'Too much arbitrariness in heritage law'. Pechtold committee wants us to take our cultural heritage seriously.

We treat our cultural heritage too casually. This is evident from the report 'Reserved and Involved', presented on Monday 30 September, drawn up by the Pechtold committee at the request of minister Van Engelshoven. In 110 pages (with pictures), it says that the current design of the Heritage Act leads to arbitrariness and uncertainty. This means that unsavoury situations like the one surrounding the sale of a pen drawing of Rubens by the late Princess Christina, may occur more often.

With the Heritage Act, the Rutte II cabinet hoped to remove a lot of hassle from the Ministry of OCW. Hassle, which was mainly caused by the fragmentation of rules and committees under which the management of our heritage fell, until 2016. So that Heritage Act is a good law. Everyone thinks so, including Pechtold, but he does note issues. Thus, the enactment of the law also determined what belongs to our cultural heritage, and what does not. Bit strange, Pechtold observes, because every year we not only produce new heritage ourselves, but also add newly discovered heritage. Like that drawing by Rubens.

Report

Since it is now purely up to the minister to determine whether something newly discovered can be counted as part of our heritage, arbitrariness is a possible consequence. Surely, therefore, there should simply be another committee to watch over this. And anyone who wants to sell a potential heritage item out of the country should register it in advance. That way, you avoid finding out that a Rubens is being sold only when it is already in the overseas auction house's catalogue. This stricter control must then be matched by a generous deal with private individuals who own national heritage.

PS: In an earlier version of this story, I made a connection between this opinion on the Heritage Act and the protest against another measure related to it. Indeed, in line with the spirit of the law, State museums would no longer be covered by the Arts Plan, requiring them to reapply for subsidies every four years. Also, once under the Heritage Act, they would no longer be subject to interim checks, whether they were properly complying with the conditions.

There was a sharp protest against that measure earlier this year. Allard Pierson director Wim Hupperetz resigned as chairman of the Museums and Heritage Committee at the Council for Culture. He argued that democratic control over the policies of those museums had become impossible, giving complete power to a few museum directors and the minister. Perhaps not a problem if the money is sloshing against the skirting boards, but disastrous if the purse suddenly turns out to be empty.

Formally, then, this issue has nothing to do with the Pechtold Commission's opinion. However, the opinion does expose a deeper principle, namely the risk that reducing regulatory pressure, but also democratic control over our heritage, entails.

Read the whole report here: