Amendment No. 31 is related to amendment No. 30 and both may be taken together.
SECTION 47.
I move amendment No. 30:
In page 32, subsection (5) (a), line 7, to delete "Heritage Council" and substitute "Minister after consultation with the Heritage Council".
Amendments Nos. 30 and 31 make adjustments to the procedure set out in section 47 for the resolution of disputes concerning the custody of archaeological objects owned by the State and held by any public authority from and before the enactment of the National Monuments Act, 1994. Section 47 (5) provides a mechanism for resolving disputes between a public authority and the National Museum concerning which museum should hold State owned archaeological objects.
This procedure, which I introduced in the Seanad, was considered necessary to deal with potential situations of dispute regarding the State's claim to ownership of archaeological objects found since 1930 when controls were first introduced or imposed by the Irish State but before 1994. I was responding to a case which was brought to my attention.
These amendments drop the five year rule and substitute "the Minister" for "the Heritage Council" as the determining authority in respect of the arbitration role while retaining a consultation role for the Heritage Council. A five year limit had been incorporated within the disputes procedure only because it was not anticipated that a situation of dispute would arise in that period. However, the five year limit has given rise to interpretative difficulty and it is now proposed to be dropped from the Bill. Making the Minister the determining authority arises out of the Minister's role as the named owner of the archaeological objects found in the State and is consistent with the new proposal set out in amendment No. 58 providing for a system of designation for local authority museums in respect of archaeological objects found after the enactment of the National Monuments Act, 1994.
I commend amendments Nos. 30 and 31 to the committee.
In regard to items given on permanent loan to the museums or library, I know of a case where literature of note was given on permanent loan to the library many years ago but was then sought by the present "owner". I understand that the Minister and the State must take this situation very seriously because it has the potential to cause all sorts of problems. However, on the reverse side of the argument, many people are very willing to give items of historical interest to the museum, library or other cultural institutions on permanent loan without any prospect of recalling them. If any limit was put on the question of ownership, would it discourage individuals who up to now would have been delighted to give certain objects on permanent loan to the State? How does that affect the present situation? I am worried about discouraging people who have the best interests at heart.
The Deputy has raised a very reasonable concern and she is quite correct to seek an assurance. There are three scenarios. In the first, something can be given on permanent loan: it should be understood and made explicit that these are the terms of the relationship between the owner and the exhibiting or holding institution. In the second case, gifts are made, in which case the situation is clear. In the third case, the successors to a person who might have made a loan or gift can create a sense of confusion.
From the first side of the Deputy's argument, a very reasonable concern could be expressed about an item in a national collection which is perceived as crucial and should never be released into a commercial market and lost to the people of Ireland. This is covered by the compulsory purchase power. The other side of the argument is dealt with in section 52 which relates to the acquisition of certain cultural objects.
We need procedures so that we have the maximum powers to ensure the object stays as part of the people's heritage without disrupting the constitutional rights to property. That is adjusted by taking the power to compulsorily acquire an important object. Section 52 states that the provisions will only be applied to objects already in public care, which is the signal that they are only to deal with difficulties arising from the past. After the Bill is passed it is expected that public bodies will take the greatest care to ensure that binding and explicit agreements are in place before taking major cultural items into public care, in other words, the procedures can deal with the future and also with any inherited problems.
Does the Minister not see the new procedures to look after future situations discouraging people from giving items on permanent loan?
There is no need for people to be worried because in the definition section we are encouraging any institution dealing with a person who is making the offer of a loan to be explicit in the terms of the agreement, in other words, we are eliminating the potential confusion which could arise at the moment of the making of the gift or the placing of the object.
In law.
Yes. That is what will happen in the future. However, there is always a real danger of inherited uncertainty about the terms under which an object arrived in the collection, which I have been dealing with in the other way.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 31:
In page 32, subsection (5)(b)(ii), lines 13 and 14, to delete "and has been in such care for an uninterrupted period of 5 years".
Amendment agreed to.
Section 47, as amended, agreed to.