Amendments Nos. 4 and 12 are related and amendment No. 5 is an alternative to amendment No. 4. Amendments Nos. 2, 4, 5 and 12 may be discussed together.
SECTION 2.
I move amendment No. 2:
In page 7, subsection (1), lines 12 and 13, to delete paragraph (a) and substitute the following:
"(a) any object in the collection of the Museum on the Museum establishment date,".
The purpose of this amendment is to tidy up and clarify the wording. It is important to draw a clear distinction between ownership of the collection and responsibility for it. It is important that those two concepts would not be confused or lost in the general and imprecise language of the Bill. For example, section 2(1) refers to "museum heritage object" and section 11(1) refers to "the collection of museum heritage objects of the Board" and section 17 refers to the "museum heritage objects in its collection". My understanding is that the objects will be vested in the State. That seems to be at the heart of the Bill. Am I right in thinking that?
Yes.
Every item in the collection will be vested in the ownership of the State.
I wish to be very accurate about it. We are ad idem and I intend to go some way towards addressing the issue raised by the Deputy. However, we have inherited in the collection some objects which have come to us through the RIA and the RDS. They are accommodated. We are not disrupting the original principles of ownership of some of those who were generous enough to donate objects. There is a vesting process. There is a slight difference between those and the other objects in the collection.
However, in the context of the new law which we are making, it is important to clarify where the duty of care and ownership lie. That is why I tabled this amendment which reads "any object in the collection of the Museum" as opposed to "museum heritage objects". This is a very important legal distinction rather than just quibbling with words about ownership and the duty of care. I do not think any item will be in the ownership of the board. My mind goes back to the Webb decision, what happened after Derrynaflan and how we teased out these issues during the debate on the National Monuments Bill. It is important to clarify that. I am convinced that what I am saying stands up in law.
I am of like mind. I am sure the Minister also shares our concerns about this. It is important to say that it is more a housekeeping matter than anything else because I do not think we are divided on any great matter of principle on this. It is to make sure it is very clear. The ownership of the National Museum collection and the National Library material is obviously vested in the State. The Bill envisages the creation of a new, expert administrative arm of the State through the board. The board is to be exclusively responsible for maintaining, managing, controlling, protecting, preserving, recording, researching and enlarging the collection of the museum heritage objects. However, it does not purport to vest ownership of the collection in the proposed board. We have tabled these amendments to ensure there is an obvious distinction between the concepts of administration and ownership.
Having regard to the Webb decision, to which Deputy Quill referred, it would necessarily be the trustee of the collection of the museum heritage objects, on behalf of the State, who would own it. The distinction between the ownership of the collection and the administrative and conservation responsibility for it is confused in the wording of the Bill. It is important to emphasise that the collection of heritage objects is in the care, as distinct from the ownership, of the museum, which the authorised repository under this Bill. That is why I hope the Minister will favourably consider these housekeeping amendments.
Deputy Quill referred to the Finlay judgment in the case of Webb v. Ireland. When I was bringing the other legislation through the House I chose — as I choose now — to take a strong interpretation of the Finlay judgment in relation to what is the heritage of the people of Ireland as a right which transcends other specific rights.
I am disposed to respond positively to the amendments in the spirit in which they were offered. I want to share as much information on this as possible. My advice from the Attorney General's Office is that "in the collection of" implies care, not ownership. I prefer, to some extent, the wording "in the collection of the Museum" for another reason. The concept of the museum as a place of deposit has a longer time frame in terms of both the past and future which is wider than any structural arrangement. I emphasise that this is not to diminish in any way——
That is not the intention.
——the power or authority of the board. For that reason, I would not have a difficulty with seeking on Report Stage to change paragraph (a) to read "of the Museum" instead of "of the Board of the Museum". That is consistent——
Will that be used throughout the Bill?
Yes. In order to save the time and work of the committee, as there is no point in people being forced to repeat themselves, I will also do that in the case of the library. If we agree that the principle improves the legislation, I will do the same for the library on Report Stage.
How stands the amendment?
I think it has been accepted.
With respect, amendments Nos. 2, 4, 5 and 12 are taken together.
Is the Minister accepting our amendments?
If the Deputies withdraw the amendments I will address the issue on Report Stage. I ask Deputies to respond to this in the spirit that I am not addressing the matter in just one section or piece of text.
That is accepted.
I want to address it right through the Bill. I also want to address it in the case of the library. The wording of the amendments is inconsistent with some points about heritage objects. I ask the Deputy to withdraw the amendment and I will table one on Report Stage to accommodate everything in the amendments and to make it fit in with the text of the Bill.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 2 agreed to.
Sections 3 to 5, inclusive, agreed to.