Vol. 506 No. 1
6 Mr. McCormack asked the Minister for Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands when she will bring proposals before Government arising from the Unidroit Convention on stolen or illegally exported cultural objects; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [14704/99]
I refer the Deputy to my reply to Question No. 269 of 16 June 1998 as well as Questions Nos. 232, 233 and 234 of 19 May 1999 when the position regarding the Unidroit Convention on the international return of stolen or illegally exported cultural objects was outlined. As I have stated, legislation is required before ratification can take place and I am currently considering the next steps in this process, having regard to the limited resources at my disposal.
When does the Minister expect the heads of that legislation to be available? Will it be in 1999 or sometime next year? Will she outline the monitoring process she has in her Department to prevent the illegal export of cultural objects? Have there been any seizures arising out of that monitoring process and is she happy that she has the resources at her disposal to prevent cultural objects from being stolen or exported illegally from Ireland?
There is a need to secure the proper protection of cultural objects in an international context. To do this it is necessary to show that there can be no hiding place in Ireland for cultural objects unlawfully removed or stolen from the State. This needs co-ordinated international action and there has been an international code of practice governing the contentious and emotive issue of restitution of important cultural objects to their country of origin. While the long-term effects of the convention will ultimately depend on the number of states which sign up to it, and some important countries are undecided on it, nonetheless it is pointing to a norm as the future of international law. Deputy Kenny is obviously concerned about the present position and it is important to point out that taking account of the protective measures already provided by way of the National Monuments Acts, 1930 to 1994, and the National Cultural Institutions Act, 1997, accession to this convention would be an important building block in legislative terms in the protection of our movable cultural heritage.
Unlicensed removal and theft of cultural objects of national importance from the State has arisen from time to time in recent years. When the need has arisen to effect the return of the object in question, the absence of a pragmatic, workable framework in the international arena has hampered the speedy conclusion of negotiations. However, it is important to point out that in such situations the State has relied on diplomatic channels to effect progress and progress has been made in a number of cases.
Will the legislation be brought forward in the year 2000? Have there been any preventions of cultural objects from been exported to date?
Preliminary contact was made with the Attorney General's office and the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform and a draft memorandum was prepared in the Department late in 1998. The Attorney General's office sent a further detailed reply to the Government's draft memorandum in February of this year which shows that complex issues must be teased out before detailed proposals could be brought to Government in the form of a memorandum. Given the limited resources at the disposal of the Department and against a backdrop of competing priorities – not least of which is the preparation of a national heritage plan, which includes movable heritage – it will be some time before a memorandum can be finalised.
It will be possible to examine the question of the Unidroit Convention and the need for further protection of artefacts in the context of the national heritage plan.
I must point out that answers to supplementary questions are subject to a limit of one minute.
I am merely trying to give the fullest possible answer to the Deputy.
This is a learning process for all of us.
