Seanad Éireann debate -
Friday, 27 Jul 1945

Vol. 30 No. 8

Documents and Pictures (Regulation of Export) Bill, 1945—Committee and Final Stages.

Section 1 agreed to.

SECTION 2.

Mr. Douglas

On behalf of Senator Sweetman I move amendment No. 1:—

In sub-section (2), to insert immediately after the word "applies" in line 31, the following words and brackets: "(and a copy of which Order shall be served by registered post on the owner of such article as soon as the Minister becomes aware of the name and address of such owner)".

The object of the amendment seems to be a perfectly reasonable one, that where a special Order is made applying to any particular document or painting, the owners, when their names and addresses are known, will automatically receive a copy of the Order.

Minister for Education (Mr. Derrig)

The question as to who is the owner of a document seems to impose a very serious responsibility upon the Minister. What I am interested in in this Bill is that we should have the opportunity of making records and photographic copies of such documents or papers as may be of historical interest, or that might be available for future history. I do not think we are interfering with the owner to any great extent, or with the possessor of documents, beyond asking that he should stand aside, so to speak, for a short period during which a copy could be made. We are not interfering with his rights. Anyone interested in the building up of our national archives realises that the power which is being sought is necessary. We may not know who an owner is. We may know that a document or painting may be in the possession of a certain person, and where an Order would be made affecting a particular document, it would be unfortunate if the possessor or owner was not aware of the fact that an Order was being made. I can assure the House that, wherever it is possible to do so, I would certainly see that a copy of the Order was sent to an owner. There is the difficulty of determining who is the owner. The present practice is that the National Library approaches the matter by way of persuasion, and I see no reason to anticipate that that will be altered in the future. They hear that a certain person has a document. They get in touch with that person and, in all probability, if they consider it to be of sufficient value, they offer to purchase it. In the event of the offer not being accepted, the practice heretofore was that the owner was quite free to send it out of the country.

As I already emphasised, we are not interfering with the right to sell or export, but we are asking that we should be allowed to make a copy. The practice has been to get in touch with the owner and, if I may use the expression, "peacefully", to get him to leave the document in the Library. If I were to accept the amendment I fear that I would be imposing a legal obligation on myself to ascertain who the owner was. As I emphasised on the Second Reading, if we had a complete register of documents the position would be somewhat different. We have not got that register, and what renders this Bill necessary is that the first intimation we have that a document has been exported is when we read that it has been sold on the London market. I have consulted with my advisers about the amendment, and I am satisfied that the practice up to the present has been to try to get the owner to agree to allow a copy to be made. Under the Bill it is true that we can compel him to do that if we consider that a document is of sufficient importance and if he wishes to export. The Senator may take it that where we know of the existence of the owner we will make him acquainted with the fact that a special Order has been made.

Mr. Douglas

This amendment deals only with sub-section (2) where a special Order is made about a particular document. It seems reasonable if an owner is known that he should be informed. I take it that the Minister now informs me that, if known, the owner will be informed?

Mr. Derrig

The only point is that the Order might have reference to a particular class of document. It has not happened, but it may happen that we might have to define the type of document —say a document in the handwriting of Charles Stewart Parnell— in some such way rather than with reference to who has it at a particular time. Perhaps that question may not arise, but Senators will appreciate that we may not know the owner. If we do know the owner, I can give the assurance.

Mr. Douglas

This amendment would not interfere with that position. If the owner is not known notice could not be sent. In view of what the Minister has said I express grave doubts if he can do what is set out in the sub-section. I doubt very much if the Minister has taken the power he wants. I have no objection to his having it. If this Bill is going to be followed by a more detailed Bill, and if the Minister wants power I can see the reason why he should have it, but I suggest that he should examine this sub-section when bringing in the new Bill, so that he should have more specific power than that outlined.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Sir John Keane

On the section, I should like to have some indication from the Minister as to how the Bill is going to work. Applying it to a practical case, if, as an executor, I want to send certain contents of houses left to relatives across the water, have executors in such a case to approach the Minister to get permission to export articles which might include a document or letters over 100 years old, and which would almost certainly include paintings? As the House knows there is no age limit in the case of paintings, and the effort of a school girl might be called a painting. Is the whole movement of these goods to be held up until the Minister or the officials had an opportunity of examining them, to see if any of them should be detained so that photographic copies should be made? Is the Minister going to obtain knowledge in some way? If there is an article which is of historical interest, I am puzzled to know how in practice the Bill is going to be administered. In order to make it effective, it looks as if every consignment for export is to be held up until a licence is obtained, or until the Minister is satisfied that there is no contraband amongst the articles.

Then, there is another point. I think it is our duty to co-operate with the Minister when we see obvious loopholes in a Bill. Surely the wishes of the Government would not be met by a general description of painting. Are there not etchings or drawings of very great value worthy of record? They do not appear to be covered by the Bill at all. Is a drawing a painting? I do not think that could be held. I do not think any court of law would so hold.

Mr. Douglas

It might be held to be a document.

Sir John Keane

Is an etching to be held to be a document? If this is only intended as a temporary measure to capture some documents that are in danger of removal, well and good, but if it is to be a permanent measure, it has not been properly thought out.

Mr. Ryan

I think the definition section, Section 1, would help Senator Sir John Keane. The word "document" there is defined as including "any writing, drawing, map, chart, plan, photograph or film." I think the definition is fairly wide. There is no definition of painting, I think.

Sir John Keane

Would an engraving or an etching come in?

Mr. Ryan

It might be a drawing. "Drawing" is very wide.

Sir John Keane

What about a line engraving?

Mr. Ryan

I think the definition is wide enough to cover anything except a painting. "Any painting" is specifically mentioned. We all know what a painting is.

Sir John Keane

Would an embroidery picture come under it? Some of them are very valuable. Would a tapestry?

Mr. Ryan

I am not going to decide that.

Mr. Douglas

I think the point made by Senator Sir John Keane is that this wants more consideration before a permanent measure is drafted. We cannot go any further with this Bill as it stands. Most things cannot be exported at present. I think it would probably be illegal under the Bill to export paintings brought home from a kindergarten school by children. I think it is true that they are prohibited under the Paper Exportation Order at present anyway. In a permanent measure after the emergency it would be desirable to have it better defined.

Mr. Derrig

I am anxious to make clear to Senator Sir John Keane, or anybody who may be specially interested in this matter, that we have tried to meet the objections that have been made. I should first say that we have taken "drawing" out of the place where it originally was in Section 2 (1) (b) and put it up in the definition section under the title "document," which means that we are only interested in a drawing 100 years old. Any kind of engraving or picture done by mechanical process would not, I am advised, have very much interest for the national collection. Any etching or engraving which is not unique and of which copies are fairly freely available would not have very much interest. It is the unique drawing, or the unique painting, or other artistic work which might be described as a record of historical interest, in which we are interested in this measure.

Sir John Keane

Would tapestry be covered?

Mr. Derrig

No tapestry of significance from the Irish historical point of view as a record is known of.

Sir John Keane

I can tell you of one. It is not likely to be exported, I grant you.

Mr. Derrig

We do not know of any. On the last stage, Senator Sweetman asked about deeds. I said that I thought perhaps deeds, if engraved in colours, might be described as paintings. I have looked into the matter and I am informed that, while the draftsman has been unable to give us any clear definition of a painting— there is in fact no definition known to the lawyers of a painting or works of art generally—the opinion is that a painting done on a particular article, such as a cup, a carriage, or a banner is not a painting. Such an article, of course, has a utility value apart from the painting which it carries and it obviously has another purpose. "Painting" would seem to apply to an object which is merely intended to be a painting and not to have another primary purpose. The draftsman does not think that we can define a painting in such a way as to bring in what would be of historical interest. Apart from the fact that there seems to be no definition available in the statutes, the difficulty is that we would require such a definition as would enable the customs officers administering the Act to interpret it. May I say that paintings can be of value from the historical point of view?

There may be portraits of prominent Irishmen; there may be views of places before substantial changes were made in those places and before town planning arrangements came into vogue; there may be old castles or buildings which have since disappeared or have fallen down; there may be pictures of costumes of a particular period; there might, for example, be pictures of musical instruments.

Sir John Keane

Or statues before they are destroyed.

Mr. Derrig

A picture might be of historical interest because it belonged to some celebrated Irish artist. But, even so, we are only asking for a photographic copy for record purposes. Generally speaking, our aim is to get photographs of any pictures which might be described as being of value for the future when the history of our own social time or our own civilisation is being written. Although the Bill came in at short notice, I hope that the documents we were afraid would be exported may not be exported. But we have heard that there is that danger and that is why the Bill is being brought forward. As I explained, we had in contemplation introducing a general measure, but we are not touching works of art. The measure of a permanent nature that we had in contemplation was one dealing with documents. If we find that the present measure will work satisfactorily, we shall carry on with it. But if, as Senator Douglas apprehends, amendment will be necessary, then we shall have to come back with an amending measure.

Professor Magennis

Might I suggest to the Minister that there is no mention of lithographs? A lithograph is a drawing on stone. It is executed by a graphic artist on stone and then an impression is taken from the stone. It was a very frequent form of art in Ireland. Messrs. Marcus Ward and Co., Belfast, for instance, had specialists in their employment. It is superseded, of course, by the photogravure and the application of photography instead of direct drawing.

As regards the point about paintings, a painting comes under the classification of graphic art. It has to be expressed in pigments. That is the specific difference in character, that there is a pigment used. There is also ceramic painting, where the material employed is fragments of coloured glass ground into powder and subjected to heat. These paintings are of great interest, and many of the specimens, for instance, in the museums in Venice, are of enormous value—of greater value even than many jewels. So I think we ought to be a little more precise in our definitions. I am sure it will be granted, for example, that drawings, etchings and engravings are not documents. A document must have some reading matter. It ought to be on record in libraries of words rather than in those devoted to pictorial characters. So I agree with Senator Sir John Keane that the definition clause requires something more precise than we have here, and that some things are put in here under wrong categories.

Sir John Keane

Getting away from this definition business for a moment— I suppose the Minister has considered it and it is not merely for me to suggest it, but dealing with this one matter affected by an Emergency Order, there is only one document in jeopardy now, and unless the Constitution forbids it, it can be dealt with by Emergency Order. Apart from that, however, the Minister has not answered the administrative question that I asked him. If I, or my representative, wanted to send away a miscellaneous collection of articles, including documents, paintings, and so on, have I or my representative to go to the Minister's Department and say "I want an export licence for these goods," or can I go about my business in the ordinary way? Or does this mean that I will be told that I will have to wait until somebody can be sent to ransack the collection before a licence to export is given?

Mr. Derrig

I assume that the owners or possessors of these paintings or documents are persons of integrity, and we will try to deal with them from our point of view as fairly as possible. I think I can assure the Senator, in the first place, that as far as the Library authorities and my Department are concerned, we would try to deal fairly with persons who have these things.

They would have to acquaint us—I think there would be no way out of that—if they had documents over 100 years old or, in the case of the Minister having made a special Order covering a particular document in a particular person's possession, or covering some series of documents such as the Parnell manuscripts which I have mentioned, and in that case we would try to give an Order to the owner, if we knew the owner, and he would then be in a position to make known to us the description, the actual description, of the document or documents. I think I may say that all we would ask the owner to do is to let us know, in the first instance, what actually the document was like, to give us a description of it. Generally, the Library authorities will be able to determine from a short description whether it has any interest for them or not. They have spent all their lives at this work. They have a fairly good idea of what documents are there. It would be only one chance in a thousand that some document would turn up that they would never have heard of before. We must assume that they will have a general idea of what there is in the country and, therefore, they will be able to judge, from a comparatively short description, whether a document is of value to them or not. If they consider it to be of value to the historical collection, then they may ask for permission to examine the document, and under the Bill we are empowered to get facilities to examine it.

When the Senator talks of ransacking collections, I think he is viewing the thing in a most unfavourable way. I do not know why it should be suggested that responsible servants of the State should go out to ransack anybody's collection or create inconvenience and unpleasantness for themselves as well as for those with whom they are dealing. When they get a description of the document, if they are interested in it, the Bill will entitle them to write—and I am sure they will write in a proper way—asking for permission to examine the document or documents described. Having examined the document, they will then be in a position to say whether it should be photographed or not, and I think I can assure the Senator again that the Library, in the future as in the past, will try to carry out its work with courtesy and with the least possible inconvenience to anybody.

Sir John Keane

I am afraid that the Minister does not see my point. Let us say that I have a number of articles which I want to export. I believe, honestly, that none of these prohibited articles is among them. Can I go and carry on my business in the ordinary way or must I first go and obtain an export licence? Must I go to some Government Department and say: "I want to send these things away, and is it necessary for me to have an export licence, or can I go now straight ahead and carry out the move?"

Mr. Derrig

I think that the Senator ought not to go straight ahead, if he has the slightest doubt that there might be a prohibited document among them.

Sir John Keane

No. No doubt whatever.

Mr. Derrig

I cannot assure the Senator on that matter. This law will be like all other laws. It will be for the courts to determine eventually whether, in exporting a document without permission, the Senator, or anybody in his position, contravened the law or not. I cannot say that in advance. All I can say is that if a person has any doubt whatever, I do not think it is asking too much that he should communicate with the Director of the National Library, stating what he has. The Director will facilitate him in every way possible and, unless the document is down the country it is only a matter of hours to make a copy. In case there might be any feeling that we want to interfere with people in carrying on an export business of a commercial nature——

Sir John Keane

Of a private nature.

Mr. Derrig

——I have taken power to exempt from the operation of the Bill certain documents or paintings belonging to a particular class. Section 2 (3) says that the Minister may from time to time by Order declare that any particular document or painting, and so on, belonging to a particular class shall be excluded from the operation of the Act. So that, if it is a case that somebody is exporting pictures that have no value from the historical point of view, we can either give him a complete exemption or can, I dare say, arrange that the export licence will cover a number of articles, or at any rate interfere with his business to the least possible degree. We have had no experience yet of the administration, but as I have said, the number of persons dealing in these things is rather small, and we have no reason to doubt that with co-operation on both sides very little difficulty will arise.

Sections 2 and 3 put and agreed to.

NEW SECTION.

Mr. Douglas

I move amendment No. 2, standing in Senator Sweetman's name:—

To insert before Section 4 a new section as follows:—

4.—Where a person is charged with a breach of the immediately preceding section, sub-sections (3) to (8), inclusive, of the Customs (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1945, shall not be operative so far as such prosecution is concerned.

This amendment, in the name of Senator Sweetman, raises a matter which I do not imagine the Minister will be prepared to deal with on this stage of the Bill.

Mr. Ryan

On a point of order. I think that if the amendment, as it stands on the sheet, is read, it will be seen that it has no reference to any particular section of the Customs (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1945. The amendment is as follows: "Where a person is charged with a breach of the immediately preceding section, sub-sections (3) to (8), inclusive, of the Customs (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1945, shall not be operative so far as any such prosecution is concerned." The section is not mentioned in the amendment.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

The matter was referred to on the Second Stage.

Mr. Douglas

I think that that is perfectly good criticism. I did not draft the amendment, but, as it is not at all likely to be accepted, I suggest that I should withdraw it and deal with it either on Section 3 or Section 4.

Mr. Ryan

I assume that the reference should be to sub-sections (3) to (8) of Section 3 of the Customs (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1945.

Amendment, by agreement, amended by the insertion of the words "Section 3 of" after the word "of" in line 2.

Mr. Sweetman

I am sorry that I was not present to move the amendment. I must thank Senator Ryan for his assistance. The purpose of the amendment is very simple. The House will remember that, when the Customs Bill has going through earlier this year, fairly strong objection was taken by some of us to certain of the provisions which meant, very shortly, that a man was to be presumed guilty until he proved his innocence. It was contended at the time that those powers were absolutely necessary in present circumstances in regard to the export of certain articles. It should be borne in mind that that measure was to apply only for a period of five years. In this Bill, we are asked to say that a person who attempts to export a document which is over 100 years old be assumed to be guilty before his trial and that he shall be put to proof that he did not commit the offence. There is the greatest difference between this Bill and the Act to which I have referred. I am sure the Minister will agree with me when I say that to determine whether a document is 99 years old or 101 years old might require the most expert knowledge. Yet, we are asked to say that a man is to be assumed guilty in a case like that until he proves his innocence. That does not seem to me to be a reasonable proposition or one which we ought to accept. I shall not waste the time of the House in dealing with the principle involved. The principle will, I think, be accepted on both sides. In the case of the export of tea, everybody knows what tea is and there need be no discussion about it.

Mr. Seán O'Donovan

It might be turf.

Mr. Sweetman

Whether a document is 100 years or 101 years old might be a question which would test the knowledge of an expert. That is not a matter to which the ordinary revenue law should apply. I understood the Minister to say on Second Reading that this was almost an ad hoc measure, required to save a particular collection of articles. So far as that is concerned, I should be quite willing to assist him, and to give him the Bill as it is, having regard to the fact that the Dáil is in recess. But I did understand the Minister to say that, though this Bill was now introduced as an ad hoc measure, a more general Bill would follow dealing with the whole question. If we are to give the Minister this Bill to meet a particular situation, he ought to give us an undertaking that the general Bill will deal with this matter and will include a repeal of the provision and the principle that a man is to be deemed guilty until he proves his innocence in a case such as this.

Mr. Douglas

I entirely agree with what Senator Sweetman has said. A Bill, containing extraordinary powers, was brought in here to deal with an emergency problem. The principle of that Bill is now being applied to a measure with the purpose of which we are all in agreement but which includes a very large number of articles. I do not think the Minister understood the question put by Senator Sir John Keane. If he did, he certainly did not answer it. I suggest that the answer to Senator Sir John Keane's question is "Yes". If there are any paintings in his house, he cannot export them without a licence under this Bill, as it stands. The Minister may, after a short time, make an Order under Section 2 (3) excluding certain types of paintings from the operation of the Act. The Senator will then know that certain types of paintings can be exported, but the measure is very wide and it is just as well that people who are anxious to carry out the law should know that they cannot export paintings. People who propose to exported, paintings may very soon find themselves badly caught because, in the ordinary way, they will look at the lists in the post offices or at the Department of Industry and Commerce and it will never occur to them that the Department of Education has made an Order prohibiting export of these articles. There should be some publicity with a view to letting the people know what they will be deemed to know under this Bill when it becomes an Act. In the case of documents, the Department of Education will probably know quite well if I have a document over a hundred years old, that I know it is of that age. The kind of document they will be concerned with will, probably, be one about which they have already approached me. They will probably know all about it, and I have no wish at all to make it difficult in a case of that kind. But what I do not want is that a person who, in clearing up the assets of an estate or in the ordinary course of his duty, sends out a certain number of papers and finds the parcel is opened and examined by the customs authorities and there is a document challenged because it is old —some expert says it is 100 years old. You might stop it, but do not attach a penalty. This should not be attached to the general customs provisions. It should have provisions and penalties of its own if it is to be a permanent Act.

Mr. Derrig

The laws in other countries are more severe than what we are seeking to obtain here. With regard to historical documents, we are not in a very happy position in this country. The number available is very limited. During the past 50 years the country has lost very valuable papers. It is of the greatest importance that what are left should be preserved. There are people who will always plead ignorance of the law and if they can show, even under the Customs (Temporary Provisions) Act, that they acted in good faith, the court will take that into consideration.

Mr. Sweetman

Why should they have to show? Why should not the State have to prove their case in the ordinary way?

Mr. Derrig

Why should the State be allowed to do anything? Some lawyers complain very often that we have too many inspectors; that we have to have a staff of officials to deal with each particular enactment which we put through the Oireachtas. There are two ways of ruling a country. There is the totalitarian way, which is generally complained of, and there is the way where you expect the people to co-operate with you. If the people co-operate and the State, through its officials and Departments, acts properly by them, I see no reason why the plea of good faith in every case could not be accepted. It is not accepted very often when it is pleaded on behalf of Ministers, but it should be always accepted, apparently, when it is pleaded on behalf of private citizens.

It is, perhaps, unfortunate that we have to deal with this in a Customs (Temporary Provisions) Act. Perhaps that Act will be continued after the period, but in any case I think when we go into the question we will find that if this scheme is to be administered through the customs, ultimately it will have to be controlled by some Customs Act, even if it has to be a special Act with special penalties appropriate to the particular case. There will be further legislation dealing with this matter. It may not be my Department which will have to deal with it. I think the general question of public records, if the law is to be amended, may come up from the Department of Justice, but that will give us an opportunity, if a Public Record Bill is being brought in, of amending the present measure, if it is necessary to do so. On the other hand, we may find it necessary, if national archives are to be properly established, to look for powers. In any case, there will be further legislation.

Mr. Sweetman

Either the Minister has not understood, or does not want to understand. I will put one specific question to the Minister. Does he think that a person should be convicted who sends for export a document that is 101 years old, even though that person believes that it is not 100 years old?

Mr. Derrig

I do not think that ignorance of the law is taken as a very good excuse.

Mr. Sweetman

But that is not ignorance of the law; that is what I was trying to make clear to the Minister. Ignorance of fact is a very different thing, but this is a question of fact, as to whether a document is or is not 100 years old. Everybody is presumed to know the law. At least, I might be given credit for appreciating that much. Whether a document is or is not 100 years old is a fact and if it turns out that a document is over 100 years old, no matter what plea of justification is put in, as the law stands the man concerned must have the stigma of a conviction against him under the Customs Act. That is what I am objecting to.

Mr. Derrig

As the Customs Act stands, it applies to all statutory instruments and, this being a scheme which was administered by the Customs, I think it would involve great administrative difficulties, even if it had been possible in the time to have two separate customs codes. If the Customs (Amendment) Act applies for the time being to violations of any kind of enactment, it should certainly apply to this. The House has already accepted the Act. The fact that there was opposition to it is beside the question. It is now the law.

Mr. Sweetman

Of course it is the law, but the whole point is that this Bill should not go into that law. One is a question of law, the other of fact.

Amendment put and declared negatived, Senators Sweetman and Sir John Keane being recorded as dissenting.

SECTION 4.

Mr. Sweetman

In view of the fact that the Minister obviously did not want to try to understand the points made on the last amendment, I do not propose to move amendment No. 4.

Amendment No. 4 not moved.

Question proposed: "That Section 4 stand part of the Bill."

Sir John Keane

On the section, I still want some clarification, if the Minister will give it to me. Perhaps I should go to the Revenue Commissioners and not to the Minister. What I want to know is perfectly reasonable. I believe that there is no contraband in a consignment of goods that I want to move. Can the move proceed forthwith, or must I wait for a general export licence before the goods are moved? The Minister may not have understood my other questions; otherwise the reply was unsatisfactory. He said: "I cannot tell you what the law is." A Minister in charge of a Bill should be able to understand that question. Must there be a standstill on the movement and a release before the articles, a miscellaneous consignment of goods which the owner believes contains no contraband, can be moved? That is a perfectly straightforward question and I feel the Minister should be able to answer it.

Mr. Derrig

I cannot agree, because Senator Sir John Keane believes there is no contraband, that there is no contraband. He is asking me to agree with him that, because he feels there is no document over 100 years old in his collection, he is perfectly entitled to export it.

Mr. Sweetman

He did not say anything of the sort.

Mr. Derrig

The Bill cannot deal with what the Senator believes; it does deal with actual fact. Either you feel certain you have documents 100 years old or you feel pretty certain you have not. If you are a person in the habit of having family or historical documents, or if you deal in such matters, you ought to know as an intelligent citizen whether they are over 100 years old or not. You also ought to know if an Order has been made in respect of them and, if you are in any doubt, why not send a postcard to the Minister for Education or the Director of the National Library?

Sir John Keane

The case I have in mind is that I am in no doubt whatever; I know I have got no documents or paintings. Of course, there is no limitation with regard to paintings. I know that an Order prescribes a painting of a certain kind. I am positive I have no documents or paintings as prescribed under the Act. Is that clear to the Minister?

Mr. Derrig

Yes.

Sir John Keane

Have I, before I can proceed to make a contract with Messrs. Millar and Beatty, or other removal firm, to get an export licence? Is that not a simple question in all conscience?

Mr. Derrig

If Senator Sir John Keane thinks that, I would not care to say that he is not entitled to do it. If he is referring to paintings, I feel that he ought to acquaint me with the fact that he proposes to export the paintings.

Sir John Keane

Any painting?

Mr. Ryan

Is it not a question of fact as to whether any document as defined by the Act is more than 100 years old and is the onus not also on the prosecution to prove that it is over 100 years old?

Mr. Derrig

Yes.

Mr. Ryan

If Senator Sir John Keane is satisfied that a document in his possession, which he proposes to export, is not 100 years old, and the exportation of which therefore does not require a licence, why should he hesitate about exporting it?

Sir John Keane

That is what I want to know. I can see these goods reaching the customs and the exporter being asked: "Have you an export licence?", and the customs officer then saying to the exporter: "You have not got an export licence, so the stuff cannot be moved." I want to know how he stands and I have got singularly little enlightenment from the Minister.

Mr. Derrig

Unless the customs officer finds an old document in them, we will not know anything about it, presumably. So far as the documents are concerned, Senator Ryan has explained the position. If the intending exporter honestly believes that he has no document in his collection more than 100 years old, the matter does not apply. Senator Sir John Keane has talked about goods and about articles and I am not clear whether he is referring to documents or paintings. In the case of documents, he ought to be able to know himself whether or not they are over 100 years old. If he has any doubt in the matter, he can consult us. In the case of paintings, my opinion is that he ought to tell us definitely what the paintings are like.

Sir John Keane

I do not think there is any good in going on with it. The thing, to my mind, is unworkable.

Question put and agreed to.

Sections 5, 6 and 7 and the Title agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment.

Mr. Derrig

I should like the House to agree to take the remaining stages now. Otherwise, we should have to leave it over until October.

Mr. Sweetman

There was an agreement that we would clear the whole paper, but, in view of the Minister's statements, I should have liked to put an amendment in on Report Stage. However, I can make my point on the Fifth Stage and leave it at that.

Agreed to take remaining stages now.

Question—"That the Bill be received for final consideration"—put and agreed to.

Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."

Mr. Sweetman

I want to make one more effort at explaining why I object to this Bill. Whether a document is or is not 100 years old is a matter of fact. It is a matter of an expert's opinion, and it might very well be that I would have a document in or about 100 years old. I might write, as the Minister has suggested, to him or to the Director of the National Library, and might be told that it was not 100 years old, that it was only 99 years old, and I might then export it without a licence. Having exported it without a licence, it might be discovered, as a matter of fact, that the document was more than 100 years old. Both the Minister and the Director of the National Library might find that their first opinion was not quite correct and these historical matters are very often matters of opinion. The situation then is that, no matter what happens, under the code by virtue of which the Minister brings in this penalty, I must be convicted and fined three times the value of the article, although I did everything that I possibly could with regard to it.

Section 3 of the Customs (Amendment) Bill sets out that the person concerned shall for each such offence forfeit either treble the value of the goods or £100, at the election of the Revenue Commissioners.

I do not see why, without some protest, even though we may agree in regard to ad hoc legislation, a person who took all those precautions should have placed on him the stigma of a conviction and should be forced to go hat in hand to the Revenue Commissioners and say: “Please let me off the fine, because I did everything I possibly could”. That does not seem to me to be justice.

Sir John Keane

I want to make one final protest against the way in which this legislation is brought forward. What I deem to be a most reasonable question as to how this measure is to operate remains unanswered by the Minister in charge. That is a most unsatisfactory state of affairs and I wish to have this protest entered on the records.

Mr. Derrig

At the risk of wearying the House again, but as the public outside may be interested, may I repeat that if any person wishes to export a document or documents and is in any doubt as to whether they are over 100 years old, he will be facilitated to the fullest extent possible in ascertaining whether they are or not, if he or she writes to me or to the Director of the National Library? If such persons do not know that, and if it cannot be made known to them by means of ordinary publicity, I can do no more. If it is known to them, and if they are responsible persons, and if they do not accede to my request to correspond with us about the matter, I can only say they are not doing their duty as citizens.

With regard to Senator Sweetman's point, if we take the extreme case of the person who honestly believed that the document was not 100 years old though it may have been in that neighbourhood—I ask again, if the case should be brought before the court, will the court not give him the benefit of the doubt?

Mr. Sweetman

He is not entitled to it under the Bill.

Mr. Derrig

The fact that the State has to take certain precautions of this kind to deal with smugglers, with dishonest people, with people who traffic and deal in historical treasures and articles which mean life to the people, in the material sense, does not mean that the State will penalize persons who acted in good faith. Surely the Attorney-General is not going to prosecute Senator Sweetman or anybody else because a document was 101 or 110 years old—a document on which there was no mark and no date?

The Attorney-General has to ask himself whether on the merits of the case he should prosecute and whether public policy demands that there should be a prosecution even if the case does not seem to be a very strong one from his point of view. I think on neither ground would the legal adviser of the Government recommend a prosecution in the type of case Senator Sweetman has mentioned, but because such cases may occur, we are asked not to take the precautions that are necessary. We know that works of art and historical documents are brought to American markets, Continental markets and English markets, and we know that people who stoop to that kind of thing can do it in our despite. Let us at least show these people who want to do that deliberately and maliciously, and who try to make money irrespective of the loss to the nation, that there are penalties attaching to such an offence. That is my answer to Senator Sweetman.

Mr. Sweetman

May I say that I do not accept the principle that where an offence against a statute of our country has been committed it is the Attorney-General's business to say whether he will or will not prosecute. Where he is satisfied that an offence has been committed it is his duty to prosecute, and I hope he carries out that duty.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be returned to the Dáil without amendment.