Seanad debates
Thursday, 18 June 2015
Order of Business
10:30 am
Terry Leyden (Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source
I propose an amendment to the Order of Business to request the Minister for Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht, Deputy Heather Humphreys, to come to the House to outline the position regarding the sale of valuable paintings, including a Rubens, at Christie's of London on 9 July 2015.Under section 49 of the National Cultural Institutions Act 1997, the Minister has to give permission. Why was this power delegated to the National Gallery of Ireland, the director of which is Mr. Sean Rainbird and who is also a trustee of the Sir Alfred Beit- Russborough House collection? I commend An Taisce and Mr. Ian Lumley on taking this matter to the High Court, represented by Tim Smith of law firm, Phelim O'Neill. They were granted permission in the High Court by Mr. Justice Nicholas Kearns to challenge the granting of an export licence for the artworks. The case will come before the High Court on 3 July when the sale is proposed for 9 July.
The interesting point is An Taisce also has a representative on the Beit Foundation, namely, Consuelo O’Connor. This is an intriguing situation. I believe the Minister is negligent in her responsibilities in this regard. Under section 49, the licence granted by the governors and guardian of the National Gallery was, therefore, granted without any statutory authority and the purported sale of delegation by the Minister is ultra vires.
The situation is extremely grave. We can see the cranes outside over the National Gallery. To think that it would approve the sale of these invaluable and priceless works of art in Britain and elsewhere and to deprive this country of the wishes of Sir Alfred Beit who provided those paintings for the State under trusteeship is absolutely disgraceful. Will the Leader request the Minister for Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht, Deputy Heather Humphreys, come to the House to explain why she, like Pontius Pilate, is washing her hands of this particular matter, even though she has the full legal responsibility under the Act?
No comments