Select Committee on Social Affairs debate -
Thursday, 6 Mar 1997

SECTION 49.

Miss Quill

I move amendment No. 39:

In page 33, subsection (1)(b), line 10, to delete "25 years" and substitute "50 years".

I agree with the aims and objectives of this Bill but I put down this amendment because I fear we are putting regulations in place that may interfere with the right of a citizen to buy and sell property, which is a basic right under the Constitution. I have already expressed this concern in connection with section 42. I also fear that the 25 year rule would interfere with the right of families to move their own household items in and out of the State. It is an unrealistic length of time as it is too short. I acknowledge we live in an age of obsolescence and that today 25 years is a long time in terms of the value of objects; nonetheless, I recommend 50 years. I seek to bring Irish law on these matters into line with European law. The 50 year rule applies to matters of this nature in other member states.

Mr. M. Higgins

I cannot accede to the Deputy's request, although I am anxious not to distort her concern about the balance between property rights and heritage. I am opposed to the provision for a number of reasons. I have already put in place measures to ensure this provision will only be operated as appropriate. They include options to change the various age limits and to set and change value limits under which the provisions would not apply. At present, one needs a licence to export any object, irrespective of age. All these measures provide ample scope to refine the requirement as far as paintings are concerned and as the need arises.

In relation to European parallels, in Ireland, where there has been a renaissance in relation to the visual arts, the 25 year cut off point is appropriate for good cultural reasons. For example, since the 1940s, the renaissance in the visual arts area has been led by such artists as Louis Le Brocquy. If we want to include significant Le Brocquy paintings, there must be a shorter period than 50 years. I recall seeing the groundbreaking ROSC exhibition on television in 1967, which provided an important focal point for the renaissance in the 1960s. That renaissance, the emerging poems and paintings by artists such as Le Brocquy are an important part of the cultural inheritance.

I am satisfied that a licence requirement in this area can be appropriately limited to a relatively manageable number of named painters based on their established reputations. I propose to operate the provision as it stands with the limited objective in mind. There will be a list of named painters and works which are readily identifiable. It does not involve other matters.

Miss Quill

How often will the list be revised or updated? This area could be a quagmire.

Mr. M. Higgins

The list should not be revised regularly once the point is established. If one takes 1947 and the period before that, one would lose a great deal of the post-war period of the 1950s, a time of high emigration. There was a great flowering in the 1960s. We may not be able to agree but, given all the conditions which have been included in the provision in terms of its operation, it would be safer to use 25 years. I understand the Deputy's point but I would prefer to be safe and operate it within all the limitations that have been included rather than push the time limit back and risk losing early Le Brocquy work. I saw the retrospective recently and the different periods were obvious. They are part of the contemporary heritage and it would be wrong not to include them. We will produce a list of named painters based on reputation so that people will be clear where they stand. They will understand it relates to this matter.

I considered the Deputy's other point in detail and I am conservative about protection. My proposal is fair in comparison to what prevails at present.

Miss Quill

When we make law it is for the long haul and it is important to bear in mind. I am concerned about the value judgments which must be made if time limits as short as 25 years are set. Matters, such as monetary value, change very quickly these days. However, I do not have the answer how best to frame the law which must achieve the objectives we have in mind and also meet all the requirements of good law which will stand the test of time. I am concerned about this matter. Perhaps the Minister and I could reconsider it between now and Report Stage.

Mr. M. Higgins

I will reconsider it but we have another advantage in relation to the legislation. It should be aimed at the fundamental long period but the Minister of the day can change the age and the monetary limits by order. That can be adjusted for contemporary works.

Miss de Valera

I am sure the Minister is aware of the disappointment that the decorative arts are not mentioned directly. Perhaps this aspect could be addressed in the Schedule.

Mr. M. Higgins

It is covered in the Third Schedule. I addressed that issue in response to arguments in the Seanad. I agree with the Deputy that it is important.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. M. Higgins

I move amendment No. 40:

In page 33, subsection (1)(d), lines 20 and 21, to delete "established by the Minister under this Act".

This is a drafting amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. M. Higgins

I move amendment No. 41:

In page 33, between lines 30 and 31, to insert the following subsections:

"(3) The Minister may by order declare any object, which is in his or her opinion an archaeological object, to be an article to which this Part applies.

(4) The Minister may by order declare that any document, painting, cultural object entered in the register, archaeological object, or object specified in the Third Schedule, of a class or classes denoted in such manner as may be determined by the Minister, shall be excluded from the operation of this Part and any object so declared to be excluded shall, so long as the order is in force, cease to be an article to which this Part applies.".

Amendment agreed to.

Chairman

Amendment No. 42 was discussed with amendment No. 3.

Miss Quill

I undertook to withdraw it on the basis that I reserved the right to re-enter it on Report Stage if necessary.

Amendment No. 42 not moved.

Chairman

Amendments No. 43 and 44 are related and may be discussed together.

Mr. M. Higgins

I move amendment No. 43:

In page 34, subsection (6)(a)(i), line 4, to delete "specified in" and substitute "falling within".

These are drafting amendments.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. M. Higgins

I move amendment No. 44:

In page 34, subsection (6)(b)(i), line 11, to delete "specified in" and substitute "falling within".

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. M. Higgins

I move amendment No. 45:

In page 35, subsection (13), line 4, after "registers" to insert ", burial and cemetery records".

The amendment, which responds to a case made to me about this matter, relates to the inclusion of burial and cemetery records in the definition of documents for export licence purposes. Genealogical interests and Deputies expressed their concern that the original definition could possibly not include such records. While I was satisfied that the term "document" was broad enough to cover them, the addition is useful to address the concerns expressed.

Amendment agreed to.

Section 49, as amended, agreed to.