asked the Taoiseach the measures he proposes to take to curtail the outflow of works of art from this country.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Outflow of Works of Art.
6.
The Deputy will recall that the report of the committee he established to examine the scope for curtailing the outflow of heritage material noted that the high level of VAT was "the single factor contributing most to the outflow of works of art and heritage material from Ireland" because it gave foreign buyers a market advantage over domestic buyers. That report was published in December 1985 and a 23 per cent rate of VAT was then payable on the sale and importation of works of art. The VAT rate was subsequently increased to 25 per cent with effect from 1 March 1986.
In the present year the Government have reduced the rate of VAT payable on the sale and importation of works of art and heritage material from 25 per cent to 10 per cent. I am confident that that measure will help in curtailing the outflow of works of art from this country. The question of legislation to control the export of works of art and of heritage items generally is still under examination. There are obvious constitutional problems involved.
I welcome the movement so far as VAT is concerned. Can the Taoiseach recall that, shortly after being elected in 1987, he promised legislation arising out of the Hamilton Committee? The Taoiseach promised during each session of the Dáil since then, with the exception of the last, when I had given up asking, that we would have legislation during that session, that is, whatever session was in progress at the time. Can he say when we are likely to have the legislation, particularly in view of the fact that the constitutional difficulties arising out of the Derrynaflan case, to which he referred, have now been solved? When can we expect the legislation?
The constitutional difficulties I was referring to in my reply are not the same as were raised in the Derrynaflan case. They deal with the rights to private property and the capacity to sell in a free market. As the Deputy knows, it is not an open and shut case. Legislation in this area might not necessarily achieve the objectives that he and I, would both have in mind.
Arising from his reply, is the Taoiseach now saying it is possible that we will not have legislation, having promised it across the Floor on five separate occasions?
I am not saying we will not have legislation but that it is very difficult to decide on what exact form the legislation should take.
A final supplementary.
Is the Taoiseach aware that about £15 million worth of works of art, including antiques, left the country in 1988 and would he not regard that haemorrhage as a very serious situation?
I would not accept that figure.
What is the figure?
I do not think the figure is ascertainable.
Is the outflow of works of art from this country to other countries in the Community and elsewhere a matter which the Taoiseach thinks appropriate to take action on in the context of his forthcoming Presidency of the European Community, in view of the need to maintain a cultural heritage in peripheral regions of the Community?
I think it is more a matter for domestic legislation and consideration.
Would the Taoiseach agree that any interference with the flow of goods across borders is ipso facto contrary to the principles of the Treaty of Rome and that any action he might take should therefore be taken in an EC context, and, if so, why is he not aware of that?
The Deputy is expanding the scope of the question.
Any legislative action that we take in that area, whether it is works of art or anything else, has to have regard to EC legislation and regulations.
Why is the Taoiseach not taking action on this matter?
Question No. 7, please. I am sorry, Deputy.