Amendments Nos. 3, 41 and 42 are related and may be discussed together.
SECTION 6.
I move amendment No. 3:
In page 8, subsection (1), line 43, to delete "subsections (1) to (3) of".
This amendment and the first part of amendment No. 41 are primarily a tidying up exercise arising from the partial repeal of section 6 in relation to export licence provisions relating to archaeological objects. Section 25(4) of the National Monuments Act, 1930, inserted by section 14 of the National Monuments Act, 1954, and which is still in place, permits the Minister of the day to declare for export licence purposes that an object is an archaeological object. Another provision in that section declares that the decision in this matter cannot be challenged. All elements relating to export licences should be consolidated in this Bill. I am seeking to achieve consistency.
The Bill as it stands would repeal section 24(1) and (3) of the National Monuments Act and would leave subsection (4) intact. Subsections (1) and (3) are re-enacted in an amended form later. Amendments Nos. 3 and 41 mean that section 24 is repealed and re-enacted in an amended form in section 49. In re-enacting the declaration provision in section 49, I am availing of the opportunity to repeal the prohibition on a challenge to any such declaration which seems to be difficult to justify. It seems a democratic interpretation of constitutional rights suggests it should exist.
The second part of amendment No. 41 to section 49 seeks to provide a reasonable measure of flexibility so that certain categories of cultural objects coming within the scope of the export licence requirement do not necessarily become subject to the export licence requirement. An example of what would be cited under this heading would be cultural objects imported into the State temporarily for the purpose of exhibition and sale. This proposed legislative structure for making exclusions from the export licence requirement also provides a general framework for the citing of other instances where export licensing would not be considered appropriate. I am not willing at this stage to spell out the full extent of the use of this provision, but it will be focused as clearly as possible on the cultural imperatives involved. I hope this meets Deputy Quill's concerns on this matter as expressed in subsections (7) and (8) of her amendment.
As regards that part of her amendment which relates to time limits, the position is that where licences are required they are issued as quickly as possible, in substantially less than six months in most cases. This will continue to be the practice. The only exception envisaged is for items in section 49(1)(d) where important cultural objects entered in the register are involved and where the Minister will have the power to impose a condition that items cannot be exported before the expiration of one year. This allows time in the case of imported objects to see if they can be kept in the State. Deputies will not find it difficult to find examples to fit this category. I do not favour imposing a time limit on the issuing of licences, as envisaged by Deputy Quill, as there may be a tendency for the time for issuing licences to drift towards the maximum period. In implementing the provisions of this Bill, the administrative system will deal with all such applications speedily.
I hope the assurances I have given will enable the Deputy to withdraw her amendment. I commend amendments Nos. 3 and 41 to the committee.
I listened with interest to the Minister and he has allayed some of my concerns. However, I do not fully understand what he has in mind to meet the needs expressed in this amendment. I will withdraw my amendment and reserve the right to table it again on Report Stage.
As regards the issuing of licences, it is important to include a maximum time limit within which a licence must be issued. Some 98 per cent of things always go right in public administration but 2 per cent always go wrong, so we should seek to change that when making new laws. It is practical and sensible to include a maximum time limit within which licences must be issued. I ask the Minister to reconsider that. I will consider what the Minister said, but I ask him to respect my right to table this amendment again on Report Stage if I continue to have reservations.
I will ask my officials to discuss the details of what I have outlined.
With me?
Yes, between now and Report Stage. We will then see if a balance can be achieved. I am concerned about having enough time to protect the national heritage on the one hand, and not allowing this to be used as an excuse by a slothful Minister on the other. I could achieve a balance in a certain way, as outlined in my response, but I will ask my officials to discuss it with the Deputy between now and Report Stage.
I appreciate what the Minister is trying to do. It is not before time that we seek to keep items of archaeological importance for ourselves and future generations. Many important items have been stolen or taken out of the State. Many people are embarrassed when they see items in auction galleries in London and New York which should be in Irish galleries. The Minister is trying to change this and while I fully support his attempts, I am concerned that the Bill may inhibit legitimate commercial activity. I received a submission from the Irish Antique Dealers Association, for example, which expressed its concerns in this regard. If that happened, it would go against what we are trying to do in this Bill and would affect a legitimate export trade. I ask the Minister to ensure this Bill does not inhibit that trade.
It has also been brought to my attention that family household goods are being brought in and out of this country more frequently than in the pre-multinational era. It is important that our licensing system does not put unfair, unnecessary or unjust obligations on such transactions. I would be happy to talk to the Minister or his officials about this so that my concerns will be met on Report Stage.
I support Deputy Quill's comments as regards the time limit. However, I also understand the difficulties the Minister faces. Will the Minister consider introducing a code of practice which would highlight what is acceptable? Perhaps this could be done at a later stage.
My officials and I listened to the comments of the Antique Dealers Association. This Bill refers to the making of an order. We can have further discussions with the antique dealers when defining the minimum limits. I do not wish to place an excessive burden on people. There is a danger in relation to the abuse of the concept of "household" because, if important objects were sucked into a household, only later to be made more vulnerable——
It could happen.
These are the balances that one must try to accommodate. The antique dealers' concerns can be handled in the text of the order. However, I will consider any other wordings which may arise before Report Stage.
The code of practice is external to the Bill. When one is making an order specifying minina, that would be an appropriate time to discuss an understanding that could be entered into so as to facilitate the licence and the practice between the practitioners and the State.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 6, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 7 to 9, inclusive, agreed to.