asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if he will request the Government of the People's Republic of China to include Ireland in the itineray of the exhibition of Chinese archaeological objects which is to visit France and England.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Chinese Archaeological Exhibition.
57.
No consideration appears to have been given by the previous Government to inviting the exhibition to come to Dublin during the course of its extensive tour in Europe. Even if it were possible to make arrangements at this late stage the question of cost would arise. I understand that this is very great and has been estimated at not far short of £500,000 for one European city. We estimate that through admission receipts, it would be difficult to raise more than a tenth of this sum in Dublin. I think that is an optimistic figure.
The opening remarks of the Minister to my mind are just an excuse.
We cannot have a statement on the matter, Deputy.
I am asking the Minister who has the responsibility at this time if he will consider issuing this invitation. I understand that this is one of the finest collections of artifacts in the world.
The trouble is that the exhibition is, in fact, in Europe and it would be too late to do so now. In any event, I do not think I would support a proposal which would involve a cost of that order and of that magnitude when the prospects of recovering more than a tiny fraction of it would be virtually nil. It would be necessary to recover that cost from something like half the adult population of Ireland visiting the exhibitions at an admission fee of 50p each. It would be optimistic to think that one could get such an attendance.
There was an exhibition in London—I cannot remember the name of it now——
Tutenkhamun.
I understand that that was very profitable.
In the city of London there are millions of inhabitants. There is a much larger tourism business there than we have. That exhibition drew a large attendance. The prospects of getting, perhaps, one million people to attend an exhibition in Dublin are not great.
Has the Minister some idea of how the figure of £500,000 was arrived at?
The cost derives from the problems of transport and insurance. The Chinese authorities insist that the goods in question must be transported in a number of different ways rather than together, lest they should be damaged. Insurance costs are very high. There are a number of other costs involved. In one centre the cost is not far short of £500,000. I understand that this cost has to be shared by the sponsoring country and the Chinese authorities, in what proportion I am not sure. Certainly, a very heavy share, if not the greater share, accrues to the sponsoring country.