant efforts were made to retrieve whatever treasures are on the Lusitania? It is easy to place an underwater heritage order. Nevertheless, does the Minister agree that, if we are to eventually derive any benefit from it, the State should take steps to retrieve whatever can be salvaged?
I had no doubt about the propriety of placing the heritage order. It is the first time a heritage order was made in relation to the high seas and it was the fact that previous Governments asserted their right to maritime jurisdiction that made the order possible. To be fair to those with responsibility for this in the past, diving technology has advanced in recent years, making it possible to do things with more safety now than was possible before. It is also important to have discipline in relation to the site. Then one should seek to assess what is there. One of the worst aspects of pillage is that property of people who lost their lives has already been removed from the Lusitania and put on the market and the idea that there would be indiscriminate dives with the removal of objects, some of which are the property of those who have succeeded people who lost their lives and some of which would rightly benefit the Irish people.
I applaud the Minister's responsible approach to this problem. Is the Minister aware of newspaper reports that there may be valuable Rubens and Titian paintings on the wreck? I understood the Minister to say earlier in that context, and in the context of Sir Hugh Lane's will, the Irish Government would take part in court proceedings in the United States to secure, if that is appropriate, ownership of those valuable paintings which newspaper reports suggest could be worth £20 million or more?
Without prejudice to any such legal actions as may be taken by the Department. I can say that a senior member of my Department has sought information and has made considerable progress in establishing that the paintings were in the possession of Sir Hugh Lane as he embarked on the Lusitania. It is also clear that there are two references to paintings in the will of Sir Hugh Lane. One is in the codicil which refers to impressionist paintings. Most people concentrate their arguments on that, and that is the matter which was the subject of agreement between the British Government and ours. I renegotiated that agreement during the period of the last Government.
In regard to the general parts of the will, there is an unequivocal statement in the will of Sir Hugh Lane, the part of it that has been witnessed and administered, that all his other paintings were left for the benefit of the Gallery. I have sought legal opinion and it is my intention to assert the rights of the Irish people as beneficiaries of any possessions to which they are entitled if a claim is made following the completion of proceedings in the United States. One can then move to discuss the complex legal issues involved such as who has the right to dive and if they need permission. It would also be appropriate to begin thinking about what exactly remains and the condition of the vessel after such a long period. It appears it is true that special arrangements were made at the time involving the use of lead and sealant. That is the approach we are taking.
I support the action the Minister has taken so far on this issue. Given that there has been a number of unauthorised dives has he considered authorising an organised dive on behalf of the State to retrieve whatever national treasures remain notwithstanding the other issues involved to which he alluded correctly.
I have and it is a matter to which I will return. The issue of what the Deputy and I and others would wish to do has to be resolved in the context of the property issues which are complex. These were the subject of contention in the courts in the United States less than two weeks ago. I will have to take this into account in making a decision.
The time has come to bring the speculation to an end. There are strong claims on both sides of the argument. Some experts allege that all the treasure/trove has been removed and that nothing remains apart from a corroded mass of tangled metal. There is no good reason the Minister on behalf of the State could not authorise an official inspection of the wreck since it lies within our jurisdiction. Why is the Minister not proceeding along those lines to bring the speculation to an end? There is a danger that unauthorised divers will exploit the wreck in the hope that there is something they can plunder which can be converted into cash.
I have answered that question already. Without doubt the heritage protection order stands. We have to proceed with prudence and caution in the resolution of the property issues involved. I have to respect those just as I expect others to respect the rights of the State. The matter will be investigated.
The Minister can inspect the wreck. In recent weeks he has repeatedly asserted that it is the site of a mass grave and that this justifies the granting of an underwater heritage order. If that is the case, it follows logically that there is an obligation on the Minister to grant an underwater heritage order in respect of every wreck around our coast, including those of the Armada. That makes nonsense of the concept. There is only one justification for granting an underwater heritage order in respect of this wreck and that is that we, as a nation, have rights to whatever remains. I urge the Minister to expedite the matter.
In her review of maritime history the Deputy will find it difficult to find another example where a similar number of people lost their lives on the one spot. She will also find that the purpose of the order is to protect heritage, not speculation.
