Catherine Martin (Dublin Rathdown, Green Party) | Oireachtas source

In section 2, amendment No. 2 is to insert:

In page 9, between lines 16 and 17, to insert the following:

“PART 4

AMENDMENT OF ACT OF 1997

Amendment of section 44 of Act of 1997

14.Section 44 of the Act of 1997 is amended in subsection (1) by the substitution of ‘€1,600,000,000’ for ‘£150,000,000’.”.

The purpose of these amendments is to raise the limit of the State’s indemnity for loans of artworks and cultural objects from outside the State that is required for visiting exhibitions. As things currently stand, under the National Cultural Institutions Act 1997, the aggregate amount on liability undertakings with respect to State indemnity shall not exceed €190 million or IR£150 million. This figure is no longer fit for purpose, as I said in my opening statement, as it does not account for the significant appreciation in the monetary value of artworks and other cultural artefacts, nor for the increase in opportunities for significant arts and cultural exhibitions to visit Ireland, since the establishment of the Act 25 years ago.

The indemnity ceiling was previously temporarily amended by means of statutory instrument. SI 86/2016 raised the limit to €1.5 billion for five years, primarily to accommodate the five-year loan of the Freud collection to IMMA and the overlap of significant exhibitions at the National Gallery of Ireland. However, that temporary increase expired on 31 October 2021 and the limit has since reverted to the original limit of €190 million set out in 1997. This constrained the planning of international exhibitions as the total value of indemnities on works from outside the State on loan to our institutions cannot exceed €190 million.

Currently, the alternative for our cultural institutions is to arrange for commercial insurance, a significant additional overhead. Such insurance can cost hundreds of thousands of euro per exhibition. The provision of a general permanent increase in the statutory indemnity limit under the National Cultural Institutions Act 1997 is not merely a technical amendment but in accord with policy on risk management relating to the public finances. The approval of the Government was required and was granted at its meeting on 28 June 2022. I am, therefore, seeking to revise the ceiling to a limit of €1.6 billion. The increased figure has been calculated based on the increased values of artworks and artefacts, and the anticipated number of incoming international high value loans planned in the State over the next five years.

The increased limit would apply to works from outside the State on loan to the national cultural institutions, the Hugh Lane Gallery, the Hunt Museum and the Royal Irish Academy. With the provision of State indemnity, our cultural institutions can meet the essential requirements of prominent international institutions and private collectors – thus making Ireland a more attractive candidate for high profile exhibitions. This will increase the cultural offering available to the Irish public.

Finally, it should be noted that the proposal to increase the ceiling to €1.6 billion has been sanctioned by the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform. I hope the committee will agree that this is a necessary intervention, which will ensure the continued success of programming at our cultural institutions and provide an even greater variety of cultural experiences for the Irish people.

Amendment No. 3 to the Title is to insert the following:

In page 5, between lines 12 and 13, to delete all words from and including “2015;” in line 12 down to and including “matter.” in line 13 and substitute the following: “2015; to increase the aggregate amount of liability in respect of undertakings given for cultural objects on loan from a person resident outside the State and, for that purpose to amend the National Cultural Institutions Act 1997; to make certain changes to the objects of RTÉ and, for that purpose to amend the Broadcasting Act 2009; and to provide for related matters.”.

This amendment contains the changes required to the Long Title so that this title also reflects the amendments proposed, namely, amendments Nos. 1 and 2, to raise the limit of the State’s indemnity for loans of artworks and cultural objects from outside the State.